RichardGibbons Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 That said, shutting down was not a no-brainer at any time for many reasons. The Japanese did not go into lockdowns for a very good reason. They got this ventilation aspect from WHO guidelines for other respiratory diseases such as Measles and Turberculosis. To me a no-brainer is to start with established protocols for other respiratory transmitted infections like Measles and Tuberculosis. That means use of masks and ventilation. Lockdown decreases ventilation. Having people go out increases ventilation. Lockdown has many other effects such as loss of jobs, other areas of healthcare being effected such as cancer screenings. Possibility of second waves after lockdowns. So, lockdowns were never a no-brainer. Following using of masks and ventilation which are protocols for TB and measles are. One should start exactly where Japanese started. Established protocols for similar infections. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/ongoingtopics/COVID19CASFlyer/PROffice3CGuide_en.pdf Yeah, the problem is that this sort of reasoning is basically, "find the country whose outcome supports my thesis, then say that the outcome in that country was somewhat predictable in the early days", when that's not true at all. I mean, there's a reason that the "we shouldn't lockdown" people were talking about Sweden, and now they aren't. Basically, if you put your life savings on Red 17 on a roulette wheel, and it turns out that Red 17 comes up, that doesn't imply that it was a good decision to put your life savings on Red 17. During a pandemic, before you have knowledge, you should take the conservative approach because a non-conservative approach can potentially lead to massive numbers of deaths. Then, as you better understand the situation, you should revise your approach.)
RichardGibbons Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 I look at it like this. Morality comes from our conscience. Traditional thought says that our conscience stems from God or evolution. If it comes from evolution, I see no reason to trust it to make the best decision. Conscience really just boils down to an evolutionary instinct. There are many evolutionary instincts that don't put our interest first. Look at hunger/taste. This evolutionary instinct tells us to eat a lot of fat and sugar. Well, that isn't in our best interest. Look at the stock market even. Our evolutionary instincts tell us to sell out near market bottoms. That isn't in our best interest either! So why trust one's conscience? Is it really in our best interest to give to charity or to die risking your life to save another? I don't see why that would be the case. Well, if God is the source of conscience, then yes it is because those moral claims are bigger than your own self interest. They exceed the evolutionary instincts so certain actions/moral decisions are "higher" than us. Otherwise it really boils down to Group A's evolutionary instincts (xyz is bad!) vs Group B (xyz is good!). You could throw any moral action in there. The "higher" standard is simply an illusion in the case of atheism. Nothing more, nothing less. So if an atheist is like "I only believe in things with evidence. Since you don't have evidence for God, then I don't believe that" But then they go an believe certain things without evidence...like action "xyz" is "wrong." It's like...come on now. The people doing that action think its okay so why wouldn't it be okay? Ah, I see. You want to very narrowly define where morality might come from, then beat down that straw man, and claim therefore morality is impossible. Morality is basically treating others how you'd want to be treated. One can nitpick at the details--as I'm sure you will--but the core of it is very simple, and doesn't require a God. Without such a basic agreement in place, society breaks, and the world sucks for pretty well everyone.
