Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, the moops said:

How much should we bet?

 

400 shares of DWAC stock 

but nobody tested non-sick and no-symptoms people in 2009

we didn't count every death that had people sick with H1N1 as H1N1 deaths, nobody wore masks, nothing was shut down .... the only counts were people who went to hospitals - 61 million ... nobody was every quarantined

i do remember schools shutting down a few days not to stop the spread but because so many were absent

 

how many died in 2009/2010 that were sick and died and had H1N1 and it wasn't counted as H1N1 ? we'll never know

 

vastly different reactions - and yes, covid was different in that it wasn't as treatable and it really hits elderly hard

however, H1N1 hit kids was harder didn't it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, tonydead said:

Equal to where we are right now vaccinated as a country?  Yes, every flu season. 

Remember when electing Biden was going to solve Covid because it was all Trump’s fault and anyone else could easily handle it? :bag:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Remember when electing Biden was going to solve Covid because it was all Trump’s fault and anyone else could easily handle it? :bag:

Hopefully voters remember how he fumbled that layup.  Imagine this guy trying to get vaccines approved in less than a year. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, GoBirds said:

Remember when electing Biden was going to solve Covid because it was all Trump’s fault and anyone else could easily handle it? :bag:

No, I do remember people saying that it would be nice to have a president who is actively encouraging people to get vaccinated and would use his power to accomplish that. 

Solving covid is within our abilities though, it just takes people's willingness to get a shot. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 7:25 PM, Stealthycat said:

400 shares of DWAC stock 

but nobody tested non-sick and no-symptoms people in 2009

we didn't count every death that had people sick with H1N1 as H1N1 deaths, nobody wore masks, nothing was shut down .... the only counts were people who went to hospitals - 61 million ... nobody was every quarantined

i do remember schools shutting down a few days not to stop the spread but because so many were absent

how many died in 2009/2010 that were sick and died and had H1N1 and it wasn't counted as H1N1 ? we'll never know

vastly different reactions - and yes, covid was different in that it wasn't as treatable and it really hits elderly hard

however, H1N1 hit kids was harder didn't it ?

In fact, annual flu deaths are calculated using the "excess death" metric, which tends to produce higher numbers than trying to attribute specific deaths to a disease. My understanding is that this is because EDs take longer to calculate and, prior to coronavirus, there was little urgency to know the up-to-the-minute numbers.

So your premise is backward. If we're comparing apples to apples, Covid has been even worse than the numbers would suggest relative to H1N1. 

I also find your effort to retroactively convince all of us that H1N1 was some kind of second Holocaust to be really weird. I'm guessing 99% of the people posting here were sentient adults during that time period. We know exactly how bad and disruptive it was, or, more accurately, wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ignatiusjreilly said:

In fact, annual flu deaths are calculated using the "excess death" metric, which tends to produce higher numbers than trying to attribute specific deaths to a disease. My understanding is that this is because EDs take longer to calculate and, prior to coronavirus, there was little urgency to know the up-to-the-minute numbers.

So your premise is backward. If we're comparing apples to apples, Covid has been even worse than the numbers would suggest relative to H1N1. 

I also find your effort to retroactively convince all of us that H1N1 was some kind of second Holocaust to be really weird. I'm guessing 99% of the people posting here were sentient adults during that time period. We know exactly how bad and disruptive it was, or, more accurately, wasn't.

 

you know as well as I do that H1N1 wasn't treated anywhere near the same as covid was - no shutdowns, no mandates, no freak outs .... it was just 60 million sick people, hundreds of thousands hospitalized and like 11,500 dead and nobody really cared. of course, at the time it was happening nobody knew the extent of it either - we didn't know if it'd kill 1,000 or 100,000 but what we DO know is that Govt didn't react the same as the did with covid as far as counting 

nobody was tested during h1n1 to see if they might have it ... we did that early covid days. The more we test, the more we'll find - that's obvious and its exactly why right now, by not testing vax'd people they control the numbers

if we'd have tested during h1n1 and counted the same during h1n1 that we did/have during covid, the numbers I believe would be different, very very different

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

we didn't know if it'd kill 1,000 or 100,000 but what we DO know is that Govt didn't react the same as the did with covid as far as counting 

Actually we had pretty good estimates on the range of deaths that H1N1 would cause.  Epidemic modeling has come a long way since the Spanish flu.  That's why the government didn't shut things down for H1N1 and did enact restrictions for covid.  

