Posts by Matthew Young35

Mansell

restlesssurfer97 said:whoever saw that phone number, Branko just flies in with her Instagram, add me

That's just tacky.

Stick to Facebook.

I’ve actually already figured out how I want my hairstylist to address me after I give her my number.

The plan is for her to realize she grabbed $167 from my wallet when I'm heading out, then call me to return it.

Amanda Evans2 said:Exactly.
Give us an actual competition...
Chess
the Chess Texas Cup
Don't get worked up,
...

Javelin throw.
Hammer throw.
Laser class sailing.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:And what if the wife gives her number to the barber?

Doesn't matter who she sees. Most stylists are probably gay anyway.

restlesssurfer97 said:Hey, can you send me that hairstylist's number? I think Alemka is gonna give you a call.

Capače 😒

Plenty of American musicians are going to be in tears once their wives figure out how the stylist got their number.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Be happy while you still have a reason to be. In my house, we're using less shampoo and way more bar soap lately.

My hairline is receding fast, JB. It’s already halfway up my head.

Try scrubbing your scalp with some Clorox and shining a high-powered flashlight on it. That’s what the top experts recommend.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Anyway, did you finally score that hairdresser's number?

What kind of luck do I have? By the time I actually make a move, they'll probably have lifted all the restrictions anyway.

There's one little thing waiting for you.

The Mandalorian is top-tier.
As for the movies? They’re complete trash.

urbanhawk17 said:Well, you wouldn't even have to call anyone to avoid surgery, because they wouldn't even admit him if he had a fever.

I’ve got someone at my house right now waiting on COVID-19 results.

It could have happened before COVID-19, and it definitely did a hundred times. But this time, it happened specifically because of the COVID-19 hysteria.

No, I disagree. It happened now for the exact same reasons it always has; the only difference is that nowadays, they actually have an "excuse" for their negligence.

So, where did that old line go—"she was old anyway, she would have died soon regardless"?

urbanhawk17 said:In this case, it’s not even about the system failing; it’s more about pure hysteria.

So, basically, six months ago they would have admitted her and done what needed to be done, but now she's being turned away specifically because of the COVID-19 hysteria.

I highly recommend you watch the film Death result of Mr. Lazarescu.
A man is shuttled from one hospital to another by ambulance, and absolutely nobody wants to take him in—they just keep passing him off to the next facility.
And this was filmed long before COVID-19 ever existed.
Sure, it's a Romanian film, but it's effectively the same nonsense you'd see if it were filmed right here in the States.

Honestly, I recommend this movie to everyone; it's excellent.

Government employees love doing this. When you show up, their first thought isn't how to help you, but how to get rid of you and ship you off to someone else.
It has nothing to do with COVID-19. This could have happened anytime, and most likely, it has happened countless times before.

After reading through this, my takeaway is simple: the mother passed away because of sheer negligence and incompetence, not because of some mass hysteria.
Right from the start, you see that exchange: "Can I have a glass of water?" followed by "No, I'm from a different department."
How does that have anything to do with COVID-19 panic?
The constant runaround you get from staff in government institutions is more the rule than the exception.
This isn't about the virus; this could have happened anytime—a year ago, two years ago, or five years ago.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Look, math is one thing, but the reality on the ground is something else entirely.

Well, yes and no.
Just look at the USA, Italy, Spain, or France. In those places, we're talking about tens of thousands of deaths.

Jacob Kern2 said:So, according to your logic, absolutely everyone would have been infected? That seems to ignore the reality of cases like Sweden, which, even with their relatively minimal interventions, saw roughly 3,000 deaths per 10 million citizens—though even those numbers remain a subject of debate.

Sent from my iPhone SE using Reddit

Sweden is Sweden. Different people, different climate, different social norms.
Without any interventions at all, it is entirely plausible that everyone would have been infected.
Look, I’m not claiming this is a certainty; I’m saying we simply don't know what would have happened, much like how we still don't have a definitive grasp on the mortality rate.
And let's not pretend mortality is the only metric that matters.

Furthermore, if Sweden had 3,000 deaths, that scales down to about 1,000 here when you look at the population ratio. Do you honestly believe we would see significantly more than that without any measures in place?

I’ve been doing some quick mental math, though I might have botched the numbers—it’s late, and I’m just typing this from bed before turning in.
If we assume a mortality rate of 0.2% and there have been 83 deaths from this virus, that implies roughly 40,000 infections. Yet, the official count shows just over 2,000 cases.
The discrepancy is massive.
That would mean the actual number of infected people is twenty times higher than what the government is reporting.