Guest Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 I look at it like this. Morality comes from our conscience. Traditional thought says that our conscience stems from God or evolution. If it comes from evolution, I see no reason to trust it to make the best decision. Conscience really just boils down to an evolutionary instinct. There are many evolutionary instincts that don't put our interest first. Look at hunger/taste. This evolutionary instinct tells us to eat a lot of fat and sugar. Well, that isn't in our best interest. Look at the stock market even. Our evolutionary instincts tell us to sell out near market bottoms. That isn't in our best interest either! So why trust one's conscience? Is it really in our best interest to give to charity or to die risking your life to save another? I don't see why that would be the case. Well, if God is the source of conscience, then yes it is because those moral claims are bigger than your own self interest. They exceed the evolutionary instincts so certain actions/moral decisions are "higher" than us. Otherwise it really boils down to Group A's evolutionary instincts (xyz is bad!) vs Group B (xyz is good!). You could throw any moral action in there. The "higher" standard is simply an illusion in the case of atheism. Nothing more, nothing less. So if an atheist is like "I only believe in things with evidence. Since you don't have evidence for God, then I don't believe that" But then they go an believe certain things without evidence...like action "xyz" is "wrong." It's like...come on now. The people doing that action think its okay so why wouldn't it be okay? Ah, I see. You want to very narrowly define where morality might come from, then beat down that straw man, and claim therefore morality is impossible. Morality is basically treating others how you'd want to be treated. One can nitpick at the details--as I'm sure you will--but the core of it is very simple, and doesn't require a God. Without such a basic agreement in place, society breaks, and the world sucks for pretty well everyone. Oh, I never said morality was impossible. I will say that I don't how a real morality (as in moral truths) is possible. I do think an illusion of morality is possible (like one race killing off another to promote itself). 1) How society functions isn't moral or immoral. For instance, if we killed everyone that committed first time criminal offenses, society would most likely function better. That doesn't make it more moral. 2) Why should I treat others the way I would like to be treated if I can advance my goals more effectively in a different manner? If I had to guess, you're probably from a western country that has been indoctrinated with the "Golden Rule" popularized by some ancient, uneducated tribesman. That doesn't make it the most rational choice though. If you have a better answer from where morality comes from, I'm all ears! ;)
Casey Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 So it looks like we've reached the 'Justifying slavery via the existence of atheism' part of the outbreak? Probably bullish for stocks!
Gregmal Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 Eh thats a bad argument. As you know, a moral compass is not guided by who wins. That said, a flag is a piece of cloth. It means different things to different people. We've seen this in many instances, for a long time. Even down to gangbangers shooting people up over disrespecting their flag/colors. As I mentioned, to many folks in the south, its just a symbol of southern pride. That's interesting. I think this is the first time I've "met" someone who thinks it's fine to fly both the ISIS flag and the Nazi flag. I am a fan of protecting peoples rights and freedoms afforded to them by the constitution. Peoples rights should not change like stock prices based on the flavor of the month or the rotation of parties in power. They should be unassailable and without question. I really dont care about the flag issue. Like, in the course of things that are important in my life, saying its not even on the radar would still be giving it too much priority. If all flags are banned I would get by just fine, and if anyone was allowed to display any flag they wanted, I wouldn't care either. I just think its worth noting how fundamentally hypocritical a lot of people are. I mean, was there just, for the past few years, this massive deal made by some about how taking a knee was fine because "the flag doesnt mean to you what it means to me"? And now, many of those same people are claiming that, "this is what the flag means to me so thats what it has to mean to you"! At the end of the day, if we are consistent, let people fly whatever flag they want, no different than how we can also let Twitter ban or modify content from whoever they want, bakeries can chose to sell cakes to whomever they want, and Sanjeev can choose who gets to be a part of CoBF. From there, society, and the laws of supply and demand will determine the viability of those behaviors, and if, a for profit organization(arguable in Twitters case), people can vote "this is unacceptable" and give the proverbial thumbs down by choosing to take their business elsewhere. Interesting perspective--I think it is consistent. I really like that you're owning the idea, and not backing down just because the consequences are pretty nauseating. It is absurd to blatantly pander to hypocrisy and crybabies. Often, many of those who are "offended" do not represent the masses; they just scream loudest(Example being the Washington Redskins. If Redskin was offensive enough to most, there would be no ticket and/or merchandise sales, players wouldn't play for them, etc and they would be forced to change the name). Should your constitutionally guaranteed rights, be subject to the whims of random people and whether or not they claim to be "offended"? Especially when, in some cases, the issue comes down to something that on a fundamental basis, everyone else is allowed to do, but YOU(IE put up a piece of cloth of your choosing)? There was a time when a rainbow flag was highly "offensive" to large portions of the population. Over time, society has advanced greatly, and made tremendous progress, even in many old school institutions such as churches. Why? Because there is a great power in the effectiveness of societal values. It's function is actually very similar to the market adage of "short term voting machine, long term weighing machine"....typically, at least so far historically, we end up getting things right. Bad/unacceptable behaviors tend to get marginalized on their own. If people cant defend their positions, or the consequences of them, more often than not they are forced to conclude that the position is not worth having. Again, much like an investment.
rb Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 Also posted in the politics section. Can we please open up a tread (or maybe even a section) for Paul's morality, theism, gay cakes, views on abortion, and whatever other items he wants to troll about so he doesn't have to spray them all over the board on every single thread?
