Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't wish to sidetrack this thread with lengthy political and personal disagreements and long posts and counter-posts of "you said this" and "I said that." I see no profit in doing so when discussing things not pertinent to the topic of this thread. With that in mind, I replied to his three "American exceptionalism" assertions with as much brevity as possible. We'd do well to let this go and move back to the main topic.

I guess I don't find polite discussion, assumption of good intent in said discussions, and self-examination to be political in nature. I suppose YMMV.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Worldometers just added Italy's data. The number of deaths and number of new cases are essentially identical to yesterday's numbers. The encouraging aspect is that this solidifies the strong trend that the number of new cases has flattened or started down. This graph shows the numbers as of yesterday. When added to the chart, today's number will be just a bit lower than that of the 30th.

This tracks with an estimate of an April 7th peak in death rate for Italy (roughly 2 weeks after the rough peak in new cases here).

ORIGINAL: obvert

I posted recently a finding that the virus is mutating slowly. It has as many as 100+ variants now but they differ only in a few genes each, and so the supposition is that the immunity and the vaccine would be longer term. They equated it with something like a measles vaccine.

I think the number I saw was 600-some variations, but that that was still within the range of a vaccine similar to measles as opposed to flu, which needs to be updated nearly every year.

ORIGINAL: obvert

This article on the missing doctor in China also had this in it. More and more confirmation that the Chinese numbers are not only off, but off by design.

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/ ... 50737.html

Hubei resident Feng Jianbin said many people worried about the continued spread of COVID-19 by people with no symptoms.

"Asymptomatic carriers, as they're called, are defined by the government, who just keep on redefining the parameters and then say that there are no confirmed cases," Feng said. "The aim is mainly to cover up the reality."

"The day before yesterday there was a case like this in Jingmen city, who had traveled through Wuhan and stayed there for two days," he said. "That was two-and-a-half months ago, and they've only just discovered him, which is terrifying."

News website Caixin called on health officials to release official figures for the number of asymptomatic cases, who are not treated by the authorities as confirmed COVID-19 cases, even if they test positive for the virus.

What is amazing now is that so much of this is coming from the Chinese people. I could see this being a turning point in China, a time when people began to stand up to the Government and demand more freedoms.

There are reports of people on the border of Hubei tossing over police cars and otherwise being civilly disobedient. More than that though the tide of information is nearly impossible for even the Chinese government to stop without turning ff the internet alltogether.

Yep. It'll be "interesting" to guesstimate China's actual death toll later, when this is all over. From the reports of deliveries of thousands of urns to various crematoria, it sure looks like the actual death toll in Wuhan is 10x higher than what the government there is reporting (2,531 being the official number) - at least.

China's government being tight-lipped on information? Who'da thunk it?

ORIGINAL: alanschu

USA had a very large spike in deaths (almost eclipsing Italy's peak number with 912 vs 919) [:(]

Spain's numbers (new cases and deaths) seem to be flattening (definitely are logarithmically).

France is still accelerating but looks to be linearly. UK and Germany both had big jumps. One interesting thing I see about Germany is that their first death came almost a full month after their first tests. They do seem to have gotten an early start on the testing, as opposed to other places which seem to have ramped up the testing once critical patients were being hit.

That's what I'd expect, with the US having 5.33x the population.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The term "American exceptionalism" isn't threatening, it's just a broad word, recently created, that means different things to different people.

Some folks in here have said that there have been "American exceptionalism" posts in here. I made three of the posts referenced. They were certainly not "American excpetionalism" claims, as I understand them. Certainly when you read my comments in context with all my posts, you know I'm not claiming America is somehow better than other countries. We are more fortunate to be facing this later than others, thus able to learn from them. And we are fortunate to have resources that other countries don't have. This doesn't make us somehow superior to anybody else, but it does give us advantages in dealing with this.

How recently are you talking? Because it's been around for decades (centuries?). Wikipedia attributes the origin of the explicit phrase to Stalin in 1929, while Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the concept as far back as 1835, and the concept really goes further back than that. A more modern example would be Reagan's oratory ("Shining city on a hill", anyone?).

I think the conflict derives from different connotations of the term.

