The Worldwide C0VlD-19 Coronavirus Pandemic Discussion Thread...

[ChrisV]

Original source:

Coding that led to lockdown was 'totally unreliable' and a 'buggy mess', say experts

The code, written by Professor Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London, was impossible to read, scientists claim

www.telegraph.co.uk

Yea there was stuff in the DailyMail too

Experts say modelling that predicted 500,000 Covid-19 deaths is a mess

Professor Neil Ferguson's Imperial College London computer coding that predicted half a million people could die if Britain didn't go into lockdown has been described as 'totally unreliable,' by experts.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There are problems with the model. But the actual vs predicted deaths never was, nor never can be evidence of that.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GPM]

Excess TB deaths are expected as a result of lockdown:

http://www.stoptb.org/assets/documents/news/Modeling%20Report_1%20May%202020_FINAL.pdf

An increase anywhere from 4-16% over the next five years resulting in ~342,000 - ~1,300,000 excess deaths.

The ones orchestrating this massive "save all our lives from Covid!" campaign don't give a shit about what happens in the 3rd world. Save 100k Westerners? We win! Let 1-5 million extra 3rd world persons die? Meh, that won't even make the news.

Add that TB, 3rd world environmental destruction, and hunger deaths to the list of more shit Western leaders don't give a rats a$$ about. Gotta save that Westerner who had a life expectancy of 1 more year!

 

[ChrisV]

The problem isn't what the virus did, it's how policy makers handled it.
If airports were closed from the very beginning, and entrants had to get PCR tests or spend 14 days in quarantine, tourism would have suffered. But the rest of the country wouldn't have had to. A controlled burn when a country had only a handful of cases would have given us all herd immunity by now.
The problem is that people saw the news and what was happening in China and said "Eh, won't reach us." But when it did reach us, they looked at what the neighbor did and copied his homework, even though the neighbor was doing math and we were having poetry.

Mind you, from the very beginning, I was in Team Lockdown. The problem now is that the lockdown has come and should have left ages ago. Governments all over the world are being reactive instead of proactive. Waiting for cases to spike then locking down everything, even where it doesnt make sense. Now every economy is suffering and everyone is opening up again. Did they change anything? Did they learn a thing? Will they start planning and thinking 1 year or at least 3 months ahead? I am willing to bet that they will not.

So, ultimately, the world is changing but not because of the virus. The virus was mishandled, and some saw an opportunity to powergrab and took it. But I expected absolutely nothing less from the professional vultures we call politicians.

I think there's a healthy balance you need to maintain when it comes to experts in a field. A balance of skepticism and actually listening. The conclusion that some people are coming to is "experts are full of shit" and I say "good luck with that philosophy." ... see where that gets you.

It's important to have a healthy degree of skepticism of experts, but not outright dismissal. Experts are not all-knowing divine beings that pray to the spirit of science and transcribe their work into holy science books. They're just one single data-point you should use in making decisions.

It's not that experts are perfect, it's just that very often they are the best choice you have. Otherwise who are you going to ask? Your mom? Facebook? If anyone has a better method of reliable ascertaining truth, I would genuinely love to hear it. I'm not being sarcastic there.. if you have a reliably better method for making decisions, I would actually entertain it.

But as of now.... I'm sorry, but if you have a legal question ask a lawyer. But also realize that he is a human. He doesn't have a crystal ball or divine powers, but he's likely to give you better advice than you could get elsewhere. It's simply the best choice you have.

The reason I say this is because I think this "experts were wrong - we can never trust experts again" attitude is outright dangerous and will likely hurt you. Have a healthy skepticism of experts, but not outright dismissal.

I generally try to consult the consensus of the field - that way you are getting the combined wisdom of the entire field and now one single datapoint.

