Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

So, I’m reading now that these tests in New York were conducted on people caught out while shopping at various stores. That probably doesn't constitute a truly representative sample, assuming that in this kind of situation, it isn't everyone hitting the shops equally, but rather mostly the younger and healthier crowd.

Widely available testing, masks being accessible to everyone, face shields for those stuck in close contact with others all day, and established patterns of cautious behavior—these three factors are the only real gamechangers we have before a vaccine or an effective treatment comes along, though it takes time to get everything in place. And one has to maintain order and control. To me, it seems so crystal clear and logical that I honestly can't imagine what the alternative would be for the vast majority of society.

Jessica Gonzalez said:People have completely lost their minds, I guess. It's pretty unprecedented to see 20 to 30-year-olds struggling this much psychologically.

honestly, they seem more terrified than some retiree—at least from what I've seen personally🤦

restlesssurfer97 said:You totally missed the part where most of these are nurses, and there’s actually another chart out there showing that nurses in America hover around nearly 500 per 100,000 people, but since Sweden isn't even on that particular graph, you obviously didn't include it. 🙂

It doesn't really matter though, because even if they have more medical staff, their capacity is lower, so I still don't see where the advantage is supposed to be. I was expecting a way bigger gap than this.

I mean, imagine if we had 2,000 deaths here while they only had 50; that would be the ultimate, permanent proof that their healthcare system is lightyears ahead of ours.

We’re comparing America and Sweden. What good is a graph to me if it doesn't include Sweden? 😕

You were expecting a much bigger difference? Well, that's funny, considering you were just arguing that American healthcare has better capacity than the Swedish system. 😕

And why did they have 2,000 deaths instead of 50? Maybe it has something to do with how they handled the outbreak itself, rather than the actual capacity of the healthcare system? Honestly, restlesssurfer97, get real. 🤦

Carol Lewis said:Wait, has he always been moving like that... that yellow guy? wtf!? I honestly thought it was just a still photo...

Yes. It’s actually an excerpt from an epic sequence where he dies on the couch—around 2014, if I recall correctly.

restlesssurfer97 said:So, about two weeks ago, they actually went ahead and set up this whole task force specifically to get a domestic mask production line up and running right here in the States 🙏🙏🙏

But we should probably get together in the group. 🤔

ruggedjackal46 said:We’re comparing America and Sweden. What good is a graph to me if it doesn't include Sweden? 😕

You were expecting a much bigger difference? Well, that's funny, considering you were just arguing that American healthcare has better capacity than the Swedish system. 😕

And why did they have 2,000 deaths instead of 50? Maybe it has something to do with how they handled the outbreak itself, rather than the actual capacity of the healthcare system? Honestly, restlesssurfer97, get real. 🤦

Look, I'm pretty sure we have more deaths from cardiovascular issues and heart disease too, so what? We probably have way more smokers dying in this country as well. 🤷

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_virome

A little food for thought this afternoon. From birth until the end, we all carry billions of viruses within us—actually, probably closer to billions of billions (give or take, it doesn't really matter). You can't really escape viruses; technically, maybe you shouldn't even try. Viruses that spread quickly and easily are usually harmless in the long run because that's just how their evolutionary mechanism works. It’s not in a virus's "interest" to kill us; if anything, it's quite the opposite. Of course, by "interest," I mean evolutionary pressure. This is the virus that supposedly "jumped" to humans recently, but evolution moves fast. The virus will adapt, and we'll adapt right along with it. I guess you have to wonder why people react so strongly? Maybe it's a psychological thing, because people tend to forget or refuse to accept that we are living beings and a part of nature. Once the news starts reporting the actual number of infections, I suspect the hysteria (hopefully) will die down, and Americans are already seeing that the total cataclysm hasn't arrived and likely won't.

Carol Lewis said:Wait, has he always been moving like that... that yellow guy? wtf!? I honestly thought it was just a still photo...

Honestly, I’m just rolling my eyes over here while ZZ writes about how much he cares about the economy just as much as he cares about people's lives. 😂

ruggedjackal46 said:We’re comparing America and Sweden. What good is a graph to me if it doesn't include Sweden? 😕

You were expecting a much bigger difference? Well, that's funny, considering you were just arguing that American healthcare has better capacity than the Swedish system. 😕

And why did they have 2,000 deaths instead of 50? Maybe it has something to do with how they handled the outbreak itself, rather than the actual capacity of the healthcare system? Honestly, restlesssurfer97, get real. 🤦

Maybe it’s down to different healthcare setups and staffing levels? On one chart, America is trailing behind, but on another, we're right at the top, and that's specifically regarding higher-level nurses and general staff. It's wild that you didn't pick up on how much that matters.

