LeBron James has finally ascended to that elite tier, the one occupied by Michael Jordan. From here on out, it’s all just a matter of nuance, much like those endless debates surrounding Pele-Maradona.
Anthony Wright30 said:I suppose Washington, D.C. is a true metropolitan hub in its own right; it doesn't exactly fit into the quiet, pastoral image one might have of the rest of America, a fact I imagine its residents are quite aware of.
I suppose I did exclude us; initially, I specified the area north and west of Indianapolis, but I guess I was being far too specific. ☕
Who can we really make fun of when Mayor Bloomberg is in the picture?
And I wasn't aiming my critique at the office itself, but rather at the style of governance—that particular blend of arrogance, crudeness, demagoguery, and the blatant disregard for common sense.
Aleksandar Vučić seems to find new ways to catch everyone off guard every single week, which is honestly getting pretty concerning. It might be time for people over there to realize that regular elections aren't going to be the silver bullet that finally gets rid of that mess.
But we’re still a long way from seeing them actually lose power. From what I gather, his base of party loyalists, the simpletons, and those nationalists who get their kicks from hearing hollow rhetoric about Operation Storm or Mexico—all while clinging to some illusion of toughness—continue to show up and vote for him like clockwork. His political army is massive. On the flip side, the opposition is practically non-existent; among the people who actually oppose him, there's this growing sense of political apathy where everyone just decides to stay home on election day.
Then again, that's probably the kind of government we would end up with ourselves if you took the parts of America north of Washington, D.C., and west of Indianapolis ☕ mixed with a little bit of Ivo Sanders and a touch of Marijo Penava ☕
Jessica Gonzalez said:To give you a quick rundown, there are several pressing issues on the table. The current administration actually has rough estimates regarding casualties and property damage if a 6.2 magnitude earthquake were to hit Washington, D.C. There was an article published about three years ago on this exact topic, which basically concluded that absolutely nothing is being done to prepare. It’s a constant threat to about a million people, especially the roughly hundred thousand living in the historic downtown area. Then you have the risk of flooding, like what we just saw happen in Gunj. There's also the general threat of terrorism, the possibility of conflict in Canada, or even a disaster at the nuclear plant near Krško (which could also be triggered by an earthquake). We can look back at the economic collapse of 2009, the Walmart situation, and so on. Or the wildfires along the coast, using the recent fires in Split as an example. Add in the 2009 swine flu crisis, and we could go on forever. These are all potential events that could result in thousands of deaths, yet we live with them as permanent, looming catastrophes. And with a baseline mortality rate of nearly 1.4%, I guess just breathing gives you a chance of passing away this year.
I guess if COVID was actually going to justify all this hype, it would have had to take out 100 million people worldwide. It’s kind of like how FC Barcelona wouldn't pay 140 million for Coutinho just to get five goals.
If we were following that particular line of reasoning, we shouldn't have lifted a finger at all; after all, the fact that a major earthquake hadn't struck in decades would imply it simply wasn't going to happen. Why bother preparing for some vague, statistical threat lurking in the future—something only a handful of seismologists seem to obsess over? If we actually listened to those experts, every single building in the country would need to be certified for a magnitude 9.0 on the Richter scale, but they tend to view the world through such a narrow lens, focused solely on their own niche. Of course, enforcing that kind of standard would be an absolute disaster for the economy; people need to be able to afford groceries, not drown in massive loans just to fund the overkill required for constructing new skyscrapers or retrofitting old ones.
Jessica Gonzalez said:To give you a quick rundown, there are several pressing issues on the table. The current administration actually has rough estimates regarding casualties and property damage if a 6.2 magnitude earthquake were to hit Washington, D.C. There was an article published about three years ago on this exact topic, which basically concluded that absolutely nothing is being done to prepare. It’s a constant threat to about a million people, especially the roughly hundred thousand living in the historic downtown area. Then you have the risk of flooding, like what we just saw happen in Gunj. There's also the general threat of terrorism, the possibility of conflict in Canada, or even a disaster at the nuclear plant near Krško (which could also be triggered by an earthquake). We can look back at the economic collapse of 2009, the Walmart situation, and so on. Or the wildfires along the coast, using the recent fires in Split as an example. Add in the 2009 swine flu crisis, and we could go on forever. These are all potential events that could result in thousands of deaths, yet we live with them as permanent, looming catastrophes. And with a baseline mortality rate of nearly 1.4%, I guess just breathing gives you a chance of passing away this year.
