keepthefaith

I'm coming around to this. Compared to 2 months ago we as citizens know a lot more about this virus including the symptoms, preventative measures and risks. It's time we resume more normal activity while following some preventative guidelines and let individuals decide for themselves what they do and don't want to do. Those at greater risk or who are more risk averse can protect themselves as they wish. One potential problem with this however is the potential for liability to be heaped upon employers or other organizations if the sick decide to become plaintiffs.

I sold my USO yesterday, thank you very much. Appreciate your expertise. I didn't own much and had bought it cheap so minimal pain. ?

And the number of ventilators that our local hospital is using now for their sickest patients is zero. They learned that in their recent experience, pressurized oxygen is more effective and easier to administer.

Gyms would seem to be riskier environments than some.

Hope the worst is over there but those numbers aren't very good. Tell MIL and FIL to get any exercise they can and take some Zinc and Vitamin D and garlic - it can't hurt.

So how can the airlines benefit from this? I know they buy fuel contracts way in advance, years. I suppose those agreements can only be cancelled with some termination cost and their consumption is way down meaning even greater obligations remaining? That industry will certainly need some help.

I just got the summer car out last week which guzzles 93 octane (but meets fed emissions standards). Looking forward to cheap gas and longer rides home.

I did before those posts but very little and longer term it'll be OK or not. Invested more in NAT but we're talking small potatoes here 2500 shares. Doing it more for the education than anything else. Any of this out of the mainstream investment stuff I just fiddle around. Like going to Vegas. Never risk more than I care to lose.

You can but tanker rent is skyrocketing. Bought NAT last month. It's paying off.

Yet another carefully worded article that fails to live up to its claim. There is no claim in the article about communication in December. It states deliberations that happened in mid to late January and it gives no detail on the nature of the communication to the Trump admin.

Who are these people? The media and so many of these clowns have no idea how they are looked down upon by most. And talk about out of touch, really, you want to put the camera on Joe Biden every day? Have you not seen Joe Biden on camera in recent months?

The feds will publish guidelines which the states for the most part don't have to follow. People of course can make their own decisions on what to do or not to do based on their own risk tolerance and with their state guidelines.

Are you kidding? People will flee their states to go out for a pizza.

That was polite. She deserves the absolute worst of treatment.

I need a new accountant if folks like you are getting a gubmint check.

JA (oh ***** I don't think I can refer to him as that around here) probably has enough support in Michigan among repubs and independents to swing MI to JB. Could be a similar factor in PA, OH, MI and a couple others. He hates Trump and it would not surprise me at all if he got some funding from the left to be the spoiler and a nod for a cabinet or other administration position. This to me, a right leaning 3rd party candidate, is the dems best chance to win. More impactful than the Russian hoax, womanizing, impeachment, corona and all things orange man bad.

No, basically he was a lawyer for a short time and then became a politician and has almost no real world experience. We have and have had too many of those already.

No he did not call it a hoax. That in itself is a hoax. What he referred to as a hoax was that this virus would be the next thing that the dems politicize.

I think the issues with testing in this country need to be better explained if they haven't already. I've heard some things some from a local radio interview recently that mentioned some challenges here in the U.S. in terms of the variety of testing platforms we use in this country and that not all tests are compatible with all equipment and that some equipment is designed to handle higher test volumes than others. Your linked article and other news outlets I've heard have parroted the report that WHO had a test and we chose not use it. I can't imagine that such a test would have been readily available in the numbers we need and fully compatible with our testing network and that we would not use it at all. If Germany developed a test in a week, the calculus could easily have been that we too can develop a test in a week or two that we can manufacture and source here in the numbers we need and that can be deployed with our test platforms. That doing this would be faster than trying to source, deliver and deploy new testing equipment throughout the country. That may have been a good calculus but when our test had problems, we had a setback. South Korea also developed their own test and passed on the German/WHO test. There has to be reasons why the world simply didn't overwhelming adopt that test.

Yes, he showed a lot of restraint with some of these idiots.

Not to mention very unaccomplished.

Impressive if the speed of the treadmill is accurate. A great division 1 4 x 100 meter relay time is :39 flat or a 9.75 second split per runner. That is a 22.94MPH average pace by the team. Now the exchanges happen at a bit less than top speed and the first runner has to start from a stop, but essentially Diggs on that treadmill is running at a top D1 sprinter pace, and the top track sprinters are generally faster than football players. Running on a track though is more effort than running on a treadmill. Diggs might have 24MPH in him if he tried ramping up speed rather than jumping on a 23MPH belt.

He is pure garbage. The question if asked without the "happy talk" comment would have at least been relevant.

Well, I gonna sort of defend Acosta. We are very short on tests and on PPE. However, tests had to be developed and PPE gear is being consumed at the highest rate ever so these are supply constraints. The supply is rising fast but we started at zero on tests. Trump could have spoken to that better.

In my view Trump didn't give medical advice. He simply amplified the hopeful and somewhat promising French hypothesis. He then facilitated the drug's availability so that doctors could administer it if they so chose. In the end doctors and patients made the call which is how it's supposed to be, right? Sure he supported it and often those comments came in response to media questions. A media that often chose to criticize his answer and spin the thing as a dangerous approach or one that may benefit the President financially. The latter being a very typical example of how the media uses a lack of facts and a lack of investigative reporting to put out propaganda solely designed to attack him politically.