Politics XXXV (Life in the Vault is about to change)

[Guard Dog]

17 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

LIBERATE PUERTO RICO!

Puerto Rico libertad tiene

They can leave at any time. 

[Maedhros]

43 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

It's a myth that they have "quotas" to meet. But a cop that is not arresting people or writing citations (which come with heavy fines) is thought to not be productive. So what happens when do one is doing anything wrong?

Always looking for good excuses to post clips from The Wire (made by a former cop). It makes a pretty strong suggestion that the police aren't really to blame, not even the top brass. They just do what they have to, to please the politicians in charge (more convoluted than that, but oversimplified). "It's the chain of command baby, the **** always rolls downhill."

Edited April 18, 2020 by Maedhros

[Skarpen]

58 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

I still disagree with Skarpen anyway though, since...

It's not about if false negative would be counted in stats or not. If she would really be in hospital and had a doctor diagnose her with false negative the hospital would have a name and the doctor would have a name. Parents would give those names to the cop for confirmation, press would contact them for corraboration of the story and WILL would include those in their lawsuit. From what I see none of this happen because there was no hospital and there was no doctor. And I agree with police creating a panic in times of epidemic because a teenager wants some attention is criminal.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Skarpen

[Gfted1]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Puerto Rico libertad tiene

They can leave at any time. 

I wish somebody would take PR off our hands! A 110 x 35 mile island comprised solely of qq-ers that cant find a port full of relief supplies, and costs the US at least 21B annually in Federal aid. Besides Guam, we could probably cut the rest loose.

[Guard Dog]

14 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

I wish somebody would take PR off our hands! A 110 x 35 mile island comprised solely of qq-ers that cant find a port full of relief supplies, and costs the US at least 21B annually in Federal aid. Besides Guam, we could probably cut the rest loose.

I would be nice to hold on to USVI and American Samoa too. Easy access to beautiful places. The Mariana islands are pretty much uninhabited. Puerto Rico does not neem to know what they want to do. ASAIK there has never been a big push in Guam for a status change. 

[213374U]

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Uhm, what now? You are telling me that it's impossible to know if there was or wasn't a reported case?! Those things are tracked man...

Your original statement didn't specify reported cases, it simply said cases. Thus, you cannot have evidence that there are no cases broadly speaking, even though having no reported cases is evidence of there being no cases that have been reported, and also a tautology.

The extent to which an absence of reported cases is evidence of an absence of cases is exceedingly limited, in part for what Zoraptor explained. Someone self-reporting a case based on a medical examination immediately invalidates "evidence" that there are no reported cases by virtue of itself being a report of a case.

And I say this as someone that's concerned about the problems with entities playing fast and loose with numbers in this situation. There are serious questions regarding how deaths are being attributed to coronavirus, where what you have is comorbidity, or simply excess mortality YoY.

[Skarpen]

13 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Your original statement didn't specify reported cases, it simply said cases. Thus, you cannot have evidence that there are no cases broadly speaking, even though having no reported cases is evidence of there being no cases that have been reported, and also a tautology.

The extent to which an absence of reported cases is evidence of an absence of cases is exceedingly limited, in part for what Zoraptor explained. Someone self-reporting a case based on a medical examination immediately invalidates "evidence" that there are no reported cases by virtue of itself being a report of a case.

And I say this as someone that's concerned about the problems with entities playing fast and loose with numbers in this situation. There are serious questions regarding how deaths are being attributed to coronavirus, where what you have is comorbidity, or simply excess mortality YoY.

This rant doesn't make an ounce of sense and isn't even close to the the point. You should read less Gromnir posts. 

[213374U]

Rather, your inability to understand criticism of your points is evidence of you lacking understanding of what you are talking about.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge."

[Orogun01]

4 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

I wish somebody would take PR off our hands! A 110 x 35 mile island comprised solely of qq-ers that cant find a port full of relief supplies, and costs the US at least 21B annually in Federal aid. Besides Guam, we could probably cut the rest loose.

But...they made Despacito

[Zoraptor]

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

It's not about if false negative would be counted in stats or not. If she would really be in hospital and had a doctor diagnose her with false negative the hospital would have a name and the doctor would have a name.

It's definitely about whether they count clinical diagnoses as confirmed or not. That's how the police will be determining whether she's making it up, or not. They would- and did, per the article- have checked the official figures and seen no one officially had C19 in the county, they would not and could not have asked any specific doctor- and, officially, the hospital would not have had any confirmed cases if they asked there. If a doctor's diagnosis is not enough to officially determine someone has covid19 and a positive pcr is required then, officially, she would not have C19 even if she actually did, and a doctor said she did. And that is what the police base their accusation on.

Police everywhere have a long history of insisting that scientific tests are infallible, because they are what a lot of their convictions are based on and any suggestion they're not leads to endless appeals. In this case the scientific test should never even make it into court as proof she didn't have it, because it demonstrably gives false negatives when people definitively are infected with SARS-CoV2. Digging in their heels even when contradicted by a doctor is perfectly in character though, because defences always have a crack at the 'scientific' evidence with their own doctors and scientists. Plus, of course, police have a distinct tendency to believe in their own infallibility, even when presented with concrete evidence.

[BruceVC]

18 hours ago, Skarpen said:

It's not about if false negative would be counted in stats or not. If she would really be in hospital and had a doctor diagnose her with false negative the hospital would have a name and the doctor would have a name. Parents would give those names to the cop for confirmation, press would contact them for corraboration of the story and WILL would include those in their lawsuit. From what I see none of this happen because there was no hospital and there was no doctor. And I agree with police creating a panic in times of epidemic because a teenager wants some attention is criminal.

 

11 hours ago, 213374U said:

Rather, your inability to understand criticism of your points is evidence of you lacking understanding of what you are talking about.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge."

This debate may seem unnecessary but there is some relevance around it purely because of the virus and how this is a time where people are dying and we dealing with degrees of misinformation and these developments should be understood and hopefully not repeated. So Im not taking sides on this topic, the only side I care about is humanity and all of us surviving,  but looking at the facts as objectively as possible

Firstly I can understand how the young lady thought she had the virus and initially responded but then she went to hospital and was tested which came negative, now the counter argument to this in the article is how we can have false positive testing. But there is a test you can take if you have had the virus which absolutely will show you had the virus because there are real physical symptoms like corona antibodies that will be revealed 

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-antibody-blood-test-covid-19-2020-3?IR=T

But the family didnt insist on this test, and surly they would have if this was a real concern around false positive testing, and she continued to post on Instagram saying she had the virus. I cannot see how this is not grandstanding and attention seeking ?

But then the police did seem to be a little heavy handed with the argument " she is spreading panic due to no recorded cases in the county " because of the virulent nature of the virus and how it can spread'

But she not have continued to suggest she had the virus after the initial test came back false 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by BruceVC

[Skarpen]

11 hours ago, 213374U said:

Rather, your inability to understand criticism of your points is evidence of you lacking understanding of what you are talking about.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge."

Yeah, I clarified in my initial response that I meant confirmed cases, yet you went on with your rant anyhow. Funnily enough you didn't criticize my point, you nitpicked the omission of a word which allowed you to assume I was talking about something else then what was in the discussed article. Because God forbid if article says about "confirmed cases" and I used "cases" when discussing it, that I had the same thing in mind.

7 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

It's definitely about whether they count clinical diagnoses as confirmed or not.

Oh, thank you for clarifying to me what my post with my opinion is about. Yes the police initial response was based on actual confirmed cases reported. But I'm talking afterwards. Parent's didn't refer police to the doctor for confirmation which would explain their daughter act, the press would want to confirm that what the girl is saying was actually true and the lawsuit would mention it also. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Skarpen

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Yeah, I clarified in my initial response that I meant confirmed cases, yet you went on with your rant anyhow. Funnily enough you didn't criticize my point, you nitpicked the omission of a word which allowed you to assume I was talking about something else then what was in the discussed article. Because God forbid if article says about "confirmed cases" and I used "cases" when discussing it, that I had the same thing in mind.

Funny. Is that "clarification" like the one about Scandinavian countries before? Because from where I'm standing, it looks more like clumsy goalpost shifting to cover a previous fail than actual clarifying, and only because you get called on it. So you tried to "clarify" with an irrelevant tautology, adding to the original blunder.

Classic.

