Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Chimpzy]

Colorado Supreme Court rules on Trump 14th Amendment case

The Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn't an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment's "insurrectionist ban."

www.cnn.com

I litrally don't care unless it's a swing state, or somewhat of a swing state.

It's also meaningless. Trump will appeal and this will not withstand federal review.

 

[Silvanus]

What is so horrible and wrong that they linked lockdowns to? Everything makes logical sense. It's not healthy to tell people to not see other people, and stuff like drug increases, lower mental health, suicides, etc are all linked to that [...]

And you have no idea how many excess deaths are accounted for by the impact of lockdowns on those things. It's all speculation. This is the shoddiest of statistical science.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And you have no idea how many excess deaths are accounted for by the impact of lockdowns on those things. It's all speculation. This is the shoddiest of statistical science.

Yet more accurate than covid deaths. I said it's the better starting point, not end-all-be-all.

Excess mortality is a more comprehensive measure of the total impact of the pandemic on deaths than the confirmed COVID-19 death count alone. It captures not only the confirmed deaths, but also COVID-19 deaths that were not correctly diagnosed and reported as well as deaths from other causes that are attributable to the overall crisis conditions.

Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)

Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions.1 In this case, we’re interested in how the number of deaths during the COVID-19...

ourworldindata.org

 

[Silvanus]

Yet more accurate than covid deaths. I said it's the better starting point, not end-all-be-all.

Excess mortality is a more comprehensive measure of the total impact of the pandemic on deaths than the confirmed COVID-19 death count alone. It captures not only the confirmed deaths, but also COVID-19 deaths that were not correctly diagnosed and reported as well as deaths from other causes that are attributable to the overall crisis conditions.

Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)

Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions.1 In this case, we’re interested in how the number of deaths during the COVID-19...

ourworldindata.org

Even that description is talking about the overall impact of the pandemic as a whole-- the deaths from the virus, overwhelmed health services, comorbidities etc-- rather than what can be attributed to the public health policies increasing risks.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Even that description is talking about the overall impact of the pandemic as a whole-- the deaths from the virus, overwhelmed health services, comorbidities etc-- rather than what can be attributed to the public health policies increasing risks.

And public health policies have no impact on those things? Wasn't one of the points of lockdowns so that health services didn't get overwhelmed? So wouldn't a country that didn't lock down have more death attributable to overwhelmed health services and have a worse excess mortality than a country that did (not to mention that the no lockdown country would have more covid spread and deaths)? Also, excess deaths find missed covid deaths (isn't that what you want?) and in essence, equalize the different counting methods countries used.

Again, it's the better starting point vs just covid deaths, not some perfectly amazing number that tells every letter of the story.

 

[Silvanus]

And public health policies have no impact on those things?

Obviously they do. But your source treats them like the sole determinant of excess deaths, which is patently absurd.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Obviously they do. But your source treats them like the sole determinant of excess deaths, which is patently absurd.

Again, covid deaths is the shoddier statistical science compared to excess deaths. I don't know why you'd rather use the worse metric.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, covid deaths is the shoddier statistical science compared to excess deaths. I don't know why you'd rather use the worse metric.

This is just a reiteration of your position, it doesn't address what you replied to.

Why should we treat lockdowns as the sole determinant of the number of excess deaths?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This is just a reiteration of your position, it doesn't address what you replied to.

Why should we treat lockdowns as the sole determinant of the number of excess deaths?

I never said that, I've always included all covid restrictions together (basically anything thing policy-wise that public health did to try to mitigate covid). The logic is if covid was the leading cause of excess deaths (which I think everyone will agree on) during at least the 1st year (and probably the 2nd year too), then being able to mitigate covid deaths should cause your excess deaths to be lower than a country that didn't (assuming similar type countries obviously, not like say Japan and Kenya for example). If covid lockdowns/restrictions worked somewhat decently in mitigating covid, then how is a country that didn't do any covid lockdowns/restrictions gonna do similarly close in the excess death metric? Hell, Sweden didn't even mask (but I'm been told by everyone here masks work with no proof of them working), how the hell did Sweden do so well (or close to other countries) unless I'm to believe Sweden was just randomly entering a year or so of significant negative excess deaths just based on coincidence and luck. Same with Japan too.

