Coronavirus Outbreak...

[simplicio]

So just what do you mean by appropriate protective gear for the hospital settings? The military, which seems to be what you are basing your expertise on, has various levels of protection when they don gear. If the military has various levels, MOPP levels, then that would suggest that there are various levels for the civilian hospitals. Might want to dig up some very old FMs from last century, the old Army. As I said, it was not dealt with in depth.


You can dismiss it as not having anything to do with what you said, but my point directly goes to your arguments here, as well as others' arguments.

[carpedm9587]

So just what do you mean by appropriate protective gear for the hospital settings? The military, which seems to be what you are basing your expertise on, has various levels of protection when they don gear. If the military has various levels, MOPP levels, then that would suggest that there are various levels for the civilian hospitals. Might want to dig up some very old FMs from last century, the old Army. As I said, it was not dealt with in depth.

You can dismiss it as not having anything to do with what you said, but my point directly goes to your arguments here, as well as others' arguments.

I have to confess that I have lost the point of the argument being made. Can someone restate it?

[seer]

87809604_2813712545378359_8001865642607116288_n.jpg

[Mountain Man]

98 to 99% of people in the US exhibiting flu like symptoms and have been tested are negative for the Chinese coronavirus. 96% in South Korea.

DR. BIRX: ...in South Korea there are 250,000-plus tests. About 96-plus percent were negative. So -- and that was with symptoms.

So we're working very hard integrating everything they have learned about symptoms and screening, and that is going into the development of this website. So it's not just a simple checkbox website. It's actually going to go through critical symptoms. And that's why we're giving ourselves the weekend to get it put up.

So far, in the United States, from LabCorp and Quest, they're running about a 99 to 98 percent negativity.

https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject...pen-1842367021

OK - I'm a little confused. The quotes in the box do not appear to be in the linked article. Where are you getting these negative test statistics?

That is very strange. I copy-and-pasted the quotes directly from the site on my phone, and while I can see that portion of the transcript on my phone (I'm looking at it right now, in fact), it's not showing up in my desktop browser, and I have no idea why.

ETA: I found the text you quoted in this press briefing.

Okay, so I'm not losing my mind... at least not yet...

[Sparko]

That wasn't a joke, Sparko.

You're right it wasn't. It was a very insensitive statement which you had just previously apologized for doing.

[lilpixieofterror]

I have opinions rooted in facts. I've provided those facts in previous posts, but you are welcome to ask about any of them if you wish.

Facts that can be used against numerous presidents, including ones you’ve described as among your favorites.

I am not aware that I claimed the rise of China started with Trump, so I have no response.

I am not aware that I claimed that Trump jailed anyone, so I have no response.

No you instead blame Trump for a war with the press, when many have been at war with the press. Your excuse making, would be funny if you were not like trying to nail down Jello with your dodging. Jailing journalist and threatening legal action is a war on the press. Rather you want to admit it or not.

Almost every president has expressed frustration at some part of the press, throughout history. That is natural. Even Jefferson, who once wrote, "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter," also wrote, "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." It requires looking at each case to see if the criticism of the press is warranted, and that will indeed inevitably involve some degree of personal opinion. In Trump's case (and it's not just Trump - Fox and CNN are equally to be faulted, IMO - among a large cast of others), the excess lies in his labeling "fake news" any news story that he simply dislikes, thereby eroding confidence in the function and role of the fourth estate. That function and role is critical to the life of a democracy. He is not the first to do something like this - but he has taken it to an extreme that has lasted the entirety of his candidacy and his presidency. Coupled with his propensity for outright lying (I have not seen a single speech he has made that has not contained a slew of outright falsehoods), I assess him as a highly dangerous president.

Any such assessment necessarily includes an element of opinion. The question is not whether or not there is opinion involved - the question is whether the opinion formed is rooted in broad fact or rooted in selectively chosen facts and nonsense.

An interesting list. I absolutely agree that no president is perfect. Indeed, no person is perfect. Each functions in the context of their times and makes choices within that context. Jefferson owned slaves and even had a child by one of them, which I find reprehensible. Obama jailed some journalists in a way I did not agree with. I have little/no problem with FDR "lying about his disability." Indeed, the press largely cooperated with that lie. History suggests his decision was largely to avoid the perception of a "weak" president. Even if he was simply vain about his disability, it's an issue that does not concern me over-much. We all have elements of pride - it's a human condition. I am far more concerned about his decision to inter the Japanese, which I likewise find reprehensible. The issue of limited versus expanded government concerns me not at all. First, what one says in a campaign often fails to manifest in office: campaigning is different from being in office. In the former you dream and express those hopes and priorities. In the latter you face the realities and adjust (hopefully) as needed. I'm assuming the bull dog reference is to TDR? Why is a "bull dog personality" an issue? I don't recall ever saying that Trump's "bull dog personality" was something I objected to, so I have no response.

Actually, I find Trump to be VASTLY different from either of those men in some important and significant ways. TDR's approach was captured in his mantra "speak softly and carry a big stick." Reagan was the consummate diplomat, alliance builder, and yet managed to challenge those who internationally required challenging. Trump alienates our allies and expresses admiration for dictators and strong men. Neither TDR nor Reagan publicly lied at a rate that was anywhere near Trump's rate of outright lying. Both TDR and Reagan expressed and acted on a "country first" mentality - even if I did not always agree with how that translated to policy. Trump is a "Trump first" president. It is clear in his tweets, his speeches, and his incessant megalomania and narcissism.

Most importantly, to me, is the issue of truth. Our founders understood that democracy is dependent on an educated an informed electorate. Neither Reagan nor TDR attacked U.S. institutions and social norms with outright lies the way Trump does. In an amazing irony, the greatest source of "fake news" in our country, AFAICT, is the person screaming "fake news" most often. When the boundary between truth and fiction is blurred or erased, and untruths are promulgated as truths to the degree Trump is doing it, the risk to our democracy is great. Yes, every politician has spun and sometimes even outright lied. Trump is the first president in my memory who regularly and consistently lies, and then regularly and consistently doubles down on the lie when caught doing it.

I am sure I am not the first to find someone holding the executive office reprehensible. For every president, you will find their dissenters and some will be vocal and high-placed. Reagan and TDR did indeed provide important leadership, even though I found some of their policies undesirable. Trump is not even close to their ilk, IMO, and for reasons I have already cited. And yes, that is an opinion formed after 5+ years watching this man emerge and then hold office.

So, first, I did not "wish people would suffer." I frankly wish this man would step up and be a good president. He consistently doesn't. What I DID say was that I am willing to accept the pain if it means this man will not be in office beyond January, 2020.

Yeah you do, you have carefully selected your facts, ignored facts inconvenient to your narrative, and come to an insane conclusion that shows just how you are just the other side, of the same coin as you paint your opponents as being.

Second, your opinion is duly noted.

And your blind panic, is noted.

[Sparko]

Yep, I'm on the same one. I'm going to see if my Dr. will change me over to something else. My wife is on Verapamil which is a calcium channel blocker which should be safer...

I am on carvidilol - a beta blocker.

[lilpixieofterror]

So just what do you mean by appropriate protective gear for the hospital settings? The military, which seems to be what you are basing your expertise on, has various levels of protection when they don gear. If the military has various levels, MOPP levels, then that would suggest that there are various levels for the civilian hospitals. Might want to dig up some very old FMs from last century, the old Army. As I said, it was not dealt with in depth.


You can dismiss it as not having anything to do with what you said, but my point directly goes to your arguments here, as well as others' arguments.

[lilpixieofterror]

I have to confess that I have lost the point of the argument being made. Can someone restate it?

[carpedm9587]

You're right it wasn't. It was a very insensitive statement which you had just previously apologized for doing.

I don't consider it insensitive. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Sparko]

I don't consider it insensitive. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure you don't.

You saying old people dying has a silver lining would be like me commenting on you saying you have bad lungs and saying well at least if you catch the disease and die we wouldn't have to put up with you on tweb any more. silver lining!

Insensitive and mean spirited.

[carpedm9587]

Facts that can be used against numerous presidents, including ones you’ve described as among your favorites.

Absolutely. I'm sure that, for some people, FDR's interment of the Japanese dwarfs all other considerations and will make him the worst president ever. There is a reason why two people can look at the same set of facts and arrive at opposing viewpoints: the facts are assessed in light of pre-existing worldviews. As noted - opinion is always a factor.

At no point did I say anything about "the rise of China." China's resurgence as a political and military force has a long history with numerous factors at play. At no point did I say Trump was responsible for this, so I have no further comment. my observation that Trump has lessened U.S. influence (and therefore power - to some degree) in the world is obvious from his withdrawal from numerous agreements and his public attitude towards our historical friends and enemies. That he has provided an opening for both Russia and China to slip into places formerly heavily influenced by the U.S. is a matter of public record. "They did it too" is not a defense.

No you instead blame Trump for a war with the press, when many have been at war with the press. Your excuse making, would be funny if you were not like trying to nail down Jello with your dodging. Jailing journalist and threatening legal action is a war on the press. Rather you want to admit it or not.

