ERICOPOLY Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 Politicizing the crisis response: President Donald Trump's name will appear on checks sent to millions of Americans to combat the economic effects of the coronavirus in a last-minute Treasury Department order, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN on Tuesday. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/trump-name-checks-coronavirus/index.html
ERICOPOLY Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 President Donald Trump yesterday retweeted a Republican politician's call to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci from his post as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Trump's decision to spread the anti-Fauci tweet came hours after Fauci, in an interview with CNN, said it's "obvious" that the United States could have saved lives by imposing social-distancing measures in February as health experts recommended. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/trump-spreads-firefauci-hashtag-on-twitter-as-pandemic-continues/
Jurgis Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 Politicizing the crisis response: President Donald Trump's name will appear on checks sent to millions of Americans to combat the economic effects of the coronavirus in a last-minute Treasury Department order, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN on Tuesday. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/trump-name-checks-coronavirus/index.html Herr Dicktator is pure Cialdini genius. Buying votes legally.
ERICOPOLY Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 The United States greatly appreciates China's transparency. China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi! - Trump https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1220818115354923009
Dalal.Holdings Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 Politicizing the crisis response: President Donald Trump's name will appear on checks sent to millions of Americans to combat the economic effects of the coronavirus in a last-minute Treasury Department order, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN on Tuesday. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/trump-name-checks-coronavirus/index.html Herr Dicktator is pure Cialdini genius. Buying votes legally. And it will work because people won’t know that Congress has the power of the purse, not the Executive. When this guy is out of office, he should teach a MasterClass in how to fool some of the people—after all, what do you expect from a longtime casino operator?
Liberty Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 https://www.newsweek.com/stimulus-checks-may-delayed-trump-requires-us-treasury-print-his-name-them-1497916
rb Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 Politicizing the crisis response: President Donald Trump's name will appear on checks sent to millions of Americans to combat the economic effects of the coronavirus in a last-minute Treasury Department order, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN on Tuesday. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/trump-name-checks-coronavirus/index.html Herr Dicktator is pure Cialdini genius. Buying votes legally. And it will work because people won’t know that Congress has the power of the purse, not the Executive. When this guy is out of office, he should teach a MasterClass in how to fool some of the people—after all, what do you expect from a longtime casino operator? LOL! Congress should insist that the cheques be signed by "The Nancy"! ✍
Dalal.Holdings Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 Politicizing the crisis response: President Donald Trump's name will appear on checks sent to millions of Americans to combat the economic effects of the coronavirus in a last-minute Treasury Department order, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN on Tuesday. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/trump-name-checks-coronavirus/index.html Herr Dicktator is pure Cialdini genius. Buying votes legally. And it will work because people won’t know that Congress has the power of the purse, not the Executive. When this guy is out of office, he should teach a MasterClass in how to fool some of the people—after all, what do you expect from a longtime casino operator? LOL! Congress should insist that the cheques be signed by "The Nancy"! ✍ Somehow this fool got Nancy and Chuck to write for trillions in bailout in an election year (they sure don't play the game like Mitch McConnell does). And yet we keep hearing about how the "opposition party" is holding Trump back from making us great again... Idiot moves like this (insisting his name goes on the checks) injects politics right into these packages and risks that Dems will no longer play ball with subsequent stimulus which they were planning.
minten Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 "Whoa! 29/210 (13.7%) of asymptomatic women admitted for delivery tested positive for the #coronavirus in NYC (3/29 developed fever later) https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316" And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19"
gfp Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 I would just like to thank muscleman for his early 'on the ground' perspective from his family in Wuhan - January 24th seems like a year ago! Certainly got my attention at the time and I know one or two people at my dog park that I shared the story with who started taking it seriously then as well. You could still buy lysol wipes on amazon back then lol I am from Wuhan and I have lots of friends and relatives there. I could tell you this: If you trust the government's stats of 500 infections and 17 deaths, it is no different from buying Chinese stocks merely based on their financial reports. All fake numbers. The actual number is likely in the 100k range. Right now even the doctors ran out of masks and gloves and are working unprotected. I don't know how much longer they can last before they are down. I have 3 relatives infected. One staying at home, and two who spent 6 days going to each hospital to try to get hospitalized. They were all told one thing: We don't have resources for you. Go home. They finally got hospitalized yesterday. Think about it. That's after they are diagnosed positive. They are walking on the streets for 6 days while spreading the virus everywhere, with no hospital taking them in. There are thousands and thousands of such patients. There are also dead bodies everywhere in all hospitals. They are dead on the floor and for hours, no one comes to pick the bodies up. When they do get picked up, they are immediately sent to the funeral to be burned, without any diagnose of whether they got infected by this virus or else. Therefore the 17 death is just a joke.