 

[Gergar12]

Tim Alberta

<i>Tim Alberta is a staff writer for </i>The Atlantic<i> and the author of </i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Power-Glory-Evangelicals-Extremism/dp/006322688X"><u>The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism</u></a><i>. He formerly served as chief...

www.politico.com

Regarding this guy's work. He argues that Christians should accept playing second fiddle to the atheists, and agonists and accept their decline. This is my problem with liberals. They generally believe people are this naive.

By the way, I don't disagree with this guy's arguments, but I am agnostic. But if you're a powerful billionaire Christian in a rural state why the fuck should this guy's argument sway you. Conservatives have a strong sense of ownership over this country, I don't(I believe America belongs to all Americans and all who want it) but they do. In what world is an evangelical Christian who supports the Republicans going to be like? I going to accept the change in this country from a god-fearing loving country to a godless country because it's the right thing to do, and we can be the cool rebels again like in Rome. Get out of here!

Conservatives are not known for their love of change. They conserve. The establishment is weird and out of touch. Change oftentimes happens through violence, it happens through voting with your time and wallet.

Status Quo powers rarely accept rising powers. What happened from the UK changing to the US as the world hegemon was an anomaly in history. Wars both civil or otherwise are fought because of change.

In fact, a lot of the reasons we are seeing mass shooters, loneliness, and so forth are because of a lack of third places. Like churches, community centers, and populated town squares in rural towns, and this is due to the Internet. But the solution to that would be more diverse third places in the suburbs, rural remote working(hopefully from the global south), and more outreach in urban areas.

 

[Hades]

Status Quo powers rarely accept rising powers. What happened from the UK changing to the US as the world hegemon was an anomaly in history. Wars both civil or otherwise are fought because of change.

Well a giant war did took place during that shift of hegemony. Its just that the US and Britain happened to be on the same side of that war. Though it could be argued Germany rather than Britain was the hegemon considering its military dominance over Britain in both wars.

 

[Silvanus]

I never said that, I've always included all covid restrictions together (basically anything thing policy-wise that public health did to try to mitigate covid).

...as well as everything else, related to Covid or not.

The logic is if covid was the leading cause of excess deaths (which I think everyone will agree on) during at least the 1st year (and probably the 2nd year too), then being able to mitigate covid deaths should cause your excess deaths to be lower than a country that didn't (assuming similar type countries obviously, not like say Japan and Kenya for example). If covid lockdowns/restrictions worked somewhat decently in mitigating covid, then how is a country that didn't do any covid lockdowns/restrictions gonna do similarly close in the excess death metric?

Any number of reasons. Let's say Omicron became the dominant strain in a country earlier than elsewhere-- that could cause the excess deaths to lower without anything to do with public health policy. Or let's say a country experienced a severe cold snap-- excess deaths would rise, without anything to do with covid at all.

 

[Gergar12]

Of course, it's not Mayor Adam's fault that ten thousand migrants come to his state every month from republican border states, and no it's not the republican's fault either. If I was a Republican in Texas I would be livid if I was forced to care and pay current taxes for migrants when states with more people agree with high or higher levels of immigration relative to Republicans.

When migrants migrate to a country they can't just willy-nilly pay taxes, get a job, etc instantly. They need to be housed, and their children need to go to school first then they need to see their asylum cases handled. I used to believe in an open borders policy where anyone who can get in should get in, but that's not realistic. Most migrants aren't going to my state of Ohio where we in Columbus have plenty of room, but nothing to do and taco trucks would help us create a better food culture in Columbus(Unless you live in Delaware County). They are going to the popular cities of LA, New York City, and Chicago or any other top 10 more popular metro. Space there is likely limited, and building high like what I want has its costs. It's maintenance costs that will make tall buildings cost an arm and a leg. There's a reason in the US we build lower-story buildings. I don't like it and wish for there to be engineering solutions to high-rise buildings and their maintenance costs, but right now there aren't any to make that better.

Density means inspectors, fire suppression, garbage pickup, and even simple things like plumbing can get very complicated. It's great for leftists to want higher buildings, but sucks from a cost perspective and maintenance perspective. My personal favorite is the single-digit-story apartment buildings we have in many cities. Low cost, decent density, and great for the environment, but a metro of high rises is out of the question.

