leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 27 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: When you roll around with pigs you both get muddy. Trump is casual with the treason accusation, and the fact that somebody else might have been casual with it, too, doesn’t dignify his actions. Thank you. I think we agree then, his response was appropriate and proportional to the accusations. 1
plenzmd1 Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 26 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: If you want to wear a mask, find an N95 one. This study on the NCBI part of the NIH site showing N95 masks are great (which we have all heard). Any other type of mask? Ummm ... </snip>Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%). </snip> It’s funny , the Friday before the poop really hit the fan, we had had several folks over for dinner , one who happens to be an ER doc. As a joke , he brought us over 2 N95 masks , I have Been wearing the one since late March when I go into stores. I am NOT wearing it outside, golfing, or anywhere else.
Kemp Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 25 minutes ago, Reality Check said: How did the GP 120 which makes HIV so infectious, patented by Fauci, get into a bat virus? How much money will Fauci and his cronies make on causing and curing a "pandemic"? Do people even care any more? You believe Fauci created the coronavirus in order to make money on the possible resulting vaccine? Fauci owns a patent on a vaccine that does not exist or does he already have the vaccine and he's just waiting for the right time to jump in and make the big bucks? Is Trump in on the scheme or he is he being duped? It can't be the latter because he's too smart. This means he's in on it. That's big news! Don't you now have an obligation to tell Alex Jones, Rush Limaugh, and Breitbart. If you don't, you're shirking your civic duty and will be opening yourself to prosecution. Save yourself before it's too late.
Kemp Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 43 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: I don't know why, and I don't plan to assume. The point I was trying to make was that if Fauci is too busy to get additional information about Covid, he's definitely too busy for anything else non-Covid related - congress included. I think the point made sense within the context of the conversation, since @SectionC3 entertained it with an answer. If you had to venture a guess, what does your gut say?
Reality Check Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, Kemp said: You believe Fauci created the coronavirus in order to make money on the possible resulting vaccine? Fauci owns a patent on a vaccine that does not exist or does he already have the vaccine and he's just waiting for the right time to jump in and make the big bucks? Is Trump in on the scheme or he is he being duped? It can't be the latter because he's too smart. This means he's in on it. That's big news! Don't you now have an obligation to tell Alex Jones, Rush Limaugh, and Breitbart. If you don't, you're shirking your civic duty and will be opening yourself to prosecution. Save yourself before it's too late. You either didn't read the patents or simply don't understand them.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 33 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Come on, if haters really is the reason why Fauci isn’t going to the House, don’t you think he could just slap on some hater blockers for protection and solve the problem? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=haterblockers In reading your link, it seems like my gut reaction of it being his personal mistrust of the house was correct. The official response was that the testimony before the house would be counter productive towards his response efforts. Trump's off the cuff response was that the house request was 'a set-up' and that the committee was stacked with 'Trump haters'. So he's letting Fauci testify in the Senate instead. I suppose it works out since the House isn't in session? Idk, sometimes you've just gotta step back and laugh at the comedic gold of reality. 3 minutes ago, Kemp said: If you had to venture a guess, what does your gut say? See above. Per the cnbc link I read his motives to a T in my response to sectionc3 around an hour ago. 1
Reality Check Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses. How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak – caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV – the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim. The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”
Kemp Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 42 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Look; most who support Trump are able to think critically for themselves. Anyone who listens to him knows he goes off on tangents and his speaking style requires one to sift through his words. Personally, I don’t take everything he says as truth because it’s not logical to do so. That goes for anyone in politics. If he makes a statement such as the virus will go away, or there won’t be a second wave I dismiss it immediately. Why? Because he can’t possibly know this, and that is obvious ! It may be hopeful, and an attempt to prevent panic but it’s not a known fact. As for the pandemic, I think it is possible even likely there will be a second wave , and more. That’s how viruses work. As a society and a country we cannot afford the economic damage caused by closing everything down. It cannot be sustained by any nation because that’s not how economies work. Selling lockdowns as a route to being “ safe” is in short, a lie. We’re unlikely to be safer, but we do know more about the virus now. A vaccine may never happen, as we don’t have a vaccine for a known Coronavirus yet. Why pretend this virus is going away any time soon ? Why pretend no one else is going to die from it ? We have enough data now to know that the virus isn’t a very high risk to most people. We humans haven’t yet come up with a cure for death, and as a race we have a new cause of death on our hands. There are many others and we don’t sit inside and hide from them. We don’t destroy our economic foundation and reinvent our entire way of life because they exist. We don’t sacrifice our natural rights to government out of fear. Panic and fear are sold to the populace in order to take control of them. I disagree totally with your opening statement. However, I am unclear why the best solution to the problem might not be to open up society with the proviso that everyone must wear masks when outside of their own private property. The argument that that would remove individual freedom is wrong, because it's the same thing as the notion that you have the right to punch, but that right stops at someone else's face. People refusing to wear a mask are putting many others at risk and removing their freedom to go outside. Isn't someone who refuses to wear a mask under the current conditions incredibly selfish. It's an attitude of screw you, I am all that matters. Why wouldn't this be a fair compromise that would get the economy moving quickly and helping to keep the vulnerable safe? 2
Deranged Rhino Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 1 minute ago, Kemp said: I disagree totally with your opening statement. Of course you do. Because you don't know how to think for yourself and assume no one else does either. Projection is all you are left with after three years of pushing (and believing) a fake Russia narrative which you're still clinging to despite evidence stacked against you. Uninformed projection is all you have left to offer. And it's evident with each post you make. 1
Reality Check Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Of course you do. Because you don't know how to think for yourself and assume no one else does either. Projection is all you are left with after three years of pushing (and believing) a fake Russia narrative which you're still clinging to despite evidence stacked against you. Uninformed projection is all you have left to offer. And it's evident with each post you make. The Mockingbird media is still effective. Not for much longer however... 1
Boatdrinks Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 13 minutes ago, Kemp said: I disagree totally with your opening statement. However, I am unclear why the best solution to the problem might not be to open up society with the proviso that everyone must wear masks when outside of their own private property. The argument that that would remove individual freedom is wrong, because it's the same thing as the notion that you have the right to punch, but that right stops at someone else's face. People refusing to wear a mask are putting many others at risk and removing their freedom to go outside. Isn't someone who refuses to wear a mask under the current conditions incredibly selfish. It's an attitude of screw you, I am all that matters. Why wouldn't this be a fair compromise that would get the economy moving quickly and helping to keep the vulnerable safe? I will have to agree to disagree here. The completely natural act of breathing ( we do this is our sleep) cannot be compared with a punch to the face. Individual rights and freedoms are paramount, not selfish. Branding individual liberties as selfish is the first step on the road to tyranny. Nature and life are inherently unfair, maybe even cruel. While one’s own individual health scenario may be limiting ones own freedom to an extent, forcing those limits on all others selfish. It is fine to want what others have, but not to take from others what we don’t have for ourselves. We do not all have the same health risks and limits. That is the natural state of things. Government should see to it that our health system can care for those who get sick. It’s not up to government to ensure no one gets a virus. 3
jrober38 Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, keepthefaith said: Well he's more conservative overall than what the opposing party has served up, so there's the preference. Sure, but the biggest thing they railed the previous administration on has been Trump's biggest failure. He took a $550 billion deficit and turned it into $1.1 trillion in three years, all while the economy was absolutely on fire. You have your best year ever, and instead of saving for a rainy day and paying off some of your debts, you double the deficit. Complete stupidity. This administrations fiscal policy has been nothing short of a complete disaster. 