Whatever happened to free market capitalism?

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 131
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Also it seems that some conservative states such as Florida and Texas have already  moved on from the pandemic while  states like California and New York remain very locked down despite little evidence that these restrictions did much to help
Banning political opposition isn't helping those states either in serving the interests of their public. Aren't both New York and California governors about to get banned by the voters? That news will probably get banned too in social media for the good of people who really know what is best.

Scientists who are not properly woke or who might challenge political power will be banned as a matter of course before someone gets any funny ideas about who is in charge and why they are in charge.

#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
The Danish science agrees with you.


At BEST, lockdowns had a marginal benefit at great cost. I remember an Orange Buffoon muttering something about the cure and something about being worse than the disease, but it's like a dream on the wind.
#33
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@FLRW
That is strange since  total cases per 1M in New York is 91,906 and in Florida it is 92,171.  DeSantis must not be reporting all the deaths
This was in the local paper:
The state of Florida is hiding information about coronavirus deaths from citizens. Under the direction of Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Department of Health (DOH), the state has consistently refused to inform the public about deaths and infections in Florida nursing homes, prisons and now, coronavirus deaths as documented by public medical examiners.
Case count is a worse metric than total deaths because early on in the pandemic we had very low testing capability, and really only tested the most sick patients. The true case counts were significantly higher in March and April 2020 than the official count would indicate. 

Do you have evidence that Florida has been lying? And if you do, what about Texas which was less libertine than Florida, but far more than most of the coasts and yet still (barely) had deaths per 1 million below the national mean?
#34
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Free market is a pseudoconcept.

A truly free market is inevitably a monopolised dictatorship in the making... Yes, think about it. Find me an exception.

You need to wisely, regularly unfree the market in order to free the participants in it.

It's an objective fact.



Topic's author
#35
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
If the corporation is owned by shareholders and it's immoral to make unwise monetary decisions with their property than why should a CEO get to decide not to sell a certain product even if it would be profitable? And what of the shareholders on the other side of the political divide?
My objection wasn’t about unwise monetary decisions, it was about donating money to a political campaign which the owner of that money doesn’t support.

Whether a CEO decides to sell a product is a completely different issue, company profits are not so black and white. There is a reason advertisers for example pull back from certain shows, it’s not because their leadership suddenly grew a conscious.

Hang on--what if the reason companies won't sell a certain book isn't because there isn't enough demand for it to be profitable, but because they fear pressure and intimidation from activists who want to keep people from reading these books? Is that really something you're willing to support? A hecklers veto over what I'm allowed to read?
Pressure from activists will not stop a company from selling a product unless that company believed it would be worse for their bottom line to keep selling it. But even if it were the case for one company, it’s absurd to suggest a few hecklers could make this the case with every company. By that point the hecklers you describe would have to make up the majority of society. I assume it’s not your position that society should have no control over what circulates within it.

It's totally fine to disagree with the right but you need to at least understand our positions.
That’s the point of posting a thread like this. It is not as you suggested, out of an obsession to paint the other side as hypocrites, it’s to give the other side a chance to change my mind or at least give me a perspective I hadn’t considered before.

Also it seems that some conservative states such as Florida and Texas have already moved on from the pandemic while states like California and New York remain very locked down despite little evidence that these restrictions did much to help
Not sure where this came from, but moving on from a pandemic doesn’t make it disappear. Look at the test positivity rates. The red states make up the majority of the highest rated states while blue states are mostly at the bottom. Total death counts are a horrible statistic because no one separates the early pandemic deaths from those after policy was implemented and had a chance to kick in, plus treatment has gotten much better with time making it even more misleading.


#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Oddly, if you google for this

it won't show up. But you can find it on other less totalitarian search engines.
#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Not sure where this came from, but moving on from a pandemic doesn’t make it disappear.
You are correct, but moving on does allow people to make relevant personal risk/reward calculations. And now that we have a vaccine to protect the at-risk people, there is no need for the status quo beyond naked plays for power. Viruses will always be with us. Shitty politicians don't have to be.
#38
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
My objection wasn’t about unwise monetary decisions, it was about donating money to a political campaign which the owner of that money doesn’t support.

