Quarantine Life

Charles Ramos7 said:Mortality isn't the only issue here. From what I can see, even the more severe complications (which have been showing up in younger people too) aren't exactly harmless.

Look, you pull through, you recover, and you move on with your life. You aren't going to go out and run a marathon immediately after bouncing back from COVID. You aren't doing that after a brutal bout of the flu that completely leveled you, either.
Just give your body some damn time to recover.

Nicole James said:Good for you if you managed to breeze through it with such mild symptoms. Just keep in mind that there are perfectly healthy, young people out there ending up in the hospital with permanent lung scarring.

I mean, some healthy young people can even die from a bee sting—so that's really not much of an argument...

Matthew Jackson2 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

What kind of ratio between the people stuck on the tracks where the switch is set versus those on the alternate track would actually grant you the authority to flip that lever? If you sit there and do absolutely nothing, more people perish, yet if you pull that switch, you have directly assumed responsibility for the lives lost on that second track. Now, nobody is questioning your right to sacrifice your own life to save someone else—that’s noble enough—but the idea that you have the inherent right to sacrifice *others* is a much more questionable proposition altogether.

We see a modern iteration of this dilemma surfacing with the rise of autonomous vehicles—does a self-driving car have the right to endanger its own passengers to save a pedestrian? And does that right hold steady if the pedestrian is actually the one at fault for the situation? Or what if the pedestrian is being saved from an accident caused by some other vehicle entirely?

Today, we see this exact scenario mirrored in public policy and government mandates. We are all going to feel the fallout of these decisions, and for some, these measures will lead to death or devastating consequences. It brings us back to the core question: do we truly have the right to pull that lever?

It is a profoundly difficult moral quandary, and honestly, there isn't a simple answer to be found. However, one thing remains crystal clear: if there is any possible way to find solutions that don't involve putting others in harm's way, then making that our absolute priority should be non-negotiable.

Of course. That’s why instead of jumping straight to a full-scale lockdown, the goal is to resolve things through contact isolation, masks, and limiting large gatherings... But then you have certain people who stubbornly refuse to wear masks, won't report contacts because they don't want to offend their friends, or gather en masse as if there's no tomorrow... they essentially obstruct every attempt to keep the situation under control with moderate measures.

Paul White9 said:Exactly. Some young people end up on oxygen from a standard flu, and some even die. Most don't. Just like with COVID, most people are fine.

Except that the "some" in this case is roughly a larger order of magnitude than it is with the flu...

neonbison6 said:I mean, some healthy young people can even die from a bee sting—so that's really not much of an argument...

Which is why you shouldn't board a streetcar with a basket of bees...

Nicole James said:How many deaths does it actually take to justify measures like that? Using the population of a place like Denver as a benchmark, for instance?

Yeah, tell me about it.
If the mortality rate is basically on par with the seasonal flu—and we managed to live our lives just fine with the flu without all these heavy-handed "measures"—then we should be able to handle this one without them too.

Anything else is just pure, unadulterated fearmongering. Honestly, you and people like you seem to only be able to wrap your heads around a situation if it’s framed as an absolute disaster. For some reason, there’s this weird craving for catastrophe, and you’ll go out of your way to make everything look as grim as possible. I don't even get the motivation behind it. And then you've got the mainstream media outlets eagerly feeding those impulses, turning people into useful idiots who act like voluntary propagandists, spreading terror and pushing this whole totalitarian biosecurity paradigm.

Nicole James said:Of course. That’s why instead of jumping straight to a full-scale lockdown, the goal is to resolve things through contact isolation, masks, and limiting large gatherings... But then you have certain people who stubbornly refuse to wear masks, won't report contacts because they don't want to offend their friends, or gather en masse as if there's no tomorrow... they essentially obstruct every attempt to keep the situation under control with moderate measures.

Except that the "some" in this case is roughly a larger order of magnitude than it is with the flu...

Which is why you shouldn't board a streetcar with a basket of bees...

Since the local bars reopened, I've been at the same one at least twice a week. Never caught anything. The only positive case I was actually in contact with was a family member who happens to be a doctor. My takeaway? Limit foot traffic in clinics and hospitals, but leave the bars alone.
Additionally, I've attended large-scale events at least once a week—think MLS games, though I'm not from New York City—and, wouldn't you know it, nothing happened.

Ten years ago, I was at a funeral for a 25-year-old friend because his heart gave out after he jumped into a river. Are we going to ban swimming in rivers now?

Honestly, I don't get why, even after the elections, Stozer continues to push these specific policies, especially since more and more people are revolting against these nonsensical measures.

Nicole James said:Of course. That’s why instead of jumping straight to a full-scale lockdown, the goal is to resolve things through contact isolation, masks, and limiting large gatherings... But then you have certain people who stubbornly refuse to wear masks, won't report contacts because they don't want to offend their friends, or gather en masse as if there's no tomorrow... they essentially obstruct every attempt to keep the situation under control with moderate measures.

Except that the "some" in this case is roughly a larger order of magnitude than it is with the flu...

Which is why you shouldn't board a streetcar with a basket of bees...

