What did you do today?

[MarleyMoose]

Yesterday the lady and I bought a new car for her. She got a 2018 Subaru CrossTrek with 18k miles. I was pushing to get her a Rav4 but she really likes the Subarus.

[Ed Mack]

We are at an inflection point here. Do you take a leap of faith in science and get vaccinated and hope we get back to normal quickly with little side effects or do we ignore the vaccines and their possible side effects and let herd immunity take over and let it ride, with the potential for longer lasting lockdowns and variant issues?  I can make a case for both, especially since I really cannot trust all the media and data being presented to us. 

Here in NJ, Murphy dumps daily case #s from 2020 and cases that are not even active, skewing the information and giving people the impression it's worse than it actually is.  This is besides the fact that many of the doctors are heavily invested in pharm stocks or sit on their boards of directors.  The politicians and the media love Covid.

But for me, it always goes back to my personal experiences and the people I know and trust.  I know Covid screws some people up. I also know it does very little to many exposed to it.  I believe I have seen the vaccines work first hand and I know how this virus will cause long lasting mental issues if it continues to hang around and schools and businesses remain closed (or partially closed).  It's been a rough year for many, including my family.  But overall, we have been lucky so far.  I am not really sure about my 11 year son getting vaccinated in the Fall, but both my wife and I have had our first shots. We will have to see what develops with respect to the virus and how it is affecting kids.  

[mudcatsfan]

1 hour ago, exciter1 said:

Is it wrong to believe some of the reports that anyone tested gets added to the number of cases and many deaths can be attributed to other causes so hospitals/clinics can receive gov't subsidies?

It's never wrong to follow the money. And I have read up about this.

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/21/facebook-posts/Fact-check-Hospitals-COVID-19-payments/

 

I've read several inquiries on this and it comes down to this, most hospitals cannot claim covid unless there is a positive test. But yes some can say, vivid probable.

There is zero evidence this is happening, and if it did there would be massive lawsuits.

Hospitals get more money depending on how much work they do on you, so yeah if you go on a ventilator Medicare pays them 3x than if you dont.

 I've talked to to doctor friends about this. Absolutely no one who isn't a psychopath would put a patient on a ventilator if they didn't need to. it's incredibly painful and can have a long term impacts. They are a last line of defense to save lives it's not something they tack on to your bill at the auto dealership.

So are hospitals getting paid more to treat covid,,,yes. And that's cause they have to dress up like astronauts to treat you. They have to quarantine and quarter off entire units.

But they're not faking covid diagnoses.  That would be insane, and it would come out. They would get caught. There would be massive consequences. 

On the whole every article says were likely under reporting not over reporting.

The overall deaths number in the US is waaaaay up. waaaay up.

That cannot be faked.

 

[keymomachine]

2 hours ago, mudcatsfan said:

For the record, the quote you're attributing to me was NOT me. spacefan said that, not me. I believe the exact opposite, and agree with you.

Sorry! Quoted your quote of it instead of the original.  Please see the aforementioned 16 hour election day plus a bit of post-concussion brain fog - please enjoy some chips!

[oneknightr]

As others have mentioned, the long term effects of COVID are unknown. With what I've heard of people who had COVID and recovered and still not having a sense of smell or taste, that alone is awful enough for me. I LOVE to eat! 

FDA approved vaccine is the way to go for me and my family. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by oneknightr

[Loghamel]

It's just that every time I see that number thrown around, the person posting the number or the person that created the meme are saying that there's x number of people in the world/country/state/city and only y number have died.  Thus, a 99.4% survival rate.  Which is just ridiculous.  The population of New York city is roughly 8.5 million people.  If 85 people jump off the top of the Empire State building, is the survival rate  99.999% or 0%?

[Lego Lass]

14 minutes ago, oneknightr said:

As others have mentioned, the long term effects of COVID are unknown. With what I've heard of people who had COVID and recovered and still not having a sense of smell or taste, that alone is awful enough for me. I LOVE to eat! 

FDA approve vaccine is the way to go for me and my family. 

I can confirm that loss of taste and smell REALLY sucks…especially when you love to eat.

[dennugsmello]

2 hours ago, Loghamel said:

Can you tell me where the 99.4% survival rate figure came from?

