Do you have some evidence for that? I know early on people seemed to think this, but I don’t remember seeing any good studies that showed that. Certainly viral loads start going up to transmissible levels perhaps a day before symptoms, and continue for several days after, so I’m not going to say there’s no asymptomatic spread. But to say that it’s the majority is beyond what I’ve seen claimed and supported.
The risks are heavily stratified by age and health. For example, of the million dead, how many were under age 40? Just 2%, while 98% were old, often much much older. Over half the US population is under age 40, so we’re talking about the majority of the population which has 1/50 of the risk of the rest. This is why a “one size fits all” approach has been so misguided and lead to huge amounts of unnecessary economic hardship while not preventing a whole lot of deaths. Those that were at high risk and knew it, ie diabetes, high blood pressure, immune system disorders, etc, weren’t prevented from taking precautions in any event.
A million dead say otherwise.
And most of them on Biden’s watch. Let’s remember what Biden had to say about someone who presided over less than 1/3 of his body count…
The left keep screaming *but but but a million dead!", while completely ignoring the pesky fact that 80% of those have been people over the age of 65 (and 90% over the age of 50) - and that’s before factoring in those with multiple existing health issues.
The left is “pretending”. The right merely states the fact that for large segments of the population the risk is minute. Absolutely no one has suggested that those most at risk shouldn’t be protected, the disagreement rests entirely in who needs protecting and how to do it. But you don’t want to have that discussion, because you know full well that it will only highlight how ridiculous the standard response has been.
And what about the outcomes at those schools (and lots of public schools around the nation and the world) cause you to reach that conclusion? Because all the data I can find makes it clear that shutting down schools really didn’t accomplish much of anything.
It’s what the epidemiologists say, I haven’t kept up with sources on it.
You realize that those with risk factors constitute the majority of the population? It’s not like it’s just a few you can throw under the bus.
And who knows how many are dying of clots getting to something vital without ever going to the hospital and thus not getting diagnosed in the first place? And how many are dying of the damage Covid did even though they’re over the infection itself.
The hospitals are mostly full of the low risk patients–because the high risk people protected themselves.
Which means 100,000 dead under 50. That’s enough to make it a major cause of death even in that age group.
It’s something that is hard to measure and the number of people who kept thwarting the measures make overall measurements basically impossible.
We do have one very damning piece of data, though: As time goes on Covid is becoming more and more a disease of Republican counties. Some combination of vaccination, masks and distancing is making a big difference in the infection rate. We can’t pin down which of them, but at least one of the three must make a major difference.
You do realize that 2% under 40 is before accounting for any other risk factors? Factoring in the additional risk factors only further concentrates the risk.
Yes, I noticed how you had to shift from deaths to infection rate…
When a majority of people need a test to know that they’re infected (as opposed to just being “sick”), the infection rate isnt all that meaningful, and in no way reflects risk.
I know you’d love to maintain the charade that anyone who catches covid is most likely going to die, but that simply couldn’t be further from the truth.
I switched to infection rate because we don’t have death rate data with that level of granularity. We do see a pattern at the state level with death rates. NY Times chart:
Set it to show all states, for “All time” and sort by “total deaths per 100,000” and note how red the top of the list is–and the two blue states up there both show big spikes at the very start, before we really knew what we were up against. And note that even this understates the problem because a lot of Covid deaths are going unreported in red areas.
Pediatric ERs never came close to running out of beds. The few that were temporarily overwhelmed were because of staffing issues. Plus, it has been confirmed that half or more covid patients were in the hospital WITH covid, not BECAUSE of covid.
Using the total dead is disingenuous. We were talking about parents. As glitch pointed out, the important number in this discussion is the total number dead that are in the age range of people with school age kids. That is who has a very low risk, especially if healthy.
In what way does the fact that her mother died have anything to do with her risk level?
Ok. Now I know you’re not actually arguing with us in good faith. Thanks for making that clear.
While I sympathize (well, I feel your pain), your entire arguement seems, at best, discombobulated, and at worst, purposely irrelevent … sort of Trumpian. Are you a Trumper? It sure sounds like it.
Along the same logic, Vlad’s put his nuclear weapons on high alert due to … wait … aggressive action by Uncle Joe and other western countries. See what I mean by purposely irrelevent?
What science? Political science was her major in college. For me, that pretty sums up her expertise in STEM. Not saying she did not extensively research epidemiology since I had never heard of her before but her qualifications to be an expert on COVID science seems relatively slim to me.
And it feels a bit disingenuous for the chief marketing officer at a major international brand to assume that she could post stuff without having it reflect on her company. In her capacity, she should be fully aware of how PR works. Even lower echelon employees at virtually any large company have heard management telling them that what they do or say publicly reflect on their company. The higher you are in the company hierarchy, the more you’re subject to it.
“Anonymous trolls on Twitter, some with nearly half a million followers, said people should boycott Levi’s until I’d been fired.”
It’s 2022. Good luck to her finding another company that does not care about what its chief marketing officer posts publicly, what TV appearances they do, or how their public postings reflect on the company. Companies (and shareholders) care about brand image/message as it affects their bottom line. I don’t think she got fired for opening discussions. She got fired because the company bottom line could get affected by calls for boycotts of its products and that’s not why she was hired to do.
At the end of the day though, if her values are no longer in line with her company’s (and her colleagues’), it’s probably for the best for her to find another company which is a better fit.
As far as not taking the money, I don’t know if it’s integrity or just misguided pride. Maybe she calculated that she’d get praised for her integrity by another company and that the longer game was more money. Maybe $1M isn’t much money for her and that’s all. But at the end of the day, will being able to speak up accomplish anything? Nobody really cares about why Levi fired her or what she has to say about it. She was no longer a good fit for her position at the company and that’s it. Happens all the time with much less drama.
She did. And she was also well aware that the company has taken numerous other political stances [relatively] recently. With an entire city’s worth of children having their growth and development being needlessly jeopardized, I got the feeling she genuinely thought this was a rather obvious issue for the company to speak up about (especially since, at least according to her, she was bluntly told by the higher-ups that she was probably right).
The company apparently found more value in protecting it’s own hypocrisy of ignoring the issue as long as their own kids could remain in their [open] private schools, than supporting their future CEO against asinine claims she “just wants to kill poor black kids”. Yet you’re seriously going to make excuses for them and pin the blame on her?
How is this hypocrite for the company to not weigh in on an issue that has nothing to do with their brand and products? Who put Levi in charge of deciding local school district policies?
Considering this thread’s topic, how would Levi inserting themselves in a public discussion on a topic that has nothing to do with their products not look like co-mingling of business and politics? What’s next? Anyone really want google, apple, facebook (screw meta I’m not buying the bogus rebranding), etc to tell people what education policies districts should have?
I’m not making excuses for them. I just think it’s totally within their right as a company to fire their marketing head when her actions do not align with company brand message, risk hurting their bottom line, and/or gives them bad press.
As opposed to gay rights, voting rights, gun safety, etc, etc? Not to mention her “colleagues posted nonstop about the need to oust Trump in the November election.”?
You seem to have intentionally truncated your quotation, and left out the part where her company has taken numerous other political (and yes, having “nothing to do with the company’s brand and products”) stances recently, which was a pretty essential to the part you did quote.
I did not think the rest of the paragraph was relevant (my point was to show the impact on company bottom line) but here it is in its entirety: “Anonymous trolls on Twitter, some with nearly half a million followers, said people should boycott Levi’s until I’d been fired. So did some of my old gymnastics fans. They called the company ethics hotline and sent emails.”
Note that this section does not say anything about other stances the company had taken. Personally, I don’t think the company has any business commenting on other issues that are irrelevant to their products. They have to sell good clothes and that’s it. The rest is simply using your platform to push whatever narrative leadership wants. But maybe Levi thought that they wanted to appear woke as a marketing strategy.
But given that the company felt they had a right/duty to give their two cents on public policy (again I disagree with that stance if it does not relate to products), the issue with her is that she was pushing very publicly a narrative that was not in line with the company’s. A regular employee with low visibility may have gotten away with it. But as marketing head, you’re in charge of the image of the brand/company. When the company pushed for voting rights or gay rights, that was part of the company’s strategy. When she publicly pushed stuff that was contrary to the company’s strategy or narrative, she first got warned that it was not appropriate. Once it was obvious that she was passionate about it and was gonna continue posting publicly on it, she got axed since Levi did not want her postings to be misconstrued as its own stance on the issue. I don’t find this surprising or abnormal considering her position.
And your question was, how it is hypocritical? So that was what I was answering - as long as their own kids could remain in their open private schools, they didnt want to comment about all the public school kids being denied the same priviledge. They even acknowledged (at least according to her) that it was classist and elitist, but instead indirectly supported the attacks claiming she just wants to kill all the minority school kids.
I assume you feel the same should happen to NFL players who insist they should have the freedom to “take a knee”, even while in uniform and on the field doing their job?
Although this isn’t politics invading personal finance, and thus not specifically on topic, it is social credit in Ukraine/America. CBS news (Ed Murrow is spinning counter-clockwise) thinks that this is a newsworthy Ukrainian story. Jeez, even Walter Conkrite would be embarrassed, offshore, ashore, sober or otherwise.
Yeah, like how the Big Tech guys are cutting off several Russian news channels in Europe. If the US follows suit, pretty soon we’ll only have Bernie and AOC to tell us what the communists think
Meanwhile, our newspapers can’t seem to avoid injecting racism and white supremacy into the Ukrainian conflict.
Those channels are Kremlin-owned and controlled. They’re an extremely effective propaganda tool that has been spewing lies and distortions for years. They keep repeating the official line that it’s not a war but a “special operation” (I read that all media in Russia is explicitly prohibited from using the term “war”), they’re not showing any actual images of damages and suffering in Ukraine. It’s probably part of the reason why so few Russians have taken to the streets (the other reason is that protests are illegal and police is out in force everywhere).
