The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[Kemp]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Q:

 

If your esteem of the posters here is -SO- low, why are you here?

 

A:

 

Because you're a piece of garbage and a troll.

 

 

Again, you can insult me, but you can't dispute all of Trump’s lies about the virus. Try. Nah.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/

Edited May 5, 2020 by Kemp

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Fake logic.  There is more than one possible conclusion. 

 

And, you should thank me.  I just found a potential miracle cure for COVID-19.  We could be on the vanguard of an incredible approach here. 

 

Answer the question.

 

Just now, Kemp said:

 

Again, you can insult me, but you can't dispute all of Trump’s lies about the virus. Try. Nah.

 

Answer the question.

 

[Q-baby!]

2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Facts always disagree with the lies Trump tells. You can insult me, but you can't argue with truth. Well, you can, but it will only prove you're lying and not very bright.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/

The cult won’t even click the link. 

[SectionC3]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Answer the question.

 

 

Which one?

[Kemp]

Just now, Q-baby! said:

The cult won’t even click the link. 

 

Do they know how?

[SectionC3]

Just now, Q-baby! said:

The cult won’t even click the link. 

 

Probably too busy racing to Home Depot or Lowe's (with their gun t-shirts and without their masks, if they're anything like the people at the OP Lowe's) to get Roundup after I announced my miracle cure. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Which one?

 

My word, bless your dense little heart.

 

If your esteem of posters here is SO low, why are you here?

 

Surely someone of your esteemed intellect could spend his or her time among their "peers."

 

[Reality Check]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Actually I think the people in Corona might have been on to my miracle cure before I discovered it. 

 

Yesterday I was doing a little weeding and I realized that, although not a lot of people know this, Roundup knocks out weeds in minutes.  So, I thought, why not try it on COVID-19? I figure that since Roundup does a tremendous number on weeds, surely it would be interesting to check its efficacy with respect to COVID-19.  

 

Bottom line: whacking the virus with a little Roundup could be our path to victory over this invisible enemy. If there is a way to do something like that by injection inside, then we could be days away from getting out of this mess.  

 

 

 

 

 

Name calling is a sign of defeat. 

Do you actually use Round-Up?

[SectionC3]

Not sure what you're talking about with respect to the "esteem of posters."  Are you talking about my views of one poster?  Two posters?  Or a larger group of posters?  I can't answer the question without additional information.  

 

That aside, I'm here largely for entertainment.  And, at least this morning, to inform the world of my potential Covid Cure.  

[billsfan1959]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

How much is "much"? 10%? 25%? 50%? Or more?  Does the weight of the data (e.g., more than 50%) support your position?

 

I am not in a position of making policy and only offering my opinion. I am advocating reopening based on the data I have read. I would think it obvious in that statement that I feel there is enough data out there now for me to feel comfortable in my stance.

 

So, tell me, how certain do you need to be about the data before you reopen?

[Kemp]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Answer the question.

 

 

Answer the question.

 

 

I drop by once in a while to marvel at the stupidity and the inability of you to dispute Trump’s lies, in this case about the virus.

 

Your turn. Deny Trump’s lies about the virus that I posted a link to. You won't. You can't. Prove me wrong or continue to insult, the mark of the weak.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Not sure what you're talking about with respect to the "esteem of posters."  Are you talking about my views of one poster?  Two posters?  Or a larger group of posters?  I can't answer the question without additional information.  

 

That aside, I'm here largely for entertainment.  And, at least this morning, to inform the world of my potential Covid Cure.  

 

Scroll up. Read the genius Kemp's post in this thread. "I don't care what you think about me...yakkity blah, edited for bloviation"

 

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Do you actually use Round-Up?

 

No.  I don't need it, and to my understanding it's pretty bad both for the environment and for people.  But also bad for Coronavirus.  So, take the good with the bad, I guess.  

[Reality Check]

4 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Again, you can insult me, but you can't dispute all of Trump’s lies about the virus. Try. Nah.

You mean the COVID 19 virus that has GP 120 spliced into it? The glycoprotein that makes HIV so infectious? Patented by Fauci? Released from a lab in Wuhan that Fauci does BUSINESS with? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Kemp said:

 

I drop by once in a while to marvel at the stupidity and the inability of you to dispute Trump’s lies, in this case about the virus.

 

Your turn. Deny Trump’s lies about the virus that I posted a link to. You won't. You can't. Prove me wrong or continue to insult, the mark of the weak.

 

Simple. An editorial article posted from the Atlantic - a fully paid for and operative propaganda outlet for the establishment Democratic party - can't be trusted to publish anything remotely truthful or objective.

 

[Q-baby!]

1 minute ago, Reality Check said:

You mean the COVID 19 virus that has GP 120 spliced into it? The glycoprotein that makes HIV so infectious? Patented by Fauci? Released from a lab in Wuhan that Fauci does BUSINESS with? 

Nutbar alert! ?

[SectionC3]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

I am not in a position of making policy and only offering my opinion. I am advocating reopening based on the data I have read. I would think it obvious in that statement that I feel there is enough data out there now for me to feel comfortable in my stance.

 

So, tell me, how certain do you need to be about the data before you reopen?

 

Let's dig a little deeper here.  You said "much" of the data supports reopening.  "Much," as you know, is a fungible thing.  It could be 10%.  It could be 35%.  Or it could be more.  

 

I'd like the weight of the relevant information to support reopening.  It's kind of like the HCL discussion.  There is some information that supports its broad use in this context.  But the weight of the data does not.  Said differently, the approach isn't generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.  So I would wait on that front, and would take the same approach on reopening unless and until the relevant scientific community accepts an approach. 

[Q-baby!]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Simple. An editorial article posted from the Atlantic - a fully paid for and operative propaganda outlet for the establishment Democratic party - can't be trusted to publish anything remotely truthful or objective.

 

Ha ha!!! So typical. So dishonest! 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Q-baby! said:

Ha ha!!! So typical. So dishonest! 

 

Look at you, blindly accepting the ***** your masters spoon feed you.

 

Like a good little sheep.

 

[Kemp]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Simple. An editorial article posted from the Atlantic - a fully paid for and operative propaganda outlet for the establishment Democratic party - can't be trusted to publish anything remotely truthful or objective.

 

 

Wow!

 

Either you didn't read it or you're simpler than I thought.

 

Is the following an editorial or statement of fact?

 

When: Multiple times
The claim: The Trump White House “inherited” a “broken,” “bad,” and “obsolete” test for the coronavirus.
The truth: The novel coronavirus did not exist in humans during the Obama administration. Public-health experts agree that, because of that fact, the CDC could not have produced a test, and thus a new test had to be developed this year.