Lets take the confirmed cases in the USA (30,900,000) divided by deaths (560,000). We arrive at a 1.81% Fatal rate for Covid 19 in the United States

However, this leaves out a major detail. This basic calculation ignores true number of infected. A lot of good science believes 50-60% of the USA population has contracted Covid 19 over the past year and never tested positive. If we add an additional 100 Million infected who've not been counted we are looking at a 99.9% survival rate.  

2 hours ago, brickvoyeur said:

It's a meme created, and spread, by people who want to believe that this thing hasn't killed millions of people around the world.

 

Yes, what I wrote above is just a meme...I'm just a lunatic conspiracy theorist, so please ignore everything I've written. My fudged calculations are intended to deceive everyone. With that said.

Brickvoyeur's charts are accurate. 

However, If we add in those who've been infected and not counted this number reaches the 99.0-99.9% survival rate. 

Please understand I'm not trying to brush Covid 19 aside. I'm very sad for all those who've family have been changed. My grandfather passed away from it. I just want to point out a alternate view as the phycological effects of this virus may be more dangerous than the virus itself. 

[Mathew]

17 minutes ago, dennugsmello said:

 I just want to point out a alternate view as the phycological effects of this virus may be more dangerous than the virus itself. 

Exactly. It’s psychological warfare on the world. Look at who is benefiting from the covid crisis. There’s a reason Bill Gates grins when discussing covid. There’s a reason the “Great Reset” was rolled out just a few months after covid hit. There’s a reason they are all using the crisis to profit and make humans more like tagged cattle. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Mathew

[dennugsmello]

This is my last post regarding this topic. Its been a fun, interesting conversation. Thanks for the views from all sides. Everyone here is a class act. 

Now to make a post on topic. 

Played a nice round of golf this morning with my new set of BidenBux clubs. Shot a 91.  

 

 

[Phil B]

6 minutes ago, dennugsmello said:

...

Played a nice round of golf this morning with my new set of BidenBux clubs. Shot a 91.  

 

 

That's about my 9-hole average

[oneknightr]

1 minute ago, Phil B said:

That's about my 9-hole average

I would laugh, but that's about mine as well. Give or take. Going to play at Pacific Grove golf course in Monterey, CA for the first time on Saturday. Looking forward to it.

[Pedilego]

19 hours ago, mudcatsfan said:

It's not mob mentality to listen to epidemiologists about taking a vaccine. 

It's not political.

It's about drowning out the virus before new variants emerge because people went with their gut, their preference, or their facebook research and we all end up locked down for another year.

Listen to doctors,  get the &*/$&# shot.

 

Everything's become political; impartiality has been pushed to the margins in academia, journalism (Slanted by Sharyl Attkisson), and, yes, even science. Bias is not only accepted in these areas, but becoming increasingly encouraged. Arguments like the one below can be made and, in a vacuum, are reasonable:

16 hours ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

Now if one doesn't trust something new just because it's new and refuse to learn more about the actual risks...then there's no point in further discussion.  Let's risk a variant that the vaccine does not work against and risk the world shutting down again and risk facing that fallout which is going to be oh that much worse than 2020.

But it's not simply that people don't trust the vaccine; they don't trust the literature and, especially, the intermediaries. I mean, Fauci instructing the public not to wear masks without the truthful why (effectiveness vs. supply for health care workers) was an error on the sheer grounds that it shows scientists are capable issue misleading people on the basis of the ends justifying the means. Further,

17 hours ago, mudcatsfan said:

I tried to find an article of a reputable epidemiologist who does not think everyone should take the vaccine and I found one from UNC Chapel Hill the article title says the vaccine is not a silver bullet. The funny thing is when you read the article the reason she thinks it's not a silver bullet in the United States specifically is people don't believe in vaccines.

There has been pushback. I had a difficult time finding it, too, despite using very specific criteria to search for a video that I watched a couple of weeks ago. I nearly assumed it'd been removed, but I found it when I circumvented the search and went directly to the channel. Search results are being manipulated. For the record, the hosts of that video agreed with the underlying sentiment that the long-term effects of new technology carries risk (is the sky blue?) - while also expressing flaws in the suppositions. (When legitimate questions like this one are shouted down or censored [e.g. search algorithm manipulation], that has the effect of making people more likely to believe the jank Facebook conspiracies.)