If we treat migrants like an investment problem it's going to take a while before they become societal contributors which even decently well-functioning adults like me(Somewhat) have trouble with. Migrants are a future good/service investment. Yes, some will be skilled in their profession, but many don't speak English unless they are university grads or Indians for colonial reasons. Yes most work, but the more valuable component is the first-gen kids, and their kids, and their kids. They will be the ones who get assimilated and become the dynamic contributors we need.

So why doesn't the US government just force migrants to go to a certain city, or state or even pay them? Well, one because they don't want to, and two freedom/human rights. Also that costs money too.

So why don't we just allow them to get jobs, and start paying taxes ASAP? Well, that leads to the problem of induced demand. The US is one of the wealthiest societies on the face of the planet for its size. The more you let in, the more will come. The more open the border and or immigration policy is the more will come. There is likely a medium/optimal percentage rate of immigration where you can assimilate immigrants, get them jobs, get their kids to schools, and NOT create favelas, and homeless encampments and the US government at least wants you to speak English and Spanish for practical purposes(Unless you're a republican then English only). Some immigrants from Central America can't even speak Spanish(I shit you not). This creates more problems that can only be solved in the future as these kids then learn English and a few become indigenous language translators

This problem is a problem of current resources(people, funding for budgets) which are limited and fixed even for a country as big as the US. Let's say you are a country and everyone you let in averages around 30 thousand in income each year but needs at least double that for things like housing, schools, etc as a one-time cost. Unless you are a country full of Star Trek replicators you can't accept an unlimited amount because your budget isn't unlimited. You should as a dynamic country accept a lot because of more people more power more taxes more researchers, etc, but that does not mean unlimited or even the rest of the world.

It's a balancing act for Democrats who are good people, but are also smart enough to know this policy problem. Let's say I was President Biden(Since Mayor Eric Adams faces budget problems, and has already asked the federal government for more money, and the fact that remote jobs are a thing in the future so city budgets may decrease) I would begin asking my staff for ways to stem the flow since the US is also facing budget decreases from the previous free trade era closing which means less GDP in the future and likely a recession due to this. (Less trade less GDP with everything else equal), while getting the current immigrants to be as productive as possible. It's crappy closing the door but we can't afford not to.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

...as well as everything else, related to Covid or not.



Any number of reasons. Let's say Omicron became the dominant strain in a country earlier than elsewhere-- that could cause the excess deaths to lower without anything to do with public health policy. Or let's say a country experienced a severe cold snap-- excess deaths would rise, without anything to do with covid at all.

Omicron came out late 2021 so excess deaths for 2020 and 2021 wouldn't really affect that. Plus, data on these variants being less deadly isn't completely comparative. As the variants come out, more and more people have been exposed to the virus and vaccine so they'll be less and less deadly just on that alone. You'd have to compare people who never got covid or a vaccine that got omicron to the original strain, and people that haven't seen covid or a vaccine at this point (for a new strain now or even for omicron itself) is rather nonexistent. So what events did say the UK face during the pandemic that would've caused a significant increase in excess deaths that Sweden didn't face? I can literally tell you why comparing Swedish covid deaths alone to the UK isn't very comparable because Sweden counted covid deaths differently.

Literally from the WHO:
Countries also use different processes to test and report COVID-19 deaths, making comparisons difficult. To overcome these challenges, many countries have turned to excess mortality as a more accurate measure of the true impact of the pandemic.

 

[Silvanus]

Omicron came out late 2021 so excess deaths for 2020 and 2021 wouldn't really affect that. Plus, data on these variants being less deadly isn't completely comparative.

Oh, for... you've missed the point again. It was an example. The difference in variant would affect excess deaths without having anything to do with public health policy. Doesn't need to be Omicron.

As the variants come out, more and more people have been exposed to the virus and vaccine so they'll be less and less deadly just on that alone.

...which all happened to different countries at different times and different rates. And then those affected later will have better chance of responding. All the more reason a direct comparison of excess deaths, with no adjustments, is not going to be very informative.

So what events did say the UK face during the pandemic that would've caused a significant increase in excess deaths that Sweden didn't face?

For an example: UK excess deaths associated with flu rose to about 14,500 per year, significantly more than Sweden. The UK also experiences almost 25% more excess winter deaths than Sweden, including during the pandemic. There you have two reasons for the UK to have higher excess deaths that are unrelated to covid health policies.

Literally from the WHO:
Countries also use different processes to test and report COVID-19 deaths, making comparisons difficult. To overcome these challenges, many countries have turned to excess mortality as a more accurate measure of the true impact of the pandemic.

