All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[brandon]

why hold politicians responsible for the actions of others?

I'm not. Through the purposeful actions of the intentionally unvaccinated, they infected other people and killed them. That's a strong argument for reckless homicide. I'm suggesting that we hold them accountable for their actions, not the actions of someone else.

Politicians encouraged the reckless behavior that directly led to reckless homicide. They are an accomplice, and should be held accountable, again for their own actions of incitement.

It's the whole reason why incitement is a crime. The incitement is an action in itself that is prosecutable.

 

[el caliente]

I'm not. Through the purposeful actions of the intentionally unvaccinated, they infected other people and killed them. That's a strong argument for reckless homicide. I'm suggesting that we hold them accountable for their actions, not the actions of someone else.

Politicians encouraged the reckless behavior that directly led to reckless homicide. They are an accomplice, and should be held accountable, again for their own actions of incitement.

It's the whole reason why incitement is a crime. The incitement is an action in itself that is prosecutable.

So vote them out. That’s the best we can hope for.

Do you really want to waste more tax dollars on sham trials that will bring about nothing but new fodder for Fox, CNN, and MSNBC to go over?

 

[brandon]

So vote them out. That’s the best we can hope for.

Do you really want to waste more tax dollars on sham trials that will bring about nothing but new fodder for Fox, CNN, and MSNBC to go over?

You're the one who said to hold people accountable for their actions. If their actions were criminal incitement, they should be charged with a crime. That's the accountability provided for incitement in our legal system. It doesn't matter what I want. That's what you said you wanted.

 

[MT15]

Here’s another example of a group of people who took disinformation, used it for their own advantage, which led to countless people dying, and now have just moved on to their next scam. These aren’t politicians, they’re “media”. We need to call them out, in hopes they don’t find so many easy marks for their future schemes:

 

[J-DONK]

Here’s another example of a group of people who took disinformation, used it for their own advantage, which led to countless people dying, and now have just moved on to their next scam. These aren’t politicians, they’re “media”. We need to call them out, in hopes they don’t find so many easy marks for their future schemes:

Both of those folks wrote for the Times, and its odd to name drag them in that discussion. I'm pretty sure Matt's entire argument was about the online censorship of the discussion, not the efficaciousness of the drug. There was some willful obtuseness in that article to make them out to be grifters. It's not a hard debate to grasp. In a pandemic, is it ok to censor conversations that may signal boost problematic opinions? It's not surprising that journalist would come down on the side of "NO".

Straight from Matt's piece:

Ivermectin may never be proven effective as a Covid-19 treatment, but its story has already appeared as a powerful metaphor of the Internet’s transformation. Once envisioned as a vast democratizing tool, which would massively raise global knowledge levels by allowing instant cross-global communication between all people, it’s morphed instead into a giant unaccountable bureaucracy for suppressing dialogue, run by people with an authoritarian vision for information flow.

 

[MT15]

Both of those folks wrote for the Times, and its odd to name drag them in that discussion. I'm pretty sure Matt's entire argument was about the online censorship of the discussion, not the efficaciousness of the drug. There was some willful obtuseness in that article to make them out to be grifters. It's not a hard debate to grasp. In a pandemic, is it ok to censor conversations that may signal boost problematic opinions? It's not surprising that journalist would come down on the side of "NO".

Straight from Matt's piece:

There was zero evidence that it was effective and some preliminary evidence that it was not when he wrote that piece. And he knew people who were boosting ivermectin were using it to say people didn’t need to be vaccinated. It was irresponsible at the time. Extremely so.

There is a great deal of communication going on in the medical community through the internet. They knew it was bogus already. No reputable doctor ever championed it. Your defense of Taibbi is misplaced, IMO.

 

[J-DONK]

There was zero evidence that it was effective and some preliminary evidence that it was not when he wrote that piece. And he knew people who were boosting ivermectin were using it to say people didn’t need to be vaccinated. It was irresponsible at the time. Extremely so.

There is a great deal of communication going on in the medical community through the internet. They knew it was bogus already. No reputable doctor ever championed it. Your defense of Taibbi is misplaced, IMO.