FWIW, when I read your 3 posts I derived a clear sense/undercurrent of "our health care system is actually really good and that will save us from experiencing something as bad as what our own experts are projecting", which isn't "de jure" American exceptionalism but I see some similarities as the overall measure of our health care system is kind of beside the point when comparing to other OECD nations (in ways good and bad) - in addition to disagreeing with the assessment of the quality of our system (speaking in general and on high level metrics: it's good/fine, but it's not really great).

I'm also 90% sure there are as many interpretations of what you wrote as there are people who read it. Language, man.

OR

is "American exceptionalism" the fact that we will have more deaths from CV!9 because our "higher standard" of living has allow unhealthy people to..... mmmmm... thrive.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I guess I don't find polite discussion, assumption of good intent in said discussions, and self-examination to be political in nature. I suppose YMMV.

I'm good with self-examination and polite discussion. And we all give others an assumption of good intent. But when a person consistently deviates from the norm, exception may be taken.

The most offensive posts I've seen here (those clearly contrary to the Forum rules) have been political in nature. Many of those floated by without notice or objection from the folks now objecting to references to "American exceptionalism" (which, as you've noted, have been rather vague and uncertain).

It would be very easy for this thread to veer off course and crash. This community is diverse, with every kine of political persuasion present. Many feel very strongly and will rise to the occasion if in disagreement with assertions by others. The General Forum discussion on the virus dried up and died because of disagreement. I'd rather not see that happen here. I think you and most everyone else agrees. Politics is sure to drive the fatal wedge and is contrary to the Forum decorum rules to boot.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The term "American exceptionalism" isn't threatening, it's just a broad word, recently created, that means different things to different people.

Some folks in here have said that there have been "American exceptionalism" posts in here. I made three of the posts referenced. They were certainly not "American excpetionalism" claims, as I understand them. Certainly when you read my comments in context with all my posts, you know I'm not claiming America is somehow better than other countries. We are more fortunate to be facing this later than others, thus able to learn from them. And we are fortunate to have resources that other countries don't have. This doesn't make us somehow superior to anybody else, but it does give us advantages in dealing with this.

1. The notion of "American exceptionalism" is not that America is de facto "better" or superior, but that America is different (or the exception, so to speak) from the rest of the world in a particular context (originally in political and historical contexts).

2. My original statement was referring to the exceptionalism in the views expressed in the thread that the US was going to be global exception because of two reasons:
i) the advanced sight of COVID-19 in other countries
ii) quality of healthcare in the US vs the rest of the world
iii) actions taken by the US to mitigate the spread.

3. I presented evidence that challenged the assumptions underpinning 2(i). We've still not got to a discussion of the evidence presented (and I am open to challenge on it).

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I am going to Smart and Final after work and buying about 5 restaurant size bags of Starbucks french roast. I'll throw out the frozen chicken in the fridge.

[&o][&o][&o]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Like 22sec's report about Mississippi, the situation in Georgia isn't quite what you'd take from the map (though we don't have a statewide shelter-in-place edict).

Here, the state mostly allowed local governments to handle regulations and ordinances. They did so surprisingly quickly. Schools closed, social distancing regulations were enacted, and some jurisdictions issued stay-at-home orders much earlier than other states and many European countries. (As noted before this is because the US had the benefit of going "last," learning from others.)

To this point, the local discretion seems to be working well. High density populations tend to have much stricter policies, while rural ones are a bit more relaxed. But even in the rural counties, the schools closed before those in England did, which seems counterintuitive to what would've been expected.

There will be many ways to look at this in the future. Among the more puzzling aspects is how Washington and California have done comparatively well, considering they were bushwhacked early in the process.

For California - I think most of our cities are spread out instead of built higher and deeper. And though we have a fairly large population, we have a lot of land mass. Suburbs everywhere and it's common for a lot of Californians to commute for 30-60 minute 1-way.

We kind of have been practicing social distancing as a norm.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The term "American exceptionalism" isn't threatening, it's just a broad word, recently created, that means different things to different people.

Some folks in here have said that there have been "American exceptionalism" posts in here. I made three of the posts referenced. They were certainly not "American excpetionalism" claims, as I understand them. Certainly when you read my comments in context with all my posts, you know I'm not claiming America is somehow better than other countries. We are more fortunate to be facing this later than others, thus able to learn from them. And we are fortunate to have resources that other countries don't have. This doesn't make us somehow superior to anybody else, but it does give us advantages in dealing with this.