My colleagues are heading out to Africa for fieldwork. Honestly, you go to a decent club there, meet some attractive people looking to hook up with foreigners, and the reality is that out of ten people, seven might have AIDS. You either don't do it at all even if you want to, or if you decide to risk it without a condom, you're still not even guaranteed safety.

Here in the States, most people don't bother with condoms during one-night stands because they aren't readily available and they think the chance of infection is low. And most of them get through it just fine.

If COVID-19 were a disease where you were highly likely to be dead within ten days, believe me, Stozer wouldn't need to be telling people to protect themselves; they'd be doing it on their own.

Nicole James said:No, that isn't the only thing that matters. We also have to consider the long-term consequences for those who actually survive the infection—the "long haul" issues. It's equally important to look at how infectious people can be and what kind of lasting immunity develops within the population over time...

You just undermined your own point by using the word "potentially" regarding those consequences.

We don't actually know much about these "potential" consequences—they are "possible," sure, but not necessarily certain.
If we’re going to split hairs, every single illness leaves some sort of mark. For all we know, the aftermath of COVID might actually be less severe than the aftermath of a bad case of the flu.

So, since we're still in the dark, why defend epidemic control measures from such a pessimistic standpoint?
Why not approach it as an optimist?

And more importantly, why not ask what negative impact these very measures will have on people? (Like stalling the healthcare system and delaying treatment for other diseases that could, frankly, be far more dangerous and lethal than COVID-19.)
Or consider the economic blow to citizens through job losses and plummeting revenue... which inevitably pushes people into high-stress situations that leave their own lasting health issues.

All this based on a big fat "maybe."

(Maybe a cow will lay an egg?)

Dentists? They aren't even allowed to work. You end up losing teeth just because you couldn't be bothered to fix a cavity when a routine checkup would have caught it. Instead, you wait until it’s an emergency and the nerve starts screaming. Then, seven years down the line, the tooth cracks and you're stuck paying out of pocket for a crown. If that fails, you lose the whole tooth. Before you know it, your digestion goes to hell because you can't chew properly, leading to all sorts of GI issues. All of this could have been prevented or at least pushed back for decades if you had just visited a local dentist for a simple cleaning. Of course, those crowns or future implants? You'll be footing that entire bill yourself.

Paul White9 said:Dentists? They aren't even allowed to work. You end up losing teeth just because you couldn't be bothered to fix a cavity when a routine checkup would have caught it. Instead, you wait until it’s an emergency and the nerve starts screaming. Then, seven years down the line, the tooth cracks and you're stuck paying out of pocket for a crown. If that fails, you lose the whole tooth. Before you know it, your digestion goes to hell because you can't chew properly, leading to all sorts of GI issues. All of this could have been prevented or at least pushed back for decades if you had just visited a local dentist for a simple cleaning. Of course, those crowns or future implants? You'll be footing that entire bill yourself.

I guess I'll keep lying for a bit. Where do you guys even get this inspiration?
Dentists are working.
Besides, what does that even have to do with isolation.
You guys are clogging up every single thread.

silverstag24 said:Yeah, tell me about it.
If the mortality rate is basically on par with the seasonal flu—and we managed to live our lives just fine with the flu without all these heavy-handed "measures"—then we should be able to handle this one without them too.

Anything else is just pure, unadulterated fearmongering. Honestly, you and people like you seem to only be able to wrap your heads around a situation if it’s framed as an absolute disaster. For some reason, there’s this weird craving for catastrophe, and you’ll go out of your way to make everything look as grim as possible. I don't even get the motivation behind it. And then you've got the mainstream media outlets eagerly feeding those impulses, turning people into useful idiots who act like voluntary propagandists, spreading terror and pushing this whole totalitarian biosecurity paradigm.

I’m the one who actually asked the question here, yet I’ve noticed everyone seems to be going out of their way to dodge a straight answer. I can't help but wonder why—it feels like there's a collective hesitation to just step up and speak plainly. ☕

crimsonranger3 said:Since the local bars reopened, I've been at the same one at least twice a week. Never caught anything. The only positive case I was actually in contact with was a family member who happens to be a doctor. My takeaway? Limit foot traffic in clinics and hospitals, but leave the bars alone.
Additionally, I've attended large-scale events at least once a week—think MLS games, though I'm not from New York City—and, wouldn't you know it, nothing happened.

Ten years ago, I was at a funeral for a 25-year-old friend because his heart gave out after he jumped into a river. Are we going to ban swimming in rivers now?

Honestly, I don't get why, even after the elections, Stozer continues to push these specific policies, especially since more and more people are revolting against these nonsensical measures.

It’s going to be the exact same crowd—the same people who have spent all this time dragging the CDC through the mud and criticizing every single one of their guidelines—who will suddenly start demanding accountability from them the moment hospitals begin hitting capacity. They'll be pointing fingers at the CDC, claiming they didn't do enough, once the reality of the situation actually hits home.

Frank Martin2 said:You just undermined your own point by using the word "potentially" regarding those consequences.

