New York undercounted C-19 deaths
-
@erich214
Thanks! It's nice to be appreciated.
I've always liked "debate" - I don't think I'm always right, but I actually do think I'm "smarter than the average bear" (or, for a younger audience: "smarter than a 5th grader"
) - and I usually think things through...
The point being, I love debate, but I don't always win
-
None of that is a response to why Cuomo refuses to release the report. Nor does it respond to why intentionally deceptive counting.
If I test positive for C-19 today and 3weeks and 6 days later I get killed by being run over by a cross town bus, it's listed as a C-19 death. The previous UK counting method was if I ever die from anything after a positive C-19 test it would count as a C-19 death.
We also had the UK's version of Fauci admitting to fudging the numbers to force lockdowns.
C-19 has been going on long enough that we can investigate the problems that have already occurred.
Only an idiot would think that throwing a bunch of sick people into nursing homes was a good idea.
-
Except for some young people needing a longer recuperation, going into a nursing home usually has only three ways out: hospice, hospital, or funeral home.
Throw Covid-19 into that mess, and it makes it bad for everyone, especially for the vulnerable ones that were already there.
-
@raphjd
Lots to unpack there: thoughts meander much?In the early part of the pandemic, counting anyone who tested positive for the virus and subsequently died a victim of the disease was probably just a way to get around the fact that we knew SO LITTLE about it, and had little way of otherwise "filtering" results to get better data. Over time, all of that reporting will undoubtedly be revised for accuracy.
Forget the political leadership for a moment - the people who do the counting - who generate the reports - are usually career public health experts. In most cases, their only agenda is saving lives. (Fuckin weasly bastards!)
Now, what politicians do with that data is another thing... and in that, there is always politics. While I don't agree with any kind of playing with the numbers, I must say: I strongly prefer a politician fudging the numbers in an effort to save lives, over one fudging the numbers and sacrificing lives in the name of political expediency. Again: neither is good, but saving lives is still better than ignoring them.
I've already said - multiply now - that going back and re-examining our entire response - GLOBALLY - to the COVID-19 pandemic is definitely a wise thing to do... although, right now, I would personally rather that they keep focusing on getting through the pandemic... we can investigate early missteps once the threat has been reduced! Still, the only way we learn from our mistakes, is to discover them to begin with!
Finally: in the early days of COVID-19, we thought it was spread by contact - thus the suggestions you do things like wiping down your groceries before taking them into your house. Putting a sick patient you cannot help into a nursing home seemed, at the time, a humane way to let them die in peace, and in the presence of their families - while also freeing up badly needed space in the hospitals. The other patients in the nursing homes weren't exactly "visiting" the COVID-19 patients, and since there would be no cross-contact, it was thought to be a safe, humane way to treat the un-treatable.
It is important to put these things into the proper context: we had few treatments at the time that were effective once your disease got to a certain point... to put a fine point on it, yes: they were sent to the nursing homes to die!
And, as I've pointed out multiply already, we didn't know it was spread by aerosol. Thus, we didn't know we were exposing other nursing home patients to the disease... we thought the infection-control in the nursing homes would be adequate. (They were not)
It is also important to note that this practice wasn't wide-spread: it happened only in the hottest of the hot-spots... the biggest cities with the worst outbreaks. Hospital beds were desperately needed to treat the victims who were treatable and had some reasonable hope of survival.
It is not fair to judge their decisions or actions then based on what we know now! First, with the advanced therapeutics, immune-therapies, and other knowledge of how to treat COVID-19 (like putting patients on their stomachs!), there aren't many (any?) "un-treatable" patients any longer... while there is still a shortage of hospital beds, these patients have a decent chance to survive COVID-19 right up until the end, so there is no ethical rationale to send them elsewhere to die. Secondly, knowing now (what we didn't know then) - that COVID-19 is an aerosol disease - we would never put a dying patient anywhere that there wasn't a full quarantine in place.