Whether a CEO decides to sell a product is a completely different issue, company profits are not so black and white. There is a reason advertisers for example pull back from certain shows, it’s not because their leadership suddenly grew a conscious.
Well a CEO could argue that donating to a certain political candidate is a positive impact to their bottom line, no? They probably have a better case to make that bribing politicians for favors is more beneficial to the shareholder than not selling books that people want to buy but that offend the sensibilities of a vocal minority. Is your objection that it's immoral to spend someone else's money on a candidate they may not support, or is your position just that you don't think doing so is profitable and that's why they shouldn't do it?

Pressure from activists will not stop a company from selling a product unless that company believed it would be worse for their bottom line to keep selling it. But even if it were the case for one company, it’s absurd to suggest a few hecklers could make this the case with every company. By that point the hecklers you describe would have to make up the majority of society. I assume it’s not your position that society should have no control over what circulates within it.
Actually, that is my position because I'm a free speech absolutist. 

Do you have evidence that a company would ONLY stop selling a product if it hurt their bottom line? Sure if it meant the destruction of the company yeah they would sell what they needed to sell, but take a behemoth like Amazon. It's impossible to imagine that the people in charge of Amazon might be more interested in preventing people from reading books that describe transgenderism as a mental illness  than in a very small amount of marginal profit? Pressure from activists is historically a very effective means of pressuring companies into doing what you want. 90% of Amazon employees donated to Democratic candidates in 2018: https://www.geekwire.com/2018/amazon-employees-donate-money-political-candidates-issues/ so leadership is likely facing pressure to censor conservative books from their office workers as well. IDK man it just seems very obvious to me that companies can and do make political decisions 

Not sure where this came from, but moving on from a pandemic doesn’t make it disappear. Look at the test positivity rates. The red states make up the majority of the highest rated states while blue states are mostly at the bottom. Total death counts are a horrible statistic because no one separates the early pandemic deaths from those after policy was implemented and had a chance to kick in, plus treatment has gotten much better with time making it even more misleading.
You said that half the country (dems) want to move on from the pandemic, but all republicans want to talk about is how they're being censored on social media. I was just pointing out that actually most red states have already moved on, rightly or wrongly (I think rightly, but it's okay. lets just drop it, had a whole year of talking about this)
#39
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@thett3
Lockdowns were meant to slow the spread, not contain the spread, which they did. Obviously the rate of transmission for an airborne virus is mitigated by limited interactions with people and spaces. It's common sense that more people would have died without lockdowns, and all the data seems to confirm that. But even if we don't accept that and believe only the same amount of people would have died regardless, we know 535,000 have perished in the US with draconian lockdowns and mask mandates in place. So without those things, the same amount of people or more would have died at a faster rate. This would have very likely put strain on hospitals and other industries like morgues and emergency services. It's easy to say that would all be "worth it" in hindsight without having to go through it. Los Angeles and some other places got a glimpse of what that could have been like and it was not pretty. The value we place on lives vs. money is never consistent among civilians or politicians. All bias. 

And the comparison of FL and the northeast using total numbers alone lacks context. You have to look at the timing. NY had 237 deaths per 1 million ppl during its peak (April) vs. 223 deaths per 1 million during Florida's peak (July). Very similar. You are right that most deaths in NY were in nursing homes, so their numbers would be much better without that. I don't buy the argument that Democrat run places are intentionally trying to run their cities and states into the ground for no other reason than "exercising authoritarian  control." That is an incredibly stupid accusation people are making. 
#40
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Unpopular
 It's common sense that more people would have died without lockdowns, and all the data seems to confirm that.
Can you share this data? There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation just glancing at the list of deaths per million. It seems to be a lot less related to policy and much more related to seasonality, population density, and obesity rates

And the comparison of FL and the northeast using numbers alone lacks context. NY had 237 deaths per 1 million ppl during its peak (April) vs. 223 deaths per 1 million during Florida's peak (July).
In that case New York must have had a much higher background rate before/after peaking since their overall deaths per million is around 70% higher than Florida's. Remember, I brought up Florida because it's notorious as a state that had few restrictions and no mask mandate, and yet it ended up well below the national mean. 

