Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive


I'm very much an advocate of universal healthcare. But when the archetypal example of that is in a country that has one of the worst death rates worldwide and other European countries with similarly nationalised health services (Spain/Italy/Sweden) continue to have worse numbers than the US I hardly think it is a position of strength to start criticising their health system

Concern over costs for users exist in the US system that are not present to the same extent in the Spain/Italy/Sweden systems.

In many ways the already existing problem (which was already fairly serious) has worsened over the past few months with rising unemployment - both in terms of losing work related health benefits and financial concerns.

It does not matter about the cost, people still receive care.

But your admission here about the economy is a change. More problems will come from the economy than this illness. You should research the Hong Kong flu, the numbers and how everything was shut down - or not.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Having your views challenged is not censorship.

I guess if you had a situation where you had a single poster with on point of view and 10 posters with opposing views that jumped on them every time they expressed themselves you could have some kind of 'indirect' censorship but as far as I'm concerned that has never been the case on this thread or the previous one. There has always been a broad range of viewpoints and no 'orthodoxy of opinion' discouraging people in general and CR more specifically from expressing their views.

When people discount the information presented because they do not like the source's viewpoint, then that is political especially when the person is directly or indirectly attacked.

That's going off on a tangent though? If your point is that politics came into a 'no politics thread' then yeah, clearly that happened - from all sides. I don't see where the jump is from that to censorship though.

I'm very reluctant to criticise somebody who is not here to defend himself. But I think it is fair to say that CR was hardly backwards in coming forwards about his own views of the media and the extent to which they could be trusted. From my own perspective it felt very much like he would frequently dismiss any information that didn't fit the 'everything's going to be fine' narrative as being hype from an untrustworthy and politicised media. That's as far as I'll go on him - like I said earlier whatever the differences we might have on an internet forum it is much more important to me that all is well with him and his family.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


Logical inconsistency detected.

You need to study logic again.

Please, enlighten me as to my error.

That just exposed more people to the Wuhan China originating SARS-2 corona virus which caused more people to become infected with the SARS-2 corona virus developing CoVid-19.

Seeing as you're quite rightly concerned about exposing more people to COVID-19, you are supportive of ongoing lockdown measures then?

But then they died which helped lower the costs of taking care of those individuals.

Lower the costs for whom? Not quite sure of where the profit incentive is in this context.

You should feel guilty. I have no need to search for a martyr.

For what should I feel guilty?

FWIW, I do think you're searching for something. Not sure you're likely to find it on this forum however.

Not when it becomes personal.

With reference to specific posts, care to highlight where it became personal?

Please remember that this is the thread where I was compared with the likes of Mao and Pot, so be sure to not let double standards apply

You are badly mistaken. There was no solid idea of what has worked and what did not. Even now, I doubt if the best treatments are being used.

Given the timescales and rate of spread, there was solid evidence of success from South Korea. As time passed, the evidence of what measures worked increased.

To highlight here, I do not want you to be confused by bringing treatment regimes into the discussion. I am focusing on public health measures.

Too bad that you do not want to meet in person. Especially where I live . . .

If you are looking to meet people via the internet, there are much better websites to do that on than AE.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive


I'm very much an advocate of universal healthcare. But when the archetypal example of that is in a country that has one of the worst death rates worldwide and other European countries with similarly nationalised health services (Spain/Italy/Sweden) continue to have worse numbers than the US I hardly think it is a position of strength to start criticising their health system

Concern over costs for users exist in the US system that are not present to the same extent in the Spain/Italy/Sweden systems.

In many ways the already existing problem (which was already fairly serious) has worsened over the past few months with rising unemployment - both in terms of losing work related health benefits and financial concerns.

That's my point though - so far at least those cost concerns haven't resulted in higher death rates than those continental European countries. In the UK where there are precisely zero cost concerns from seeking medical attention we have one of the worst death rates in the world.

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive


I'm very much an advocate of universal healthcare. But when the archetypal example of that is in a country that has one of the worst death rates worldwide and other European countries with similarly nationalised health services (Spain/Italy/Sweden) continue to have worse numbers than the US I hardly think it is a position of strength to start criticising their health system

Concern over costs for users exist in the US system that are not present to the same extent in the Spain/Italy/Sweden systems.

In many ways the already existing problem (which was already fairly serious) has worsened over the past few months with rising unemployment - both in terms of losing work related health benefits and financial concerns.

That's my point though - so far at least those cost concerns haven't resulted in higher death rates than those continental European countries. In the UK where there are precisely zero cost concerns from seeking medical attention we have one of the worst death rates in the world.

US Governmental healthcare. Look up the VA healthcare systems and its problems. Enough said there.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive


I'm very much an advocate of universal healthcare. But when the archetypal example of that is in a country that has one of the worst death rates worldwide and other European countries with similarly nationalised health services (Spain/Italy/Sweden) continue to have worse numbers than the US I hardly think it is a position of strength to start criticising their health system

Concern over costs for users exist in the US system that are not present to the same extent in the Spain/Italy/Sweden systems.

In many ways the already existing problem (which was already fairly serious) has worsened over the past few months with rising unemployment - both in terms of losing work related health benefits and financial concerns.

It does not matter about the cost, people still receive care.

Demonstrably untrue.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490134/

Overall, 16.9% of Americans report at least 1 financial barrier.

But your admission here about the economy is a change. More problems will come from the economy than this illness. You should research the Hong Kong flu, the numbers and how everything was shut down - or not.

Problems with the economy are solvable.

Unless we've figured out how to beat death, then we absolutely should be biased towards one side here.

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Having your views challenged is not censorship.

I guess if you had a situation where you had a single poster with on point of view and 10 posters with opposing views that jumped on them every time they expressed themselves you could have some kind of 'indirect' censorship but as far as I'm concerned that has never been the case on this thread or the previous one. There has always been a broad range of viewpoints and no 'orthodoxy of opinion' discouraging people in general and CR more specifically from expressing their views.

When people discount the information presented because they do not like the source's viewpoint, then that is political especially when the person is directly or indirectly attacked.

I'm very reluctant to criticise somebody who is not here to defend himself. But I think it is fair to say that CR was hardly backwards in coming forwards about his own views of the media and the extent to which they could be trusted. From my own perspective it felt very much like he would frequently dismiss any information that didn't fit the 'everything's going to be fine' narrative as being hype from an untrustworthy and politicised media. That's as far as I'll go on him - like I said earlier whatever the differences we might have on an internet forum it is much more important to me that all is well with him and his family.

I think that's a fair assessment. I will add that this was the case even with information that was as impartial as it can get (eg. US Census data).

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Concern over costs for users exist in the US system that are not present to the same extent in the Spain/Italy/Sweden systems.

In many ways the already existing problem (which was already fairly serious) has worsened over the past few months with rising unemployment - both in terms of losing work related health benefits and financial concerns.

That's my point though - so far at least those cost concerns haven't resulted in higher death rates than those continental European countries. In the UK where there are precisely zero cost concerns from seeking medical attention we have one of the worst death rates in the world.

US Governmental healthcare. Look up the VA healthcare systems and its problems. Enough said there.

For someone that was touting "the needs of the man over the needs of the few, or the one" on the previous page, I'd have felt that your greater concern should surely be the larger number of those on low or no income who have no health insurance, rather than the issues with the VA and the smaller population it serves.

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Having your views challenged is not censorship.

I guess if you had a situation where you had a single poster with on point of view and 10 posters with opposing views that jumped on them every time they expressed themselves you could have some kind of 'indirect' censorship but as far as I'm concerned that has never been the case on this thread or the previous one. There has always been a broad range of viewpoints and no 'orthodoxy of opinion' discouraging people in general and CR more specifically from expressing their views.

When people discount the information presented because they do not like the source's viewpoint, then that is political especially when the person is directly or indirectly attacked.

That's going off on a tangent though? If your point is that politics came into a 'no politics thread' then yeah, clearly that happened - from all sides. I don't see where the jump is from that to censorship though.