While we (as a population) need to learn, and take heed, from the mistakes made in the early days of COVID-19 (and the US and UK are far from the only countries who struggled with their responses), care should be taken not to recriminate against people who were doing the best they could with little to no knowledge of what they were facing.
Simply put: we need to learn, but we do not need to blame.
-
I wonder how you'd respond if Cuomo was a Republican. Would you still be saying that we shouldn't blame?
True, we did believe China and the WHO, who blatantly lied to us about C-19.
-
@raphjd
You assume I'm a Democrat.
You are again a finalist in the "Miss Taken" pageant! We'll try to get you another sash, but we're running low.I'm a conservative, I'm just not a conspiracy-confused one.
I believe in science: facts don't lie, but people who interpret them often do.
I believe in Democracy (even when i lose).
I believe in the general goodness of the average person.
I believe that Joe Biden won the recent election fair and square.I do not believe that nationalism works in anyone's best interests.
I do not believe in racism - especially as a political tool.
I do not believe in absolutes.
I do not believe in secret cabals of child molesting politicians, threatening our children - primarily because they belong to the other party.I personally know very fine politicians of both political parties here in the US. Honorable men and women who do not agree (not with me, and certainly not with each other), and yet, remain friends.
To my misguided (sometimes mis-labeled) Conservative friends who believe whole-heartedly that Donald Trump is their savior, I say this: Repent of your sins now, before your God judges you!
I also offer this: count the letters - compromise is not a 4-letter word!
-
AH, you are so morally superior. We should make a monument so we can worship you.
-
@raphjd
I don't believe @bi4smooth's latest post contained any intent of indicating moral superiority?Merely stating what he believes and does not believe in and defining them clearly/explicitly.
-
@erich214
Thank you for your comments.
At least so far in this forum, @raphjd appears to adhere to the "you're with me or you're against me" mentality. (I labeled this "bipolar", but he took to interpreting that solely as the mental disorder - even when I clarified it for him, so I'll try an different tack...).Well to be clear: I am not with him, but neither am I against him.
I have said that we do need to look back, investigate, and learn what we did wrong in the early days of COVID spreading in our respective countries.
@raphjd seems to have already made up his mind based on conspiracy theories and partial (to be generous) data. I prefer to wait for some real data.
-
Ah, so you are playing the moral superiority crap by claiming I'm a CTer.
Great, now we know where we both stand.
Then again, you did say you were smarter than everyone else.
-
@erich214 said in New York undercounted C-19 deaths:
@raphjd
I don't believe @bi4smooth's latest post contained any intent of indicating moral superiority?Merely stating what he believes and does not believe in and defining them clearly/explicitly.
After his last post, do you still believe that he wasn't trying to claim he is morally superior?
-
@raphjd
I have limited my opinions of you, and what you believe to what you've posted in the forum... it's all I have to go on, and I won't extrapolate further.I never said I was smarter than everyone else, just smarter than "the average bear" (or a 5th Grader)... that's a pretty low bar, if you ask me!
Would that you would limit your opinions of me to what I've actually posted, and not extrapolate further... but "wishes ain't fishes"...
-
Don't worry, I've seen enough of your rubbish to know my opinion of you is correct.
EDIT: The fact that my liberal stalker DrWas keeps upvoting your posts shows I'm right.
-
@raphjd
The viewpoint you espouse here - that anyone who disagrees with you cannot possibly be a conservative - and constantly labeling them (us) as "*liberal", as-if it was a dirty word - is going to be the death of the Conservative movement (or, here in the US, the Republican Party).Thank God for old style Conservatives, like US Congressman Adam Kinzinger: a smart, honorable, politician who has declined to fall for (or accept) the cult of personality or the dependence on lies and conspiracy theories that have overtaken the conservative parties of both the US and UK.
So you know: the only PAC I gave money to in the 2020 election cycle was...
(drumroll)....
The Lincoln Project... a Conservative, Republican PAC that opposed the re-election of Donald Trump. Count me a proud Conservative who is also a never-Trumper...
