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

[SectionC3]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hogwash. 

 

 W. Bush, according to logic, liberals and Barrack Obama manufactured a war out of thin air, sent American men and women to die and was also responsible or the deaths of many, many innocents abroad as a result.  In most part of the world, he would be correctly labelled a war criminal for his actions as described.  Barrack Obama, according to historical record,  spearheaded the assault in Libya, which resulted in the deaths of innocents, acted  as an agent of regime change and due to his actions generally, was directly responsible to the emergence of ISIS.  Later, he was directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens in Libya, and when things went south, he created a backstory to deflect blame for his missteps and which served as a propaganda puff piece served to the American voter.  

 

Both presidents sat back and allowed the southern border to fester on their watch, both by extension oversaw the death and victimization of perhaps hundreds of thousands of citizens on both sides of the border.  It remains to be seen their actions were prompted by apathy, greed or something darker, but the facts remain. 

 

Finally, as the Russia hoax unfolded over a nearly 4 year period, started under the watch of Barrack Obama, replete with broken rules, broken regulations, lies to the FISA court and a cast of unscrupulous characters the likes of which are often seen in a James Bond thriller, it became clear to many that there was an active, sustained attempt to undue an election.  As Barrack Obama rode off into the sunset, a massive plume of carbon emissions following in his wake, he was oddly silent on the investigation.  W. Bush, he the man calling for peace and tranquility as we battle the virus together, remained silent as well. 

 

There are more examples of course, but based on my measure, none of these activities equate to anything close to 'respect' for the highest office in the land.  There's no such thing, it's a myth.

 

I'll ask you the same question I ask all the other high-falootin' presidential decorum advocates:   What is the appropriate response to being called treasonous by members of the opposition party, to an attempt to unseat him from office, to unfounded allegations being made that threaten the individual, his wife, his children and anyone in his circle? 

 

 

 

 

 To make an errant decision is not to make one undignified.  

 

You make a good point. The treason allegation is a terrible one, and it should be used only in the rarest of circumstances.  To levy it wantonly is wrong and beneath the accuser and his/her office. 

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-treason-russia-investigation-new-york-times-e1660029-c73c-4809-8bd5-8988f1ed4fda.html

 

 

[Reality Check]

59 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Good point.  Then I take it you won’t be offended when I advise you that your prior uncouth comments have forced your placement on the “Nasty Woman” list.  

 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Reread your first sentence, out loud, while looking in the mirror. In a global pandemic you take data and analysis from credentialed professionals when you can get it. More data, more better.

 

Of course more data is better.  But the leader of the federal response to the pandemic has a limited amount of time, and can’t wade through every piece of data out there.  Peer review first, then presentation to leadership.  

 

Also, there’s a bit of “fake logic” there.  You return to the point that the fact that the presenter here is a “credentialed professional[]” is determinative.  It’s not.  It’s the quality of her work that counts.  Peer review measures the quality and reliability of the study.  If of quality, and if reliable, then it should move up the chain.  

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Of course more data is better.  But the leader of the federal response to the pandemic has a limited amount of time, and can’t wade through every piece of data out there.  Peer review first, then presentation to leadership.  

 

Also, there’s a bit of “fake logic” there.  You return to the point that the fact that the presenter here is a “credentialed professional[]” is determinative.  It’s not.  It’s the quality of her work that counts.  Peer review measures the quality and reliability of the study.  If of quality, and if reliable, then it should move up the chain.  

Fauci and Birx are her peers. Pence is the leadership. 

[Reality Check]

13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

When you behave like a cult by accepting everything that he says, true or not,  it's hard to think of the group differently.

 

[Kemp]

29 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Easy answer... Most Millennial's don't want to work anyway....  

 

Every generation feels superior to the generations that follow them.

 

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

[SectionC3]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Fauci and Birx are her peers. Pence is the leadership. 

 

Fair enough on Pence.  But Fauci and Birx are part of the leadership w/r/t the response, no?  If not, there would be no reason to have them on the podium.  And the fact remains that they can’t analyze and marshal every piece of data and analysis generated with respect to this issue.  That’s where the relevant scientific community, i.e., peer review, comes into play. 

