Trump Idea Flagpole Thread

[JettaKnight]

I was wondering which one of the three of you it would be. Not the one I would have bet on

Well, I gotta keep working - the 2200 post spread between us is too close for comfort!

 

[NKBJ]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...-review-complaints-of-online-bias-11590238800

The social media corporations are de facto public utilities. I shudder to think of them being regulated further but as everyone with two synapses to rub together has already figured out, the fake left and the fake right want to control it.

It's not really left versus right. It's good versus evil.
And evil spends 99% of it's time plotting on how to get its way.

 

[foszoe]

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...ming-army-bases-named-for-confederate-leaders

Pandering to the base?

Pun intended

 

[foszoe]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-vote-strip-Confederate-names-Army-bases.html

Looks like more dissension in the ranks!

 

[foszoe]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/05/hahn-coronavirus-trump-infection-348954

 

[BugI02]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/05/hahn-coronavirus-trump-infection-348954

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html
COVIDView
A Weekly Surveillance Summary of US COVID-19 Activity

The overall cumulative COVID-19 associated hospitalization rate is 102.5 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people 65 years of age and older (306.7 per 100,000) followed by people 50-64 years (155.0 per 100,000). Hospitalization rates are cumulative and will increase as the COVID-19 pandemic continues.
Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native persons have an age-adjusted hospitalization rate approximately 5.7 times that of non-Hispanic White persons, non-Hispanic Black persons have a rate approximately 4.7 times that of non-Hispanic White persons, and Hispanic or Latino persons have a rate approximately 4.5 times that of non-Hispanic White persons.
Cumulative hospitalization rates for COVID-19 in adults (18-64 years) at this time are higher than cumulative end-of-season hospitalization rates for influenza over each of the past 5 influenza seasons.
For people 65 years and older, current cumulative COVID-19 hospitalization rates at this time are higher than cumulative end-of season hospitalization rates for influenza for 4 of the 5 past influenza seasons; lower only than rates observed during the 2017-18 season.
For children (0-17 years), cumulative COVID-19 hospitalization rates are much lower than cumulative influenza hospitalization rates at comparable time points* during recent influenza seasons.
Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) decreased from 9.0% during week 25 to 5.9% during week 26, representing the tenth consecutive week during which a declining percentage of deaths due to PIC has been recorded. The percentage is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely change as additional death certificates for deaths during recent weeks are processed.

So, CoVid-19 associated hospitalization is 102.5 per 100000, which is 0.1025%. The rate of all respiratory syndrome related death (which includes influenza and pneumonia) is 5.9% of that (because deaths are a proper subset of hospitalizations), so 102.5 x 0.059 = 6.0475/100000 will die (0.00605%), per the CDC. That translates to 99.9% who contract this will be hospitalized, and less than 99.994% of the people who contract this will die. Trump is correct

 

[foszoe]

So harmless equates to not dying by this logic?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html
COVIDView
A Weekly Surveillance Summary of US COVID-19 Activity





So, CoVid-19 associated hospitalization is 102.5 per 100000, which is 0.1025%. The rate of all respiratory syndrome related death (which includes influenza and pneumonia) is 5.9% of that (because deaths are a proper subset of hospitalizations), so 102.5 x 0.059 = 6.0475/100000 will die (0.00605%), per the CDC. That translates to 99.9% who contract this will be hospitalized, and less than 99.994% of the people who contract this will die. Trump is correct

Where do you account

 

[BugI02]

So harmless equates to not dying by this logic?



Where do you account

From the C.E.D.

harmless
adjective


not able or not likely to cause harm:

If 99.9% of those that contract it do not require hospitalization, what other datum (actually being captured) would you like to use to determine harmful/harmless

 

[foszoe]

From the C.E.D.



If 99.9% of those that contract it do not require hospitalization, what other datum (actually being captured) would you like to use to determine harmful/harmless

Loss of lung function.

 

[jamil]

Loss of lung function.

Does that require hospitalization?

 

[foszoe]

Does that require hospitalization?

No

 

[jamil]

Loss of lung function sounds serious. What percentage of people who get covid have loss of lung function?

 

[foszoe]

Don't know. Loss of smell also is listed. Is that harmless?

Living with someone that is tested yearly for lung function due to a disease, I can personally guarantee it doesn't take hospitalization to occur.

 

[jamil]

Don't know. Loss of smell also is listed. Is that harmless?

Living with someone that is tested yearly for lung function due to a disease, I can personally guarantee it doesn't take hospitalization to occur.

According to the medical experts I saw on the news yesterday, sense of smell and taste usually return in a month. So I suppose you could say that's temporary "harm". But if we're being honest, aren't you guys quibbling for points?

 

[foszoe]

According to the medical experts I saw on the news yesterday, sense of smell and taste usually return in a month. So I suppose you could say that's temporary "harm". But if we're being honest, aren't you guys quibbling for points?

We always are. except I think he cares a little more for points.

Harmless is a broad brush is all I am saying and trying it to hospitalization rates is disingenuous.

9/11 syndrome comes to mind. In a broader sense, saying we know all the consequences of anything 9 months afterwards is silly and that should be self evident to any critically thinking person.

 

[jamil]

We always are.  except I think he cares a little more for points.

Harmless is a broad brush is all I am saying and trying it to hospitalization rates is disingenuous.

9/11 syndrome comes to mind. In a broader sense, saying we know all the consequences of anything 9 months afterwards is silly and that should be self evident to any critically thinking person.

Maybe there is some long term harm done by the virus. But I don’t think you know for certain any more than he does. And, don’t get me wrong, the unknown is a pretty good reason for caution. But the confidence with which we as a nation have executed caution seems to me is too much for what is justifiable.

