Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

urbanhawk17 said:So, here in San Diego, they actually discharged someone with COVID by mistake.

The director offered an apology, while our local hero Beroš basically brushed it off, saying it's no big deal and stuff happens.

🙏

What a mess.

Anthony Wright30 said:I find myself wondering what the ultimate purpose of all this was intended to be. What exactly does tomorrow hold for us?

Was this some sort of drill? Perhaps a game played by the wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier? Or maybe it was simply a case of mass panic among the sheep, sparked by something new and unfamiliar, which then ignited and spread at an uncontrollable speed because we live in this social media era, combined with news outlets that survive solely on clicks and thus resort to spreading sensationalist, often false, stories just to stay afloat. It feels like an inflation of self-proclaimed experts, where everyone seems to be adding their own fuel to the fire—one need only look at our supposedly eminent scientists in Natural Science, who seem to be lecturing on a topic they likely understand about as much as I do.

Quite a lot of things have been handled in a rather abnormal fashion during this pandemic, and that goes for the entire world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdYx...ture=emb_title

😢

neonfalcon16 said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdYx...ture=emb_title

😢

Honestly, watching this is just straight-up depressing—it’s painful to see how totally brainwashed they are. They’re literally out here taking orders from 🤦

brightpilot6 said:@ Queen

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?

Basically, the argument being made here is that countries which didn't implement quarantines or lockdowns weren't being led by experts, but were instead being run by total charlatans. I'm borrowing Kesić's pen for this one, so let me just lay it out.

urbanhawk17 said:So, here in San Diego, they actually discharged someone with COVID by mistake.

The director offered an apology, while our local hero Beroš basically brushed it off, saying it's no big deal and stuff happens.

🙏

To the self-appointed savior of everything American—everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Have you ever actually messed up on the job? ☕

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?

brightpilot6 said: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?

What "descent into the unknown"? These guys are leading us straight into the "known." 🙄

brightpilot6 said: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?

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.

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.

👍

Man, you really know how to smoothly slide an anti-vaxxer and a Flat Earther into the conversation, don't you? You're just killing it with those takes!
My body my choice #metoo

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.

wiredrider9 said:In that same "disastrous" Italy, they actually have about 20,000 fewer deaths compared to the first three months of 2019—but hey, the media doesn't care about that. Plus, nobody even knows how many people died from over-aggressive treatment or just being shoved onto a ventilator too early. The Italian healthcare system has been redlining for years; during a regular flu season in the winter, they’re already at max capacity. This was just the final straw.

Nobody actually knows the true number of infections either, because there's a massive amount of people who caught it and just breezed through it in a couple of days without showing any symptoms at all.

So, the system in Italy is overwhelmed, now coronavirus hits them, and people were dying from over-treatment—yet somehow they have 20,000 fewer deaths than last year? You might want to double-check those numbers before you try to make a point.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, the system in Italy is overwhelmed, now coronavirus hits them, and people were dying from over-treatment—yet somehow they have 20,000 fewer deaths than last year? You might want to double-check those numbers before you try to make a point.

Like, what am I supposed to "square away" with the data? The stats regarding this whole virus situation are absolute garbage. They shove everything under the "died from COVID" umbrella. You could die from leukemia, but nope—you had the virus, so you died from the virus. Of course, nobody is going to mention cases where the medical system actually messed up. You get paranoid, panic out, and pump a patient full of heavy-duty drugs just to be safe, they pass away, and suddenly—boom—it's a COVID death instead of a death caused by reckless treatment. Everything is just a complete mess right now.

you know what they say—a picture is worth a thousand words ☕

wiredrider9 said:

you know what they say—a picture is worth a thousand words ☕

I mean, look at the footage—everyone was sitting two feet apart and nobody was even wearing a mask! So why are people getting so worked up about this?

Also, does anyone know if you can fly in from Belgium without having to deal with quarantine? 🍿

Paul Sanders5 said:I mean, look at the footage—everyone was sitting two feet apart and nobody was even wearing a mask! So why are people getting so worked up about this?

Also, does anyone know if you can fly in from Belgium without having to deal with quarantine? 🍿

Germany is just being totally extra right now

What a total mess, this deadly virus is everywhere and nobody's safe, but man, we're gonna push the Democrats to the absolute limit!
The beach is right here behind us, maybe 200 yards away, but you aren't allowed near it—you can only sit right here on the asphalt.
Does anyone here have even a single brain cell left?

Did I read this right? So an employer just transfers $833 and there's zero tax taken out, and that's the end of it?

The government isn't offering any kind of incentive to actually pay this in?

It seems quite apparent that our Secretary of the Treasury was educated under the same philosophy as Todorić

I suppose those grocery store vouchers have essentially just become rebranded credit cards

urbanhawk17 said:Did I read this right? So an employer just transfers $833 and there's zero tax taken out, and that's the end of it?

The government isn't offering any kind of incentive to actually pay this in?

The government isn't giving anything back.
Basically, instead of just raising the standard deduction or lowering payroll taxes, those geniuses over at the Treasury Department decided the best way to let an employer reward an employee is through these weird loopholes, because in their minds, the big fish are few and the sheep are many.

In reality, it’s just another massive load of nonsense that adds more layers to an already ridiculously complicated tax code, and honestly, you can tell these bureaucrats will never get past that old-school, controlling mindset.

And don't even get me started on the whole new level of corruption this is going to invite, not to mention they'll probably have to hire a bunch of new government cronies just to manage all the extra paperwork.