I guess if COVID was actually going to justify all this hype, it would have had to take out 100 million people worldwide. It’s kind of like how FC Barcelona wouldn't pay 140 million for Coutinho just to get five goals.
We're looking at potential hazards here, rather than events that have actually taken place.
Jessica Gonzalez said:To give you a quick rundown, there are several pressing issues on the table. The current administration actually has rough estimates regarding casualties and property damage if a 6.2 magnitude earthquake were to hit Washington, D.C. There was an article published about three years ago on this exact topic, which basically concluded that absolutely nothing is being done to prepare. It’s a constant threat to about a million people, especially the roughly hundred thousand living in the historic downtown area. Then you have the risk of flooding, like what we just saw happen in Gunj. There's also the general threat of terrorism, the possibility of conflict in Canada, or even a disaster at the nuclear plant near Krško (which could also be triggered by an earthquake). We can look back at the economic collapse of 2009, the Walmart situation, and so on. Or the wildfires along the coast, using the recent fires in Split as an example. Add in the 2009 swine flu crisis, and we could go on forever. These are all potential events that could result in thousands of deaths, yet we live with them as permanent, looming catastrophes. And with a baseline mortality rate of nearly 1.4%, I guess just breathing gives you a chance of passing away this year.
I guess if COVID was actually going to justify all this hype, it would have had to take out 100 million people worldwide. It’s kind of like how FC Barcelona wouldn't pay 140 million for Coutinho just to get five goals.
This isn't just some isolated incident; it’s a consequence. There were deep-seated causes behind it, specific triggers, and various factors that amplified the fallout. This current crisis will follow the exact same pattern, emerging from its own underlying roots and escalating through its own set of catalysts. But since all the projections suggest this hit will be even more severe than the 2009 recession, I fail to see how Andrej Plenković could be held responsible here—or why you would assume he was lying about it.
Jessica Gonzalez said:To give you a quick rundown, there are several pressing issues on the table. The current administration actually has rough estimates regarding casualties and property damage if a 6.2 magnitude earthquake were to hit Washington, D.C. There was an article published about three years ago on this exact topic, which basically concluded that absolutely nothing is being done to prepare. It’s a constant threat to about a million people, especially the roughly hundred thousand living in the historic downtown area. Then you have the risk of flooding, like what we just saw happen in Gunj. There's also the general threat of terrorism, the possibility of conflict in Canada, or even a disaster at the nuclear plant near Krško (which could also be triggered by an earthquake). We can look back at the economic collapse of 2009, the Walmart situation, and so on. Or the wildfires along the coast, using the recent fires in Split as an example. Add in the 2009 swine flu crisis, and we could go on forever. These are all potential events that could result in thousands of deaths, yet we live with them as permanent, looming catastrophes. And with a baseline mortality rate of nearly 1.4%, I guess just breathing gives you a chance of passing away this year.
I guess if COVID was actually going to justify all this hype, it would have had to take out 100 million people worldwide. It’s kind of like how FC Barcelona wouldn't pay 140 million for Coutinho just to get five goals.
In what ways exactly would those be considered greater threats than the situation we’re currently facing?
Jessica Gonzalez said:To give you a quick rundown, there are several pressing issues on the table. The current administration actually has rough estimates regarding casualties and property damage if a 6.2 magnitude earthquake were to hit Washington, D.C. There was an article published about three years ago on this exact topic, which basically concluded that absolutely nothing is being done to prepare. It’s a constant threat to about a million people, especially the roughly hundred thousand living in the historic downtown area. Then you have the risk of flooding, like what we just saw happen in Gunj. There's also the general threat of terrorism, the possibility of conflict in Canada, or even a disaster at the nuclear plant near Krško (which could also be triggered by an earthquake). We can look back at the economic collapse of 2009, the Walmart situation, and so on. Or the wildfires along the coast, using the recent fires in Split as an example. Add in the 2009 swine flu crisis, and we could go on forever. These are all potential events that could result in thousands of deaths, yet we live with them as permanent, looming catastrophes. And with a baseline mortality rate of nearly 1.4%, I guess just breathing gives you a chance of passing away this year.
I guess if COVID was actually going to justify all this hype, it would have had to take out 100 million people worldwide. It’s kind of like how FC Barcelona wouldn't pay 140 million for Coutinho just to get five goals.
I certainly could. Besides, I still don't quite grasp why you're insisting that some kind of ''armageddon'' was actually being forecasted.
