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

Blood on Cuomo's hands.

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Really what is the plan from the federal govt then ? You want to blame Cuomo isn't at the top of this govt. Also I am sure some parts of Germany did worse than others. I don't see you subtracting the bad parts of that country's total from the overall numbers. Do that then come back and claim the same thing.

Yeah the whole world joined into a hoax and shut down their economies just to make Trump look bad as are the results from countries that shut down and then reopened properly.

You can tell yourself all the fanciful tales you like about it. But how about you puts some facts behind them for the rest of us.
I really don't care what the "plan" is. I only care what it should be, and it should be the Swedish model.

The left embraced the shutdowns because they saw an opportunity to strangle capitalism and took it.

I've given you the facts - America did better than most and the shutdowns increased rather than decreased the infections.
 

EatTheRich

President
I really don't care what the "plan" is. I only care what it should be, and it should be the Swedish model.

The left embraced the shutdowns because they saw an opportunity to strangle capitalism and took it.

I've given you the facts - America did better than most and the shutdowns increased rather than decreased the infections.
How would shutdowns have increased the number of infections? How did the U.S. do better if it has 1/4 of the world’s infections and only 5% of the population? Why is the infection rate also unusually high in Sweden?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
How would shutdowns have increased the number of infections? How did the U.S. do better if it has 1/4 of the world’s infections and only 5% of the population? Why is the infection rate also unusually high in Sweden?
By forcing people to spend huge blocks of time together in multi-generational households. It's one of the dumbest things you could do, besides sending infected people into nursing homes. It is largely the people in nursing homes, and the people "locked down" that got the disease:



And of the places that opened up after being "locked down" almost every one of them saw their infection rate go down:

Screenshot 2020-05-23 at 6.43.19 AM.png

It's not the infections that kill you, it's (literally) the death rate and on a death rate per 1000 the US is just slightly above Germany.

 

EatTheRich

President
By forcing people to spend huge blocks of time together in multi-generational households. It's one of the dumbest things you could do, besides sending infected people into nursing homes. It is largely the people in nursing homes, and the people "locked down" that got the disease:



And of the places that opened up after being "locked down" almost every one of them saw their infection rate go down:

View attachment 52154

It's not the infections that kill you, it's (literally) the death rate and on a death rate per 1000 the US is just slightly above Germany.

“Death rate per 1,000 infections” is not as meaningful as “death rate per 1,000 population,” especially when discussing the usefulness of measures taken to prevent the spread of infections.

People would still have been going home and coming into contact with their families, whether they were also out coming into contact with dozens of times as many potentially infected people or not. There is a reason Sweden has had so many infections and China has had so few.
 
Really what is the plan from the federal govt then ? You want to blame Cuomo isn't at the top of this govt. Also I am sure some parts of Germany did worse than others. I don't see you subtracting the bad parts of that country's total from the overall numbers. Do that then come back and claim the same thing.

Yeah the whole world joined into a hoax and shut down their economies just to make Trump look bad as are the results from countries that shut down and then reopened properly.

You can tell yourself all the fanciful tales you like about it. But how about you puts some facts behind them for the rest of us.
Andrew Cuomo alone, with his kill count above 7,000 now, has skewed the statistics single-handedly. With the two or three other Dem governors with kill counts above 2,000, a handful of homicidal Democrats are responsible for 30% of the deaths in the country. These people committed crimes against humanity.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
“Death rate per 1,000 infections” is not as meaningful as “death rate per 1,000 population,” especially when discussing the usefulness of measures taken to prevent the spread of infections.

People would still have been going home and coming into contact with their families, whether they were also out coming into contact with dozens of times as many potentially infected people or not. There is a reason Sweden has had so many infections and China has had so few.
LOL! As soon as you cite China data as fact you render yourself unserious. Why has Sweden had so few infections and Great Britain (or New York) so many? Obviously every nation (and every state) isn't being infected at the same rate, irrespective of "measures taken." So the real "best measure" is how good a job are you doing (as a nation) of keeping people from dying when they contract the disease?

