GBoi

So what is an acceptable number of dead Americans to you? 500,000? 1 million? 2 million?
 
You seem to like articles that have almost nothing to do with reality, and that never talk about actual dead people. So if we are focused on data, here's the data: we have 100,000 dead Americans, mostly seniors. Oh, by the way, the article you posted seems to overlook that minor fact.
 
How much bigger do you think that number should be? 500,000 dead American seniors? 1 million dead American seniors?
 
You are speaking out against "group think". Good for you. I'm with you on that. Group think is bad.
 
So please be clear. Don't be an intellectual wimp. Tell us the truth. How many dead Americans is herd immunity worth?
 
I think herd immunity means 2 million dead Americans, mostly seniors. Is that worth it to you? Should our goal be to promote herd immunity, at the cost of 2 million dead Americans? Is that your idea?
 
Again, you don't want group think. You want clarity, and reason, and fact, and honesty. So give us clarity, and reason, and fact, and honesty.
 
The articles you post are pretty much devoid of honest, factual presentations. Nowhere does the author bother with the tiny little fact that at least 100,000 Americans, mostly seniors, died in two months from COVID-19 - despite an unprecedented lock down.
 
Nowhere does the author deal with an honest discussion of the alternative - test, trace, treat - that has been used everywhere in the world. The author bad mouths China, but doesn't mention that they actually did stop the virus, and have a fraction of the deaths in the US. The author praises Sweden's herd immunity plan, but fails to mention they have actually had a rate of death double or triple that of their neighbors, Norway and Finland. Oh, and the economy of Finland and Norway did better than Sweden's economy, too. My simplistic theory about that is that dead people and sick people just don't go shopping.
 
So what exactly is the thing Sweden did that we are saying is good? Killed more seniors? Had a shittier economy than Finland and Sweden? Spell it out, since the article you posted doesn't spell it out at all. It just posits theories about how much herd immunity Sweden may have achieved, without bothering to mention the pesky little details of dead older Swedes.
 
And since we are being honest and factual and not engaging in group think, what is the death toll in Sweden that you think makes herd immunity worthwhile?
 
My own view is that you are the group think guy. Just about every country in the world that has tried has shown that some combination of lock downs, suppression, targeted closings, and especially testing, tracing, and treating have gotten the virus under control. The countries that did it best actually never had to lock down their economies, because they were way ahead of the global curve on getting the virus under control.
 
Again, key point. Countries like Taiwan and South Korea and Iceland that avoided lock downs and focused like a laser on testing, tracing, and treating did not do it to promote herd immunity. They did it for exactly the opposite reason. Their goal was to prevent death and illness, which it works out is bad for the economy. That is why the economies of countries like Taiwan or South Korea or Iceland -and, importantly, China - are doing better than most others, including the US and Sweden. Herd immunity turns out to be bad for the economy, not good.
 
Lots of medicals professionals and scientists actually object to the use of the term "herd immunity" in the context you keep using it. Their point, which is valid, is that scientists came up with the notion of artificial herd immunity through the use of safe vaccines. And the word safe is critically important, because nobody likes the idea that the cure is worse than the disease.
 
This idea that it is somehow a good thing to let a lethal disease sweep through a society is actually a pretty rare idea. To the degree it was even speculated about, like in the UK, it went down very, very badly. Thee seems to be an emerging global consensus (aka "group think") that "test, trace, treat" - also known as prevention - is better than the mass illness and death that natural herd immunity requires. The author fails to mention how the idea of letting a disease sweep through a society and kill some unknown (500,000? 1 million? 2 million?) number of people is a real intellectual outlier. Most doctors I don't know don't set out to see people get infected, or hospitalized, or end up dead.
 
Your author is honest enough to mention that there might be one little problem with herd immunity. Which is that it doesn't exist. Like most of the stuff you post, it is comic book in nature. Great theory. Nice stories. Fun to read. But pretty much devoid of facts. If it turns out that in the real world there are 100,000 dead Americans while we speculate about whether antibodies actually will protect people, or for how long, you wouldn't know that by reading your comic book fantasy.
 
If you have any actual data about actual deaths, actual GDP, that suggests that herd immunity is a good thing, or anything other than make believe and abstract theory, please share it with us. I am 100 % with you that group think is bad. I am 100 % with you that we should be objective data seekers.
 
But when you keep posting vague articles that fail to mention that 100,000 Americans actually died, and it also don't honestly say that 2 million more Americans will die, it's not being very factual or honest. The author does mention 2 million dead Americans, but only by way of trashing honest people who did put forth estimates of how NOT mitigating the virus wouldkill millions of Americans. So I don't buy it, @bigjoey. You have a tremendous capacity to just overlook actual mass death, as if it is some small thing that doesn't matter on the way to exploring some wonderful comic book theory.
 
I posted the data from The Netherlands on actual deaths by age cohort. I said that if you played those death rates out in the US, 2 million Americans are going to die to achieve herd immunity. Almost all of them are seniors. And that's a death rate of about 0.6 %, which is actually on the low side of what most people, including Dr. Fauci say. So I am being honest, and taking an honest non group think position. Herd immunity means 2 million dead Americans.
 
Herd immunity also means a work force of younger adults that is sick, hospitalized, and in some cases dead. None of these comic book herd immunity fantasies come within a mile of explaining how a crippled and sick work force is good for an economy.
 
Meanwhile, I don't need to theorize about how crushing a virus through testing, tracing, and treating is good for an economy. All I need to do is point to China, or Germany, or Austria, or Iceland, or Australia, or South Korea. Those are not comic book theories. Those are real nations, with almost no real COVID-19 deaths. So please, explain to us how the reality of those 1 billion + real living people fits into your pro-death comic book herd immunity theory.
 
Spell it out. How many people do you think need to die in the US to achieve herd immunity?

I did read the entire article, multiple times. I've read all the articles you've posted on herd immunity, as well as many others.
 
Like the author, you won't spell out what herd immunity actually means. So, like him, you seem to want to lob bombs at respected people like Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci. The author trashed the idea that we might have had 2.2 million dead Americans, had we done nothing. Which is, of course, what Fauci and Birx said. He has every right to trash them. So do you. And I agree with you that questioning "group think" is always a good thing. But if you are going to do that, you actually have to spell your alternative out.
 
Now what you are doing is mirroring the intellectual dishonesty of the author. "Oh me, oh my. I'm being censored. The media won't let me speak."
 
Nobody is censoring you, @bigjoey. If you won't spell out what herd immunity means to you, and why you think it is worthy of consideration, you are only censoring yourself.
 
But since you won't spell it out, I will. The author speculates about certain outcomes, which he still fails to spell out numerically - perhaps because he actually understands how bad they sound. So let's actually look at what he says.
 

 


 
There's a lot in that article, but I think those paragraphs spell out the core of the author's case for herd immunity. And I'll repeat what I said above. One very good reason to think about this is that a second, or third, or fourth wave might be inevitable. Maybe Jacinda Arden is really only good at talking about easter bunnies and tooth fairies. We just don't know. As optimistic as the lessons from many countries look, they are hardly proven science. So, again, I'm 100 % with you on the idea that group think is bad.
 
I do find it interesting that the author cites only one other nation - Iceland. It's easy to dismiss Iceland, since they are tiny. What the author does not mention is WHY Iceland was so good at testing. They actually ended up testing 18 % of their population so far - not 5 %, as the author cites.
 
The goal in Iceland is NOT herd immunity. It is the exact opposite. They tested and traced in order to stop the virus, not to let it continue on its course and kill more people. And they have beat the virus. Check out the numbers. These are facts, not theories. That have had a total of 10 deaths. They are now down to one reported case a week. That's not promoting herd immunity. That's the exact opposite. Relative to population, Iceland has had 29 dead per million. Sweden has 384 dead per million - which is about 13 times more death. Oh, and Iceland's economy is actually doing better than Sweden's. They never had a lock down, because they got ahead of the curve.
 
So if your point is we should have honest intellectual debate, I'm 100 % with you. Let's debate facts. But these are all the relevant facts. How many died? What impact did it have on the economy? Was a lock down necessary? If you want honest debate, these are the facts we need to debate. What Iceland has done is one example of a national success that suggests mass death and illness is simply not necessary. The author is entitled to his own biases. But why would he fail to mention Iceland's success?
 
And let's spell out the very dark picture he paints of New York and the US, without really telling us the details. Because, again, he might be right. Maybe we will have a second and third and fourth wave.
 
So his point is that New York City achieved 20 % herd immunity. Let's go with that. That came at a cost of 20,000 deaths, if I use the NYC data - including people they say died at home. I am going to assume that herd immunity means 60 % infection, which is probably low ball. The author should spell that out, but he doesn't. So, assuming he is right, a second and third and fourth wave of infection that finally achieves herd immunity would mean 60,000 dead in New York City - again, assuming herd immunity is achieved at 60 % infection. If we assume 80 %, it's of course 80,000 dead.
 
Extrapolating to the entire US is easy. The population of the US is about 40 times the population of the NYC. So if it takes 60,000 dead in New York City to achieve herd immunity, that would mean 2.4 million Americans. Which is in the ballpark of what Fauci and Birx said (2.2 million). What happened in New York City - in the real world, not theory - actually confirms that the horrific numbers Fauci and Birx used could actually happen.
 