cwericb Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 So back to the Cronavirus... If someone in the United States is hospitalized with Covid-19 does anyone have an idea of what costs are involved? I know there is no exact answer, but if the person is uninsured, what might his bill be? It would seem now that most travel insurance will no longer cover you for Covid-19 if you travel to the US.
rb Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 So back to the Cronavirus... If someone in the United States is hospitalized with Covid-19 does anyone have an idea of what costs are involved? I know there is no exact answer, but if the person is uninsured, what might his bill be? It would seem now that most travel insurance will no longer cover you for Covid-19 if you travel to the US. There was an article somewhere today about someone got a 1.2 million dollar bill that was 180 pages long. It obviously depends on how sick you get. But as I recall the ICU was about 9,500 a day and they nickle and dime you for everything else.
Cigarbutt Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 So back to the Cronavirus... If someone in the United States is hospitalized with Covid-19 does anyone have an idea of what costs are involved? I know there is no exact answer, but if the person is uninsured, what might his bill be? It would seem now that most travel insurance will no longer cover you for Covid-19 if you travel to the US. The cost for an "uninsured" can vary ++ and it's possible that the federal government comes to the rescue directly or indirectly (US hospitals are reporting very poor numbers). If you think like an underwriter, the average expected cost of a COVID-19 hospitalization lies between 20-75k, with 30k as a reasonable estimate. (references available if felt needed) The distribution cost curve is shaping up to have a positive skew with a significant tail on the right (high cost) side. This is bound to have an impact on the snowbird phenomenon as many in that category belong in higher risk groups.
RichardGibbons Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 Oh, I never said morality was impossible. I will say that I don't how a real morality (as in moral truths) is possible. I do think an illusion of morality is possible (like one race killing off another to promote itself). 1) How society functions isn't moral or immoral. For instance, if we killed everyone that committed first time criminal offenses, society would most likely function better. That doesn't make it more moral. 2) Why should I treat others the way I would like to be treated if I can advance my goals more effectively in a different manner? If I had to guess, you're probably from a western country that has been indoctrinated with the "Golden Rule" popularized by some ancient, uneducated tribesman. That doesn't make it the most rational choice though. If you have a better answer from where morality comes from, I'm all ears! ;) Yeah, my argument isn't at all about where morality comes from, because, while I could speculate about it, it's out of scope. I'm also not claiming that morality is short-term rational. I'm claiming that believing a higher morality has to come from a deity is silly. I think I've show that with a simple argument, and that you don't have a good counterargument for that, because if you did, you'd probably have written that counterargument rather writing a bunch of stuff unrelated to the original claim. (OK, I'm done polluting the thread with this argument now. Sorry, everyone.)
Guest Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 Oh, I never said morality was impossible. I will say that I don't how a real morality (as in moral truths) is possible. I do think an illusion of morality is possible (like one race killing off another to promote itself). 1) How society functions isn't moral or immoral. For instance, if we killed everyone that committed first time criminal offenses, society would most likely function better. That doesn't make it more moral. 2) Why should I treat others the way I would like to be treated if I can advance my goals more effectively in a different manner? If I had to guess, you're probably from a western country that has been indoctrinated with the "Golden Rule" popularized by some ancient, uneducated tribesman. That doesn't make it the most rational choice though. If you have a better answer from where morality comes from, I'm all ears! ;) Yeah, my argument isn't at all about where morality comes from, because, while I could speculate about it, it's out of scope. I'm also not claiming that morality is short-term rational. I'm claiming that believing a higher morality has to come from a deity is silly. I think I've show that with a simple argument, and that you don't have a good counterargument for that, because if you did, you'd probably have written that counterargument rather writing a bunch of stuff unrelated to the original claim. (OK, I'm done polluting the thread with this argument now. Sorry, everyone.) I'm not sure what your argument is. I believe you're claiming that believing there is a higher morality doesn't require believing in God. I agree with you 100%. When I was agnostic, I also believed the same thing (ie, I'm living a more moral life than all of these so-called Christians. What hypocrites!). What I'm saying is if God doesn't exist, the belief that there is a higher form of morality is an illusion (ie, we believe there is a higher form but there really isn't). There is a difference. Just like if you're in a desert, you might see a mirage but that too is an illusion. Yes, you really believe that pond is there, but it's not. For me personally, I believed I was living a more moral life but I really wasn't since there is no higher moral standard (if atheism is accurate). It was just an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. For instance, I'm sure you (as do I) think that it should be illegal to kill someone for a homosexual act. In Iran, it's legal. Yes, you think you have a higher moral standard. But so do they. Unless there is some higher moral law Giver (ie God), then it is quite irrational to think that our standards are any more or less right than theirs. If our consciences/moral compasses aren't driven by this Being, then it's irrational to assume their morality is better (or worse!) than ours. It's just different - like a culture or set of manners. If you would like to discuss more, I'm happy to do so (preferable via PM). If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you agree with my thoughts. ;) (also apologize to folks for disrupting the virus chat).
