Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 377: Nonconsent of the Governed

(+) Yeah! (+)

xp1337 posted...

I have an update on this that plum asked for:

plum posted | #461 last topic

https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/1425977681850638337

That was the only time in 10 years that Paul or his wife purchased shares in an individual stock.

CNBC reports...

Edit: dammit beat. i'll leave it cuz it has the link though

ok yeah we can crucify him now

---

Can someone explain to me at what point support for the war in Afghanistan switched polarity? The same edgy teenagers that were dead set against it back in high school are now bitching about how "we need to do more" to stop the Taliban, and the wannabe GI Joe asshats are now the ones supporting the withdrawal.

For the record, I have been saying for 20 years that it made no sense and will accomplish anything, as anyone who has a passing familiarity with 20th century history would tell you. You can't help people that don't want to be helped. Afghanis for the most part WANT to live in a socially isolated, oppressive and corrupt theocracy.

---

If only politicians ever got in trouble for insider trading.

---

Now, not to defend Rand Paul because I'm under the impression the stock transaction was improper as well, but what specifically constitutes his insider information at the time he made the purchase? Can we tie him to any news that wasn't public at that point?

Because even though the WHO hadn't declared a pandemic yet, it's not like we hadn't heard of COVID-19. By that point we were all fully aware of the damage it was causing in Wuhan and the fears that it was going to continue to spread unchecked. And there had been a public announcement by WHO that remdesivir "may have real efficacy" against COVID-19, so that wasn't secret knowledge either.

On Feb 26 when the purchase occurred the price varied between 70.72 and 75.47 and while it did peak a bit higher in the mid 80s over the next few months, it was actually 10 points lower at the same time the following year if they held it as a long term investment. It sounds like the purchase was in the $1,000 - $15,000 range and I've seen an article that indicates they lost money overall on that stock.

I guess I'm just not convinced that it is inherently shady to invest in a medical company two days after promising news about one of their products was made publicly. Most of the people who got in trouble were people who sold stocks before the pandemic announcement and the resulting market crash.

---

I think it creates a conflict of interest for him. He was almost certainly always going to suck on the subject of vaccines and any other sort of mandates, but owning that stock gives him a financial incentive to be against that stuff.

---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Afghanis for the most part WANT to live in a socially isolated, oppressive and corrupt theocracy.

jfc

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And there had been a public announcement by WHO that remdesivir "may have real efficacy" against COVID-19, so that wasn't secret knowledge either

I was not aware of that already happening. I retract my insider trading statement.

Senators and their spouses still shouldn't be investing though.

---

Remdesivir was the supposed drug that always worked and not Hydroxochloriquine or whatever it was. Turns out basically neither really did though. We knew that since like January.

---

A hall of fame MAGA self-own

https://twitter.com/kt_so_it_goes/status/1426206463475785735?s=21

---

So how exactly do you fake a global pandemic anyway?

---

You dont

---

You leave as many cutesy hints in names as possible so you can nudge nudge wink wink at your co-conspirators

---

So I think I've settled on what's been bothering me about numbers regarding the pandemic and the chain of thought involved that results in comparing apples and oranges.

First something like this will be stated: "99.999% of those vaccinated do not die from covid."

--This means of EVERYONE vaccinated .001% go on to both contract a breakthrough case of covid, and then die from the breakthrough case.

Then something like this will be stated: "You are 25 times more likely to die from covid if you are unvaccinated"

--But this isn't comparing the totality of unvaccinated people to the totality of vaccinated people. This is compared 1 unvaccinated person with covid against 1 vaccinated person who got a breakthrough case of COVID.

So some people see those two claims next to each other and say "So even if you aren't vaccinated your chance of dying is only .0025% I'll take my chances!"

.

And it doesn't work that way! All the second statement is saying is that "even in the unlikely event you get a breakthrough case, a vaccinated person is 25x less likely to die than a vaccinated person". The chance to contract that breakthrough case is still quite low.

So one the one hand you have people where two low probability events would need to occur. First contracting a breakthrough case (unlikely) and then having a severe enough case to die (much less likely if vaccinated). And on the other hand you have two higher probably events which is an unvaccinated person getting the virus that they aren't protected at all from and then the chance of a fatal case once contracted.

I can see the difference in how the numbers are being used, but sometimes the numbers are presented carelessly without enough explicit preface (such as in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b442uKKMnmE ) and other times they are just being deliberated misunderstood and shared by such a vast number of people that I don't know how to even begin to set things right.

