Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Sooo, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock is traveling (flying) to Mississippi for Thanksgiving, but he has been urging Denverites to stay home to prevent the spread of Covid and keep safe. You just can’t make this stuff up. lol

(Nov 25, 2020 10:57 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 25, 2020 06:07 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Your argument was that Sweden's lack of restrictions caused more death than Norway.

It wasn't. I was suggesting placing a value of (say) $1 million on a human life and taking it from there. I wasn't attempting to address which and what measures might be effective.

You've either already forgotten what you posted or you're just flat out lying.

(Nov 22, 2020 04:51 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]It is difficult to keep track of all the available information.
Looking at
Norway with a population of 5 million - 300 deaths
Sweden with a population of 10 million 6,000 deaths
So death rate from C19 in Sweden seems to be a factor of 10 higher than Norway.
Scource
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105...in-norway/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105...in-sweden/

30 years ago I worked in the traffic industry. Looking back I'd say the value of a life was about £100,000 - that is to say if there were 10 deaths on a stretch of road the authority might consider spending £1 million on changes/improvements to that stretch of road. Allowing for inflation $1 million per life seems a sensible guess. On that basis Norway has saved around $2.7 billion by not copying Sweden's approach (6,000/-2,300=2,700), alternatively Sweden's approach has cost $5.4 billion compared to Norway's way of doing things. Sweden's GDP is around $600 billion so losing roughly 1% ($5.4 billion) isn't going to hurt much. Whatever Noway did is likely to have had a far greater effect on their GDP than 1% so I'd say Sweden have chosen the best path. In fairness nobody knew how this would pan out - Sweden could have lost 6% of the population which would have been more noticeable. On the basis of (what I hope are) reasonably reliable figures I'm with Syne on this - forget lockdowns - let the virus run through the population - but don't moan afterwards about what happens.

You not only directly compared Sweden and Norway but you explicitly said that Norway did better ("saved around $2.7 billion") by doing something tangibly different than Sweden ("by not copying Sweden's approach"). Turns out that was an argument from ignorance, that you even expressed ("Whatever Noway did is likely to have had a far greater effect on their GDP"). Not only did Norway essentially copy Sweden's response, but they exceeded their lack of restrictions.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:But since Norway had fewer restrictions, your argument is obviously bullshit. Too bad you'd rather dodge that than just admit it.

Not actually my argument but since you want to go there:

Quote:On 12 March, a national lockdown was announced, effective from 18:00 the same day. For two weeks, schools, kindergartens, fitness centres, hair salons etc. were closed. Sports and cultural events and gatherings were banned and restrictions applied to restaurants.[21] These measures were in line with the those introduced in other European countries such as Denmark and Italy.
..........
Many institutions were closed in order to fight the outbreak, which led to increased unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_p..._in_Norway

Other sources

Quote:'These are very invasive measures,' she [Norwegian PM] said.

The restrictions are set to upend Norwegians' daily life, with parents obliged to stay at home to care for their children, and those unable to work from home risking reduced income.

'This will weigh on both businesses and families,' Solberg said,' adding that the government vowed to provide measures that would aid business owners as well as allow for increased paid absence for parents caring for children.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...reads.html

You were saying?

Okay, if you're really going to admit you don't know better....

Almost every country did "15 days to flatten the curve/slow the spread" in March. Everyone was onboard with what, seemed at the time, was a justified precaution, with a clear end in sight. That wasn't these repeated and interminable lock downs with moving goalposts and no clear criteria to end. The difference is that 15 days doesn't cause employers to go out of business, taking those jobs with them.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:But since Norway had fewer restrictions [than Sweden] , your argument is obviously bullshit.

In fairness Norway do seem to have avoided the worst of the epidemic by acting early (12th March 2020) and sensibly compared to (say) the UK on the 24th March and the US at the end of March.

Sorry I've messed up up the quote format - hopefully all is still clear enough.

Now you're moving your own goalposts. You're trying to backpedal from lock downs and restrictions to who did the "15 days" first, even though countries can't be directly compared in terms of virus seeding. But even if that first "15 days" break was decisive, that literally means that no lock downs or restrictions since then has had an impact.

---

(Nov 26, 2020 12:35 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

Sooo, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock is traveling (flying) to Mississippi for Thanksgiving, but he has been urging Denverites to stay home to prevent the spread of Covid and keep safe. You just can’t make this stuff up. lol

Why does this surprise anyone? This is who elitist leftists are. Rules for thee but not for me.

I’m not “surprised,” okay maybe a little.

“You get the government you deserve.” Is that always true?

(Nov 26, 2020 01:23 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not “surprised,” okay maybe a little.

“You get the government you deserve.” Is that always true?

Not unless you believe the North Koreans, Cubans, Venezuelans, etc. deserve everything they get.

Democrats are always elitist hypocrites, and given their way, they'd make Americas as bad as those countries. Just look at what they've done to California.

(Nov 26, 2020 01:23 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]“You get the government you deserve.” Is that always true?

One might suggest that: "No gullible voting majority goes unpunished. (As well as the minority also subject to the consequences of the former's choices.)"

Except that in many places that majority may never even apprehend the hurt, the punishment. I mean, if John and Jane have been holding a perpetually hot ember their whole lives, then they may believe it's a normal condition to maintain -- have never experienced what it's like minus the misery of the ember.

(Nov 26, 2020 03:54 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 26, 2020 01:23 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not “surprised,” okay maybe a little.

“You get the government you deserve.” Is that always true?

Not unless you believe the North Koreans, Cubans, Venezuelans, etc. deserve everything they get.

No one deserves oppressive regimes or dictatorships, so of course this quote doesn't fit in those situations. 

Quote:Democrats are always elitist hypocrites, and given their way, they'd make Americas as bad as those countries. Just look at what they've done to California.

