• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Distancing is a multi-faceted bit of fake news

cabse5 said:
The goal of extreme social distancing is to prevent the spread of the VIRUS. Let me ask you a question: At which point are the number of VIRUS cases allowable in the current SD scenario? Did you say zero? My answer would be closer to zero than otherwise. When will there be no VIRUS cases? When a vaccine is found? When will that be? Medical experts are predicting a year for a vaccine. This artificially extends the VIRUS crisis. The economic shutdown takes longer than should be. More people die from VIRUS than should be because of the inordinate length of the crisis.
Click to expand...

I will let the epidemiologists determine that, they are the experts, not me.
 
What if...? said:
Ok. Are you just being obtuse or are you actually incapable of understanding the situation?

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Because you are just stuck on your original position without acknowledging a single counterargument.

And your original position is just stupidity based on some narrative manufactured for someone who really doesn't care how many die as long as they can continue to harvest profits.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for the time to respond to you. I couldn't get my head around the fact you know extreme social distancing won't save lives. In fact, extreme social distancing will cause more deaths and permanent damage to people via coronavirus than, for example, a quarantine of those most susceptible...And you're OK with that??? As long as medical resources are preserved, that's all that matters???

Side note: I realize these high death tolls from coronavirus exposure predicted by scientists are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since extreme social distancing doesn't protect anyone, those most susceptible to coronavirus will be sacrificed and in the name of preserving hospital resources? What is wrong with the scientists working to 'stop the spread' of coronavirus?:roll:

2nd Side note: Since scientists are most concerned with preserving hospital resources, what indications are there that hospital resources are being highly taxed, right now?
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
I will let the epidemiologists determine that, they are the experts, not me.
Click to expand...

I don't have the link but epidemiologists are already warning that premature returns to normalcy could cause additional spikes in coronavirus casualty counts caused by (I figured out) the coronavirus still being a threat to be spread...Since extreme social distancing doesn't protect anyone.

If epidemiologists have their way, IMO, we'll be shut down until there is a vaccine or some regimen to defeat the affects of the virus.
 
cabse5 said:
I don't have the link but epidemiologists are already warning that premature returns to normalcy could cause additional spikes in coronavirus casualty counts caused by (I figured out) the coronavirus still being a threat to be spread...Since extreme social distancing doesn't protect anyone.

If epidemiologists have their way, IMO, we'll be shut down until there is a vaccine or some regimen to defeat the affects of the virus.
Click to expand...

This is why we needed a national responses instead of playing whack-a-mole with individual states having their own policy. The fed dropped the ball by not doing this.
 
tacomancer said:
This is why we needed a national responses instead of playing whack-a-mole with individual states having their own policy. The fed dropped the ball by not doing this.
Click to expand...

Well, exteme social distancing doesn't protect anyone from the spread of coronavirus so I'd say the scientists dropped the ball on this one.
 
cabse5 said:
Well, exteme social distancing doesn't protect anyone from the spread of coronavirus so I'd say the scientists dropped the ball on this one.
Click to expand...

given that you are just a random internet dude and are not an actual scientist. I am sure that while you believe what you post is true, you don't actually know what you are talking about.
 
tacomancer said:
given that you are just a random internet dude and are not an actual scientist. I am sure that while you believe what you post is true, you don't actually know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I use logic and I also realize that social distancing is a statistical device to lower the peaks of coronavirus cases but does not in any way prevent the spread of coronavirus.
 
cabse5 said:
I will use VIRUS for coronavirus and SD for Social Distancing.

Let's start with what is true about SD: SD lowers the peak of VIRUS cases
in the VIRUS curve of cases.

SD is a multi-faceted bit of fake news:

(1) That no one case of contracted VIRUS is acceptable.
Even though approximately 20% of the population which contracts
VIRUS acquires symptoms which need a hosptial.

(2) instead of SD reportedly lowering the chances of contracting VIRUS,
SD actually artifically extends the VIRUS crisis because of fake news 1.

(3) Instead of SD reportedly lowering the chances of contracting VIRUS,
SD will actually raise the chance of contracting VIRUS because of fake news 2.

(4) That SD is reportedly better for this VIRUS crisis than quarantining.

(5) That SD is reportedly less expensive to implement than quarantining.
Click to expand...


This is meaningless twaddle.

It’s also dangerous. Very dangerous.

Fake news? You repeated that twice. That’s meaningless.

