jakee

It doesn’t matter. We went through all this with Trump and to Ron only winning matters, no matter how you do it. When he looks at a successful criminal all he sees is the success.

But again, the death rate is irrelevant when it comes to knowing that there's potential for complete collapse of healthcare. Unless you're going to bet that the death rate is low enough that it's acceptable to not bother treating people.

You didn't understand anything I just said. Where did I lose you? Which bit of the article was confusing?

The fatality rate is a red herring, unless the suggestion is to not bother treating people and hope the fatality rate turns out to be acceptably low. Otherwise, the data point you can focus on is what the virus has the potential to do to our healthcare systems https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/opinion/coronavirus-italy.html

It is worrying that all the candidates are so damn old. Any one of Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg would be the oldest president ever, right after the oldest president ever. You'd have thought that social media would make it easier for younger politicians to raise their profiles enough to have a chance but the opposite seems to be happening. Strange.

No. He gets criticised for changing his mind then blatantly lying about it, saying he was right all along even before anyone else was right. How can you make that assessment? He isn't and hasn't been doing everything right, and people are correct in pointing that out. In the post you are replying to, he is at fault. It doesn't need to be found it's right out in the open. Now be honest, if this was a Democrat politician you'd be screaming from the rooftops about it. You'd find their lies outrageous. In fact, think of it this way - last year you even started a thread to say a particular democrat was an unelectable idiot because he accidentally used the wrong gender pronoun and wouldn't accept that he'd corrected himself hours later. But you don't think Trump's reversal and lies about his reversal are worthy of even being mentioned?

A) You criticise the media all the time. All. The. Time. You think they're all dishonest and self serving pretty much all the time. It's hypocritical of you to take issue with someone else criticising a media outlet, and it demonstrates your immense bias that the one outlet you decide to defend is Fox. B ) It would be one thing if they admitted they'd made a mistake or changed their minds. But they don't. They just pivot form one thing to another and claim they were right all along. Like Hannity - "This virus is serious, we’ve been telling you that from day one." Errr, nope, no they haven't. C) It's all tied in with more partisan support of Trump over discussion of the truth. As soon as Trump starts taking it seriously they start taking it seriously, and claim that Trump has been taking it the most seriously of anyone since day one despite the fact that they were both downplaying it until last weekend. So no, what they're doing is not the same as someone else just changing their mind.

But unlikely. The source quoted may have been involved in drafting bio weapons legislation but he has no scientific education. He’s a lawyer, and by the look of it has a history of being a neo-liberal conspiracy theorist.

Screening? But isn't it all just a media sensation?

You posted in the wrong thread. A joke this good should be in 'election humour'.

It is exactly the same logic. If doctors are governed by the profit motive they won’t make costly preparations for extremely rare events like this.

I remember this was basically the Republican party motto during the Bush years as well - "Hey, at least we're not China!" Way to aim high, guys.

You had a choice to address the points I made or just get personal straight away. No surprise which way you went. You used to be reasonable, dude. What happened to you?

I can't really agree on that since I don't know what you mean by politicizing the football. the level of disaster response and preparedness is ultimately in the hands of politicians, and to honestly critique what you have inevitably involves criticizing the decisions made by those politicians. For instance, Obama put in place a pandemic office in the NSC and measure to better coordinate all relevant agencies during a Pandemic. Trump, who never seems to learn anything, dissolved that office and those measures without replacement and then blamed Obama for not leaving the country better prepared when this pandemic did hit. It seems to me it is less political to point that out than not.

Interestingly enough despite their similar effects the closest relationship that flu and Sars etc have is that they're both part of the realm of RNA viruses. Beneath that it's all different.

Nope.

So fucking lazy.

H1N1, the 2009 thing, isn't a coronavirus. You're thinking of Sars from 2002/3.

You mean, like Trump is doing instead of providing genuine leadership? I’ve honestly never understood this idea that we should stop holding political leaders to account at times when their actions can have the most serious effects. The epitome was when Bush and Blair took us into Iraq, and anyone opposing them was told that in the best interests of the country they should shut up and start supporting the leadership in the name of national unity. Turns out that was all bollocks and the best thing everyone could have done was shout as loudly as possible that they were lying warmongers with no justification and no real plan. Even the orange idiot realises that, which is why one of his lies is to claim he did oppose them at that time. Same applies here, there is no benefit to blindly supporting the leadership when the leaders aren’t doing a good job.

Then a piece of advice, start ignoring the conspiracy theorists. In those cases it's really not a good idea to give equal weight to two sources.

So because some people here own businesses you asked Bill, who you know is an engineer in San Diego, if he was a business owner in New York? You really like to lie, don't you?

Well then, by the same logic a doctor or hospital that needs to spend their own profits stockpiling beds, equipment and drugs that will only be needed once in a blue moon isn't going to do so. Human nature and all.

Trumps travel ban lasts for four weeks. But sure, the reason for the media to spend more than three weeks talking about it would be to damage Trump, not because there's something actually happening. Just like airdvr - lazy, lazy thinking.

Again, utterly baffling how one day you're taking pride in your own sense of humour, and another day you're posting this.

Who are they listening to? I haven’t seen any yet who agree with the policy as it is. “Then more reason to keep them out in the first place if they're not going to listen to the advice of medical experts.” Which medical experts are advising any cross border travellers to be quarantined for two weeks?