Maybe the better question is, when we are presented with a limited list of mediocre to bad choices (to vote for), whose fault is that? 

In a democracy, I'd be hopeful that a government would be interested in the common good, despite an individual's character flaws. But, now...it seems that as a divided nation, we have chosen party over country.

(Nov 26, 2020 05:05 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 26, 2020 03:54 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 26, 2020 01:23 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not “surprised,” okay maybe a little.

“You get the government you deserve.” Is that always true?

Not unless you believe the North Koreans, Cubans, Venezuelans, etc. deserve everything they get.

No one deserves oppressive regimes or dictatorships, so of course this quote doesn't fit in those situations. 

Venezuela used to be democratic. You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.

I think the better saying is:
'The government you elect is the government you deserve.' — Thomas Jefferson

As conservatives in no way deserve the government stupid leftists would elect...but leftists sure do. You deserve what you've contributed to.

Quote:

Quote:Democrats are always elitist hypocrites, and given their way, they'd make Americas as bad as those countries. Just look at what they've done to California.

Maybe the better question is, when we are presented with a limited list of mediocre to bad choices (to vote for), whose fault is that? 

In a democracy, I'd be hopeful that a government would be interested in the common good, despite an individual's character flaws. But, now...it seems that as a divided nation, we have chosen party over country.

You only see it as a limited choice if you're buying into leftist propaganda or being swayed more by emotion than reason and facts. It only seems to be party over country because that's how the left works and they control most the media, entertainment, and academia. The left has chosen to ignore all evidence of election tampering and irregularities...for their own power. The right doesn't prioritize their own power, as evidence everyone, including historically for minorities, prospering under Trump.

If you believe words (of the individual or detractors) over action, you probably do deserve what you get. Negligent ignorance is no excuse.

Syne Wrote:But even if that first "15 days" break was decisive, that literally means that no lock downs or restrictions since then has had an impact.

I have exceeded my 3 post arguing with Syne limit so enough already.

(Nov 26, 2020 07:21 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 26, 2020 05:05 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 26, 2020 03:54 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 26, 2020 01:23 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not “surprised,” okay maybe a little.

“You get the government you deserve.” Is that always true?

Not unless you believe the North Koreans, Cubans, Venezuelans, etc. deserve everything they get.

No one deserves oppressive regimes or dictatorships, so of course this quote doesn't fit in those situations. 

Venezuela used to be democratic. You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.

I think the better saying is:
'The government you elect is the government you deserve.' — Thomas Jefferson

As conservatives in no way deserve the government stupid leftists would elect...but leftists sure do. You deserve what you've contributed to.

Quote:

Quote:Democrats are always elitist hypocrites, and given their way, they'd make Americas as bad as those countries. Just look at what they've done to California.

Maybe the better question is, when we are presented with a limited list of mediocre to bad choices (to vote for), whose fault is that? 

In a democracy, I'd be hopeful that a government would be interested in the common good, despite an individual's character flaws. But, now...it seems that as a divided nation, we have chosen party over country.

You only see it as a limited choice if you're buying into leftist propaganda or being swayed more by emotion than reason and facts. It only seems to be party over country because that's how the left works and they control most the media, entertainment, and academia. The left has chosen to ignore all evidence of election tampering and irregularities...for their own power. The right doesn't prioritize their own power, as evidence everyone, including historically for minorities, prospering under Trump.

If you believe words (of the individual or detractors) over action, you probably do deserve what you get. Negligent ignorance is no excuse.

Is the election fraud on as wide of a scale as Trump claims, though? Like will it make a difference to the outcome, at this point? Idk, if there is fraud happening at any level, that should call into question the integrity of the entire election. Iow, maybe it doesn’t have to be widespread to ethically matter. 

Another thing, why is Biden rushing to transition? I don’t think the President elect should have access to confidential information before he’s sworn in. (Not sure why this is customary?)

(Nov 26, 2020 01:26 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:But even if that first "15 days" break was decisive, that literally means that no lock downs or restrictions since then has had an impact.

I have exceeded my 3 post arguing with Syne limit so enough already.

IOW, we all know you've moved your own goalpost, couldn't justify your own claims, and are now begging off. Too bad you didn't learn anything in the process.

---

(Nov 26, 2020 05:10 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 26, 2020 07:21 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You only see it as a limited choice if you're buying into leftist propaganda or being swayed more by emotion than reason and facts. It only seems to be party over country because that's how the left works and they control most the media, entertainment, and academia. The left has chosen to ignore all evidence of election tampering and irregularities...for their own power. The right doesn't prioritize their own power, as evidence everyone, including historically for minorities, prospering under Trump.

If you believe words (of the individual or detractors) over action, you probably do deserve what you get. Negligent ignorance is no excuse.

Is the election fraud on as wide of a scale as Trump claims, though? Like will it make a difference to the outcome, at this point? Idk, if there is fraud happening at any level, that should call into question the integrity of the entire election. Iow, maybe it doesn’t have to be widespread to ethically matter. 

Another thing, why is Biden rushing to transition? I don’t think the President elect should have access to confidential information before he’s sworn in. (Not sure why this is customary?)

We don't know the extent of the fraud, as the lawsuits have yet to play out in the courts. I agree, any fraud is disenfranchising some number of legal voters of their rights, and ethically should be accounted for...to at least restore faith in the system.

Biden has made up a wholly fictitious "Office of the President Elect" when no such office exists and he won't even be verified as President Elect until the electoral vote on Dec 14th. In the meantime, he's getting access to taxpayer transition funds, which given his history of personal enrichment in office, may be motive enough. There is a need for the President elect to enter office prepared, because situations in the world don't take a break his first weeks to get up to speed. But it really should not be happening before the Dec 14th vote. No one needs more than a month to be briefed.