Look, restlesssurfer97, feel free to say whatever you want to 🤷.
Among the countries located somewhat near us geographically, Sweden didn't implement lockdowns (well, partially) and Belarus didn't at all.
The latter is a dictatorship where Alexander Lukashenko does whatever he pleases, but in many ways, they are actually more similar to us than Sweden is—whether you look at the social patterns, the number of young people living with their parents or grandparents, the regional distribution, or even just the general health history and genetics of the population—which makes them more interesting to me. Over there, people are protesting the lack of state response and transparency. It’s leading to a mass wave of self-imposed passivity and isolation; people are feeling insecure, and panic is setting in. I’m reading that foot traffic in restaurants and cafes has plummeted by 80%, and inflation jumped from 0.4 to 4.9 in just a single month. That is a snowball effect waiting to happen.
Sweden, which starts from a very different baseline than Mediterranean countries (considering social structures, multigenerational households, and the general standard of living), didn't introduce all the harsh measures. But they did implement some—restrictions on schools, limits on hospitality venues, and gathering restrictions. For instance, with restrictions like those in Sweden, about 70% of our cafes and restaurants probably wouldn't even be open.
Everything else was just recommendations. But Swedes actually listen to recommendations, so they claim strict mandates aren't necessary like they are in most other countries. For example, here, travel is banned, whereas there, they simply recommend that you don't travel. And they probably travel less within their own country or wander through cities compared to how we act with our bans and that billion different permits.
Yet, you all sit here debating as if life in Sweden is carrying on as if nothing happened at all.
And let me reiterate—God forbid the Swedes are right, though I honestly can't wrap my head around how you would ever achieve a situation like theirs here in the States, nor can I see what the crucial differences in policy would even be.
Based on the information I've gathered and considering the vast differences between our society and theirs (while also noting our similarities to Italians and Spaniards), I personally wouldn't gamble the way they did in early March. Wouldn't it be better to face a planned 10% economic dip than to risk a potential descent into the unknown without any control—a scenario that would likely be accompanied by a massive loss of life in a very short window?
wiredrider9 said:Look, let’s be real—this whole COVID mess doesn't even touch the 2008 crash. Back then, we saw actual devastation—thousands upon thousands of people losing their homes, families just barely scraping by, and God knows how many people lost their minds or their health because of it. We had hundreds of thousands of folks seeing their bank accounts frozen overnight. It was brutal. Now, these absolute morons have dragged us right back to that same level of chaos—all because of a virus with a mortality rate under 1%, where the average person passing away is already eighty years old. Seriously? ☕
Did the 2008 crash just drop out of thin air, or was it also merely the inevitable result of a specific chain of events?
Jessica Gonzalez said:Why would you assume the leaders of those organizations are any smarter than you are? Maybe you're just expecting too much from them. It seems like someone sold them a bit of a fantasy, too.
Andrej Plenković said on TV that this is the biggest threat we've faced since the war. Honestly, that feels like such an inaccurate and irrational thing for a national leader to say. I guess I wonder what world he's living in or who convinced him of that narrative. Where is this apocalypse everyone is talking about? I don't see any sign of it, neither locally nor globally.
It isn't necessarily a matter of raw intelligence, though perhaps it is more about the fact that they have access to superior data, advanced technology, and a multidisciplinary perspective that is usually out of reach for a single mind. Think of it like a game of chess: one player might be analyzing the immediate next move, another is looking three steps ahead, and a third is already calculating seven moves down the line. While one person might rely on the hope that their opponent makes a careless mistake, another is meticulously planning based on what their opponent's absolute best possible move will be.
So, I’m curious—which specific event from 1995 onward do you all believe posed a greater socio-economic threat than what we're facing now, enough to make that statement incorrect? I would genuinely love to hear your reasoning.
And where exactly are you getting the idea that this statement implies an "apocalypse"? When someone says "since the war," they clearly mean something less severe than a full-scale war, and since even the war itself wasn't an apocalypse, I can logically deduce that this won't be one either. What kind of logic are you actually applying here?
Of course, peer pressure and dogmatic thinking aren't just social phenomena; they permeate the scientific community too. However, we have to consider that the core conclusions drawn by various—and often competing—health institutions worldwide were essentially the same. Even those different research paths that initially seemed to diverge eventually converged quite rapidly.