samwise Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 Uk talked about a study showing 1/3 reduction in deaths of ventilated patients a couple of days ago. Seemed like a big deal to me. Then I saw comments from people saying steroids are used regularly for inflammation, and this isn’t a breakthrough, but it is statistical confirmation that they work in this situation. I am confused. Any of the various doctors here care to opine? Does this advance the standard of care and save lives, reduce mortality, or not. PS: sorry if this was already posted and discussed up thread. I did make an effort to check but couldn’t even find the last post actually about the virus.
meiroy Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 Uk talked about a study showing 1/3 reduction in deaths of ventilated patients a couple of days ago. Seemed like a big deal to me. Then I saw comments from people saying steroids are used regularly for inflammation, and this isn’t a breakthrough, but it is statistical confirmation that they work in this situation. I am confused. Any of the various doctors here care to opine? Does this advance the standard of care and save lives, reduce mortality, or not. PS: sorry if this was already posted and discussed up thread. I did make an effort to check but couldn’t even find the last post actually about the virus. If Covid 19 is mainly a vascular issue, as some argue, then the first thing you'd want to do is provide antiinflammatories + anticoagulants and get rid of the clots. So, if this is how you see it and you're at home sick you could take (IANAD, not a recommendation) aspirin + omega 3, for example. BTW vitamin D deficiency is linked with "stiffer arteries and impaired vascular function". And of course, don't be old, obese, diabetic etc. all not ideal when it comes to blood vessels health.
Investor20 Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 That said, shutting down was not a no-brainer at any time for many reasons. The Japanese did not go into lockdowns for a very good reason. They got this ventilation aspect from WHO guidelines for other respiratory diseases such as Measles and Turberculosis. To me a no-brainer is to start with established protocols for other respiratory transmitted infections like Measles and Tuberculosis. That means use of masks and ventilation. Lockdown decreases ventilation. Having people go out increases ventilation. Lockdown has many other effects such as loss of jobs, other areas of healthcare being effected such as cancer screenings. Possibility of second waves after lockdowns. So, lockdowns were never a no-brainer. Following using of masks and ventilation which are protocols for TB and measles are. One should start exactly where Japanese started. Established protocols for similar infections. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/ongoingtopics/COVID19CASFlyer/PROffice3CGuide_en.pdf Yeah, the problem is that this sort of reasoning is basically, "find the country whose outcome supports my thesis, then say that the outcome in that country was somewhat predictable in the early days", when that's not true at all. I mean, there's a reason that the "we shouldn't lockdown" people were talking about Sweden, and now they aren't. Basically, if you put your life savings on Red 17 on a roulette wheel, and it turns out that Red 17 comes up, that doesn't imply that it was a good decision to put your life savings on Red 17. During a pandemic, before you have knowledge, you should take the conservative approach because a non-conservative approach can potentially lead to massive numbers of deaths. Then, as you better understand the situation, you should revise your approach.) First of all I never supported Swedish approach. I always supported Japanese approach. I was following Japan for the following reasons. It is a country one would expect high death rate and yet they did not from beginning. Japan is highly crowded country with lot of very old people and cold. With all three together, one would expect high death rate. So I was following Japan on how they are managing it. Whats wrong with following a method that works? It is not true that lockdown is a conservative approach. Following existing protocols for other respiratory diseases is a conservative approach. Washing hands, masks, ventilation, safe distance are established methods for respiratory diseases. I never heard of lockingdown most of the world even for TB eventhough for TB Estimated: 10.0 million new TB cases. Estimated: 1.3 million HIV-negative people died from TB and 0.30 million HIV-positive people died from TB. https://www.who.int/gho/tb/epidemic/cases_deaths/en/ The difference between Coronavirus and TB is there is no daily counter for TB. The reason even for something that causes 1.6 million deaths a year people did not try lockdowns is because lockdowns have very high costs on society. Lockdown is not a conservative approach. Its costs on society are pretty high.
