Political Posts

[Milu]

3 hours ago, Parsad said:

https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/39561/file/European Region reports highest number of measles cases in more than 25 years.pdf

 

Page 5...it's pretty clear that countries that mandate childhood vaccinations or encourage childhood vaccinations (and hit a greater than 90% rate) have extremely low levels of measles.  Ireland for the last few years has fallen well below 90%, thus the increase in incidence rate. 

 

I don't care whether a government mandates a vaccine or not...but citizens should not be oblivious to the statistical facts backing science and not hearsay!  Cheers!

Ya I mostly agree, it’s quite interesting that most of my Irish friends seem to pay more (negative) attention to the latest RFK comments rather than how our country is doing when it comes to vaccine uptake. Let’s get our own house in order before criticising Americans. However people are likely oblivious because it’s not something that comes up much in the general media and we don’t seem to have many negative repercussions (so far) from our lower than recommended vax rate. Perhaps a measles outbreak will get it back in the news.

[Sweet]

6 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

That's because if your children do not get vaccines in the UK, the many not be able to attend schools in many regions...thus the high vaccination rate in children even though not mandated.  Florida doesn't restrict attendance.  Cheers!

I don’t know of any schools that ask about vaccination status, or require it for attendance.  I would expect very few since the vaccines aren’t mandatory in the first place.  It’s strongly recommended, and most people follow the advice.

[Charlie]

6 hours ago, Parsad said:

15 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Kennedy, a career scumbag politician, which precedes his status as a career liberal sleazeball, saw there was a huge group of vaccine skeptics following the disgraceful covid antics, and simply capitalized on the momentum of the opportunity. I think Trump realized he could market that, but I have a hard time really believing that many folks really take anything ole Bobby says seriously. 

 

No, they probably don't.  But once you are made the head of the HHS, a significant amount of credibility is undeservedly earned.  Not too mention the sheer amount of power he has now to fuck things up and get more people killed...which he is moving forward with!  Cheers!

 

Dr. Voodoo (Kennedy) reminds me of one of my favourite quotes from Munger about

most people in the stock picking industry:

 

"If you stop to think about it, civilized man has always had soothsayers and shamans and

faith healers and God knows what all. The stock picking industry is four or five percent

super rational disciplined people. The rest of them are sort of like faith healers or shamans.

That´s the way it is, I´m afraid. It´s nice that they keep an image of being constructive,

sensible people when they´re really would-be faith healers. It keeps the self-respect up."

 

 

Cheers! 

[Cigarbutt]

17 hours ago, Milu said:

Sweden... 

I've no interest in opening up the covid can of worms though so let's move on rather than us getting into some back and forth quoting various studies like how people used to operate back in covid days.

Not so fast... 

i agree and it seems impossible to engage in a constructive (bi-directional) discussion here but...

The underlying point that you 'suggested' was that "restrictions" had no significant effect (mortality) on a communicable disease...   ...

-----

During Covid days (or any day when tribal emotions or beliefs are involved), it was/is indeed difficult to engage. Concerning "restrictions" (all aspects, some voluntary and spontaneous and some 'mandated'), there seemed to be a tendency to adhere to a tribal position on some aspects. For restrictions, most people agreed that there were costs (economical, social etc) but a certain tribal-based thinking process excluded the possibility that "restrictions" could decrease the morbidity/mortality burden of a communicable disease... The same tribe that 'suggested' that Covid was a "hoax"...i think this was/is bizarre from an independent and critical point of view. It's sort of common sense supported by most evidence and adequate critical analysis...

For Sweden, compared to relevant Scandinavian neighbors, when engaging with people dealing daily with covid casualties to data to analysis, one came with the clear picture that Sweden did indeed have a less restrictive approach but this approach, in the first few months, before getting closer to herd immunity with vaccines helping ++, did result in much higher morbidity and mortality. It was a 'cost' (human) to pay for a less restrictive approach. But Swedish 'experts' and those in public health positions did not suggest that restrictions had no effect on a communicable disease...?

 

-----

Anyways, i sense that you will be impermeable to such conversation and, when reading and thinking about your initial post on the matter (restrictions versus impact on a communicable disease...), i remembered the case of Simmelweiss when he tried to convince (with common sense, data and 'arguments') colleagues (in the 1840s) that washing hands could have an impact on communicable diseases. When colleagues with whom he tried to engage remained impermeable, he became miserable, a path better not chosen.

 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Cigarbutt
spelling

[Gregmal]

Nice. Yall were either triple masked up in your attics with a posh little Zoom pulpit setup and following the science, or you were some tribal conspiracy theorist on the wrong side of how history will be written in the textbooks! Love it. 

[DooDiligence]

7 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

More likely Jared!  He came across far better than Don Jr. or Eric on 60 Minutes...I think Ivanka would be happier as a First Lady.  Could also be Little Marco.  Cheers!

 

He's such a great businessman, and not in the least creepy.

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/69094/timeline-on-jared-kushner-qatar-666-fifth-avenue-and-white-house-policy/

 

https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-continues-investigation-into-kushner-conflicts-of-interest-influence-on-us-foreign-policy

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/12/jared-kushner-666-fifth-avenue-qatar-investigation?srsltid=AfmBOorbTCPKAVA8bw20A2g7C-IygwCVt_7kiLYhi1eRWHuCNt7CPzHo

 

How do these assholes keep failing up and convincing good people that piss tastes great?

[DooDiligence]

30 minutes ago, Cigarbutt said:

Not so fast... 

i agree and it seems impossible to engage in a constructive (bi-directional) discussion here but...

The underlying point that you 'suggested' was that "restrictions" had no significant effect (mortality) on a communicable disease...   ...

-----

During Covid days (or any day when tribal emotions or beliefs are involved), it was/is indeed difficult to engage. Concerning "restrictions" (all aspects, some voluntary and spontaneous and some 'mandated'), there seemed to be a tendency to adhere to a tribal position on some aspects. For restrictions, most people agreed that there were costs (economical, social etc) but a certain tribal-based thinking process excluded the possibility that "restrictions" could decrease the morbidity/mortality burden of a communicable disease... The same tribe that 'suggested' that Covid was a "hoax"...i think this was/is bizarre from an independent and critical point of view. It's sort of common sense supported by most evidence and adequate critical analysis...

For Sweden, compared to relevant Scandinavian neighbors, when engaging with people dealing daily with covid casualties to data to analysis, one came with the clear picture that Sweden did indeed have a less restrictive approach but this approach, in the first few months, before getting closer to herd immunity with vaccines helping ++, did result in much higher morbidity and mortality. It was a 'cost' (human) to pay for a less restrictive approach. But Swedish 'experts' and those in public health positions did not suggest that restrictions had no effect on a communicable disease...?

 

-----

Anyways, i sense that you will be impermeable to such conversation and, when reading and thinking about your initial post on the matter (restrictions versus impact on a communicable disease...), i remembered the case of Simmelweiss when he tried to convince (with common sense, data and 'arguments') colleagues (in the 1840s) that washing hands could have an impact on communicable diseases. When colleagues with whom he tried to engage remained impermeable, he became miserable, a path better not chosen.

 

 

When facts meet emotions, no, no, no, let's move on.

[Gregmal]

The important thing is as time passes, is not to allow them(the liberals and academics) to rewrite history and erase what they did to people. It was a horrifying and shameful authoritarian power grab. 
 

For the politicians it was simple. They saw an opportunity to do what they do best, and took it. For the an academics and Fauci disciples it was a little more puzzling but likely stems from huge insecurity. The nerds like Fauci had there 15 minutes of fame and just couldn’t let it go. But even bigger and more nefariously, the bulk of them felt threatened to their core by the sheer fact that “simple cavemen” were not following their “research” based advice and…much to their chagrin, not only were their predicted results wrong, in many cases they were the exact opposite. Recall how awful the lockdown states were when it came to deaths? Throughout pretty much the whole pandemic? And how hard these “fact” people had to go on and on in denial and how instead of just admitting they were wrong, it was always “we need to look deeper into the data” until inevitably they found something to cling to that supported their stance? After all, at the core, these nerds NEEDED something, anything, otherwise they obviously felt threatened in their existence, because how else could we possibly justify giving them all the free money they receive for their tests and studies?!? Which is why they tried endlessly to find any data to claim the Florida or Sweden approach wasn’t the correct one, but instead their CA/NY approach was the preferred method supported by “science and fact”. When it went against them, they’d do the “nerd box turtle”; disappear into a shell and ramp through “data” until they could re emerge with “something” to keep supporting their original position. 
 