1. The notion of "American exceptionalism" is not that America is de facto "better" or superior, but that America is different (or the exception, so to speak) from the rest of the world in a particular context (originally in political and historical contexts).

2. My original statement was referring to the exceptionalism in the views expressed in the thread that the US was going to be global exception because of two reasons:
i) the advanced sight of COVID-19 in other countries
ii) quality of healthcare in the US vs the rest of the world
iii) actions taken by the US to mitigate the spread.

3. I presented evidence that challenged the assumptions underpinning 2(i). We've still not got to a discussion of the evidence presented (and I am open to challenge on it).

I don't understand Point 1. Every country is unique. Every country is different. America too.

I don't understand Point 2i. What is "advanced sight of COVID-19"?

To my knowledge, no one compared the healthcare in the US with the rest of the world. I wrote that the US has good healthcare and I did state that our healthcare combined with other factors (going later in the cycle) should give us advantages that might help us in fighting COVID-19. That makes sense.

The US has taken countermeasures. And, since we had the advantage of reacting later, some of those countermeasures were taken earlier in our cycle. I noted that Georgia closed its schools earlier than England, which struck me as suprising. I also made it clear that was because we were lucky to see what was going on elsewhere; not because we were somehow "better."

Are those thoughts objectionable? Do they fit into the definition of "American exceptionalism" (whatever that is)?

Georgia Mayor Cancels Social Distancing Order Amid Coronavirus Pandemic
2 hrs ago


https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health ... li=BBnb7Kz


"On Wednesday, the mayor of Cumming, Georgia, announced that he was canceling the city's social distancing order, despite there being almost 5,000 confirmed coronavirus cases in the state."

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I guess I don't find polite discussion, assumption of good intent in said discussions, and self-examination to be political in nature. I suppose YMMV.

I'm good with self-examination and polite discussion. And we all give others an assumption of good intent. But when a person consistently deviates from the norm, exception may be taken.

The most offensive posts I've seen here (those clearly contrary to the Forum rules) have been political in nature. Many of those floated by without notice or objection from the folks now objecting to references to "American exceptionalism" (which, as you've noted, have been rather vague and uncertain).

It would be very easy for this thread to veer off course and crash. This community is diverse, with every kine of political persuasion present. Many feel very strongly and will rise to the occasion if in disagreement with assertions by others. The General Forum discussion on the virus dried up and died because of disagreement. I'd rather not see that happen here. I think you and most everyone else agrees. Politics is sure to drive the fatal wedge and is contrary to the Forum decorum rules to boot.

Naturally, given your repeated attempts to control the discussion, you are in the position to define what the "norm" is?

There is a repeating pattern of behaviour on your part: when your claims are challenged with evidence, the evidence is ignored, the intent behind the post is demeaned and the poster disparaged, and negative labels attached.

This is evident in this thread, and on previous occasions on the forum. It has been noted, both by myself and other members of the forum.

For you to attempt to take this position as a "moderator for civility" is exceptionally hypocritical. John 8:7

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The term "American exceptionalism" isn't threatening, it's just a broad word, recently created, that means different things to different people.

Some folks in here have said that there have been "American exceptionalism" posts in here. I made three of the posts referenced. They were certainly not "American excpetionalism" claims, as I understand them. Certainly when you read my comments in context with all my posts, you know I'm not claiming America is somehow better than other countries. We are more fortunate to be facing this later than others, thus able to learn from them. And we are fortunate to have resources that other countries don't have. This doesn't make us somehow superior to anybody else, but it does give us advantages in dealing with this.

1. The notion of "American exceptionalism" is not that America is de facto "better" or superior, but that America is different (or the exception, so to speak) from the rest of the world in a particular context (originally in political and historical contexts).

2. My original statement was referring to the exceptionalism in the views expressed in the thread that the US was going to be global exception because of two reasons:
i) the advanced sight of COVID-19 in other countries
ii) quality of healthcare in the US vs the rest of the world
iii) actions taken by the US to mitigate the spread.

