Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Thanks guys 👍, I'm thinking about renting a Jeep and hitting the road through the Pacific Northwest for a couple of weeks just to get as much time out in the wilderness as possible, though honestly, I'm a little worried that two weeks won't even scratch the surface since those mountains and forests go on forever.

Speaking of old-school connections, I was actually reminiscing about a guy I used to play with on some old forum back in the day via IRC:



I was doing a bit of digging online and stumbled right onto this.

Hold on, what kind of amateur hour moves are you even playing with?

restlesssurfer97 said:Hold on, what kind of amateur hour moves are you even playing with?

I’m picking the ones with the lowest ratings just to give my ego a little boost.

I think I might have confused the poor guy with how the interface works.
The way I wrote it actually came out looking quite different.
🤣

You basically just flipped the board, scrambled all his pieces, and delivered a total checkmate, while Bjesomarica is just hanging out in the background humming 'that's my type, that's my type'

If this turns out to be true, and they actually hold that press conference tomorrow like they say, then the mortality rate in Canada would be somewhere around 0.1 to 0.2%. I guess.

It looks like this new black apocalypse is going to leave absolutely nothing standing. 🙏

If things truly turn out this way for us here, we might as well just offer our thanks to the universe, the stars, or whatever higher power is listening...

Jessica Gonzalez said:It looks like this new black apocalypse is going to leave absolutely nothing standing. 🙏

So, you got enough flour and toilet paper on hand?

urbanhawk17 said:If this turns out to be true, and they actually hold that press conference tomorrow like they say, then the mortality rate in Canada would be somewhere around 0.1 to 0.2%. I guess.

Don't forget, we were essentially under a form of quarantine ourselves (though, let's be honest, it was mostly just an excuse to relax).
Without those restrictions, that 0.1% or 0.2% could easily have translated into five to ten thousand deaths. And that's assuming the percentage is accurate. Think about it: in just a few months, that would represent nearly half the number of people lost during our last major war.

Matthew Young35 said:Don't forget, we were essentially under a form of quarantine ourselves (though, let's be honest, it was mostly just an excuse to relax).
Without those restrictions, that 0.1% or 0.2% could easily have translated into five to ten thousand deaths. And that's assuming the percentage is accurate. Think about it: in just a few months, that would represent nearly half the number of people lost during our last major war.

The only way you're seeing 5,000 to 10,000 dead in Austria is if you went around with a handgun shooting people one by one.

Paul Sanders5 said:The only way you're seeing 5,000 to 10,000 dead in Austria is if you went around with a handgun shooting people one by one.

I'm talking about what happens here in America.

urbanhawk17 said:If this turns out to be true, and they actually hold that press conference tomorrow like they say, then the mortality rate in Canada would be somewhere around 0.1 to 0.2%. I guess.

🙏

Has Capak offered any insight regarding these types of testing protocols, or is he still too preoccupied with plexiglass shields and auditing his current inventory?

By the way, I suppose one ought to consider getting married while Capak is still busy defending excessive partying.

Matthew Young35 said:I'm talking about what happens here in America.

Is this based on some actual mathematical calculation, or is it just being thrown out there without any real substance?

Jacob Kern2 said:Is this based on some actual mathematical calculation, or is it just being thrown out there without any real substance?

Neither. It’s just my own uneducated estimate.

Look, if the US has a population of roughly 330 million, and we assume the skeptics are wrong about how much the virus actually spreads—meaning a huge chunk of people would have been infected if we hadn't implemented lockdowns—the numbers change quickly.
Even if you take a tiny 0.2 percent of 330 million, you're looking at 660,000 people.
Now, factor in some margin for error. Since that 0.2 percent figure is based on such a small sample size, it wouldn't be a stretch to see death tolls climb significantly higher over a couple of months.

I get why people are skeptical; there are too many "ifs" involved here. But if we're playing that game, shouldn't I be allowed to question that 0.2% figure as well?

Matthew Young35 said:Don't forget, we were essentially under a form of quarantine ourselves (though, let's be honest, it was mostly just an excuse to relax).
Without those restrictions, that 0.1% or 0.2% could easily have translated into five to ten thousand deaths. And that's assuming the percentage is accurate. Think about it: in just a few months, that would represent nearly half the number of people lost during our last major war.

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.

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.

Anthony Wright30 said:By the way, I suppose one ought to consider getting married while Capak is still busy defending excessive partying.

Bas Ali 🤣

But what can you do? That train has already left the station.☕

If it turns out that mortality rates are truly that high, then fine—let it be. We’ll move forward with much more clarity, having essentially put the world through a massive stress test that leaves us better prepared should something even more devastating emerge down the line. And let's face it, something else likely will. That said, we really ought to take these figures with a grain of salt, given that we aren't even entirely certain about the accuracy of various testing methodologies yet.

Besides, our actual understanding of this virus remains incredibly limited; we still have a mountain of research to finalize regarding how it correlates with everything from climate patterns and genetics to general vaccination rates across the population.

As for all the panic, I don't see much distinction between those freaked out about health and those spiraling over the economy. For instance, if it turns out that global economies won't suffer nearly as much as feared—assuming things reactivate quickly, which is a reasonable expectation if the mortality data holds up—is a month or so of caution really such an exorbitant price to pay?

Furthermore, if the West—and even the smaller players within our civilized sphere—learns from this that it’s a massive mistake to produce absolutely everything, including essential goods, on the other side of the planet just to save a few extra dollars, the long-term benefits will be immeasurable.