The implication being that ex-employees typically have nothing but axes to grind, so I don't pay them much mind. The media treating these people as royalty seems to be the en vogue thing to do these days on any important topic, and it's stupid.
As for the rest, I'm at a saturation point with it, my man. Everyone knows what the guidelines are, and every individual is going to do what they feel is right. I don't need anyone to teach me what I should be doing anymore, because I don't give a shit. We basically have a two-tiered system when it comes to Covid response right now. Regular people are still facing daily restrictions and get shamed for minor infractions while large crowds of activists gather night and day in multiple cities with the press cheering them on. But as soon as their political enemy replicates the same situation (large crowds outside)? It's the Salem Witch Trials all over again. Yeah, Trump got COVID, but you have no idea how he contracted it. You don't know if he was in a controlled environment or not. All you know is that he typically doesn't wear a mask when you see him on TV, so you're of the assumption he caught it while unmasked. You don't know that. Two of my co-workers caught it in the Columbia SC area, and they're about as careful as anyone can be. They're asymptomatic, but they caught it.
Here's the bottom line.
Everyone is going to catch it or test positive at some point. Some may get sick, some may not. Some people may take the pandemic seriously, some may not. Some may follow guidelines, some may not. I see it every single day. I hear about it on talk radio every single day. The governor of Virginia, who is a doctor, with his perfect lockdown measures still got it. The germaphobe President with the world's best security still got it. Our mitigation efforts against Covid don't work, haven't worked, and can't work. All we can do is protect the most vulnerable as best we can. POTUS didn't cause this, he can't stop it, and he's not responsible for people's actions. The other guy running for his seat didn't cause it, can't stop it, and won't be responsible for people's actions. We're all people with inherent rights and freedoms. For now. We can all use the information at hand to make informed decisions. Or not. Choice is ours.
-X-, Dude,
Love your taste in movies, hot women, video games, and (of course) da Rams. Never tried slapping bags of dirt at Home Depot, but it sounds like fun.
But with this post, I couldn't disagree more.
As usual, my goal is to stay out of this thread. But I couldn't resist responding to this one.
Disclaimers: (1) Forgive me, but this post got me hot under the collar. As always, nothing personal is intended in my post.
(2) At numerous times in this post I will refer to the difference between what I see as the "literal meaning" of your words and the "implication" of your words. As always, I concede this is subjective. I don't claim to any "objective truth" about your words. I am merely describing my own opinions, and the ways in which I reacted to your words, and how your opinions seem to differ profoundly from my own. Cheers, bro.
I'm at a saturation point with it, my man.
Me too. I imagine most everyone is.
But as soon as their political enemy replicates the same situation (large crowds outside)? It's the Salem Witch Trials all over again.
Granted, millions of people are really stupid. Any time people congregate in large crowds (without social distancing and without masks), it's really stupid.
But the POTUS has access to the best advice and best scientists in the world. Yet he routinely makes choices that flagrantly defy both common sense and his own scientists' advice.
Let me put it this way. Would anyone on this board believe the following is a good idea?
"Let's hold a rally with thousands of people, packed close together, in the middle of a pandemic, in a city that is experiencing a spike in infections, and remove the stickers on the seats with reminders for social distancing, while knowing that the great majority of attendees (80 to 90 percent) won't be wearing masks."
Sounds crazy, right? Yet that is exactly what happened in Tulsa on June 20. And yes, I do not think it is a coincidence that a maskless Herman Cain, who was surrounded by maskless attendees, was dead two weeks later.
Granted, the rallies organized by POTUS have become *slightly* less egregious, insofar as they have been conducted outside (as opposed to inside). But there are still large crowds of people packed close together without masks. Quite literally, no other leader on this planet is organizing groups of people to gather like this, with brazen disregard for their safety.
Yeah, Trump got COVID, but you have no idea how he contracted it. You don't know if he was in a controlled environment or not. All you know is that he typically doesn't wear a mask when you see him on TV, so you're of the assumption he caught it while unmasked. You don't know that.
Yeah, I don't know for sure the exact moment POTUS caught Covid. But that's not the point. He was routinely doing things that dramatically exacerbated his risk. A good analogy is to a guy who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years and then gets lung cancer. The guy can say, "Well, everyone is at risk for lung cancer, you can't say with certainty that smoking caused it." I mean, come on.
Two of my co-workers caught it in the Columbia SC area, and they're about as careful as anyone can be. They're asymptomatic, but they caught it.
Sorry to hear that, but glad they are asymptomatic. (As an aside: you and I never debated the "whole enchilada" of the science behind masks. After reading dozens of articles on the subject, I agree with the scientific consensus that the "viral load" one is exposed to at infection can have a profound effect on the level to which one has symptoms. In other words, even if wearing a mask might not always PREVENT someone from getting sick, it can "reduce the initial viral load of transmission", which can have a dramatic protective effect.)
Bottom line: again, I'd refer to the smoking analogy. Yes, even people who never smoke a single cigarette are unlucky enough to get lung cancer. But it still remains the case that heavy smoking over long periods of time greatly exacerbates the risk. Sorry your co-workers got sick even though they tried to be careful.
Everyone is going to catch it or test positive at some point.
