vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:08 pm
Fucking old people should all be euthanised anyway.
“Old” is a relative concept. There was a time when most people died much sooner than nowadays, and “old” was younger than today.
Once all the folks who are 90 or older have been euthanized 80-year-olds will be next. Once they’re gone, it will be time to dispense with 70-year-olds and so on until it’s your turn.
But why wait? You can go to the head of the line now.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:08 pm
Fucking old people should all be euthanised anyway.
“Old” is a relative concept. There was a time when most people died much sooner than nowadays, and “old” was younger than today.
Once all the folks who are 90 or older have been euthanized 80-year-olds will be next. Once they’re gone, it will be time to dispense with 70-year-olds and so on until it’s your turn.
But why wait? You can go to the head of the line now.
Fine with me. I certainly don't expect the world to come to a standstill on my behalf.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
And most people who get it only get mild symptoms. Spanish flu targeted mostly children and young people. Fucking old people should all be euthanised anyway.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, just listened to an Italian doctor who said about half of his critical care patients are between 20 to 50.
What a dick. Viruses and 'bugs' are around us all the time. Is one baby all you could come up with? It might only have mild symptoms for all we know. The 1918 Spanish flu epidemic killed MOSTLY children and young people and had up to a 20 percent mortality rate. It killed 50-100 million people!
You must see deeper than a dick you see to understand.
If you put all the infected old people on cruise ships and anchor them too far off shore for anyone to swim the distance to land, then put the young people including asymptomatic corona babies in the lifeboats with the women and wannabes, pretty soon everyone on the lifeboat is going to be infected with unknown effects.
What’s going on now is stalling for time by delaying infections in order to discover treatments that will abate symptoms until a vaccine can be developed, way down the road. The stalling will continue until it cannot.
You are saying that the response is disproportionate to the threat and more damaging than the threat of coronavirus and the current total deaths, however the threat is unknown. A 1.0% death rate applied to the world population would exceed the Spanish Flu of the Dada Era in total deaths.
And most people who get it only get mild symptoms. Spanish flu targeted mostly children and young people. Fucking old people should all be euthanised anyway.
No they shouldn't. You're just being silly.
Here’s some reasoning that supports what you’re trying to say, with more in the link.
“The concept of “flattening” the virus curve; the presumptive reason for social distancing and shutting down the U.S. economy; is based on a theory to extend the spread of COVID-19 to a lesser incident rate over a longer duration, thereby lessening the burden on the U.S. healthcare system. Hence, ‘flatten’ the spike in infections.
“Put another way: 'Flattening' means the same number of people eventually contract the virus, only they do so over a longer period of time, and the healthcare system can treat everyone because the numbers do not rise to level where the system is overloaded. In theory that seems to make sense.
“However, no-one is asking: what is the current stress level on the healthcare system right now? Where are we in that capacity?… and what is normal capacity level during a high-level flu outbreak?… and Where are we when compared against that baseline?”
Over here the answer is hardly any at all apparently.
Just had a parent from my kids school go down with it. She has pneumonia and the hospital said in normal circumstances they'd keep her but they sent her home even though she told them she had a child with a severe asthma condition. The whole family now needs to now isolate themselves but like many Londoners she has no near family to support her so shes properly stressed about how to cope and how the hell is she going to not give it to her kids. My wife is now out shopping for her so if one good thing comes out of all this it may well be that caring and compassion for others is back on the agenda as we are all in this together like it or not.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
And most people who get it only get mild symptoms. Spanish flu targeted mostly children and young people. Fucking old people should all be euthanised anyway.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, just listened to an Italian doctor who said about half of his critical care patients are between 20 to 50.
This talks about the age of deaths in Italy and why their death rate is so high.
Shouldn’t a common threat promote a sense of we’re all in this together? Aren’t common goals conducive to the creation of teams?
So, why are we divided into 2 opposing armies? There are those who feel threatened by the Coronavirus, and those who believe the response to this virus is over the top.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:04 pm
Shouldn’t a common threat promote a sense of we’re all in this together? Aren’t common goals conducive to the creation of teams?
So, why are we divided into 2 opposing armies? There are those who feel threatened by the Coronavirus, and those who believe the response to this virus is over the top.
It might just be a "wisdom of crowds" thing.
Either the over-reactionaries or the under-reactionaries are wrong. But we are not all wrong in the same way and at the same time. Evolutionary - that's a very good thing.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:04 pm
Shouldn’t a common threat promote a sense of we’re all in this together? Aren’t common goals conducive to the creation of teams?
So, why are we divided into 2 opposing armies? There are those who feel threatened by the Coronavirus, and those who believe the response to this virus is over the top.
That seems like business as usual tbh. Global warming is a common threat with many who don't agree. There were people who wanted to make peace with hitler back in the day, and Napoleon before him. Half the colonies didn't want war with King George. If everyone agreed what the threat was, and what to do to it, that would be highly irregular.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:04 pm
Shouldn’t a common threat promote a sense of we’re all in this together? Aren’t common goals conducive to the creation of teams?
So, why are we divided into 2 opposing armies? There are those who feel threatened by the Coronavirus, and those who believe the response to this virus is over the top.
That seems like business as usual tbh. Global warming is a common threat with many who don't agree. There were people who wanted to make peace with hitler back in the day, and Napoleon before him. Half the colonies didn't want war with King George. If everyone agreed what the threat was, and what to do to it, that would be highly irregular.
At least politician have their priorities in order. Can't go for a walk with a family member but at least we can still get alcohol--apparently it's an 'essential item'. No doubt there has been plenty of behind the scenes palm greasing, for the liqour industry to weasel THAT exemption.
Never mind all the small businesses that will suffer.
Now all the old alcoholics can sit at home and die of alcohol poisoning instead of coronavirus (which probably wouldn't have killed them anyway), while the rest of us go quietly insane at home to 'save' the old farts.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:05 pm
At least politician have their priorities in order. Can't go for a walk with a family member but at least we can still get alcohol--apparently it's an 'essential item'. No doubt there has been plenty of behind the scenes palm greasing, for the liqour industry to weasel THAT exemption.
Never mind all the small businesses that will suffer.
Now all the old alcoholics can sit at home and die of alcohol poisoning instead of coronavirus (which probably wouldn't have killed them anyway), while the rest of us go quietly insane at home to 'save' the old farts.
Why don’t you knock on doors and infect old farts?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:05 pm
At least politician have their priorities in order. Can't go for a walk with a family member but at least we can still get alcohol--apparently it's an 'essential item'. No doubt there has been plenty of behind the scenes palm greasing, for the liqour industry to weasel THAT exemption.
Never mind all the small businesses that will suffer.
Now all the old alcoholics can sit at home and die of alcohol poisoning instead of coronavirus (which probably wouldn't have killed them anyway), while the rest of us go quietly insane at home to 'save' the old farts.
Why don’t you knock on doors and infect old farts?
Infect them with what? It's just as well that coronavirus droplets get neutralised when people enter a liquor store
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:04 pm
In the US, at some point Trump will probably stop listening to the doctors because the cure is worse than the disease.
