3 ms·

Probably because governors are no longer deliberately putting COVID patients into nursing homes. This is why NY and NJ have 3 times (!) the death rate of Italy.

by m0zg 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
I'm shocked how many people think Cuomo is a good leader when he (along with Murphy) made perhaps the most catastrophic choice of the pandemic so far.
- m0zg 6y ago
  Most people will believe whatever they read in the newspaper, and newspapers are unanimous in their opinion in this regard. As seniors were suffocating to death in the old folks homes, newspapers were pushing Cuomo as a _presidential candidate_.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    True. Cuomo is imo as close as you can get to a typical Democrat politician and we’re told that it’s obvious a Democrat president would have handled the pandemic better. The stats of hardest hit states are coincidentally blue states.
    - inyourtenement 6y ago
      By what metric? The top states by total cases per 100k are all red and purple. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100k https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100k
      - blmsjw 6y ago
        Arbitrary stat but ok. Deaths are kinda the most important otherwise we wouldn't be shutdown
        inyourtenement 6y ago
        Arbitrary!? This is nonsense. Are you suggesting that if this illness had all the same characteristics -- long hospital stays, long-lasting damage to the body, highly transmissible -- but didn't kill, then we would not be "shutdown"?
        blmsjw 6y ago
        Yes Arbitrary. Why 100k? Why not 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000? Oh because 100k makes the stats look the best for your argument.
        inyourtenement 6y ago
        It's per 100k people in the state. It makes no difference if it's 100 or 100k. The comparison was state-to-state. The absolute numbers don't matter.
        blmsjw 6y ago
        "total cases per 100k" you need 100k because otherwise you numbers would be insignificant. You'd be saying 0.003 people per 1000 which shows how asinine this shutdown really is. It's only when you deal with populations larger than a small city can you see statistical difference and there are too many additional error factors such as quantity/quality of tests at play that far exceed what ever trend you were trying to draw.
        blmsjw 6y ago
        "Are you suggesting that if this illness had all the same characteristics -- long hospital stays, long-lasting damage to the body, highly transmissible -- but didn't kill, then we would not be "shutdown"?" YES, THIS IS THE PRECEDENT FOR LITERALLY EVERY OTHER FUCKING ILLNESS KNOWN TO MAN. Why didn't people care about AIDS this much?

Probably because governors are no longer deliberately putting COVID patients into nursing homes. This is why NY and NJ have 3 times (!) the death rate of Italy.

by m0zg 6y ago

Probably because governors are no longer deliberately putting COVID patients into nursing homes. This is why NY and NJ have 3 times (!) the death rate of Italy.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

I'm shocked how many people think Cuomo is a good leader when he (along with Murphy) made perhaps the most catastrophic choice of the pandemic so far.

m0zg 6y ago
Most people will believe whatever they read in the newspaper, and newspapers are unanimous in their opinion in this regard. As seniors were suffocating to death in the old folks homes, newspapers were pushing Cuomo as a _presidential candidate_.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  True. Cuomo is imo as close as you can get to a typical Democrat politician and we’re told that it’s obvious a Democrat president would have handled the pandemic better. The stats of hardest hit states are coincidentally blue states.
  - inyourtenement 6y ago
    By what metric? The top states by total cases per 100k are all red and purple. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100k https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100k
    - blmsjw 6y ago
      Arbitrary stat but ok. Deaths are kinda the most important otherwise we wouldn't be shutdown
      - inyourtenement 6y ago
        Arbitrary!? This is nonsense. Are you suggesting that if this illness had all the same characteristics -- long hospital stays, long-lasting damage to the body, highly transmissible -- but didn't kill, then we would not be "shutdown"?
        blmsjw 6y ago
        Yes Arbitrary. Why 100k? Why not 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000? Oh because 100k makes the stats look the best for your argument.
        inyourtenement 6y ago
        It's per 100k people in the state. It makes no difference if it's 100 or 100k. The comparison was state-to-state. The absolute numbers don't matter.
        blmsjw 6y ago
        "total cases per 100k" you need 100k because otherwise you numbers would be insignificant. You'd be saying 0.003 people per 1000 which shows how asinine this shutdown really is. It's only when you deal with populations larger than a small city can you see statistical difference and there are too many additional error factors such as quantity/quality of tests at play that far exceed what ever trend you were trying to draw.
        blmsjw 6y ago
        "Are you suggesting that if this illness had all the same characteristics -- long hospital stays, long-lasting damage to the body, highly transmissible -- but didn't kill, then we would not be "shutdown"?" YES, THIS IS THE PRECEDENT FOR LITERALLY EVERY OTHER FUCKING ILLNESS KNOWN TO MAN. Why didn't people care about AIDS this much?