[Reality Check]

13 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

So, how many people in the world would have to be infected before you would acknowledge it as a pandemic?

What pandemic?

 

[Kemp]

1 minute ago, Reality Check said:

What pandemic?

 

The one Trump says exists. Do you disagree with him?

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Fair enough on Pence.  But Fauci and Birx are part of the leadership w/r/t the response, no?  If not, there would be no reason to have them on the podium.  And the fact remains that they can’t analyze and marshal every piece of data and analysis generated with respect to this issue.  That’s where the relevant scientific community, i.e., peer review, comes into play. 

They are the experts assigned to the team. In my view their job is to gather as much data and perspective as possible to advise the leadership. You are absolutely right, they can't analyze everything, which is why they should talk to people doing different analysis and shift focus if something prominent arises.

 

As an aside, can I assume that you support Trump blocking Fauci from appearing in front of congress since his time is limited? 

[SectionC3]

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this mourning:

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/05/trump-george-conway-conservative-critics-new-coronavirus-ad-236461

 

”Moonface” is a new insult.  I’d never heard that before.  Good thing the leader of the free world has the free time to worry about George Conway on Twitter during this public health and economic catastrophe. 

[Deranged Rhino]

The media's day will be spent telling us how "moonface" is somehow RAYCIST! 

 

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

They are the experts assigned to the team. In my view their job is to gather as much data and perspective as possible to advise the leadership. You are absolutely right, they can't analyze everything, which is why they should talk to people doing different analysis and shift focus if something prominent arises.

 

As an aside, can I assume that you support Trump blocking Fauci from appearing in front of congress since his time is limited? 

 

W/r/t the last point, it depends on the purpose for which Fauci was called.  My news consumption lately has been limited to information germane to the pandemic and my economic interests, so I’m not as familiar as I should be with respect to the request for Fauci’s testimony.  A Congressional investigation is not on my radar.  If the testimony was expected to take an amount of time commensurate with that Fauci has spent standing around on the dias at one of Trump’s pressers, then I’d question the motivation for the block.  If Fauci was supposed to be on the hill for a couple of days, then it probably would be a different story.  

[Reality Check]

6 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

The one Trump says exists. Do you disagree with him?

Fine, take Trump's side if you must. You call the man a liar all the time but now you believe him. To each his own.

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, Reality Check said:

 

 

Any more vids dude? Been watching them ALL morning!

[BuffaloHokie13]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

W/r/t the last point, it depends on the purpose for which Fauci was called.  My news consumption lately has been limited to information germane to the pandemic and my economic interests, so I’m not as familiar as I should be with respect to the request for Fauci’s testimony.  A Congressional investigation is not on my radar.  If the testimony was expected to take an amount of time commensurate with that Fauci has spent standing around on the dias at one of Trump’s pressers, then I’d question the motivation for the block.  If Fauci was supposed to be on the hill for a couple of days, then it probably would be a different story.  

Yeah, no idea on scope here either. My expectation is that the purpose was to fish for out of context soundbytes that sound contradictory to Trump to spread through the press, which would be a spectacular waste of time regardless of duration, but I readily admit that the thought is based on my personal bias.

[Cinga]

16 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Every generation feels superior to the generations that follow them.

 

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

What I stated however, wasn't a feeling, it is an observable fact. ?

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

And when you are disrespecting the office of the President of the United States, you are disrespecting the American people.
 

 

You and I agree, though it may be more than just the press disrespecting the office at times. 

 

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

It continually puzzles me why people want to immediately take the word of some person on twitter of unknown depth of knowledge, over CDC experts and people whose job it is to be knee-deep in the data?

 

You missed the magnetic vibrations silver doctor cited here yesterday!

[Kemp]

14 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

They are the experts assigned to the team. In my view their job is to gather as much data and perspective as possible to advise the leadership. You are absolutely right, they can't analyze everything, which is why they should talk to people doing different analysis and shift focus if something prominent arises.

 

As an aside, can I assume that you support Trump blocking Fauci from appearing in front of congress since his time is limited? 

 

Do you really believe Fauci was blocked because he's too busy or was it a sarcastic remark?

[Reality Check]

6 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

Any more vids dude? Been watching them ALL morning!