The fact is that infection from interaction is a function of how long you are within the same space as an infected person - the longer you occupy the same space as an infected person, the higher the probability that you will catch the disease from them. So lockdowns are obviously a factor in that dynamic that needs to be considered, not to mention their unconstitutionality and the undesirable knock on effects these measures produce.

For the record, "death rate per 1000 population" is a meaningless statistic absent the context of infection rate. Absent extremely widespread testing, everywhere, the idea that comparing infections between different nations that use different testing protocols is meaningful is insipid. The only real relevant overall measure is "are people dying once they catch the illness."
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Andrew Cuomo alone, with his kill count above 7,000 now, has skewed the statistics single-handedly. With the two or three other Dem governors with kill counts above 2,000, a handful of homicidal Democrats are responsible for 30% of the deaths in the country. These people committed crimes against humanity.

So is it the Cuomo Virus or the Blue State Flu now ? :(
 

Spamature

President
I really don't care what the "plan" is. I only care what it should be, and it should be the Swedish model.

The left embraced the shutdowns because they saw an opportunity to strangle capitalism and took it.

I've given you the facts - America did better than most and the shutdowns increased rather than decreased the infections.
Only because it means Trump doesn't have to do anything and it covers up for the fact that he hasn't done anything of substance since the start.

The Swedish model as it is currently progressing ( 7.3% antibody rate with 4000 deaths ) will require somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 thousand deaths to achieve herd immunity of 70% in that country. That extrapolates into 1.2 million deaths in the US based upon population size alone at the bare minimum.

That leaves out the fact that in Sweden over half the adults live in single person households which is twice the rate of the US, and the differences in general health, and the huge disparity in access to healthcare between the two.

Funny how the only part of the Swedish medical system you wingers want to adopt is the one that would lead to more deaths here.


Now you are going to start with the insane idea that the shut down cause more infections than ignoring the virus and letting it spread.

PLEASE DO explain how you came to this conclusion. What is the mechanism and or activity that you believe is responsible for virus being able to spread further and faster under a lock down and how this virus would have killed fewer people without a lock down.


I really want to see how you came to this conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
Andrew Cuomo alone, with his kill count above 7,000 now, has skewed the statistics single-handedly. With the two or three other Dem governors with kill counts above 2,000, a handful of homicidal Democrats are responsible for 30% of the deaths in the country. These people committed crimes against humanity.
One of them still cares that there is a pandemic.

1590357836955.png


See the difference ?
1590357779244.png
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Only because it means Trump doesn't have to do anything and it covers up for the fact that he hasn't done anything of substance since the start.

The Swedish model as it is currently progressing ( 7.3% antibody rate with 4000 deaths ) will require somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 thousand deaths to achieve herd immunity of 70% in that country. That extrapolates into 1.2 million deaths in the US based upon population size alone at the bare minimum. That leaves out the fact that in Sweden over half the adults live in single person households which is twice the rate of the US, and the differences in general health, and the huge disparity in access to healthcare between the two.

Funny how the only part of the Swedish medical system you wingers want to adopt is the one that would lead to more deaths here.


Now you are going to start with the insane idea that the shut down cause more infections than ignoring the virus and letting it spread.

PLEASE DO explain how you came to this conclusion. What is the mechanism and or activity that you believe is responsible for virus being able to spread further and faster under a lock down and how this virus would have killed fewer people without a lock down.


I really want to see how you came to this conclusion.
It's simple, actually. The infection rate continued to increase long after the closures were imposed, and it has continued to decline after they were lifted. Do the math - they had no effect.

The only way out of this is "herd immunity." The longer we endure economic calamity in an effort to deny that, the worse the long term damage to our nation. You people are doing nothing short of bringing about the next Great(er) Depression in an effort to win an election. Deplorable!
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Only because it means Trump doesn't have to do anything and it covers up for the fact that he hasn't done anything of substance since the start.

The Swedish model as it is currently progressing ( 7.3% antibody rate with 4000 deaths ) will require somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 thousand deaths to achieve herd immunity of 70% in that country. That extrapolates into 1.2 million deaths in the US based upon population size alone at the bare minimum.