Impact OF THE PANDEMIC. That's not the bloody same thing as impact of PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Oh, for... you've missed the point again. It was an example. The difference in variant would affect excess deaths without having anything to do with public health policy. Doesn't need to be Omicron.



...which all happened to different countries at different times and different rates. And then those affected later will have better chance of responding. All the more reason a direct comparison of excess deaths, with no adjustments, is not going to be very informative.



For an example: UK excess deaths associated with flu rose to about 14,500 per year, significantly more than Sweden. The UK also experiences almost 25% more excess winter deaths than Sweden, including during the pandemic. There you have two reasons for the UK to have higher excess deaths that are unrelated to covid health policies.



Impact OF THE PANDEMIC. That's not the bloody same thing as impact of PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY.

I got the point, you gave a poor example.

The flu was gone during the pandemic, covid out-competed it and basically kicked it out. Again, another bad example.

If it's known that UK experiences 25% more cold deaths than Sweden, why wouldn't that have been part of UK's excess death calculation already. Or are you saying that in say 2020, the UK experienced something weather related that caused 25% more cold deaths than average that Sweden didn't experience?

Are not covid lockdowns/restrictions public health policy to reduce the effect of the pandemic? Say if lockdowns/restrictions reduce the effect of the pandemic by 20%, wouldn't that be noticeable in the excess deaths when comparing countries during the pandemic years?

 

[Silvanus]

I got the point, you gave a poor example.

For those capable of extrapolating from an example, it was perfectly fine.

The flu was gone during the pandemic, covid out-competed it and basically kicked it out. Again, another bad example.

Bollocks. You don't know what you're talking about.

It took a dip during the pandemic, due to lower community transmission and competition, but it absolutely didn't disappear-- and remained worse for the UK than Sweden. And before long, circulation rose once again.

Excess deaths associated with flu highest in 5 years

UKHSA has published its annual flu report for the 2022 to 2023 flu season, the first time flu has been widespread since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

www.gov.uk

.

If it's known that UK experiences 25% more cold deaths than Sweden, why wouldn't that have been part of UK's excess death calculation already.

!?! This doesn't make sense. You've shown-- yet again-- that you don't actually understand what excess deaths mean. You don't just include some sources of excess deaths into the baseline-- that would entirely defeat the point of the metric.

Are not covid lockdowns/restrictions public health policy to reduce the effect of the pandemic? Say if lockdowns/restrictions reduce the effect of the pandemic by 20%, wouldn't that be noticeable in the excess deaths when comparing countries during the pandemic years?

Of course it would have an impact. Problem is, your source treats it as the only impact-- not only on covid, but on all sources of excess deaths, like cold snaps and flu.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

For those capable of extrapolating from an example, it was perfectly fine.



Bollocks. You don't know what you're talking about.

It took a dip during the pandemic, due to lower community transmission and competition, but it absolutely didn't disappear-- and remained worse for the UK than Sweden. And before long, circulation rose once again.

Excess deaths associated with flu highest in 5 years

UKHSA has published its annual flu report for the 2022 to 2023 flu season, the first time flu has been widespread since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

www.gov.uk

.



!?! This doesn't make sense. You've shown-- yet again-- that you don't actually understand what excess deaths mean. You don't just include some sources of excess deaths into the baseline-- that would entirely defeat the point of the metric.



Of course it would have an impact. Problem is, your source treats it as the only impact-- not only on covid, but on all sources of excess deaths, like cold snaps and flu.

Stop gaslighting people... The flu didn't just "dip", it vanished. What about the 2020-2021 flu season that didn't exist? Why didn't the UK kick Sweden's ass in excess deaths? Also, where's the numbers showing the UK did worse than Sweden when the flu came back?

The Flu Vanished During Covid. What Will Its Return Look Like? (Published 2021)

The latest flu season, which normally would have run until next month, essentially never happened.

www.nytimes.com

Flu Has Disappeared for More Than a Year

Mask wearing, social distancing and other steps to stop COVID-19 have also curtailed influenza

www.scientificamerican.com

If say Sweden normally has 1,000 cold deaths per 1 million and the UK has 1,250 deaths (25% more) per 1 million, why would the UK have 25% more excess deaths in cold deaths than Sweden if say the 2020 cold death numbers were like 998 in Sweden and 1,252 in the UK? What happened in the UK in 2020 that caused the UK to have 25% more cold deaths than the average year? Excess deaths calculates the average deaths per year expected (whether if from flu, from cold or heat, from traffic accidents, from heart attacks, etc.). It would be like me saying Sweden has 50% more bicycling deaths than the UK since Sweden bikes more, but that's already a known thing so it's part of the expected deaths in any given year.