I don't buy the argument that Democrat run places are intentionally trying to run their cities and states into the ground for no other reason than "exercising control." That is an incredibly stupid accusation people are making. 
I never made that claim. But the motives don't have to be nefarious for the policy to be bad. I think it's a good thing that kids in red states are back in school, and restaurants are open. I hope that blue states join us very soon
#41
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@thett3
It seems to be a lot less related to policy and much more related to seasonality, population density, and obesity rates

Sure, overweight people benefitted most from lockdowns as they are among the most at risk. As I said it is common sense that  the rate of transmission for an airborne virus is lessened by limited interactions with people and spaces. You seem to acknowledge that by highlighting population density being a factor.

I've found this source to be credible.  Epidemiologists  studied various lockdown measures in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France, and the US. They found the most effective measure was getting people not to travel to work, while school closures had relatively little effect. Many people with pulmonary issues and other comorbidities were allowed to work from home solely because of state mandates (and densely populated cities like New York likely have a lot of office jobs which made it possible to work from home). Now they are back to work after improved treatment discoveries and vaccination.


In that case New York must have had a much higher background rate before/after peaking since their overall deaths per million is around 70% higher than Florida's. Remember, I brought up Florida because it's notorious as a state that had few restrictions and no mask mandate, and yet it ended up well below the national mean.  I brought up Florida because it's notorious as a state that had few restrictions and no mask mandate

Florida had a 30 day lockdown last Spring and major cities across FL have had mask mandates all along. I know DeSantis challenged them in the fall but I do not recall the legal outcome. 

Florida's population density is 327 people per square mile compared to NYC which is 27,000 people per square mile. There weren't any social distancing measures early in the pandemic  in New York until March, and the virus had been in New York City since at least January. That probably had a lot to do with it. 


#42
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Unpopular
I've found this source to be credible.  Epidemiologists  studied various lockdown measures in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France, and the US. They found the most effective measure was getting people not to travel to work, while school closures had relatively little effect. Many people with pulmonary issues and other comorbidities were allowed to work from home solely because of state mandates (and densely populated cities like New York likely have a lot of office jobs which made it possible to work from home). Now they are back to work after improved treatment discoveries and vaccination.
We don't disagree then, I definitely think having people WFH was a good idea. What I'm against is the kind of hard lockdowns (schools closed indefinitely, restaurants closed indefinitely, wear a mask while outside/don't let people go to parks or beaches) you are seeing in places like California or the UK. My point generally is that there is a certain level of social contact that is just necessary to keep society going. I think we would all agree with this, it's just a debate about the threshold. I think Texas and Florida have it more right than California. Masks are probably good if used properly, but widespread improper use (think about someone putting the same rag over their mouth and nose day after day without washing it as it accumulates filth) could potentially make the problem worse, or at least very seriously cut into the benefits.

Florida had a 30 day lockdown last Spring and major cities across FL have had mask mandates all along. I know DeSantis challenged them in the fall but I do not recall the legal outcome. 

Florida's population density is 327 people per square mile compared to NYC which is 27,000 people per square mile. There weren't any social distancing measures early in the pandemic  in New York until March, and the virus had been in New York City since at least January. That probably had a lot to do with it. 
Population density certainly has a huge effect.

To be clear, I'm not having a go at New York. It's just the reality of the thing that a disease is more likely to spread in such a dense environment. But again, the deaths per million was 70% higher than Florida's. Florida, which has a super high senior population, was well below the NATIONAL AVERAGE in deaths per million despite being arguably THE MOST lax state. Does this mean that all of the excess restrictions were useless, no. Is it evidence that their impact was mostly marginal: Yes.
Topic's author
#43
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
Is your objection that it's immoral to spend someone else's money on a candidate they may not support, or is your position just that you don't think doing so is profitable and that's why they shouldn't do it?
The former, but it’s not just about morality it’s about our political system. Money is power. It’s bad enough that someone worth a billion dollars gets to play an oversized role in influencing public policy, but it’s even worse when someone gets to influence policy with money that’s not even theirs.

Actually, that is my position because I'm a free speech absolutist.
But you’re talking about something else. Free speech ensures that you can’t be silenced by the government. When you advocate for private citizens within a society to be unable to collectively silence you then you are really advocating to stop their right to free speech, making your whole position incoherent.

Do you have evidence that a company would ONLY stop selling a product if it hurt their bottom line?
I believe in human nature. Specifically, people will always act in their own personal interests. And while there will always be an individual who pushes against the grain, one who decides that their political principals are more important than their financial benefit, that is the exception not the norm.

IDK man it just seems very obvious to me that companies can and do make political decisions
I never said they don’t, I just don’t believe they are as political as you make them sound. There’s a large overlap between a decision to protect your company from political ramifications, and a decision over principal. The main point of this thread is that of you believe in the free market then you believe those decisions are entirely the company’s to be made, at which point turning their decisions into a political issue makes you the opposite of what you profess.
Topic's author
#44
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
If Amazon had banned the sale of Obama merchandise in 2012 would you really have said "hmm well I suppose that's just the free market and people can get it elsewhere"
I would have been pissed at Amazon and made a point to spend my money elsewhere. And not even because I disagreed with their political views, but because banning Obama merchandise (assuming they targeted him specifically) is an overt political decision that’s nothing like what Amazon actually did. There is nothing about his merchandise that could be reasonably deemed offensive, and he’s done nothing warranting that kind of public accountability. It’s an apples to oranges.

What I would not have done is joined the train of demanding that my democratic representatives do something about this private company making their own decisions.

Now to be clear there is an argument to be made about the size and influence of these companies, but nothing I’ve seen suggests to me that that is the real focus here.
#45
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
The former, but it’s not just about morality it’s about our political system. Money is power. It’s bad enough that someone worth a billion dollars gets to play an oversized role in influencing public policy, but it’s even worse when someone gets to influence policy with money that’s not even theirs.
So if corporations don't belong to the managers and the employees, but to the shareholders, and it's immoral that CEO's can use money that doesn't belong to them to push their political agenda by donating to their preferred candidates, would it not also be immoral for a corporation to turn down profit for a purely political purpose? What about all the conservative shareholders of Amazon?

But you’re talking about something else. Free speech ensures that you can’t be silenced by the government. When you advocate for private citizens within a society to be unable to collectively silence you then you are really advocating to stop their right to free speech, making your whole position incoherent.
I advocate for the mores of free speech as well. I don't actually think the majority of private citizens should use their economic and social power to silence those who disagree, or punish them for disagreeing, no. 

I believe in human nature. Specifically, people will always act in their own personal interests. And while there will always be an individual who pushes against the grain, one who decides that their political principals are more important than their financial benefit, that is the exception not the norm.
You are wrong. How much revenue do you think Amazon made from books that disputed the progressive line on transgenderism? I really have no idea but I would guess that it was less than one-ten thousandth of their overall revenue. Yes, people will make their company <0.01% weaker to pwn their opponents. Do you think selling these books COST Amazon money?

The main point of this thread is that of you believe in the free market then you believe those decisions are entirely the company’s to be made
Wouldn't the decision to support a particular candidate also be entirely the companies to make?
Topic's author
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
would it not also be immoral for a corporation to turn down profit for a purely political purpose?
Yes, but that’s not a political issue, it’s a performance issue which the shareholders have every right to hold them accountable for. I am in a position where I have decisions to make, if I ever took a stand on political grounds and the company lost money because of it I’d probably be fired. That’s how it works.

I don't actually think the majority of private citizens should use their economic and social power to silence those who disagree, or punish them for disagreeing, no.
Then you advocate against their right to free speech.

Curious... what would your attitude be towards Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein writing an autobiography about how they assaulted all those women? If publishers refused to publish their work and stores refused to sell it, would you denounce cancel culture for silencing them?

You are wrong. How much revenue do you think Amazon made from books that disputed the progressive line on transgenderism?
You’re making my point. Taking political principals completely out of the picture...  Do you think a company as large as Amazon would want its brand associated with anti transgenderism for the measly few dollars it will make selling these books? You don’t think that would potentially have a massive impact on their bottom line?

Wouldn't the decision to support a particular candidate also be entirely the companies to make?
Yes, as long as the rules permit it, which is exactly my problem. I don’t blame the companies for acting within the law, I blame the fact that this is the law.
#47
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Yes, but that’s not a political issue, it’s a performance issue which the shareholders have every right to hold them accountable for. I am in a position where I have decisions to make, if I ever took a stand on political grounds and the company lost money because of it I’d probably be fired. That’s how it works.
I’m confused. Here we have a case of Amazon turning down money to make a political stand. Of course it cost them money even if the amount relative to their overall revenue was quite small. If it’s immoral to spend money supporting political candidates when the shareholders aren’t unanimous why is it not immoral to lose money for a political cause when the shareholders aren’t unanimous?

Then you advocate against their right to free speech.

Curious... what would your attitude be towards Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein writing an autobiography about how they assaulted all those women? If publishers refused to publish their work and stores refused to sell it, would you denounce cancel culture for silencing them?
No, I make a moral distinction between criminals profiting from tales of their crimes and people advocating a political position. I would denounce it if all publishers refused to print and all stores refused to sell the communist manifesto for example, even though I hate communism. 

You’re making my point. Taking political principals completely out of the picture...  Do you think a company as large as Amazon would want its brand associated with anti transgenderism for the measly few dollars it will make selling these books? You don’t think that would potentially have a massive impact on their bottom line?
Except I can just as easily turn this around and say doesn’t it hurt Amazon to be seen as taking aggressively liberal stances? Conservatives have money too. It’s always safer to just be a neutral platform and sell everything outside of a few incredibly egregious cases (like your Weinstein example), which is what was done in the past prior to this country being driven insane with political polarization.  Amazon has a gigantic market share when it comes to books. Not only does their decision make existing books less likely to be read, it makes future books less likely to be written because they can’t be sold. There’s a massive chilling effect 

And sorry if it’s offensive but transgenderism likely IS a mental disorder. Certainly the gigantic increase in “trans” kids is a mental health crisis that needs to be discussed. People need to be allowed to hear this information  
#48
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@thett3
 transgenderism likely IS a mental disorder. 
It turns out that the predicate for even being eligible for so called "hormone replacement therapy" and "gender re-assignment surgery" is a gender dysphoria diagnosis.  

If being trans isn't a psychiatric disorder, then I've got bad news for all those "born in the wrong body" types that want to chemically or surgically alter their anatomy.  Because they'll be paying for that out of pocket, which is prohibitively expensive for pretty much anyone whose last name isn't Pritzker. 

#49
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
As if Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seuss weren’t bad enough, yesterday Jim Jordan and Ken Buck sent a letter to Amazon demanding answers on why certain products were pulled off their website, claiming a pattern of anti conservative bias. Cancel culture has become a right wing obsession as of late, but it’s purely a product of the free market. Do conservatives still believe in it? If so, what exactly is supposed to be done about it and why do republican politicians seem to expect that you will vote for them over this?
You might take a look at this: 


This too: Dave Chappelle is my all time favorite comedian 


And this: Sarah Silverman is ok too 


This also: Bill Burr hits the nail on the head 

#50
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@thett3

 Is it evidence that their impact was mostly marginal: Yes.
If you agree that NY was the epicenter at the start of the pandemic, that the virus had likely been around NY for months before any social distancing measures were put in place at all, that half of all Covid deaths in New York stemmed from nursing homes, and that NYC has a population density that is 12x the state of Florida's, then I'm not sure why you think FLs numbers being better than New York's proves anything. That is comparing two different areas and populations on different timelines. FL had implemented a 30 day shutdown months before its peak (slowing  the spread) whereas NY implemented a shutdown simultaneously with its peak. Looking at numbers alone without context is very tricky. 

I have not seen any data indicating that statistic to be accurate (the death rate does not seem to be 70% higher in NY than in Florida), but given the airborne spread it seems obvious that no lockdowns = faster spread. That does not mean people have to agree with lockdowns, and I don't. But we will have to look at more than FL's numbers to get an idea on the overall impact of government measures. Other states like Florida did not have strict Covid responses and fared much worse. South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and Indiana have done poorly among others. All data seems to verify that social distancing saves lives. That justifies things like mask mandates or limiting capacity with indoor dining and other venues, which is what most "lockdowns" amount to. 

Governors in blue states  are trying to figure out how to remain popular. They are not looking to crush their own economies and ruin the lives and businesses of their constituents. They are trying to keep hospitalizations and death toll low so they aren't accused of handling things poorly. Right now Governor Newsom is fighting with CA teacher unions who refuse to go back to school until their numbers get better. 

#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Unpopular
Funny how the red states don't have to fight against crony lobbies and unions.

You would think after 50 years of fucking up their states that they would have eliminated the stranglehold of Public Unions.
#52
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes that is why their cops and teachers make 35,000 a year and in blue states they make 80,000. 
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Unpopular
Yes that is why their cops and teachers make 35,000 a year and in blue states they make 80,000.

Source?

If that's true, Blue states are paying them 2 times more than they are worth. No wonder the service sucks and the taxes are high.
#54
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Google.com 
#55
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Unpopular
You didn’t cite a single source or give a single statistic. And New York is a lot more than just NYC. The population density of the state is 421 per sq mile, Florida’s is 397.

Sort by deaths per million. New York’s is 2698. Florida’s is  1512. Do the math, New York’s death rate is 78% higher 



#56
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@thett3
Is he actually arguing that lockdowns are effective?  I haven't been following the thread. 
#57
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@thett3
You didn’t cite a single source or give a single statistic.
Which part of what I wrote before requires a citation? 


And New York is a lot more than just NYC. 
The reasons for acknowledging that NY is home to the most densely populated city in the country when you are talking about the number of deaths in NY is very significant. Do you need me to explain why?


Sort by deaths per million. New York’s is 2698. Florida’s is  1512. Do the math, New York’s death rate is 78% higher 

I have explained two times that looking at numbers alone is useless. I will do so again. 

The biggest chunk of NY's deaths happened in the first few months of the pandemic. Government was telling people there was no concern of a US outbreak. No testing was happening in the U.S. and no screening except for questionnaires were being administered to people coming in from other countries up until late March. Because of this the virus spread unchecked through the New York metro area as early as January. It ran amuck for months which did NOT happen in Florida. Therefore comparing NY to FLs numbers in totality  as you are doing is not useful at all in looking at the results of government responses.

In order to do a fair comparison between the local level response , you have to back out deaths from the early months of the pandemic where NY and NJ started with a significant handicap, not of their own making. When you backout deaths prior to June 1, 2020 for instance the deaths per million in NY is 1,270.9 and  in FL it's  1,396. An argument can be made for backing out deaths even further up through July 1  given the mortality latency of the virus, (i.e  up to 10 days to start showing severe symptoms and up to 7 weeks on ventilators), but I thought I would be generous in my calculation.