I mean don't get me wrong, in retrospect we overreacted. I think the data a is clear that that big cities benefitted from the shutdown but less affected areas did not need them. But to be fair, @GIlman and I have have said that from the beginning. We spoke about it right here, and that was in late March. An actual verbatim transcript from Google from March:

Gilman: I'm curious to get your opinion on because I've actually been quite critical of the plan that the United States has come up with you know 15 days to slow the spread, because it's very unevenly applied
throughout the country; certainly there are different demographics like population densities and stuff out there but it's hard looking at the data because we see this big spike, but like you said: there's a couple week lag in seeing any response to begin with, from what you're seeing around the world does it appear that the measures that they have taken in that 15 days to slow the spread campaign should be effective and we should expect to see the curve starting to flatten down.

My response: well what you're saying is exactly right on the '15 days' - it's too simple. Everybody in every every city has different needs every every town is different needs - New York City is going to have very much different needs than a town in Kansas and, they're also locking down some very suburban towns in Kansas that have one or two cases and the same way that there may be locking down New York City. I think it's a gross oversimplification to say "15 days to stop the spread" it's it's much more complicated than that every area has to be treated differently.

Which is a prediction that appears completely consistent with the data:

Opinion | Do Lockdowns Save Many Lives? In Most Places, the Data Say No

The speed with which officials shuttered the economy appears not to be a factor in Covid deaths.

www.wsj.com

To act like we stated "lock down the entire country" is a blatant strawman. We never said that.

But then again, I really don't want to comment on any of this right now. I want to wait a year or so from now and look at everything once we have better data. We'll have a better picture of what happened once the dust settles.

 

[GIlman]

I think there's a healthy balance you need to maintain when it comes to experts in a field. A balance of skepticism and actually listening. The conclusion that some people are coming to is "experts are full of shit" and I say "good luck with that philosophy." ... see where that gets you.

It's important to have a healthy degree of skepticism of experts, but not outright dismissal. Experts are not all-knowing divine beings that pray to the spirit of science and transcribe their work into holy science books. They're just one single data-point you should use in making decisions.

It's not that experts are perfect, it's just that very often they are the best choice you have. Otherwise who are you going to ask? Your mom? Facebook? If anyone has a better method of reliable ascertaining truth, I would genuinely love to hear it. I'm not being sarcastic there.. if you have a reliably better method for making decisions, I would actually entertain it.

But as of now.... I'm sorry, but if you have a legal question ask a lawyer. But also realize that he is a human. He doesn't have a crystal ball or divine powers, but he's likely to give you better advice than you could get elsewhere. It's simply the best choice you have.

The reason I say this is because I think this "experts were wrong - we can never trust experts again" attitude is outright dangerous and will likely hurt you. Have a healthy skepticism of experts, but not outright dismissal.

I generally try to consult the consensus of the field - that way you are getting the combined wisdom of the entire field and now one single datapoint.

I mean don't get me wrong, in retrospect we overreacted. I think the data a is clear that that big cities benefitted from the shutdown but less affected areas did not need them. But to be fair, @GIlman and I have have said that from the beginning. We spoke about it right here, and that was in late March. An actual verbatim transcript from Google from March:

Gilman: I'm curious to get your opinion on because I've actually been quite critical of the plan that the United States has come up with you know 15 days to slow the spread, because it's very unevenly applied
throughout the country; certainly there are different demographics like population densities and stuff out there but you it's hard looking at the data because we see this big spike, but like you said there's a couple week lag in seeing any response to begin with, from what you're seeing around the world does it appear that the measures that they have taken in that 15 days to slow the spread campaign should be effective and we should expect to see the curve starting to flatten down.

My response: well what you're saying is exactly right on the '15 days' - it's too simple. Everybody in every every city has different needs every every town is different needs - New York City is going to have very much different needs than a town in Kansas and, they're also locking down some very suburban towns in Kansas that have one or two cases and the same way that there may be locking down New York City. I think it's a gross oversimplification to say "15 days to stop the spread" it's it's much more complicated than that every area has to be treated differently.

But then again, I really don't want to comment on any of this right now. I want to wait a year or so from now and look at everything once we have better data. We'll have a better picture of what happened once the dust settles.

As a general philosophy I put the most trust in “expert” opinions when they are diagnosing what has already happened. A doctors, plumbers, mechanics diagnosis of what is/went wrong. Even then it’s smart to get a second opinion, and experts often disagree. This is the easiest thing for experts to get right, and they still fail at the task all too often

I put less trust in the best way to fix it. This involves some prediction and unknowns, only time will tell if their advice was right for you. How many times have we all seen someone take some course of action and it doesn’t fix the problem or things get even worse.

