"Hoax!" is a convenient strawman. Excuse me, strawzir.
Meh, fuggit, not worth typing more. Trust in government competence, @HHusky , I'm sure it'll turn out great.
The underreaction of the federal government has not inspired confidence, I agree.
Sled, Ivan and Race seem to be on the Hoax Wagon. If you have a more nuanced position, that would be rfreshing.
I've written 100x more than prudent about the whole shitshow. Read, or don't, at your leisure. As a Wash-en-tone-ean, I've given up hope at this point. Nothing I say or do matters.
What approach are you advocating vis-a-vis the virus?
Lighting yourself on fire should kill any virus...you should try it.
"Hoax!" is a convenient strawman. Excuse me, strawzir.
Meh, fuggit, not worth typing more. Trust in government competence, @HHusky , I'm sure it'll turn out great.
The underreaction of the federal government has not inspired confidence, I agree.
Sled, Ivan and Race seem to be on the Hoax Wagon. If you have a more nuanced position, that would be rfreshing.
I've written 100x more than prudent about the whole shitshow. Read, or don't, at your leisure. As a Wash-en-tone-ean, I've given up hope at this point. Nothing I say or do matters.
What approach are you advocating vis-a-vis the virus?
It's truly pathetic how much I posted about it. It's there for you to read. A fair amount of what I predicted or analyzed turned out correct. A good chunk hasn't, too.
"Hoax!" is a convenient strawman. Excuse me, strawzir.
Meh, fuggit, not worth typing more. Trust in government competence, @HHusky , I'm sure it'll turn out great.
The underreaction of the federal government has not inspired confidence, I agree.
Sled, Ivan and Race seem to be on the Hoax Wagon. If you have a more nuanced position, that would be rfreshing.
I've written 100x more than prudent about the whole shitshow. Read, or don't, at your leisure. As a Wash-en-tone-ean, I've given up hope at this point. Nothing I say or do matters.
What approach are you advocating vis-a-vis the virus?
What's your national approach dick face. You've only been asked a thousand times
"Hoax!" is a convenient strawman. Excuse me, strawzir.
Meh, fuggit, not worth typing more. Trust in government competence, @HHusky , I'm sure it'll turn out great.
The underreaction of the federal government has not inspired confidence, I agree.
Sled, Ivan and Race seem to be on the Hoax Wagon. If you have a more nuanced position, that would be rfreshing.
I've written 100x more than prudent about the whole shitshow. Read, or don't, at your leisure. As a Wash-en-tone-ean, I've given up hope at this point. Nothing I say or do matters.
What approach are you advocating vis-a-vis the virus?
What's your national approach dick face. You've only been asked a thousand times
If only the federal government had banned people like HH from traveling on airplanes for non essential travel and willfully spreading the deadly serious disease to others.
"Hoax!" is a convenient strawman. Excuse me, strawzir.
Meh, fuggit, not worth typing more. Trust in government competence, @HHusky , I'm sure it'll turn out great.
The underreaction of the federal government has not inspired confidence, I agree.
Sled, Ivan and Race seem to be on the Hoax Wagon. If you have a more nuanced position, that would be rfreshing.
I've written 100x more than prudent about the whole shitshow. Read, or don't, at your leisure. As a Wash-en-tone-ean, I've given up hope at this point. Nothing I say or do matters.
What approach are you advocating vis-a-vis the virus?
What's your national approach dick face. You've only been asked a thousand times
You mean you asked once before.
The Feds could have been the one purchaser of PPE, etc., instead of making the states bid against each other.
We could have had a unified policy of being open or not.
I wouldn't have called for the "liberation" of states with Democratic governors.
I wouldn't have trivialized the threat.
My message would have been that we can't have a healthy economy before we get the virus under control.
Unified approach? Like your unified approach to paying more taxes? You feel you have a moral obligation to pay more taxes but won't until the government forces everyone to pay more taxes. South Dakota is just like NYC. The dazzler's unified approach - young people are just like old people.
"Hoax!" is a convenient strawman. Excuse me, strawzir.
Meh, fuggit, not worth typing more. Trust in government competence, @HHusky , I'm sure it'll turn out great.
The underreaction of the federal government has not inspired confidence, I agree.
Sled, Ivan and Race seem to be on the Hoax Wagon. If you have a more nuanced position, that would be rfreshing.
I've written 100x more than prudent about the whole shitshow. Read, or don't, at your leisure. As a Wash-en-tone-ean, I've given up hope at this point. Nothing I say or do matters.
What approach are you advocating vis-a-vis the virus?
What's your national approach dick face. You've only been asked a thousand times
You mean you asked once before.
The Feds could have been the one purchaser of PPE, etc., instead of making the states bid against each other.
We could have had a unified policy of being open or not.
I wouldn't have called for the "liberation" of states with Democratic governors.
I wouldn't have trivialized the threat.
My message would have been that we can't have a healthy economy before we get the virus under control.
Would Damone have bitched? Of course.
You would have done what Daddy told you to do.