There where some highly credentials doctors with some anecdotal testimony that the drug worked. These journalist made it clear they had no idea if ivermectin worked. That wasn't the point. Matt, and Bari were having a discussion about censorship. Look at another topic, Facebook banned lableak discussions at one time. That's now the mainstream opinion of the American public. Why was that discussion banned? Does any public figure who had a discussion about lableak responsible for violence enacted upon Chinese citizens? At the end of the day, these are adults who must live(or die) with the responsibility of their own choices.

 

[MT15]

There were? I’m not aware of any, and every single highly credentialed doctor knows that anecdotes are not evidence. They can lead to evidence, but they are not evidence.

You didn’t address the irresponsibility of Taibbi’s take when the same people touting ivermectin were also telling people not to get vaccinated. This isn’t the first time he has claimed that there was “censorship” when it was simply that the MSM decided not to push disinformation. He clearly doesn’t have an issue with that.

Besides, censorship isn’t the correct word; it’s inflammatory in this case. And it’s hard to claim that anyone’s views were restricted when the entire right wing media sphere of influence pushed ivermectin incessantly. Resulting in thousands of needless deaths.

 

[el caliente]

You're the one who said to hold people accountable for their actions. If their actions were criminal incitement, they should be charged with a crime. That's the accountability provided for incitement in our legal system. It doesn't matter what I want. That's what you said you wanted.

I did say that if you want to hold politicians accountable, then vote them out. I’m not sure your going to get them on some count of “incitement” that would merit more than a slap on the wrist. It’s not like they are screaming fire in a crowded theater or something. What court would even take such an accusation seriously?

I’m still not sure if hospitals increasing beds, expanding service, or expanding facilities requires an act of congress, and I’m not sure if I ever will.

 

[MT15]

I did say that if you want to hold politicians accountable, then vote them out. I’m not sure your going to get them on some count of “incitement” that would merit more than a slap on the wrist. It’s not like they are screaming fire in a crowded theater or something. What court would even take such an accusation seriously?

I’m still not sure if hospitals increasing beds, expanding service, or expanding facilities requires an act of congress, and I’m not sure if I ever will.

What makes you think that private enterprises would need government permission here? For that matter how do you think rooms would be added? Do you somehow think we didn’t add beds to try to handle the crush of patients? Where do you think the extra staff came from to staff the added beds?

We had beds in ambulance bays, the ambulances parked outside, and this was in winter. We had beds in conference rooms, we discharged people earlier than optimal. We begged older workers (the ones most at risk from the virus, BTW) to come back and work at least part time. We asked people to work extra shifts. At the worst of it - we had inpatient beds in another building, an OP surgery center-not actually attached to the hospital. I saw RNs pushing carts of supplies across a frozen parking lot. That happened daily.

The hospital had a contingency plan that ran 80 pages. It was started on as soon as we learned about the pandemic. We had three distinct patient surges.

For all the failings of the healthcare system in this country - mostly due to insurance and legislative foibles - the people who make up the healthcare system held this country together. They all kept it together when nobody around seemed to be helping. And the people saying the crap about vaccines, ivermectin, etc. were actively working against us. And people died because of it. They did worse than shout “fire” in a crowded theater, which is a fallacious trope anyway.

 

[el caliente]

What makes you think that private enterprises would need government permission here? For that matter how do you think rooms would be added? Do you somehow think we didn’t add beds to try to handle the crush of patients? Where do you think the extra staff came from to staff the added beds?

We had beds in ambulance bays, the ambulances parked outside, and this was in winter. We had beds in conference rooms, we discharged people earlier than optimal. We begged older workers (the ones most at risk from the virus, BTW) to come back and work at least part time. We asked people to work extra shifts. At the worst of it - we had inpatient beds in another building, an OP surgery center-not actually attached to the hospital. I saw RNs pushing carts of supplies across a frozen parking lot. That happened daily.

The hospital had a contingency plan that ran 80 pages. It was started on as soon as we learned about the pandemic. We had three distinct patient surges.

