Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
Author Message
Marc Mensa Offline
You'll Get Nothing and Like It
*

Posts: 9,464
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 325
I Root For: The Underdog
Location: Samaria
Post: #21
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Let's say we send everyone who's in a "low risk group" back to work soon. Do we have a general idea of the hospitalization rate of those groups? While I do get and fully understand we can't quarantine for a year we also can't get in a situation where doctors have to choose who gets a ventilator and who doesn't, aka literal death panels. If medical experts believe we have the capacity to treat whatever percentage would require hospitalization if we all went back to work then that's fine, but I very much doubt that right now.

Low risk people still carry the virus, and then pass it along to higher risk people.
03-24-2020 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,703
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 503
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:16 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Let's say we send everyone who's in a "low risk group" back to work soon. Do we have a general idea of the hospitalization rate of those groups? While I do get and fully understand we can't quarantine for a year we also can't get in a situation where doctors have to choose who gets a ventilator and who doesn't, aka literal death panels. If medical experts believe we have the capacity to treat whatever percentage would require hospitalization if we all went back to work then that's fine, but I very much doubt that right now.

Low risk people still carry the virus, and then pass it along to higher risk people.

I'm well aware of that, I'm just speaking in a world where we actually were able to fully quarantine off everyone in "at risk" groups would we even be able to handle the volume that would come from the low risk groups?
03-24-2020 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,213
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 846
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #23
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:13 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:54 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Trump's job is to provide people hope and help do what he can to minimize the economic effects.

The doctor does not have these concerns

His job is to provide steady, unwavering leadership... leadership that can be trusted. I don’t care if it’s bad news, but I do want to know if his decisions are rooted in fact and not feel... particularly when confronting a topic he obviously knows little about.

I do not know what the doctor’s concerns are, but I have to imagine he understands the importance of maintaining his position on the team.

It would be a whole lot easier to provide leadership that can be trusted if the left hadn't been engaging for 4 years now in a gross exaggeration campaign.... and still doing so. Your side quite literally challenges every word that comes out of his mouth... often simply LOOKING for some way to turn 'what he actually said' into something that he didn't, that isn't true. example: 'the virus is a hoax' claim.

I think The doc said it best himself.
“The President was trying to bring hope to the people. I think there’s this issue of [the media] trying to separate the two of us. There isn’t fundamentally a difference there.”

So you and your ilk are out there saying there IS a fundamental difference, and the guy whose opinion you want respected is saying there isn't. If you read more of what he's said, he's clearly said that he wishes Trump hadn't said some of the things the way he's said them... so the whole 'he's trying to keep his job' line is just more partisan bull

(03-24-2020 10:21 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm well aware of that, I'm just speaking in a world where we actually were able to fully quarantine off everyone in "at risk" groups would we even be able to handle the volume that would come from the low risk groups?

This is the sort of question that requires a million assumptions... and where because we're dealing with large numbers, minor differences (like 0.4% vs 0.8%) can take us from 'no problem' to 'global killer'.

60mm symptomatic people were infected in 2009... meaning they required at least some medical resources. 275,000 were hospitalized. IMO, there wasn't ENOUGH done to stop the spread... the CDC initially said, if anyone at a school tests positive, shut it for two weeks.... they then rescinded that.... and kids were infected. FOr Covid, schools are ALL closed, yet kids aren't really impacted.

Flu, even COVID-19 is not a big deal for most people. The low risk groups you're speaking of wouldn't need a lot of intense medical care.... and for the high risk groups, they would be quarantined/sequestered and thus those that didn't have it, not need as much care as if they weren't.

i.e. simple example, you close all nursing homes and assisted living to visitors. If they don't already have the virus there, they aren't likely to get it. No additional staff or care really needed.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2020 10:41 AM by Hambone10.)
03-24-2020 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marc Mensa Offline
You'll Get Nothing and Like It
*

Posts: 9,464
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 325
I Root For: The Underdog
Location: Samaria
Post: #24
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:21 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:16 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Let's say we send everyone who's in a "low risk group" back to work soon. Do we have a general idea of the hospitalization rate of those groups? While I do get and fully understand we can't quarantine for a year we also can't get in a situation where doctors have to choose who gets a ventilator and who doesn't, aka literal death panels. If medical experts believe we have the capacity to treat whatever percentage would require hospitalization if we all went back to work then that's fine, but I very much doubt that right now.

Low risk people still carry the virus, and then pass it along to higher risk people.

I'm well aware of that, I'm just speaking in a world where we actually were able to fully quarantine off everyone in "at risk" groups would we even be able to handle the volume that would come from the low risk groups?

That would require testing everyone.
03-24-2020 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,050
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1683
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #25
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 09:40 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:31 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:05 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  is there a more worthless news source than Yahoo?

Yahoo wasn’t the reporting source for the article.

Yeah, it was the NY Times. They are so much more neutral, lol.

Whoops... I almost forgot... #Fakenews.03-lmfao

I have never used that term in my life. And I'm not a Trump supporter.

Back to the issue. Do you believe the NY Times is neutral when it comes to Trump?
03-24-2020 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,213
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 846
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #26
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:45 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  That would require testing everyone.