Spekulatius Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 Uk talked about a study showing 1/3 reduction in deaths of ventilated patients a couple of days ago. Seemed like a big deal to me. Then I saw comments from people saying steroids are used regularly for inflammation, and this isn’t a breakthrough, but it is statistical confirmation that they work in this situation. I am confused. Any of the various doctors here care to opine? Does this advance the standard of care and save lives, reduce mortality, or not. PS: sorry if this was already posted and discussed up thread. I did make an effort to check but couldn’t even find the last post actually about the virus. I think the study presents current standard of care already. Administering steroids has been done for quite some time already (based on what I am hearing from my wife) as well as administering blood thinners (Heparin) and drugs to break up blood clots as well as some other things. This likely has reduced the IFR rate already compared to March. We likely will see more progress as our understanding of the disease improves.
John Hjorth Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 Here in Denmark, yesterday the treatment of CV patients with severe cases changed to be a combination of Remdevesir and Dexamethason. Yes, like Spekulatius mentioned, even a small step forward in the right direction is exactly that : A step forward. Edit : Here are the daily numbers for Denmark. Those actual numbers surpass my wildest dreams - in a positive way - from just about a month ago.
Cigarbutt Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 -^Congratulations on those Danish numbers. I hear that your country has opened its borders to its neighbors on an invitation-only basis. :) Can i still write stuff in this thread even if the numbers in my jurisdiction are terrible? -The dexamethasone data appears strong but the work needs to be dissected to the bone and replicated. Given the drug profile and price, it is very reasonable to include it in standard protocols (it's only a variation on a well known theme). i just want to add also that the drug is likely to make a difference only in the sickest patients (which is still a big +) and primary or secondary prevention tend to work better than third degree. Also, dexamethasone belongs to the steroid class which is a class used to treat many conditions and most treatment decisions are based on tradition. Cortisol-like treatment is very similar to QE in a way. It seems to work in very adverse situations (whatever the cause), tends to be used chronically with little evidence, is associated with a very poor side effect profile and is often continued chronically with little evidence. -@meiroy Your last post caused my resting heart rate to go above 50 for a few seconds. -@Investor20 i'm also fascinated by the Japan approach. Their cluster approach "worked" but it's still unclear if the 3C strategy is enough, as an independent variable, to explain the outcome. There are still so many unknowns. The following is technical but may be interesting to some. This is developing (much like the evolving knowledge discovery of transmission risk in certain specific asymptomatic groups) but it seems that, unrelated to antibodies presence, there is a subgroup in the population that is able to effectively mount an immune response to COVID-19 even with no previous specific exposure. Age and general host conditions are obviously relevant but previous exposure to coronavirus or even other virus may have contributed, over time, to some kind of latent immunity in certain populations. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30610-3
KCLarkin Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 No link between protests and outbreaks (yet): https://www.businessinsider.com/black-lives-matter-protests-are-not-fueling-coronavirus-outbreaks-2020-6 Outdoors, masks, distancing seem to work.
cubsfan Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 No link between protests and outbreaks (yet): https://www.businessinsider.com/black-lives-matter-protests-are-not-fueling-coronavirus-outbreaks-2020-6 Outdoors, masks, distancing seem to work. But CV is sure to skyrocket once the Trump rallies begin.
Dalal.Holdings Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 As you can see from one of the last countries hit w the pandemic (USA), leadership does not matter—now hold that indoor rally with 20k! “You’re doin’ fine, Oklahoma! Oklahoma, OK!” A shame we had to change the slogan from “Keep America Great” back to “Make America Great Again” (strange slogan for an incumbent...). Surely we will achieve greatness on our current trajectory, all we need is four more years of this!
rolling Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 - -The dexamethasone data appears strong but the work needs to be dissected to the bone and replicated. Given the drug profile and price, it is very reasonable to include it in standard protocols (it's only a variation on a well known theme). i just want to add also that the drug is likely to make a difference only in the sickest patients (which is still a big +) and primary or secondary prevention tend to work better than third degree. Also, dexamethasone belongs to the steroid class which is a class used to treat many conditions and most treatment decisions are based on tradition. Cortisol-like treatment is very similar to QE in a way. It seems to work in very adverse situations . The following is technical but may be interesting to some. This is developing (much like the evolving knowledge discovery of transmission risk in certain specific asymptomatic groups) but it seems that, unrelated to antibodies presence, there is a subgroup in the population that is able to effectively mount an immune response to COVID-19 even with no previous specific exposure. Age and general host conditions are obviously relevant but previous exposure to coronavirus or even other virus may have contributed, over time, to some kind of latent immunity in certain populations. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30610-3 1) about dexa: corticoid use in severely ill covid patients was very likely already a norm, due to its use in ARDS. As such, unfortunately, I'm not sure it will save that many lives. 2) about other coronavirus, this was already a possibility raised early in the pandemic: " rolling Full Member *** Posts: 135 View Profile Personal Message (Online) Re: Coronavirus « Reply #1380 on: March 13, 2020, 09:28:38 AM » QuoteModifyRemove There are other possible explanations. Children, who are typically bombarded with certain other coronaviruses, such as the ones that cause the common cold, may have antibodies in their bloodstream from exposure to those that offers some cross-protection for this virus, said Dr. Buddy Creech, an associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt Children's Hospital. Why don't authorities throughout the world bomb us with regular coronavirus cold? For sure the US have some inoffensive coronavirus on labs that they could spread, right? "
KCLarkin Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 No link between protests and outbreaks (yet): https://www.businessinsider.com/black-lives-matter-protests-are-not-fueling-coronavirus-outbreaks-2020-6 Outdoors, masks, distancing seem to work. But CV is sure to skyrocket once the Trump rallies begin. Doubt the rallies will be big enough to matter, but indoors, no distancing, no masks, is 100% the conditions to create an outbreak. All you need to do is add some singing or chanting. But again, this won’t be large enough to matter in the twilight zone, alternative facts, America first, science denying, cult that is America.
cwericb Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 “But CV is sure to skyrocket once the Trump rallies begin..” Well let us explain something to you since you don’t seem to understand. There is a BIG difference between crowds gathering outside with the vast majority wearing masks and packing 20,000 people with no masks into an indoor stadium. And here is a new slogan for ya... Dump Trump and Make America Great Again !
cubsfan Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 “But CV is sure to skyrocket once the Trump rallies begin..” Well let us explain something to you since you don’t seem to understand. There is a BIG difference between crowds gathering outside with the vast majority wearing masks and packing 20,000 people with no masks into an indoor stadium. And here is a new slogan for ya... Dump Trump and Make America Great Again ! Thank you for your scientific explanation CW - so much for social distancing, blah, blah, blah. You just love to twist the narrative and the facts to approve of "peaceful protests", rioting and looting! No problem - it's safe!
cwericb Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 Jeez Cubs still don’t see the difference eh? On one hand we have average people white, black, brown, etc wearing masks demonstrating outdoors against cops who murder people. On the other hand you have the buffoon discouraging the wearing of masks lying that the pandemic is mostly over holding an indoor rally with 20,000 gullible people in an effort to keep his job. See the difference yet? Dump Trump... Make America Great Again So back to the subject... It is now appearing obvious that with Trumps urging, many states reopened too quickly. Nearly half the states are seeing increases in cases and in another few months we could be hit with a second wave ON TOP of the increasing numbers. Are we setting up for another perhaps harder and longer lockdown? Will we reach a situation where our food supply could be threatened? What is the alternative to a firm lockdown? Do we just put up with it and let another few hundred thousand die? If the virus really gets out of hand don't worry about locking down borders, no other country would let Americans in. Just thinking out loud.
Recommended Posts