UberRebel

Established Members
  • Content Count

    1,289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

473 Excellent

About UberRebel

  • Rank
    Superstar

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

2,281 profile views
  1. It's almost as if COVID-19 has been politicized all along by one side to pillory the points of view of another. Not unlike how certain state governors have been attacked for their decisions to allow businesses to open up but other governors do the same thing but you don't hear a word about it because of their political affiliation.
  2. long winded post and admittedly I didn’t read all of it. If I’m reading correctly seems like you feel strongly that hotel owners shouldn’t be forced to shelter the homeless. I totally agree. It should be up to these businesses who they do business with
  3. I would agree with this. With a shortened season, it gives every team a slightly higher chance of winning it all just through smaller sample size. The Rays were already formidable too.
  4. Speaking of middle relievers, if there was ever a year to not pay for closers, this could be it if baseball is played. Double headers means everyone will get a crack at saves. Closers can’t pitch twice in a day
  5. I kinda always saw Karinchak as the main guy so doesn’t really change anything for me
  6. I fundamentally disagree with the bolded statement. You can 100% mitigate the risk of catching COVID-19 without sheltering in place in myriad ways. To be clear, I've been against the extent of shelter in place and shutting down of businesses, not the basic actions everyone can take as a matter of personal responsibility. These actions are as follows below, this list is not all-inclusive: -Washing your hands frequently -Not touching your face -Wearing a mask -Not getting too close to others -Not sharing straws or cups
  7. But the comparison isn't cars to coronavirus. The comparison is 1. driving cars carries a risk of dying in a car accident. But at a certain level the benefit outweighs the risk. 2. going out in public/working/relaxing social distancing carries a risk of catching COVID-19. But at a certain level the benefit outweighs the risk. You can say that cars are designed and safety-rated to protect people as much as possible, but an analogous safety would be washing your hands, wearing masks, etc. I'm not opposed to things but the complete shutdown of everything I think has been excessive. The analogy isn't 100% the same as the COVID-19 but its very much relevant
  8. Sorry to break it to you but that happens everyday, not sure if you notice. 30k people die from car accidents each year. We could turn that number into effectively 0 or close to it by making the universal speed limit everywhere 20 mph. But we don’t do that. Why? Because we’ve accepted the risk of a certain number of people dying with the speed limit being 65 mph and up because the benefit to getting around faster is deemed to be worth it.
  9. Yea, we probably won't get to a precise calculation, but I think we can use this whole fiasco as a cautionary tale for the future I agree with your sentiment that saving lives is a good thing. But I would never go so far as saying anything we would have done to save lives was "good enough" for me. I think good policy decision-making is based around tradeoffs. This may sound insensitive, but policy decisions should be driven around "weighing the value of a life" for lack of a better way of putting it. Is saving one life a good thing? Yes. Would we have done what we did, putting 30 million people out of work to save just one person's life? No. So a balance has to be endeavored to, and I don't think we did a good enough job of that this time out. Not to say that was easy... and yes, hindsight is 20/20
  10. Fair enough My premise that this was an overreaction should be pretty clear. It's based around the infected fatality rate being much lower than whatever number was being burned into most peoples' minds
  11. What theoretical death rate would you suggest as a comparison to .5%-1%? I get that it was the high end of the CFR, but the CFR being used as the primary basis for taking such drastic action and not the IFR is why I’m saying we overreacted
  12. I just ceded that SD saved some lives. The number of lives and how big the death rate was affected is where we disagree. Let’s take your earlier predicted of .5% - 1%. Im saying if we use that death rate, even if we didn’t fully lock down the death rate would not have been so much higher, and definitely nowhere near close to the numbers being peddled early on. Hence we overreacted. Are you claiming that the death rate would have been closer to say, 4% if we didn’t lock down?
  13. Social distancing saved some lives, yes. But if you’re trying to claim that social distancing caused the death rate to drastically reduce I don’t know what to tell you. Especially because it was never going to be the case that we would do nothing. We were always going to do some sort of mitigation. Social distancing bought us some time to increase capacity and prevented some unnecessary death in the even of capacity being overrun. The fact still stands that COVID-19 isn’t nearly as deadly as it was generally believed it would be originally. I will contend we overreacted as a result, and you can disagree.
  14. Basically what I was saying was you can't claim the death rate was significantly impacted by social distancing. Maybe a little, but not a lot.
  15. You're defending the studies and their flaws -- that's another conversation. I'm more blaming the media for the lack of nuance in that particular post. Most Americans were and have been unduly influenced by the media, which in turn forced many of the policymakers' hands into overreacting to avoid backlash. And yes, place your full faith in the scientists and policymakers, but they are not infallible. It's unfortunate that new data is showing that COVID-19 isn't nearly as deadly as was being widely peddled, and we are still ridiculing and castigating policymakers for even thinking about relaxing lockdowns after a month of this. I'm not sure if you're trying to disambiguate by conflating infection rate with death rate. Yes, social distancing and lockdowns prevented more people from getting infected. But in the absence of the healthcare system getting overwhelmed (which didn't happen and hasn't happened yet) the death rate as it is currently being seen as with the new data is the death rate we should be running with. It would be disingenuous to use death rate in the situation where the curve wasn't flattened and the healthcare system was completely overrun.