atoq

COLOMBIA accepted migrants under the previous administration. Trump administration treated people as subhuman. COLOMBIA refused to accept the migrants under those conditions. Trump threatened tariffs. COLOMBIA accepted migrants under different conditions. Referring to handcuffing and binding the feet of non-violent offenders, not giving any water and not letting people use the bathroom for 5+ hour flights on military aircraft. Again I repeat: Please tell me how anyone is better off now than before Trump, when Colombia also accepted migrants.

Colombia received migrants prior to this administration. The tariff threat was a reaction to a crisis of Trump's own making by acting needlessly cruel for no purpose. Please explain how anyone is any better off after this.

What exactly was accomplished with the Colombia tariff spat? Colombia accepted planes of returned migrants throughout the Biden administration. I appreciate you at least learned how to spell Colombia after your first post and checking with CNN.

Ok, but who signed him to a 1 year deal via arbitration walking him to unrestricted free agency? Either lock up the player or trade him if he isn't in the plan. It's poor asset management. A common argument here is "it's not easy for KA to pick up a good goalie". Yes, because good GMs don't give them away for nothing. I believe Ullmark felt he needed a personal change. I don't believe for a second that going from a perennial losing team (after one of their worst seasons) to one of the best teams in the league didn't factor into his decision making, especially when the good team shows they want you by offering more money not pinching pennies in arbitration. Not something someone would likely say to the press, and not a compelling personal story a league reporter may choose to focus on.

Strange point to make about Vancouver in a post about how we shouldn't focus too much on the distant past with the Sabres. More relevant with Vancouver is that they are one of the top teams in the league this year, but that doesn't back up the "other organizations aren't passing us by" conclusion you're straining for.

Apologies for making wild exaggerations to suggest someone could be promoted from failed Sabres assistant coach to Sabres GM without first managing the Harborcenter.

My prediction: Assistant coaches: Nathan Paetsch and Patrick Kaleta Matt Ellis promoted to GM. Kevyn Adams promoted to President and extended. We want people that can't go anywhere else, I mean, that want to be here. Hire from within to keep developing the organizational culture. Outside voices concerned with winning will only create conflict in the locker room.

I totally agree with this. Some absolutely terrible takes in this thread. To those posters, you aren't coming across as bravely un-PC, you just look like idiots.

You all need to be more patient. It's only fair to give Matt Ellis a few more years to learn how to coach the power play.

So tired of this loser team.

They actually made it easier to leave downtown.

The highways were the failure that killed much larger portions of downtown.

This is the worst argument. Goaltending has been a problem since KA was hired years ago in 2020, and he's only let the position get weaker since then.

Besides goaltending, my biggest (yet pettiest) complaint is the "players that want to be here" slogan, which is such a cop-out coming from the person whose literal job it is to convince the right players they should want to be in buffalo, either through financial offerings or by selling the culture/region/future of the team. Obviously you can't convince everyone, but can we stop repeating this as an organizational motto, especially now that the Eichel-era transition is over? What does this even mean going forward?

I agree with this take. He's been neglecting the position since he started the job 3 years ago with Ullmark and vision-impaired Hutton on the roster. Not only has he not strengthened the position in the short-term, he let the best option we had walk for absolutely nothing, after the club spent years developing the player (within the division no less) That's just poor asset management, whatever you think about Ullmark or his Vezina. Get the player locked up or find another solution. I'm excited about Levi's future with the club (almost more than any other prospect), and hope he defies past trends with rookie goalies, but this position is still the biggest doubt going into the season. Also, the exaggerated topics obviously don't represent what most people think who are critical of recent goaltending decisions. A GM can make good moves, like Adams certainly has, but still neglect key aspects that limit the overall success of the club. Darcy, Murray and Botteril all made some good moves, but made some serious mistakes in specific areas too (playoff toughness, culture/character, finding a good coach, respectively).

A management philosophy that apparently extends to "Why hire a GM when the yes man at the arena can do it better?"

I'm confused. I followed the link to learn more and found a story very different that what this twitter pundit describes, in which Sanford Health is trying to distance themselves from an outgoing executive (who has a business background) who made comments downplaying the crisis and need for masks. Was the story later updated? Did Alex not read the original story? Did Alex have enough accountability to update his take on the story? As is so often the case with internet pundits, it doesn't appear so. It also seems he misrepresents how the situation in the Dakota's is being represented, at least in the media. I've seen articles pointing out that the Dakota's have among the worst metrics for hospitalization and mortality rates in the country, and that they are having to allow covid positive medical staff continue to work out of necessity. Both of these seem to indicate there is legitimate reason for concern, and that the situation is precarious. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/14/934185297/covid-19-hospitalizations-surge-in-dakotas-its-like-we-opened-up-a-spigot Is Alex's "team apocalypse" take based on people on Twitter reacting/overreacting to measured stories such as the above? If so, who cares?

That's right up there with bringing a convicted sex-offender from Trenton to Philadelphia to pretend to be a PA poll watcher alleging fraud in a press conference in front of a landscaping company.