orthopa Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 "Whoa! 29/210 (13.7%) of asymptomatic women admitted for delivery tested positive for the #coronavirus in NYC (3/29 developed fever later) https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316" And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19" No way, I don't believe it. So we have germany, pregnant woman, homeless people. Critics will note, not a totally representative study but very interesting. Need to see what the Stanford study says. Mortality rate will likely trend down still. Will be interesting to watch.
orthopa Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 Another interview - different group - Professor of Medicine, Stanford Medical School - who is astounded that we have shut down the economy for this: https://www.foxnews.com/media/stanford-professor-jay-bhattacharya-coronavirus-death-rate Another Stanford guy that is a Doubting Thomas... good to have skeptics Makes you wonder what the death rate of the flu would be without widespread testing, vaccine, and 2 meds. Likely much closer to the corona virus then we think. Time will tell.
Cigarbutt Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 "Whoa! 29/210 (13.7%) of asymptomatic women admitted for delivery tested positive for the #coronavirus in NYC (3/29 developed fever later) https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316" And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19" No way, I don't believe it. So we have germany, pregnant woman, homeless people. Critics will note, not a totally representative study but very interesting. Need to see what the Stanford study says. Mortality rate will likely trend down still. Will be interesting to watch. As more data come in, it looks like the CV is more contagious, less deadly and "natural" immunity looks higher than initially assumed in basic R0 assumptions. There are major problems with the Boston data. The most important limitation is selection bias (population and timing). The idea of the "random" sampling was triggered by a "cluster". To provide more value, it would be nice to see if positive-test people become symptomatic over time. In my area, clusters in areas where people are vulnerable has caused impressive growth in ICU and morgue admissions. Exit scenarios will need to take critical variables of the virus that are becoming clearer. ... Makes you wonder what the death rate of the flu would be without widespread testing, vaccine, and 2 meds. Likely much closer to the corona virus then we think. Time will tell. Isn't that the whole idea? To shift the trajectory of the new virus to the influenza curve or better?
Liberty Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100
KCLarkin Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100 As of April 4...Of those tested in the general population, 87 (0.8%) in the open-invitation screening and 13 (0.6%) in the random-population screening tested positive for the virus. Only 0.6% in a random sample currently had the infection. Interestingly, 11.9% of the random sample had symptoms! So in Iceland, more people had symptoms than had the disease! Add that to your file of random anecdotes, Orthopa.
StubbleJumper Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 "Whoa! 29/210 (13.7%) of asymptomatic women admitted for delivery tested positive for the #coronavirus in NYC (3/29 developed fever later) https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316" And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19" No way, I don't believe it. So we have germany, pregnant woman, homeless people. Critics will note, not a totally representative study but very interesting. Need to see what the Stanford study says. Mortality rate will likely trend down still. Will be interesting to watch. The interesting aspect of this is that the homeless population is not a very healthy group. Most of them have some sort of existing condition, are smokers, drinkers, or have poor nutrition. I am very surprised that Covid was not harsher with such a group. SJ
cubsfan Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 Kim Strassel on not having an impartial functioning press using Coronavirus timeline (4/14/2020) Warning label: You Fake News lovers are going to hate this interview.
Liberty Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3yCcdg7DQQnfqZoax/far-ultraviolet-light-in-public-spaces-to-fight-pandemic-is Also: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/bill-gates-calls-trumps-decision-to-halt-funding-for-who-dangerous.html
rb Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 The interesting aspect of this is that the homeless population is not a very healthy group. Most of them have some sort of existing condition, are smokers, drinkers, or have poor nutrition. I am very surprised that Covid was not harsher with such a group. SJ Maybe it's because they have stronger immune systems due to living in squalor and unsanitary conditions?