????

You don't need to test anyone to know if they are in an 'at risk' group so as to quarantine them.

ETA: though you'd be smart to test those you are quarantining... that's not remotely 'everyone'.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2020 10:54 AM by Hambone10.)
03-24-2020 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ECUGrad07 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,563
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 572
I Root For: ECU
Location: Asheville, NC
Post: #27
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:40 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:31 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:05 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  is there a more worthless news source than Yahoo?

Yahoo wasn’t the reporting source for the article.

Yeah, it was the NY Times. They are so much more neutral, lol.

Whoops... I almost forgot... #Fakenews.03-lmfao

I have never used that term in my life. And I'm not a Trump supporter.

Back to the issue. Do you believe the NY Times is neutral when it comes to Trump?

There are countless articles out there like this...

Former NYT Editor: Anti-Trump Bias Is Destroying The Times' Credibility

'The Five’ blasts New York Times over leaked transcript of anti-Trump coverage

THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ ANTI-TRUMP CAMPAIGN
03-24-2020 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,050
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1683
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #28
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:56 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:40 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:31 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Yahoo wasn’t the reporting source for the article.

Yeah, it was the NY Times. They are so much more neutral, lol.

Whoops... I almost forgot... #Fakenews.03-lmfao

I have never used that term in my life. And I'm not a Trump supporter.

Back to the issue. Do you believe the NY Times is neutral when it comes to Trump?

There are countless articles out there like this...

Former NYT Editor: Anti-Trump Bias Is Destroying The Times' Credibility

'The Five’ blasts New York Times over leaked transcript of anti-Trump coverage

THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ ANTI-TRUMP CAMPAIGN

Sure, but I didn't want to help him out. It's not a trick question.
03-24-2020 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,837
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 576
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 09:05 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  is there a more worthless news source than Yahoo?

He is constantly having egg on his face posting their fake news. Is he just mental or does he work for them?
03-24-2020 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,837
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 576
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
Where was Fauchi during Barry’s pandemic? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe one of our resident geniuses can let us know the facts so we can separate out legitimate criticism and TDS.
03-24-2020 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,703
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 503
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:21 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm well aware of that, I'm just speaking in a world where we actually were able to fully quarantine off everyone in "at risk" groups would we even be able to handle the volume that would come from the low risk groups?

This is the sort of question that requires a million assumptions... and where because we're dealing with large numbers, minor differences (like 0.4% vs 0.8%) can take us from 'no problem' to 'global killer'.

60mm symptomatic people were infected in 2009... meaning they required at least some medical resources. 275,000 were hospitalized. IMO, there wasn't ENOUGH done to stop the spread... the CDC initially said, if anyone at a school tests positive, shut it for two weeks.... they then rescinded that.... and kids were infected. FOr Covid, schools are ALL closed, yet kids aren't really impacted.

Flu, even COVID-19 is not a big deal for most people. The low risk groups you're speaking of wouldn't need a lot of intense medical care.... and for the high risk groups, they would be quarantined/sequestered and thus those that didn't have it, not need as much care as if they weren't.

i.e. simple example, you close all nursing homes and assisted living to visitors. If they don't already have the virus there, they aren't likely to get it. No additional staff or care really needed.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/21190033/c...ths-by-age

According to this for the age range I fall in on the CDC numbers 20-44 14.3% require hospitalization, 2% in the ICU, and a death rate of .1%. For 45-54 the hospitalization rate is 21.2%, 5.4% in the ICU, and a death rate of .5%. Those death rates aren't really a problem, but do we have the hospital and ICU capacity to handle those % in the low risk of death groups that will require it if we send everyone back to work? If yes that's great. If not then those death rates even for low risk groups will be much higher as doctors have to choose essentially who lives and who dies. That can't be allowed to happen.
03-24-2020 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cb4029 Offline
The spoon that stirs the pot.
*

Posts: 18,461
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Deez Nuts
Location: B'ham

Donators
Post: #32
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  [Image: giphy.gif]

When the moron speaks, it's hard to keep a straight face. Poor doctor, this will be used against him when he's fired. I'm sure trump wants to give him the North Korean treatment over this.
03-24-2020 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,837
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 576
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 11:15 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  [Image: giphy.gif]

When the moron speaks, it's hard to keep a straight face. Poor doctor, this will be used against him when he's fired. I'm sure trump wants to give him the North Korean treatment over this.

So that is where he was during Barry’s pandemic?
03-24-2020 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GrayBeard Offline
Whiny Troll
*

Posts: 30,991
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 727
I Root For: My Kids & ECU
Location: 402 Miles From ECU

Crappies
Post: #34
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
Mensa, we get it. As a proven liar, you have no issue with erroneous reporting as long as it fits your desired narrative.
03-24-2020 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,762
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 197
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Let's say we send everyone who's in a "low risk group" back to work soon. Do we have a general idea of the hospitalization rate of those groups? While I do get and fully understand we can't quarantine for a year we also can't get in a situation where doctors have to choose who gets a ventilator and who doesn't, aka literal death panels. If medical experts believe we have the capacity to treat whatever percentage would require hospitalization if we all went back to work then that's fine, but I very much doubt that right now.