I put very little faith in experts opinions of the future, especially when there are long timelines, large numbers of variables, and many unknowns. In these instances experts are guessing, and you will find significant disagreements between experts. Someone will be right in hindsight, but it’s only in hindsight you can say who. And just because someone was right once doesn’t improve their record for being right in the future.

I put very very little trust in anything experts say in this last category. Instead I try to take steps to decrease my overall risk in ways that I can. But there will always be risks and you will be blindsided by things. So I just do what I reasonably can and don’t worry about that and accept that I will have to deal with somethings and adapt accordingly in the future.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Trevor Kuntz]

I think there's a healthy balance you need to maintain when it comes to experts in a field. A balance of skepticism and actually listening. The conclusion that some people are coming to is "experts are full of shit" and I say "good luck with that philosophy." ... see where that gets you.

It's important to have a healthy degree of skepticism of experts, but not outright dismissal. Experts are not all-knowing divine beings that pray to the spirit of science and transcribe their work into holy science books. They're just one single data-point you should use in making decisions.

It's not that experts are perfect, it's just that very often they are the best choice you have. Otherwise who are you going to ask? Your mom? Facebook? If anyone has a better method of reliable ascertaining truth, I would genuinely love to hear it. I'm not being sarcastic there.. if you have a reliably better method for making decisions, I would actually entertain it.

But as of now.... I'm sorry, but if you have a legal question ask a lawyer. But also realize that he is a human. He doesn't have a crystal ball or divine powers, but he's likely to give you better advice than you could get elsewhere. It's simply the best choice you have.

The reason I say this is because I think this "experts were wrong - we can never trust experts again" attitude is outright dangerous and will likely hurt you. Have a healthy skepticism of experts, but not outright dismissal.

I generally try to consult the consensus of the field - that way you are getting the combined wisdom of the entire field and now one single datapoint.

I mean don't get me wrong, in retrospect we overreacted. I think the data a is clear that that big cities benefitted from the shutdown but less affected areas did not need them. But to be fair, @GIlman and I have have said that from the beginning. We spoke about it right here, and that was in late March. An actual verbatim transcript from Google from March:

Gilman: I'm curious to get your opinion on because I've actually been quite critical of the plan that the United States has come up with you know 15 days to slow the spread, because it's very unevenly applied
throughout the country; certainly there are different demographics like population densities and stuff out there but you it's hard looking at the data because we see this big spike, but like you said there's a couple week lag in seeing any response to begin with, from what you're seeing around the world does it appear that the measures that they have taken in that 15 days to slow the spread campaign should be effective and we should expect to see the curve starting to flatten down.

My response: well what you're saying is exactly right on the '15 days' - it's too simple. Everybody in every every city has different needs every every town is different needs - New York City is going to have very much different needs than a town in Kansas and, they're also locking down some very suburban towns in Kansas that have one or two cases and the same way that there may be locking down New York City. I think it's a gross oversimplification to say "15 days to stop the spread" it's it's much more complicated than that every area has to be treated differently.

But then again, I really don't want to comment on any of this right now. I want to wait a year or so from now and look at everything once we have better data. We'll have a better picture of what happened once the dust settles.

We live in a very polarized world. Things are black and white or red or blue or Team Lockdown or Team Nothingburger. People who prefer nuance and shades of grey are few.

The Gilman Wolsey podcast, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and my girlfriend's mom (another doctor) have been my primary sources of information precisely because the information they provided is nuanced, grounded in reality instead of wishful thinking, and never conclusive.

Two weeks ago, there was a lot of talk on this forum about antibodies. Some were almost certain they had been exposed to SARS-Cov-2, possibly been infected/sick, and were hopeful to find antibodies present. As far as I am aware, none here have tested positive for antibodies and only one person on this forum has self-identified as a confirmed symptomatic case with a positive diagnosis.

