The Green New Deal

[Elegiac]

Just look at how US republicans are better at estimating the risks of covid with their common sense gut feelings than US democrats who all claim to have science on their side.

Which is why when you add all the red states together (just the red states, mind you), the US is number two in the world in COVID deaths behind Brazil, right?

If "common sense" were remotely effective at dealing with epidemics then there wouldn't be epidemics, sweaty - instead, "common sense" gave us things like miasma theory, bloodletting, and believing weenis-doesn't-work-disease is caused by minor demonic possession.

[Edge-]

Just look at how US republicans are better at estimating the risks of covid with their common sense gut feelings than US democrats who all claim to have science on their side.

Uh...care to expand on that? Because reality doesn't seem to back that up. At all. In any way.

[Elegiac]

Uh...care to expand on that? Because reality doesn't seem to back that up. At all. In any way.

Willing to bet that if they deign to respond it's going to be that shitty opinion piece by Victor Joecks wherein he discovers the heretofore unknown phenomenon that blue states have higher population densities.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

While I am in big agreement with anything to help the environment I kind of take it as smoke being blown. All it takes is America to want their every 4 to 8 year "desire for change" to put a Republican in office and it just seems like we convert to burning oil and coal a lot faster than we move away from it.

[Machismo]

Is there anything in this world according to you which is suitable to use as guideline to make decisions with? If I recall you made the same arguments about history, as in it being unsuitable.

That said, I don't disagree with you that science doesn't hold all the answers and more likely than not in today's world every bit of scientific finding is filtered through countless political biases. Just look at how US republicans are better at estimating the risks of covid with their common sense gut feelings than US democrats who all claim to have science on their side.

Evidence, please.

Are you referring to all you Trumpsters whose messiah swore it was a hoax?

[Edge-]

https://www.brookings.edu/research/h...and-behaviors/

US republican voters on average estimate the lethality / hospitality rate from 1 to 5%.
US democrat voters on average estimate it somewhere in the range of 25 to 30%.

Reality is ~4.8%.

Wat?

Democratic estimates were only slightly higher than Republican estimates until they got to the 65 and older range, where both were WILDLY below the actual number.



And Republican's were wildly wrong on estimating the number of deaths caused by covid compared to the flu/auto accidents, as well as being more likely to disbelieve covid can be spread asymptomatically.

Where are you getting those numbers from even? I don't see them in relation to any of the graphs on the page.

[tehdang]

Wat?

Democratic estimates were only slightly higher than Republican estimates until they got to the 65 and older range, where both were WILDLY below the actual number.



And Republican's were wildly wrong on estimating the number of deaths caused by covid compared to the flu/auto accidents, as well as being more likely to disbelieve covid can be spread asymptomatically.

Where are you getting those numbers from even? I don't see them in relation to any of the graphs on the page.

It's literally the next graph. Both parties tend to overestimate hospitalizations, but

a large partisan gap remained, even among those with high numeracy. Those with low numeracy scores (meaning they missed both items) greatly overestimate risks of hospitalization, regardless of party, but Democrats are still more likely by a large margin.

Which, when you look at lockdowns and media sensationalism, it makes sense that Democrats way overestimate the risk of this disease sending you to the hospital.

But yeah, both parties really bought into widespread danger from the disease, and both way underestimate the actual 80% of deaths confined to 65+. The school closures and toddler mask mandates obscure the actual 0.1% share of deaths (way lower when you separate out elementary school age).

[unfilteredJW]

It's literally the next graph. Both parties tend to overestimate hospitalizations, but
Which, when you look at lockdowns and media sensationalism, it makes sense that Democrats way overestimate the risk of this disease sending you to the hospital.

But yeah, both parties really bought into widespread danger from the disease, and both way underestimate the actual 80% of deaths confined to 65+. The school closures and toddler mask mandates obscure the actual 0.1% share of deaths (way lower when you separate out elementary school age).

It’s almost like preventative measures were taken and they worked.

[Edge-]

But yeah, both parties really bought into widespread danger from the disease

Because...there is? I mean, are we going to ignore all the evidence that's suggesting that people who were infected, even asymptomatically, may have longterm nerological/autoimmune disorders?

Like, this is bog-standards "both sides" garbage. There is no "both sides" here. Sure, Democrats may have been overly cautious, but in a pandemic that's definitely a preferable position to take. Especially when there remain extensive unknowns about the virus for quite some time.

But we're getting a bit of a ways off of discussing science as informing policy rather than dictating policy, where there remains a very strong partisan divide on a whole host of issues, with Republicans in the US usually rejecting science that they find inconvenient to their positions.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s almost like preventative measures were taken and they worked.

