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

Democrats get some very, very bad news

Corruptbuddha

Governor
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.
Democratic governors have a higher death rate than both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
 

Days

Commentator
Textbook gibberish. Typing words but saying nothing in response to what I said.

;-)
that was in response to what you said. You was crying over and over (and over and over and over ad nauseum, this is what you do) that we are ignoring your data or points or argument when we instead were responding to your facts/data/points/arguments/etc - we just didn't reach the same conclusions.

what happens next - like clockwork - is you then ignore our facts/data/points/arguments/etc. ... while erroneously complaining about the same.

this is why people always accuse you of their own sins... it is all a matter of what the person is fixating upon.

************ so, I jumped in the end of this thread without knowing what you guys were arguing about; I didn't read the thread first (my bad) so maybe I am missing your overall argument.

~ the thread is about that advisor who pointed out that by dropping the economy so far down, all at once, Trump has positioned himself for six months of rising numbers. I doubt if that is going to make much difference. Of far more importance will be whether the swing states make a strong recovery.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
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.
Actually, they were dreadfully short of such alternatives in NY. Reality and all that. Does reality ever enter into your - ahem - thinking?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
that was in response to what you said. You was crying over and over (and over and over and over ad nauseum, this is what you do) that we are ignoring your data or points or argument when we instead were responding to your facts/data/points/arguments/etc - we just didn't reach the same conclusions.

what happens next - like clockwork - is you then ignore our facts/data/points/arguments/etc. ... while erroneously complaining about the same.

this is why people always accuse you of their own sins... it is all a matter of what the person is fixating upon.

************ so, I jumped in the end of this thread without knowing what you guys were arguing about; I didn't read the thread first (my bad) so maybe I am missing your overall argument.

the thread is about that advisor who pointed out that by dropping the economy so far down, all at once, Trump has positioned himself for six months of rising numbers. I doubt if that is going to make much difference. Of far more importance will be whether the swing states make a strong recovery.
Nope. I pointed to the data - NY had strict lockdown guidelines in place and their COVID numbers plummeted. That data confirms what common sense tells us - physical separation will reduce the spread of a contagious disease. You just ignore all that instead of admitting the obvious - lockdown laws reduce the spread. Very odd.
 

EatTheRich

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.
Yet Brazil and Sweden ended up with much higher rates of infection than other countries at a given time after their first case. How can that be if the rate of spread wasn’t higher?
 

EatTheRich

President
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.
1. There are thousands of hospitals. Not tens of thousands, much less hundreds of thousands. And they were overrun.
 

Days

Commentator
Yet Brazil and Sweden ended up with much higher rates of infection than other countries at a given time after their first case. How can that be if the rate of spread wasn’t higher?
sigh.

Anything based upon detected cases is pretty much a worthless number. So, I don't know if you watched the video I posted of the equivalent of a surgeon general for Sweden, but he made it clear that the virus had spread to roughly half of his population and it was the same for all the European nations. If you use that as a denominator (as it is used for the influenza flu and any other known virus) then the spread rate was roughly the same for all the nations. And don't forget, Sweden did do social distancing, they just didn't lock down the economy.

And that epidemiologist said the same thing I've been saying all along; you can't stop a virus. You can't quarantine an entire population. If you could do that, it would do more harm than good.
 

Days

Commentator
Nope. I pointed to the data - NY had strict lockdown guidelines in place and their COVID numbers plummeted. That data confirms what common sense tells us - physical separation will reduce the spread of a contagious disease. You just ignore all that instead of admitting the obvious - lockdown laws reduce the spread. Very odd.
square peg - round hole - but if you keep hammering it...

you go, Bugs!
 

EatTheRich

President
sigh.

Anything based upon detected cases is pretty much a worthless number. So, I don't know if you watched the video I posted of the equivalent of a surgeon general for Sweden, but he made it clear that the virus had spread to roughly half of his population and it was the same for all the European nations. If you use that as a denominator (as it is used for the influenza flu and any other known virus) then the spread rate was roughly the same for all the nations. And don't forget, Sweden did do social distancing, they just didn't lock down the economy.

And that epidemiologist said the same thing I've been saying all along; you can't stop a virus. You can't quarantine an entire population. If you could do that, it would do more harm than good.
The virus has not spread to half the population in all infected countries (which afaik is all countries). Not even close.

Sweden: 3.45% infected
U.S.: 0.54% infected
UK: 0.40% infected
Italy: 0.38% infected
Brazil: 0.21% infected
Iran: 0.18% infected
Norway: 0.16% infected
New Zealand: 0.02% infected
South Korea: 0.02% infected
Cuba: 0.02% infected
China: 0.006% infected
Vietnam: 0.0003% infected
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
1. There are thousands of hospitals. Not tens of thousands, much less hundreds of thousands. And they were overrun.
they were filled, not over run. How many were overrun? 1% of the nation? at the most. one hot spot that last a couple of weeks... not a national emergency.

But if the president had to declare a national emergency to get resources into place - which is what he said he was doing - I'm okay with that. But then the Governors - from both parties - completely f*cked the pooch at the state level. They didn't need to lock down anything until they had a hot spot, and then only for 3 weeks in the hot spot. That should have been the lesson learned.
 

Days

Commentator
He didn’t say what you claim he said.
pretty sure he did. And it jibes with his overall take that this pandemic is akin to a very harsh flu outbreak. I think he calculated the death rate at 0.1%. (that would be for Sweden - or maybe Europe)

... well, that's what I remember.
 
Top