Here's a tip. A "clarification" doesn't substantially change the meaning of one's point. It merely provides facts or context that may be uh, unclear in the original statement. Not necessary here, because you were, quite clearly, wrong on a fundamental level.

[Skarpen]

8 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Funny. Is that "clarification" like the one about Scandinavian countries before?

The one where you unintelligently claimed something so dumb no one including myself actually cared to respond to? Yes exactly like that one 

7 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Because from where I'm standing, it looks more like clumsy goalpost shifting to cover a previous fail than actual clarifying, and only because you get called on it. So you tried to "clarify" with an irrelevant tautology, adding to the original blunder.

Classic.

Here's a tip. A "clarification" doesn't substantially change the meaning of one's point. It merely provides facts or context that may be uh, unclear in the original statement. Not necessary here, because you were, quite clearly, wrong on a fundamental level.

Well, no one else had this problem it seems. And what would be the "fundamental level" I was wrong? Because I stated obvious fact that reported cases are, well reported and known fact.

You however not only failed to understand my original post, but in your try to correct me you made a blunder yourself as was pointed out. So that would be a double fail on your side 

And yet still you didn't at all address my original point to this story. Maybe stop trying so hard for something that can be taken out of context  to attack me and try to discuss what I wrote.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Oh, thank you for clarifying to me what my post with my opinion is about.

No worries, I'm here to help, and am happy to fix any and all faulty opinions you have for you free of charge.

FYI, the father says he did refer the police to the doctors' report, but they outright refused to check. Which is eminently believable since their stated and official position is the narrow 'no positive test means no covid19'.

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But there is a test you can take if you have had the virus which absolutely will show you had the virus because there are real physical symptoms like corona antibodies that will be revealed

No there isn't.  They may be more accurate than the PCR tests, but the only test for which stats are available shows a bit better than 90% accuracy, and even that is questionable due to being Chinese. There are multiple cases of countries rushing use of literally useless antibody tests, eg Britain.

(Even if they were reliable a positive test for antibodies does not necessarily make you immune anyway. The close relative to SARS-CoV2 that causes one version of the common cold grants very short lasting immunity, one of the reasons people get multiple colds a year, year after year)

[Skarpen]

13 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

FYI, the father says he did refer the police to the doctors' report, but they outright refused to check.

Can you link to this one?

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

 

(Even if they were reliable a positive test for antibodies does not necessarily make you immune anyway. The close relative to SARS-CoV2 that causes one version of the common cold grants very short lasting immunity, one of the reasons people get multiple colds a year, year after year)

This is an important discussion around Corona antibodies and what revealing them in the body would mean. This is not about being right but rather the facts as the world learns them and these can literally change  on  a daily basis in some cases

From your understanding do you agree that if a person has never been exposed to Corona then there would be no trace of this specific virus in your body? If you agree with that then numerous tests can reveal if you have the virus and that would mean you could be a symptomatic person or asymptomatic person but you could also be a person who has recovered from the virus and then there would be forms of corona antibodies

Is your point that is no accurate way of determining if you have corona antibodies because you cannot have corona antibodies if you have not had the virus? I just want to be clear on what you saying because for me what I dont know or what I am misunderstanding is important so I can update my knowledge 

 

[ComradeYellow]

On 4/17/2020 at 4:07 AM, Pidesco said:

Eh, kinda hard to adopt systems from tiny countries with a different historical trajectory than that of the U.S.

https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

'Tis sufficient, what bothers me is Democrats trying to steal Green Party policies.

[Orogun01]

4 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Eh, kinda hard to adopt systems from tiny countries with a different historical trajectory than that of the U.S.

https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

'Tis sufficient, what bothers me is Democrats trying to steal Green Party policies.

You should try reading the actual Green new deal bill, then you would feel better that they're not stealing Green Party policies just using environmentalism to introduce socialism.

[ComradeYellow]

21 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

You should try reading the actual Green new deal bill, then you would feel better that they're not stealing Green Party policies just using environmentalism to introduce socialism.

I'm just sore that it's 2020 and the events from the 60's haven't procured any Greens into congress yet.

Whatever the case, if there's one thing in common Blue's and Green have, it's the Red's desire to hurt, main, and kill us and Dem's on their own accord can't fight back w/o Green support.