Were you expecting a massive gap? Well, that’s pretty funny considering you were insisting the American healthcare capacity was way bigger than Sweden's 😕

No, I never actually said that, you were the one claiming Sweden had way more capacity than America, and I just pointed out that that famous table—which I feel like I've mentioned so many times now that I should probably just Google it again—actually shows that Sweden doesn't really have huge hospital capacities, far from it.

So why did they lose 2,000 people instead of just 50? Maybe that’s more about how they handled the contagion rather than the actual capacity of the medical system? Come on, restlesssurfer97 🤦

Oh, really?

So what you're saying is their whole strategy was basically to just not worry about people getting sick and just let them die?

How do you manage to talk yourself into being wrong twice in under three hours?

Their approach might eventually lead to more infections as a side effect, sure, but you're trying to argue that the high death rate among those infected is a direct result of their policy. How does that work? Are they just letting people die?

restlesssurfer97 said:Maybe it’s down to different healthcare setups and staffing levels? On one chart, America is trailing behind, but on another, we're right at the top, and that's specifically regarding higher-level nurses and general staff. It's wild that you didn't pick up on how much that matters.

Were you expecting a massive gap? Well, that’s pretty funny considering you were insisting the American healthcare capacity was way bigger than Sweden's 😕

No, I never actually said that, you were the one claiming Sweden had way more capacity than America, and I just pointed out that that famous table—which I feel like I've mentioned so many times now that I should probably just Google it again—actually shows that Sweden doesn't really have huge hospital capacities, far from it.

So why did they lose 2,000 people instead of just 50? Maybe that’s more about how they handled the contagion rather than the actual capacity of the medical system? Come on, restlesssurfer97 🤦

Oh, really?

So what you're saying is their whole strategy was basically to just not worry about people getting sick and just let them die?

How do you manage to talk yourself into being wrong twice in under three hours?

Their approach might eventually lead to more infections as a side effect, sure, but you're trying to argue that the high death rate among those infected is a direct result of their policy. How does that work? Are they just letting people die?

America is at the top of a chart that’s missing half the countries, including Sweden, which is who we’re even comparing ourselves to here.😕

No, I wasn't making any claims. You were the one insisting Sweden has way more capacity than America, and I just pointed out that the "famous" table—which I’ve mentioned so many times now I really should just Google it—actually shows that Sweden doesn't have particularly large hospital capacities at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

Look, please, just go ahead and Google it. You're nitpicking me for only including two charts, yet you're talking about this one specific table as if it’s some absolute, divine truth.🤣

Their approach might eventually result in a higher number of infections, but you're claiming that the high percentage of deaths among those infected is a direct result of their strategy. How does that work? Are they just letting people die?

Well, a higher number of infections inevitably leads to a higher number of deaths, for heaven's sake.😕

It doesn't lead to a higher *percentage*, which is what you've just manufactured out of thin air; it leads to a higher raw number.

🤦

Where exactly did I say that I was equally concerned?

And I'm still sitting here wondering why they set it at 14%, haha. ☕

No, look, I’ll admit I phrased that poorly, because the fact that Sweden has such a massive death rate among those who actually tested positive is just impossible to ignore.

If they were running an incredibly low number of tests, then sure, I could explain it that way, but this just feels off, you know? And honestly, it doesn't exactly make their healthcare system look great—not that I'm pointing fingers at them specifically—but I'm pretty certain if something like this happened here in the States, everyone would just blame it on our healthcare system being broken.

brightpilot6 said:Honestly, I don't have a strong preference either way. It seems to me that the strategies most countries are adopting right now are likely the ones designed to inflict the least amount of long-term damage on both sides.

I’m genuinely struggling to wrap my head around how people think the "economy" would actually function over the next year or two in an alternate reality where Italy somehow adopts the Swedish model.

And then everyone else is worried about both too, it's just that some people don't think 'the way most countries are handling things right now is the path that causes the least amount of long-term damage to everyone involved.'

I honestly have no clue how the "economy" in an Italy that uses the Swedish model in some alternate universe would even function over the next year or two.

We’ll never actually know.
But we are definitely going to see who gets hit harder by the next wave, and we won't truly grasp all the fallout from the lockdowns and the whole Coronavirus situation for several years.

brightpilot6 said:So, I’m reading now that these tests in New York were conducted on people caught out while shopping at various stores. That probably doesn't constitute a truly representative sample, assuming that in this kind of situation, it isn't everyone hitting the shops equally, but rather mostly the younger and healthier crowd.

