Liberty Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Sarah Cooper doing Trump’s I take HCC speech: Also, The Lancet fact-correcting Trump's letter to the WHO:
Guest Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Do you think Trump would be president if people who voted for Trump were better off? I know a lot of Trump voters. Only very few of them actually like him. People voted for him because they are desperate and/or angry. Obama's poor policies led to Trump. If Obama would have been less of a Wall Street and China puppet, we wouldn't have Trump. I'll also place blame on Clinton and Bush (but considering we had Democrats for 16 years and Republicans for 8, they get most of the blame). Keep in mind that I voted more times for Obama than I did Trump (1 vote to 0). Some people are conflating their hardship of the 2008-2020 time to Obama, that's for sure. Just because he was President does not mean he caused the hardship. Correlation doe not imply causation. When Obama walked into the Oval Office on January 2009, we were in the midst of the largest recession since GD (that Republican guy before him was in charge leading up to it). The GFC might have more to do with people's hardships leading to vote for Trump than Obama. In the 1930s, there was a lot of radicalism in Europe and the U.S. due to the Great Depression. Similar story for 2008-now. Easier to blame Obama, I get it. Do you really think Obama hit Wall St has hard as he should of? Or did all of the bankers contributing to his campaign help make sure that didn't happen?
rb Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 re MRNA - they release results of a phase 1 trial. Got a sweet hard deal from the government for vaccine development. Technology sort of unproven and now do a stock offering for $1.25B. How many ethics violations all done at once does this represent? If this doesn’t represent the current state of regulatory capture and pump and dump scheme of the capital markets, I don’t know what will. Moncef Slaoui resigned from Moderna's board of directors when the Trump administration tapped him last week to be chief advisor for its Operation Warp Speed, a push to develop and distribute a vaccine to address the COVID-19 pandemic. But he still had stock options for about 156,000 Moderna shares; base https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-proposed-public-offering-shares-common-stock-0 You just know that there's a guy from the Bush administration going like "Wait, you can do that?!"
Liberty Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Andy Slavitt thread about the state of COVID19 around the US:
Investor20 Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-against-who-guidance-2020-4?r=US&IR=T YouTube's CEO suggested content that 'goes against' WHO guidance on the coronavirus will get banned "Anything that goes against WHO recommendations would be a violation of our policy and so remove is another really important part of our policy." So WHO website right now says If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19. Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks Any video that disagrees and suggests to use masks for healthy people who is not taking care of Covid infected will be against WHO guidance and subject to deletion?
LC Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Any video that disagrees and suggests to use masks for healthy people who is not taking care of Covid infected will be against WHO guidance and subject to deletion? From what little I've gathered, Youtube's policy is best described, "Anything you post that causes us a headache will get deleted and we'll make up the reason afterwards"
DocSnowball Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Apologies if this has been covered already. Just digging into Moderna's phase 1 results. They studied the vaccine in 3 doses 25/100/250 in 18-55 age group. Proof of concept looks solid, based on having antibody titers comparable to those in recovering patients with all doses (including neutralizing antibody titers in 8 of 8 with 25/100 dose that have so far been tested). They had systemic side effects in 250 dose and won't go any further with that. Mouse studies showed prevention by these antibodies. Phase 2 will look into more efficacy and safety data likely with 25/50/100 or two of these. Phase 3 likely to be in July or August and study 18-55 age group and older age group, I'd say in a city with an outbreak at the time and/or healthcare workers. Company raised capital and is looking to expand manufacturing capabilities. Overall as much as I could have hoped for from a first of its kind mRNA vaccine. This is just a little outside my circle of competence, and I'm tempted to expand it and learn more. I guess I still wonder how immunogenic the lower doses will be in the elderly, what about kids, can the vaccine cause a cytokine storm in those who have had true infection before etc. On the whole, the product, the trial design, the team and the company appear impressive. Disconfirming views welcomed :) More details here: https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-positive-interim-phase-1-data-its-mrna-vaccine https://investors.modernatx.com/events-and-presentations https://www.modernatx.com/modernas-work-potential-vaccine-against-covid-19