What fake news?
 
tacomancer said:
given that you are just a random internet dude and are not an actual scientist. I am sure that while you believe what you post is true, you don't actually know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

He for sure has absolutely no idea what he is talking about;however, intentional low viral dose infection(similar to inoculating with cowpox) might be a midterm solution.
 
cabse5 said:
I use logic and I also realize that social distancing is a statistical device to lower the peaks of coronavirus cases but does not in any way prevent the spread of coronavirus.
Click to expand...

There was no logic in the OP. No facts. No real argument. Just a rejection of social distancing based in some idiotic claim about fake news, which you don’t bother to explain.
 
TomFitz said:
This is meaningless twaddle.

It’s also dangerous. Very dangerous.

Fake news? You repeated that twice. That’s meaningless.

What fake news?
Click to expand...

That social distancing of any type will prevent anyone from being exposed to coronavirus. That fake news.

Actually, the social distancing program is to preserve hospital resources.
EDIT: That those most susceptible to coronavirus will be sacrificed in the name of hospital resources in a time of pandemic.
 
Here we go again. It was obvious from the first post, that this was nothing but a troll thread.

Why do so many people on this forum insist on feeding trolls?
 
Since scientists are most concerned with preserving hospital resources in a time of pandemic, what indications are there that hospital resources are being over-taxed?
 
cabse5 said:
I use logic and I also realize that social distancing is a statistical device to lower the peaks of coronavirus cases but does not in any way prevent the spread of coronavirus.
Click to expand...

If you use logic, then you should be able to post the math, models, and historical cases which supports your case. The scientists are able to do this, are you?
 
cabse5 said:
I will volunteer if there were a quarantine.

Social distancing is just spinning the wheels (at best) and at worst will create more deaths than a quarantine because no one is being protected from coronavirus especially the most at risk.

EDIT: An actual quarantine would protect those most at risk to coronavirus by placing them apart, hence, less casualties to coronavirus than social distancing of any kind.
Click to expand...

An actual quarantine (segregating those infected while they remain contagious) would require actually knowing who is carrying COVID-19 and is still contagious, which would require complete testing of the entire population.

SD coupled with some business shutdowns is simply an attempt to slow the rate of COVID-19 spread until such testing can be done (that date is so far unknowable).

Your use of quarantine to segregate (which you call "place apart") those most at risk of death (without any testing?) from those less at risk of death would simply act as a means to more closely concentrate those most at risk of death as we have seen in some nursing homes.
 
tacomancer said:
If you use logic, then you should be able to post the math, models, and historical cases which supports your case. The scientists are able to do this, are you?
Click to expand...

Why should I model common sense? Quarantining those most at risk will greatly lower the casualty statistics for coronavirus. If you don't quarantine those most at risk (and if you artificially extend the crisis period for coronavirus) as you are now with extreme social distancing, casualty figures for coronavirus goes up.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Why should I model common sense? Quarantining those most at risk will greatly lower the casualty statistics for coronavirus. If you don't quarantine those most at risk (and if you artificially extend the crisis period for coronavirus), casualty figures for coronavirus goes up.
Click to expand...

Because common sense is often wrong.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
An actual quarantine (segregating those infected while they remain contagious) would require actually knowing who is carrying COVID-19 and is still contagious, which would require complete testing of the entire population.

SD coupled with some business shutdowns is simply an attempt to slow the rate of COVID-19 spread until such testing can be done (that date is so far unknowable).

Your use of quarantine to segregate (which you call "place apart") those most at risk of death (without any testing?) from those less at risk of death would simply act as a means to more closely concentrate those most at risk of death as we have seen in some nursing homes.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't require testing the entire population. Come on, figure it out.
Test those quarantined. Viola, there are enough tests!, er, not as many tests are necessary.
 
Last edited:
There are some really stupid ideas floating around in peoples heads, do they come up with this nonsense on their own or are there voices in their head that enlightens them?
Strange times we live in.
 
Casper said:
There are some really stupid ideas floating around in peoples heads, do they come up with this nonsense on their own or are there voices in their head that enlightens them?
Strange times we live in.
Click to expand...

It has always been like this.
 
cabse5 said:
The common sense to quarantine those most at risk to coronavirus is wrong?:lamo
Click to expand...

Yes. The required logistics of doing so would put them into group settings, which increases risk.
 
Casper said:
There are some really stupid ideas floating around in peoples heads, do they come up with this nonsense on their own or are there voices in their head that enlightens them?
Strange times we live in.
Click to expand...

The idea to use extreme social distancing to preserve hospital resources in a time of pandemic and let people die is stupid...No, it's criminal.
 
tacomancer said:
Yes. The required logistics of doing so would put them into group settings, which increases risk.
Click to expand...

So, you test them before the isolation. You test them during the isolation. You test them constantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom