Taro T

Don't worry. If the DNC decides to swap horses midstream, those outlets will post at least as many articles about her.

Fair enough. Got hung up on the phrase about the left being "overly reliant on science" and read it differently than you'd intended it to be read.

Wouldn't expect you to agree with that, as I don't either for the VAST majority of people that consider themselves to be to the left. (See paragraph below it for my version of the less cynical, and likely more correct, answer for why the vast majority of those reflexively countering the suggestion do so.) But, it is a fallacy to claim that the left relies on science and the right doesn't trust science. Astrology and crystal power both find way more adherents from the left than the right. Neither of which is in any way shape or form "science." And another popular item of "science" from the left - single use plastic bag bans looks like it had a veritable truckload of science behind it. As for "climate change," nobody denies the climate is changing. Nobody claims that mankind has no impact on it either. What gets questioned is how much of changes we see are primarily due to natural fluctuations of the sun and Earth itself and how much are due to mankind. Also, and far more importantly, the proposed remedies are questioned far more than the "science" especially when darn near every single model that predicts climate changes has over predicted the change, the proposed remedies are all costing in the TRILLIONS of $'s, and the people pushing these draconian solutions tend to be big winners should any of the remedies get enacted, the scientists don't let people see their data (falsifiability being a huge part of good science as opposed to concensus) and none change their own behavior to limit their own "carbon footprint". Being old enough to not only remember the old "the next ice age is coming" warnings but to have read several books on the subject, tend to take all these predictions with more than a heavy grain of salt. And having been an air quality engineer for a number of years, have a bit of an understanding about the science of it too. A lot of the debates on whether to "believe science" or not (and science isn't about belief, it's about hypothesizing, testing, and measuring and quantifying what it can) aren't even really about science at all. They're about people wanting to tell others how they should act and live and others fighting back against that. And that happens with actors from both sides. Science and religion get pushed hard when they support one's preferred policy of what others must do and get questioned when they don't. The climate change scientists haven't proved their theories in the scientific meaning of that term. Until their models start accurately predicting events, don't see where we should drop more $T's on their theories. If they have remedies that cost in the $MM's, might be willing to see them implemented, but they'd better do better if they want to continue to push implementation of solutions that are 5-6 orders of magnitude greater. Personally, would much rather see the environmentalists get back to focusing on actual pollution rather than their current money grabs. Rant over. Sorry for the rant. Did not mean to take away from the focus of this thread.

If those deaths occur in another locality, say Florida, do they count towards NYC's deaths or Florida's? There are an awful lot of snowbirds. If Florida takes the hit when they die during the winter, that could explain a large portion of these rough, back of the envelope counts & discrepancies.

The cynical answer is because the left would rather see people die than see 45 get "a win." Really believe it is less sinister than that. The left reflexively believes that anything 45 supports is necessarily wrong or nefarious, sometimes both. And it takes a bit of doing to get over that reflexive 'this has to be fake or bad' reaction. That the national level media almost entirely in unison can't stand him being president and most all the people they interact with daily think like mindedly, and it isn't too hard to see why they still can't open up to the possibility that this might work. And except in very rare cases, at a minimum it won't hurt.

The way it's been reported is that if a person dies at home and exhibited any COVID type symptoms that the death will now be reported as being caused by the virus. (Assuming that is accurate, but it might not be.) If that's the way they've handled/counted deaths in the home before this hit, then that's how they should be counting them, but if it isn't, then they shouldn't. Did they previously consider a person who passed at his/her home that had flu-like symptoms as dying from the flu? If yes, then count these deaths as COVID-19 as it's more likely they had that than the flu. If they didn't, then they shouldn't change the method of assigning the cause of death and shouldn't automatically label them as being from the virus. It would help with understanding if they had a standardized determination/reporting methodology that doesn't change with this new situation. And how events such as deaths are categorized has a tremendous effect on perception. How much longer would the American life expectancy be, and how much lower would the infant mortality stats be, if the US treated live births that were known to be ending tragically shortly after the birth as a miscarriage like the rest of the world does? (Or, better yet, how much different would the rest of the world's data look if they treated those events the way we do? (Which seems a more honest / accurate accounting of those death IMHO.) Things have been bad down there, there's no denying that. But they shouldn't be artificially skewed in either direction.

Well, if he can't get that record to play on his record player ...

Really makes one wonder, is she just miscalculating now, going senile, or getting desperate about something? Her holding her breath until the R's caved and blaming them for the hold ups used to work. Something's different now.

Yeah, he was "something." Does she still try to pretend she's a conservative? Or has she finally given into the fact that veil came off years ago?

As was already pointed out, he was a longtime poster here. Very left leaning and often obnoxious. Don't know if he was banned or just left to avoid the ridicule of having demonstrated his medical prowess by comparing the safety of 21st century orthopedic surgery to late '70's emergency spleen operations. Thought it was just embarrassment, but maybe he was banned for something considering he chose a new handle.

Thought Rent closed on Broadway years ago. Too bad, could've made a nice date night for her and her brother.

No last minute swooping in provided the DNC doesn't decide Biden is TOO senile (right now, he seems to be just the right amount of senile for their liking). In which case the Tara Reade thing grows legs and somebody else gets drafted at the convention.

There's a lot of stuff you can find out about on the USPTO's website and do some basic research on your own. But there are also a lot of nuances to getting a trademark. Would highly recommend talking to a lawyer about it. Also, would be using the TM superscript (you don't use the circles R until it's registered) after the brand name when you refer to whatever your product is. You can start doing that even before the TM is registered. Just realize that if somebody else already has that trademark, they'll make you stop using it if you sell enough to get on their radar.

Nationally, which is what level he needs the trademark for, yes, the USPTO is where all trademarks are registered. But, if he were only doing business in a single state, he could register w/ that state's secretary of state and save a small amount of money.

Thing is, IF that article describing why hydroxychloroquine is effective with treating COVID & malaria is correct (again, a big if), then it makes sense that the drug doesn't help the sickest patients. They've already lost too many functional rbc's to allow preventing damage to the few remaining healthy rbc's to provide enough oxygen long enough for a patient's body to produce enough new cells to keep from choking outback patient's organs. Again, if that's how COVID attacks the cells and how the drug prevents COVID from damaging the body's hemoglobin, then it would seem combining that treatment along with tbc transfusions (or even whole blood) would improve the recovery rates yet more.

NOW that SOB doesn't believe in "politicizing this at the national level" because it could lead to body bags? Wtf was that concern in January? (Will throw him a bone and give him a pass on buying China's manure in December. There was no obvious reason to say for certain he should've known better then. But he is culpable from mid-January onward.) It could have saved thousands of lives and $T's if he'd've done his ####ing job and not played politics at the national level. #### him and the horse he rode in on.

If the ####ing WHO wouldn't have been carrying the CCP's water for them, how many THOUSANDS of people wouldn't be dead right now? If the ####ing WHO hadn't been either liars or dupes, how many $T's wouldn't have been pissed down the crapper in the past month? #### their hypocritical ####ing leader that won't even acknowledge the existence of Taiwan. One ####ing oops costs a hundred attaboys. How ####ing far is their balance sheet now in the red?

That would've been the 2nd guess. Ugly f'n donut, if it is.

Very good news on your niece. Wishing her a quick recovery from the surgery.

1, 3, 8; though 4 came close to making the cut. But wtf is 7 supposed to be? Fried dough?

Hers is a very interesting character, but she's nearly as scummy as Saul is. She has no problem with slipping back into the "Gisele" character, she even encourages/ hatches some of their plots. Every single person on this show is deeply flawed, but that's a big part of what makes them interesting. Mike is pretty much a good person now (though he seems to have no compunction about killing bad guys, like stated above they're all flawed) but a lot of that seems to be trying to make up for having made choices in his younger days which allowed him to become a crooked cop and eventually get his son into a situation that got him killed. Had he been stronger in his younger days, his kid wouldn't be dead. That drives him to do everything he can for his daughter-in--law and especially his grand daughter. And yeah, that episode was good and kind of had some elements of The Fly from BB to it.

Well, if it's the same equipment Italy was using prior to China unleashing this on the world, they have a reasonable chance the stuff had already gone through QC checks in Italy and will actually be effective. Who knows, maybe the Chinese were willing to give them the stuff China just made but then Italy said no and China needed payment to send stuff that works.

What part of IF is the difficult to understand part?

Never said they all would. But IF (again, there's that word) this is a major pathway for the COVID to cause harm, it could SUBSTANTIALLY raise the survival rate as chloroquine (sp?) can be prescribed for most patients as soon as the virus is suspected (provided the supply chain is fixed/set) preventing major damage that would have progressed beyond treatment before it can begin. And by adding things like blood transfusions as part of the treatment for severely afflicted patients prior to going on a ventillator. And, this also MIGHT explain partially why young children don't seem to be as affected as adults, especially older adults. They can produce red blood cells a lot more efficiently than the elderly can as they as still growing.

Also, the data seems to indicate that men succumb to this more frequently than women. IF this hemoglobin "attack" is the way COVID causes harm, might women's natural tendency to have to replenish blood cells more frequently than men be a part of the cause for that trend?