So yea, it’s our job to hold them accountable and not let them rewrite history to erase their responsibility. Make them own it. And certainly after all the “data” and “more facts” they always required in order to deny a pretty obvious conclusion(again one you didn’t need many years in a lab or trapped in a university to arrive at), we definitely don’t let them walk away now just pointing to “one chart” where we selectively show “one spike” as proof that the opposing view is that of a “tribal cavemen” because “me read more bigger, longer books and peer reviewed studies than you”!

Edited October 29, 2025 by Gregmal

[Sweet]

30 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

The important thing is as time passes, is not to allow them(the liberals and academics) to rewrite history and erase what they did to people. It was a horrifying and shameful authoritarian power grab. 
 

For the politicians it was simple. They saw an opportunity to do what they do best, and took it. For the an academics and Fauci disciples it was a little more puzzling but likely stems from huge insecurity. The nerds like Fauci had there 15 minutes of fame and just couldn’t let it go. But even bigger and more nefariously, the bulk of them felt threatened to their core by the sheer fact that “simple cavemen” were not following their “research” based advice and…much to their chagrin, not only were their predicted results wrong, in many cases they were the exact opposite. Recall how awful the lockdown states were when it came to deaths? Throughout pretty much the whole pandemic? And how hard these “fact” people had to go on and on in denial and how instead of just admitting they were wrong, it was always “we need to look deeper into the data” until inevitably they found something to cling to that supported their stance? After all, at the core, these nerds NEEDED something, anything, otherwise they obviously felt threatened in their existence, because how else could we possibly justify giving them all the free money they receive for their tests and studies?!? Which is why they tried endlessly to find any data to claim the Florida or Sweden approach wasn’t the correct one, but instead their CA/NY approach was the preferred method supported by “science and fact”. When it went against them, they’d do the “nerd box turtle”; disappear into a shell and ramp through “data” until they could re emerge with “something” to keep supporting their original position. 
 

So yea, it’s our job to hold them accountable and not let them rewrite history to erase their responsibility. Make them own it. And certainly after all the “data” and “more facts” they always required in order to deny a pretty obvious conclusion(again one you didn’t need many years in a lab or trapped in a university to arrive at), we definitely don’t let them walk away now just pointing to “one chart” where we selectively show “one spike” as proof that the opposing view is that of a “tribal cavemen” because “me read more bigger, longer books and peer reviewed studies than you”!

 

2 weeks to stop the spread was how it was signposted here in the UK initially which became 2 years of hell.  Just massive government overreach.

[Gregmal]

Yup, and now in a rather hilarious twist of fate, chief academic, science and fact following elitist Bill Gates drops a giant JK Just Kidding!!! bomb on all those leaf eating global warming doomsayers that he inspired. You can’t make this shit up. 

[cubsfan]

5 minutes ago, Sweet said:

 

2 weeks to stop the spread was how it was signposted here in the UK initially which became 2 years of hell.  Just massive government overreach.

 

That's exactly how it was sold here. And of course the real issue is Dr Fauci's role in funding gain-of-function research, by funneling millions to the CCP to do his dirty work.  Of course the POS had to lie and try and cover his tracks!

 

If we learned anything these last several years: don't trust the experts.

Especially those involved in Climate change, DEI, trans/girls sports, medical testing, BLM, LGBTQ nonsense, Border issues.

 

All of them have an agenda - and expect to roll right through the population with their BS - for their own interests.

Edited October 29, 2025 by cubsfan

[dwy000]

18 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Yup, and now in a rather hilarious twist of fate, chief academic, science and fact following elitist Bill Gates drops a giant JK Just Kidding!!! bomb on all those leaf eating global warming doomsayers that he inspired. You can’t make this shit up. 

