So you’re saying injecting bleach into our veins is not a game-changer?
Im waiting to get those UV lamps down into lungs.
2 Likes
I love how as a country we are all so desensitized to this shit. Our President spent a long period of time talking about how his big idea to solve the problem was to blast UV light and bleach into our lungs and I guess basically we are all like “Well that’s just Donald being Donald”
7 Likes
Yeah, I’m taking a break from this forum. Cuse, you really should too, it’s not good for your mental health. I was one of the first ones on his forum to forecast this back in January, and was widely mocked back then for it by most except for you. I think you listened to me then, so take this now. It’s not going to be as bad as this. I’ve posted speaking of “drawing live to,” or “it’s possible,” but I really don’t think it’s going to be as bad as any of these worst case scenarios. Since about March 25th or so things have gone much much better than I thought they would.
6 Likes
Climate change is real. What does that have to do w/ caring infinitely more about people I know than those that will be born 3 generations from now, if at all?
Nah, like 20-30% are like, “What a genius!!! Why don’t they listen to ol’ Donnie? He’s got this thing figured out! Listen to Donnie, boy, and git-r-done!”
1 Like
Everyone was worried about Trump being in charge during an armed conflict but it’s gradually become clear that a pandemic is a worse scenario. Trump’s entire strategy with everything is to find some way to claim a PR victory, which in the case of an armed conflict is actually a pretty decent strategy that tends to lead to a de-escalation with both sides claiming victory, as has happened with Iran and North Korea. However, aiming for short-term PR wins is a disastrous way to deal with a pandemic, as we’re seeing.
Also while it’s hard to say exactly what the range of possibilities are, this is probably not even that bad a novel coronavirus pandemic. Super-lethal diseases like MERS are unlikely to be able to spread widely, but I don’t see any reason we couldn’t have had a disease just like COVID only with 5% IFR instead of ~0.5% and killing much more equally across age groups. The long incubation and mortality times and the capacity to spread asymptomatically would mean that that level of mortality wouldn’t pose much of a problem at all for spread.
8 Likes
Cause hopefully we are evolved enough to realize that we can abjectly ruin the planet for future generations.
Let’s ring the planet with giant sunlight focusing mirrors, put you and you family In a deep bunker (maybe some friends and low wage workers to help you out), irradiate the planet and you can set about living your life without coronavirus.
I’m done for tonight. Now it’s just trolling. Either that or this is awvals gimmick acct.
I cant tell if this is half or fully serious tbh but it sounds like you are in the gaslighting yourself about this phase. That phase sucks really bad and I think a bunch of us have been there. Living a slow motion car crash where you won’t really know the severity until a long time after it starts is really hard to deal with for all of us.
4 Likes
Honestly I think I’ve come to be more concerned at how little drastic upheaval there has been. We’re currently north of 20% unemployment, the president is on teevee telling people to inject sanitizer, and the biggest concerns of the day include reopening gyms.
Any comfort I gain from knowing our society is this resilient is completely crushed by realizing how bad things would actually have to get before we can expect any meaningful structural changes on health care, inequality, climate, etc.
15 Likes
How bad do you now think it’s going to be? I think we’re looking at probably 400K+ deaths, because we’re going to open up too soon and fail repeatedly at testing/tracing, and a Great Depression level event, albeit with a quicker recovery (maybe 5-7 years). But maybe we just print our way out of it and get away with it again…
Lol, you’ve lost your mind, making connections where they don’t exist. Some guy was nitting it up by saying Cuse was being overly dramatic because human civilization will go on regardless of how bad the Coronavirus is.
My response was that I don’t care even though that is obviously technically correct. The natural human instinct is to be very scared when we were under immediate threat (like we are from the Coronavirus and it’s fallout), even if we logically know that the human species will continue to exist after bad things happen around us.
Then you jump in and start babbling about pollution, lol.
This is a really really good point imo
2 Likes
Lol testing and contact tracing. Can we just give up on that idea now and re-adjust the models to assume testing at current levels and basically zero contact tracing?
2 Likes
That is a strawman. Nobody said that here. You and jman220 keep posting stuff like end of civilization and even end of humanity and when I point out that this is nonsense I am not saying reality will be fine. Life used to be horrible when diseases regularly killed lots of people and I hope this one doesn’t return us to those days but civilization and human kind will continue even in that case.
1 Like
I’ve been saying that change is born out of crisis and that the presidency of George W. Bush wasn’t enough of a crisis to lead to the change you want. This pandemic actually gives me hope that there are paths to that crisis that don’t involve the wholesale murder of a world war.
Did posters even ever say humans would not exist anymore after the Coronavirus? Or did they say really bad stuff might happen even possibly a nuclear war, you equated that with the end of human civilization and then refuted yourself?
2 Likes