cubsfan Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Nice to see the President taking on the corruption of The WHO: https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-sends-scathing-letter-to-who-if-major-changes-are-not-immediately-made-u-s-could-permanently-cut-funding-withdraw-membership?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro The World Health Organization consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal. The World Health Organization failed to independently investigate credible reports that conflicted directly with the Chinese government’s official accounts, even those that came from sources with Wuhan itself. By no later than December 30, 2019, the World Health Organization office in Beijing knew that there was a “major public health” concern in Wuhan. Between December 26 and December 30, China’s media highlighted evidence of a new virus emerging from Wuhan, based on patient data sent to multiple Chinese genomic companies. Additionally, during this period, Dr. Zhang Jixian, a doctor from Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, told China’s health authorities that a new coronavirus was causing a novel disease that was, at the time, afflicting approximately 180 patients. According to Dr. Zhang Yongzhen of the Shanghai Public Health Clinic Center, he told Chinese authorities on January 5, 2020, that he had sequenced the genome of the virus. There was no publication of this information until six days later, on January 11, 2020, when Dr. Zhang self-posted it online. The next day, Chinese authorities closed his lab for “rectification.” Even as the World Health Organization acknowledged, Dr. Zhang’s postings was a great act of “transparency.” But the World Health Organization has been conspicuously silent both with respect to the closure of Dr. Zhang’s lab and his assertion that he notified Chinese authorities of his breakthrough six days earlier. On January 14, the World Health Organization gratuitously reaffirmed China’s now-debunked claim that the coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans, stating: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) indentified in Wuhan, China” This assertion as in direct conflict with censored reports from Wuhan. On January 28, 2020, after meeting with President Xi in Beijing, you praised the Chinese government for its “transparency” with respect to the coronavirus, announcing that China had set a “new standard for outbreak control” and “bought the world time.” You did not mention that China had, by then, silenced or punished several doctors for speaking out about the virus and restricted Chines institutions from publishing information about it.
Guest Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Nice to see the President taking on the corruption of The WHO: https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-sends-scathing-letter-to-who-if-major-changes-are-not-immediately-made-u-s-could-permanently-cut-funding-withdraw-membership?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro The World Health Organization consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal. The World Health Organization failed to independently investigate credible reports that conflicted directly with the Chinese government’s official accounts, even those that came from sources with Wuhan itself. By no later than December 30, 2019, the World Health Organization office in Beijing knew that there was a “major public health” concern in Wuhan. Between December 26 and December 30, China’s media highlighted evidence of a new virus emerging from Wuhan, based on patient data sent to multiple Chinese genomic companies. Additionally, during this period, Dr. Zhang Jixian, a doctor from Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, told China’s health authorities that a new coronavirus was causing a novel disease that was, at the time, afflicting approximately 180 patients. According to Dr. Zhang Yongzhen of the Shanghai Public Health Clinic Center, he told Chinese authorities on January 5, 2020, that he had sequenced the genome of the virus. There was no publication of this information until six days later, on January 11, 2020, when Dr. Zhang self-posted it online. The next day, Chinese authorities closed his lab for “rectification.” Even as the World Health Organization acknowledged, Dr. Zhang’s postings was a great act of “transparency.” But the World Health Organization has been conspicuously silent both with respect to the closure of Dr. Zhang’s lab and his assertion that he notified Chinese authorities of his breakthrough six days earlier. On January 14, the World Health Organization gratuitously reaffirmed China’s now-debunked claim that the coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans, stating: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) indentified in Wuhan, China” This assertion as in direct conflict with censored reports from Wuhan. On January 28, 2020, after meeting with President Xi in Beijing, you praised the Chinese government for its “transparency” with respect to the coronavirus, announcing that China had set a “new standard for outbreak control” and “bought the world time.” You did not mention that China had, by then, silenced or punished several doctors for speaking out about the virus and restricted Chines institutions from publishing information about it. Agreed. The WHO is a way too beholden to China.