Sure, one could argue that contradictory viewpoints were simply suppressed, but what would be the motive, and what kind of massive operational effort would it take to pull that off in such a short timeframe? If we apply Occam’s razor, isn't it far more probable that the danger being discussed is actually as real as they say it is?
Similarly, if you look at reporting from American outlets like Reddit or other platforms critical of the mandates, there's a clear bias present. I mean, anyone could have put together similar collages of photos and stories using footage from beaches or parks anywhere in the US. I pass by the local hospital near Mud almost every day, and that meadow is absolutely packed with people grilling, playing badminton, and just hanging out. Compared to the scenes coming out of places like Mexico, Italy, or Spain, our situation looks almost like Swedish laziness.
But let's set aside the politicians and the scientists for a moment. When even major industries—ranging from elite professional sports to massive global corporations—agree to a lockdown, it stands to reason that there must be some legitimate threat involved. It seems highly likely they modeled the potential social and economic fallout and decided that this was the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, I am absolutely certain we would have seen sporting events held in isolated bubbles for months by now. At least in Belarus, you'd see something.
Since we haven't actually crossed paths in person lately, nothing much has moved forward, which makes me wonder how we could have ever argued that we were doing too much in the first place. 🤷
So, I find myself circling back to my starting point. When it comes to things I don't fully grasp, I tend to lean toward the consensus of experts—especially when that view is as globally widespread and relatively unified as this one is. I’m not talking about politicians, but rather scientists. Though, to be fair, there are certain politicians out there whom I trust to make decisions in their people's best interests, leaders with a proven track record of good governance, so I do place some level of confidence in their judgment (which, let's be honest, is likely far more nuanced than anything being debated here on Reddit).
The alternative logic is essentially the mindset of an anti-vaxxer or a flat-earther; because if you feel compelled to believe in some massive, overarching conspiracy involving such a vast number of scientists (and indeed, politicians), what else is left for you to hold onto?
Look, if we’re really looking at this through that lens, then a total collapse means waiting six months just for a routine medical checkup. But I’m not talking about isolated incidents here. I am talking about a sweeping legal, economic, and social breakdown that, if left unchecked, acts like a nuclear bomb—making a month spent staying home due to policy seem like nothing more than a light haze of cigarette smoke.
But fine. It seems your analysis has led you down one path, while I’ve ended up somewhere else entirely. Whether we justify these measures or not is ultimately up to us, isn't it? After all, we don't all process the world in quite the same way.
God willing, your wild claims turn out to be accurate. But honestly, it’s incredibly reckless to try and build plans or manage any significant system—let alone an entire nation—based on nothing more than baseless speculation.
I also feel like everyone is underestimating the sheer social and economic fallout caused by unchecked panic. Such chaos doesn't actually require objective data; it just needs a single rumor suggesting that hospitals are at capacity and the government is sitting idly by. In response, many nations decided to seize control of the narrative, focusing heavily on preventing hysteria—sometimes even overcompensating with their resource allocation. I would likely take the same approach, simply because I can't see any other responsible alternative that would prevent mass panic and a potential uncontrolled collapse.
And besides, who says the forecasts were entirely wrong? Those initial projections were modeled on societies operating without any interventions. Once the models accounted for actual preventative measures, they began providing rather precise figures.
urbanhawk17 said:The death count in Sweden was basically identical during the first four months of 2020 compared to the same period over the last four years.
It’s slightly higher in 2020, which makes sense, but certainly not by the 10,000 deaths the media keeps trying to claim.
Sweden already has established social habits that naturally slow down the spread of a virus. They have far fewer multi-generational households than we do here in the States. Their standard of living—which usually translates to better overall health and hygiene—is also higher. Sweden doesn't rely on mandates; instead, they have a population that actually listens to guidance.
Why on earth would you think Sweden is the right benchmark for us to follow?
Amanda Evans2 said:ZZ, you mentioned "10x we don't know" in your post. So, if we truly don't have all the facts, is it really acceptable to act as if we're dealing with Ebola? Or should we at least try to find a modus operandi that ensures something of our economy actually survives? We shouldn't be trampling over basic freedoms and such.
I’ll say it again—I wrote it once, and I can say it again. No one is suggesting we should have done absolutely nothing. But surely, we needed footage from the Arena while the system was sitting at only 5% capacity. Do we really still need these ground-based lockdowns and similar restrictions? To me, the measures were excessive given the actual situation on the ground.