I agree the science isn't settled and we all have much to learn on the subject. When reviewing the data, its also important to consider the many factors that impact virus transmission and mortality rates from country to country outside of government policies on lockdowns, including societal factors like population density, health indicators, age distribution, health care system capacity, availability of health insurance, faith in public institutions, and local customs for personal space. Most of the countries you mentioned that Sweden compares favorably too are in continental Europe. When compared to other Nordic countries, Sweden doesn't look so good anymore.

The "Swedish model" has been brought up several times in this thread, as though its a strategy that could be implemented in the US. Its important to note the incredible pre-COVID societal differences between the two countries. Here is the ambassador from Sweden explaining some of those differences: It's also important to note that Sweden has universal public health care (mostly government funded), meaning there aren't ~28 million people without health insurance like in the United States. @nfreeman Are you advocating for universal health care and enhanced paid sick leave, following the Swedish model? 😃 Over the summer, we were told that Sweden wouldn't face a harsh second wave in the fall due to acquired immunity. Let's check in on how Sweden has been doing recently with COVID-19. https://www.ft.com/content/1e0ac31d-5abf-4a18-ab3e-eec9744a4d31 Sweden has also maintained high COVID-19 mortality rates as the pandemic has progressed. . So people are still getting sick and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden. Following @nfreeman's theory, these losses should be offset by the economic advantages from avoiding lock downs, thereby mitigating cascading negative impacts of job loss and economic hardship. Sweden's GDP slumped 8.6% in Q2, more sharply than its neighbors despite its no-lockdown policy https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-sweden-gdp-falls-8pc-in-q2-worse-nordic-neighbors-2020-8 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-12/swedish-economy-weaker-than-official-forecasts-show-ingves-says?sref=GCzETbXp Given all of the above, it seems likely that Sweden will be changing their policies towards COVID-19 in the near future. In fact they've already started this by limiting gathering sizes. It's hard to believe that people still advocate for the "Swedish model" even though recent evidence indicates it isn't working and the baseline social context was so different that this model wouldn't have been replicable in a country like the United States.

I forgot another way they are attempting to subvert the democratic process: leaning on partisan state legislators to completely ignore the election results in swing states https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-strategy/trumps-election-power-play-persuade-republican-legislators-to-do-what-u-s-voters-did-not-idUSKBN27Z30G?il=0

The correct argument is if this is an election is being rightfully disputed with legitimate evidence (it's not) or if it's being disputed only by a serial-liar and his subordinates who are utilizing wild conspiracy theories, obviously futile legal cases, and pressuring local election committees to throw out votes they don't like in order to subvert our democratic process (it is).

No offense, but seems a bit disingenuous. The first line of the webpage, "As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists,…" (FTR, wtf is a public health scientist?) It is absolutely disingenuous. Besides the good points made by @SwampD about the the webpage, let's look to how @nfreeman himself how described the declaration: He claimed this was a scientific take. When it was pointed out there is little to no science in the article, he resorted to name-calling and personal attacks. @nfreeman you are right, I am a child. And in my first year of middle school I learned that if you want to make a scientific argument, you should provide some data and citations. If you take away the high profile university titles and the number of 'public health scientists', there is no science provided nor productive ideas proposed. It's of course possible that the premise of the declaration is correct or partially correct, but these kinds of decisions should be data-driven because this is matter of life and death for a significant number of people, which was really my point in responding. Let's look at another recent general non-technical statement by the scientific community, so that we can compare how information is presented: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812 This article helps compare global COVID impacts by providing some statistics (with respected sources) like the following: There is also information on how various countries have adapted testing programs, which has proven to be an effective strategy to help reopen economies. There is also a graph provided at the citation link: As for @nfreeman saying I'm projecting my own cognitive assumptions about what is best for society, at no point have I made the argument that strict lock downs are absolutely necessary. I'm usually only drawn out from lurking when I see really bad science takes that I feel compelled to refute with hopes of an actual ensuing conversation. Other parts of the world have enacted various strategies that helped dramatically reduce initial COVID infection numbers, followed by careful reopening strategies (a process made easier by more initial control of the virus) that have kept COVID rates substantially lower that in the US. However, I don't think there is currently any political will or capacity to do this in the US, as demonstrated by nearly every step taken in the pandemic response over the past 10 months (see NEJM link above). Even worse, the pandemic has now become another battle in the dumb American Culture Wars (intentionally so, by those who seek to mitigate criticism), where even non-invasive measures that can help vulnerable members of society are perceived as controversial. The shoddy science that surfaces here is part of that. To the point others have made here, the Great Barrington Declaration is obviously focused on whether or not there should be state-mandated lockdown protocols, in their words "concerns about...impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies" (in the title), which makes it a discussion about 'Government responses to COVID', and therefore shouldn't be allowed within this thread. People on this board have been complaining about uneven moderation because mostly political arguments barely obscured behind shoddy science (like Taro's HCQ study and the nfreeman's GBD), have been allowed and even shared by moderators. Yet, reflection or criticism of how governments have handled COVID isn't allowed, even though the options we have today for reopening the economy are directly related to how well the crisis was managed over the past months. Also, if economic concerns are primary, there are a wide range of fiscal policies that can be enacted to help individuals and businesses deal with economic hardships without putting many people's health at risk. This is another entirely underwhelming response that probably can't be mentioned here.