Nearly all of the deaths in FL happened after we knew better, when we had the information necessary to make good public health decisions. So nearly all were highly preventable or could have been significantly reduced with a better public response, and again FL is less populated than NY. The majority of NYs population live within NYC metro. 

The math on these numbers and conclusions is as follows:

48, 624  - NY total deaths
23,905 - NY deaths as of June 1, 2020
_______
24,719/
    19.45 - Pop by million

1,270.90


32,448 - FL total deaths
2,406 - FL deaths as of June 1, 2020
_______
29,988 /
    21.48 - Pop by million

1,396


There is good reason to suspect that FL is underreporting its cases and deaths, but since it is not yet provable, I will accept the current numbers at face value. Are these the things you would like me to provide citations for - the population of each state and when their deaths occurred? I can do that but it is all googleable. 

Analyses must consider that NY's first peak daily case rate occurred April 15, 2020 and its first and only real peak daily death rate occurred April 14, 2020.  At that time and the 1.5 months leading up to it, the medical community had almost no knowledge on how to treat the virus, except rest, let it run its course, supplemental oxygen and then ventilate which it turns out they were doing incorrectly. 

Conversely, FL's first peak daily case rate occurred July 16, 2020 and its first peak daily death rate occurred August 4, 2020. So FL had the benefit of significant development in the understanding of how to treat Covid by that time. They had already locked down for 30 days and been social distancing and wearing masks for 4 months prior to their peak, whereas NY had NO distancing measures prior to its peak. Moderna and Pfizer's Phase I/II vaccine trial data had already been published by the time FL peaked. The Remisivir Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") was issued on 5/1/2020.  Convalescent Plasma received its EUA by August 27, 2020. Thus, using overall death numbers alone to compare FL and NY is  not at all indicative of anything.

Obviously lockdowns did slow the spread. Less exposure to people = slower rate of transmission. That's common sense. Whether or not that means lockdowns "work" in light of all the net negatives they bring is unclear. Most people would not agree with lockdowns with the benefit of hindsight. 

#58
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Unpopular
The math on these numbers and conclusions is as follows:

48, 624  - NY total deaths
23,905 - NY deaths as of June 1, 2020
_______
24,719/
    19.45 - Pop by million

1,270.90


32,448 - FL total deaths
2,406 - FL deaths as of June 1, 2020
_______
29,988 /
    21.48 - Pop by million

1,396
You are proving my point. Even if I grant you that we should only look at deaths that happened after spring (an INCREDIBLY generous assumption I would not give you if we weren't just having a friendly conversation) Florida's death rate was 9% higher. When you account for a higher senior population (https://www.prb.org/which-us-states-are-the-oldest/#) it's pretty clear that the difference is as I said: marginal. Not worth, in my view, utterly traumatizing a generation of children and potentially destroying several economic segments. 

If you're so hung up on New York, the highest is actually New Jersey, then Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Then Mississippi of all places! Which I suspect has a ton to do with poverty and obesity rates. Then Arizona ( lots of retirees maybe?) Connecticut.....are you sensing a pattern? Because I'm not. 

Topic's author
#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
If it’s immoral to spend money supporting political candidates when the shareholders aren’t unanimous why is it not immoral to lose money for a political cause when the shareholders aren’t unanimous?
You missed the part where I explained that my issue regarding corporate donations to political campaigns has nothing to do with the company, my issue is with the system that allows it. Do you believe, as a matter of law, that publicly traded companies should be allowed to make these donations?

Regarding the second part, I never said it was moral for a CEO to lose his company money over a political stand. I argued that (A) these decisions are not as political as you make them sound, and (B) to the extent that they cost the company money we already have a system of accountability (shareholder elections) to deal with that.

No, I make a moral distinction between criminals profiting from tales of their crimes and people advocating a political position.
Do you regard the rhetoric that lead to the attack on the US Capitol as “advocating a political position”?

Except I can just as easily turn this around and say doesn’t it hurt Amazon to be seen as taking aggressively liberal stances? Conservatives have money too. It’s always safer to just be a neutral platform and sell everything outside of a few incredibly egregious cases
That’s just your assessment. These issues are complicated, and reasonable minds can see it either way. So on what basis do you deem this decision entirely political? It’s one thing to disagree with the calculation Amazon is making, it’s an entirely different thing to claim it’s not a calculation at all but rather based on purely political motives. How do you distinguish between the two?

With that question aside... on what basis can anyone reasonably claim that removing a book many people see as offensive to be an aggressively liberal stance? Is this what conservatism is now? How dare you try to avoid offending people?

And sorry if it’s offensive but transgenderism likely IS a mental disorder.
Mental disorders are a human construct. It’s a condition where the brain doesn’t work as it’s supposed to. Who are you to tell someone else that their chosen lifestyle (which hurts no one else) is grounds for them to be considered in need of medical treatment?


#60
Unpopular
Unpopular's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 98
0
1
3
Unpopular's avatar
Unpopular
0
1
3
-->
@thett3
You are proving my point. 

What exactly is your point? You said, regarding lockdowns, there is "little evidence that these restrictions did much to help."  I said that was subjective, because lockdowns did slow the spread and did save lives early in the pandemic. So lockdowns did help for those that value saving lives above all (I do not). It is common sense that lockdowns slowed the spread, but you asked for a source and I provided one. You said you agreed with the conclusions of the source, that keeping people home from work (which lockdowns obviously accomplished) slowed the spread.  So it seems you accept that lockdowns slowed the spread and therefore saved lives, as scientists have concluded.

You do not have to agree that lockdowns were worth it while acknowledging the reality they saved lives. I personally do not think lockdowns were worth it, and I think most people agree in hindsight.  But you repeatedly referring to FLs numbers  does not in any way prove that lockdowns "don't help" at saving lives. I have explained why comparing FLs death toll numbers compared to NYs while not accounting for other variables and context is useless. 

And the numbers I gave do not seem prove your point, whatever it is, because it shows a lower death toll per million in NY post June than FL. I have explained why using June as a starting point is most logical. 



Even if I grant you that we should only look at deaths that happened after spring (an INCREDIBLY generous assumption I would not give you if we weren't just having a friendly conversation) 

Why is that INCREDIBLY generous?  Obviously the rampant spread of Covid with no protocols at all between Jan-March  matters in looking at NY's numbers. That is a  valid explanation for why the early parts of the Spring must be discounted in looking at NYs response to a pandemic, so explain how you are being friendly and generous as opposed to completely logical in ignoring the Spring death toll.   

Again, we had a lot more information, social distancing, mask mandates, screening, testing, quarantine protocols and treatments in July than we did in April, so FLs numbers should have been better even with its senior population, especially if they were quarantining at their homes in Boca Raton.


 Not worth, in my view, utterly traumatizing a generation of children and potentially destroying several economic segments. 
Agree. 


If you're so hung up on New York

I'm not. You're the one who said lockdowns don't work because NYs entire death toll numbers are higher than Florida's, and I'm explaining why that makes no sense.


....are you sensing a pattern? Because I'm not. 
Correct, factors other than lockdowns impact the numbers, which is why solely using the totality of FL and NY death toll numbers to prove your point was not effective.

Vermont and Maine have very low death rates of Covid and they were on lockdown for two months. Why not  compare their numbers to Florida instead of only using  New York's? Obviously you need much more context (population age, density, health, financial status, etc.) than death toll numbers alone when analyzing the effectiveness of government response, which I have been saying repeatedly.

Again lockdowns were only meant to slow the spread, which they did. You seem to want to make it out like I am arguing for lockdowns just because I corrected the position that they have had "no effect." They obviously have an effect, especially in densely populated places like New York City. Last  year we did not know how contagious the virus was nor how to treat the virus, so retroactive criticism ought to be a bit more nuanced.