No, it means the virus wasn't as bad man. Clearly.

Remember that really bad flu pandemic last year? All those times you caught a cold?

No?

Weird...know what's up with that?

[Endus]

But yeah, both parties really bought into widespread danger from the disease, and both way underestimate the actual 80% of deaths confined to 65+. The school closures and toddler mask mandates obscure the actual 0.1% share of deaths (way lower when you separate out elementary school age).

There's a lot of people, like myself, who know full well that mortality rates among children are borderline-zero, but still want schools shut down. Because it isn't just about the kids. It's about transfer back to their families, it's about the school staff and transfer to their families, and so on. It's the same reason every parent knows if there's a flu hitting their kids' school, it's not really a question of "if" they're gonna catch that flu, just "when". It's basically the same with COVID-19. Kids may catch it and be asymptomatic, but then they'll carry to mom and dad, and grandma and grandpa, and so on. And that transfer moves on further, to THEIR contacts, and that's how pandemics spread.

It isn't just about mortality rates and demographic ranges. It's about transmission.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...students-staff

It's particularly worrying because you're also just looking at deaths, when there's strong evidence for long-term side effects of infections in children, including neurologial/developmental issues; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-021-00005-9 Overlooking such things, which can and will negatively impact those kids potentially for the rest of their natural lives, and waving them off as "well, they didn't die", that's not really okay.

[Elegiac]

But yeah, both parties really bought into widespread danger from the disease, and both way underestimate the actual 80% of deaths confined to 65+. The school closures and toddler mask mandates obscure the actual 0.1% share of deaths (way lower when you separate out elementary school age).

Because as we all know, children are incapable of being vectors for diseases they themselves are not particularly vulnerable to and there are no adults to speak of in these children's proximity during the school day. /s

[tehdang]

Because...there is? I mean, are we going to ignore all the evidence that's suggesting that people who were infected, even asymptomatically, may have longterm nerological/autoimmune disorders?

If you're going to ignore the partisan differences of the danger, then you'll have a very hard time showing that you listen to the science. It was pointed out to you and you just ignored and punted. So unless you mean this to yield to Rochana's point, then please say something to that point.

[Edge-]

If you're going to ignore the partisan differences of the danger, then you'll have a very hard time showing that you listen to the science. It was pointed out to you and you just ignored and punted. So unless you mean this to yield to Rochana's point, then please say something to that point.

That the whole "both sidesism" is bullshit, stupid, not grounded in fact or reality, and is a desperate attempt to seem "reasonable" in the face of unreasonableness.

Like, the, "Oh, the mortality rate is so low!" shit is absolutely braindead thinking. It ignores the absolutely massive number of additional short and increasingly long-term side effects of getting the virus, even asymptomatically.

The "Oh, the mortality rate is so low!" is used to justify not taking the virus seriously, and ignores literally all available data that shows that the mortality rate isn't the only problem associated with this pandemic.

[tehdang]

It’s almost like preventative measures were taken and they worked.

Reminder that this is cases requiring hospitalization, not preventative measures to hinder case growth. Unless you mean to sing the praises of hydroxychloroquine or something.

- - - Updated - - -

Like, the, "Oh, the mortality rate is so low!" shit is absolutely braindead thinking

Is it only braindead because Democrats have far less of a clue how deadly the disease is than Republicans? Cmon, stop straying from the topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Because as we all know, children are incapable of being vectors for diseases they themselves are not particularly vulnerable to and there are no adults to speak of in these children's proximity during the school day. /s

Clearly, you wish they had polled about the vectors of the disease. Then, you may have also been wrong, but maybe to a lesser extent.

[Edge-]

Is it only braindead because Democrats have far less of a clue how deadly the disease is than Republicans? Cmon, stop straying from the topic.

You say this like they're like, informed and their believe that the mortality rate is low comes from being informed. When like, based on all other available evidence that ain't true. It's due to them simply listening to conservative media and facebook memes dismissing the seriousness of the virus. Just as liberals may be more likely to stick with their media and facebook memes and think it's more deadly. Both are wrong, but not because one is more informed and the other less, but because they're both misinformed.

It's what Bob Ross would call, "a happy little accident."

And again, focusing purely on the mortality rate ignores the massive health and social ramifications of complications people suffered due to covid, as well as the long-term neurological and, increasingly auto-immune, impacts we're seeing more and more of.

[Felya]

Is it only braindead because Democrats have far less of a clue how deadly the disease is than Republicans? Cmon, stop straying from the topic.