We don't actually know much about these "potential" consequences—they are "possible," sure, but not necessarily certain.
If we’re going to split hairs, every single illness leaves some sort of mark. For all we know, the aftermath of COVID might actually be less severe than the aftermath of a bad case of the flu.

So, since we're still in the dark, why defend epidemic control measures from such a pessimistic standpoint?
Why not approach it as an optimist?

And more importantly, why not ask what negative impact these very measures will have on people? (Like stalling the healthcare system and delaying treatment for other diseases that could, frankly, be far more dangerous and lethal than COVID-19.)
Or consider the economic blow to citizens through job losses and plummeting revenue... which inevitably pushes people into high-stress situations that leave their own lasting health issues.

All this based on a big fat "maybe."

(Maybe a cow will lay an egg?)

When dealing with disasters like a pandemic, the standard protocol is to prepare for the absolute worst-case scenario rather than just saying, "Let’s stay positive; maybe it won't be that bad." When earthquakes strike, we don't just hope they don't hit our specific block; we mandate that every building is constructed to withstand seismic activity. When a hurricane is looming, meteorologists don't tell us to remain optimistic that the storm might veer off course—they trigger evacuations. Every ship is legally required to carry enough lifeboats and life jackets for every single passenger and crew member. I truly don't understand the logic behind being "optimistic" about a virus that has already devastated millions of lives—surpassing almost any other infectious disease in recent memory.

Nicole James said:I’m the one who actually asked the question here, yet I’ve noticed everyone seems to be going out of their way to dodge a straight answer. I can't help but wonder why—it feels like there's a collective hesitation to just step up and speak plainly. ☕

It’s going to be the exact same crowd—the same people who have spent all this time dragging the CDC through the mud and criticizing every single one of their guidelines—who will suddenly start demanding accountability from them the moment hospitals begin hitting capacity. They'll be pointing fingers at the CDC, claiming they didn't do enough, once the reality of the situation actually hits home.

When dealing with disasters like a pandemic, the standard protocol is to prepare for the absolute worst-case scenario rather than just saying, "Let’s stay positive; maybe it won't be that bad." When earthquakes strike, we don't just hope they don't hit our specific block; we mandate that every building is constructed to withstand seismic activity. When a hurricane is looming, meteorologists don't tell us to remain optimistic that the storm might veer off course—they trigger evacuations. Every ship is legally required to carry enough lifeboats and life jackets for every single passenger and crew member. I truly don't understand the logic behind being "optimistic" about a virus that has already devastated millions of lives—surpassing almost any other infectious disease in recent memory.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
It’s actually pretty rare to see one of your posts where you don't trip over at least one of those classic logical fallacies.

I already tackled the issue head-on. Let me say it again: if a sickness is on par with the flu, then it deserves the same level of attention as the flu. If you’re out here claiming it needs way more than that, well, the burden of proof is on you to show it.

wanderingbadger77 said:I guess I'll keep lying for a bit. Where do you guys even get this inspiration?
Dentists are working.
Besides, what does that even have to do with isolation.
You guys are clogging up every single thread.

The forums and society at large are being cluttered by these self-proclaimed doomsday prophets and loafers who clearly have nothing better to do with their lives. They don't have jobs, they don't have friends, and they just sit around waiting for a crisis so they finally have something to talk about.

Frank Martin2 said:You just undermined your own point by using the word "potentially" regarding those consequences.

We don't actually know much about these "potential" consequences—they are "possible," sure, but not necessarily certain.
If we’re going to split hairs, every single illness leaves some sort of mark. For all we know, the aftermath of COVID might actually be less severe than the aftermath of a bad case of the flu.

So, since we're still in the dark, why defend epidemic control measures from such a pessimistic standpoint?
Why not approach it as an optimist?

And more importantly, why not ask what negative impact these very measures will have on people? (Like stalling the healthcare system and delaying treatment for other diseases that could, frankly, be far more dangerous and lethal than COVID-19.)
Or consider the economic blow to citizens through job losses and plummeting revenue... which inevitably pushes people into high-stress situations that leave their own lasting health issues.

All this based on a big fat "maybe."

(Maybe a cow will lay an egg?)

We need to approach this from a realist's perspective. These alarmists love obsessing over data, so let them run the numbers. How many lives were actually compromised by the virus versus how many were ruined by sheer stupidity in policy-making? I personally know far too many people who lost their livelihoods—educated professionals who had spent years building careers, all gone because of these measures.
The issue isn't the virus. The problem is that people have become fundamentally decayed and negligent regarding their own well-being, and now we finally have something that exposes it.
It’s like having rotten roof beams that have been sitting there for ten years, and then a heavy snowfall hits and the whole roof collapses on you. What do you do? You blame the snow. No. The snow was just the last straw.
The people listed as having died "from COVID" were likely already at death's door or ancient to begin with. Look, I know I sound blunt, but they didn't die "from the virus"—it’s a miracle they even lived long enough to catch it.
My grandfather passed away this year at 89 from pneumonia. "Pneumonia." Apparently, the fact that he was 88 years old and everything else about his health just suddenly didn't matter anymore.
Of course, losing someone isn't easy, but let’s be realistic—you can't exactly act surprised when both your nine-month-old car and your twenty-seven-year-old one finally give up the ghost at the same time. The human body is just another machine that requires maintenance and has a built-in expiration date. Besides, there's always the question of how each individual machine was originally designed.