Thats not what he said at all.  His argument is that there's too many resources focused on climate when it can now be better spent on disease and poverty.  Its a somewhat tongue in cheek response to the US cutting aid and investment in disease research. 

[flesh]

1 hour ago, Cigarbutt said:

Not so fast... 

i agree and it seems impossible to engage in a constructive (bi-directional) discussion here but...

The underlying point that you 'suggested' was that "restrictions" had no significant effect (mortality) on a communicable disease...   ...

-----

During Covid days (or any day when tribal emotions or beliefs are involved), it was/is indeed difficult to engage. Concerning "restrictions" (all aspects, some voluntary and spontaneous and some 'mandated'), there seemed to be a tendency to adhere to a tribal position on some aspects. For restrictions, most people agreed that there were costs (economical, social etc) but a certain tribal-based thinking process excluded the possibility that "restrictions" could decrease the morbidity/mortality burden of a communicable disease... The same tribe that 'suggested' that Covid was a "hoax"...i think this was/is bizarre from an independent and critical point of view. It's sort of common sense supported by most evidence and adequate critical analysis...

For Sweden, compared to relevant Scandinavian neighbors, when engaging with people dealing daily with covid casualties to data to analysis, one came with the clear picture that Sweden did indeed have a less restrictive approach but this approach, in the first few months, before getting closer to herd immunity with vaccines helping ++, did result in much higher morbidity and mortality. It was a 'cost' (human) to pay for a less restrictive approach. But Swedish 'experts' and those in public health positions did not suggest that restrictions had no effect on a communicable disease...?

 

-----

Anyways, i sense that you will be impermeable to such conversation and, when reading and thinking about your initial post on the matter (restrictions versus impact on a communicable disease...), i remembered the case of Simmelweiss when he tried to convince (with common sense, data and 'arguments') colleagues (in the 1840s) that washing hands could have an impact on communicable diseases. When colleagues with whom he tried to engage remained impermeable, he became miserable, a path better not chosen.

 

 

Was the cost worth it? Allowing marginally more 79 year olds w/ 2.5 co morbidities live until 83 vs 80? vs 10 trillion debt, kids being undereducated, depression, suicides, drug od's, civil unrest, etc. does that enter into the calculation of which country/state had the better program? 

 

What would it have cost to focus directly on those most at risk and why wasn't this the obvious option? In the usa we had the italian data ahead of time. 

[Gregmal]

Just now, flesh said:

 

Was the cost worth it? Allowing marginally more 79 year olds w/ 2.5 co morbidities live until 83 vs 80? vs 10 trillion debt, kids being undereducated, depression, suicides, drug od's, civil unrest, etc. does that enter into the calculation of which country/state had the better program? 

 

What would it have cost to focus directly on those most at risk and why wasn't this the obvious option? In the usa we had the italian data ahead of time. 

Where are your sources and citations for this conclusion! LOL

[Cigarbutt]

2 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Nice. Yall were either triple masked up in your attics with a posh little Zoom pulpit setup and following the science, or you were some tribal conspiracy theorist on the wrong side of how history will be written in the textbooks! Love it. 

What's relevant to the exchange with @Milu here (ie the reason for this specific post)?

The above post of yours is a typical conversation strategy that not only does not contribute to constructive discussions (any type, political, investment etc) but also undermines the process.

Textbooks call this an hyperbole argument but i (typical citizen with limited IQ etc) call it the drama-queen argument style.

'Experts' note that this hyperbole strategy can be 'entertaining' and can help with tribal thinking but does not help to build constructive discussions because of the deception, distraction and insulting components involved and i would say that 'experts' are not always wrong.

-----

As an ordinary citizen, the easy thing is to simply move one but textbooks mention the importance of attempts to constructively reframe the discussion and to ask open questions?

1-Why do you @Gregmal et tribal al, get all worked up for such a simple question: Can 'restrictions' prevent the spread of communicable disease and decrease disease burden? 

Can you (or tribal others) answer this question in a binary (yes or no) way at least?

2-Isn't there a way to introduce at least some nuance for such potentially complex and contentious issues?

