Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 294: Kim Jong ill

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1255887345645170688?s=19

"And the fact that Joe Biden is Joe Biden..."

Yep, that's it that's the moderate Democrat's in a nutshell.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1255887345645170688?s=19

"And the fact that Joe Biden is Joe Biden..."

Yep, that's it that's the moderate Democrat's in a nutshell.

And by the fact that Joe Biden is Joe Biden means he got that D, bruh.

---

sounds like he didnt give the D tho

good joke bad joke give me feedback

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i wouldn't argue that "it's all the same" but i'd say evangelical christians are more left-wing than libertarians, yes. (at least in the way you're using the term - i know some evangelical christians ARE libertarians.) this is why i think it's a logical fallacy to say "authoratorianism and libertarianism have nothing to do with the left/right split because they're both right-wing movements!" authoritarianism can be right but when it is, libertarianism is still MORE right. if authoritarianism and libertarianism are both on the right side of the political axis, there's still a "left/right split" because authoritarianism is further left than libertarianism.

keep in mind that this whole thing started because wang was arguing "i don't get why more leftists aren't against the covid measures! it has nothing to do with the left/right split!" i think this is wrong. like, do you seriously think it's a complete coincidence that the two users on this board who have been arguing the most aggressively against the covid measures by far - sephyg and muffin - are both on the right? obviously, this has everything to do with the left/right split.

sidenote: yes, i'm a leftist and i've also criticized my government's covid measures, but all i've said is that they've maybe been a tad too extreme. i never went so far as to say "there should not be any covid measures."

There's a reason why the political chart has two axes. Authoritarianism and Libertarianism as philosophies rather than movements have nothing to do with the left/right split not because they're both right but because they're orthogonal metrics. Soviet Communism is authoritarian and left. Anarcho-syndicalism is libertarian and left. Naziism is authoritarian and right. Anarcho-capitalism is libertarian and right. You're conflating things.

In terms of American quarantine responses, I think honestly the best explanation for why you see Sephy and Muffin protest them is because they're self-centered assholes along with the leaders of their movement

---

NFUN posted...

Anarcho-syndicalism is libertarian and left.

i still think "left libertarianism" is an oxymoron but admittedly i've never heard of "anarcho-syndicalism" so maybe i'm missing something.

In terms of American quarantine responses, I think honestly the best explanation for why you see Sephy and Muffin protest them is because they're self-centered assholes along with the leaders of their movement

well, that's just a different way of putting what i'm trying to say. there's a reason "fuck you, i got mine" is a phrase that gets associated with the right. the reasoning of sephy and muffin is "because of the covid measures, i can't go to a bar/my wedding is cancelled/[insert reason why this is negative for me] so that's why they're bad and need to stop immediately."

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i still think "left libertarianism" is an oxymoron but admittedly i've never heard of "anarcho-syndicalism" so maybe i'm missing something.

Literally everyone just told you youre wrong, so the answer is yes, you are missing something

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Literally everyone just told you youre wrong, so the answer is yes, you are missing something

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

---

Lasa please don't link to the Ulti website.

also, by my count, 5 people told me i'm wrong (you, red sox, wang, xp and nfun). and xp didn't even necessarily think i was "wrong," if i read his posts right.

literally everyone, sure.

---

I mean, to be fair, I don't know what you all are talking about because I find my links more politically interesting. But, if you are saying it, then yes you are likely wrong, Lasa.

Lol

---

If somebody has the political beliefs that the government should offer welfare programs like public option healthcare, is opposed to corporate welfare or at least corporate favoritism and opposes illegalizing drugs, they're a leftist libertarian. The American notion is only one branch

---

there are libertarians in favor of illegalizing drugs...?

---

https://twitter.com/rodmeloni/status/1255901755474403328?s=21

Armed protestors tried to storm the Michigan government floor today

Hope they are seen as terrorists
---

https://twitter.com/senpolehanki/status/1255899318210314241?s=21
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

there are libertarians in favor of illegalizing drugs...?

I was describing a philosophy, not contrasting it with other philosophies

---

why would opposing illegalizing drugs make someone a "leftist libertarian," though?

being in favor of drugs being legal isn't emblematic of leftism. people on both the left and the right hold this position.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

why would opposing illegalizing drugs make someone a "leftist libertarian," though?

being in favor of drugs being legal isn't emblematic of leftism. people on both the left and the right hold this position.

bruh what's with you today

it's part of a coherent philosophy

it's part of what makes it "libertarian"

right libertarians can also support that too I never implied that they couldn't

leftist authoritarians are anti-corporatist too it's not emblematic of libertarianism why did I include that there???

