New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Democrats get some very, very bad news

middleview

President
Supporting Member
that was the craziest post yet from you. If you declare a lockdown in an area, and people ignore the lockdown, then what good would it do to declare the same lock down in surrounding counties? You actually said the people were ignoring the lock down, so that's why we need to do more of it.

That was the same logic used by the Maryland Senator. here, Maryland was already in lock down for at least 6 weeks or more and they had hot spots spring up. So the Maryland Senator says they will have to extend the lock down because of the hot spots. So do more of what isn't working... that was his logic.
Some people, yes. That is why the whole freakin' state isn't a hot spot.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You could also be arrested for driving over to do a non-essential activity. That's why my son has a document from his work place verifying that he is working at an essential work place. House arrest varies from state to state, I'm not sure, but I don't think we are allowed to use the public parks to walk our dogs.

At any rate, the core concept behind a lock down is house arrest.
I know of no one arrested for being out of their house.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
your poor reading skills do not equal ignorance in my posting. I said the lock down/social distancing experiment wasn't very effective in slowing the spread of this virus... and then gave proof it wasn't effective; both the states opening up without spikes, and the states that had hot spots springing up while under the lock down. That doesn't say that an effective lock down couldn't work, it just says that the lock down we employed this time around didn't do squat.

As far as nothing you could say would enlighten me... yeah, you are probably right about that. Once in a blue moon you come up with something that makes sense. Not this time, though.
I’ll help you out with this...

If a supposed “lockdown” doesn’t slow the spread of a highly contagious disease, it isn’t a true lockdown. If it is a true lockdown, as in NY, it dramatically slows the spread of a highly contagious disease.

Right?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
your poor reading skills do not equal ignorance in my posting. I said the lock down/social distancing experiment wasn't very effective in slowing the spread of this virus... and then gave proof it wasn't effective; both the states opening up without spikes, and the states that had hot spots springing up while under the lock down. That doesn't say that an effective lock down couldn't work, it just says that the lock down we employed this time around didn't do squat.

As far as nothing you could say would enlighten me... yeah, you are probably right about that. Once in a blue moon you come up with something that makes sense. Not this time, though.
Every now and again there is a crack in your defenses that allows logic to seep in. Not often, but sometimes you do admit that your own version of history is wrong. Not as often as you are wrong tho.
 

Days

Commentator
I’ll help you out with this...

If a supposed “lockdown” doesn’t slow the spread of a highly contagious disease, it isn’t a true lockdown. If it is a true lockdown, as in NY, it dramatically slows the spread of a highly contagious disease.

Right?
depends on what kind of lockdown you are talking about. If we sealed people in their homes, so that they had zero interaction with the outside world - and we've done that type of thing, it is called a quarantine - then yes, it is effective.

You want to know why this lock down failed? Grocery stores.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
depends on what kind of lockdown you are talking about. If we sealed people in their homes, so that they had zero interaction with the outside world - and we've done that type of thing, it is called a quarantine - then yes, it is effective.

You want to know why this lock down failed? Grocery stores.
Again, NY had a legit lockdown plan in place, one could go to grocery stores, and the COVID numbers there plummeted. You refuse to embrace reality.
 

Days

Commentator
Again, NY had a legit lockdown plan in place, one could go to grocery stores, and the COVID numbers there plummeted. You refuse to embrace reality.
I just see a different reality than you see. The virus spreads to everyone all at once, the hospitals get glutted for a week or two, then it is over, so yeah, the numbers plummet; not because of social distancing but because nothing stops a virus, so the virus attacked the people most vulnerable to it, they got sick, the numbers spiked, then the numbers plummet .... because everyone who was going to get sick, got sick. It is that simple. The social distancing did nothing. Look at Brazil and Sweden... no lockdown, the same spread rate as nations that did the lockdown, that's the normal spread rate for a virus; FAST. Viruses spread fast and this virus was even faster than most. So, you get spikes from that. The fact that we got hot spots (spikes) tells you that the virus spread fast, and it tells you that social distancing didn't slow it down, because if social distancing did slow it down, we would not have gotten the spikes.

A virus is a messenger RNA wrapped in a protein... AKA genetics. So, what they are doing in the labs is taking a coronavirus from a mammal and genetically engineering it to attach to humans. In the case of COVID19, they targeted the DNA in black people. That is the only thing that contained this virus; it was engineered to go after 10% of the population. If the mad scientists ever want to wipe out all of mankind, you would discover just how ineffective social distancing really is.
 
As you know, I provided a number of links on this to you and your fellow winger dissemblers yesterday, and you all just ignored them. And now you ask for them again. You’re deplorable, needless to say.
You did no such thing, and your blatant, easily debunked lie proves just how desperate you are to keep the con going.

LOL
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
You did no such thing, and your blatant, easily debunked lie proves just how desperate you are to keep the con going.

LOL
Zzzzz...your trolling is getting so boring.

I would tell you to address the links I already provided but I know you won’t do that. You will just troll.

So troll on.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
I just see a different reality than you see. The virus spreads to everyone all at once, the hospitals get glutted for a week or two, then it is over, so yeah, the numbers plummet; not because of social distancing but because nothing stops a virus, so the virus attacked the people most vulnerable to it, they got sick, the numbers spiked, then the numbers plummet .... because everyone who was going to get sick, got sick. It is that simple. The social distancing did nothing. Look at Brazil and Sweden... no lockdown, the same spread rate as nations that did the lockdown, that's the normal spread rate for a virus; FAST. Viruses spread fast and this virus was even faster than most. So, you get spikes from that. The fact that we got hot spots (spikes) tells you that the virus spread fast, and it tells you that social distancing didn't slow it down, because if social distancing did slow it down, we would not have gotten the spikes.

A virus is a messenger RNA wrapped in a protein... AKA genetics. So, what they are doing in the labs is taking a coronavirus from a mammal and genetically engineering it to attach to humans. In the case of COVID19, they targeted the DNA in black people. That is the only thing that contained this virus; it was engineered to go after 10% of the population. If the mad scientists ever want to wipe out all of mankind, you would discover just how ineffective social distancing really is.
Again, you’re just impervious to reality. NY does a lockdown, it’s numbers plummet, and you just ignore the correlation. Indeed, common sense should tell you that separating people slows the spread of a contagious disease, but the NY experience tells you that even when you have no common sense. But you just refuse to think or accept reality.
 

Days

Commentator
Again, you’re just impervious to reality. NY does a lockdown, it’s numbers plummet, and you just ignore the correlation. Indeed, common sense should tell you that separating people slows the spread of a contagious disease, but the NY experience tells you that even when you have no common sense. But you just refuse to think or accept reality.
What you perceive there happens in the classic case of fixating on some of the data and ignoring the ramifications of the rest of the data. I didn't ignore your data, I extrapolated upon it... I incorporated it into the bigger picture. And you ignore that bigger picture.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
What you perceive there happens in the classic case of fixating on some of the data and ignoring the ramifications of the rest of the data. I didn't ignore your data, I extrapolated upon it... I incorporated it into the bigger picture. And you ignore that bigger picture.
Textbook gibberish. Typing words but saying nothing in response to what I said.

;-)
 
Isolation where?
Hospitals or other medical facilities where actual quarantine can be maintained. There are hundreds of thousands of such places in this country Only a mass murdering lunatic like Andrew Cuomo (and you, apparently) would ever imagine sending infected people into an open nursing home full of vulnerable old people is a good idea.

Cuomo's order killed more people than 9/11.
 
Top