Couldn't disagree more. That's the whole point of all this-- being careful while we wait for a vaccine.
Since it looks like Covid-19 is here to stay, yes,
technically speaking, there's a strong chance that billions of us will be exposed to coronavirus at some point in the course of our lifetimes. But I take the
implication of your sentence to be that the timing of the "at some point" doesn't matter much. Surely for the billions of people who are at moderate or at significant risk (due to age or degraded cardiovascular health), it will make a tremendous difference as to whether or not they're exposed BEFORE or AFTER having received a vaccine?
The germaphobe President
Couldn't disagree more. Technically this is true, but the implication re. Covid is misleading.
Generally speaking, yes, POTUS is known to have a germaphobic streak (doesn't like doorknobs, etc.). But when it comes to Covid, he was on tape, in his own words, stating that he is cavalier about his Covid risk. Here's the transcript of his taped exchange with Bob Woodward:
Woodward: “You’re risking getting it, of course. The way you move around and have those briefings and deal with people. Are you worried about that?"
POTUS: "No, I'm not. I don't know why I'm not. I'm not."
Woodward: "Why?"
POTUS: "I don't know. I'm just not."
with the world's best security still got it.
Again, couldn't disagree more. Yes, generally speaking, POTUS has the world's best security. But specifically as regards Covid precautions, there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that basic safety precautions have been utterly ignored. [Just a couple examples: (a) Dozens of reporters have noted that to enter the West Wing, one simply has to have credentials and pass through a metal detector. No mask is needed, no temperature is taken, no questions about sickness are asked, no questions about exposure are asked. (b) Photos and videos of the Rose Garden ceremony this past Saturday are a freaking disgrace. Dozens of people (many of whom later tested positive) are seen mingling together, hugging even, all without masks. I hope everyone on this board just googles the words "Rose Garden event", and the shocking irresponsible behavior is plain to see.]
So yeah, I couldn't disagree more with the "What can ya do?" implication of your sentence "The germaphobe President with the world's best security still got it." A more accurate sentence would be, "The POTUS, who regularly flouts Covid guidelines, and encourages everyone around him to flout Covid guidelines, quite unsurprisingly caught Covid-19."
Our mitigation efforts against Covid don't work, haven't worked, and can't work.
Couldn't disagree more. This sounds awfully close to the fatalistic argument that "Whatever we do, we're still screwed." IMHO, that fatalistic argument is the ultimate cop-out in defense of the USA's horrifically botched Covid-19 response.
Granted, the question of mitigation opens up a rabbit-hole of debate that we've all been hashing out over hundreds of pages in this thread. But please, can people try to let sink in the enormity of difference in the following statistic?
USA: 330 million people, 210 thousand deaths.
South Korea: 51 million people, 422 deaths. (Let me repeat that: four hundred twenty two).
Yes, it's terribly complicated. But as South Korea shows, the answer surely cannot be, "no matter what we do, we're screwed." The dismissal of mitigation strategies seems to suggest that "All we can do is sit back and play Russian roulette and hope for the best."
I so profoundly disagree with the notion that mitigation efforts "don't work, haven't worked, and can't work." The proof to the contrary: the vast majority of developed nations which have been far less devastated by Covid than the USA.
POTUS didn't cause this, he can't stop it, and he's not responsible for people's actions. The other guy running for his seat didn't cause it, can't stop it, and won't be responsible for people's actions.
Couldn't disagree more. Specifically:
didn't cause it,
(*Well, okay, this I agree with.*)
can't stop it
Can POTUS or JB "stop" covid? No, of course not. But do these two men have tremendous power to mitigate the course of Covid, thereby influence the course of history, potentially saving (or losing) hundreds of thousands of lives, while having dramatically profound different effect on the economy and our way of life? Yes.
and won't be responsible for people's actions.
Again, in a literal sense, the POTUS is not "responsible" for the actions of others. But surely we all can agree that the actions of POTUS has a significant influence on the thoughts, and behaviors of millions of people? (Heck , we see this on the Rams, when a change in Head Coach has a huge impact on the 'culture' of the team.) When POTUS acts in a brazenly irresponsible manner, and organizes rallies in hot-spot cities with large crowds , surely one can understand that this has a significant impact on the behavior of millions of his followers? (And no, I'm not going to engage (with others on this thread) in a ridiculous debate about how "I need to see with my every own eyes the literal proof of millions of people who follow the lead of POTUS and are therefore more lax about mask wearing in crowded public places.")
Lastly:
We're all people with inherent rights and freedoms. For now. We can all use the information at hand to make informed decisions. Or not. Choice is ours.
Whew. Finally something I agree with. Cheers.
In closing:
As always, I hope you (or others) do not take anything personal from this post, as no animosity is intended. Go Rams and all that.
But yes, I felt your post included a defense of some of the decision-making our "leadership" has made about Covid-19, and I felt compelled to respond.
From my POV, many of the so-called "debates" in this country about Covid-19 aren't really "debates" at all. They are questions of, "Are we gonna do the sensible and scientifically-based thing? Or the utterly irresponsible, mind-boggling stupid, pull-your-hair out WTF are you doing thing?"
The influence of politics has utterly poisoned our collective ability to have a shared sense of true facts. It's sad.
Go Rams
