Corona status

[Deleted member 147267]

Thanks for cluing in Clueless. Maybe that should have been my username?

 

[isladogs]

Strictly there are only 5 vowels though Y can be considered as a consonant or vowel depending on the context

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And sometimes W, if I recall the old elementary school rules. But unless you are speaking Welsh, I don't know of any words for which the "W" takes on a vowel value. I suppose that at least in theory, if all of your consonants are voiced, then you could have words with very few vowels. Some central European languages I have seen must think that vowels are for wimps based on the string of consonants they frequently use. (No criticism intended!)

 

[CJ_London]

reminds me of an old joke that I heard on 'The Professionals' (an old TV programme).

If the answer is 9W what is the question?
.
.
.
.
.
.
question: Herr Wagner, do you spell your name vith a V?

 

[Jon]

Pat, I can tell you feel strong emotions about this issue, and I agree with much of what you are saying. In particular, the sample sources are important in getting a handle on the "truth" of the situation.

Let me address some of the things you brought up, so at least you understand my reasoning.

That's not a fair question, Jon. I don't want anyone to die and you know that

I don't want anyone else to die either, so we are on the same page. Let me ask you a different question instead: If we adopt your proposal of not locking down the country, do you believe more people will die or less? I believe that is a fair question, because policy affects lives.

The Germans have no speed limit on the autobahn.

I forgot about those! My question was deliberately not about fast roads, but built up areas with a current low speed limit. To remove the limit, it results in more deaths, just as removing a lockdown. My interpretation of your argument was that we could keep the speed limits low, and so reduce the death count. But we don't. And it seemed to me that your point was that this same principle can be carried across to the coronavirus lockdown. My response was that these are risk vs reward decisions, rather than a black and white limit or no limit. I suppose you could say, have a proportionate response. The California governor Gavin Newsom says that the models suggest that 26 million citizens will catch coronavirus in just 2 months in just that State, unless there is an immediate lockdown. The death toll would be staggering. Would you prefer a policy of no lockdown there, for the economic good? I am just trying to establish what your position is.

As the sample of people infected but not ill is growing (I'm not sure why we're not seeing these numbers), the denominator will rise and therefore the mortality rate will drop. It doesn't mean the number of deaths will drop, just the mortality rate.

The mortality rate is still rising, as I was predicting. Since the US is in the early phases of this disease, I predict the rate will rise substantially in the very near future. The official figures for the mortality rate will depend on how fast they are now testing, and the policy for who they are targeting to have a test. If they immediately stopped testing, the mortality rate would continue to rise, as those already ill have yet to die. If they tested very fast, and just the general population rather than those already with symptoms, the mortality rate would fall.

There is one good thing that should come out of this idiocy. People should be MUCH more aware of their behavior during flu season which comes every single year and that will save thousands of lives every year.

I am in complete agreement with you here. My view is kinda quirky on this one. I have said many times that if you infect one other person, you could be culpable for the deaths of hundreds or thousands of other people. The person you infected could infect two others, each of whom infect two others and so on into a viral explosion. You were the cause, the spark to the fuel. I say, got the flu? Stay at home!

They vilified Trump when he shut down flights from the Wuhan area. They vilified him and took him to court to stop his order to shut down flights from certain areas of Europe.

I remember both these issues. The leaders of the EU vilified Trump for taking that stance of blocking Europe. One week later, the same EU leaders had the gal to recommend blocking other countries. The hypocrisy was staggering! The same thing regarding the early blocking of Wuhan flights.

They accused him of trying to kill people with fish tank cleaner when he talked about the drugs that were showing promise on treating the symptoms

This issue is one of the most ludicrous of them all. Someone took a different chemical to the one he said they were looking into. Besides, these drug tests are all over the internet and in the papers. Why does everyone want to single out Trump for every single thing he says? I've never seen so much bias and hate against one man in my life!

It appears that congress has lost the plot.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It appears that congress has lost the plot.

In the last several years, I don't think they have ever HAD the plot to lose.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I watched this twice, I probably missed the part about wearing masks. Also no CNN reporters hassling her and Charles about not wearing them.

 

[ColinEssex]

The Queen didn't wear a mask because she was alone in the room it was filmed. Only one cameraman was allowed in, but he was equipped with protective clothing, he set the camera and left the room before the Queen entered. He returned after the Queen had left the room, he retrieved the camera and left Windsor Castle. At no point was the Queen anywhere near another person, even staff members, nobody is allowed to leave the castle at any time.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

Why didn't she inform the UK to wear masks, isn't that what the world leaders do?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I must say that I was impressed to hear Her Majesty speak. Her voice was that of an older person, but her speech was articulate and showed no mental weakness. I have heard Joe Biden's recent speeches and cannot imagine supporting him because of his apparent mental deterioration. Queen Elizabeth II might be physically infirm, but her mind seems sharp and clear.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It wasn't a bad speech, just 4 months late.

 

[Pat Hartman]

If we hadn't locked down the country, we would now be relying on the good sense and good will of the American public. Not imposing a lock-down would probably result in a higher death rate but only if the public is stupid. Isn't the purpose of the lock-down to prevent stupid people from going out in big crowds to watch the hospital ship dock in NYC? How'd that work? It was a lovely day and hundreds of people were milling around the pier sans masks. What leaving people to exhibit good sense would save is the suicides and other deaths that will be caused by the economic collapse that is coming and so that should balance the death scale. More people die from the virus. Fewer people die from the aftermath. There will be starvation, homelessness, drug overdoses, lack of medical care for the unemployed. The economic collapse will be worse than the virus. How long do you suppose small businesses can afford to pay their employee's health insurance? They are already laying people off so they can avoid paying salary and other benefits. Look at what the bums at the Kennedy Center in DC did. They took 25 million dollars in virus relief funds (put into the bill by Nancy Pelosi to reward her buddies) and promptly laid off their entire performing staff???????? Why didn't they use the money to put on FREE shows to entertain people locked in their homes? That would have been the right thing to do. The 8 BILLION dollars in relief funds, with more to come, is going to cause an economic collapse in the US. Already, no one will buy our long term debt. How do we keep running at a deficit if no one will buy our debt? There is no way in hell the Democrats would slow down the rate of spending and the Republicans are just as fiscally irresponsible. Members of Congress never look at spending as if it were their own money. It is other people's money. MINE to be exact. It would be a great time for China to invade. Who's going to loan us money for bullets?

Regarding the reference to speed limits. The point was that they are a trade-off. Higher and more people die. Lower and fewer people die. So states and municipalities set speed limits as low as the public will tolerate rather than lower to save lives. People would be crazy if the speed limit on the highway were 30 MPH. It was downright awful in the 70's when the Feds lowered the limit to 55 across the country to save gas during the embargo. People wrote songs about it. If a state didn't lower to 55, they would have lost their federal funding for the highway so most complied.

The CDC was derelict in their duty early on and the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) was an accomplice. They refused to authorize private labs to develop tests for the virus. They refused to authorize a Seattle researcher to re purpose her research from normal flu to COVID-19. She had an ongoing study of seasonal flu in process. Their objection was that people had signed the consent forms to be tested for flu and it was a violation of their privacy to also/instead of test them for COVID-19. If that is not a stupid bureaucratic decision, I don't know what is. They should have gone to Congress or the President for help in changing the rules. Trump would have issued a temporary Executive Order if necessary. In fact the two agencies ganged up on her. We could have been WEEKS, MONTHS!!! ahead in the testing and that would have allowed for RATIONAL quarantines of small areas that had high concentrations of infected people. Instead, we end up driving the country to a standstill because the medical people, who know nothing about economics and are only "predicting", are running the show. They're telling Trump how to save as many lives as possible. They don't have the slightest clue the damage being done to the country and the world. If people weren't so damned stupid and selfish, they would self isolate if they are symptomatic or in a danger category. If we had better testing earlier on, we could be trying some of the existing drugs as prophylactics to prevent the illness from developing and we could be isolating the infected who were not symptomatic.

BTW, that original model I mentioned earlier was published by the Imperial College in London. I read some of their reports and couldn't make sense of them so I have no idea if the media just misinterpreted what they were saying or if the models were just plain wrong.

Regarding Trump. The left hates him with a purple passion. The main stream media is hate, hate, hate from dawn to dusk. Even rational Democrats and Republicans succumbed to the disinformation spewed at them on a daily basis. However, they've overplayed their hand and I think the tide is turning. Trump's approval is way up from what it was. So, given the left can't stand that, the House has announced that it will be starting yet another investigation into Trump. This one will be on how he is "mishandling" the virus crisis. That'll be really productive. Should Trump tell them to pound sand because he has his hands full managing the crisis that they completely ignored in January and February because they were so busy trying to impeach him or should he waste time trying to defend his decisions?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Sending well wishes to Boris Johnson

 

[ColinEssex]

It wasn't a bad speech, just 4 months late.

Wrong. Four months ago, we had no cases and mostly only China was suffering. Even your revered leader Orangeman said it was a hoax. The last thing you do is have the Queen on telly every five minutes, if the Queen feels it necessary to address the nation, then this is serious business.

The Queen does not address the nation and Commonwealth lightly, only 4 times in last 60 years. (Except her Xmas message). Her job is not to say ' wear a mask' her job is to show support and alliance with her people. She has to encourage people to work together by social distancing etc and we will get through this. She knows how tough this is, she is not stupid.
She spoke in 1940 when children were moved to the safety of the countryside to avoid German bombing. It was an excellent address, especially for someone 95 years old, she looked fantastic.

Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

Again the confusion about masks, they are not important enough for the queen to mention but every American should be wearing them

Her job is not to say ' wear a mask' her job is to show support and alliance with her people. She has to encourage people to work together by social distancing

 

[Pat Hartman]

Even your revered leader Orangeman said it was a hoax.

1. Calling the President of the United States Orangeman is disrespectful. Just because he calls people names, doesn't justify your disrespect. If you think that referring to President Obama as Blackman would be horrifying, then you are a hypocrite. Trump can't change the color of his skin any more than Obama can.
2. That statement is a lie. If you actually listen to the speech rather than listening to some anti-Trump talking head's interpretation of the speech, you would know that. He actually said that the mis-reporting surrounding the virus was a hoax. If Trump thought the virus was a hoax, why would he shut down flights from infected areas in China in January? The anti-Trump talking heads called him a racist for that. Then he shut down flights from certain parts of Europe. What did the left do? They took him to court to challenge the Executive Order AND called him a racist. Apparently Italians are now a race. As far as the media is concerned, there is nothing he can do that is even close to being correct or even non-offensive.

 

[deletedT]

What did the left do? They took him to court to challenge the Executive Order AND called him a racist.

@Pat Hartman I'm a foreigner and to be true, I don't know which side is correct. But you may want to see this post.

Coronavirus - are we all doomed?

My friend works for this lot https://www.avon-protection.com/ They make proper protective gear. Shall I have a word? Thats serious looking stuff.

www.access-programmers.co.uk

That Golf schedule says a lot.

 

[moke123]

He actually said that the mis-reporting surrounding the virus was a hoax.

Actually he said

One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

It was his down playing of the seriousness of the virus which gave the impression he was calling it a hoax.

I also couldn't find anything indicating he was sued re: china travel ban. I find that whole argument surrounding that ban to be rather ridiculous. It only takes one match to light a fire. We already had confirmed cases when it was announced and there are valid concerns as to its effectiveness.
Heres 2 sources, the AP and FactCheck.org, which spell it out rather convincingly.
https://apnews.com/0dc271ad7f7917374a5a0cfb49273783
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/

 

[ColinEssex]

Pat, Orangeman can change his colour. Use less spray tan. Sometimes he has white eyes where he wears goggles, he looks like a Panda in negative.
I don't understand your reference to Obama, he is a blackman. Isn't he? Or he was when I last saw him on telly. The paedophile Jackson was black then turned oddly white.
Orangeman's strange colour is a great source of comedy for UK comedians on UK telly. What's the problem?
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

Sorry, it was Trump's other travel bans (similar to the ones imposed without opposition on Muslim countries by Obama) that were facing the legal challenges. That didn't work so the House is trying to use legislation to remove the Coronavirus bans and the President's ability to impose travel bans entirely. Of course they probably have contingency plans to rescind that law should a Democrat ever win the Presidency again. Because it is perfectly OK for Obama to close our borders to immigration from certain Muslim countries but it is racist and Islamophobic when Trump does it by reissuing essentially the same Executive Order as the Obama version that expired.

Dems' Response to Coronavirus: End Trump's Travel Bans on China, Iran

House Democrats are responding to the coronavirus outbreak by trying to strip President Trump of his authority to implement travel bans.

www.breitbart.com

Democrats Want To REVERSE Trump’s Travel Bans Despite Coronavirus Spread

Legislation would allow carriers to arrive in US unimpeded

summit.news

I guess I'm not sure why opening our borders to people coming from areas with high concentrations of infected people is a good idea. I wonder how the Dems would respond to a question regarding various European countries trying to close their borders to impede transmission of the virus. Would the press ever ask one of them? Not a chance. Closing borders is only racist if Trump does it. If a European head of state does it, it just makes perfect sense to protect their own people. The hypocrisy is what makes me crazy. You can logically argue either side of the issue but the left speaks out of both sides of their mouth. Everything is OK if you're one of them (because you're a good person with good intentions) but not OK if you're not (because if you don't agree with them, you must be evil with evil intentions and want to kill Grandma).

Just to be clear, I'm a Libertarian (I think the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats. I used to actually think the Republicans were worse but since the election of Trump, the Democrats have gone bat-s*** crazy) and I lean toward open borders. However, I am not an idiot and I haven't signed a suicide pact so open borders simply cannot be allowed when you have a welfare state. So, if you want open borders, suspend ALL government assistance unless it can be provided ONLY for actual citizens. Again, as a Libertarian, I'm for suspending MOST government assistance any way. This is much better left to charities. They are closer to the issue. They are in a much better position to identify fraud and they are much more efficient than faceless bureaucrats at distribution. As a taxpayer, I am not OK with my government taking money from me at gunpoint and giving it to someone else that they deem more worthy. That is not charity. It is theft. I contribute lots of money every year to charity. I just want to decide who should benefit from MY work. In fact, I contribute more money than most of my Democrat friends. They don't think it is their problem. They now think that "charity" comes from the government so they don't feel the need to contribute.