Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Chomsky Used For Joe Biden Ad?!" video.
-
7
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@applecatnyango rich on the authors' point when on the climate change consensus studies authors have commented in saying their work is misrepresented, to goes both ways. Why do you ignore that? Or ignore that the climate change consensus studies cherry pick papers and have loose definitions? Why? It goes both ways. To me it just underlines how complex this issues is, a stance I always take. That there is no clear path on this issue. So it comes back to how will a GND work? We do not know. So why radically change the economy with high doubt?
"So according to you "we" don't know about climate change enough to take immediate actions and laying foundations to move away from fossil fuel onto renewable energy, but non-virologist like YOU know without a shadow of doubt that COVID-19 isn't dangerous, without ever once talking about what lasting damage it could do to the survivors... therefore more cases are good? But when cases are down it's also good because it makes Trump admin look good?"
According to scientists we do not know much about climate change. On the virus it is showing not to be that deadly. In fact, it is now comparable to the Hong Kong flu of 1968, a time where we never shut down. So why shut down now? And other experts feel the virus is not that deadly such as Prof. John Ioannidis and Sucharit Bhakdi. But I guess ignore the, or better yet, censor them. Scary experts. And lasting damage? How often does it happen? And what were their health like to begin with? And how long does it last? What about the lasting damage of people dying from suicides, or kids not getting the proper education, or divorce? Or the lasting damage of substance abuse, and alcohol abuse? You ignore all of that. Why? Because when an issue become complex you refuse to dig deeper as you cannot think that far. As with climate change, you have a one track mind. Same here, you only focus on the virus, not other issues that are arising due to the lock downs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@applecatnyango I reply to a lot of comments as well. I never run away from a discussion. You have to understand I have a life as well. So it I post a comment and then have to do work, I can come back many hours later and may move onto another video, or cannot find the comment thread I was working on.
And which comment thread are you talking about? Point me to it an I will respond.
To answer the question, red states.
What is the point of your covid question?
"You're selectively discrediting the very source you claim to be accurately support your argument."
How? Because I accurately say deaths are overstated? We should discuss age and comorbidities.. According to the University of Minnesota around 40% of deaths with covid are in nursing homes. According to a report from UCSF around 50% of new nursing home patients die in 5 months. So of those 40% who died, even if they all survived the virus, statistically speaking half of them will be dead in 5 months anyway.
So this begs the question on if what we are doing is worth it? We are doing lock downs so that some old people live another 5 months. Meanwhile, substance abuse is up, depression is up, use of antidepressant is up. Zoloft, one of the 5 main SSRIs used in depression treatment was placed on the FDA shortage list. UT psychiatry professor Charles Nemeroff said he has never experienced a shortage in Zoloft in 35 years of treating patients.
I can use myself as an example. I have major depression disorder and I take Lexapro, another SSRI. I have been fine until recently. The shut downs occurred so I can no longer teach, go to bars, go to work, go to the gym, go to class, etc. I just sit at home. Well, doing so struck up my alcoholism I had in the past. I am now getting it back under control but with another antidepressant, trazodone.
But again, with covid you guys ignore all of that. People are suffering and for what, a virus that is not that deadly? That is my point. However, as with most far leftists you think in black and white.
I rather trust my MBA professors over some random source you did not cite. Also, taking risk means increased uncertainty.
"Sorry that you cannot grasp the very concept of citing the numbers from the source you ciaim to have read."
What numbers do you want? If you go to worldometer coronavirus you can look at different nations. In the US you can look at different states. Go near the bottom and you can see cases a day and you can see the 7 day average. It was 55,490 yesterday. Is it difficult for you to read charts? On July 21 it was 68,499.
And asking me to quote a book on a complex issue, that is a problem. These issues are so complex people spend time writing entire books on them. If an argument can be torn down by one quote, or if an issue can be solved by one quote people would not write books.
Again, problem with far leftists. They refuse to dig deeper on very complex issues and have a black and white mentality.
1
-
1
-
@applecatnyango On Cook's consensus study authors came out and said their work was misrepresented. Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta and Nir J. Shaviv. Richard Tol of the IPCC said of the work
"the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”
And Oreskes' work was criticized in that they only looked at abstracts. The Nature paper entitled
"Modelling the Effects of Subjective and Objective Decision Making in Scientific Peer Review"
Talks about flaws in the practices.
Did I ever say keep carbon emissions high? No. You make it sound like I want to do nothing. I feel we should do change, but it can't be extreme where it will destroy the economy. Also, to feel that government has to be the one to solve it and the private sector can't is foolish as well.
Again, you are thinking purely in black and white.
"We do. FDR pulled it off."
And when was the last time it took a decade to recover from a recession? It did not help. Also, the GND is way beyond what FDR did. Eliminating and entire section of the economy is extreme. FDR never did that.
"It's not what low UA index means, but you still nevertheless claimed that us Americans are "risk-takers" by nature. What's with the defeatist mentality?"
Not to that extreme. Again, you are thinking black and white.
"And you always avoid mentioning things that we DO know about it."
That it is happening and has been for over 4 billion years.
"Define "deadly" then. Let's see how your standards apply to this virus."
A Penn State study mentioned how the virus is not that lethal, just highly contagious. That it spreads fast, but not highly lethal. Also, even with around 50,000 cases we are seeing low deaths. The recovery rate continues to climb and has steadily since March 24 and has been positive since April 16. If it is so deadly how is the recovery rate going up?
"n what way is it comparable to that pandemic? Be specific.
P.S.: "Hong Kong" flu killed approximately 33,800 Americans within six months, meanwhile Covid-19 has killed over than 150,000 within the same timespan."
It was said to kill over 100,000. In proportion of our population that is the same as we are seeing now. And again, the death count of covid is overstated as I mentioned. And the Hong Kong flu killed a million world wide, more than covid. So yes, they are comparable.
"His intial analysis exluded contagion factor, which makes his theory just as incomplete as the "missing data" he complains about.
The contagion factor of this virus is far greater than influenza that he used as comparison, so if you don’t take measures to slow the spread you get a higher death rate because you can’t treat all the sick at once. Also, Covid-19’s viral shed factor is 1,000 times greater than influenza, and it’s peak shed is during incubation when many times there are asymptomatics (as opposed to influenza, which peaks after it settles into the lungs).
Not to mention his initial prediction of "10,000 influenza-like deaths" was way off the mark"
Just like Fauci's 2 million? Also, you do not need to slow the spread of people are recovery and if treatment is available, which is where we are at now. Cases are double what they were in April but deaths are low. You always seem to avoid that point.
"Without any evidence, he claims that only 1% of those infected get sick and, in the worst case, 30 people per day die of COVID-19... contradicting the information provided by the Robert Koch Institue and the situation in Italy and Spain. Also without any study or evidence, he attributes the higher death rates in Wuhan and Italy to air pollution and environmental influences.
Apparently he was interviewed by a known German conspiracy theorist named Ken Jebsten, basically giving the crook science legitimacy. Yikes."
What do you mean no evidence? Also, what about the doctors at the white coat summit? What about the Bakersfield doctors. Why do we only listen to Dr. Fauci who does nothing but fear monger? You are pulling every excuse out of the book. It really shows how antiscience you are in that you take this complex issue and make it black and white. How is this virus dangerous compared to what we are doing now? Depression is up, suicides are up, etc.
"They're not censored, just ignored by the masses for being baseless fringe contrarian I already laid out above."
No, censored. But Fauci is not censored despite him doing nothing but fear monger. First it were deaths. Then he shifts to not opening up too soon. Then it were cases even though deaths are low. Now recently, even with cases dropping, he says we are going about this wrong and we need to wear goggles. He is a hack. Tell me, why do we listen to Fauci? Care to give me reasons why he should be listened to? As I laid out he is a fear mongering hack that, for the first time in his life, got the camera placed on him and he is enjoying it.
Ok, so no evidence of lasting effects.
"You always resort to whataboutism to derail the discussion. I smell desperation."
What? This is literally happening right now. Again, an antidepressant was placed on the FDA's shortage list. The use of antidepressant is up.
Again, everything is black and white with you. Actions have on consequences according to you. These lockdowns are not causing an uptick in depression and suicides according to you. Just focus on the virus as you do not have the ability to think about anything else as it is too complex.
"But it's you who immediately resigned to your partisan assumption that GND cannot work, without giving it further thoughts. You just revel in your lack of intellectual curiosity and let "we don't know" be end of discussion."
I did. Pushing to completely remove an entire section of the market will destroy it. What will do you with workers in the fossil fuel industry? You may say "give them jobs', ok, what? Will they be trained for it? Are they able to be trained for it? Many renewable energy sources and jobs required different skills that can take years to developed. I know someone who is a petroleum engineer, has an advanced degree for it that took years to get and works for BP. Do you think he can just transfer to another job in renewable energy that easily?
It seems you have put zero thought into it. You feel that it can just pass with no negative consequences. Just as with the lock downs. You feel they should be done and no negative consequences will come from it despite the evidence. But I remember, you do not care if someone dies of suicide as long as they do not die from the virus.
"Your entire shtick is just sowing doubt and halt any notion to change, without actually providing solutions yourself. "
Because you never fully picked my brain. I have solutions, but with people here I have to first pull them away from their far left positions and create doubt that their radical ideas will actually work. And when I do that I become attacked like you are doing now. You never once asked me, on any of these positions, my ideas and potential solutions.
"Had we followed the necessary safety guidelines, we could've settled with just temporary partial shutdown and taken the time to get the virus' spread under control by ramping up testing from the start."