After everything I’ve laid out, we arrive at one conclusion: natural selection.

Nicole James As requested by silverstag24:
It’s inevitable. The same crowd that’s been trashing the task force and their protocols will be the first ones demanding accountability from them the moment hospital beds start filling up, claiming they didn't do enough.

Explain to me why they’re closing hospitals, especially if they plan on moving people who actually NEED help into them, rather than just asymptomatic patients and people running a mild fever of 102°F.

You might not be a fan of this genre, but give it a listen—or at least read the lyrics to Iron Maiden's "When The Wild Wind Blows."

Nicole James said:I’m the one who actually asked the question here, yet I’ve noticed everyone seems to be going out of their way to dodge a straight answer. I can't help but wonder why—it feels like there's a collective hesitation to just step up and speak plainly. ☕

It’s going to be the exact same crowd—the same people who have spent all this time dragging the CDC through the mud and criticizing every single one of their guidelines—who will suddenly start demanding accountability from them the moment hospitals begin hitting capacity. They'll be pointing fingers at the CDC, claiming they didn't do enough, once the reality of the situation actually hits home.

When dealing with disasters like a pandemic, the standard protocol is to prepare for the absolute worst-case scenario rather than just saying, "Let’s stay positive; maybe it won't be that bad." When earthquakes strike, we don't just hope they don't hit our specific block; we mandate that every building is constructed to withstand seismic activity. When a hurricane is looming, meteorologists don't tell us to remain optimistic that the storm might veer off course—they trigger evacuations. Every ship is legally required to carry enough lifeboats and life jackets for every single passenger and crew member. I truly don't understand the logic behind being "optimistic" about a virus that has already devastated millions of lives—surpassing almost any other infectious disease in recent memory.

Look, tuberculosis kills about 4,000 people every single day. That means so far this year, it's already taken out over 1.14 million folks. And the kicker? We actually have both a cure and a vaccine for that one. I don't remember hearing you sounding nearly as worried about it.

Besides, even those COVID death tolls are pretty debatable when you consider how sketchy and inconsistent the methodology for determining a COVID-related death has been. It feels like every other week there’s some news report claiming the numbers are being inflated, and that's coming straight from the official sources in places like Italy, the United Kingdom, and the USA...

It’s all just one big conspiracy, if you ask me!

silverstag24 said:Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
It’s actually pretty rare to see one of your posts where you don't trip over at least one of those classic logical fallacies.

I already tackled the issue head-on. Let me say it again: if a sickness is on par with the flu, then it deserves the same level of attention as the flu. If you’re out here claiming it needs way more than that, well, the burden of proof is on you to show it.

You are drifting away from the point. I asked you how many deaths within the US would justify a specific measure according to your logic. You didn't answer.

crimsonranger3 said:The forums and society at large are being cluttered by these self-proclaimed doomsday prophets and loafers who clearly have nothing better to do with their lives. They don't have jobs, they don't have friends, and they just sit around waiting for a crisis so they finally have something to talk about.

We need to approach this from a realist's perspective. These alarmists love obsessing over data, so let them run the numbers. How many lives were actually compromised by the virus versus how many were ruined by sheer stupidity in policy-making? I personally know far too many people who lost their livelihoods—educated professionals who had spent years building careers, all gone because of these measures.
The issue isn't the virus. The problem is that people have become fundamentally decayed and negligent regarding their own well-being, and now we finally have something that exposes it.
It’s like having rotten roof beams that have been sitting there for ten years, and then a heavy snowfall hits and the whole roof collapses on you. What do you do? You blame the snow. No. The snow was just the last straw.
The people listed as having died "from COVID" were likely already at death's door or ancient to begin with. Look, I know I sound blunt, but they didn't die "from the virus"—it’s a miracle they even lived long enough to catch it.
My grandfather passed away this year at 89 from pneumonia. "Pneumonia." Apparently, the fact that he was 88 years old and everything else about his health just suddenly didn't matter anymore.
Of course, losing someone isn't easy, but let’s be realistic—you can't exactly act surprised when both your nine-month-old car and your twenty-seven-year-old one finally give up the ghost at the same time. The human body is just another machine that requires maintenance and has a built-in expiration date. Besides, there's always the question of how each individual machine was originally designed.

After everything I’ve laid out, we arrive at one conclusion: natural selection.

Nicole James As requested by silverstag24:
It’s inevitable. The same crowd that’s been trashing the task force and their protocols will be the first ones demanding accountability from them the moment hospital beds start filling up, claiming they didn't do enough.

Explain to me why they’re closing hospitals, especially if they plan on moving people who actually NEED help into them, rather than just asymptomatic patients and people running a mild fever of 102°F.

You might not be a fan of this genre, but give it a listen—or at least read the lyrics to Iron Maiden's "When The Wild Wind Blows."

