jakee

But he's right. It's been pointed out numerous times in the last day or so to Airdvr that the US is currently on the same slope as Italy just a couple of weeks behind. If he still thinks there's fundamentally less to worry about in the US just because not as many people are dying there yet, then what else is there to say to him?

I have no idea what point you are attemting to make right now with all that irrelevant nonsense. I didn't say I did. Airdvr though, after weeks of calling it fuss about nothing, did have a dig at someone else not understandng how serious this would be, right before he went back to downplaying it again. Once again, this all seems like a lot of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing regardless of what is actually being said. Could you just once put your hatred aside and behave like a normal person?

Seriously. In Italy 750 people died yesterday, how does that compare to auto accidents? If the country does open up again before easter without any exceptionally drastic measures beforehand then it would be killing season. But please, tell us again how you understand more than others how serious this thing could be.

Right - because when people are assured that everything is absolutely fine, in fact not just fine but rapidly getting even better and soon to be perfect... and then they find out it's actually all going to shit, that usually really helps. Yeah, ok. Come on dude, be serious. I wonder, why aren't you giving Airdvr shit about his bias for pretending he knows exactly what was in Trump's head when he was lying? Seems like something you would do if you were being honest about how and why you post.

Right. And since, again, I'm saying they did a lot more than just ask people to do stuff, I'm at a loss as to why you keep talking about whether asking people to do something counts as preparing. Why reply to my post if you're not replying to my words? Seems like just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, which by your definition must be a hateful thing for you to be doing.

I addition to random sweeps, they heavily targeted their testing. Anyone shows symptoms, they trace their contacts and test everyone they reasonably believe could have been infected by them. Any of them show positive they trace their contacts etc etc. Given that sooner or later with any cluster of infections someone is going to be symptomatic and get that initial test, you end up finding pretty much every infected person in the country despite only having to test a relatively small proportion of them and your numbers are about as good as you can get.

I don't see it that way - Asking is an action - not a preparation. Right, and since they did a lot more than that, it plays straight back into preparedness. Exactly my point. Glad you agree.

Bullshit. You already tried this argument, and you already subsequently admitted there was no drastically damaging panic when the public found out there was a real threat and people were dying. Even if you take the extremely slender possibility that he was genuinely trying to help when he was lying to the public (a thing which seems rather unlikely given that he has subsequently even lied about lying) it turns out it was a pointless, counterproductive and incompetent thing to do and he'd have been better off telling the truth like a normal person.

They did a lot more than just ask, which plays straight back into preparedness.

10 days earlier...

Where the virus came from and whether they did everything right or wrong there isn't hugely relevant right now. You can disect it later, but it's done and finished and you can't change it. The decisions our leaders are making on an ongoing basis are important right now, and the things they are saying are imprtant right now. And if pointing out that they are making bad decisions or saying things that aren't true helps provide some pressure for better decisions and honest communication then that's a lot more relevant. But it's obvious why you'd want to miss that point so you can continue throwing hate at anyone you disagree with here.

Analogy? I'm directly describing what happened. There's no analogy of any kind. I have no idea what this sentence means. Are you trying the 'baffle with bullshit' approach? Regardless, I said nothing about trust, just as I said nothing about maliciousness. A second thing for you to retract, if you possessed any honesty. There's a long posting history of disagreeing with Trump because there's an even longer history - documented history - of Trump constantly lying. Yet you say it must be hate to say that yet another known falsehood is a lie. How does that make any sense? You don't have anything like that history with China and health matters yet you assume they are still intentionally lying even though you don't know that what they are saying is false. It makes no sense to say that only one of those views can be rational. Except for the brazen hypocrisy I have outlined already, and the additional hypocrisy above of you assuming malicious motivation, the very thing you wrongly accused me of doing with Trump.

Because faced with a history of deception, you assume that following statements are intentional falsehoods (even though you don't even know whether they are false), and this doesn't require you to hate anyone. In the other thread I and others have, faced with a history of deception from Trump, said that a statement we know is false and which others in the Admin knew at the time was false, was a lie. You said this must be ascribing malicious intent which we're only doing because of hate. Is that a sufficiently detailed description of that brazen hypocrisy for you to understand?

And the brazen hypocrisy of your statement escapes you... why?

Hmm, assuming that certain people are lying... Turtle, just for complete clarity here could you confirm that you hate the Chinese government?

If he's been told it's not true, or indeed if he hasn't been told anything definitive yet he presents it as fact - that's still a lie. That's what a lie is. That's just as bad, if not worse. What kind of defense is 'He wasn't lying, he's just chronically incompetent due to unchecked ADD?" The maliciousness angle is just your invention. No-one has he was maliciously lying, just that he was lying. I don't think he lied with the intention of hurting people as a result, but that doesn't excuse the lie or change the results. In fact, by inventing a statement and ascribing it to hate surely you are now accusing us of lying with malicious intent towards Trump? Which, by your own argument, means you are showing hatred towards us? I'd expect an apology and retraction... if you're honest.

I don't really have an issue with him believing his own life isn't worth protecting at all costs, but even if all the oldies agreed with him the problem with his stance is contained right at the very end of his statement - "“Look, I’m going to do everything I can do to live,” Patrick said. “But if you said, are you willing to take a chance … If I get sick, I’ll go and try to get better, but if I don’t, I don’t.”" If he and all te other grandparents willing to sacrifice themselves do get sick, how are they going to try and get better? They'll ask the health service to make them better. And we've aready seen how that is playing out in Italy, even with a belated lockdown in place.

At the moment, yes - but we have yet to see what effect the lifting of restrictions will have. There are several warnings out there that lockdown alone isn't going to stop this and we're likely to see new outbreaks of infection all over again every time the lockdowns finish. Where Wuhan is now is encouraging, but we really need to wait and see what Wuhan looks like a few weeks after people start moving freely around again.

Sigh. So why did Mike Pence say the day before that testing capacity was insufficient? Why were other state governors and officials already complaining that they didn't have sufficient tests or facilities to keep up? Why did other administration officials start walking back Trump's briefing promise that same day? The chances that he was the one single guy in the administration with access to the press who didn't get given the right information is...?

Of what? There's no genuine question to be answered, it's just pointless noise.

It's a response to the dishonesty and hypocrisy you exhibit over and over again in publically claiming you're better than most everyone else you talk to here. I've never said I do. If you use the criteria you do for Trump you'd accuse yourself of bias for accusing me of anything of the sort without any definite, 100% proof to back it up.

What question? What value does a pedantic (and not even correct) jab about intelligence being a thing that must come from intelligence agencies add to the discussion? Do you really need an answer from someone here in order to realise that there will have been some branch of the CDC or NSC able to brief the President on the availability of tests before he went on TV to talk about the availability of tests? I mean honestly, it was pointless asking the question in the first place, it's downright juvenile to keep pushing the issue. Seriously, what the actual fuck are you hoping to accomplish here?

Fixed it for you. And yet the news was telling the truth about about this thing when Trump was still saying cases in the US would soon go from 16 to zero, and while Airdvr was still calling it a big nothingburger. In comparison to the good work being done out there, Trump would have made a fucking awful reporter.

No. He didn't make them (yet). He bought them. "China had an oversupply, so we bought 1255 FDA-approved ResMed, Philips & Medtronic ventilators on Friday night & airshipped them to LA," Musk said

But you don't admit it. You just denied a constant and repeated example of your bias that is as obvious as the nose on your face. You lie about recognising it, you lie about admitting it in any meaningful way. That is the difference.