What makes you say that? This virus is new but is shown to be very contagious. That is why I feel lock downs do not work with this virus. With others maybe, but not this one. Case in point, CA had strict lockdowns and were first, never seen a drop in cases. So I see little evidence that following some guidelines would have prevented the spread. But instead lockdowns increased depression, substance abuse, domestic abuse, etc. All of which you ignore and you do not care if someone commits suicide.
1
-
@applecatnyango in a perfect example with you being one track mind, on the virus, you feel the virus is dangerous and shutdowns are necessary, but refuse to consider the negative consequences that are arising from the shutdowns. Them being increase in antidepressant use. As I said, I know this personally as I just been placed on another antidepressant with the one I am already on. Increase in depression, increase in suicide rate, people not being able to pay rent.
Or the fact that schools are not opening up. Kids are going to be harmed in their learning. I was just talking about this today with people I know. One guy was saying that him and his wife have flexible jobs and can work at home and give their kids all the technology they need. But as he said, he is the exception, not the rule. What about poor families with 4 kids, what makes you think they have 4 computers? Or special needs kids who need specialized education?
You do not think about any of those negative consequence. Maybe because it does not deal with you. But they are real. And a discussion needs to be made is that all of what we are doing is necessary for a virus that is not as deadly as we thought? Or that, at least, the message from people like Fauci should change. Because when he says the virus is not going anywhere, and our approach is not work, then why still do it? Why not go back to normal?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@applecatnyango ok
"That's a you problem."
Not really. Love having discussions.
"You made excuse to not debate BuckeyeOwl via Discord and you actually told that to me instead of the respective person. So, did the debate happen already?"
What is discord?
"You think you're the only one? Cheesus Crust."
No, sometimes life gets in the way.
"Ad HAMMERS Trump For Healthcare Failure."
Ok, I will look for it. Found it and responded. There.
"You're obviously ignoring the undiagnosed deaths caused by Covid-19 attributed to Pneumonia."
Does not exist.
"So they still died from covid-19 anyway, even if they don't have long. This is not an argument to exclude them from the total death tolls. You're just reaching."
It is as it is part of the discussion. This is a part of healthcare that we need to discuss, along with our economy. Even if we were to give them care statistically speaking they would die soon anyway. So the question becomes is what we are doing worth it? The economy is shut down. Many businesses will never reopen again. Depression is up, suicide rates are up (which you continue to ignore). And for what? So an 80 year old person can live another 3 months?
This is, once again, showing you cannot understand the complexity of an issue. If someone dies with covid you are saying it is purely from covid and nothing else. You are ignoring all other factors. Also, you are ignoring all other consequences on what we are doing such as suicides being up.
"What happens to the other 50%?"
On average, they die in 14 months.
I have to ask, is death a new concept to you? Have you never heard of people dying before covid?
"What a roundabout way to say it's okay to cull the old and weak to save money and resources."
This happens all the time. Consider driving. 40,000 die a year in traffic accidents. To make that number to be zero we can ban driving, so why don't we?
"So that the younger relatives of these people wouldn't have to live with the fact that they infected their parents/grandparents with covid-19 and sent them to early graves. Survivor guilt is a thing."
Again, statistically speaking they would have died soon anyway. My grandma died at 83. My other grandparents are in their 90s are are failing. Death is a part of life. If my grandparents were to die right now I will simply say "well, they were 90 and lived a long life". Again, I ask of you, is death a novel concept to you? Have you never realized that people die in life? At this point I feel you never experienced death. I attended a funeral of a 5 year old girl who died in a car accident. By your standard I should push to ban driving.
"Everyone is in the same boat except our politicians and their rich donors."
I can agree with that.
"
People say until they actually catch it. Being on the young side doesn't guarantee you surviving it unscathed."
I know people who are young who had covid and were fine. Being young means the chances of death are basically zero.
Again, rather trust my MBA professors who have multiple papers, not some random source.
"This broken system only gives us two options:
- Expose ourselves to the virus without compensation and endanger everyone around us, especially older relatives just to make a living
- Rot at home because our government would rather bail out big businesses that can take hit instead of helping us"
Here you go again with the black and white option. This virus is not that dangerous. More and more people are realizing that. I am interacting with the public now more often and I am seeing more people looking at these protocols and saying "screw it". For example, I was at a division I football scrimmage recently. The players, if they did not have their helmet on the sideline were supposed to wear their face coverings that were under their shoulder pads. Less than half were. Of their helmets they had eye shields, which is common, but they also had plastic shields on their masks. I asked them if they liked it and they said it made it hard to breath. Overall, the vast majority of players do not agree with what is going on. Now expand that to the entire nation. The nation does not agree with the actions we are doing. People want to open up and go back to normal.
"How would anyone know that when you say "cases are dropping" you're actually referring to 7-days average??
What makes you think the cases aren't being under-reported?"
What makes you think cases are under reported?
"Then you probably shouldn't have brought up a book to back up your online argument when you have no direct access to it for citation purpose."
Again, if an issue or an argument can be settled by a simple quote, why write a book on it? You are proving that you cannot think deeply on complex issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1