I haven't seen a single person on this thread who is still in favor of universal lockdowns. I think at this point, we all recognize that the virus is not containable long-term. I'm more interested in each persons' personal risk calculations going forward.

It is interesting to me that I am 28, healthy weight, no risk factors (no asthma, diabetes, etc) but will still prefer to avoid getting sick until there is more medical knowledge about effective treatment and more effective testing. Meanwhile, there are guys on this forum who are massively overweight and much older who daily refer to this virus as a "nothingburger" (example: the guy in my profile photo) and seemingly love to tempt fate when the odds are not as much in their favor. Whether arrogance or naivete, I cannot tell, but it is confounding.

It's a fair point to say that the government should not be able to impose lockdowns anymore, but the personal risk calculations of a lot of people seem to be based on very black-and-white thinking formed from dubious sources and I think it would be wise for people to reassess with better information.

 

[ChrisV]

As a general philosophy I put the most trust in “expert” opinions when they are diagnosing what has already happened. A doctors, plumbers, mechanics diagnosis of what is/went wrong. Even then it’s smart to get a second opinion, and experts often disagree. This is the easiest thing for experts to get right, and they still fail at the task all too often

I put less trust in the best way to fix it. This involves some prediction and unknowns, only time will tell if their advice was right for you. How many times have we all seen someone take some course of action and it doesn’t fix the problem or things get even worse.

I put very little faith in experts opinions of the future, especially when there are long timelines, large numbers of variables, and many unknowns. In these instances experts are guessing, and you will find significant disagreements between experts. Someone will be right in hindsight, but it’s only in hindsight you can say who. And just because someone was right once doesn’t improve their record for being right in the future.

I put very very little trust in anything experts say in this last category. Instead I try to take steps to decrease my overall risk in ways that I can. But there will always be risks and you will be blindsided by things. So I just do what I reasonably can and don’t worry about that and accept that I will have to deal with somethings and adapt accordingly in the future.

Yea, it's really hard to predict the future in general.

And often the most intuitive way of handling things is counter-productive. For example drugs. The most intuitive answer to drugs is 'make them illegal.' Except that answer has been devastating and doesn't appear to have much efficacy, if any at all.

I mean covid policy is a really complex conversation, and I think we would be better served if we didnt devolve into these gross generalizations like "experts" ruined the economy and have a more nuanced conversation.

There's great research by Philip Tetlock showing that people who rely on these generalizations (referred to hedgehogs) are worse at predicting events, and worse at ascertaining truth.

Why Foxes Are Better Forecasters Than Hedgehogs

It's one of my favorite pieces of research of all time.

We live in a very polarized world. Things are black and white or red or blue or Team Lockdown or Team Nothingburger. People who prefer nuance and shades of grey are few.

The Gilman Wolsey podcast, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and my girlfriend's mom (another doctor) have been my primary sources of information precisely because the information they provided is nuanced, grounded in reality instead of wishful thinking, and never conclusive.

Two weeks ago, there was a lot of talk on this forum about antibodies. Some were almost certain they had been exposed to SARS-Cov-2, possibly been infected/sick, and were hopeful to find antibodies present. As far as I am aware, none here have tested positive for antibodies and only one person on this forum has self-identified as a confirmed symptomatic case with a positive diagnosis.

I haven't seen a single person on this thread who is still in favor of universal lockdowns. I think at this point, we all recognize that the virus is not containable long-term. I'm more interested in each persons' personal risk calculations going forward.

It is interesting to me that I am 28, healthy weight, no risk factors (no asthma, diabetes, etc) but will still prefer to avoid getting sick until there is more medical knowledge about effective treatment and more effective testing. Meanwhile, there are guys on this forum who are massively overweight and much older who daily refer to this virus as a "nothingburger" (example: the guy in my profile photo) and seemingly love to tempt fate when the odds are not as much in their favor. Whether arrogance or naivete, I cannot tell, but it is confounding.

It's a fair point to say that the government should not be able to impose lockdowns anymore, but the personal risk calculations of a lot of people seem to be based on very black-and-white thinking formed from dubious sources and I think it would be wise for people to reassess with better information.

It's funny, I wrote the above comment before I even read yours, and I think you hit the nail not the head.

