RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 16:16 last edited by
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 16:29 last edited by Aqua Letifer
And the people who are dying from coronavirus are those who are at risk of death anyway.
I bet all those dead 20 and 30-year-olds with no comorbidities would take a lot of comfort in that.
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 16:33 last edited by Doctor Phibes
He's been downplaying it for at least the last month, according to Google.
According to Wiki, he said he'd be very surprised if more than 10 people die of it in Israel. Current death toll, while admittedly relatively low, is 164.
-
And the people who are dying from coronavirus are those who are at risk of death anyway.
I bet all those dead 20 and 30-year-olds with no comorbidities would take a lot of comfort in that.
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 16:48 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer And how many of those are there? We hear and read about the shocking exceptions specifically because they are the shocking exceptions.
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 16:50 last edited by
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
-
@Aqua-Letifer And how many of those are there? We hear and read about the shocking exceptions specifically because they are the shocking exceptions.
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 17:17 last edited by Loki@LuFins-Dad said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@Aqua-Letifer And how many of those are there? We hear and read about the shocking exceptions specifically because they are the shocking exceptions.
1% (.098) of those under 34 to be exact. Not sure how many of those where comorbidity free.
-
@Aqua-Letifer And how many of those are there? We hear and read about the shocking exceptions specifically because they are the shocking exceptions.
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 17:25 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@Aqua-Letifer And how many of those are there? We hear and read about the shocking exceptions specifically because they are the shocking exceptions.
He didn't make that qualifier. He didn't say "most."
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 17:34 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
Yeah and intelligence is not even correlated. Should frighten you, really because it’s not limited to any particular ideology.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@Aqua-Letifer And how many of those are there? We hear and read about the shocking exceptions specifically because they are the shocking exceptions.
He didn't make that qualifier. He didn't say "most."
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 17:35 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer Well, if we want to play the qualifier game we can point out that everybody is at risk of death every moment of every day. Some more than others.
-
@Aqua-Letifer Well, if we want to play the qualifier game we can point out that everybody is at risk of death every moment of every day. Some more than others.
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 17:38 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@Aqua-Letifer Well, if we want to play the qualifier game we can point out that everybody is at risk of death every moment of every day. Some more than others.
Tell you what: try that argument on everyone whose loved ones have died or are in the ICU and then you come back and tell me how convincing it is.
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 18:03 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
-
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 18:07 last edited by@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
-
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 18:08 last edited by@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
No, apparently we're not, because we're still comparing COVID deaths to getting struck by lightning and other "well, what can you do?" Act of God type scenarios.
-
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 18:13 last edited by@Loki said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
That's harder to determine. Sure, you can overreact.
To me what's reasonable is taking serious precautions. Define that however you want, I don't care.
What's not reasonable is being flippant about the death count. Care about the economy all you want; that, too, is a serious problem the likes of which we've never seen before. But that doesn't excuse just writing the deaths off because they're "going to happen anyway." I mean come on.
-
@Loki said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
That's harder to determine. Sure, you can overreact.
To me what's reasonable is taking serious precautions. Define that however you want, I don't care.
What's not reasonable is being flippant about the death count. Care about the economy all you want; that, too, is a serious problem the likes of which we've never seen before. But that doesn't excuse just writing the deaths off because they're "going to happen anyway." I mean come on.
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 18:18 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@Loki said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
That's harder to determine. Sure, you can overreact.
To me what's reasonable is taking serious precautions. Define that however you want, I don't care.
What's not reasonable is being flippant about the death count. Care about the economy all you want; that, too, is a serious problem the likes of which we've never seen before. But that doesn't excuse just writing the deaths off because they're "going to happen anyway." I mean come on.
Car accidents, opioids, pollution, industrial accidents, mental abuse- none of them stop the economy- make sure you add the, to your list. The best argument, and a really good one is overwhelming the health system.
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 18:29 last edited by
Personally I think saving as many fucking lives as possible is the best argument, but apparently that's unreasonable crazy talk.
-
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
@jon-nyc said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
Remarkable the amount of ideological commitment some people can display.
It was the first thing that had me shaking my head about the VDH piece. He still believes there is a potential fact we could discover that would confirm his initial ‘flu is worse’ stance. We are well passed that point.
Now that we are outing under reactors, is it even possible to overreact? What does the reasonable reaction curve look like?
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 18:38 last edited by jon-nyc@Aqua-Letifer said in RNZ Interview with Michael Levitt:
And the people who are dying from coronavirus are those who are at risk of death anyway.
Did he really say that? Who’s not at some risk of death?
@Loki I wasn’t commenting on VDH’s personal under reaction. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s reacting just fine. He’s no spring chicken and he isn’t exactly fit. Wouldn’t shock me to learn of a few dozen pack-years of smoking history for that matter.
What bothered me was his continued commitment to a position that facts have already fully invalidated. There simply are no conceivable facts that could come to light that would revive his position. The body count is already too high in places where the virus got raging before lockdown. The graph says it all.
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 19:01 last edited by
The flu is nowhere near as virulent as this stuff.
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2020, 19:51 last edited by Doctor Phibes
I know we're only hearing about the bad cases, but there are a lot of those, it seems. There are also plenty of people not dying but getting really sick, and if hospitals are overwhelmed, then it seems likely that a lot more of these people will die, which is what we're trying to avoid, after all. I was tempted not to even point this out, as it seems so blindingly obvious, but apparently some people still don't actually believe it, or think it's important.
I was only joking