Dalal.Holdings Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Do you think Trump would be president if people who voted for Trump were better off? I know a lot of Trump voters. Only very few of them actually like him. People voted for him because they are desperate and/or angry. Obama's poor policies led to Trump. If Obama would have been less of a Wall Street and China puppet, we wouldn't have Trump. I'll also place blame on Clinton and Bush (but considering we had Democrats for 16 years and Republicans for 8, they get most of the blame). Keep in mind that I voted more times for Obama than I did Trump (1 vote to 0). Some people are conflating their hardship of the 2008-2020 time to Obama, that's for sure. Just because he was President does not mean he caused the hardship. Correlation doe not imply causation. When Obama walked into the Oval Office on January 2009, we were in the midst of the largest recession since GD (that Republican guy before him was in charge leading up to it). The GFC might have more to do with people's hardships leading to vote for Trump than Obama. In the 1930s, there was a lot of radicalism in Europe and the U.S. due to the Great Depression. Similar story for 2008-now. Easier to blame Obama, I get it. Do you really think Obama hit Wall St has hard as he should of? Or did all of the bankers contributing to his campaign help make sure that didn't happen? I don't think this conversation belongs in this thread. So here's my last take on this: - Your "bankers contributing to his campaign" is ridiculous and you know it--just because an employee at a big bank donates up to a few thousand dollars to a campaign does not mean someone is in the pocket of banks. Certainly not in the same ballpark as having people like Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin (Goldman alum) in charge of economic affairs... - Wall Street was no fan of Obama, getting seriously butt hurt about him calling them "fat cats" early in his term in '09; There was also an occupy Wall St protest that occurred during his admin: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126073152465089651 - The problem was that the time to be tough on Wall St was not after the crisis, but before it. Republicans GWB and Alan Greenspan believed in "financial innovation" and let Wall St run amuck in 2000s up to 2008 and when they left office, everything fell apart just in time for Obama to enter in January '09 - Obama could not aggressively attack Wall St during GFC because he needed the economy to recover and for that to happen, banks to lend again and people to have confidence in the banks again; I am not sure what you are proposing. Should he have nationalized the banks instead? - I am not sure what the alternative to Obama that would have resulted in whatever you are after. Mr Bain Capital Mitt Romney? You think Mr. Private Equity would have helped the common man and taken on Wall St? How about Donaldo who makes Stevie Mnuchin/Gary Cohn (The Goldman guys) his leads on economic matters and cuts corporate taxes to the bone? Is he "taking on Wall St"??? - So tell me--how is the common man doing after 3 yrs of Trump? Donaldo is not here to help the common man, but he is quite adept at conning the common man. The common man seems to relish voting against his own interest. Oh well, at least some people think they have their guy in the WH--I guess that's all that matters. I do acknowledge his talent for manipulating such people--he is quite skilled at it. I guess Obama was not manipulative enough to get people to think he was on their side. He was too "professorial" for their tastes (i.e. made them feel dumber). They need a POTUS that speaks/tweets on their level--too bad he won't give them actual economic results they desire.
Guest Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Do you think Trump would be president if people who voted for Trump were better off? I know a lot of Trump voters. Only very few of them actually like him. People voted for him because they are desperate and/or angry. Obama's poor policies led to Trump. If Obama would have been less of a Wall Street and China puppet, we wouldn't have Trump. I'll also place blame on Clinton and Bush (but considering we had Democrats for 16 years and Republicans for 8, they get most of the blame). Keep in mind that I voted more times for Obama than I did Trump (1 vote to 0). Some people are conflating their hardship of the 2008-2020 time to Obama, that's for sure. Just because he was President does not mean he caused the hardship. Correlation doe not imply causation. When Obama walked into the Oval Office on January 2009, we were in the midst of the largest recession since GD (that Republican guy before him was in charge leading up to it). The GFC might have more to do with people's hardships leading to vote for Trump than Obama. In the 1930s, there was a lot of radicalism in Europe and the U.S. due to the Great Depression. Similar story for 2008-now. Easier to blame Obama, I get it. Do you really think Obama hit Wall St has hard as he should of? Or did all of the bankers contributing to his campaign help make sure that didn't happen? I don't think this conversation belongs in this thread. So here's my last take on this: - Your "bankers contributing to his campaign" is ridiculous and you know it--just because an employee at a big bank donates up to a few thousand dollars to a campaign does not mean someone is in the pocket of banks. Certainly not in the same ballpark as having people like Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin (Goldman alum) in charge of economic affairs... - Wall Street was no fan of Obama, getting seriously butt hurt about him calling them "fat cats" early in his term in '09; There was also an occupy Wall St protest that occurred during his admin: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126073152465089651 - The problem was that the time to be tough on Wall St was not after the crisis, but before it. Republicans GWB and Alan Greenspan believed in "financial innovation" and let Wall St run amuck in 2000s up to 2008 and when they left office, everything fell apart just in time for Obama to enter in January '09 - Obama could not aggressively attack Wall St during GFC because he needed the economy to recover and for that to happen, banks to lend again and people to have confidence in the banks again; I am not sure what you are proposing. Should he have nationalized the banks instead? - I am not sure what the alternative to Obama that would have resulted in whatever you are after. Mr Bain Capital Mitt Romney? You think Mr. Private Equity would have helped the common man and taken on Wall St? How about Donaldo who makes Stevie Mnuchin/Gary Cohn (The Goldman guys) his leads on economic matters and cuts corporate taxes to the bone? Is he "taking on Wall St"??? - So tell me--how is the common man doing after 3 yrs of Trump? Donaldo is not here to help the common man, but he is quite adept at conning the common man. The common man seems to relish voting against his own interest. Oh well, at least some people think they have their guy in the WH--I guess that's all that matters. I do acknowledge his talent for manipulating such people--he is quite skilled at it. I guess Obama was not manipulative enough to get people to think he was on their side. He was too "professorial" for their tastes (i.e. made them feel dumber). They need a POTUS that speaks/tweets on their level--too bad he won't give them actual economic results they desire. I agree that Greenspan and Bush dropped the ball. I would have preferred no bailouts and we live with it. I think Trump is terrible for the common man. His tax cuts were bs.
ERICOPOLY Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Nice to see the President taking on the corruption of The WHO: The President who didn't fill the US seat at the WHO, and who now claims the US has less influence than China at the WHO? The one who loudly praised the Chinese handling of the virus on Twitter in late January? Who ignored US Intelligence warnings about the virus? And now blames the WHO as part of a CYA compaign that includes blaming the governors for the US's stay-at-home response at a time when the Federal guidelines recommended stay-at-home? Right... nice to see all of that.
LC Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Nice to see the President taking on the corruption of The WHO: The President who didn't fill the US seat at the WHO, and who now claims the US has less influence than China at the WHO? The one who loudly praised the Chinese handling of the virus on Twitter in late January? Who ignored US Intelligence warnings about the virus? And now blames the WHO as part of a CYA compaign that includes blaming the governors for the US's stay-at-home response? Right... nice to see all of that. Didn't Trump and his administration make many of the mistakes he is criticizing WHO for? Reminds me of this Canadian classic:
ERICOPOLY Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Nice to see the President taking on the corruption of The WHO: The President who didn't fill the US seat at the WHO, and who now claims the US has less influence than China at the WHO? The one who loudly praised the Chinese handling of the virus on Twitter in late January? Who ignored US Intelligence warnings about the virus? And now blames the WHO as part of a CYA compaign that includes blaming the governors for the US's stay-at-home response? Right... nice to see all of that. Didn't Trump and his administration make many of the mistakes he is criticizing WHO for? Reminds me of this Canadian classic: Whenever he points the finger we need to be looking closely at him because that's what he does when he messes up. Anyone with children knows this one. My wife does employee investigations in an HR role and has to fire lots of employees like him. He's that bad boss who takes credit for everything he had nothing to do with, and blames others for everything that goes wrong. It's incredible that he has been running the country for more than 3 years and has made no mistakes -- his predecessor made them all and we know this because he left the cupboards bare (of course, poor Donald, there was nothing he could do for 3 years with a bare cupboard).
ERICOPOLY Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Helps explain the delayed US coronavirus response -- keeping these positions staffed is whose responsibility?: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/832131788/unfilled-or-acting-positions-in-federal-agencies-delay-u-s-response-to-epidemic
cubsfan Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Interesting that WHO is responsible for International Public Health, but now it's Trump's job to keep the virus from spreading in China and around the world. You guys don't pass the smell test making excuses for WHO - but go right ahead. WHO will likely start listening and restructuring when they need money from the USA. But in the meantime, since they totally failed their job, because they are a corrupt Institution - why waste our money.
Cevian Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Interesting that WHO is responsible for International Public Health, but now it's Trump's job to keep the virus from spreading in China and around the world. You guys don't pass the smell test making excuses for WHO - but go right ahead. WHO will likely start listening and restructuring when they need money from the USA. But in the meantime, since they totally failed their job, because they are a corrupt Institution - why waste our money. +1
clutch Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 For many people, Trump's actions have become the gold standard for distinguishing good (friends) vs. bad (enemies). Whenever Trump criticizes something or someone, that target suddenly becomes good or their dearest friend. The hatred toward the man is so strong that it has turned their brains to mush. ::)
Casey Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 For many people, Trump's actions have become the gold standard for distinguishing good (friends) vs. bad (enemies). Whenever Trump criticizes something or someone, that target suddenly becomes good or their dearest friend. The hatred toward the man is so strong that it has turned their brains to mush. ::) Irony much :o lol Edit. I should probably interpret this a bit more charitably, since you're right. This kind of blindness does happen in the anti-Trump direction you're talking about. Trump's a king of generating brain mush in his supporters as much as haters though, imho.