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/rodmeloni/status/1255901755474403328?s=21

Armed protestors tried to storm the Michigan government floor today

Hope they are seen as terrorists

these men are heroes

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

why would opposing illegalizing drugs make someone a "leftist libertarian," though?

being in favor of drugs being legal isn't emblematic of leftism. people on both the left and the right hold this position.

I feel like you are seeing left and right in a purely economic sense. It doesn't line up very well with social issues, and that's a problem with the left/right axis generally. We should probably have at least 3 axes to describe this. And even then, I'm not sure that my own eclectic views can be plotted on the graph.

---

Unlike black men kneeling during an anthem, who hate America and our troops.

---

https://twitter.com/costareports/status/1256023059116568576?s=21

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

---

https://youtu.be/ybfy5HQU1MI

---

It's so fucking insane that we're talking about reopening when new cases are flat

https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1256090422188953600

---

Yep, literally doing the dumbest thing you could do and stuck it out all the way to the top of the curve and then decided its time to stop.

---

Can't stay in lockdown forever. It would cause a depression that would destroy the country for decades.

Needed to lockdown initially to stop the unfettered spread. Educate the populace. Expand medical capacity. Then you need to reopen and hope the cases come relatively consistently and don't exponentially spike. This realistically doesn't end til enough of the populace has been infected. Doing it while not overwhelming the medical system is how to do it.

---

It's true that you can't handle lockdown forever, but the conclusion to take away from that is that we need to do everything possible to defeat the virus ASAP. If we currently have R~1 (maybe very slightly under 1), reopening will drive it above 1 and things will get worse until we need to shut down again.

The one thing that we absolutely need to do to drive down R (and therefore give ourselves enough room to open some stuff back up) is to implement widescale contact tracing and isolation. Until we have that capability it will not be safe to lift the lockdowns.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the lockdowns are fundamentally not what's killing the economy. The virus is doing that. As long as people are (rightfully) scared of being infected, demand for nonessential services is going to be way down whether or not they're legally allowed to operate.

---

Contract tracing and isolation isn't really realistic in a country of our size and with as many infections as we have in addition to lack of borders interstate and spread between states.


---

The fraction of the population infected is what's important to the feasibility, not the absolute number of people infected. Having more people also means we have more resources, can hire more workers, etc. It is quite possibly true that too high as a fraction of the population is currently infected to effectively contact trace, but again that's an argument to continue the lockdown until the numbers come down enough (and they are coming down in places that are taking the lockdown especially seriously; we're treading water nationwide because not all states have gotten R below 1).

It's also the case that contract tracing still helps even if we only catch a subset of infected people (remember, it's all about getting R below 1). If we can successfully catch 30% of infections, and by doing so those people infect half as many people as they would have otherwise, that's a 15% reduction in R. That would mean we could afford to open up enough to otherwise get R up to a little less than 1.18.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The fraction of the population infected is what's important to the feasibility, not the absolute number of people infected. Having more people also means we have more resources, can hire more workers, etc. It is quite possibly true that too high as a fraction of the population is currently infected to effectively contact trace, but again that's an argument to continue the lockdown until the numbers come down enough (and they are coming down in places that are taking the lockdown especially seriously; we're treading water nationwide because not all states have gotten R below 1).

It's also the case that contract tracing still helps even if we only catch a subset of infected people (remember, it's all about getting R below 1). If we can successfully catch 30% of infections, and by doing so those people infect half as many people as they would have otherwise, that's a 15% reduction in R. That would mean we could afford to open up enough to otherwise get R up to a little less than 1.18.

I don't believe at our current stress levels we need an r below 1. We just need to keep it relatively where it is or just not exponentially growing. The point is to keep the level of stress on hospitals below the breaking point.

The numbers, if valid, from antibody tests and numerous tests across the count all are mostly pointing to a significantly lower CFR than we have been estimating and a much, much greater asymptomatic populace. If this is true, we may never overwhelm hospitals after the initial shock, especially with just social distancing and masks.

The data coming out lately is very encouraging for this not being as disasterous as we have thought it was initially.

---

I've already talked about why I don't believe the numbers from the antibody study in Santa Clara (they made math errors and made improper use of statistics), and more generally false positives make it so that any prevalence you find in the ballpark of the false positive rate is not statistically significantly greater than 0. The antibody tests in NYC, afaik, are actually consistent with a CFR of .5-1% (which is still too high to accept most people getting the virus, and actually roughly in line with what we thought as long as people who needed treatment could get it).

Ironically I think you're being too pessimistic about our ability to actually actively combat the virus! Some other countries have actually been quite successful in getting this under control, and America should be capable of doing the same.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I've already talked about why I don't believe the numbers from the antibody study in Santa Clara (they made math errors and made improper use of statistics), and more generally false positives make it so that any prevalence you find in the ballpark of the false positive rate is not statistically significantly greater than 0. The antibody tests in NYC, afaik, are actually consistent with a CFR of .5-1% (which is still too high to accept most people getting the virus, and actually roughly in line with what we thought as long as people who needed treatment could get it).