While comparable on some level, these viruses were not equivalent.  In fact, I'm not sure that H1N1 was ever declared a pandemic, but was instead only an epidemic. 

Edited by The Z Machine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Actually we had pretty good estimates on the range of deaths that H1N1 would cause.  Epidemic modeling has come a long way since the Spanish flu.  That's why the government didn't shut things down for H1N1 and did enact restrictions for covid.  

While comparable on some level, these viruses were not equivalent.  In fact, I'm not sure that H1N1 was ever declared a pandemic, but was instead only an epidemic. 

 

if everyone who died in 2009/2010 had been tested for H1N1 or assumed to have H1N1, regardless of how they died - and those numbers added (like we have done for covid) the numbers would have been way way higher

surely you can acknowledge that ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

if everyone who died in 2009/2010 had been tested for H1N1 or assumed to have H1N1, regardless of how they died - and those numbers added (like we have done for covid) the numbers would have been way way higher

surely you can acknowledge that ?

 

No, I don't acknowledge that.  You need to bring some actual data and analysis instead of wild speculation to make such a claim. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

if everyone who died in 2009/2010 had been tested for H1N1 or assumed to have H1N1, regardless of how they died - and those numbers added (like we have done for covid) the numbers would have been way way higher

surely you can acknowledge that ?

 

Sure, there probably were people who died, and had H1N1, but weren't classified as a death due to H1N1.

However, covid is more likely to cause serious illness than H1N1 and has led to far more deaths worldwide. It’s also more contagious.

You need to stop trying to compare everything. Just because we acted one way during a far less dangerous pandemic, does not mean should act the same way now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

No, I don't acknowledge that.  You need to bring some actual data and analysis instead of wild speculation to make such a claim. 

 

do you remember all the instant check places, nasal swabs, etc during h1n1 ?  having to quarantine if you'd been near anyone who might have been near someone who might have had h1n1 ?

no - that was silly, nobody did that but if we HAD ... imagine all the asymptomatic people we'd have discovered, all the false negatives that could have been counted

the counting changed with covid - everyone knows it, its factual and can be seen easily and yet you reject it ?

that's fascinating

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the moops said:

Sure, there probably were people who died, and had H1N1, but weren't classified as a death due to H1N1.

However, covid is more likely to cause serious illness than H1N1 and has led to far more deaths worldwide. It’s also more contagious.

You need to stop trying to compare everything. Just because we acted one way during a far less dangerous pandemic, does not mean should act the same way now.

 

 

you're right, covid is worse ... but you're also right in how the counting changed

its not so much about how its all changed - its the WHY behind it that matters

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Updated Assessment on COVID-19 Origins

--Scope Note: This assessment responds to the President’s request that the Intelligence Community (IC) update its previous judgments on the origins of COVID-19. It also identifies areas for possible additional research. Annexes include a lexicon, additional details on methodology, and comments from outside experts. This assessment is based on information through August 2021.

--China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information, and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess we have he new overarching mandate to vaccinate all employees at companies of 100+ folks or more.

I've been looking and have been trying to find why 100 employees?  Since we're following the science, what do we have to show that workplaces with less than 100 employees are inherently safer than those with more?  Given this administration there's no way this was just an arbitrary number not based on hard science showing efficacy differences.  Right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sand said:

So I guess we have he new overarching mandate to vaccinate all employees at companies of 100+ folks or more.

I've been looking and have been trying to find why 100 employees?  Since we're following the science, what do we have to show that workplaces with less than 100 employees are inherently safer than those with more?  Given this administration there's no way this was just an arbitrary number not based on hard science showing efficacy differences.  Right?