Guest Schwab711 Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 "Whoa! 29/210 (13.7%) of asymptomatic women admitted for delivery tested positive for the #coronavirus in NYC (3/29 developed fever later) https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316" And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19" No way, I don't believe it. So we have germany, pregnant woman, homeless people. Critics will note, not a totally representative study but very interesting. Need to see what the Stanford study says. Mortality rate will likely trend down still. Will be interesting to watch. You said testing was pointless. You said everyone already had the virus 5-6 weeks ago. There would not be 36% of a sample actively infected if that was true unless we didn't have immunity to the virus after recovering. You were wrong about the random things you made up without support. We do need testing. Not everyone was infected 5-6 weeks ago. It doesn't matter, but it does seem necessary to remind you. This is a dumb disagreement though because I don't want it to look like I'm cheerleading for bad outcomes or that I'm taking credit for anything I've written. I personally didn't come up with any idea. I just read ideas and pieced them together. You didn't personally come up with anything. You described them as a gut feel. Guesses by another phrase. They were wrong. It's not that they were wrong that is important. It's that you passionately held opinions about guesses on a topic that can be studied. It's that you didn't see the importance of testing so that experts didn't have to make educated guesses (and countries throughout the world didn't have to shutdown due to the unknown). I'd also note that 36% infected simultaneously in a population like homeless is similar to the cruise ship samples. Asymptomatic rate is high because many were infected just before the testing (thus <5 days infected and asymptomatic). Hopefully they follow up with this population. High asymptomatic rate is consistent with everything we know in high infection growth rate situations since all infected <5 days are asymptomatic + some % of the infected at 5 - X days (the % that remain asymptomatic). Again, we don't have enough data to know so I'm not married to this explanation. Only pointing out that both pregnant woman in NYC and homeless in Boston studies are consistent with everything experts have said about the virus thus far (and not your guesses).
Dalal.Holdings Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 "Whoa! 29/210 (13.7%) of asymptomatic women admitted for delivery tested positive for the #coronavirus in NYC (3/29 developed fever later) https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316" And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19" So...um...from the BMJ study: Upon observing a cluster of COVID-19 cases from a single large homeless shelter in Boston, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program conducted symptom assessments and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 Does this sound like a random sample? If I tested residents of a nursing home with a large cluster of covid cases, is that result going to give me the population incidence? Or is it going to vastly overestimate it? What about if I find 15% in a region dubbed “German Wuhan” had antibodies. Do you think the number for the rest of the population is a) much higher, b) equal to, or c) much lower? Hint: there is only one answer here with nearly 100% confidence.
minten Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 "Whoa! 29/210 (13.7%) of asymptomatic women admitted for delivery tested positive for the #coronavirus in NYC (3/29 developed fever later) https://nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316" And now this: "Whoa, 147 (36%) out of 408 people tested positive for the #coronavirus at a large homeless shelter in Boston https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1. More interestingly, only ~1/6 showed symptoms among those tested positive, i.e. 1:5 for symptomatic vs asymptomatic. #COVID19" So...um...from the BMJ study: Upon observing a cluster of COVID-19 cases from a single large homeless shelter in Boston, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program conducted symptom assessments and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 Does this sound like a random sample? If I tested residents of a nursing home with a large cluster of covid cases, is that result going to give me the population incidence? Or is it going to vastly overestimate it? Uhm, absolutely nobody said this was a random sample. Even the tweet (which, for clarity, isn't mine) implictly says this by saying "More interestingly ...".
Viking Posted April 15, 2020 Posted April 15, 2020 More dominoes will start to fall with each passing week. Lots of weak companies, like JC Penney, will declare bankruptcy. They all have a great reason: coronavirus. Management is not to blame :-) J.C. Penney Might File for Bankruptcy. What That Says About Macy’s and Other Retailers. - https://www.barrons.com/articles/jc-penney-stock-bankruptcy-department-store-retailers-covid-19-e-commerce-51586970318?mod=hp_DAY_1 After years of dwindling foot traffic and sales, J.C. Penney is reportedly considering a bankruptcy filing among its options to deal with the coronavirus shutdown. It is also considering pursuing an out-of-court debt restructuring or rescue financing, according to Reuters. The department store doesn’t necessarily need to take action soon; the company has enough cash to cover its $105 million bond maturing in June, ratings firms say. Fitch Ratings said earlier this month that J.C. Penney (ticker: JCP) should have enough liquidity to get through the 2020 holiday season, and the analysts don’t expect a debt restructuring until next year. Across the industry, however, coronavirus-related shutdowns and widespread store closures have piled extra financial stress on top of the existing pressure of changing shopper tastes and the rise of e-commerce. March brought the steepest monthly decline in retail sales on record, with a nearly 9% slide from the month before, according to the Census Bureau. That means J.C. Penney certainly isn’t the only retailer feeling the pinch. Fitch Ratings downgraded at least eight retailers earlier this month because of the coronavirus shutdown. Among them were Macy’s (M), Dillard’s (DDS), Capri Holdings (CPRI) and Tapestry (TPR), all of which the firm downgraded to junk from investment grade.
Recommended Posts