If you ever happen to contract cancer or some sort of cardiovascular disease, I sincerely hope you stay consistent and don't bother young, healthy people with expensive treatments; instead, I hope you just wave it off, say "NATURAL SELECTION," and pass away somewhere quietly where you won't be a nuisance to anyone.

Explain to me why hospitals would actually close, especially if they start filling up with people who genuinely NEED help, rather than asymptomatic patients or people sitting there with a 102°F fever.

Maybe this isn't your genre of music, but listen to—or at least read the lyrics of—"When The Wild Wind Blows" by Iron Maiden.

Why? Because if you put a COVID patient in an ICU bed, that bed is effectively gone for any other patient. It is because those with severe symptoms requiring hospitalization (which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of confirmed cases) need to be under the supervision of specialists, and our supply of those experts is quite limited. If they become overwhelmed, you can't go to the hospital—you just stay home and hope for the best. It is because staff who were potentially exposed to COVID cannot work with other patients and must go into isolation. It is because you cannot perform heart surgery on someone and then move them to a ward where someone else has COVID, because you will likely kill them. Get it?

silverstag24 said:Look, tuberculosis kills about 4,000 people every single day. That means so far this year, it's already taken out over 1.14 million folks. And the kicker? We actually have both a cure and a vaccine for that one. I don't remember hearing you sounding nearly as worried about it.

Besides, even those COVID death tolls are pretty debatable when you consider how sketchy and inconsistent the methodology for determining a COVID-related death has been. It feels like every other week there’s some news report claiming the numbers are being inflated, and that's coming straight from the official sources in places like Italy, the United Kingdom, and the USA...

The new coronavirus has been spreading globally for about six months now. Your math regarding TBC is off. If we were seeing over 700 cases of TBC daily across the US—especially with an exponential growth trend—you can bet we would be dealing with incredibly strict measures...

It’s interesting how you seem to catch every single headline that implies numbers might be higher than they actually are, yet you completely overlook reports about countries downplaying infection and death rates for obvious political reasons. I honestly don't see why any government would have an incentive right now to inflate their numbers and make themselves look incompetent.

Nicole James said:You are drifting away from the point. I asked you how many deaths within the US would justify a specific measure according to your logic. You didn't answer.

If you ever happen to contract cancer or some sort of cardiovascular disease, I sincerely hope you stay consistent and don't bother young, healthy people with expensive treatments; instead, I hope you just wave it off, say "NATURAL SELECTION," and pass away somewhere quietly where you won't be a nuisance to anyone.

Explain to me why hospitals would actually close, especially if they start filling up with people who genuinely NEED help, rather than asymptomatic patients or people sitting there with a 102°F fever.

Maybe this isn't your genre of music, but listen to—or at least read the lyrics of—"When The Wild Wind Blows" by Iron Maiden.

Why? Because if you put a COVID patient in an ICU bed, that bed is effectively gone for any other patient. It is because those with severe symptoms requiring hospitalization (which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of confirmed cases) need to be under the supervision of specialists, and our supply of those experts is quite limited. If they become overwhelmed, you can't go to the hospital—you just stay home and hope for the best. It is because staff who were potentially exposed to COVID cannot work with other patients and must go into isolation. It is because you cannot perform heart surgery on someone and then move them to a ward where someone else has COVID, because you will likely kill them. Get it?

The new coronavirus has been spreading globally for about six months now. Your math regarding TBC is off. If we were seeing over 700 cases of TBC daily across the US—especially with an exponential growth trend—you can bet we would be dealing with incredibly strict measures...

It’s interesting how you seem to catch every single headline that implies numbers might be higher than they actually are, yet you completely overlook reports about countries downplaying infection and death rates for obvious political reasons. I honestly don't see why any government would have an incentive right now to inflate their numbers and make themselves look incompetent.

I managed to sort out my high blood pressure just by making some lifestyle adjustments. I could have easily taken the pills and played the victim, but I chose a different route.

Nicole James said:You are drifting away from the point. I asked you how many deaths within the US would justify a specific measure according to your logic. You didn't answer.

If you ever happen to contract cancer or some sort of cardiovascular disease, I sincerely hope you stay consistent and don't bother young, healthy people with expensive treatments; instead, I hope you just wave it off, say "NATURAL SELECTION," and pass away somewhere quietly where you won't be a nuisance to anyone.

Explain to me why hospitals would actually close, especially if they start filling up with people who genuinely NEED help, rather than asymptomatic patients or people sitting there with a 102°F fever.

Maybe this isn't your genre of music, but listen to—or at least read the lyrics of—"When The Wild Wind Blows" by Iron Maiden.

Why? Because if you put a COVID patient in an ICU bed, that bed is effectively gone for any other patient. It is because those with severe symptoms requiring hospitalization (which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of confirmed cases) need to be under the supervision of specialists, and our supply of those experts is quite limited. If they become overwhelmed, you can't go to the hospital—you just stay home and hope for the best. It is because staff who were potentially exposed to COVID cannot work with other patients and must go into isolation. It is because you cannot perform heart surgery on someone and then move them to a ward where someone else has COVID, because you will likely kill them. Get it?

