Wow, Trump did a proper press briefing yesterday. Truth is out there. Trolls fall in line now.



I don't think it was arrogance. We weren't given good advice and, yes, there weren't enough masks to go around. We weren't prepared and we were let down.

When the virus is already in the country and spreading, stopping flights is not of much use. That horse has bolted. Sounds good to the xenophobes, of course. But one look at New York will tell you how relatively pointless it was.

which was that masks work and that a critical difference between the West's response and the East's response (and their clearly different results) was that the East wore masks. — Hanover

Yes, absolutely. It's predominantly spread in droplets, so it's nuts that we all haven't been wearing masks from the beginning. Interesting also the comment about eyes. A huge percentage of East Asians wear glasses and that provides a barrier from absorption through the eyes. Glasses and masks. Get a pair of goggles to go with your fancy get-up there. Again, if we had done that from the beginning in conjunction with a short lockdown, we might not all be in the shit now.

+ You might be interested in this, frank. I think we discussed South Korea before.

I employed a phrasal synonym aptly descriptive of my targets' scientific quasi-euphemism, not a direct quote from either; hence no quotation marks. Next time, please engage cognitive gears before digital flexors.



My locale (fairly similar spot to yours I reckon):





It'd be remiss not to consider that conclusion given what's going on.

The worldometer is where I get all my data, and that's what I'm basing this on, including all columns, the log curve, and the situation on the ground in the UK (my brother lives in London, which is soon to become New York in terms of cases). Germany, China, and South Korea are maybe the most interesting countries to talk about though. More on that later.

Hope Britons never forget that Boris and Cummings' initial strategy of culling the herd is the reason for the totally avoidable chaos to come.

Yes, the UK is surging and will be a basket case within a week sadly.

This one is kind of biblical:

It's a stupidly worded survey. But it's not too difficult to disentangle the two questions.

A. The first is a general question and the second is specifically about Trump.
B. The first asks about whether the news is trustworthy in a general sense. The second asks about pro and anti-Trump bias for the specific purposes of passing or blocking Trump's agenda.

There is zero issue with not trusting political news in general but not believing that most reporters are actively trying to block or pass Trump's agenda.

For example:

1) It's possible to mistrust the majority of political news but still trust the majority of news about Trump.
2) It's possible to mistrust the majority of news and mistrust the majority of news about Trump but still not believe that the majority of journalists are actively biased one way or the other against Trump.
3) It's possible to mistrust the majority of news and mistrust the majority of news about Trump and even believe that the majority of journalists are actively biased one way or the other against Trump, but still not believe that they are trying to help block or pass his agenda.

Etc.

Specifically only in relation to Trump and specifically in relation to helping to block or pass his agenda. Hardly a surprise that more Republicans think the media is trying to block Trump's agenda, is it? So this:

On a related note, I am just reading that opinion research shows that only democratic voters believe that most reporters are simply trying to report the news in a non-biased fashion. — Nobeernolife

is a lie. You presented no evidence for the above. But this is typical of the right-wing Reddit brigade, lie, lie, lie and then blame CNN and the MSM for spreading fake news.

What's even worse about this lie is that according to the very same research you now linked to, a plurality of Dems don't trust the political news they are getting, which strongly implies that in general, they don't believe that most reporters are simply trying to report the news in a non-biased fashion. Exactly the opposite of your claim.

You can reg for free. I know I ain't payin' and I saw it.

I think I'm on to a winner here.

Nice speech though. You're hired for the next time I deliberately trip over a loose paving stone.

Where did I wish death on him??

“Let’s see how it works,” Trump said in his daily briefing Sunday. “It may, it may not.”

Fine, but let's use Boris Johnson as the guinea pig then rather than people who are worth caring about.

Far as I remember, the WHO first implied the virus was part of a Democratic hoax and then said everything would be fine because it would melt in April. Blood all over their hands! No, wait...

It doesn't copy the OP but it copies everything else. In this case there was no "everything else".

Full determination, absolute consistency, and a clear unwavering plan = the virus.

Weakness, incoherency, and movement in random directions = Trump.

Wonder who's going to win this one?

@StreetlightX dealt with that afaik.

I can't find any argument in your post relating to something I said except the false claim that I'm promoting panic. I would be against that. I am also against faffing about. I'll leave you to work out why those are consistent.

And we will make no apologies for banning crackpots. That has nothing to do with official narratives. If you find that funny, feel free to laugh into your Kool aid.

Quote reputable data from a reputable source if you want to debate the issue. And quote where the data contradicts anything I've said. Don't send me to conspiracy/pseudoscience sites unless it's to inform me that you're a nutjob not worth engaging with.