On that we will have to agree to disagree. Attempting to stop leaking of classified information is in no way comparable to the broad sweeping attack Trump has made on the fourth estate, for th ereasons I have already cited.

Mistakes and intentional false narrative are two separate things. While both have occurred by every single news outlet I have ever seen at one time or another, in general, journalistic integrity is actually fairly high from the reputable journalistic outlets, and the vast majority of what is reported is accurate and researched, AFAICT. Most of the time, a media outlet that finds they have pushed forward a false story owns it and acts on it. People are fired, public accounting is made, and corrections are published. Of course those corrections appear below the fold on page 11 while the original story was above the fold on page 1, but that has pretty much always been the case. Very few (if any) reputable news outlets have stood behind a false story. The comparison between Trump's intentional barrage of lies and misinformation does not even begin to compare, IMO.

See my response above, and I'll leave the last word on this aspect of the discussion to you.

Actually, I condemn the actions I disapprove whether I like or dislike the person. FDR's actions with regard to the Japanese were unacceptable and reprehensible. Recognizing that, in the balance, he was more a good president than a bad one doesn't mean I forgive his bad choices. It means I recognize that bad people can do good things and good people can do bad things. His lying about his disability is not something I condone - it was wrong. It is, in the large scope of things, one lie that pales in comparison the the nonstop deluge that emanates from the current holder of that office. As for my assertion that Trump is probably the worst president in our history, that is based not only on the facts of his presidency, but also my position on what constitutes a "good president." Trump fails on the vast majority of those things, and succeeds on precious few. FDR succeeds on the vast majority of those things, and fails on a precious few (those some are fairly significant). You seem to want to make the case that a person who has a pimple is equally as diseased as the person who has stage four pancreatic cancer. I don't find your argument very compelling.

I don't see what any of this has to do with my position, so I'll leave it to you. As for your last sentence, I responded to that above.

I have no clue what the current state of education funding or the success/failure of our K-12 schools has to do with anything I've said. I have no idea what "these lies" refers to with respect to the press. I have no idea why pulling out a list of other examples of public lies in and from our government in any way exonerates the person holding the highest office in the land. Personally, I have not found myself particularly "failed" by any of our institutions. I'd love their to be less regulation with respect to our waterways - but that is a personal bias due to the current situation with respect to my home, and I recognize it as such. Other than that, I have no particular bones to pick with "government."

I think you will have a hard time defending "a lot." As with many of these posts, example after example can (and probably will) be cited - but the journalistic world produces hundreds of thousands of stories every single day, and the vast majority of those stories can be shown to be accurate and well documented. But if you want to attempt to document "a lot," by all means do so. It might help to first quantify an agreed-upon level for "a lot." Are you counting stories? If so, you are probably not looking at the big picture. Are you looking for percentages? You would have to show thousands of stories per day that are lies to even arrive at a 1% rate of "lying" by the press. Somehow, I just don't think that will happen. But I'll be interested to see your response.

Yeah you do, you have carefully selected your facts, ignored facts inconvenient to your narrative, and come to an insane conclusion that shows just how you are just the other side, of the same coin as you paint your opponents as being.

And your blind panic, is noted.

Nothing further.

[carpedm9587]

Wow...I didn't get THAT from any of the posts I read. I definitely missed the mark...

[rogue06]

So do you agree with Pixie's argument? That is the context, especially the exchange with carpediem.

Shopping carts are potentially touched by hundreds of persons, and come complete with fecal material and other bugs to small to see.

Well sport, I'll stand by my statement that this post of yours

Oh. The "cooties" theory of transmission. You touched it, you got it.

But is that really a reasoned approached?

was moronic to the nth degree to the point that an imbecile would like a Rhodes scholar in comparison.

It really makes me wonder about the possible existence of some sort of "stupid event horizon" where on the rationale side of the horizon you'd observe progressively stupider and brain deadedness the nearer we got to the horizon. At the horizon itself we'd encounter weapons-grade stupid with an occasional particle of utter blithering inanity evaporating off to contaminate rationality. And finally, on the other side of horizon the stupidness is so concentrated and dense that a coherent thought cannot escape.

And that is where we'd find your post.

[oxmixmudd]

If the numbers are understated by about 100 times, then the death rate is overstated by about a hundred times. Therefore the actual death rate is about 0.01%, one in ten thousand, as demi has said weeks ago.

If that were true, what has happened in italy simply would not be happening. You're quoting a mortality rate 1/10 that of the flu. It would be impossible for a disease with such a low mortality rate to overwhelm any modern medical system.