3 hours ago, IDBillzFan said: It amazes me how lazy some of you leftists are as original thinkers. Subsequently, you'll simply never understand how Trump became president. Let me try to break this down a bit for you. You will naturally disagree because of you inability to think objectively, but let's try it anyway. Genuine conservatives dislike Trump from a fiscal standpoint, but no matter how hard conservatives try, they will simply never get a true conservative in the WH, supported by a true conservative house and senate. This may surprise you, but you kind of need all three to enact the kind of fiscal restraint this country needs, and it's impossible to hit that trifecta. Now I can hear the whining already, so let me cut you off. Having GOP control over the trifecta is NOT the same as having Conservative control. If I need to break that down for you, just stop reading. This is why every 'conservative' president in modern memory has broken the bank. So why support Trump? Conservatives are asked that question by people lacking intelligence because even a little intelligence will help you understand we'd rather have a non-conservative leader from the right than any batschittcrazy nutbag that comprises the left. Look at your bench. All angry, rich white entitled nutbags. And you end up with the phingerphucker as your nominee? How does the party of #metoo nominate a phinger*****er liker Joe? Answer that question and you'll understand why conservatives take a non-conservative like Trump. Oh, and also...Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and the rest of the courts that Cocaine Mitch has been flipping. Hillary would turn this country into Leningrad in her first year. And who WOULDN'T want Trump over Hillary? Answer: America. A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. Try it some time. You lost me when you tried to suggest that Trump didn't have a conservative Senate and House from 2017-19. What a complete load of crap. Edited May 5, 2020 by jrober38 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Of course you do. Because you don't know how to think for yourself and assume no one else does either. Projection is all you are left with after three years of pushing (and believing) a fake Russia narrative which you're still clinging to despite evidence stacked against you. Uninformed projection is all you have left to offer. And it's evident with each post you make. A few years back, I was volunteering at a high school wrestling tournament. A friend of mine is a politically connected attorney from downstate NY, who sort of exemplifies the stereotypical metro NY mindset. He's loud, shares his opinions freely and speaks his mind. Anyway, he was working the bracket table, announcing which wrestlers went to which mats, who was on deck and who was 'in the hole'. Lather, rinse, repeat. "RHINO, WEST SENECA WEST, YOU'RE UP MAT 1. 3RD, MARYVALE, ON DECK, MAT 1. TIBERIUS...MAT 1, IN THE HOLE!'.". Anyway, this one guy rolled up on the table complaining that he had not heard his wrestler's name called. I was looking though the brackets, trying to do what I generally do in life, which is solve problems and not take things personally. My friend gets done with his latest call, the coach in front of me looks at him and says rather forcefully "Look, this is the second time our coaches didn't hear the announcement, and our kids are out there warming up and we don't know it!". My friend looked at him, looked at me, and said in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear "I DON'T CARE." and got back to calling names. The coach looked startled, looked back at me and I shrugged my shoulders and said "We're calling the name's coach, you guys have to pay attention.". To this day, that makes me laugh just to think about it. Every now and again I text my friend and start with "I DON'T CARE". To him, it's a perfectly natural and comfortable response, to me, it would be like wearing wool underwear. I bring it up because it seems fairly obvious that's Trump's response, and where someone like Kemp is concerned, it's probably the appropriate response. Seriously...these people walked in lockstep with Russian collusion for three years and should be ashamed they were duped so badly by their guys. It wasn't Trump's doing, it was the politicians they will line up to vote for again...and again...and again...and again. @Kemp and the like = Alice the Goon. 3 1 1
SectionC3 Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 31 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: In reading your link, it seems like my gut reaction of it being his personal mistrust of the house was correct. The official response was that the testimony before the house would be counter productive towards his response efforts. Trump's off the cuff response was that the house request was 'a set-up' and that the committee was stacked with 'Trump haters'. So he's letting Fauci testify in the Senate instead. I suppose it works out since the House isn't in session? Idk, sometimes you've just gotta step back and laugh at the comedic gold of reality. See above. Per the cnbc link I read his motives to a T in my response to sectionc3 around an hour ago. No kidding. He’s not letting Fauci go to the house side of the hill because he Fauci’s going to get creamed in front of an unfavorable committee. The Senate committee will go soft on Fauci. It’s all about spin, which is freaking nuts in this situation. The easy out for Trump would have been to have kept Fauci off the hill altogether, and to have tried to control Fauci and the narrative through the pressers. Instead, . . . the leader of the free world middles it and blames “haters.” It’s just. Freaking. Nuts. 7 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Sure, but the biggest thing they railed the previous administration on has been Trump's biggest failure. He took a $550 billion deficit and turned it into $1.1 trillion in three years, all while the economy was absolutely on fire. You have your best year ever, and instead of saving for a rainy day and paying off some of your debts, you double the deficit. Complete stupidity. This administrations fiscal policy has been nothing short of a complete disaster. You lost me when you tried to suggest that Trump didn't have a conservative Senate and House from 2017-19. What a complete load of crap. Right on. Freedom Caucus, anyone?