I keep hearing both sides lamenting how a thing like wearing masks has become so political, yet both sides display way more confidence in their faith that everything is as they believe it. The left has no more solid basis to believe that masks will save them than the right has that they won’t help at all. Wearing masks has become just as much a moral purity signal for the left as putting a BLM sticker on their bumper. That’s politicizing it just as much as right wingers believing it’s a mind control conspiracy. It’s no less delusional. So I’d say calm the **** down about the masks already. Maybe they’re helpful sometimes. Maybe they’re useless other times.

If you’re around a lot of people where you can’t properly distance yourself, maybe wearing a mask in case you’re infected is of benefit overall. If you see someone in their car alone, the windows rolled up, and he doesn’t have a mask on, maybe you shouldn’t work yourself into a tizzy. It’s okay. That person isn’t harming anyone. Maybe you’re just having an ideological delusion induced panic attack.

 

[foszoe]

That is probably a key difference between myself and those here who think I am disagreeing with them. I am very reticent to state anything as factual. On the internet, this is especially true since usually temporal proximity is in play and most if not all of the facts are known, although there are other times also. I admit I leave things "up in the air". That's true here and IRL. It's not a matter of hating to be wrong, it's an issue of being as right as possible. Not lying. Been awhile but my longest posts have always been in the religious threads and that is for a reason. For there is where my anchor lies. The less I research something, the less likely I am willing to make definitive statements about it.

I know Chip likes his science, but like it or not, given lack of time or data, people usually fall back on heuristics. I would state that as a fact even!

Since masks came up AGAIN in your post, I will use them as an example. I think it shows how people can arrive at two different things. When this all started, there were two narratives in the news, there was a tremendous mask shortage for healthcare workers AND wearing a mask does the general public no good.

In the original narratives that AND was very important. AFTER mask production ramps up and there was enough for the healthcare workers THEN we are told we should wear masks.

Now my immediate conclusion that I relayed to others was...."They are telling us masks are not beneficial because there is a shortage and they want to prevent the general public from hoarding the supply."

So from that time on I have been predisposed to discount the narrative "masks do nothing". Most here seem to have latched on to "masks are no good" and "masks are good" as a flip flop.

Starting from those two positions, one can look for science to support "their" side. However, to me, that is turning science on its head and making it political.

So back to "harmless". I wouldn't make that statement until after we make it more of this. Say maybe a year? Saying it's 99% harmless? That's saying a lot AND without defining harmless, as the last few posts have shown, it allows goalpost moving, for both sides, whether Bug will admit it or not

Harmless, to me means, simply no long term side effects, none, zero, nada. Long term to me means lasting more than one season of the illness if it behaves like a "flu" and becomes annual.

Maybe there is some long term harm done by the virus. But I don’t think you know for certain any more than he does. And, don’t get me wrong, the unknown is a pretty good reason for caution. But the confidence with which we as a nation have executed caution seems to me is too much for what is justifiable.

I keep hearing both sides lamenting how a thing like wearing masks has become so political, yet both sides display way more confidence in their faith that everything is as they believe it. The left has no more solid basis to believe that masks will save them than the right has that they won’t help at all. Wearing masks has become just as much a moral purity signal for the left as putting a BLM sticker on their bumper. That’s politicizing it just as much as right wingers believing it’s a mind control conspiracy. It’s no less delusional. So I’d say calm the **** down about the masks already. Maybe they’re helpful sometimes. Maybe they’re useless other times.

If you’re around a lot of people where you can’t properly distance yourself, maybe wearing a mask in case you’re infected is of benefit overall. If you see someone in their car alone, the windows rolled up, and he doesn’t have a mask on, maybe you shouldn’t work yourself into a tizzy. It’s okay. That person isn’t harming anyone. Maybe you’re just having an ideological delusion induced panic attack.

 

[BugI02]

The problem is seldom putting objective constraints on your assertions so as to leave wiggle room to fall back to the position of what you 'really' meant. Posting a link to a story headlined that Trump's 99% figure isn't supported. When I show you (with CDC numbers I might add) that in fact that number is justified, you move to debating the meaning of 'harmless'. When I provide you with the C.E.D. first definition of 'harmless' you then move to rare outcomes not even unique to WuVid 19. We recognize backing and filling when we see it because we've seen it before. I expect an argument about angelic dance floor capacity at Club Tête d'epingle at any moment. I suspect that you are the one who enjoys arguing for its own sake, perhaps your degree was in that 'discipline'. Homey don't play that

 

[foszoe]

I missed your definition of harmless. I will look again.

I also missed Trump's.

Trump and I share the same trait you outline here...you just like it when he does it

The problem is seldom putting objective constraints on your assertions so as to leave wiggle room to fall back to the position of what you 'really' meant. Posting a link to a story headlined that Trump's 99% figure isn't supported. When I show you (with CDC numbers I might add) that in fact that number is justified, you move to debating the meaning of 'harmless'. When I provide you with the C.E.D. first definition of 'harmless' you then move to rare outcomes not even unique to WuVid 19. We recognize backing and filling when we see it because we've seen it before. I expect an argument about angelic dance floor capacity at Club Tête d'epingle at any moment. I suspect that you are the one who enjoys arguing for its own sake, perhaps your degree was in that 'discipline'. Homey don't play that

 

[BugI02]

Fail. He said '99% of WuVid 19 infections are harmless', that is a specific, checkable claim and it was so checked. He was not claiming 100%. It is analagous to claiming 99% of mosquito bites in the US are harmless, despite the fact a rare individual could contract west nile or St. Louis encephalitis from one and potentially die. The 99% is a crucial modifier for harmless