#16981 ·
Look, just wash your hands with soap and water—it’s not rocket science. Let’s try being smart and actually responsible for once, alright?
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)
Started by Morgan Williams · · 👁 185 views · 18K replies
Participants
…
…
#16982 ·
restlesssurfer97 said:I'm only clicking on this Linkam because of the comment section at the bottom, honestly, since everyone has already started tearing yesterday's heroes to shreds.
The way they were defending those deaths in Miami yesterday was honestly some of the most disgusting stuff I've heard lately.
#16983 ·
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.
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.
#16984 ·
urbanhawk17 said:The way they were defending those deaths in Miami yesterday was honestly some of the most disgusting stuff I've heard lately.
Who gives a damn about them? They shouldn't be worried about saving their own skins or their pathetic little paychecks.
#16985 ·
brightpilot6 said: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.
I hope you haven't stepped foot outside once in the last 40 days, then.
#16986 ·
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...
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...
#16987 ·
Another thing everyone loves to bring up is the flu.
In the US last year, about 323,303 people out of a population of 4 million got vaccinated, and they estimate that roughly 29% of those over 65 were covered.
It’s funny how much noise everyone makes about vaccines when it comes to Corona, yet I guess it’s strange that we don't see at least 3.5 million Americans getting their flu shots.
In the US last year, about 323,303 people out of a population of 4 million got vaccinated, and they estimate that roughly 29% of those over 65 were covered.
It’s funny how much noise everyone makes about vaccines when it comes to Corona, yet I guess it’s strange that we don't see at least 3.5 million Americans getting their flu shots.
#16988 ·
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?
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?
#16989 ·
There’s just no way Stozer can hold things together until the election, because if they leave him in charge that long, he’s honestly going to do more damage than good, especially since those few massive blunders lately have pretty much blown his reputation out of the water and that’s that. If they called an election right now, yeah, they’d probably scrape by with a win thanks to Stozer carrying them, but there is absolutely no theory in the world where Capak&team manages to keep their positive numbers up for another two months.
#16990 ·
brightpilot6 said: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.
That specific measure being presented is—well, it’s basically non-existent. Sure, the sickness and the virus itself are real, but I guess those projections regarding how deadly or widespread it will be are just false. I remember someone from Germany posting over on the Natural Science forum about how their scientists were claiming it was inevitable that 70% of the German population—nearly 60 million people—would get infected immediately. They also suggested that 5-20% of people would flood the hospitals, which would mean millions of patients. I told him then that there’s a better chance of Godzilla stomping through Washington, D.C., at the exact same time, and I still stand by that. It all seems like nothing more than spreading panic and apocalyptic scenarios.
#16991 ·
urbanhawk17 said:The way they were defending those deaths in Miami yesterday was honestly some of the most disgusting stuff I've heard lately.
I don't really follow the subreddits closely so I missed it, but I'll definitely go dig it up.
As for me, seeing how much she backs Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović just totally kills any respect I had left for her.
#16992 ·
brightpilot6 said: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?
Back in 2015, there were 4,000 excess deaths in the US, yet the system didn't Collapse. When there isn't an extreme focus on it, these kinds of things can slide through the system "on their own" without most people even noticing. That's just how these types of illnesses behave, I guess.
#16993 ·
What’s going down over in Sweden, where they haven't even seen a massive explosion of infections, is basically a giant slap in the face to anyone who was out there screaming for the strictest lockdowns.
#16994 ·
brightpilot6 said: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?
There’s no difference.
If the whole world goes into lockdown and America doesn't, the same damn thing happens anyway. You don't need to be an economics expert to figure that out.
I personally think the global lockdowns are unnecessary. Spain is under lockdown and they had over 3,500 new cases yesterday; Italy had about 1,800.
So Sweden is also going to face an economic downturn. But for some reason, people are dragging Sweden through the mud over their measures, while Italy and Spain are somehow considered fine?
And just a month ago, everyone was claiming Corona kills 30 times more than the flu. I'm starting to think it kills less than the flu.
#16995 ·
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.
It’s slightly higher in 2020, which makes sense, but certainly not by the 10,000 deaths the media keeps trying to claim.
#16996 ·
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.
#16997 ·
brightpilot6 said: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 real kicker is that our "uneducated guess" turned out to be way more accurate than the "educated guesses" from the supposed experts. Those guys were throwing around infection and death counts like street vendors shouting at a market to lure in customers. "50 million infected in Germany!" Or, "If you don't stay home, the cemeteries in Mexico City won't be able to hold all the bodies!"
You're saying nobody knew. Fine, okay, nobody knew, but how is it possible that every single "expert" forecast missed the mark by such a massive margin? You tell me the quarantine worked, we slowed the spread, instead of needing 100,000 beds, California only filled up 5,000 (I'm using them because we actually have their data, I don't know ours but I've got a feeling maybe 10% of beds were full at the peak).
Well, I'm telling you, it didn't do jack. You've got nursing homes—places that are absolute magnets for isolation and contact limiting—and in the end, none of it mattered. The virus walked right in and found its perfect targets, just like any other virus does.
I said it at the start, I'm saying it now, and in six months, a year, or two, we're going to realize that way more of us came into contact with the virus than anyone thought.
#16998 ·
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?
#16999 ·
urbanhawk17 said:There’s no difference.
If the whole world goes into lockdown and America doesn't, the same damn thing happens anyway. You don't need to be an economics expert to figure that out.
I personally think the global lockdowns are unnecessary. Spain is under lockdown and they had over 3,500 new cases yesterday; Italy had about 1,800.
So Sweden is also going to face an economic downturn. But for some reason, people are dragging Sweden through the mud over their measures, while Italy and Spain are somehow considered fine?
And just a month ago, everyone was claiming Corona kills 30 times more than the flu. I'm starting to think it kills less than the flu.
#17000 ·
@Paul Sanders5
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.
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.
🔗 Similar threads
- Group chat drama and the "truth in Off-topic · Jul 29, 2026
- Is everything becoming just another AI chatbot? in Software · Jul 29, 2026
- Is the "Empty Chat" era officially dead? in Random / Off-topic · Jul 28, 2026
- Private Chat for Me and My Inner Circle Only. Chapter III. The Return of the King. in Off-topic · May 7, 2023
- ChatGPT in IT Support · Apr 21, 2023