Of course it's an arbitrary number.  Any number that was chosen was always going to be arbitrary.  Just like Obamacare's arbitrary numbers for # of employees or # of hours worked, or a whole host of arbitrary numbers for virtually every government policy ever.

Is your objection that the number is fairly arbitrary?  Or to that specific arbitrary number (e.g. 50 or 200 or 1000 would have been demonstrably better than 100)?  Or that there is a mandate at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sand said:

So I guess we have he new overarching mandate to vaccinate all employees at companies of 100+ folks or more.

I've been looking and have been trying to find why 100 employees?  Since we're following the science, what do we have to show that workplaces with less than 100 employees are inherently safer than those with more?  Given this administration there's no way this was just an arbitrary number not based on hard science showing efficacy differences.  Right?

I haven't looked into this but I assume these numbers are to make things easier on small companies as this would involve a level of HR involvement, tracking etc that smaller companies cannot handle as easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2021 at 11:07 AM, Stealthycat said:

you're right, covid is worse ... but you're also right in how the counting changed

its not so much about how its all changed - its the WHY behind it that matters

Is it a government conspiracy to control your life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Is your objection that the number is fairly arbitrary?  Or to that specific arbitrary number (e.g. 50 or 200 or 1000 would have been demonstrably better than 100)?  Or that there is a mandate at all?

My objection/observation is that if we go by the assumption that the reason the workforce is being forced to get vaccines is that it's *that* important to the national health, then why the decimation of the workforce?  If this is so critical why are employees of small companies not being protected?  Are their lives worth less?  Given the "follow the science" administration we have I was hoping that this was grounded in something other than political convenience.

15 minutes ago, The General said:

I haven't looked into this but I assume these numbers are to make things easier on small companies as this would involve a level of HR involvement, tracking etc that smaller companies cannot handle as easy.

This administration has shown no hesitation on stomping all over the little guy, so it's hard to think that this is the real reason.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sand said:

So I guess we have he new overarching mandate to vaccinate all employees at companies of 100+ folks or more.

I've been looking and have been trying to find why 100 employees?  Since we're following the science, what do we have to show that workplaces with less than 100 employees are inherently safer than those with more?  Given this administration there's no way this was just an arbitrary number not based on hard science showing efficacy differences.  Right?

I had the same question.   OSHA has no previous guidance that relates to a 100 employee threshold.   It has some administrative requirements at 10 or 20 employees.   I'd imagine the 100 employee number is based on trying to avoid shutting down a small business based on a few employees and is related to the statistics of vaccine refusal.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I'd imagine the 100 employee number is based on trying to avoid shutting down a small business based on a few employees and is related to the statistics of vaccine refusal.  

And then I'd posit - if this health crisis is so critical that we need vaccine mandates then why does shutting down small business matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sand said:

This administration has shown no hesitation on stomping all over the little guy, so it's hard to think that this is the real reason.  

You think they want smaller companies to be less safe? It's not like they are banning them from doing this themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sand said:

And then I'd posit - if this health crisis is so critical that we need vaccine mandates then why does shutting down small business matter?

Statistics.   

If I have a business with 10 people and 1 isn't vaccinated, there isn't much of an effect.   If I have 10,000 employees and 1,000 aren't vaccinated, that's a problem that needs to be addressed.  Having a cut-off where the mandate is actually meaningful is a rational approach.   They need to set it somewhere.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Statistics.   

If I have a business with 10 people and 1 isn't vaccinated, there isn't much of an effect.   If I have 10,000 employees and 1,000 aren't vaccinated, that's a problem that needs to be addressed.  Having a cut-off where the mandate is actually meaningful is a rational approach.   They need to set it somewhere.   

Yep. A numbers game to get this done as fast as possible in a manner that is most palatable. 

If the question were asked they would be saying that the desire it to have all eligible people vaxed as fast as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Statistics.   

If I have a business with 10 people and 1 isn't vaccinated, there isn't much of an effect.   If I have 10,000 employees and 1,000 aren't vaccinated, that's a problem that needs to be addressed.  Having a cut-off where the mandate is actually meaningful is a rational approach.   They need to set it somewhere.   