Nothing is black or white. In fact I think "Shades of grey" even fails to encompass the complexity of reality.

This is a problem I notice. People on this forum starting to fall into 2 categories: nothingburger or sky-is-falling. Then when I make a nuanced argument like "you can't use the current death toll as evidence that the models are wrong" black and white thinkers think I'm saying "the model is right and we should lock down the whole country!" I didn't say that. I said "you can not use the current death toll as evidence that the models are wrong." That is a very specific statement.

And this is a big problem because people are willing to use all shades of bullshit to support their case. There is a valid case for lifting lockdowns. How about this argument: "I don't F*cking like them. I'm a human being and my feelings matter. I.... do... not.... like.... them... my particular town hasn't;t been hit that hard and I want to go to a restaurant and I feel like the costs outweigh the benefits in my area (but I'll also let New Yorkers decide what's best for them)... but where I live I don't feel it's dangerous enough to justify this policy."

There's a perfectly valid argument there.

Instead we get factual (falsifiable) claims attacking scientists or outrageous vacuous arguments and cherrypicking data to support

The model wasn't the sole thing we used to make decisions. Does anyone remember what the world was like in late March? Italy was practically in ruins, Spain was closely following suit. Their medical systems were nearly collapsing, and we had no idea what was going to happen in the US. It like our destiny was a coin flip.

Well hindsight is always 20/20. It's always easy to say what we should have done after the fact.
You know... as sit here in mid-May and talk about late March. But back then we made decisions off the best information and data we had.

If I were president I would have done things differently.

I the problem is simply people looking out their window and thinking that their community is a representative sample of the entire United States. And I think that this is what many experts did as well. Many experts live in cities. Fauci lives in a city and looks around and sees that it's bad, so based off that biased, nonrepresentative sample, makes determinations. But the reality is that his perspective is tainted by his reality. And I'm saying that everyone (Fauci, experts, and Fastlaners) should stop thinking there's and one-size-fits-all policy decision. I honestly think that it should have been handled at a county level.

I don't think there was any nefarious intent here. I think that it's easy to think that there are bad guys behind the scenes twirling their mustache coming up with an evil schemes and tricking people. People are so convinced of that - that they don't realize that reality is much terrifying, because everyone thinks what they're doing is 'good.' Hitler thought what he was doing was good. Stalin thought communism was going to save the world. It's not nefarious people that cause problems, it's generally good people with bad ideas. The road to hell is usually paved with good intentions.

I'm not arguing for or against a lockdown. I'm arguing in favor of following the rules of logic in order to make your case. I'm arguing against looking at the world in binary terms.

I would argue that it's almost never a good idea to look at anything in binary terms.

 

[Vigilante]

I was responding to the comment. And I skimmed the link. I take info from sources like “lowderwithcrowder.com” with a grain of salt (a tablespoon, rather.)

So here's one thing you have left to learn. You can't automatically accept or dismiss something based on who wrote it. Al Gore says some true stuff. Alex Jones says some true stuff. Fox News says some true stuff. MSNBC says some true stuff. Matt Drudge broke the Lewinski scandal. Rush Limbaugh every once in a while comes up with something you won't hear elsewhere.

YOU are the filter. I don't dismiss anything or anyone based on their label. I can discern from content.

If you're part of the "I only listen to the BBC" crowd than you're not the discerning intellectual you play on TV.

Challenge EVERYTHING. Based on the past few months, I would think you would want to widen your net of sources, not constrict it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

To act like we stated "lock down the entire country" is a blatant strawman. We never said that.

So that I am clear, it is your position that you were never in favor of locking down the entire country?

::does anyone have time or care enough to go back through this thread, or should we just leave this here::

 

[ChrisV]

So here's one thing you have left to learn. You can't automatically accept or dismiss something based on who wrote it. Al Gore says some true stuff. Alex Jones says some true stuff. Fox News says some true stuff. MSNBC says some true stuff. Matt Drudge broke the Lewinski scandal. Rush Limbaugh every once in a while comes up with something you won't hear elsewhere.

YOU are the filter. I don't dismiss anything or anyone based on their label. I can discern from content.

If you're part of the "I only listen to the BBC" crowd than you're not the discerning intellectual you play on TV.

Challenge EVERYTHING. Based on the past few months, I would think you would want to widen your net of sources, not constrict it.

I agree... I just take it with a grain of salt.

But you're right... I'm sometimes lazy and just roll my eyes and dismiss things based on source. It's more based on laziness - but that is a valid criticism and something I'll keep in mind in the future.

Ideally if I see something from a hardcore right or leftwing source or a source with poor fact-checking, I try to factcheck it using AllSides, FactualSearch.news, MBFC, NewsGuard, AdFontes, or just plain old Google

But you're right, I am sometimes lazy. So I will accept this criticism.

 

[ChrisV]

So that I am clear, it is your position that you were never in favor of locking down the entire country?

::does anyone have time or care enough to go back through this thread, or should we just leave this here::

If I were in charge I don't think that's the policy I would have chosen at any point.

If there are any posts of mine that clearly contradict that stance, I'll take a look at them.

Here's a search result of my posts from March 23rd and on:

https://www.thefastlaneforum.com/community/search/380887/?page=20

My stances have changed on a few issues, but I don't think a universal lockdown was ever the ideal solution.

But regardless, there are definitely lessons in this whole thing.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GIlman]

I think what I have taken away from this, well regained from this, is to always accept and embrace uncertainty. Operate with the best information available at any given moment in time, but recognize that there are no certainties and the best path forward itself is not certain. Businesses survive because they pivot to match changes in the market. People succeed because they pivot and adapt to changes.

Although I would not say this is a nothing burger, it is not what the prevailing data pointed to in mid March. Anyone calling this a nothing burger in mid March was just hoping/guessing that was the case. Pandemics are very real, and one could easily smash human civilization at any point in time. In a room with enough voices, someone is certain to be more right in hindsight than others.

However by mid April compelling evidence was emerging that although many people would die from this, it was not a 1918 Spanish Flu.

I would argue in mid-March is was wise to be cautious, but this should have been on the individual level not state mandated. It is my job to protect my family and parents, not yours. Although your grandma is probably a lovely person, I don’t know her, and it’s not my responsibility to protect her. Anyone who complains about people going out in public, but didn’t immediately remove granny from the nursing home in mid march are simply hypocrites.

After 3-4 weeks, by early to mid April, I had reassessed, and decided for myself the risk was less than initially thought. I was still cautious but began resuming more normal patterns. We have been on the road for a month, bouncing between state parks, and have traveled throughout Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. We were off work until June, and given our assessment decided to make the most out of our lives.

I believe in adapting and making the best decisions based on all information I have. Some of those decisions in hindsight are wrong. When they are I accept and deal with the consequences of those actions.

 

[ChrisV]

I think there are a lot of lessons here. Perhaps 'God' sent this to us as a wakeup call.

Life as been good for so long that we forget that nature is consistently trying to kill us at all times.

There are animals that want to eat us, germs that want to feast on our organs, earthquakes that will crush us, and weather that wants to destroy us. We've gotten so far away from our ancestral past, that we've forgotten that we're sitting on top of a pale blue rock hurdling through space and we can die at any moment.

This is such a wakeup call to appreciate your life.

It's a wakeup call that progress is not guaranteed.

It's a wakeup call that diseases are still a real threat. Diseases are one of the biggest threats to humanity and now we're in a position to protect against future ones. This COVID thing may not have been that serious, but god forbid next time if it's something like an airborne version of Ebola. At least we're aware now.

It's a wakeup call that nobody has the answers. It's a wakeup call to be skeptical, but not dismissive.

I think all things considered this will be one of the best learning experiences of our lives.

 

[MTF]

Simon Black delivered yet another powerful article (@Kak you'll love this, @UnrealCreative you can relate to that living in Puerto Rico - can you confirm if it's like that?):

House Cats or Human Beings? | Sovereign Man

One of the more flummoxing aspects about living in Puerto Rico is that the political leadership is a never-ending parade of highly corrupted, certifiable idiots. The latest Governoramus of Puerto Rico…

www.sovereignman.com

One of the more flummoxing aspects about living in Puerto Rico is that the political leadership is never-ending parade of highly corrupted, certifiable idiots.