In your turd of tribal blaming, a kernel or two managed to pass through.
Unified approach? Like your unified approach to paying more taxes? You feel you have a moral obligation to pay more taxes but won't until the government forces everyone to pay more taxes. South Dakota is just like NYC. The dazzler's unified approach - young people are just like old people.
The fact you think my argument about taxes has something to do with a moral obligation just shows how poorly you read, Gasbag.
"Hoax!" is a convenient strawman. Excuse me, strawzir.
Meh, fuggit, not worth typing more. Trust in government competence, @HHusky , I'm sure it'll turn out great.
The underreaction of the federal government has not inspired confidence, I agree.
Sled, Ivan and Race seem to be on the Hoax Wagon. If you have a more nuanced position, that would be rfreshing.
I've written 100x more than prudent about the whole shitshow. Read, or don't, at your leisure. As a Wash-en-tone-ean, I've given up hope at this point. Nothing I say or do matters.
What approach are you advocating vis-a-vis the virus?
What's your national approach dick face. You've only been asked a thousand times
You mean you asked once before.
The Feds could have been the one purchaser of PPE, etc., instead of making the states bid against each other.
We could have had a unified policy of being open or not.
I wouldn't have called for the "liberation" of states with Democratic governors.
I wouldn't have trivialized the threat.
My message would have been that we can't have a healthy economy before we get the virus under control.
Would Damone have bitched? Of course.
You would have done what Daddy told you to do.
So you would have shut the whole country down
When and for how long?
What if a state told you to fuck off? Send troops?
Really it sounds like you just have a bunch of bullshit talk
"Hoax!" is a convenient strawman. Excuse me, strawzir.
Meh, fuggit, not worth typing more. Trust in government competence, @HHusky , I'm sure it'll turn out great.
The underreaction of the federal government has not inspired confidence, I agree.
Sled, Ivan and Race seem to be on the Hoax Wagon. If you have a more nuanced position, that would be rfreshing.
I've written 100x more than prudent about the whole shitshow. Read, or don't, at your leisure. As a Wash-en-tone-ean, I've given up hope at this point. Nothing I say or do matters.
What approach are you advocating vis-a-vis the virus?
What's your national approach dick face. You've only been asked a thousand times
You mean you asked once before.
The Feds could have been the one purchaser of PPE, etc., instead of making the states bid against each other.
We could have had a unified policy of being open or not.
I wouldn't have called for the "liberation" of states with Democratic governors.
I wouldn't have trivialized the threat.
My message would have been that we can't have a healthy economy before we get the virus under control.
Would Damone have bitched? Of course.
You would have done what Daddy told you to do.
So you would have shut the whole country down
When and for how long?
What if a state told you to fuck off? Send troops?
Really it sounds like you just have a bunch of bullshit talk
Trump did more than you are advocating
We know exactly what the response to a Trump-mandated lockdown would have been. Because we saw the response to international travel ban.
ATBS, I wish Trump had tried, because the country would be wide-open now.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
What do you get as a positive about viewing employees you obviously don’t have as your “little people?” If you do, they should know they are employed by a sociopath. Guessing you view your wife as a subordinate, too.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
What do you get as a positive about viewing employees you obviously don’t have as your “little people?” If you do, they should know they are employed by a sociopath. Guessing you view your wife as a subordinate, too.
I didn't refer to my employees as "little people". But you know better than I do whether travel is optional in my life.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
What do you get as a positive about viewing employees you obviously don’t have as your “little people?” If you do, they should know they are employed by a sociopath. Guessing you view your wife as a subordinate, too.
I didn't refer to my employees as "little people". But you know better than I do whether travel is optional in my life.
Backed by science, the Governor has told his citizens to #StopTheSpread, #StayHomeStaySafe. I can't remember what the safe travel radius is, but certainly less than a commercial flight. You freely disclosed that you felt it was permissible for you to ignore those guidelines. And I defend your right to do so.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
What do you get as a positive about viewing employees you obviously don’t have as your “little people?” If you do, they should know they are employed by a sociopath. Guessing you view your wife as a subordinate, too.
I didn't refer to my employees as "little people". But you know better than I do whether travel is optional in my life.
Backed by science, the Governor has told his citizens to #StopTheSpread, #StayHomeStaySafe. I can't remember what the safe travel radius is, but certainly less than a commercial flight. You freely disclosed that you felt it was permissible for you to ignore those guidelines. And I defend your right to do so.
The task isn't optional. The only question is whether I do it or someone else does it.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
What do you get as a positive about viewing employees you obviously don’t have as your “little people?” If you do, they should know they are employed by a sociopath. Guessing you view your wife as a subordinate, too.
I didn't refer to my employees as "little people". But you know better than I do whether travel is optional in my life.
Backed by science, the Governor has told his citizens to #StopTheSpread, #StayHomeStaySafe. I can't remember what the safe travel radius is, but certainly less than a commercial flight. You freely disclosed that you felt it was permissible for you to ignore those guidelines. And I defend your right to do so.
