This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] heygeorge ago
Yes, which refers to when crowds of people were packing into interior spaces in close proximity on a regular basis, which was curtailed, and still has not returned.
We have also learned that transmission via contaminated surfaces is not as likely as was incorporated into modeling.
It’s like you have no clues hat you are talking about, yet you still think your opinion is smart and important.
[–] septenary [S] ago
I think what I assume are obvious connections you're not making. So this is my last attempt - I think the IQ gap is too large to effectively communicate.
Let's say, theoretically, that the lockdowns had actually been really effective at stopping the spread of the virus. If that was the case, and only a couple percent of the population had been exposed at this point, what would you expect to happen when restrictions were lifted/loosened, and the number of people going out and their range of activities was expanded? (Which has happened in many states.)
You'd expect something noticeable to happen, right? You'd expect to see a big reaction in the data, comparing before and after the change in policy, right? There's still 98% of the population to infect in that scenario. The number of people hospitalized and/or dying to the disease should closely follow the behavior of the population in terms of how locked down they are.
So if that's not what the results show, logically, that means that theory can't be true. I don't know if you've ever played Sudoku, but the premise of the game is that you figure out what the value of an individual square is not by figuring out the answer directly, but by eliminating all of the other possibilities. In much the same way, while we have not tested enough of the population - and do not have a reliable-enough test - that can tell us most everyone has had the virus already, all the other possibilities have been eliminated by the data that we do have. So the one that's left has to be the correct one.
[–] heygeorge ago
Ha, perhaps. But you are trying hard, and I appreciate that. I have also played Sudoku a couple times, but don’t find it a particularly interesting pursuit.
Your argument leaves out time and the raw number of actively infected/communicable persons. Over the time of the lockdowns, people ‘went through’ the virus, maybe passing it along to close contacts, but a great number of transmission chains came to a conclusion. So if very few people have it, because the spread was stopped, then...
How are they going to spread an infection they do not have?