That leaves out the fact that in Sweden over half the adults live in single person households which is twice the rate of the US, and the differences in general health, and the huge disparity in access to healthcare between the two.

Funny how the only part of the Swedish medical system you wingers want to adopt is the one that would lead to more deaths here.


Now you are going to start with the insane idea that the shut down cause more infections than ignoring the virus and letting it spread.

PLEASE DO explain how you came to this conclusion. What is the mechanism and or activity that you believe is responsible for virus being able to spread further and faster under a lock down and how this virus would have killed fewer people without a lock down.


I really want to see how you came to this conclusion.
I'll let Professor Levitt do the 'splainin:

According to the Telegraph, Michael Levitt correctly predicted the initial trajectory of the pandemic, but was ignored by now-disgraced Imperial College epidemiologist Niall Ferguson, whose warnings were embraced by the UK government as justification for the lockdown, despite the fact that the projections proved to be extremely flawed and dramatically overestimated the virus's potential for devastation. As early as march, Levitt warned that Ferguson's projections had over-estimated the potential death toll by "10 or 12 times".

Instead of helping the situation, Fergusons' projections created an unnecessary "panic virus" which spread among global political leaders, Prof Levitt told the Telegraph.

Prof Levitt, a British-American-Israeli who shared the Nobel prize for chemistry in 2013 for the "development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems", has said for two months that the planet will beat coronavirus faster than most other experts predict.
"I think lockdown saved no lives," said the scientist, who added that the Government should have encouraged Britons to wear masks and adhere to other forms of social distancing.

"I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives - things like that - but social damage - domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism - has been extreme. And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions."[

 

EatTheRich

President
LOL! As soon as you cite China data as fact you render yourself unserious. Why has Sweden had so few infections and Great Britain (or New York) so many? Obviously every nation (and every state) isn't being infected at the same rate, irrespective of "measures taken." So the real "best measure" is how good a job are you doing (as a nation) of keeping people from dying when they contract the disease?

The fact is that infection from interaction is a function of how long you are within the same space as an infected person - the longer you occupy the same space as an infected person, the higher the probability that you will catch the disease from them. So lockdowns are obviously a factor in that dynamic that needs to be considered, not to mention their unconstitutionality and the undesirable knock on effects these measures produce.

For the record, "death rate per 1000 population" is a meaningless statistic absent the context of infection rate. Absent extremely widespread testing, everywhere, the idea that comparing infections between different nations that use different testing protocols is meaningful is insipid. The only real relevant overall measure is "are people dying once they catch the illness."
Sweden=1 infection per 306 people, with minimal testing, despite a much lower population density
Britain=1 infection per 326 people, with extensive testing, despite a much higher population density

Deaths as a percentage of population makes more sense *because* testing rates differ from locale to locale.
 

EatTheRich

President
I'll let Professor Levitt do the 'splainin:

According to the Telegraph, Michael Levitt correctly predicted the initial trajectory of the pandemic, but was ignored by now-disgraced Imperial College epidemiologist Niall Ferguson, whose warnings were embraced by the UK government as justification for the lockdown, despite the fact that the projections proved to be extremely flawed and dramatically overestimated the virus's potential for devastation. As early as march, Levitt warned that Ferguson's projections had over-estimated the potential death toll by "10 or 12 times".

Instead of helping the situation, Fergusons' projections created an unnecessary "panic virus" which spread among global political leaders, Prof Levitt told the Telegraph.

Prof Levitt, a British-American-Israeli who shared the Nobel prize for chemistry in 2013 for the "development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems", has said for two months that the planet will beat coronavirus faster than most other experts predict.
"I think lockdown saved no lives," said the scientist, who added that the Government should have encouraged Britons to wear masks and adhere to other forms of social distancing.

"I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives - things like that - but social damage - domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism - has been extreme. And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions."[

You think more people would have been treated for other conditions if the hospitals were overrun with COVId patients?
 

Spamature

President
I'll let Professor Levitt do the 'splainin:

According to the Telegraph, Michael Levitt correctly predicted the initial trajectory of the pandemic, but was ignored by now-disgraced Imperial College epidemiologist Niall Ferguson, whose warnings were embraced by the UK government as justification for the lockdown, despite the fact that the projections proved to be extremely flawed and dramatically overestimated the virus's potential for devastation. As early as march, Levitt warned that Ferguson's projections had over-estimated the potential death toll by "10 or 12 times".