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 MTA to use ultraviolet lights to kill coronavirus on NYC subways, buses </snip> Transit officials Sunday announced plans to use powerful ultraviolet lamps to disinfect the agency’s trains, buses and work areas — a modern upgrade from the bleach and chemical sprays typically used for clean-up. The technology is a part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s beefed-up cleaning efforts during the coronavirus pandemic, and was born out of a partnership with scientists at Columbia University who were previously testing UV lights as a method to quickly kill other diseases in transit systems. </snip> 5 1
Magox Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 For the crowd that is clamoring for the "We Must have more testing", there are ways of getting similar information in regards to prevalency of infection rates within the community without doing additional testing. An area that has a lot of infections, when testing is done the average % rate of people testing positive will be be higher than areas with low infection rates. I'll give you an example. for Instance lets say you have a state like New York, and they conducted 30,000 tests. And lets say out of those tests 15% tested positive which would be 4500, then you can pretty much get a handle that not only are there a fairly large number of people who are infected based on the confirmed count, but there are probably a whole lot more asymptomatic cases that aren't being counted. The lower that % of Positive tests go, the lower the prevalency of viral infections within that community. So for example if you have another state that conducts 30,000 tests and they only have lets say only 3.3% test positive at 1000 confirmed tests. On the surface it only seems like a net 3500 difference than the previous example but the rate of infection throughout the community will be far greater. In any case, this came out of my home state of Florida. Quote Speaking at a new COVID-19 testing site in Sarasota County on Tuesday, the governor said the state received its highest number of coronavirus test results on Monday with 23,884. Of them, only 589 patients were positive for COVID-19, which is less than three percent. "If you look at the percent positive, which is something we track very closely, yesterday's test results have got to be the lowest percent positive since we've been doing any type of major testing," DeSantis said. The governor added that Florida hasn't seen the number of single-day positive test results above six percent in roughly two weeks. I understand the want for additional testing and it makes sense but you have to go with what you have. There is plenty of enough data to support that we as a country are ready to begin opening things up. And additional non conventional data point gathering such as what I listed above can you give you good macro analysis on the community infection rates. 2 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 And over in Jolly Ole England... Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover Prof Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing The scientist whose advice prompted Boris Johnson to lockdown Britain resigned from his government advisory position on Tuesday night as the Telegraph can reveal he broke social distancing rules to meet his married lover. Professor Neil Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing to reduce the spread of coronavirus. The woman lives with her husband and their children in another house. The epidemiologist leads a team at Imperial College London that produced the computer-modelled research prompting the national lockdown, which claimed more than 500,000 Britons would die without it. Prof Ferguson has frequently taken to the media to support the lockdown and praised the “very intensive social distancing” measures. </snip> On at least two occasions, Antonia Staats, 38, travelled across London from her home in the south of the capital to spend time with the Government scientist, nicknamed Professor Lockdown. The 51-year-old had only just finished a two-week spell self-isolating after testing positive for coronavirus. </snip> Prof Ferguson sat on Sage, whose advice has guided the government response during the pandemic, as well as the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), which advises the Chief Medical Officer and the Department of Health. </snip> 8 2
Recommended Posts