I'm very reluctant to criticise somebody who is not here to defend himself. But I think it is fair to say that CR was hardly backwards in coming forwards about his own views of the media and the extent to which they could be trusted. From my own perspective it felt very much like he would frequently dismiss any information that didn't fit the 'everything's going to be fine' narrative as being hype from an untrustworthy and politicised media. That's as far as I'll go on him - like I said earlier whatever the differences we might have on an internet forum it is much more important to me that all is well with him and his family.

I also hope that all is well with him.

I don't think that he had the "everything's going to be fine" mentality but rather that "it's not here yet, so I will take suitable precautions and I will take more precautions if it gets into the area where I live." I was also in the last part and it is here so I am taking more precautions. I have also faced death and survived. So maybe I have a different outlook. Also, most of the deaths where I live are in assisted living facilities and nursing homes. I always said that the people there need to be protected. But one can not live in a bubble.

I live my life as normally as possible. I even went to Universal Studios Orlando the week it reopened. [:D]

More news from California on the SARS-2 corona virus first identified in Wuhan, China which then spread around the world:

California’s coronavirus test result data may be flawed, top health official says

A steep decline in California’s coronavirus infection rate announced this week by Gov. Gavin Newson may not be accurate, according to the state’s top public health official who said Tuesday that the state’s data system used to process COVID-19 test results is marred with technical issues.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... h-official

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Also, most of the deaths where I live are in assisted living facilities and nursing homes. I always said that the people there need to be protected. But one can not live in a bubble.

I think this is going to be the tightrope that governments everywhere are going to have to navigate. I'm not even sure it is possible to isolate those vulnerable populations. It only takes one slip and the virus is in. With what seems to be an incubation period of a week or so it has spread through the whole facility before you realise what has happened.

Even if it were possible I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the elderly and medically vulnerable being locked down in their homes whilst the rest of the population just carries on as normal.

So the challenge is to get the general healthy public on board with the idea that many of the things they are being asked to do are not necessarily for their own direct benefit or safety but for that of others further down the chain of infection. In Europe at least it seems we are not there yet.

To give an example from the UK. As bad as our death toll has been over the last few months we are now at a point where the virus seems to be stabilised at a fairly low prevalence. But we haven't sent the kids back to school yet. We are starting to see the government floating the idea that the only way we can do that is by tightening up in other areas - most notably with bars and pubs. So we are potentially getting to the point where we are going to be asking young low risk people to give up some of their recreational activities in order to protect the education of other people's children and/or to safeguard the elderly. That is not an easy sell in todays individualist society.

Actually, the message can get out there. Even with a little comedy:

Mel Brooks, Max Brooks share video to combat coronavirus: #DontBeASpreader

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/m ... oronavirus

Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hm-U9_nDlI

Came across this tracker today.

https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/resea ... se-tracker

They have also released a working paper that challenges some assumptions around measures in the US.

https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/publi ... s-covid-19

Darwin still keeps vigilant for mortal stupidity ...

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/08 ... 596662159/

And confirmation of the adage that one bad apple can spoil the barrel ...

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/corona ... 55952.html

Look folks, I've been treating this thread like when my kids are (or were) having friends over for a gathering in the basement game room: I stay out and leave them be until/unless I hear things I shouldn't.

Then it's "IF I HAVE TO COME DOWN THERE, THE PARTY IS OVER."

GOT IT?

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Look folks, I've been treating this thread like when my kids are (or were) having friends over for a gathering in the basement game room: I stay out and leave them be until/unless I hear things I shouldn't.

Then it's "IF I HAVE TO COME DOWN THERE, THE PARTY IS OVER."

GOT IT?

To be quite frank, the "hands off" moderation approach demonstrated that it didn't work in the last thread.

Is there a real expectation for a different outcome here?

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Look folks, I've been treating this thread like when my kids are (or were) having friends over for a gathering in the basement game room: I stay out and leave them be until/unless I hear things I shouldn't.

Then it's "IF I HAVE TO COME DOWN THERE, THE PARTY IS OVER."

GOT IT?

To be quite frank, the "hands off" moderation approach demonstrated that it didn't work in the last thread.

Is there a real expectation for a different outcome here?

Point taken