For all the failings of the healthcare system in this country - mostly due to insurance and legislative foibles - the people who make up the healthcare system held this country together. They all kept it together when nobody around seemed to be helping. And the people saying the crap about vaccines, ivermectin, etc. were actively working against us. And people died because of it. They did worse than shout “fire” in a crowded theater, which is a fallacious trope anyway.

I agree, those in the medical community held things together (like the folks driving trucks, those working at the grocery stores, and those working with what few means possible to keep the world running). It’s odd how as things turned a corner suddenly all those front line workers were thrown under the bus. Tragic.

My question about government intervention has to do with why it’s so hard to add beds, add staff, or add space. If the cook needs to serve more soup he add water to the soup. If the accountant needs help during tax season they can hire temp staff. The bank sees the market is an increase in investment activity, they hire more advisors. If the hospital needs more beds, med professionals, or space they can’t open the wallet to meet the challenge? I’m sure there is more to it than that, I’m just not part of the industry, and see the problem as more solvable than it appears.

How did your hospitals margins fare? Did you burn more cash than planned? Did y’all take on more debt? Did you add to your PP&E? I’d imagine the those temporary structures will be replaced with permanent structures? How is the industry changing to learn and grow from this pandemic?

Anyone in New Orleans know how UMC handled the pandemic. When I was in New Orleans that hospital was like 40% vacant, and begging Doctors to lease space from them. How did they handle things with Covid?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Medical professionals don't grow on trees.

 

[el caliente]

Medical professionals don't grow on trees.

Which makes it even crazier that 18% of them have quite, while 12% were laid off. Seems you would want to retain talent at all costs during times like these.

Why Health-Care Workers Are Quitting in Droves

About one in five health-care workers has left their job since the pandemic started. This is their story—and the story of those left behind.

www.theatlantic.com

Seems to me that a sizable portion of the medical professionals in the US leaving their professions due to COVID would be a bigger cause for concern than what a politician is saying, but that’s just me.

I’m in no way vilifying the doctors and nurses here, I’m just perplexed by the whole thing.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't disagree with your larger point, but to think the citizenry of this country... a great many of whom are simply not intelligent and have fallen for insane conspiracy theories... can fix this by voting people out is not rational. Especially when the tail is now wagging the dog because our 'leaders' are too busy pandering to the mob.

This is how Pax Americana dies. I'm mostly ambivalent because I question whether this country is worth saving anymore.

 

[el caliente]

I don't disagree with your larger point, but to think the citizenry of this country... a great many of whom are simply not intelligent and have fallen for insane conspiracy theories... can fix this by voting people out is not rational. Especially when the tail is now wagging the dog because our 'leaders' are too busy pandering to the mob.

This is how Pax Americana dies. I'm mostly ambivalent because I question whether this country is worth saving anymore.

I think you answered your own question. We are too dumb to save. Time to rip it up and start over. That’s been a long time coming though.

 

[J-DONK]

There were? I’m not aware of any, and every single highly credentialed doctor knows that anecdotes are not evidence. They can lead to evidence, but they are not evidence.

You didn’t address the irresponsibility of Taibbi’s take when the same people touting ivermectin were also telling people not to get vaccinated. This isn’t the first time he has claimed that there was “censorship” when it was simply that the MSM decided not to push disinformation. He clearly doesn’t have an issue with that.

Besides, censorship isn’t the correct word; it’s inflammatory in this case. And it’s hard to claim that anyone’s views were restricted when the entire right wing media sphere of influence pushed ivermectin incessantly. Resulting in thousands of needless deaths.

There is a fundamental difference in our opinions, and worldview. You appear to endorse an authoritarian "Think of the children" attitude except the children are grown adults. That certain topics should be censored because the lemmings may grasp onto it. Who cares if the same people pushing ivermectin are also advising people not get vaccinated? Should that conversation also be censored? Again, at it's heart this debate was about public safety vs free speech. If I'm being honest, my main take away from that article? The author really dislikes substack, and made a very flimsy argument to attack it, and journalist on that platform.