Instead of helping the situation, Fergusons' projections created an unnecessary "panic virus" which spread among global political leaders, Prof Levitt told the Telegraph.

Prof Levitt, a British-American-Israeli who shared the Nobel prize for chemistry in 2013 for the "development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems", has said for two months that the planet will beat coronavirus faster than most other experts predict.
"I think lockdown saved no lives," said the scientist, who added that the Government should have encouraged Britons to wear masks and adhere to other forms of social distancing.

"I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives - things like that - but social damage - domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism - has been extreme. And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions."[

So he doesn't have an actual explanation for how it will cost more lives. Just that some outcome attributed "Virus Panic" (what ever that is) will lead to "social damage". And I guess you and he believe people will die from this "social damage" at a greater rate than they would have from the virus ?

You know, I didn't notice the ER's on the news filling to overflowing from "social damage" patients during the lock down. But before the lock down they were doing just that in the hardest hit areas with covid-19 patients.

Again, this looks like a bunch of excuse making for the fact that you are among the group that says you will kill people for luxury, frivolity, and profit, while shirking any group responsibility to mitigate those deaths.

So you just keep on trying to convince yourself that those who disagree with that worldview are evil to keep the magnitude of this act of cruelty from weighing down your souls.

Remember we are talking about thousands and thousand helpless and suffering for weeks unable to breathe as their lives slip from their grasp. It is not just that people die but it is also about the kind of death you are going to force upon them that makes your argument so heinous.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
You think more people would have been treated for other conditions if the hospitals were overrun with COVId patients?
$21million evac hospital erected in NYC
NOT ONE patient
what NYC hospitals were "overrun"?

Also a Naval hospital ship docked and saw few patients
this is the biggest Deep State damnation on USA

destroy the economy due to hate of Trump:)


libs will end up suffering the MOST...…………..
 

EatTheRich

President
$21million evac hospital erected in NYC
NOT ONE patient
what NYC hospitals were "overrun"?

Also a Naval hospital ship docked and saw few patients
this is the biggest Deep State damnation on USA

destroy the economy due to hate of Trump:)


libs will end up suffering the MOST...…………..
The hospitals weren’t overrun because of social distancing.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
So he doesn't have an actual explanation for how it will cost more lives. Just that some outcome attributed "Virus Panic" (what ever that is) will lead to "social damage". And I guess you and he believe people will die from this "social damage" at a greater rate than they would have from the virus ?

You know, I didn't notice the ER's on the news filling to overflowing from "social damage" patients during the lock down. But before the lock down they were doing just that in the hardest hit areas with covid-19 patients.

Again, this looks like a bunch of excuse making for the fact that you are among the group that says you will kill people for luxury, frivolity, and profit, while shirking any group responsibility to mitigate those deaths.

So you just keep on trying to convince yourself that those who disagree with that worldview are evil to keep the magnitude of this act of cruelty from weighing down your souls.

Remember we are talking about thousands and thousand helpless and suffering for weeks unable to breathe as their lives slip from their grasp. It is not just that people die but it is also about the kind of death you are going to force upon them that makes your argument so heinous.
No hospitals, even in New York, were ever "overrun" with covid-19 cases. And I know what we're talking about here - the thousands and thousands of people dying horrible deaths (alone) were in the nursing homes. So if you want to talk about "acts of cruelty" why don't we start with the idiocy of requiring nursing homes to take covid-19 infected residents?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Sweden=1 infection per 306 people, with minimal testing, despite a much lower population density
Britain=1 infection per 326 people, with extensive testing, despite a much higher population density

Deaths as a percentage of population makes more sense *because* testing rates differ from locale to locale.
But as you note, that (like infections) is affected by other factors. So the real best measure would be "excess deaths" during the time the pandemic runs its course. Obviously that data is still being compiled, but the initial data shows more, but not enough more to justify the measures taken.
 
Top