.
.

Edit: Ugh I just watched that video again and I'm pissed off again.

They are using the numbers 160,000,000 people vaccinated and 1,000~ vaccinated people have died from covid to arrive at their 99.999% but they are presenting it as "99.999% likely to survive a breakthrough case" and it\s really ".001% chance to BOTH CONTRACT and then SUBSEQUENTLY DIE FROM a breakthrough case". It would only be 99.999% likely to survive a breakthrough case if there were 160,000,000 breakthrough cases against 1,000 deaths.

WHY CANT PEOPLE MATH

---

Yeah a big problem is that many well-intentioned journalists are themselves not mathematically literate (nor is probably a pretty sizable majority of the population overall). All of the efficacy numbers (e.g. the original 95% effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines) are your relative reduction in risk compared to being unvaccinated, and thats the statistic thats actually relevant; providing an overall death rate of all vaccinated individuals is just dumb and pretty useless (especially since it will just keep increasing as time goes on and more and more people are exposed to covid)

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

You dont

Yeah how long do you think governments could keep such a charade up?

---

I'd be more curious to see in those cases where someone did die while fully vaccinated, what were the comorbidities?

At the end of the day though, people using statistics on efficacy and death rates to justify not getting a vaccine are ignoring the fundamental argument for getting it, which is to reduce the vector for the disease to spread, while simultaneously easing the burden on the health care system. Think of all the people who have had their health care compromised for unreleated health issues because of all the unvaccinated assclowns clogging up hospital resources?

People seem to have this belief that vaccines are bulletproof and once we are all vaccinated covid magically disappears, but that is not and never will be the case. Both because we will never hit 100% vaccination, and also because the disease will become endemic and new strains will pop up, especially in unvaccinated populations.

The goal of vaccines and the goal of lockdown restrictions is to slow the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse of the healthcare system. The easy solution to all of this is to just refuse treatment of Covid for anyone that doesn't have their vaccine, that lives in an area where they have had every opportunity to get it. I would fully support that policy for a varity of reasons.

---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

The easy solution to all of this is to just refuse treatment of Covid for anyone that doesn't have their vaccine

Oh damn.

I don't think I could ever fully support something like this from a 'good Samaritan' standpoint, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I was tempted. You could force them to provide proof of vaccination or proof that they are allergic to the vaccine.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

WHY CANT PEOPLE MATH

Even math folks often screw up Bayesian probability questions, unfortunately

---

Personally I blame Harry Enten for not correcting the news anchor

---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Can someone explain to me at what point support for the war in Afghanistan switched polarity? The same edgy teenagers that were dead set against it back in high school are now bitching about how "we need to do more" to stop the Taliban, and the wannabe GI Joe asshats are now the ones supporting the withdrawal.

For the record, I have been saying for 20 years that it made no sense and will accomplish anything, as anyone who has a passing familiarity with 20th century history would tell you. You can't help people that don't want to be helped. Afghanis for the most part WANT to live in a socially isolated, oppressive and corrupt theocracy.

Probably gonna regret jumping in here, but I'll say it: the withdrawal is a huge mistake that will lead to a massive humanitarian disaster.

---

And if the people living there are okay with the "humanitarian disaster", who are we to judge?

I strongly disagree with everything the Taliban stands for (women as inferior/objects, promoting violent religious ideologies, general asshattery), but invading Afghanistan was the worst possible thing NATO could have done to convince Afghani's to reject Islamic extremism. Better approach would be to cut all foreign aid, impose strict trade embargoes, and seize/freeze all of the assets the Taliban elite have in foreign countries.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Probably gonna regret jumping in here, but I'll say it: the withdrawal is a huge mistake that will lead to a massive humanitarian disaster.

So when would it be fine for the US to leave Afghanistan? There's been virtually no progress towards a functioning non-Taliban government in the 20 years we've spent there so far, and there's no obvious path leading to one now. What's the alternative to leaving? Should the US just stay there and lose slowly because it doesn't look as bad that way? Or should we throw tons of money and manpower into a true military occupation and govern Afghanistan ourselves?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Probably gonna regret jumping in here, but I'll say it: the withdrawal is a huge mistake that will lead to a massive humanitarian disaster.

What about the invasion? Was that also a mistake?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Probably gonna regret jumping in here, but I'll say it: the withdrawal is a huge mistake that will lead to a massive humanitarian disaster.