[Cigarbutt]

1 hour ago, flesh said:

 

Was the cost worth it? Allowing marginally more 79 year olds w/ 2.5 co morbidities live until 83 vs 80? vs 10 trillion debt, kids being undereducated, depression, suicides, drug od's, civil unrest, etc. does that enter into the calculation of which country/state had the better program? 

What would it have cost to focus directly on those most at risk and why wasn't this the obvious option? In the usa we had the italian data ahead of time. 

Thank you @flesh for this answer. i would tend to agree with you here on many levels. 

At least, we seem to agree (to build the discussion) with a pretty well established assumption that 'restrictions' can improve the outcome of communicable diseases. 

It's interesting though that this spectacular improvement along civilized human progress has started to reverse. Why?

[Milu]

3 hours ago, Cigarbutt said:

Not so fast... 

i agree and it seems impossible to engage in a constructive (bi-directional) discussion here but...

The underlying point that you 'suggested' was that "restrictions" had no significant effect (mortality) on a communicable disease...   ...

-----

During Covid days (or any day when tribal emotions or beliefs are involved), it was/is indeed difficult to engage. Concerning "restrictions" (all aspects, some voluntary and spontaneous and some 'mandated'), there seemed to be a tendency to adhere to a tribal position on some aspects. For restrictions, most people agreed that there were costs (economical, social etc) but a certain tribal-based thinking process excluded the possibility that "restrictions" could decrease the morbidity/mortality burden of a communicable disease... The same tribe that 'suggested' that Covid was a "hoax"...i think this was/is bizarre from an independent and critical point of view. It's sort of common sense supported by most evidence and adequate critical analysis...

For Sweden, compared to relevant Scandinavian neighbors, when engaging with people dealing daily with covid casualties to data to analysis, one came with the clear picture that Sweden did indeed have a less restrictive approach but this approach, in the first few months, before getting closer to herd immunity with vaccines helping ++, did result in much higher morbidity and mortality. It was a 'cost' (human) to pay for a less restrictive approach. But Swedish 'experts' and those in public health positions did not suggest that restrictions had no effect on a communicable disease...?

 

-----

Anyways, i sense that you will be impermeable to such conversation and, when reading and thinking about your initial post on the matter (restrictions versus impact on a communicable disease...), i remembered the case of Simmelweiss when he tried to convince (with common sense, data and 'arguments') colleagues (in the 1840s) that washing hands could have an impact on communicable diseases. When colleagues with whom he tried to engage remained impermeable, he became miserable, a path better not chosen.

 

I really wish you did move like I suggested as these debates were frustrating enough back during covid not to mind rehashing all these datapoints again but as you can clearly see by your own graph you have helpfully posted above, excess deaths over the 2020-2022 three year period showed no noticeable difference between open sweden and its relatively closed off neighbours. The distribution over the three years was different with Sweden having higher excess mortality in 2020 and lower in 21 and 22, whereas others had lower in 2020 with increases in 21 and 22. 

 

In summary Sweden's less-restricted approach led to a high initial wave of excess mortality in 2020, while its more restricted neighbors shifted their excess mortality impact to 2021 and 2022, when overall cumulative excess mortality rates for the three-year period ended up being comparable or even higher (in the case of Finland) to Sweden's.

 

Anyway, feel free to have the last word with any follow up posts, I'm gonna move back to the safer environments of the investment related threads, I've remembered why I try to avoid reading or posting in the politics thread. 

[Gregmal]

21 minutes ago, Cigarbutt said:

What's relevant to the exchange with @Milu here (ie the reason for this specific post)?

The above post of yours is a typical conversation strategy that not only does not contribute to constructive discussions (any type, political, investment etc) but also undermines the process.

Textbooks call this an hyperbole argument but i (typical citizen with limited IQ etc) call it the drama-queen argument style.

'Experts' note that this hyperbole strategy can be 'entertaining' and can help with tribal thinking but does not help to build constructive discussions because of the deception, distraction and insulting components involved and i would say that 'experts' are not always wrong.

-----

As an ordinary citizen, the easy thing is to simply move one but textbooks mention the importance of attempts to constructively reframe the discussion and to ask open questions?