Also Bari, and Matt are both very left leaning in general. They make an argument for free speech as journalist. Now, they are ivermectin substack clout grifters.

P.S. Instead of attacking Matt, and Bari for defending free speech. That article could have been about Facebook, and Twitter use algorithms to push people into echo chambers. How these algo's came back to bite them in the rosebud during the pandemic. These tech firms would rather use authoritarian tactics to ban discussions then change their unethical business practices.

 

[MT15]

There is a fundamental difference in our opinions, and worldview. You appear to endorse an authoritarian "Think of the children" attitude except the children are grown adults. That certain topics should be censored because the lemmings may grasp onto it. Who cares if the same people pushing ivermectin are also advising people not get vaccinated? Should that conversation also be censored? Again, at it's heart this debate was about public safety vs free speech. If I'm being honest, my main take away from that article? The author really dislikes substack, and made a very flimsy argument to attack it, and journalist on that platform.

Also Bari, and Matt are both very left leaning in general. They make an argument for free speech as journalist. Now, they are ivermectin substack clout grifters.

P.S. Instead of attacking Matt, and Bari for defending free speech. That article could have been about Facebook, and Twitter use algorithms to push people into echo chambers. How these algo's came back to bite them in the rosebud during the pandemic. These tech firms would rather use authoritarian tactics to ban discussions then change their unethical business practices.

Authoritarian? LOL. You’re clueless about me, truly.

Its not censorship, nobody owes them a hearing in the platform of their choice. That seems to be the disconnect here. They seem to think that just because their (crappy) POV isn’t picked up by the media outlets they want to pick it up, that they’re being “censored”. It’s patently ridiculous. Authoritarian would be forcing MSM to carry their views.

Free speech was not curtailed, at all. They got plenty of exposure for their shirtty takes. Which you have never addressed. Have any of them come out and admitted that they were pushing a really bad take on the pandemic that ended up costing lives?

And yes, you can have two things in your mind at the same time. I cannot stand the way FB and others (including YouTube, Google, etc.) run their businesses. That’s not what we are talking about.

I agree that people have to take responsibility for their decisions. That includes people who use their clout to highlight clearly dangerous takes in the matter of public health. Why do you insist that the general public is accountable for their decisions but your media folks are not?

You are the second person in as many days to defend these sorts of people. That they should somehow be defended for highlighting dangerous disinformation in the public sphere. And then whining about “censorship”. One from the right and one from the left. Huh.

They essentially pushed a really crappy take that was devoid of truth and weaponized it to expose gullible people to public health dangers. They’re far from blameless here.

 

[MT15]

Here is Bari Weiss this January-with a really bad take, false info about masks, on Real Time with Bill Mahr:

““I’m done. I’m done with COVID” she said on the show, adding that COVID restrictions are, “ridiculous at this point.”

“If you believe the science, you will look at the data we did not have two years ago,” Weiss said. “You will find out that cloth masks do not do anything. You will realize you can show your vaccine passport at a restaurant and still be asymptomatic and be carrying Omicron. And you will realize most importantly that this is going to be remembered by the younger generation as a catastrophic moral crime. At this point, it’s a pandemic of bureaucracy. It’s not real anymore.”

That provoked immediate pushback. On Twitter, Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalvesposted a chart showing U.S. COVID deaths over the previous four days totaling 12,957. “I’ll never have to wonder how people during the worst moments in history got on with their lives as carnage unfolded around them,” he wrote. “You just look away. For the rest of us, we will bear witness. Each of these deaths has a story, a history, a life lived.””

So, yes, she’s entitled to an opinion, but she’s not exempt for being called out for her opinion when it is devoid of facts and actually hurts vulnerable people. Basically, she said she just doesn’t care about the people that were still dying, and that would die. In fact, she called the requirements to wear masks in public a “moral crime”. During this time frame many hospitals were being overwhelmed, so she’s not only disregarding the people who are more vulnerable to the virus, she’s disregarding those who were struggling with caring for the victims and those who were unable to get routine care during this time frame.