Ironically I think you're being too pessimistic about our ability to actually actively combat the virus! Some other countries have actually been quite successful in getting this under control, and America should be capable of doing the same.

America is 400 million people in 51 different jurisdictions that have no borders between them, 50 different governors commanding them in different ways, and with no shutdown of borders or travel. Then the 400 million people is spread across what I think is like the third largest country or so on. And, our government is not authoritarian to control the media to reduce the message to what is needed, willing to enforce what is needed through military force and surveillance, and generally tried to keep a respect to American freedoms. Our populace is unruly to the idea of government rule of this kind anyways.

You can see just with the protests going now (and they will get worse here) that America isn't going to tolerate things much longer.

It is impossible to mass test and trace our populace. Then add in asymptomatic carriers.

The NYC, Santa Clara, Ohio prison, North Carolina prison, and so on all have the same exact finding. Way more are infected than we know of.

It is relatively hard at this point to disbelieve that the positive data isn't right and just the degree of it is in question. Nothing is pointing the opposite direction in testing.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You can see just with the protests going now (and they will get worse here) that America isn't going to tolerate things much longer

If the President would just listen to actual health experts and disseminate the appropriate information we wouldn't have this problem.

We have a submissive population when our leaders don't start egging them on into stupid.

The economy is already wrecked. Open it today, a month from today, or two months isn't gonna save it. We're heading for at least a recession.

---

NFUN posted...

bruh what's with you today

it's part of a coherent philosophy

it's part of what makes it "libertarian"

right libertarians can also support that too I never implied that they couldn't

leftist authoritarians are anti-corporatist too it's not emblematic of libertarianism why did I include that there???

i just don't get why someone's a "leftist libertarian" when they adhere to a philosophy that combines a bunch of positions that are not emblematic of leftism and are held by people on both the left and the right? you're just saying this is the case without explaining the logic behind it.

---

question for my detractors, though, as i'm more interested in this than the philosophical debate about libertarianism: you think the opposition to the covid measures have NOTHING to do with the left/right axis? you think it's completely arbitrary whether the people opposing the measures are on the left or on the right?

wang doesn't have to answer this as i already know his answer ("yes") but i'm curious what the others think about this.

---

A whole lot of right-wingers support the lockdowns.

But virtually zero left-wingers oppose them (aside from a very small handful of blue-grey libertarian rationalist types).

It's definitely tribal.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ironically I think you're being too pessimistic about our ability to actually actively combat the virus! Some other countries have actually been quite successful in getting this under control, and America should be capable of doing the same.

it depends on the technique.
you keep bringing up tracing but people are going to oppose data collection.
the idea of getting our number down to 0 isn't realistic and wasn't even the main priority. flatten the curve wasn't get all cases to zero, it was make sure our medical facilities aren't overwhelmed, that we're capable of dealing with what's there.

it's also very regional dependent. some places have had <100 cases total. of course those places should re-open. some states are fielding <1000, i don't think we're that concerned with an outbreak in Wyoming. even in something like NY, i'm sure you're mainly looking at NYC, maybe some other cities in the rest of the state like Buffalo, but there's a ton of land that just isn't affected.

i wouldn't say re-opening is necessarily pessimistic as much as it's just looking at the data and deciding some places should be opened up, some places should remain closed, and while the rate is gonna go up, expect it to be something our medical industry can handle.

---

That's incorrect. If a given community has a small number of cases, it will eventually become a very large number of cases if R is allowed to remain above 1. If they do have very few cases, though, that's all the more reason to implement contact tracing: if they do so quickly, they have a decent shot at containing the virus.

The whole game is keeping R below 1. Honestly while the "flatten the curve" narrative was initially somewhat helpful in communicating to people, it left many with the false impression that we're going to get the same number of cases no matter what and just need to spread them over a longer period of time. In reality, a maintained R<1 soon enough means a small fraction of the country gets the virus.

---

at this point it seems clear you aren't going to get a small fraction of anything with the virus. asymptomatic cases are proving to be vastly higher than we thought and we aren't going to get to that level you're asking for. the biggest issue isn't get it down to 0, it's get it down low enough so our medical infrastructure doesn't collapse.

and "flatten the curve" wasn't a narrative, it was the entire reason for tanking everything the way we did.


---

"Flatten the curve" is only the goal if you think failure is inevitable. I don't accept the idea that other nations (including ones like South Korea that initially had an explosion of cases) can get this under control but the US fundamentally can't.