1-Why do you @Gregmal et tribal al, get all worked up for such a simple question: Can 'restrictions' prevent the spread of communicable disease and decrease disease burden? 

Can you (or tribal others) answer this question in a binary (yes or no) way at least?

2-Isn't there a way to introduce at least some nuance for such potentially complex and contentious issues?

Because the response to Milu followed a familiar pattern. 
 

He basically said, ok I’m not getting into it, let’s just drop it. Maybe because it’s already been debated, or maybe because we all know that “let’s audit the sources” opening salvo is just the first line to then a predictable series of events that have two outcomes….1) like he did, walk away without a source and then have it be presented as if his lack of willingness to produce a response denigrates what he stated. Or 2) go down the well known hole of a) dispute the source and play the my source is better card, then b) present selected items from such “superior sources” as “facts” that always seem to support the pre existing and original content challenging narrative. 
 

So he didn’t bite and basically got 

 

3 hours ago, Cigarbutt said:

sense that you will be impermeable to such conversation and, when reading and thinking about your initial post on the matter (restrictions versus impact on a communicable disease...), i remembered the case of Simmelweiss when he tried to convince (with common sense, data and 'arguments') colleagues (in the 1840s) that washing hands could have an impact on communicable diseases.

 Which is again just a high levelly articulated way on tying his position to that of being an uneducated dunce.

 

I think it’s fair for people to have little to no trust in the traditional experts after what happened. And in general think the greatest tragedy of it all is the degree to which a lot of these people doubled down on traditional real world lacking evidence because they were, for one reason or another, tied to a side. Most people didn’t have sides, they just wanted their constitutional rights to be respected. 
 

The most honest answer I got from a medical professional or academic researcher on COVID, fairly early in the pandemic, was, “heck if I know. Everyone’s going to get exposed to it and there’s not much that can be done about that. Over time these things tend to get more transmissible and less lethal. But they’re already fairly confident they have a vaccine and if you’re under 50 it’s probably not going to kill you, but don’t hold me to any of that”….far cry from all the pontificating about levels of masking, necessity for locking people down and taking away their livelihoods and doubling and tripling down on these positions despite not much besides theory underpinning them. 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Gregmal

[cubsfan]

34 minutes ago, Cigarbutt said:

What's relevant to the exchange with @Milu here (ie the reason for this specific post)?

The above post of yours is a typical conversation strategy that not only does not contribute to constructive discussions (any type, political, investment etc) but also undermines the process.

Textbooks call this an hyperbole argument but i (typical citizen with limited IQ etc) call it the drama-queen argument style.

'Experts' note that this hyperbole strategy can be 'entertaining' and can help with tribal thinking but does not help to build constructive discussions because of the deception, distraction and insulting components involved and i would say that 'experts' are not always wrong.

-----

As an ordinary citizen, the easy thing is to simply move one but textbooks mention the importance of attempts to constructively reframe the discussion and to ask open questions?

1-Why do you @Gregmal et tribal al, get all worked up for such a simple question: Can 'restrictions' prevent the spread of communicable disease and decrease disease burden? 

Can you (or tribal others) answer this question in a binary (yes or no) way at least?

2-Isn't there a way to introduce at least some nuance for such potentially complex and contentious issues?

 

Sarcasm is a wonderful way to expose the silly arguments of the past.

Especially from the so-called "experts" that led the population astray and then claim innocence once exposed.

[dwy000]

9 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Because the response to Milu followed a familiar pattern. 
 

He basically said, ok I’m not getting into it, let’s just drop it. Maybe because it’s already been debated, or maybe because we all know that “let’s audit the sources” opening salvo is just the first line to then a predictable series of events that have two outcomes….1) like he did, walk away without a source and then have it be presented as if his lack of willingness to produce a response denigrates what he stated. Or 2) go down the well known hole of a) dispute the source and play the my source is better card, then b) present selected items from such “superior sources” as “facts” that always seem to support the pre existing and original content challenging narrative. 
 

So he didn’t bite and basically got 

 

 Which is again just a high levelly articulated way on tying his position to that of being an uneducated dunce.