The economy has already endured far more aggressive measures than just sitting idle for two months.
Think about World War II. It dragged on for six years—a massive blow to any nation's financial stability—yet twenty or thirty years later, those countries emerged economically stronger than they had ever been. Sadly, tens of millions of lives lost can't be brought back to witness that recovery.
We are looking at a similar trajectory here.
Long before this current virus, there were other epidemics that wiped out a third of the population. Is it really irrational to prepare for the worst? Taking precautions isn't a panic response; it's simply common sense.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I think that’s a pretty flawed argument, and I don't mean to be harsh. In the US, we actually see more deaths every single year than the total number of casualties from the war. Comparing the two just doesn't seem to make sense, neither in terms of the numbers nor the context. Plus, the demographics are so different—it feels a bit off to compare young adults lost to violence with elderly people reaching their nineties.

I guess all this hysteria started because the initial infection and death counts were incredibly naive and inaccurate. It led people to believe the mortality rate was somewhere between 10% and 20%, which might actually be off by two orders of magnitude—like, a hundred times higher. I think the problem is that the WHO, national task forces, and a public hungry for instant answers assumed we could track health data and diagnoses for 7.5 billion people in real time. From day one, those dates and numbers have been pretty much useless. I know that might frustrate or scare some people, but I don't think science or technology can truly pinpoint how many people carry the virus, when they caught it, or how the spread will evolve. What we’ve seen is just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe the reason why places like Italy or other large countries saw higher death tolls is closer to chaos theory than a strict cause-and-effect relationship that quarantine is supposed to break. The virus won't hit everyone the same way because there are endless variables—differences in population movement, age structures, habits, social interactions, climate, genetics, and so on. It's a million different factors. If some guy on TV thinks he can cram the entire world into a single curve or coefficient and then acts surprised when nature doesn't follow his rules, well, that's just an illusion. If we were that easy to wipe out, we wouldn't be here. Life fights to survive in ways that are much more complex than simple math.

First off, let’s get one thing straight: I’m not getting angry. Why would I lose my cool just because someone calls my argument idiotic? You didn't say *I* was an idiot—though, looking at the situation, one might wonder if I'd even bother being offended in that case.
Second of all, I wasn’t actually presenting arguments here; I was simply stating my opinion. And isn't expressing a personal viewpoint actually considered a virtue in a developed society?

The comparison isn't misplaced. We are talking about preventable deaths—unnecessary loss of life that could be avoided. Does the fact that we’re discussing the elderly change the math? Not for me. An older person's life isn't worth any less than someone in their 20s or 30s. In fact, I’d argue that both the elderly and children deserve even more protection from society. If that requires a quarantine, then you grit your teeth and push through as far as you can. Once we reach the point where it becomes truly impossible to hold on, then I'll understand that we've reached our limit. I’m not an idiot; I get that. But if we have to endure a month or two of lockdowns and economic stagnation to save thousands upon thousands of lives, then that is a price worth paying.

When it comes to all this hysteria, if you look closely, the only people actually losing their minds lately are the conspiracy theorists and anyone willing to parrot their nonsense. Even the federal government—which, let’s be honest, is chronically incompetent—hasn't reacted with any historical level of panic. Just because you don't care for the specific metrics being used doesn't mean we're witnessing a mass delusion.
If you’re claiming a mortality rate of 10% to 20% for the American population, you’re talking about 130 to 260 million deaths within a mere two or three months. Let’s be honest: nobody actually believed that was possible. Not even for a second. When you start pointing fingers at the WHO, the federal government, or national emergency task forces, I have to ask: where is your proof? Can you show me a single official source where they actually claimed death rates would hit 10% or 20%? Don't take this personally, but I simply don't buy the idea that the WHO or the administration ever made such a claim.

You’re claiming: "neither science nor technology can possibly determine how many people carry this virus, when they caught it, or how the infection will unfold."
So, what’s your grand solution here? Should we just dismantle our public health institutions and leave everyone to rely on magic and superstition instead?
I get the skepticism. I really do. Questioning everything is part of being informed. But don't you think you've gone a bit overboard with that claim? Honestly, even those wild conspiracy theories about 5G or engineered viruses sound more plausible than what you just wrote above.

Look, please don't take this personally, but it seems to me you've fallen victim to the hysteria. It isn't the people being cautious about this whole mess—those who actually trust medical experts—who are losing their heads. Instead, it's ALL of the governments across the globe (yes, ALL of them, including famous Sweden) that people should be looking to, rather than figures like David Icke and his ilk.