[Category: "CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/offguardian/ ]

Sorry, dude. I was specifically referring to our argument and just wanted to make things simple. :halo:

It'd actually be 27,000 / (8 billion x 100). — Hanover

There are two people having this conversation argument, Hanover. What number and what percentage of them are right?

1 (number of correct people, me)/2 (total number of people, me and you) = 0.5. Now multiply by 100 = 50% of the people in this conversation argument are right.

Your calculation would give 1/(2x100) = 0.5%. See?

I provided. accurate raw data. The incorrect commentary is your own. — Hanover

It's 4 not 0.4, but 0.4 was funnier. In any case your figure...

The worldwide coronavirus death rate has now risen to .00000004%. — Hanover

...is completely wrong. There are 8 billion people in the world. 1% of 8 billion is 80 million. 0.1% is 8 million. 0.01% = 800,000. 0.001% is 80,000 (roughly twice the current death rate). 0.0001% = 8,000. 0.00001% = 800. 0.000001% = 80. 0.0000001% = 8. 0. .00000004% (your figure) is about 4.

For anyone interested, a quick calculation tells me the current number of the world population that has already died from coronavirus expressed as a percentage is 0.00034 (27,000 / 8 billion x 100). Maintaining growth of that figure at current levels without any mitigation (30% increase per day*) would result in 1.15% of the world's population dead in one month.** Fun times in Hanoverland. :kiss:

Edit: *The current increase in death rate from most recent figures from below is actually closer to 20% but is accelerating (March 24=18,000 deaths >> March 27th = 27,000 deaths). Anyhow, whether it's a month or a year or somewhere in between, it's in the near future and we don't have time to faff about.



https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

**When basically everyone has it. (Result comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu which caused the death of somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5% of the world's population).

So, overall, 0.4 of a person has died from coronavirus? Wow, it really is a hoax then.

Anyway, yes, let's open things up now, because no matter what the death rate is, we need MORE.

The are lots of caveats, but if you can enforce the hammer, it works, and to the extent you can enforce it, all other things being equal (testing, tracking etc) you get less infections and less deaths. Wanting that is not an ideological position. Not wanting it because it's "authoritarian" is and proportionately irrational.

Well, thank you... STALIN!

He's empirically right.

The data:

Countries that vacillated, gave contradictory signals, and resisted "authoritarian measures": An uninterrupted rising log curve. Practical result so far: Close to maximum infection rate, maximum deaths.




Countries that embraced "authoritarian" measures but were slow in doing so: A gradually flattening log curve. Practical result so far: Maximum infection rate and deaths to begin with, now gradually reducing, but not before inflicting chaos.




A country that had no problem immediately applying "authoritarian" measures: A quicky flattened log curve. Close to minimal infection rate/deaths.



See also, Taiwan, Singapore etc.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

This is why the talk of authoritarianism is weasel talk. There is a winning strategy here. It's illustrated by the final log curve. It's called "The Hammer". Done right, it takes about a month and you minimize both economic damage and loss of life. You don't have to be authoritarian to support it, you just have to be not stupid. (And ironically not implementing it results in having to apply even more authoritarianism down the line just so your country doesn't fall to pieces.)

There's the data. Again, those arguing against "authoritarian" moves are empirically wrong. In a situation like this, you play the winning strategy and return to your political starting point, or you vacillate, play politics, and descend into chaos.

(And this doesn't mean you only rely on "authoritarian measures", mass testing and tracking is also important, but there is nothing more effective than an immediate and total lockdown. No contact, no spread.)

"We must of course have equality of treatment, patients with this virus will be treated for free, and they’ll be treated as part of a single, national hospital service"

:clap: :clap:

:up:

On cue, Ireland has been put on full lockdown because people kept doing stupid things. Which sucks as I can't go more than 2km from home now. But whatever, needs to be done. I called for a full lockdown two weeks ago. The sooner you do it, the shorter it is.



Regardless of government advice, I would just use my common sense and not put a vulnerable person at risk.

According to your own story, you went up to her to try to carry her groceries, which would involve obliterating the 2m rule. If you are too stupid to obey simple precautions, just stay the fuck at home. People like you are the reason the rest of us have to be put on full lockdown.

Personally I require no government to tell me that and I fear for people who do. — NOS4A2

Yes you do, you just walked up to an old lady and potentially infected her while sensible people were moving away to keep her safe. It's idiocy like this that needs to be controlled.

I was responding to this not criticizing you.

So what do people think about Trump's new idea: — ssu

This is Trump we're talking about. It seems to me a cover for premature openings.

Stupid. Everywhere is high risk and anything labeled low risk automatically becomes higher risk when opened up.

I'd rather die from a natural cause — Anthony

Please do so before posting again.

Well, I just took a shit and named it after your President. If the covid gets him, I suggest you run that. It would have a fighting chance against Biden.