4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoMost 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 agoTrue. 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 agoBy 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 agoArbitrary stat but ok. Deaths are kinda the most important otherwise we wouldn't be shutdown
- inyourtenement 6y agoArbitrary!? 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 agoYes 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 agoIt'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?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Why didn't people care about AIDS this much? Because it disproportionately affected (and was popularly portrayed as doing so even more than it actually did, reinforcing this) homosexuals and intravenous drug users, populations a large portion of the rest of the country actively wanted to die.
- blmsjw 6y ago
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoMeasure by lives lost? A case only really matters to clinical medicine if there’s some type of symptom. Of course it benefits the “concerned” side to couch their argument in the idea of some murky, unobservable effects.
- inyourtenement 6y agoAre deaths the only thing that matters to you? Shouldn't we be just as concerned about hospitalizations? Is there any reason that you're aware of for cases to not be a good proxy for hospitalizations?
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoMy point is that: hospitalizations != cases It would make sense that an observed drop in deaths would correspond to a drop in hospitalizations if the case number is rising significantly. That's good imo. edit: CDC graph shows hospitalization rate steadily dropping.
- inyourtenement 6y agoWhen you say "observed drop in deaths" are you referring back to the original article? Because the first sentence is "Two new peer-reviewed studies are showing a sharp drop in mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients." so I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying.