I just want to throw this out there on more time: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular group of people is
*clears throat* well let's see... he has: - tweeted in a trolling idiotic fashion repeatedly - rambled on and on regarding scientific/medical topics he has no clue about - boasted extremely irresponsible Dyatlov-esque statements to the public most likely causing additional deaths
agreed. And at the same time we can also understand that a global pandemic, unemployment, adding stressors, etc. plays a role in suicide and depression. Right?? it's not one or the other. We can do both. And more even. It's not an unfair topic to bring up in relation to what we are all going through as part of this pandemic.
https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-coronavirus-rates-during-pandemic-death-by/6201962/ "We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks." "What I have seen recently, I have never seen before," Hansen said. "I have never seen so much intentional injury." https://www.crisistextline.org/data/bobs-notes-on-covid-19-mental-health-data-on-the-pandemic/ the indicators present and the opinions of the medical experts are not unclear. I know by default you want me to be wrong, but it takes a wild leap of logic to think a global pandemic will not have a deleterious effect on people's mental health.
i get you get defensive and turn on riner mode, its a defense mechanism, you were doing so well for a while. the problem is that using this as a tool to advocate for lessened restrictions, without empirical support for it being a net benefit in any way, its not valid. it glosses over the role of the government in ameliorating the impacts of said stressors or unemployment which are more easily able to deal with these problems. it makes clear someones real goal because there are many other much quicker and more robust responses if they only frame it AGAINST social distancing. it's leveraging real societal issues to benefit someones own desires without actually caring about the former. its crystal clear.
I get all that, and I understand that people see someone suggesting that isolation is has mental health consequences, and the snap conclusion is: OMG you want to just open everything up and go back to normal, you monster?!?! I'm simply saying we need to consider the secondary effects of what we are doing. Does that really seem like a controversial position???
republicans voting records are public info and every vote you cast for them is an endorsement so.... Let's talk about how people voting for republicans care about those things
You’re really doing your best to nit pick here so you can feel right. You quoted a study that said there *could* be an additional 75k deaths due to suicide/OD over the next 10 years. I don’t disagree that these things will increase due to coronavirus, but the answer isn’t simply open everything back up and pretend things are back to normal. Not sure if you missed it but 100,000 have lost their lives in the last 3 months to this virus so I’d say it’s pretty important we do what we can to curb the spread.
So IF you wanted to have this conversation you wouldn't borrow the framing the corona truthers used in the post that started this which you defended. You aren't benignly asking for mitigating options we have. If you were you'd roll through a dozen things like You'd say what can we do to mitigate the secondary effects of trying to control the virus. Like say, remove financial stressors through various paths including free healthcare w/mental health coverage? Check-ins from mental health professionals for those unable to attend drug treatment meetings? Free devices so people can attend zoom meetings or treatment sessions? Guaranteed payroll coverage to keep people employed like many countries have done? Before you ever get to "people need to get back to work" like is argued in that post.
Thank you. I checked them all for the number of documented suicides and ODs and how they compare to recent years. Results: abc7: “we’ve never seen numbers like these”. No numbers were given. Although one professional did say we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in 4 weeks. cbs news: “Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were already an unprecedented number of deaths of despair.” No numbers were given. NYT: “In fact, doctors won’t know for many months if suicide is spiking in 2020;” No numbers were given. WP: No numbers given, although “Online therapy company Talkspace reported a 65 percent jump in clients since mid-February.“. The article implied that health care workers are a lot of the increase in depression and anxiety. Psychology today: no numbers were given. Conclusion: Statements regarding huge increases in suicides and OD’s due to the pandemic are premature. Prior to the pandemic there were already an unprecedented numbers of deaths of despair. Differentiating those from those due to the pandemic might be difficult. There almost certainly will be increases related to the pandemic and it’s by-products. Some of these will be due to the economy (job losses for example). Some of these will be due to health care workers placed under undue stress by the pandemic. In my opinion the “Stay at home orders” certainly will keep this latter number to a small fraction of what it would be without them.
but we all know in our system a vote for someone is not tacit endorsement of that person's entire platform. How many single-issue voters are there out there, on either side?? pro choice/pro life? gun control/pro-gun? And even beyond those, in our system we only need to agree with 51% of a candidate's platform to give them 100% of our vote. I mean for fuck's sake, most candidate's build a base on "hey, I'm not as bad as the other guy!" I'd guess a large portion of votes are simply in opposition to the opponent, not even endorsement of that candidate. How many voters would cast a ballot for a pile of shit if it were running opposite Trump??? So I don't agree with your premise here
I wasn't borrowing the framing of the original post, I was responding to the response. You can disagree with how that original post is framed without dismissing the idea that mental health issues are going to be a byproduct of this pandemic that we should address. YOU would say those things. Other people might have different ideas, what they'd consider a better approach, or more effective means of dealing with the issue. They may rank "getting back to work" at some level higher than you do. But again, that can be said and discussed without blanketly dismissing the idea that mental health needs to be addressed.
Yes. I want you to be wrong about big increases in suicides and ODs. I fervently hope it doesn’t happen.
Then why start by defending that post that is spreading conspiracies? It starts the entire conversation on a base of premises that are false. "Getting back to work" - involves a trade off where thousands of people will die where as all the other ones don't have that baked in. Its safe to say they're better options to try and is why they're being used all over the globe. If you want to argue the benefit of getting back to work is so great it's worth it its not unreasonable for people to ask for evidence. Stop having a conversation about the conversation, make your case, provide evidence. Make AFFIRMATIVE arguments for what you think. Also, again, don't start it by defending a conspiracy article.
I’m not one to advocate violence but anybody that pulls this shit deserves to be knocked out on the spot. Fuck this guy, I hope the judge throws the book at him.
I’ll take, “A description of how die-hard Trump supporters view Hispanic immigrants,” for $1000, Alex.
What I posted does not align with what you think I posted. I didn't defend that original post. re-read what I said. Oh, and Lyrtch is a cunt "I’ll take, “A description of how die-hard Trump supporters view Hispanic immigrants,” for $1000, Alex." And this is literally the exact point I was thinking about when I responded!!! The same people who see Trump as a racist for thinking illegal Mexican immigrants are rapists, are perfectly comfortable saying "conservatives don't care about people dying". It's amazing, honestly.
The most frustrating part of us all getting back to 'normal' is that it's not some big secret. Other countries have shown us the way. We just don't want to do what's required.
The people crying for America to “get back to work” aren’t referring to themselves. They are referring to waiters, cashiers, barbers, factory workers, etc. They are telling others to get back to serving them/earning them money.
441,000 tests today which is a new high. Hopefully we can get close to doubling testing capacity by the fall.
Yes. Here’s part of their written information on Florida: “As of May 15, Florida is reporting both specimens (PCR and antibody) and people tested. We report positives and negatives based on the number of people tested.“
it genuinely feels like the most dangerously wrong people in this based on what we know at the moment are those that pushed for infection achieved herd immunity just massive unavoidable deaths in many cases. while not following the scientific consensus based on really thin data with broad assumptions.
Alright I’ll settle down with the trolling. I thought this thread was for trolling and the other covid thread was for serious discussion. They’re the same now. Mods, might want to consolidate.
trolling when it comes to a pandemic that’s killed 100,000 people just makes you look like an asshole no matter what thread it is