The new coronavirus has been spreading globally for about six months now. Your math regarding TBC is off. If we were seeing over 700 cases of TBC daily across the US—especially with an exponential growth trend—you can bet we would be dealing with incredibly strict measures...

It’s interesting how you seem to catch every single headline that implies numbers might be higher than they actually are, yet you completely overlook reports about countries downplaying infection and death rates for obvious political reasons. I honestly don't see why any government would have an incentive right now to inflate their numbers and make themselves look incompetent.

So, someone who's potentially been exposed to COVID has to isolate and can't work alongside those who are actually positive?

You clearly don't realize that the reasons you've laid out are nothing more than convenient fabrications designed to justify using warm water in coronary treatments.

Nicole James said:You are drifting away from the point. I asked you how many deaths within the US would justify a specific measure according to your logic. You didn't answer.

If you ever happen to contract cancer or some sort of cardiovascular disease, I sincerely hope you stay consistent and don't bother young, healthy people with expensive treatments; instead, I hope you just wave it off, say "NATURAL SELECTION," and pass away somewhere quietly where you won't be a nuisance to anyone.

Explain to me why hospitals would actually close, especially if they start filling up with people who genuinely NEED help, rather than asymptomatic patients or people sitting there with a 102°F fever.

Maybe this isn't your genre of music, but listen to—or at least read the lyrics of—"When The Wild Wind Blows" by Iron Maiden.

Why? Because if you put a COVID patient in an ICU bed, that bed is effectively gone for any other patient. It is because those with severe symptoms requiring hospitalization (which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of confirmed cases) need to be under the supervision of specialists, and our supply of those experts is quite limited. If they become overwhelmed, you can't go to the hospital—you just stay home and hope for the best. It is because staff who were potentially exposed to COVID cannot work with other patients and must go into isolation. It is because you cannot perform heart surgery on someone and then move them to a ward where someone else has COVID, because you will likely kill them. Get it?

The new coronavirus has been spreading globally for about six months now. Your math regarding TBC is off. If we were seeing over 700 cases of TBC daily across the US—especially with an exponential growth trend—you can bet we would be dealing with incredibly strict measures...

It’s interesting how you seem to catch every single headline that implies numbers might be higher than they actually are, yet you completely overlook reports about countries downplaying infection and death rates for obvious political reasons. I honestly don't see why any government would have an incentive right now to inflate their numbers and make themselves look incompetent.

So what?
Look, we’re only six months in and we basically already have a vaccine in the works. Honestly, instead of all this constant doom-scrolling and unnecessary drama, maybe we should just take a second to actually celebrate the progress.

Nicole James said:You are drifting away from the point. I asked you how many deaths within the US would justify a specific measure according to your logic. You didn't answer.

If you ever happen to contract cancer or some sort of cardiovascular disease, I sincerely hope you stay consistent and don't bother young, healthy people with expensive treatments; instead, I hope you just wave it off, say "NATURAL SELECTION," and pass away somewhere quietly where you won't be a nuisance to anyone.

Explain to me why hospitals would actually close, especially if they start filling up with people who genuinely NEED help, rather than asymptomatic patients or people sitting there with a 102°F fever.

Maybe this isn't your genre of music, but listen to—or at least read the lyrics of—"When The Wild Wind Blows" by Iron Maiden.

Why? Because if you put a COVID patient in an ICU bed, that bed is effectively gone for any other patient. It is because those with severe symptoms requiring hospitalization (which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of confirmed cases) need to be under the supervision of specialists, and our supply of those experts is quite limited. If they become overwhelmed, you can't go to the hospital—you just stay home and hope for the best. It is because staff who were potentially exposed to COVID cannot work with other patients and must go into isolation. It is because you cannot perform heart surgery on someone and then move them to a ward where someone else has COVID, because you will likely kill them. Get it?

The new coronavirus has been spreading globally for about six months now. Your math regarding TBC is off. If we were seeing over 700 cases of TBC daily across the US—especially with an exponential growth trend—you can bet we would be dealing with incredibly strict measures...

It’s interesting how you seem to catch every single headline that implies numbers might be higher than they actually are, yet you completely overlook reports about countries downplaying infection and death rates for obvious political reasons. I honestly don't see why any government would have an incentive right now to inflate their numbers and make themselves look incompetent.

That’s not my math problem to solve. If you want someone to hold accountable, go take it up with the WHO. Go ahead and vent to them instead.

I can't believe I'm actually sitting here typing this out, but I honestly feel like I need to get this off my chest before I lose my mind. It’s one of those days where everything just feels slightly off, you know? Like, you wake up, grab your coffee, and suddenly realize the entire vibe of the week is just... questionable. Anyway, I was scrolling through some old threads and saw what crimsonranger3 had to say about the whole situation, and honestly, I kind of get where they're coming from, even if I don't totally agree with the specifics. There's always that one person who sees the cracks in the foundation before anyone else does, and I guess that's just how it goes. But man, it really makes you stop and think about how much we overlook just because it's easier to stay in our own little bubbles. It's funny, in a weird, slightly depressing way, how we all just collectively decide to ignore the obvious stuff until it hits us right in the face. Just my two cents, I guess. Or maybe my two cents plus a few nickels for good measure. Whatever.