Again, what not normal thing happened in the UK to cause more excess deaths (other than covid) that Sweden didn't face that would cancel out the significant amount of ASSUMED saved deaths from lockdowns/restrictions?

 

[Silvanus]

Stop gaslighting people... The flu didn't just "dip", it vanished.

Nope. People still caught it. People still died. It still affected excess deaths, to a degree varying from country to country.

What about the 2020-2021 flu season that didn't exist?

January to August 2020, 13,600 deaths had influenza as the underlying cause:

Source: ONS

And over 20,000 for influenza+pneumonia for 2021.

Why didn't the UK kick Sweden's ass in excess deaths?

You may have noticed that the UK suffered disproportionately badly during the pandemic, due to systemic mismanagement.

Also, where's the numbers showing the UK did worse than Sweden when the flu came back?

I've already provided a source showing a 5-year high in excess influenza deaths in the UK following the pandemic--- beyond anything Sweden was experiencing at the same time. Do you not actually look at the sources people provide then?

The Flu Vanished During Covid. What Will Its Return Look Like? (Published 2021)

The latest flu season, which normally would have run until next month, essentially never happened.

www.nytimes.com

unfurl="true"]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic1/

Ooh, thank you for providing a source that argues mask-wearing and other public health policies effectively minimised both flu and covid! I'm a little surprised you're happy to provide a source that so comprehensively argues against you, but it's appreciated!

If say Sweden normally has 1,000 cold deaths per 1 million and the UK has 1,250 deaths (25% more) per 1 million, why would the UK have 25% more excess deaths in cold deaths than Sweden if say the 2020 cold death numbers were like 998 in Sweden and 1,252 in the UK?

Uhrm, because you just pulled most of those numbers out of your ass.

"If X [totally imaginary stat] is true, then why would Y [unrelated actual stat] be true!?"

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Nope. People still caught it. People still died. It still affected excess deaths, to a degree varying from country to country.



January to August 2020, 13,600 deaths had influenza as the underlying cause:

Source: ONS

And over 20,000 for influenza+pneumonia for 2021.



You may have noticed that the UK suffered disproportionately badly during the pandemic, due to systemic mismanagement.



I've already provided a source showing a 5-year high in excess influenza deaths in the UK following the pandemic--- beyond anything Sweden was experiencing at the same time. Do you not actually look at the sources people provide then?



Ooh, thank you for providing a source that argues mask-wearing and other public health policies effectively minimised both flu and covid! I'm a little surprised you're happy to provide a source that so comprehensively argues against you, but it's appreciated!



Uhrm, because you just pulled most of those numbers out of your ass.

"If X [totally imaginary stat] is true, then why would Y [unrelated actual stat] be true!?"

Can you not read? The flu literally vanished.

I said the 2020-21 flu season. That data would be from the 2019-2020 flu season. Covid came in about March-ish so you had some normal flu activity in the beginning of 2020.

But but but the covid lockdowns and restrictions, did those not work? Wouldn't mismanagement of doing that result in better results than Sweden not literally doing anything? What about that "rule of six"? Did that not work? Nor did it make any sense...

I control-Fed "sweden" and nothing was in there.

Just because they said that doesn't make it true whereas the flu did literally vanish. People still don't realize it was viral interference that made the flu vanish and think it was just masks and washing hands. Why would the flu vanish when kids are the main driver of the flu and kids were still in school in basically every country but the US?

That's the point, I was using the numbers as an example. Does the UK normally have 25% more cold deaths than Sweden? Or did the UK have 25% more than their normal compared to Sweden? If so, then what was the reason why the UK experienced more cold deaths than normal (which can possibly be because of covid and asinine restrictions that end up harming more than helping). For example, here in the Chicago area when there's a heat wave, the city opens up cooling centers and using places like libraries and such, and guess what could happen during a heat wave when libraries aren't open because of covid? Perhaps, the UK does the same with public buildings in the winter for heat and those were closed during covid.