3. I presented evidence that challenged the assumptions underpinning 2(i). We've still not got to a discussion of the evidence presented (and I am open to challenge on it).

I don't understand Point 1. Every country is unique. Every country is different. America too.

I don't understand Point 2i. What is "advanced sight of COVID-19"?


The US has taken countermeasures. And, since we had the advantage of reacting later, some of those countermeasures were taken earlier in our cycle. I noted that Georgia closed its schools earlier than England, which struck me as suprising. I also made it clear that was because we were lucky to see what was going on elsewhere; not because we were somehow "better."

1. The point was that the view was being expressed that America would not follow the emerging international trends for a variety of reasons proposed. I challenged one of those reasons.

2(i) refers to the ability to observe and learn from the international experience of COVID (Italy, China, Japan etc)

To my knowledge, no one compared the healthcare in the US with the rest of the world. I wrote that the US has good healthcare and I did state that our healthcare combined with other factors (going later in the cycle) should give us advantages that might help us in fighting COVID-19. That makes sense.

I refer you to post 2414 - fb.asp?m=4784923

Where you stated "We took countermeasures earlier in our cycle than Italy did theirs; we are blessed with a a more robust nationwide healthcare system that's had more time to gear up and develop treatments and ideas; we have a much bigger (but also more dispersed) population than Italy's. But I can't envision a scenario where we fail utterly in comparison. "

I presented evidence to challenge that.

This is supported by an earlier posts: 910 (fb.asp?m=4776343), 1074 (fb.asp?m=4777489) and 2561 (fb.asp?m=4785787)

You can throw in our earlier discussion where you dismissed my points about the structural issues about American healthcare out of hand (again, with zero engagement with evidence) with some handwaving to the list, but there's a lot to index there.

I should point out that this isn't aimed at you singularly. I had felt that Chickenboy was expressing the same (excessive?) optimism in the thread, but his recent post (2656 -fb.asp?m=4785787) has made me refrain from challenging that.

If by "controlling the discussion" you mean "trying to steer us away from politics," I've certainly done that. But the discussion in here has been robust, with very few "steerings" needed.

I don't ignore your post, but I don't like diverting the thread with lengthy chains of two parties posting "you said this" and "I said this" repeatedly. Already, that's what's happening here. Create another thread if you wish to go off on tangents. I've said that before. If that's controlling, so be it.

I know you and other members of the forum that share a certain political viewpoint see eye to eye. You're irritated by my comments, which seem pretty innocuous, but you ignore the clearly flagrant violations of decorum by those who share your viewpoints.

Our previous discussions have not gone well (Climate Change and some of the things in here), leading me to not want to get into lengthy discussions on tangential issues in here.

I disagreed with your comments about the poor in the US not having access to healthcare. I pointed out the reasons for my thoughts. How things have played out, at least to this point, have supported my views. There has been no evidence that the poor have been denied healthcare, at least to any statistically relevant extent. Everybody's getting treated.

Truly, I think we ought to take this elsewhere. Or, I can be excused, if there's a pressing need to engage in political discussion or contretemps in here.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I guess I don't find polite discussion, assumption of good intent in said discussions, and self-examination to be political in nature. I suppose YMMV.

I'm good with self-examination and polite discussion. And we all give others an assumption of good intent. But when a person consistently deviates from the norm, exception may be taken.

The most offensive posts I've seen here (those clearly contrary to the Forum rules) have been political in nature. Many of those floated by without notice or objection from the folks now objecting to references to "American exceptionalism" (which, as you've noted, have been rather vague and uncertain).

It would be very easy for this thread to veer off course and crash. This community is diverse, with every kine of political persuasion present. Many feel very strongly and will rise to the occasion if in disagreement with assertions by others. The General Forum discussion on the virus dried up and died because of disagreement. I'd rather not see that happen here. I think you and most everyone else agrees. Politics is sure to drive the fatal wedge and is contrary to the Forum decorum rules to boot.

Naturally, given your repeated attempts to control the discussion, you are in the position to define what the "norm" is?

There is a repeating pattern of behaviour on your part: when your claims are challenged with evidence, the evidence is ignored, the intent behind the post is demeaned and the poster disparaged, and negative labels attached.