And you can catch asymptomatic cases with contact tracing if they were infected by someone symptomatic! Again, you don't need perfect contact tracing to achieve R<1.

---

no, flatten the curve is the goal to avoid failure.
catching it is not necessarily failure, especially since the reason we're currently adjusting numbers is because you're looking at an R value vastly higher based off asymptomatic cases. that's the point of bringing it up, NYC's on an upwards trend of those from what, 21% right now?

and we are not going to accept South Korea style tracing.
hard no.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

"Flatten the curve" is only the goal if you think failure is inevitable. I don't accept the idea that other nations (including ones like South Korea that initially had an explosion of cases) can get this under control but the US fundamentally can't.

It makes perfect sense that the US is uniquely incapable of handling this situation. Don't you know that other countries have functioning governments while the US does not?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i just don't get why someone's a "leftist libertarian" when they adhere to a philosophy that combines a bunch of positions that are not emblematic of leftism and are held by people on both the left and the right? you're just saying this is the case without explaining the logic behind it.

they're a leftist because they believe in leftist policies

they're a libertarian because they believe in libertarian policies

they're a leftist libertarian because they believe in leftist and libertarian policies

Positions held by people on both the left and the right is exactly the point we've been trying to make to you. Libertarian policies are held by people on both the left and the right It's not exclusive to either side of the spectrum. The same goes for authoritarianism. They're an entirely different axis which is where this whole thing began

---

TheRock1525 posted...

The economy is already wrecked. Open it today, a month from today, or two months isn't gonna save it. We're heading for at least a recession.

Maybe you could keep it to a recession versus 30 years of depression.

---

Sometimes you just gotta love the little things.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mooncult/status/1256074030697689088

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That's incorrect. If a given community has a small number of cases, it will eventually become a very large number of cases if R is allowed to remain above 1. If they do have very few cases, though, that's all the more reason to implement contact tracing: if they do so quickly, they have a decent shot at containing the virus.

The whole game is keeping R below 1. Honestly while the "flatten the curve" narrative was initially somewhat helpful in communicating to people, it left many with the false impression that we're going to get the same number of cases no matter what and just need to spread them over a longer period of time. In reality, a maintained R<1 soon enough means a small fraction of the country gets the virus.

Did you even see the graphs you are talking about for flattening the curve? Because you are incorrect.

The flattening the curve model is that when it goes up, you mitigate/lockdowm to flatten the curve under the hospital stress limit (a limit we never have reached as of now).

When you lower the curve, you ease up and the virus comes right back. And you do the same thing again to keep it under the new limit. Each subsequent time you should have more capacity, more people immune from previous times, and the curve should be able to go higher without breaking the limits.

The model has always operated as if it comes back every time you let up the lockdown. And, it has always had loosening restrictions of lockdowns because it is unfeasible for countries to just stay in lockdowns.

The goal is not to keep the r0 under 1 indefinitely. The goal is to go under r1 to lower the curve and stop exponential growth before you loosen restrictions for it to come right back and start anew hopefully slower due to distancing guidelines and with more capacity built up for it.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

question for my detractors, though, as i'm more interested in this than the philosophical debate about libertarianism: you think the opposition to the covid measures have NOTHING to do with the left/right axis? you think it's completely arbitrary whether the people opposing the measures are on the left or on the right?

wang doesn't have to answer this as i already know his answer ("yes") but i'm curious what the others think about this.

It's not entirely unrelated, but it's also not consistent or defining of the right conservative movement. A lot of the right-wingers who oppose the lockdown with the justifications you'd classify as "libertarian" also have no issues with cheering the use of oppressive state power when it benefits them.

And it's worth noting that the lockdown measures are generally popular with members of both parties and independents. The ones who loudly and vocally oppose it are a minority. This poll is a month old now but gives a general idea.

https://twitter.com/ymurad__/status/1242791955509248002

American political parties don't map completely to ideologies but we aren't looking at massive, politically-defining margins here.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Sometimes you just gotta love the little things.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mooncult/status/1256074030697689088

Jesus Christ Alex, phrasing.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

It's not entirely unrelated, but it's also not consistent or defining of the right conservative movement. A lot of the right-wingers who oppose the lockdown with the justifications you'd classify as "libertarian" also have no issues with cheering the use of oppressive state power when it benefits them.

And it's worth noting that the lockdown measures are generally popular with members of both parties and independents. The ones who loudly and vocally oppose it are a minority. This poll is a month old now but gives a general idea.

https://twitter.com/ymurad__/status/1242791955509248002

American political parties don't map completely to ideologies but we aren't looking at massive, politically-defining margins here.

I want to point out that is old and during the initial panic. I would assume a newer poll would not be as drastic. I am all for the virus containment, but as the data coming out has become better and better, I think we have to start being realistic about the economy also.

---