 

I think it’s fair for people to have little to no trust in the traditional experts after what happened. And in general think the greatest tragedy of it all is the degree to which a lot of these people doubled down on traditional real world lacking evidence because they were, for one reason or another, tied to a side. Most people didn’t have sides, they just wanted their constitutional rights to be respected. 
 

The most honest answer I got from a medical professional or academic researcher on COVID, fairly early in the pandemic, was, “heck if I know. Everyone’s going to get exposed to it and there’s not much that can be done about that. Over time these things tend to get more transmissible and less lethal. But they’re already fairly confident they have a vaccine and if you’re under 50 it’s probably not going to kill you, but don’t hold me to any of that”….far cry from all the pontificating about levels of masking, necessity for locking people down and taking away their livelihoods and doubling and tripling down on these positions despite not much besides theory underpinning them. 

The key quote there, from a medical professional is that he starts with "heck if I know".

 

Monday morning quarterbacks are always perfect.  Its like arguing the details of what generals should have done during WWII years after the fact.  I have zero problem with a government response that is based in "protect my citizens' lives first, worry about the fallout later".  One of the few things I credit Trump with was pushing thru and funding the covid vaccine as fast as possible.  We can argue years later how good it was but at least we are all alive to argue it.  The people who faced smallpox and the plague had other things to worry about. 

[Mephistopheles]

I've got a fun idea. You know how Charlie Munger said (paraphrasing) that in any argument you should be able to make the opposing point as good as your opponent? 

 

Perhaps we should switch sides for a day (or an hour), how fun would that be? Cubs and Greg making the TDS case, and LC, DooDiligence et al arguing for the cult! 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Mephistopheles

[changegonnacome]

17 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

This won’t be over once a Trump leaves the White house.

No doubt - Trump has created a monetization playbook that is sure to attract a new individual into US politics…many of Trump policy choices (tariffs, export controls) has meant the federal government has gone from being the referee to being a player on the field…Government policy always mattered see K-street…but Trump’s level of micro management of various markets has made the whims of one man literally worth trillions. It won’t be lost on those with Trump like tendencies.

 

US politics journey from a shining city on the hill to a banana republic has progressed meaningfully….Democrats should be ashamed as they failed to execute on kitchen table issues….and Republicans desperate to fix their diminishing voter problem let Trump hijack the GOP and have remained silent as he and his family engorged themselves on billions of dollars of Presidential related gains. 

[cubsfan]

Not bad @Mephistopheles !

[Gregmal]

6 minutes ago, Mephistopheles said:

I've got a fun idea. You know how Charlie Munger said (paraphrasing) that in any argument you should be able to make the opposing point as good as your opponent? 

 

Perhaps we should switch sides for a day (or an hour), how fun would that be? Cubs and Greg making the TDS case, and LC, DooDiligence et al arguing for the cult! 

I’ll try!

 

So, I don’t really wanna work anymore, so can we get behind raising taxes on people who do and finding ways to sent some of that to me?

 

My kid also can’t compete with his male peers, if he has some kinda weird “feeling”(or at least claims to), can we let him beat up on the girls? 
 

And while we re at it, I kinda just don’t like how I feel when right wing loonies make jokes, so yall wanna get together and do some arts and crafts before bum rushing a police precinct and rioting? But only after we ve officially confirmed everyone’s gone 3 weeks without showering and we can confirm(without checking IDs) that we got 3-5 TQs in the group?

[Sweet]

3 hours ago, flesh said:

 

Was the cost worth it? Allowing marginally more 79 year olds w/ 2.5 co morbidities live until 83 vs 80? vs 10 trillion debt, kids being undereducated, depression, suicides, drug od's, civil unrest, etc. does that enter into the calculation of which country/state had the better program? 

 

What would it have cost to focus directly on those most at risk and why wasn't this the obvious option? In the usa we had the italian data ahead of time. 

 

3 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Where are your sources and citations for this conclusion! LOL

That wasn’t even the only two options available.  We could have let anyone who wanted to isolate to do so and let the rest get on with their lives.  Older and sick - here are x y z resources to help you isolate yourself.  There was a middle way which was obvious.

 

Edited October 29, 2025 by Sweet