This is evident in this thread, and on previous occasions on the forum. It has been noted, both by myself and other members of the forum.

For you to attempt to take this position as a "moderator for civility" is exceptionally hypocritical. John 8:7

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




1. The notion of "American exceptionalism" is not that America is de facto "better" or superior, but that America is different (or the exception, so to speak) from the rest of the world in a particular context (originally in political and historical contexts).

2. My original statement was referring to the exceptionalism in the views expressed in the thread that the US was going to be global exception because of two reasons:
i) the advanced sight of COVID-19 in other countries
ii) quality of healthcare in the US vs the rest of the world
iii) actions taken by the US to mitigate the spread.

3. I presented evidence that challenged the assumptions underpinning 2(i). We've still not got to a discussion of the evidence presented (and I am open to challenge on it).

I don't understand Point 1. Every country is unique. Every country is different. America too.

I don't understand Point 2i. What is "advanced sight of COVID-19"?


The US has taken countermeasures. And, since we had the advantage of reacting later, some of those countermeasures were taken earlier in our cycle. I noted that Georgia closed its schools earlier than England, which struck me as suprising. I also made it clear that was because we were lucky to see what was going on elsewhere; not because we were somehow "better."

1. The point was that the view was being expressed that America would not follow the emerging international trends for a variety of reasons proposed. I challenged one of those reasons.

2(i) refers to the ability to observe and learn from the international experience of COVID (Italy, China, Japan etc)

To my knowledge, no one compared the healthcare in the US with the rest of the world. I wrote that the US has good healthcare and I did state that our healthcare combined with other factors (going later in the cycle) should give us advantages that might help us in fighting COVID-19. That makes sense.

I refer you to post 2414 - fb.asp?m=4784923

Where you stated "We took countermeasures earlier in our cycle than Italy did theirs; we are blessed with a a more robust nationwide healthcare system that's had more time to gear up and develop treatments and ideas; we have a much bigger (but also more dispersed) population than Italy's. But I can't envision a scenario where we fail utterly in comparison. "

I presented evidence to challenge that.

This is supported by an earlier posts: 910 (fb.asp?m=4776343), 1074 (fb.asp?m=4777489) and 2561 (fb.asp?m=4785787)

You can throw in our earlier discussion where you dismissed my points about the structural issues about American healthcare out of hand (again, with zero engagement with evidence) with some handwaving to the list, but there's a lot to index there.

I should point out that this isn't aimed at you singularly. I had felt that Chickenboy was expressing the same (excessive?) optimism in the thread, but his recent post (2656 -fb.asp?m=4785787) has made me refrain from challenging that.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In that Michael Osterholm interview posted yesterday, he made a comment about how much virus is present in samples from patients' throats (throat cultures taken). On day sick, patients have 1,000 times as many virus particles there as did patients with SARS when the SARS patients were at their most contagious. The amount decreased day by day after; samples were not available from the study group on days -1 or -2 but it's presumed the amount of virus particles was even greater. This might be part of why it's so contagious as virus gets out there from patients just talking.

Note: I corrected this post after finding the section in the audio (a little after 1 hour 3 minutes)

I have a questions for the experts here. Since the virus seems to multiply fast before symptoms appear, would good oral hygiene either help keep one for getting sick by reducing the viral load and/or not get as sick since there would be fewer viruses? I mean not just brushing ones teeth, but using a mouthwash and gargle with it as well. That should help reduce the numbers of the viruses available to spread to other people or infect more cells in that person.

AFAIK, the virus actually resides in the lungs (the dry cough) as opposed to the mouth/throat (which would produce a wet cough). The throat sample is only getting a result because air from the lungs constantly throws virus up there.

Maybe that glue-sniffing alluded to earlier will get rid of the virus in the lungs? (This better not become an internet meme!)[8|][:-]

I just read this, with the size of this thread I can't be sure it hasn't already been posted.

Coronavirus: The California Herd

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

BBfanboy, no state is "playing 'business as usual." 30 states have state-mandated rules that apply across the board; most or all of the other 20 have variations or have allowed local governments to handle the declarations. As noted above, Georgia is one of the latter. Many counties and municipalities in Georgia were way ahead of other states and countries in implementing countermeasures.

