Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Corona Virus

Ja Rhule

By Ja Rhule,
in Huddle Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wolfcop Grand Master

Wolfcop

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Tbe said:

The issue is the drug is

#1 toxic and not something you want to give people without clear cause.

#2 In short supply and needed by people with other conditions.

#3 There is no clear data that it is actually helping.

I think most people would love for it to work. They just don’t like the president making people believe that it is going to solve this issue when it might not do anything. 

#3 There are ongoing case studies and doctor's statements that it is making a big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

Yeah, the problem with the "no clear data" statement is that in terms of drug efficacy, that data normally takes years to accumulate. We won't have that data until this pandemic is over with. We'll be able to look in the rearview and make a determination but at that point it won't matter anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ja Rhule Grand Master

Ja Rhule

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, the problem with the "no clear data" statement is that in terms of drug efficacy, that data normally takes years to accumulate. We won't have that data until this pandemic is over with. We'll be able to look in the rearview and make a determination but at that point it won't matter anymore.

The true impact will never be told.  I think the best drug is good immune system.  Get your sleep people.
 

 

Edited by Ja Rhule
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davidson Deac II Grand Master

Davidson Deac II

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, stirs said:

Just like I mentioned.  Preparedness is not a popular budget item.  Just human nature

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-new-york-city-emergency-ventilator-stockpile-ended-up-on-the-auction-block

Well, yes and no.  Preparedness for things that happened in the past is relatively easy to get dollars for.  Before 9-11, if they asked congress for money to prepare for a terrorist attack with hijacked airliners, the laughter would have been loud.  Afterwards, it was easy to get money to help prevent another similar attack.  Same with Pearl Harbor.  Human nature I guess to prepare for the threats you know instead of the ones that are mostly theoretical.  We are usually ill prepared the first time something happens, but better the second time.  Assuming the second time is within living memory.  

Edited by Davidson Deac II
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
stirs Grand Master

stirs

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Well, yes and no.  Preparedness for things that happened in the past is relatively easy to get dollars for.  Before 9-11, if they asked congress for money to prepare for a terrorist attack with hijacked airliners, the laughter would have been loud.  Afterwards, it was easy to get money to help prevent another similar attack.  Same with Pearl Harbor.  Human nature I guess to prepare for the threats you know instead of the ones that are mostly theoretical.  We are usually ill prepared the first time something happens, but better the second time.  Assuming the second time is within living memory.  

Exactly.  I mentioned in this thread the other day, that budgets for "might happen" things are not popular as they don't garner votes.

It all goes back to human nature in the US.  We elect people that stroke us, who pamper us, who tell us how great we are or how bad off we are.

THAT is who we elect.  We will not put up with some guy wanting to spend loads of our "tax cut" or "entitlement" money on something like buildings full of ventilators.  We are going to vote for guys that give back to us immediately.  So when everyone points fingers, it is an "us" problem.  We are the ones who elect these guys and boring guys doing numbers, are just not our thing here in America.

Yes, we will overspend afterwards, but not before a crisis

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, stirs said:

Exactly.  I mentioned in this thread the other day, that budgets for "might happen" things are not popular as they don't garner votes.

It all goes back to human nature in the US.  We elect people that stroke us, who pamper us, who tell us how great we are or how bad off we are.

THAT is who we elect.  We will not put up with some guy wanting to spend loads of our "tax cut" or "entitlement" money on something like buildings full of ventilators.  We are going to vote for guys that give back to us immediately.  So when everyone points fingers, it is an "us" problem.  We are the ones who elect these guys and boring guys doing numbers, are just not our thing here in America.

Yes, we will overspend afterwards, but not before a crisis

Who we elect honestly doesn't matter. Our votes matter on election day and that's it. Our votes are largely driven by who the large donors decide to back because those are the only candidates who can afford to run a campaign that can have a chance to end in getting elected. Once they're in office, all those favors they had to give to get those campaign funds get called in and lobbyists do the rest. Our politicians are just rubber stamps for the people and organizations that put them in office and keep them in office. That's just the sad reality.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davidson Deac II Grand Master

Davidson Deac II

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, stirs said:

Exactly.  I mentioned in this thread the other day, that budgets for "might happen" things are not popular as they don't garner votes.