The problem with that is that 100% have or may have a hidden underlining condition. CNN did interviewed a 20 some year young lady who came down with COVID-19 and was hospitalized with it when she was healthy with no underlining conditions. She was one of those that like the rest of the college age kids, went to the beaches and all that spreading the virus. Sending people back to work that are healthy like this young lady is not the great idea at all. Just one person with the virus could get other people at the workplace infected where some get sick like her or to bring the virus home to get someone else in the family sick like a baby with a heart conditions. That is why we can't get people back to work next week or next month right now. A lot of states are now seeing double digits of people tested positive.
03-24-2020 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VA49er Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,123
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation: 469
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 11:15 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  [Image: giphy.gif]

When the moron speaks, it's hard to keep a straight face. Poor doctor, this will be used against him when he's fired. I'm sure trump wants to give him the North Korean treatment over this.

What part of the speech was this directly related to? Be specific please.
03-24-2020 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TigersOhMy Offline
Not 1st String
*

Posts: 5,674
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 11:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Let's say we send everyone who's in a "low risk group" back to work soon. Do we have a general idea of the hospitalization rate of those groups? While I do get and fully understand we can't quarantine for a year we also can't get in a situation where doctors have to choose who gets a ventilator and who doesn't, aka literal death panels. If medical experts believe we have the capacity to treat whatever percentage would require hospitalization if we all went back to work then that's fine, but I very much doubt that right now.


That is why we can't get people back to work next week or next month right now. A lot of states are now seeing double digits of people tested positive.

David, when is the last time you went back to work?
03-24-2020 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marc Mensa Offline
You'll Get Nothing and Like It
*

Posts: 9,464
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 325
I Root For: The Underdog
Location: Samaria
Post: #38
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 10:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:56 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:40 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:31 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Yeah, it was the NY Times. They are so much more neutral, lol.

Whoops... I almost forgot... #Fakenews.03-lmfao

I have never used that term in my life. And I'm not a Trump supporter.

Back to the issue. Do you believe the NY Times is neutral when it comes to Trump?

There are countless articles out there like this...

Former NYT Editor: Anti-Trump Bias Is Destroying The Times' Credibility

'The Five’ blasts New York Times over leaked transcript of anti-Trump coverage

THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ ANTI-TRUMP CAMPAIGN

Sure, but I didn't want to help him out. It's not a trick question.

Neutral implies 50/50 coverage... which then requires a quota of favorable to unfavorable. The idea of neutrality is asinine. They overriding question is if the story is factual and true. The NY Yankees could have a crappy season but then in order to achieve “neutral” status, the opinion columnists would then need to write 50% positive fluff. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t keep track of favorable and unfavorable columns about Trump in the Times, but I do know conservatives squeal like pigs whenever one gets penned. It’s almost as if you need to retreat back to your safe spaces and can’t handle life outside the bubble of favorable news.

Ironically, two of the 3 links deriding the Times come from sites not exactly neutral to Democrats or the MSM...
03-24-2020 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
hoopfan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,365
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 116
I Root For: hoops
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 11:46 AM)VA49er Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 11:15 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  [Image: giphy.gif]

When the moron speaks, it's hard to keep a straight face. Poor doctor, this will be used against him when he's fired. I'm sure trump wants to give him the North Korean treatment over this.

What part of the speech was this directly related to? Be specific please.

That is when Trump said NBC is fake news and a part of "con-cast" and of coarse this doctor is not into Trumps style of political speak.
03-24-2020 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 49,050
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1683
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #40
RE: Tell the truth again and you're out of here Doc.
(03-24-2020 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:56 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 10:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 09:40 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Whoops... I almost forgot... #Fakenews.03-lmfao

I have never used that term in my life. And I'm not a Trump supporter.

Back to the issue. Do you believe the NY Times is neutral when it comes to Trump?

There are countless articles out there like this...

Former NYT Editor: Anti-Trump Bias Is Destroying The Times' Credibility

'The Five’ blasts New York Times over leaked transcript of anti-Trump coverage

THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ ANTI-TRUMP CAMPAIGN

Sure, but I didn't want to help him out. It's not a trick question.

Neutral implies 50/50 coverage... which then requires a quota of favorable to unfavorable. The idea of neutrality is asinine. They overriding question is if the story is factual and true. The NY Yankees could have a crappy season but then in order to achieve “neutral” status, the opinion columnists would then need to write 50% positive fluff. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t keep track of favorable and unfavorable columns about Trump in the Times, but I do know conservatives squeal like pigs whenever one gets penned. It’s almost as if you need to retreat back to your safe spaces and can’t handle life outside the bubble of favorable news.

Ironically, two of the 3 links deriding the Times come from sites not exactly neutral to Democrats or the MSM...

I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I don't take sides. But I can tell you, you were touting the NY Times as if it plays things down the middle, fairly.

As someone who doesn't pull for a side, I can tell you, they are far slanted to being anti-Trump. You can arrange words however makes you happy. It doesn't change that reality.
03-24-2020 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.