Yes, subsequent to my post, I found there were several posts that mentioned local districts taking the initiative. What troubled me was a couple of days ago the governor of a state (Mississippi?) gave an order cancelling all the local stay-at-home type measures, and the other states did not seem to have a coherent plan for the state overall, letting a patchwork of measures take place locally. It is almost guaranteed that there will be some local governments that wait too long or be Doubting Thomas about the danger it poses.
It's a tough balancing act, but it seems easier to set up the restrictions and then lift them when it is apparent they are not needed rather than let the problem become nearly unmanageable and then scramble to contain it. Testing would help a lot but it looks like peak capacity has been reached for now.

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

[center][/center]"American exceptionalism"

Yes! The Jeep WAS an exceptional vehicle for the time!

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I just read this, with the size of this thread I can't be sure it hasn't already been posted.

Coronavirus: The California Herd

I vote for a warmer, dryer climate being the biggest reason for California's fairly low rate of infections. That, and the amount of time spent on freeways commuting.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Before I get caught up on the 6 pages I've missed since checking in yesterday (I'm taking the opportunity to get stuff done around the property since I don't have to commute anymore), here's a really cool link.

Note that it assumes our current measures of extreme social distancing will remain in place through all of May. Its projection (which should be a median projection) is for 93,765 deaths in the US from COVID-19 by August 4 (the error bar covers 41K to 177K, so not too different from Fauci's comments on Sunday).

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Hey Chickenboy - got thoughts?

Yeah. I got thoughts: "F*** that's depressing." But, yeah, I could see it in that range.

CDC revised 2018's flu numbers to 80,000 deaths in the US. This 'feels' worse than that, but that's because this is being squeezed into a month or so of meaningful mortality instead of 5 months. I think the presence of a vaccine, even one of partial / incomplete efficacy also gave people a greater sense of personal control in 2018. Unknowns are always worse than bad news. I think for those reasons, this feels more soul-sucking than the covert epidemic from 2018 that was more spread out.

If there is a silver lining, the model indicates that we should probably stay under the capitated limit for ICU beds and have sufficient ventilators nationally (between new production and that in the National mobile reserve). But this will be a region-by-region trial by fire. Excess ICU bed/ ventilator capacity in Dubuque is meaningless for a local crisis in New Orleans.

Lastly-full disclosure-assignation of resident hospital care and surge capacity is not my forte. I'll demure to actual physicians on this. I got no chops here.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I guess I don't find polite discussion, assumption of good intent in said discussions, and self-examination to be political in nature. I suppose YMMV.

I'm good with self-examination and polite discussion. And we all give others an assumption of good intent. But when a person consistently deviates from the norm, exception may be taken.

The most offensive posts I've seen here (those clearly contrary to the Forum rules) have been political in nature. Many of those floated by without notice or objection from the folks now objecting to references to "American exceptionalism" (which, as you've noted, have been rather vague and uncertain).

It would be very easy for this thread to veer off course and crash. This community is diverse, with every kine of political persuasion present. Many feel very strongly and will rise to the occasion if in disagreement with assertions by others. The General Forum discussion on the virus dried up and died because of disagreement. I'd rather not see that happen here. I think you and most everyone else agrees. Politics is sure to drive the fatal wedge and is contrary to the Forum decorum rules to boot.

Naturally, given your repeated attempts to control the discussion, you are in the position to define what the "norm" is?

There is a repeating pattern of behaviour on your part: when your claims are challenged with evidence, the evidence is ignored, the intent behind the post is demeaned and the poster disparaged, and negative labels attached.

This is evident in this thread, and on previous occasions on the forum. It has been noted, both by myself and other members of the forum.

For you to attempt to take this position as a "moderator for civility" is exceptionally hypocritical. John 8:7

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




1. The notion of "American exceptionalism" is not that America is de facto "better" or superior, but that America is different (or the exception, so to speak) from the rest of the world in a particular context (originally in political and historical contexts).

2. My original statement was referring to the exceptionalism in the views expressed in the thread that the US was going to be global exception because of two reasons:
i) the advanced sight of COVID-19 in other countries
ii) quality of healthcare in the US vs the rest of the world
iii) actions taken by the US to mitigate the spread.