It all goes back to human nature in the US.  We elect people that stroke us, who pamper us, who tell us how great we are or how bad off we are.

THAT is who we elect.  We will not put up with some guy wanting to spend loads of our "tax cut" or "entitlement" money on something like buildings full of ventilators.  We are going to vote for guys that give back to us immediately.  So when everyone points fingers, it is an "us" problem.  We are the ones who elect these guys and boring guys doing numbers, are just not our thing here in America.

Yes, we will overspend afterwards, but not before a crisis

FYI, its human nature around the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stirs Grand Master

stirs

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Who we elect honestly doesn't matter. Our votes matter on election day and that's it. Our votes are largely driven by who the large donors decide to back because those are the only candidates who can afford to run a campaign that can have a chance to end in getting elected. Once they're in office, all those favors they had to give to get those campaign funds get called in and lobbyists do the rest. Our politicians are just rubber stamps for the people and organizations that put them in office and keep them in office. That's just the sad reality.

We are on a really bad path.

Today, Twitter substitutes for real news, well, because "real news" is mimicking Twitter to be opinion based, entertainment broadcasts.

We continue to know less and less and chart the future of our country based on slick 30 second videos which are based on nothing, or lies.  And, NOBODY, will spend the time to learn about candidates.  After all, Survivor is on, I am texting, and so forth.  We are an instagram society with little knowledge of history, the present or the future.

Screwed we are.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cptx Rising Star

cptx

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Who we elect honestly doesn't matter. Our votes matter on election day and that's it. Our votes are largely driven by who the large donors decide to back because those are the only candidates who can afford to run a campaign that can have a chance to end in getting elected. Once they're in office, all those favors they had to give to get those campaign funds get called in and lobbyists do the rest. Our politicians are just rubber stamps for the people and organizations that put them in office and keep them in office. That's just the sad reality.

it's almost like a tiny percentage of people owning the vast majority of the wealth is not such a great thing for society.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • panthers55
      An honest look at Bryce Young

      By panthers55 · Posted

      Actually I have always felt that using a qb to sneak was a huge mistake even for big guys. Do you remember when Cam sneaked the ball and got a helmet spear to the head and it wasn't even called. It is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Everyone knows what you are going to do. Why not have a big guy or backup run the ball who is disposable? Yeah they know what is coming if you bring in a big guy. Like they don't if you keep the QB in...... Actually there are many more reasons not to sneak the ball with the qb versus using something else like New Orleans did who could still run or pass.
    • CRA
      An honest look at Bryce Young

      By CRA · Posted

      you want me to provide evidence of his jump balls? Or bailing the pocket?  I don't think either of those claims requires me to show you evidence.  What do you want evidence of exactly?  never did I mention downfield throws.  I said, he gets blind to play at the lines because of his size (the quick stuff).  There are literally plays I don't have time to search for but have been highlighted on QB school where there is just no way he can see the options on certain plays even if wide open (talking behind and around the line of scrimmage).   Line too close paired with the receiving  option too close.  And the stat I referenced (which you can find on next gen stats) was he is below average at and behind the line of scrimmage....which I'm sure his size/vision plays a role in the why. I have an agenda? Cool.  Then so do you.  and again, Bryce's cherry picked best play (which isn't how anything works).....still leaves him on the low end of production.  I'm not overly bashing Bryce.  I just acknowledge, most signs point to him having a low ceiling.  And in the big picture, that's not the direction you want to go.  He is our QB for now.  I hope he improves.  Which in turn would allow our O and others to develop.   But to me, there isn't much of an argument that Bryce Young is anything but short term solution.   
    • panthers55
      An honest look at Bryce Young

      By panthers55 · Posted

      Again where is the evidence. You keep saying it but honestly you have shown no evidence. Unless you know what he was supposed to do and then what he did do, you don't know anything about his intentions and or forced changes due to height. His completion percentage for passes from 1 to 10 yards was only slightly lower than his best percentage which was 10 to 20 yards passing.  Not enough of a difference to be significantly different.  Truth is you have an agenda that you try to justify despite any evidence to the contrary. Many of us felt the same way but have allowed his actual play to inform our opinion. I still would have picked Stroud over Bryce but I am willing to keep an open mind and see what is there instead of filtering everything through my biases and already polarized opinions.
×
×
  • Create New...