If at least half the Dem's can shed their own worst impulses (Imperialism/submission to the military industrial complex, Wall Street/Bank bailouts, ect.) and join us, we so got this.

[Volourn]

"Parents would give those names to the cop for confirmation"

 

Why? It's none of his business.  He needs a warrant from a judge before he can request/demand medical info. He used intimiation, bullying, threats of kidnapping and murder to flex his uscle. EVIL.

 

As for police in general, their mantra used to be 'serve and protect'. Now, it's 'anyone who isn't a cop is the enemy and a threat and must be eliminated at all costs if they don't bow down to my godhood'.

 

Defending bad cops doesn't help the good ones at all. It makes their jobs even harder when you justify scummery like that.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The Green New Deal is a bailout for car manufacturers, the dems aren't anywhere near the stalinist thugs the boomers, betas, and femboys who browse /pol/ think they are but corporate stooges who serve the highest bidder.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, it's kind of dumb, the Democrats are basically demonized for two big wedge issues: abortions and guns...and maybe immigrants as a third and lesser one? They're not going to drop the abortions thing anytime soon, but I wonder how much more or less support the party would get if they dropped the guns issue and took some left turns in a number of other areas.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

53 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Yeah, it's kind of dumb, the Democrats are basically demonized for two big wedge issues: abortions and guns...and maybe immigrants as a third and lesser one? They're not going to drop the abortions thing anytime soon, but I wonder how much more or less support the party would get if they dropped the guns issue and took some left turns in a number of other areas.

I think if the Ds dropped their position/focus on guns and went to somewhere around to where say Sanders/AOC are they'd probably initially lose a lot of funding from former patrons who would flip Republican and lose voters from socially progressive upper class folks like a South African that posts on this forum. It's hard to say what voters they could draw in, I think a lot of dems would stay because they vote blue no matter who and could probably draw in people who feel disappointed by the current options (how much is anyone's guess tbh) so just shooting from the hip I'd think we see the more affluent democratic areas go red or purple while other areas shift favorably to democrats or double down on the blue. Long-term (assuming we don't bake the planet first) this would probably end up stabilizing similarly to how it is now with most of the same problems.

Frankly I think parties and elections are a losing battle for left-wing minded folks and they should return to militant unionism that was more effective at getting gains and less susceptible to getting subverted.

[213374U]

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

The one where you unintelligently claimed something so dumb no one including myself actually cared to respond to? Yes exactly like that one 

I can't say that I'm surprised that you'd think that pointing out that Norway is not Sweden, to let you hastily edit the post so that it's only slightly less embarrassing is "dumb". At this point, it's plain that it's simply another word you don't understand and throw around at random, like "clarify" and "evidence". The word you are looking for in this context is "pertinent", not dumb.

I'm happy to keep explaining these things to you. You're welcome.

 

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Well, no one else had this problem it seems. And what would be the "fundamental level" I was wrong? Because I stated obvious fact that reported cases are, well reported and known fact.

You however not only failed to understand my original post, but in your try to correct me you made a blunder yourself as was pointed out. So that would be a double fail on your side 

And yet still you didn't at all address my original point to this story. Maybe stop trying so hard for something that can be taken out of context  to attack me and try to discuss what I wrote.

Interesting theory. Let me bounce another one off of you. Perhaps seldom anyone is bothering to even read your posts, let alone reply, and that accounts for the lack of objections -- you are yelling into a void. The sparse replies that you do get, however, are almost universally in vehement disagreement. Consider that.

It's a delicious example of the faulty reasoning of your original post as well. You are taking an absence of objections (absence of evidence) as evidence that "no one else had this problem" (evidence of absence). That's where you're fundamentally wrong. An absence of reported cases is not interchangeable with an absence of cases -- especially in the face of someone reporting a case. Later, you backpedaled to rewrite your opinion into being about "reported cases", which substantively changes the point you were making. Then yes, the deputy has strong evidence that there are no reported cases because no cases have been reported -- this is the tautology your revised opinion amounts to. But again as Zoraptor explained, it's weak evidence and not proof in any way shape or form that there are no cases.

In short. You made a fundamental mistake. When called on it, you reformulated your opinion into an irrelevant truism. And for the last few posts you've been squirming and complaining that you're being "attacked" (perhaps another word for the list...) when all anyone is doing is point out glaring errors.