Nicole James said:You are drifting away from the point. I asked you how many deaths within the US would justify a specific measure according to your logic. You didn't answer.

If you ever happen to contract cancer or some sort of cardiovascular disease, I sincerely hope you stay consistent and don't bother young, healthy people with expensive treatments; instead, I hope you just wave it off, say "NATURAL SELECTION," and pass away somewhere quietly where you won't be a nuisance to anyone.

Explain to me why hospitals would actually close, especially if they start filling up with people who genuinely NEED help, rather than asymptomatic patients or people sitting there with a 102°F fever.

Maybe this isn't your genre of music, but listen to—or at least read the lyrics of—"When The Wild Wind Blows" by Iron Maiden.

Why? Because if you put a COVID patient in an ICU bed, that bed is effectively gone for any other patient. It is because those with severe symptoms requiring hospitalization (which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of confirmed cases) need to be under the supervision of specialists, and our supply of those experts is quite limited. If they become overwhelmed, you can't go to the hospital—you just stay home and hope for the best. It is because staff who were potentially exposed to COVID cannot work with other patients and must go into isolation. It is because you cannot perform heart surgery on someone and then move them to a ward where someone else has COVID, because you will likely kill them. Get it?

The new coronavirus has been spreading globally for about six months now. Your math regarding TBC is off. If we were seeing over 700 cases of TBC daily across the US—especially with an exponential growth trend—you can bet we would be dealing with incredibly strict measures...

It’s interesting how you seem to catch every single headline that implies numbers might be higher than they actually are, yet you completely overlook reports about countries downplaying infection and death rates for obvious political reasons. I honestly don't see why any government would have an incentive right now to inflate their numbers and make themselves look incompetent.

Look, I honestly couldn't care less about your abstract "cases" or these hypothetical scenarios you keep throwing around. Give me the actual clinical pictures and the hard numbers on the dead. Seriously, put in the work and produce some real-time data regarding current clinical presentations and autopsy findings—that’s how you actually see what kind of numbers we're dealing with. I really don't get how people fall for this scare tactic by using vague "cases" to freak everyone out. A positive PCR test isn't some magic wand that proves someone is sick or contagious, and it sure as hell doesn't confirm the cause of death.

Nicole James said:You are drifting away from the point. I asked you how many deaths within the US would justify a specific measure according to your logic. You didn't answer.

If you ever happen to contract cancer or some sort of cardiovascular disease, I sincerely hope you stay consistent and don't bother young, healthy people with expensive treatments; instead, I hope you just wave it off, say "NATURAL SELECTION," and pass away somewhere quietly where you won't be a nuisance to anyone.

Explain to me why hospitals would actually close, especially if they start filling up with people who genuinely NEED help, rather than asymptomatic patients or people sitting there with a 102°F fever.

Maybe this isn't your genre of music, but listen to—or at least read the lyrics of—"When The Wild Wind Blows" by Iron Maiden.

Why? Because if you put a COVID patient in an ICU bed, that bed is effectively gone for any other patient. It is because those with severe symptoms requiring hospitalization (which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of confirmed cases) need to be under the supervision of specialists, and our supply of those experts is quite limited. If they become overwhelmed, you can't go to the hospital—you just stay home and hope for the best. It is because staff who were potentially exposed to COVID cannot work with other patients and must go into isolation. It is because you cannot perform heart surgery on someone and then move them to a ward where someone else has COVID, because you will likely kill them. Get it?

The new coronavirus has been spreading globally for about six months now. Your math regarding TBC is off. If we were seeing over 700 cases of TBC daily across the US—especially with an exponential growth trend—you can bet we would be dealing with incredibly strict measures...

It’s interesting how you seem to catch every single headline that implies numbers might be higher than they actually are, yet you completely overlook reports about countries downplaying infection and death rates for obvious political reasons. I honestly don't see why any government would have an incentive right now to inflate their numbers and make themselves look incompetent.

Honestly, both of them are being driven by pure political maneuvering. But I just don't get why everyone is acting like they've lost their minds, insisting on treating a PCR test like it’s some kind of definitive diagnosis for a disease when we all know that's not how it works.

Nicole James said:You are drifting away from the point. I asked you how many deaths within the US would justify a specific measure according to your logic. You didn't answer.

If you ever happen to contract cancer or some sort of cardiovascular disease, I sincerely hope you stay consistent and don't bother young, healthy people with expensive treatments; instead, I hope you just wave it off, say "NATURAL SELECTION," and pass away somewhere quietly where you won't be a nuisance to anyone.

Explain to me why hospitals would actually close, especially if they start filling up with people who genuinely NEED help, rather than asymptomatic patients or people sitting there with a 102°F fever.

Maybe this isn't your genre of music, but listen to—or at least read the lyrics of—"When The Wild Wind Blows" by Iron Maiden.