3. I presented evidence that challenged the assumptions underpinning 2(i). We've still not got to a discussion of the evidence presented (and I am open to challenge on it).

I don't understand Point 1. Every country is unique. Every country is different. America too.

I don't understand Point 2i. What is "advanced sight of COVID-19"?


The US has taken countermeasures. And, since we had the advantage of reacting later, some of those countermeasures were taken earlier in our cycle. I noted that Georgia closed its schools earlier than England, which struck me as suprising. I also made it clear that was because we were lucky to see what was going on elsewhere; not because we were somehow "better."

1. The point was that the view was being expressed that America would not follow the emerging international trends for a variety of reasons proposed. I challenged one of those reasons.

2(i) refers to the ability to observe and learn from the international experience of COVID (Italy, China, Japan etc)

To my knowledge, no one compared the healthcare in the US with the rest of the world. I wrote that the US has good healthcare and I did state that our healthcare combined with other factors (going later in the cycle) should give us advantages that might help us in fighting COVID-19. That makes sense.

I refer you to post 2414 - fb.asp?m=4784923

Where you stated "We took countermeasures earlier in our cycle than Italy did theirs; we are blessed with a a more robust nationwide healthcare system that's had more time to gear up and develop treatments and ideas; we have a much bigger (but also more dispersed) population than Italy's. But I can't envision a scenario where we fail utterly in comparison. "

I presented evidence to challenge that.

This is supported by an earlier posts: 910 (fb.asp?m=4776343), 1074 (fb.asp?m=4777489) and 2561 (fb.asp?m=4785787)

You can throw in our earlier discussion where you dismissed my points about the structural issues about American healthcare out of hand (again, with zero engagement with evidence) with some handwaving to the list, but there's a lot to index there.

I should point out that this isn't aimed at you singularly. I had felt that Chickenboy was expressing the same (excessive?) optimism in the thread, but his recent post (2656 -fb.asp?m=4785787) has made me refrain from challenging that.

Please leave the religion and references to religious books out of this thread. I do not want it locked.

If by "controlling the discussion" you mean "trying to steer us away from politics," I've certainly done that. But the discussion in here has been robust, with very few "steerings" needed.

While a commendable exercise, it is worth highlighting that you have not been appointed a moderator on the forum. Unsure then why you feel the need to act as one, when they have demonstrated that they can and do involve themselves where needed.

I don't ignore your post, but I don't like diverting the thread with lengthy chains of two parties posting "you said this" and "I said this" repeatedly. Already, that's what's happening here. Create another thread if you wish to go off on tangents. I've said that before. If that's controlling, so be it.

The need for excessive quoting is driven by your consistent attempts to misrepresent, distort and dismiss points that I have raised. If you were to cease with rhetoric and address the actual points raised then it would not be required and a more fluid discussion could emerge.

Our previous discussions have not gone well (Climate Change and some of the things in here), leading me to not want to get into lengthy discussions on tangential issues in here.

Our previous discussions have not gone well precisely because of the behaviour on your part I have outlined previously.

I disagreed with your comments about the poor in the US not having access to healthcare.

That has been noted.

I pointed out the reasons for my thoughts.

Which were supported only by anecdotal evidence.

How things have played out, at least to this point, have supported my views. There has been no evidence that the poor have been denied healthcare, at least to any statistically relevant extent.

I provided a range evidence from the U.S Census, CDC and NCBI that demonstrated that this was not the case.

Given that it was quite some time ago, happy to repost to refresh the discussion:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... sured.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/access ... h-care.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6125037/

I would like to correct you on a point of language on discussion to healthcare. Denying is not quite the correct terminology from my reading on the subject; a more accurate term should be something like structural barriers to accessing healthcare.

Truly, I think we ought to take this elsewhere. Or, I can be excused, if there's a pressing need to engage in political discussion or contretemps in here.

You keep reiterating that this discussion is supposedly political.

The above posted links are all firmly focused on technical and statistical matters related to healthcare. The only manner in which this discussion could turn political is if you make it so. I am more than content with sticking strictly to a technical, statistical and structural discussion on the topic.

American intelligence agencies report to the President that China......wait for it...LIED about the numbers...thus hampering public health decisions worldwide and making containment impossible.

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... gence-says