Respectfully, what about the last 20 years has been not a humanitarian disaster?

---

Unless we're making Afghanistan the 51st state, we needed to be out of there 19 years ago.

---

Afghanistan was/is a no win situation.

It was already a massive humanitarian disaster and we weren't winning in the status quo.

Healthcare is the bigger humanitarian problem here at home tbh

---

The Taliban is undoubtedly a horrendous political force and will make life a living hell for women, minorities, and dissidents.

But the US has no solution, there likely is no solution, and we cannot stay there indefinitely. We shouldve gotten out of there like 15 years ago and if we dont withdraw we might as well start giving them representation in Congress because well never leave. AND like Chris pointed out all that money weve spent is better used domestically where we can actually make some sort of tangible good with it rather than just endlessly treading water.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

where we can actually make some sort of tangible good with it rather than just endlessly treading water.

Preventing the Taliban from invading was treading water?

We left and this happened

---

Not our problem. We have other problems.

---

US has to stop larping as world cop at some point. It's a complete waste of time, money, and people.

You'd think that lesson would have been learned after Vietnam but I guess not.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Not our problem. We have other problems.

I don't believe in nationalism.

---

masterplum posted...

Preventing the Taliban from invading was treading water?

The Taliban was already invading. Most of the areas they took recently were already contested territories.

masterplum posted...

I don't believe in nationalism.

I don't care. People are sick and starving in our own country.

---

That said Chris needs to stop equivalating this to health care because none of this is alleviating that problem or reallocating any money towards that problem. This isnt a step towards fixing that.

Everything relates back to Healthcare and education because that's the only way we are going save this doomed country is by making sure people aren't struggling to live.

And I am never going to stop.

---

masterplum posted...

Preventing the Taliban from invading was treading water?

We left and this happened

Treading water in the meaning that nothing we were doing or could have been doing was going to stop this exact thing from happening. We couldve left at any point in the last 15 years or any point in the next 15 years and Im not convinced the exact same thing wouldnt happen. We werent improving anything and couldnt prevent a power vacuum from occurring without just annexing Afghanistan permanently.

(yes there were improvements in certain parts of infrastructure so it wasnt all negative but it was largely just treading water until the inevitable)

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Everything relates back to Healthcare and education because that's the only way we are going save this doomed country is by making sure people aren't struggling to live.

And I am never going to stop.

Thats fine, fight for health care.

But realize this is a drop in the bucket of yearly military spending and no one sees it as a step towards better health care. They are issues so far apart that it holds no water in the other fight.

It isn't about spending. It is about a mind set of a generation who sheds tears over everyone but our own. The real humanitarian crisis is at home.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

It isn't about spending. It is about a mind set of a generation who sheds tears over everyone but our own. The real humanitarian crisis is at home.

If you teach people the rest of the world isn't important you are creating a bunch of nationalist shitbags.

Leafeon13N posted...

If you teach people the rest of the world isn't important you are creating a bunch of nationalist shitbags.

Literally no

---

I mean, there are plenty of lessons to be learned about how you cant just change the world with military force.

But if your outlook is fuck the world worry about home only you aren't doing much good.

Where do you draw the line? Should we occupy every country with a human rights violation? How do you decide which ones are bad enough to occupy? Because there are way worse off places than current day Afghanistan

---

Teaching people that our Healthcare and education system is broken and to focus on making ourselves a happier and healthier nation that will then be better equipped to deal with global problems if we so choose does not promote a nationalist agenda. Ignoring those problems and pretending like we can stay 20+ years in our countries serves that purpose.

Such a stupid boogeyman argument. Lol

---

If we haven't sent Matt Damon to every country then are we even trying?

---

Chris sort of has a decent point here. The government doesn't have unlimited resources, and fixing Afghanistan would be incredibly expensive. It's not literally "Save Afghanistan vs. US Healthcare", but staying in Afghanistan and seriously trying to win would rule out basically any other new spending on other priorities.
---

Do you both somehow think I'm arguing to stay in Afghanistan?

Because I have never done that here.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I don't care. People are sick and starving in our own country.

That's just bullshit

9 million people starve to death world wide every year. Americans are not special

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Do you both somehow think I'm arguing to stay in Afghanistan?

Because I have never done that here.

In effect you're basically arguing against leaving, so...

---

All I have said is health care is a completely separate issue and this is not a step towards fixing it.