Why? Because if you put a COVID patient in an ICU bed, that bed is effectively gone for any other patient. It is because those with severe symptoms requiring hospitalization (which accounts for 15 to 20 percent of confirmed cases) need to be under the supervision of specialists, and our supply of those experts is quite limited. If they become overwhelmed, you can't go to the hospital—you just stay home and hope for the best. It is because staff who were potentially exposed to COVID cannot work with other patients and must go into isolation. It is because you cannot perform heart surgery on someone and then move them to a ward where someone else has COVID, because you will likely kill them. Get it?

The new coronavirus has been spreading globally for about six months now. Your math regarding TBC is off. If we were seeing over 700 cases of TBC daily across the US—especially with an exponential growth trend—you can bet we would be dealing with incredibly strict measures...

It’s interesting how you seem to catch every single headline that implies numbers might be higher than they actually are, yet you completely overlook reports about countries downplaying infection and death rates for obvious political reasons. I honestly don't see why any government would have an incentive right now to inflate their numbers and make themselves look incompetent.

I get it. It’s just because you don't quite grasp how much fear works as a perfect little tool for keeping people in line. And let's be honest, maintaining that kind of control is basically the primary goal of any establishment out there.

silverstag24 said:So what?
Look, we’re only six months in and we basically already have a vaccine in the works. Honestly, instead of all this constant doom-scrolling and unnecessary drama, maybe we should just take a second to actually celebrate the progress.

That’s not my math problem to solve. If you want someone to hold accountable, go take it up with the WHO. Go ahead and vent to them instead.

I can't believe I'm actually sitting here typing this out, but I honestly feel like I need to get this off my chest before I lose my mind. It’s one of those days where everything just feels slightly off, you know? Like, you wake up, grab your coffee, and suddenly realize the entire vibe of the week is just... questionable. Anyway, I was scrolling through some old threads and saw what crimsonranger3 had to say about the whole situation, and honestly, I kind of get where they're coming from, even if I don't totally agree with the specifics. There's always that one person who sees the cracks in the foundation before anyone else does, and I guess that's just how it goes. But man, it really makes you stop and think about how much we overlook just because it's easier to stay in our own little bubbles. It's funny, in a weird, slightly depressing way, how we all just collectively decide to ignore the obvious stuff until it hits us right in the face. Just my two cents, I guess. Or maybe my two cents plus a few nickels for good measure. Whatever.

Look, I honestly couldn't care less about your abstract "cases" or these hypothetical scenarios you keep throwing around. Give me the actual clinical pictures and the hard numbers on the dead. Seriously, put in the work and produce some real-time data regarding current clinical presentations and autopsy findings—that’s how you actually see what kind of numbers we're dealing with. I really don't get how people fall for this scare tactic by using vague "cases" to freak everyone out. A positive PCR test isn't some magic wand that proves someone is sick or contagious, and it sure as hell doesn't confirm the cause of death.

Honestly, both of them are being driven by pure political maneuvering. But I just don't get why everyone is acting like they've lost their minds, insisting on treating a PCR test like it’s some kind of definitive diagnosis for a disease when we all know that's not how it works.

I get it. It’s just because you don't quite grasp how much fear works as a perfect little tool for keeping people in line. And let's be honest, maintaining that kind of control is basically the primary goal of any establishment out there.

We’ve known that for ages. What’s actually unsettling is finding out that control also benefits a massive chunk of the population being controlled...

So, here’s my two cents.
Since I actually had to quarantine twice because of COVID, I figured I’d share my experience.

The first time, I had this persistent cough. My manager suggested I should probably get checked out, so I called the local clinic nearby and walked them through my symptoms. They set up a test for me right away, and within half an hour, I got a text with the exact time and location to head over. I went in, but the test came back negative. Even so, because of that cough, the doctor advised me to stay in isolation just in case it was some atypical strain. So, I stayed home. About 24 hours later, I got a notification from the CDC letting me know I wasn't positive.

The second time happened when I was flying back into the States. I didn't have any symptoms at all, but I still spent 14 days hunkered down at home. I didn't even bother testing since I felt fine. I just received a few automated texts from the health department—since you have to list your travel history and info when entering the country—asking me to self-isolate and to contact my doctor or the local health authorities if any symptoms popped up. That was pretty much it.

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal to stay in your apartment for 14 days if that's what's required of you.
Especially if you end up testing positive.

Nicole James said:Not at all. It’s pretty obvious that contact tracing is becoming a thing of the past—which, frankly, feels like just another step toward exponential growth. We might get another month or two of breathing room, but then we'll likely face the Italian scenario: a massive spike followed by a total national lockdown, forcing us to start the whole process over from scratch...

There are just too many infected people at this point for contact tracing to even matter; it's become a pointless exercise. Once the temperature drops a bit more, that exponential curve is going to take its course—we're looking at a million people getting sick in ten or twenty days. At that stage, who cares who's living or dying? The virus will burn itself out in the next thirty days. That is quite literally our only hope for this madness to end.
resistance is futile. 🧐