Beyond that, what bothered me was how this "expert" is treated as infallible and saintly without anyone applying a shred of critical thinking. An expert who, by leading a procession on Hvar and through all his subsequent actions, proved that there is a much more dangerous agenda at play here than simply preserving public health. You don't protect health by using double standards. Churches versus theaters... The Parliamentary cafe versus the local neighborhood spot... The local Bakery versus full-scale restaurants... Sunday versus six days a week...
I think it's perfectly clear to you that this has been hyper-politicized, which is exactly what I've been claiming since day one.
Is it really necessary to hold a press conference every single day at 2 PM just to broadcast the infection numbers from this whole mess? Perhaps, just like everything else in life, we should have taken a moment to look at the other side of the coin too...
Look, we knew the virus existed. We knew it spread fast. We knew about 5% of confirmed cases required a ventilator.
What we knew back then was plenty enough to warrant a response.
We didn't know about mutations. We didn't know about immunity levels. We didn't know about a cure.
The very fact that we were operating in the dark was exactly what necessitated such a rapid and intense reaction.
Regarding personal liberties, people have a point, but I think they also tend to exaggerate. In our neck of the woods, there wasn't a single day where you weren't restricted from going outside. You could travel if you had an objectively valid reason, sure. You could work almost any job, provided you were forward-thinking enough to move away from the hospitality sector. I can't help but remember the days during the earthquake; how absurd those frantic warnings felt, telling everyone they had to stay indoors. Though, even then, you weren't strictly forced to.
Stozer is who he is—relatively competent when the problem was singular and the solutions could be easily copied from elsewhere. But once the situation grew complex and the usual political maneuvering began, they fell apart just like every other politician.
Ultimately, we won't be brought down by a month of "stay home" policies; we'll be taken out by our perennial flaws—corruption, bloated bureaucracy, the laziness of public services, an overwhelming reliance on tourism, and a total lack of domestic manufacturing.
True, that was the last point. Let’s just say, suppose this sickness started spreading without any government intervention—though we’ve already seen how that plays out in several other countries. But let's take it a step further: imagine that even after things escalated, there were no official lockdowns on transportation, retail, or even grabbing a coffee at a local shop.
Can anyone actually guarantee—and on what basis, really?—that we wouldn't face a spontaneous economic shutdown? Wouldn't people eventually just say, "Forget this, there's some unknown disease out there, hospitals are overflowing, the government isn't doing a damn thing, I see what's happening in Italy, and honestly, screw my shitty job as a cashier, a driver, a teacher, a daycare worker, a maid, or a waiter; I'm staying home until this blows over"? Or perhaps, "I'm not going to bars, I'm not going away for the weekend, I'm going to hoard every single dollar because who knows when I might need it"? Or even, "I'll just call my doctor to get me on medical leave, because what is this madness even for?"
I’ve asked this before: what would your actual economic plan be for those one or two months where the elderly and the vulnerable are being wiped out, while everyone else is gripped by panic over the unknown and losing all faith in "the system"? What would you communicate to the public? And more importantly, how would you talk to the most essential business owners?
So, the entire argument put forth by Jessica Gonzalez is built on the premise that the danger simply "doesn't exist." They’ve been insisting on this since the very beginning, which I can only describe as an uneducated guess. It’s uneducated because it completely disregards the consensus held by the 99.9% of people who have spent their entire lives studying this field.
To be clear, no scientist was actually claiming this was Ebola. Rather, they suggested it was something akin to a flu strain, but one that (a) spreads significantly faster, (b) lacks any known immunity, (c) currently has no vaccine or cure, (d) has an unknown mutation rate, (e) leaves us in the dark regarding long-term effects on survivors, and (f) requires intensive care in about 5% of cases. All of those facts remain true today.
Furthermore, there isn't a single serious nation on Earth—not even Sweden—that hasn't implemented radical, unprecedented measures to defend against the virus, which is precisely why the numbers have remained manageable. This applies even to countries that initially treated the threat with nothing but mockery.
But for a certain crowd here, the danger remains non-existent or negligible, purely because statistically speaking, THEY have very little chance of getting screwed over. I suppose that says everything you need to know.
The fundamental issue here is that you were swinging blindly from the start without any real sense of direction regarding the data. And let’s be honest, you didn't have any because nobody actually did. There isn't any reliable information right now either, since no one can truly fathom how many people would have been infected or lost in any given country if we hadn't implemented such sweeping measures.
You wouldn't base a household budget on uneducated guesswork, so why on earth would anyone attempt to plan a national economy that way?