Widely available testing, masks being accessible to everyone, face shields for those stuck in close contact with others all day, and established patterns of cautious behavior—these three factors are the only real gamechangers we have before a vaccine or an effective treatment comes along, though it takes time to get everything in place. And one has to maintain order and control. To me, it seems so crystal clear and logical that I honestly can't imagine what the alternative would be for the vast majority of society.

And I'm still waiting to hear why it's 14% for he he ☕

My whole point was that we need concrete numbers instead of just guessing. If even a layman like me was writing a month ago about the need for mass antibody testing, I don't get why Krunoslav Capak doesn't just drop the nonsense and the plexiglass and order 50,000 more tests yesterday instead of just 1,000, which haven't even shown up yet.

Widely available tests, masks for everyone, face shields for those working in close contact all day, and established habits for being careful—those three things are the only real gamechangers before we get a vaccine or effective treatment, but you have to buy time to get there. Plus, you have to maintain order and control. To me, that's so crystal clear and logical that I really can't imagine what the alternative would be for the vast majority of society.

Exactly.
And the alternative is a lockdown, which we'll push through this time, only to be terrified of the next one.

ruggedjackal46 said:America is at the top of a chart that’s missing half the countries, including Sweden, which is who we’re even comparing ourselves to here.😕

No, I wasn't making any claims. You were the one insisting Sweden has way more capacity than America, and I just pointed out that the "famous" table—which I’ve mentioned so many times now I really should just Google it—actually shows that Sweden doesn't have particularly large hospital capacities at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

Look, please, just go ahead and Google it. You're nitpicking me for only including two charts, yet you're talking about this one specific table as if it’s some absolute, divine truth.🤣

Their approach might eventually result in a higher number of infections, but you're claiming that the high percentage of deaths among those infected is a direct result of their strategy. How does that work? Are they just letting people die?

Well, a higher number of infections inevitably leads to a higher number of deaths, for heaven's sake.😕

It doesn't lead to a higher *percentage*, which is what you've just manufactured out of thin air; it leads to a higher raw number.

🤦

Here is the actual breakdown for hospital beds:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...tistics_-_beds

America has 350, while Sweden has 203 per 100,000 people.
And honestly, if they actually counted those makeshift spots over at the Arena, the numbers would be even wilder. ☕

neonfalcon16 said:But we should probably get together in the group. 🤔

Once the administration wraps up their session, they all just huddle up in the same room anyway. They're doing the whole two-meter distance thing and wearing masks, sure, but then they've got newspapers spread out right under their noses like it's no big deal.

ZZ is practically standing guard at the gates of reason. I guess there’s this strange, beautiful ambivalence bubbling up inside me while I watch it all unfold, especially since we're talking about someone who seems to harbor such unhealthy preferences for an equally unhealthy subject in the absolute top tier of the universe. Maybe we should just chalk this anomaly up to those rare instances where the rules simply don't apply. ☕

restlesssurfer97 said:No, look, I’ll admit I phrased that poorly, because the fact that Sweden has such a massive death rate among those who actually tested positive is just impossible to ignore.

If they were running an incredibly low number of tests, then sure, I could explain it that way, but this just feels off, you know? And honestly, it doesn't exactly make their healthcare system look great—not that I'm pointing fingers at them specifically—but I'm pretty certain if something like this happened here in the States, everyone would just blame it on our healthcare system being broken.

Do you really think the US would have a lower mortality rate if we had an equivalent number of cases?

In Sweden, they probably have fewer hospital beds because they just fold them up into armchairs when they aren't being used. Why don't they just give us the actual count of those medical recliners instead? ☕

restlesssurfer97 said:Here is the actual breakdown for hospital beds:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...tistics_-_beds

America has 350, while Sweden has 203 per 100,000 people.
And honestly, if they actually counted those makeshift spots over at the Arena, the numbers would be even wilder. ☕

Do you honestly think hospital bed capacity is the ultimate metric for healthcare quality? Is Bulgaria supposed to be the gold standard for medicine in Europe now?

ruggedjackal46 said:Do you really think the US would have a lower mortality rate if we had an equivalent number of cases?

Honestly, I feel like if the US saw a death rate that high among those infected, it would probably just be because our healthcare system is struggling so much right now.

I mean, look, we all know why Italy is seeing such massive numbers, and I haven't really dug into the data on Sweden yet, but don't even get me started on Belgium—it’s like, what is even happening over there lately? 🤷