But don't worry: I'm not a slave to labels. I'm a registered Republican now: but, I won't stay with a political party that refuses to accept hard data, denies science, and depends on lies and conspiracy theories to convince weak minds of its rightness. And, as an American, I absolutely will not fall into a cult of personality!!!
-
Yeah, you support the swamp and that makes you part of the problem.
BTW, I am a dual national, US/UK.
-
@raphjd Yes, I can comfortably stand by what I said in my previous post.
I will have to agree with @bi4smooth's point on anyone disagreeing with you =/= conservative and therefore a 'liberal,' and the way this word has been used.
One has to only take a look at the topic headlines in the Politics forum to get a sense of how much it's an echo chamber.
Side comment: It's baffled me at the way "Conservative" and "Liberal" labels have automatically assumed the worst in the other person during discussion by bundling other types of policy and thought, where "liberal" values are much more found in "Conservative" policies, and vice versa.
-
Ok, so you don't see how he labels himself a good conservative but labels me a CTer. Ok.
The Politics section is an echo chamber because most liberals can't or won't defend their side, beyond calling everyone that dares disagree with them an IST or Phobe. The most prolific liberals are my stalkers who would follow me around the forums and downvote everything I post, no matter the topic or what I said. They even downvoted me condemning genocide.
If you hate the way "liberal" is used, then gather your buddies up and condemn what the liberals are doing.
When liberals bitch and moan about 6 Jan 2021, but ignore liberals storming the Senate building and trying to storm the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings, says plenty. It also says plenty that liberals can riot and loot and liberals call it the "summer of love", but get butt hurt when conservatives do far, far less.
It's liberals that are calling for the end of free speech of everyone that dares to disagree with them.
Biden claimed he would unite the country and yet we see what he is doing and it has nothing to do with unity..
-
@raphjd
I don't know, but apples-to-apples: the last time the US Capitol was breached was in 1814 - and those were British soldiers (and they burned the place).You can compare the rally that Trump attended prior to the storming of the Capitol to other demonstrations... Sure! Damned straight!
This is a free country and one of our most precious freedoms is the right to redress our grievances against the Government.
Just in case you're curious, though: "redress of grievances" does not include violently attacking the Capitol Police. Does NOT include storming a Government building (any building, much less the Capitol Building!). Does NOT including looting Government offices, or stealing Government documents.
But, back to the point: apples-to-apples, the breaching - the forced entry and then absolute looting - of the Capitol in January is unprecedented - at least since 1814!
One question for @raphjd though: just what is a CTer?
-
bi4smooth has not labelled himself as 'good' as you've mentioned. He merely made his position clear on what he believes, and defining it specifically. He also did not call you a CTer.
Can you define "what the liberals are doing" for me? This is rather ambiguous for such a discussion.
I won't go into the example comparison you've provided as it has been addressed.
I assume "summer of love" you're referring to the BLM movement this past summer? By far the majority of protests across the US were peaceful. I cannot guarantee everyone who attended wanted a peaceful protest, but many were self-policing trying to ensure the peaceful protests were not hijacked by those who wanted violence.
The ones that did turn into a riot and looting occurred? I oppose it as well. Violence is not the answer and it begets more violence. HOWEVER, that being said, you can only peacefully protest for so long before frustration takes over, and I feel this is where MLK was and is truly a beacon. 60 years after, systemic racism continues to permeate society. It's not to say change hasn't happened, but it is a work in progress and progress is slow AF and not as much progress as many would have liked.
I have not come across discussion where some are calling for an end free speech. I don't think anyone is wanting that. However, there is a difference as free speech ends when you threaten harm or your intent is to harm.
@bi4smooth my guess is possibly conspiracy theorist-er?
-
Ah, so when liberals do it, it's good.
If storming the Capitol is bad, then storming the Senate Building and trying to storm the Supreme Court is just as bad.
"Redress of grievances" are to be peaceful, but you totally ignored that to suit your agenda.
Why are the Capitol police more important than any other police?!
You remind me of the saying "it's only bad when whites do it".
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login