Now let's do the same thing with Iceland. They had 10 deaths in a country of 364,000 people. I'm going to use very simple math and say there are about 1000 Americans (330 million) for every Icelander. So the equivalent number of deaths in the US would be 10,000. Meaning that if we had the option of doing what Iceland did, and used very aggressive testing and tracing to contain the virus and avoid the herd immunity route, it might have meant 10,000 Americans died, rather than 100,000 and growing. And, critically, Iceland has NEVER HAD A LOCK DOWN. Again, the lock down is of course NOT the goal. The goal is to stop the virus from sickening, hospitalizing, and killing an unacceptably high number of people. Lock downs are blunt instruments. Testing and tracing are more refined surgical tools.
 
So you can tell me if you think I am being unfair. But I am using real numbers based on real deaths in real places. I think what this means is that had we done what Iceland did, we might have had 10,000 dead Americans before we stopped the virus. If we instead assume we need to play out NYC all over America, and add a second and third and fourth wave until we finally achieve herd immunity, it could mean something like 2.4 million dead Americans.
 
If you think I am not being honest or fair, please let me know how. But if you are going to promote herd immunity - either as a choice, or as an unfortunate inevitability - you ought to be willing to actually spell out what it means to you. I just did. You simply won't.

Fox News has Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and several part-time loonies. Enough said.

Any boutique hotel in Soho is de facto gay.

Oxford Street (and Regent Street) are AWFUL during Christmas. Definitely not better than Harrod’s. Depending on what you’re looking for maybe King’s Road in Chelsea, the side streets in Mayfair and Covent Garden (i.e. not the piazza) or even Spitalfields would be more bearable

Oxford Street (and Regent Street) are AWFUL during Christmas. Definitely not better than Harrod’s. Depending on what you’re looking for maybe King’s Road in Chelsea, the side streets in Mayfair and Covent Garden (i.e. not the piazza) or even Spitalfields would be more bearable

The answer is it depends on the routes you travel and what type of ticket you buy. In my case, under the previous FF rules I would earn approximately 22,000 redeemable miles for my typical west coast-Europe round trip. Under the new changes, I peg at the maximum 75,000 redeemable miles per round trip. Even with devaluation I make out quite a bit better.
 
In terms of benefits, the best are free same day change and free changes and cancellations for your mileage tickets (which basically means every award ticket is fully refundable). I also don’t have problems using my systemwide or regional upgrades and I like the flexibility next year where GPUs and RPUs are interchangeable.
 
So for me the answer is: yes

The answer is it depends on the routes you travel and what type of ticket you buy. In my case, under the previous FF rules I would earn approximately 22,000 redeemable miles for my typical west coast-Europe round trip. Under the new changes, I peg at the maximum 75,000 redeemable miles per round trip. Even with devaluation I make out quite a bit better.
 
In terms of benefits, the best are free same day change and free changes and cancellations for your mileage tickets (which basically means every award ticket is fully refundable). I also don’t have problems using my systemwide or regional upgrades and I like the flexibility next year where GPUs and RPUs are interchangeable.
 
So for me the answer is: yes

Saw him at a bar last week. Cute looking but is blonde now and not nearly as cut as in his publicity shots.

Nate is pretty awesome. Maus is awesome too. From personal experience, together they are mind blowing!

Nate is pretty awesome. Maus is awesome too. From personal experience, together they are mind blowing!

Pretty common scam on Grindr nowadays. Glad you listened to your big head and did not fall for it!

Are you talking about dating apps or RentMen? I think it’s the exact same list

Pretty common scam on Grindr nowadays. Glad you listened to your big head and did not fall for it!

Same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. So boring. Moving on now.

Your post added zero value to the discussion at hand. We all know you love twinks and that you think Taboo and Montreal suck now. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.....but why on earth do you have to invade every thread on Montreal to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? What exactly is achieved by doing that? Is the point to punish everyone else on the Montreal threads because you aren't happy with the scene any more? Sorry....but you are a killjoy and a downer. Time for a paradigm shift.

Do you really always need to be a killjoy? You're always so negative. The Debbie Downer of the board..

some of these posts are more than slightly Nazi-ish.

Yes, you do choose your attractions. You are a product of the environment in which you were raised. Does that make you racist because you categorically dismiss one ethnic group? Yes. Should you feel guilty about it? Up to you.

Recently flew TG F connecting to NH F BKK-NRT-LAX. NH chaperones their F passengers from connecting flight onto their flight so no chance of getting lost. Wonderful experience...getting driven literally THROUGH the TG lounge to the TG F Lounge, the hour long Thai massage before the flight, and a whole bottle of vintage Krug to myself in NH F (with Hibiki 17 as a chaser).
 
Krug>>>Dom

I think everyone was at the pop-up nude party. It was packed

NY, LA and London are tops IMO

NY, LA and London are tops IMO

Singapore has fantastic food culture, especially street food. You could easily combine it with a trip to Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City or Cambodia/Siem Reap.

Pietro Boselli. The end.