No, it’s brain dead, because if people ignored Democrats and followed GOP into attacking nurses while screaming “LIBERATE”... pushing hundreds of millions of dollars in chloroquine...

You are trying to take credit for the work people did, combating the ignorance of people you claim were right. It’s like claiming Trump was off by just 5%, when he lied that the pandemic is nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

It's what Bob Ross would call, "a happy little accident."

No, it’s not... I didn’t get covid, because I took precautions. If we followed what republicans told us, we would have hit the numbers Democrats projected. What is happening here, is like saying that GOP knew that Democrats would take precautions, so GOP don’t have to. If that’s what they are trying to say, that’s is truly fucked up...

Can we add infections and deaths, as if the Trump rally that Korean Pop Stans ruined, was in full effect? Imagine how low the numbers would be, if republicans had the same impression and the same reaction as democrats? We would have opened everything in September 2020 and they could have taken even more credit for Trump lying that the virus is hoax.

Why didn’t they try a little harder to prove Democrats wrong? Imagine if there were no open up riots...

Edit: Want to see what happens when conservatives should take credit for their policy? There are no Democrats to stop the asshole in Brazil or India... that’s what happens if we actually acted like conservatives were right in US.

[tehdang]

because if people [this other thing over there]

You are trying to take credit for the work people did

Just a simple poll and analysis. I have a hypothesis about the reception of minor disappointing news about Democrats. Yas Queen's post and Edge's response were a little confirmatory.

Seriously, a little focus on the subject would do you good.

- - - Updated - - -

You say this like they're like, informed and their believe that the mortality rate is low comes from being informed.

Sorry, a little quoting of responses out of order.

The point was there is a partisan divide on information on certain subjects. In the distribution of deaths in the category of age, both sides are woefully misinformed. In hospitalizations, Democrats are strongly more misinformed. Now I just think a simple admission of that fact, from the poll, is in order, since we are straying very far from the Green New Deal.

[Felya]

Just a simple poll and analysis.

Then your failure to look at the whole picture is even more egregious.

I have a hypothesis about the reception of minor disappointing news about Democrats. Yas Queen's post and Edge's response were a little confirmatory.

I’m sure it’s an objective hypothesis...

Seriously, a little focus on the subject would do you good.

Sure... Does the new green deal include the return of a pandemic response team, that Trump cut to create funding for his tax cut?

[tehdang]

Then your failure to look at the whole picture is even more egregious.

It's a waste of my time if nobody is willing to focus in on ... you know ... what the cited poll shows and some simple things that can be drawn from it. From what I hear, Roshana stands proved right, since everyone else has fled the battlefield and gone into dithering tangents like "but but but this other thing over here is the big picture and let's discuss that instead!"

Frankly, I think surrendering just a little on something minor would do you some good. In the heart of open and honest debate, that is. Now can you test and answer basic conclusions from the survey, or do you insist on ignoring anything that might be slightly damaging to polled Democrats?

[Felya]

ation on certain subjects. In the distribution of deaths in the category of age, both sides are woefully misinformed. In hospitalizations, Democrats are strongly more misinformed. Now I just think a simple admission of that fact, from the poll, is in order, since we are straying very far from the Green New Deal.

No, that is asking to take a glib look at the numbers and ignore what likely caused them. In this regard, it’s the same fear of the government, instilled the distrust that caused the drastically different reaction to covid, that scares people from the Green New Deal. It is the same rhetoric that had Trump lie about covid, that dictates the right’s opposition to the green new deal.

As shown with even with widely popular actions, that GOP members are more than happy to take credit for, they will vote against it... because they are wholly rhetoric driven. When will it be convenient to stop lying about the Green New Deal? As long or less time than covid? When ocean side property have “for sale” signs start floating attached on a buoy, so Ben Shapiro can claim he was right all along?

- - - Updated - - -

It's a waste of my time if nobody is willing to focus in on ... you know ...

Let me tell you what I know... that responding to the whole picture, is more of a waste of time than this:

what the cited poll shows and some simple things that can be drawn from it. From what I hear, Roshana stands proved right, since everyone else has fled the battlefield and gone into dithering tangents like "but but but this other thing over here is the big picture and let's discuss that instead!"

Frankly, I think surrendering just a little on something minor would do you some good. In the heart of open and honest debate, that is. Now can you test and answer basic conclusions from the survey, or do you insist on ignoring anything that might be slightly damaging to polled Democrats?

But... but... but... this thing over here... what a joke...

Edit: This is so irksome... You are explicitly asking to keep the debate basic, not honest. Those are not synonymous...