The latest Governoramus of Puerto Rico seems hellbent on destroying every remaining scrap of prosperity on this island, all in an effort to indulge her ego-maniacal God complex.


Puerto Rico was the first places in the US to order a full lockdown, and it may very well be the last place to open up; the governoramus ordered everyone to shelter in place starting March 15th, and the order is still in effect.


The rules have been completely ridiculous, too. Going to the beach was outlawed. But it’s perfectly acceptable to stand in a crowded line at the grocery store.


One of the great things about Puerto Rico, though, is that nobody cares. People here happily ignore their idiot politicians.


Puerto Ricans naturally distrust their government-- local politicians and bureaucrats have been robbing and stealing longer than anyone can remember.


For example, the FBI recently came down here and arrested a number of top government officials for stealing federal aid that was supposed to have gone to Hurricane Maria recovery efforts.


Earlier this year when the island suffered a series of earthquakes, the US government sent emergency supplies. But as soon as those relief supplies ended up in the Puerto Rican government’s hands, they mysteriously disappeared.


Just last month, Puerto Rico’s government entered into a contract to buy faulty, overpriced Covid test kits from two companies that have personal and financial ties to the current administration.


Basically it was tens of millions of dollars (which is a lot of money for this place) of BS contracts that went into the pockets of friends of the ruling party.


The list is really never-ending. And people here know it. Puerto Ricans have no illusions that the government is on their side. They know that many of the people in charge are either incompetent, or criminals, or both.


And that’s why nobody here cares what the government says.


A friend of mine sent me a video from a local beach on Sunday showing thousands of people out enjoying the sun and sea in open defiance of the lockdown rules.


I really hope this attitude spreads worldwide.


And to me, that’s one of the many silver linings of this pandemic: more people may finally wake up.


At this point there are realistically two groups-- the human beings, and the house cats.


The human beings are sick and tired of these lockdowns. They understand that the world is a scary place, that there are risks.


But they’re still willing to live their lives.


It’s not about taking unnecessary risks or being reckless; they just want to be treated like human beings who are free to make their own decisions without insane government overreach


The other group just wants to be house cats.


House Cats love being locked down and want more of it. They like government intervention. They love endless money printing and free benefits. They love being taken care of and suckling from the maternal teet of government.


They love cowering in fear in their homes and being told what they can/cannot do.


The biggest difference, though, is that Team House Cat thinks everyone else should live by their rules... and their hysteria.


Team Human thinks that everyone should be free to make their own decisions. Anyone who wants to stay home can stay home, nothing wrong with that. Anyone who wants to go out and take a risk should be able to go out and take a risk.


But most governments are on the side of Team House Cat. And it’s probably going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.


China is experiencing a second wave of outbreaks and has reacted aggressively to lock down more than 100 million people already.


Sadly, nearly the rest of the world seems to want to copy the Chinese government.


(The Chinese central government has also told local housing officials that they will be ‘removed’ if there are Covid outbreaks in their sectors, though it’s unclear whether ‘removed’ means ‘fired’, or ‘disappeared.’)


But the silver lining here is that Team Human is growing by the day; tens of millions of people are starting to see first hand just how disgusting government overreach can be.


So by the time the dust from this pandemic settles, there might just be enough human beings to restore a sense of sanity in this bizarre world of ours.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

This is such a wakeup call to appreciate your life.

It has had the opposite effect on me. If I wasn't married to an amazing woman right now and thus less selfish with my own well being... I would be at the nearest Ducati dealership with a $20k cashier's check... I would spend the helmet money on cigars. Not giving a shit.

 

[MoneyDoc]

It has had the opposite effect on me. If I wasn't married to an amazing woman right now and thus less selfish with my own well being... I would be at the nearest Ducati dealership with a $20k cashier's check... Not giving a shit.

Don't tempt me! If it weren't for my mom... I would've been on a 1299 Superleggera right now.

 

[Kak]

If I were in charge I don't think that's the policy I would have chosen at any point.