Please read more carefully. I repeated the part you quoted about the potential health results. Do you receive vaccinations or cancer screenings at restaurants, museums, concerts, sporting events, etc? There are lots of safe options for outdoor exercise to maintain cardiovascular health, leaving 'deteriorating mental health'. I acknowledged the link between unemployment and deteriorating mental health in bold #2 (perhaps not clearly enough), but the authors provide no evidence or analysis about and whether or not people will be more sad if they lose their job, or if the society lets the virus goes unchecked a lot of people die, including friends and family. Nor do they make a compelling case for how things can be reopened without unchecked spreading of the virus. Let's check their suggestions. As discussed, entirely staffing nursing homes with people with acquired immunity is entirely unrealistic given training and overall demands needed to conduct this type of work. It's really hard work and requires training, experience and a certain temperament. That and grocery delivery are the only specific suggestions from this declaration. Otherwise they say its possible to do and well within the scope of their profession. I get this is meant to be a general statement and not a detailed plan, but do you really find this a compelling argument, when they offer no data or specific plans? It seems strange to me this supposed broad coalition of experts can't suggest anything else, and had to resort to "We can totally do this" when the reality of the situation has shown otherwise, given the common dynamic of one superspreader can infect many people. The highest levels of Western leadership can’t even adhere to suggested bio security rules in their inner circles. Why does the “Great Barrington Declaration,” depend on the fanciful thinking that society at large can functionally implement these safeguards? This sentiment is implied in the how the authors (and you and others reposting online) have stressed the prestigious academic institutions involved and the overall number of doctors that have signed on, regardless of their actual expertise in this field. They are certainly making cost-benefit conclusions that could have serious implications on public health, yet they provide no statistics, citations or evidence to support those conclusions, which is inherently dangerous. The following is literally the only statistic in the entire piece (age stratified mortality): The stat is mentioned tangentially while contrasting the two extreme age groups and ignoring all of the age ranges in between to whom the risk is considerably higher than the flu. A single statistic, poorly explained or even misrepresented, is inexcusably sloppy. The role of data driven decision making is not discussed once, despite the number of biostatisticians and epidemiologists that have signed this document. Of course it doesn't claim to be submitted for peer-review, because the authors would undoubtedly know given their professions that any scientific conclusions provided without any evidence would be immediately dismissed. My point is this declaration doesn't pass any scientific muster. These are people who are using their positions and credibility to bend science to what they believe is best for society. Nice try, making this about my expertise. I engage with the scientific community enough to know that the scientific method is based on observation, empiricism, rigor, and skepticism of cognitive assumptions. This declaration doesn't involve any of these things. I won't ask for your credentials.

This piece begins with an attempt to make a scientific argument about public health (cancer screenings, vaccinations, etc.) and concern for the underprivileged, and then finishes by advocating for a broad reopening of sports, schools and cultural institutions, which seem much more related to economic activity than public health outcomes, and therefore not a 'scientific matter'. The only link between what they propose to reopen and public health is the vague mention of 'mental health deterioration', which also likely applies to the friends and families of the 210,000 people who have died in the US alone. Some more issues with this site: They are trying to convey their perspective as the consensus view among epidemiologists, and that is certainly not the case. Many of the public health professionals that signed onto this declaration are not epidemiologists. Some of the signatories have published highly flawed statistical models https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ Furthermore the authors provide no information on the basis of their argument, whether it be citations to peer-reviewed scientific papers or details on the cost-benefit analysis utilized to arrive at their conclusion, instead hoping the reader will take their word given their positions of authority. They likely issued an open-letter knowing this wouldn't pass peer review. There are a ton of variables that would influence a cost-benefit study like this, including what timeline did they consider for a potential vaccine? Some of their suggestions for reopening are nonsensical. How feasible does it seem to entirely staff nursing homes with people who have acquired immunity? In my opinion, this website doesn't hold up to scientific or general critical review and is only intended to provide fodder for politicians to say "See, the scientists said we can reopen" and for politically motivated contrarians to champion on internet message boards. I also totally agree with Weave's take that separating the vulnerable from the non-vulnerable in our society would be almost impossible. The US government has been unable to provide consistent messaging on fundamental aspects of virus control (does mask wearing work?, can the virus can be transmitted through the air? etc.). The highest level decision makers in the US are unable to abide by basic mask wearing, testing, and self-isolation protocols to protect small, affluent and isolated groups of people, yet some think its realistic be able to carefully separate out the millions of vulnerable people in our society?