So statistics and not science?

I'm seeing 15k+ on top of each other in indoor stadiums at events where no vaccine mandate is required and don't see any super spreaders? But science says we should require vaccination if 100+ employees are spread around a building or even multiple buildings around the nation?

I'll give you a hint, this OSHA mandate isn't about science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Coach Morris Buttermaker said:

So statistics and not science?

I'm seeing 15k+ on top of each other in indoor stadiums at events where no vaccine mandate is required and don't see any super spreaders? But science says we should require vaccination if 100+ employees are spread around a building or even multiple buildings around the nation?

I'll give you a hint, this OSHA mandate isn't about science.

Can OSHA make rules about stadium events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The General said:

You think they want smaller companies to be less safe? It's not like they are banning them from doing this themselves.

If it's good for the goose it should be good for the gander.  As you well know without a mandate there will be folks who will choose not to do this.  If it is so important that it's mandated it should be uniform.  Might as well strap everyone down to get the shot evenly.

4 hours ago, -fish- said:

Statistics.   

If I have a business with 10 people and 1 isn't vaccinated, there isn't much of an effect.   If I have 10,000 employees and 1,000 aren't vaccinated, that's a problem that needs to be addressed.  Having a cut-off where the mandate is actually meaningful is a rational approach.   They need to set it somewhere.   

This leaves out about 25% of the employed workforce.  It's not a small proportion.

Edited by Sand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sand said:

If it's good for the goose it should be good for the gander.  As you well know without a mandate there will be folks who will choose not to do this.  If it is so important that it's mandated it should be uniform.  Might as well strap everyone down to get the shot evenly.

This leaves out about 25% of the employed workforce.  It's not a small proportion.

It's a fair question to ask why they set this number at 100. I think they would definitely like everyone to be vaxed as fast as possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

We don't need mandates and they're not legal. Biden is getting bad advice and he's going to lose on this.

yup.  that's what I thought.   that's why we have mandates.   because not everyone can be trusted to make informed, rational decisions, and instead people believe hocus pocus,  facebook and tucker carlson.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

We don't need mandates and they're not legal. Biden is getting bad advice and he's going to lose on this.

Want to put money on whether the OSHA mandate gets upheld?  $100?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, -fish- said:
12 hours ago, The Commish said:

For this "mandate", is it true it's a "get vaxxed OR be tested once a week, your choice" situation?

yes.

Thanks....so why is this a big deal again?  The standard talking points survive when there is no other option provided, but thats not the case here.  im not even sure you can really go all in on the label "vaccine mandate" with any sense of seriousness when there's an out like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

:confused: I thought the "mandate" would require "full" vaccination. Am I understanding that wrong? If people aren't getting terminated is it really a mandate?

You either get the shot or you get tested every week.  Personally, I don't consider that a mandate, but if we don't call it that people can't get all that worked up about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

You either get the shot or you get tested every week.  Personally, I don't consider that a mandate, but if we don't call it that people can't get all that worked up about it.

Yep. Although there may be exceptions,  I doubt many will be terminated without some recourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see we're gaslighting the terminations now. Fun. This is always the PATTERN of the lies on the left.

That thing won't happen and you're a conspiracy theorist for suggesting it will.

That thing is not happening just because it's being reported in right wing media.

That thing that happened was an outlier, an exception.

Th thing is not happening at nearly the rate being reported.

That thing is happening and it's about damn time. It's a good thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I see we're gaslighting the terminations now. Fun. This is always the PATTERN of the lies on the left.

That thing won't happen and you're a conspiracy theorist for suggesting it will.

That thing is not happening just because it's being reported in right wing media.

That thing that happened was an outlier, an exception.

Th thing is not happening at nearly the rate being reported.

That thing is happening and it's about damn time. It's a good thing.

That thing = people losing their jobs for being unvaccinated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

see we're gaslighting the terminations now. Fun. This is always the PATTERN of the lies on the left.

Na.....just pointing out that for one to get fired theyd have to refuse both the vaccine and tests under this "mandate"  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
  • Create New...