 

Even if somebody has the desire and the aptitude to perform their own research, they simply don't have the time when everything has to be questioned and investigated: the news sources, the scientists, their motivations, the search results, the data & methodology, etcetera. Broad "but science" claims have been deluded to the point where the "Listen to doctors, get the &*/$&# shot." isn't seen as an appeal to credibility or logic - it's received as bullying. More than ever, we have to treat each other like individuals, listen to concerns, address them as best we can, and give people the space and respect to change their own minds. Thanks Ed for allowing Brickpicker to be a place where that kind of discussion is allowed & encouraged.

 

 

Oh and, on topic, today I spent too much time writing this.

 

[Pseudoty]

Went for a walk in the woods. 

[oneknightr]

9 minutes ago, Pseudoty said:

Went for a walk in the woods. 

Nice!

On a side note, your picture makes me think of the idiotic thing Trump said about us (California) not raking our leaves as being the cause of all the wildfires.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

1 hour ago, Pedilego said:

(is the sky blue?) -

 

you realize that if you take bias out of it...the sky is NOT blue for possibly 30% of people.

You're expectation of 100% objectivity is too high of a bar. Anyone involved in any court hearing have seen how two people could witness the same thing and have entirely different take on it.  So two scientist can view data and likewise have differing views.  That doesn't make one right and one wrong.

Science is not a zero sum game...anyone who claims to work in a scientific field recognizes bias, and uncertainty comes with the territory.

And BTW...the TRUTH is also not black and white in most cases.

[gmpirate]

Everyone has an agenda/bias -- the politicians, the media, social media, and various other groups.  Even scientists who are purely in search of the "truth" cannot be so entirely because they rely on funding for their research.  The government and other entities aren't funding research for purely altruistic purposes.  They are looking for certain conclusions.

The worst thing that is happening is the bullying to those not going with certain agenda, the silencing, the censorship and the social media algorithms.  How can anyone trust people who want to silence opposition?  And worse yet, there are so many people not even aware of an opposition.

4 hours ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

you realize that if you take bias out of it...the sky is NOT blue for possibly 30% of people.

The 30% who think the sky is not blue should be allowed a voice.

 

4 hours ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

Science is not a zero sum game...anyone who claims to work in a scientific field recognizes bias, and uncertainty comes with the territory.

True.  The problem arises when these bias's and uncertainties are not allowed to be expressed.  Instead we are told "this is the way" and "there is absolutely no other choice".

4 hours ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

And BTW...the TRUTH is also not black and white in most cases.

I disagree.  We can argue whether or not we have actually arrived at the truth, and what we should do about it, but the truth is the truth -- period.

[Darth_Raichu]

I watched Youtube videos on ways to develop six packs abs without going to the gym while eating a huge bag of potato chips...

Paging Alannis Morissett

 

[cladner]

6 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

I watched Youtube videos on ways to develop six packs abs without going to the gym while eating a huge bag of potato chips...

Paging Alannis Morissett

 

[TheBrickClique]

Today, I came to the conclusion that the next pandemic we will have to address is groupthink.  It seems to spreading worldwide and very few appear to be immune. 

[Pedilego]

4 hours ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

you realize that if you take bias out of it...the sky is NOT blue for possibly 30% of people.

You're expectation of 100% objectivity is too high of a bar. Anyone involved in any court hearing have seen how two people could witness the same thing and have entirely different take on it.  So two scientist can view data and likewise have differing views.  That doesn't make one right and one wrong. 

Science is not a zero sum game...anyone who claims to work in a scientific field recognizes bias, and uncertainty comes with the territory.

And BTW...the TRUTH is also not black and white in most cases.

I never said 100% objectivity; that's a fool's errand. The issue is that, historically, society has held a common, tacit understanding that some things are beyond bias; there are some lines where the ends do not justify the means. "Bias" was an understated way of phrasing the issue. It's much easier to understand what I mean when you've seen:

• how academia & the media removed the veneer of impartiality (academic and journalists should be teaching people how to think and giving them information from which to make their decisions but, now, they're more interested in telling people what to think), including even many of the most reputable sources actively misleading their audience,
• search algorithms are manipulated, even on scientific content such as the one I referenced in my previous post,
• censorship (of books, people, etcetera) is exercised outright by ubiquitous and nearly unavoidable companies,
• jobs are lost or under constant unspoken threat,
• parents are threatened by a judge for being guilty of family violence for using their child's birth name (one of many parental rights being striped away - my top concern - and this is a much broader umbrella of issues than you'd think),
• scientific studies are revoked due to nothing more than social pressure from people who simply don't like the results,
• and much, much more.