ERICOPOLY Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 You guys don't pass the smell test making excuses for WHO - but go right ahead. More straw man: first false attribution, and then attacking. The irony is that you are making excuses for Trump whose withdrawal of US presence and funding from the WHO cedes greater influence to China. The European Union and Australia led the calls for an investigation (not the US): https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/china/wha-pandemic-inquiry-resolution-vote-intl/index.html
LC Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Interesting that WHO is responsible for International Public Health, but now it's Trump's job to keep the virus from spreading in China and around the world. No, it's Trump's job to keep the virus from spreading in the USA. Considering he failed in that regards, is he going to write a similar letter to himself? Whenever Trump criticizes something or someone, that target suddenly becomes good or their dearest friend. The hatred toward the man is so strong that it has turned their brains to mush. ::) Actually I would argue the only one's brains turning to mush are those who cannot support their position with fact and consistent logic. And to characterize valid criticism with "you just hate the guy and it's turning your brain to mush" is similarly asinine. For example, both Trump and the WHO failed in their respective roles, and for largely the same reasons. Yet Trump wants it both ways: to criticize the WHO and not be criticized himself. This is logically inconsistent, and if one refuses to acknowledge this, well then they can refer to your comment on brain mush.
Liberty Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Nice to see the President taking on the corruption of The WHO: The President who didn't fill the US seat at the WHO, and who now claims the US has less influence than China at the WHO? The one who loudly praised the Chinese handling of the virus on Twitter in late January? Who ignored US Intelligence warnings about the virus? And now blames the WHO as part of a CYA compaign that includes blaming the governors for the US's stay-at-home response at a time when the Federal guidelines recommended stay-at-home? Right... nice to see all of that. Trump taking on corruption is the most laughable idea I've ever heard. It's like OJ Simpson saying he's going to find the murderer... Anyone who seriously believes that, I have a bridge to sell them. Trump is looking for someone to blame for his shortcomings and incompetence, as usual, and the WHO is just one of the latest victims. We've seen how Trump has handled the past few months. There's no reason at all to believe that whatever anyone else would have said earlier that he'd have been one iota more competent at the time, or that he'd even have listened. Other competent leaders have acted well with a lot fewer resources and the same public info as the president of the richest, most advanced, with the best intelligence gathering agencies and scientific and medical facilities in the world. No organization is perfect, so Trump can always find a flaw in WHO/NATO/whatever and then pretend that this flaw is the reason for all his mistakes, but that's just passing the buck and moral cowardice. You think other presidents had perfect organizations and perfect intelligence when they acted?
ERICOPOLY Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 Nice to see the President taking on the corruption of The WHO: The President who didn't fill the US seat at the WHO, and who now claims the US has less influence than China at the WHO? The one who loudly praised the Chinese handling of the virus on Twitter in late January? Who ignored US Intelligence warnings about the virus? And now blames the WHO as part of a CYA compaign that includes blaming the governors for the US's stay-at-home response at a time when the Federal guidelines recommended stay-at-home? Right... nice to see all of that. Trump taking on corruption is the most laughable idea I've ever heard. It's like OJ Simpson saying he's going to find the murderer... Anyone who seriously believes that, I have a bridge to sell them. Trump is looking for someone to blame for his shortcomings and incompetence, as usual, and the WHO is just one of the latest victims. The WHO might be too heavily influenced by China. I have never disputed that. I have merely pointed out that Trump has withdrawn the US’s influence — if someone filled the void, how unexpected.
cubsfan Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 The WHO might be too heavily influenced by China. I have merely pointed out that Trump has withdrawn the US’s influence — if someone filled the void, how unexpected. Yeah, we need WHO about as much as we need the UN - both are worthless organizations. Let's keep funding them though!
ERICOPOLY Posted May 19, 2020 Posted May 19, 2020 The WHO might be too heavily influenced by China. I have merely pointed out that Trump has withdrawn the US’s influence — if someone filled the void, how unexpected. Yeah, we need WHO about as much as we need the UN - both are worthless organizations. Let's keep funding them though! How about we don’t fill the open US seat for years at the WHO and then complain. That’s what he did.
Recommended Posts