If there are any posts of mine that clearly contradict that stance, I'll take a look at them.

Here's a search result of my posts from March 23rd and on:

https://www.thefastlaneforum.com/community/search/380887/?page=20

My stances have changed on a few issues, but I don't think a universal lockdown was ever the ideal solution.

But regardless, there are definitely lessons in this whole thing.

Yeah whatever dude. You were team housecat!

"My life is easier and better now with these lockdowns because they deliver me food."

It is called Domino's, they have had it for 100 years.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WillHurtDontCare]

I would spend the helmet money on cigars. Not giving a shit.

I'll drink to that!

 

[Kak]

I'll drink to that!

I want one of these deathtraps too. Vanderhall Motor Works

 

[WillHurtDontCare]

I want one of these deathtraps too. Vanderhall Motor Works

All that I needed to see:

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

I would spend the helmet money on cigars

One of my favorite one liners to come along in a long time.

 

[Trevor Kuntz]

I would spend the helmet money on cigars.

That’s how my grandfather lived. Coolest guy I’ve ever known.

Died at 64 of jaw cancer with no voice and an unrecognizable face.

YOLO

 

[ChrisV]

team housecat

Well with all these strawmen at least we know there won't be any crows around here

Apr 2nd:

But we're talking from different perspectives. I'm in a location that's getting hit hard by this, while you guys don't have it too bad yet.

So I think in certain parts of the country that aren't overwhelmed, lifting them could make sense. If you could just slow burn it through just the healthy people, and not the at-risk populations... that could work to help build Herd Immunity.

But right now; like in New York... we're getting so overwhelmed that we can't even think about infecting more people. We have a out of control forest fire.. So getting to a slow burn would mean putting out the fire to a large degree.

So then the question would be: why not put the damper on places like New York (who are out of control) then open the damper in places that aren't being hit that hard.

And my answer is: I honestly don't know. It would depend on a few things. I'll list some potential problems with that though.

First: since the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, the ventilators are a rate-limiting factor as far as I can tell. These things cost as much as a car, and New York State alone is projected to need 30,000 of them. We might be in a situation where after NY hits its peak and things start slowing we have to send the ventilators to Arizona or Texas or whoever is in crisis next.

Arp 7th:

Of course projections aren't perfect.. they're projections. But it's the best we have. Otherwise we're just relying on our intuition about what might happen.

Apr 1st

Our numbers aren't perfect and unfortunately we have to work with the data we have. In an ideal scenario EVERYONE would be tested and then we would have more accurate numbers, but it's not feasible right now. But even from our unperfected data we can see that there are some very disturbing trends on the horizon.

So ZzZzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzz

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

That’s how my grandfather lived. Coolest guy I’ve ever known.

Died at 62 of jaw cancer with no voice and an unrecognizable face.

YOLO

That's horrible. That's one of the reasons I quit smoking cigars.

 

[Kak]

Well with all these strawmen at least we know there won't be any crows around here

Apr 2nd:



Arp 7th:



Apr 1st



So ZzZzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzz

Nice cherrypicking there.






Housecat.

 

[ChrisV]

Nice cherrypicking there.





Housecat.

If I picked cherries, they'd all be roasted by now.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

The airlines are not allowed to fill the middle seat = It is illegal for airlines to make a profit.

So it begins.

 

[WillHurtDontCare]

That’s how my grandfather lived. Coolest guy I’ve ever known.

Died at 62 of jaw cancer with no voice and an unrecognizable face.

YOLO

My condolences to you for losing him so young, but I admire people who strive to live intense lives rather than long ones. RIP.

 

[WillHurtDontCare]

The airlines are not allowed to fill the middle seat = It is illegal for airlines to make a profit.

So it begins.

Quick, someone start selling coronvirus-proof peanuts for 1500% markup! There are suckers to gouge lives at stake!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[James Klymus]

View: https://youtu.be/5oaWEIqIjYk

 

[GPM]

The airlines are not allowed to fill the middle seat = It is illegal for airlines to make a profit.

So it begins.

You will be paid based on need, and we determine who is needy.