The task isn't optional. The only question is whether I do it or someone else does it.
Who gets to say whether it is or isn't optional? Many options have been proscribed from many people.
No sense arguing, we agree that individuals are best suited to make those judgments for themselves. Central planning just isn't suited for it.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
What do you get as a positive about viewing employees you obviously don’t have as your “little people?” If you do, they should know they are employed by a sociopath. Guessing you view your wife as a subordinate, too.
I didn't refer to my employees as "little people". But you know better than I do whether travel is optional in my life.
Yes. You said you could have sent a “little person” on your courageous flight to save your failing business to the Midwest. I’ll look it up but you won’t respond. You’re a fat, lazy weirdo who thinks you’re some big shot. UC-Bakersfield! You couldn’t even keep that lie straight about your “daughter,” fatso.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
What do you get as a positive about viewing employees you obviously don’t have as your “little people?” If you do, they should know they are employed by a sociopath. Guessing you view your wife as a subordinate, too.
I didn't refer to my employees as "little people". But you know better than I do whether travel is optional in my life.
Backed by science, the Governor has told his citizens to #StopTheSpread, #StayHomeStaySafe. I can't remember what the safe travel radius is, but certainly less than a commercial flight. You freely disclosed that you felt it was permissible for you to ignore those guidelines. And I defend your right to do so.
The task isn't optional. The only question is whether I do it or someone else does it.
Who gets to say whether it is or isn't optional? Many options have been proscribed from many people.
No sense arguing, we agree that individuals are best suited to make those judgments for themselves. Central planning just isn't suited for it.
If the matter I'm attending to had been proscribed, the task wouldn't have to be attended to. But it wasn't, so someone has to accomplish the task.
People understandably contend that a person who is diagnosed with the coronavirus, but dies of a separate health issue, should not count as a “coronavirus death.” (For example, George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.) The oft-cited death number probably involves certain elderly patients who were likely to die from any significant stress to their health.
But just as there’s evidence for an overcount, there’s even more evidence for an undercount. A lack of available tests in the early days meant that certain deaths that were probably connected to the virus were never officially diagnosed. The overall U.S. death toll from the start of the pandemic jumped — way higher than the official death toll from the virus: “The 781,000 total deaths in the United States in the three months through May 30 were about 122,300, or nearly 19 percent higher, than what would normally be expected.”
. . .
We can quibble with this or that aspect of the data. I think that if you account for all of the errors and factors that can lead to overcounts and undercounts, it’s more likely we’re undercounting the deaths than overcounting. But even if you assume that one out of every ten official deaths is miscategorized, and shouldn’t be counted as a coronavirus-driven . . . the death count this morning is past 141,000. If the real count is closer to 127,000 . . . how much does that change your perception of the problem? What does the country’s total number of deaths need to reach before everyone will concur, “Wow, this is really bad”? What do you have to see to conclude that it’s not a hoax, that the CDC and doctors are not lying, and that the threat this virus presents is not overhyped?
Because if the answer is, “Nothing will ever convince me of that,” . . . well, then we are no longer discussing what is actually happening; we’re discussing something akin to an article of faith.
Boris the Copy/Paste Lightweight links from an anti-Trump rag. No wonder your business is going under. Early retirement looming.
How was the article I linked an anti-Trump piece, Boris? In your own words.
What do you get as a positive about viewing employees you obviously don’t have as your “little people?” If you do, they should know they are employed by a sociopath. Guessing you view your wife as a subordinate, too.
I didn't refer to my employees as "little people". But you know better than I do whether travel is optional in my life.
Backed by science, the Governor has told his citizens to #StopTheSpread, #StayHomeStaySafe. I can't remember what the safe travel radius is, but certainly less than a commercial flight. You freely disclosed that you felt it was permissible for you to ignore those guidelines. And I defend your right to do so.
The task isn't optional. The only question is whether I do it or someone else does it.
Who gets to say whether it is or isn't optional? Many options have been proscribed from many people.
No sense arguing, we agree that individuals are best suited to make those judgments for themselves. Central planning just isn't suited for it.
Needs to be a unified approach. Except if the dazzler is involved.
Comments
It's truly pathetic how much I posted about it. It's there for you to read. A fair amount of what I predicted or analyzed turned out correct. A good chunk hasn't, too.
The Feds could have been the one purchaser of PPE, etc., instead of making the states bid against each other.
We could have had a unified policy of being open or not.
I wouldn't have called for the "liberation" of states with Democratic governors.
I wouldn't have trivialized the threat.
My message would have been that we can't have a healthy economy before we get the virus under control.
Would Damone have bitched? Of course.
You would have done what Daddy told you to do.
When and for how long?
What if a state told you to fuck off? Send troops?
Really it sounds like you just have a bunch of bullshit talk
Trump did more than you are advocating
ATBS, I wish Trump had tried, because the country would be wide-open now.
No sense arguing, we agree that individuals are best suited to make those judgments for themselves. Central planning just isn't suited for it.