 

I've been documenting examples of all of these. Sincerely: it's been overwhelming. If you think I'm using hyperbole, citing examples of extremists or fringe outliers, simply don't believe me, or are genuinely curious about anything I've alluded to - send me a DM and I'd be happy to share and/or discuss in detail there. That offer goes out to anybody readying this. The actual stories are sobering and these are merely the symptoms; we have no way to truly understand how much rot the disease has caused. It is clear, however, that the damage is severe and that it's dangerous to take anything for granted these days.

[keymomachine]

10 hours ago, Pedilego said:

I never said 100% objectivity; that's a fool's errand. The issue is that, historically, society has held a common, tacit understanding that some things are beyond bias; there are some lines where the ends do not justify the means. "Bias" was an understated way of phrasing the issue. It's much easier to understand what I mean when you've seen:

• how academia & the media removed the veneer of impartiality (academic and journalists should be teaching people how to think and giving them information from which to make their decisions but, now, they're more interested in telling people what to think), including even many of the most reputable sources actively misleading their audience,
• search algorithms are manipulated, even on scientific content such as the one I referenced in my previous post,
• censorship (of books, people, etcetera) is exercised outright by ubiquitous and nearly unavoidable companies,
• jobs are lost or under constant unspoken threat,
• parents are threatened by a judge for being guilty of family violence for using their child's birth name (one of many parental rights being striped away - my top concern - and this is a much broader umbrella of issues than you'd think),
• scientific studies are revoked due to nothing more than social pressure from people who simply don't like the results,
• and much, much more.

 

I've been documenting examples of all of these. Sincerely: it's been overwhelming. If you think I'm using hyperbole, citing examples of extremists or fringe outliers, simply don't believe me, or are genuinely curious about anything I've alluded to - send me a DM and I'd be happy to share and/or discuss in detail there. That offer goes out to anybody readying this. The actual stories are sobering and these are merely the symptoms; we have no way to truly understand how much rot the disease has caused. It is clear, however, that the damage is severe and that it's dangerous to take anything for granted these days.

You're complaining about the politicization of everything but in reality you've probably just found yourself on the other side of hegemony for the first time so suddenly it's become an issue for you. In reality basically everything is and has always been political because we live in a society.

I actually agree that telling people to "trust the doctors" and "trust science" isn't good health and science communication, but it turns out people really cling to bad arguments and emotional appeals even when presented with good arguments and reasoning, so getting frustrated and hitting people over the head is often what ends up happening. I have a friend who is a right wing guy who posts a lot of memes on facebook and I spend time debunking them and pointing out how they are wrong, to which he usually replies something about how he was in the Army and fought for this country and FREEEEDOM!

[$20 on joe vs dan]

2 minutes ago, keymomachine said:

You're complaining about the politicization of everything but in reality you've probably just found yourself on the other side of hegemony for the first time so suddenly it's become an issue for you. In reality basically everything is and has always been political because we live in a society.

I actually agree that telling people to "trust the doctors" and "trust science" isn't good health and science communication, but it turns out people really cling to bad arguments and emotional appeals even when presented with good arguments and reasoning, so getting frustrated and hitting people over the head is often what ends up happening. I have a friend who is a right wing guy who posts a lot of memes on facebook and I spend time debunking them and pointing out how they are wrong, to which he usually replies something about how he was in the Army and fought for this country and FREEEEDOM!

[brickvoyeur]

19 minutes ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

Or take the purple pill and become a slave to the dance

Everybody do the Bender

[Mathew]

1 hour ago, keymomachine said:I spend time debunking them and pointing out how they are wrong, to which he usually replies something about how he was in the Army and fought for this country and FREEEEDOM!

Liberals tend to spend time debunking things that they disagree with instead of accepting that others may have a different belief or opinion.  Personally I would trust ex-military over an average liberal. They have seen things and have the experience whereas you just read it on Huffpist.