Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[bodiddley]

“If we were to go on lockdown where nobody saw anybody else for 28 days — two times the incubation period — we are pretty sure we can stop the spread of the virus,” she said. “But, that’s not very reasonable, economically or socially,” said Dr. Catherine Troisi, an epidemiologist at University of Texas, Houston.

Why not?  Shut down the economy for one month and bounce right back with no cases, except maybe those seriously ill in ICU units.

But you don't need such extremes.  Lockdowns with exceptions for buying food, medicine, essentials.  Social distancing, face masks, temp checks.  Worked in China after 8 weeks.  And this was with a huge outbreak that had already spread.  Most cases in China were confined to Hubei Province.

So you do a serious mandatory lockdown in NYC and wherever there are significant outbreaks and do more voluntary lockdowns in lower risk areas.

Shanghai limited infections to 468 officially diagnosed cases and just 5 deaths with 129 unresolved cases.  In Shanghai, the buses and subway ran the whole time.  Food and drug stores stayed open.  About 1/4 of restaurants stayed open.  You could go out whenever you wanted, it's just most things were closed and there was a virus out there.

Basically we know how to stop and limit the virus and it's a disgrace the US didn't implement measures about a month earlier, instead of waiting for lareg outbreaks to get a foothold.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I still think an important question is:
Why have more Americans been infected than Chinese?

And the followup:
Why will more people likely die in America than China?

These are the bottom line key questions.  And the Trump worshippers here don't have an answer.

Short answer from me is; Early February the Trump Administration thought COVID would be good for US jobs.

The implications of that, and where their heads were vs. where they needed to be to prepare for this crisis, speaks volumes.

[bodiddley]

When the economy was in freefall after the Bush Crash, the Recovery Act, Obama's stimulus measure passed 246-183 in the House without a single Republican vote  the Senate by a vote of 60-38 with all Democrats and only three Republicans in support.

Obama was unable to get the amount over $1T which is what many advisers were calling for (roughly $1.2T).  Obama had to reduce the bill to under $800B in order to get the necessary GOP support to break a threatened filibuster, and was forced to include fairly useless tax breaks as over 1/3 of the bill.  McConnell led the opposition to the stimulus bill.  And most GOPers derided the notion that Gov't spending could resuscitate the economy and denied that govt money could have a multiplier effect.

That was how bipartisan the GOP was in an emergency when there was a DEM president (and the GOP crashed the economy).  Flash forward to today and you get unanimous votes in the Senate and just one jackass GOP thwarting things in the House.

[kiidcarter8]

Shanghai limited infections to 468 officially diagnosed cases and just 5 deaths with 129 unresolved cases.  In Shanghai, the buses and subway ran the whole time.  Food and drug stores stayed open.  About 1/4 of restaurants stayed open.  You could go out whenever you wanted, it's just most things were closed and there was a virus out there.


Maybe you can tell us why Shanghai could do this and NYC could not.  What are the major differences in the 2 locales - in general and specific to late December up til now?

Thanks.

[barton]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethpfeiffer/2020/03/22/one-patient-dodges-a-covid-bullet-is-she-a-harbinger-or-outlier/#ab7a9dd5b843

Get this through your thick head:  it's not "negativism" when scientists do not use anecdote as evidence.  Randomized clinical trials will provide better answers.   They will TEST the hypothesis that was generated by interesting anecdotes.   Watch The Lancet,  not Forbes,  for future solid reports on the matter.   

I skipped most of the last five pages here,  which seemed dominated by Red trolling.   If I missed any good links, my apologies.   

[bodiddley]

Maybe you can tell us why Shanghai could do this and NYC could not.  What are the major differences in the 2 locales - in general and specific to late December up til now?

I think NYC could have but didn't.

A few advantages Shanghai had:
- there was a raging epidemic in a central province which focused attention
- it was cold rainy weather in Jan and Feb so people stayed in more due to bad weather and it was easier to abide by the lockdown when it was implemented circa Jan 24.  (also easier to wear masks in public in cold weather -- though that's largely irrelevant since you folks didn't have masks to wear or not wear)
- Chinese New Year was officially from Jan 24 - 30.  And so many businesses and most of the city was already in holiday shut-down mode, which is extensive (as in most years it's deserted enough you can walk down the center of many streets).

Shanghai Disadvantage:
- they had to deal with millions of folks returning to Shanghai after the holiday ended, some no doubt coming from in or around Hubei.  SH extended the holiday another full week, and tried to ensure people returned gradually and not all at once.  Some also postponed returning to a crowded urban zone, if they were able to.

New York Advantages:
- at least 2 months to prepare.  And to observe what worked well in Asia.
- less population than Shanghai, maybe half as many people.
- warmer Spring weather could hamper transmission -- but also gets more people out in public longer -- so can cut both ways

I just think there was a failure of leadership, a failure to prepare, inexcusable shortages, mixed messages, people didn't take things seriously, unnecessary delays.  To defeat the virus you need planning and timeliness and thorough measures being complied with.  Once you fritter away valuable time and wait until the virus is already spreading within your borders, it is much harder to contain and eradicate.  Infections and deaths increase dramatically and resources dwindle.

There was nothing draconian employed in Shanghai.  Just lots of good measures that limited transmission.  There was no law that said you had to wear a face mask, but everyone did in public, and after the first week the food stores and few other open public buildings wouldn't allow you in without a temp check and face mask. 

I think the SH airport could have done better to space people out and avoid crowds (masked, but still crowds).  But in the city, I thought the measures were sensible, thorough, and effective. 

[bodiddley]

I found the delays and late starts, shortages and lack of seriousness and focus in the US very disconcerting and negligent.  The last two weeks I've become angry.

It was just a matter of time before the virus reached NYC/NJ.
When NJ was showing 0 cases, I said on here that that wouldn't last long.
A coordinated and thorough response could relatively easily have limited and contained the virus.  Shanghai and Beijing combined for a little over 1000 cases and 13 deaths so far.  That's fairly effective mitigation.

[kiidcarter8]

John Liu called out


https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-nyc-leaders-endangering-public-coronavirus

[kiidcarter8]

A coordinated and thorough response could relatively easily have limited and contained the virus. 

I doubt this

[kiidcarter8]

Maybe you can tell us why Shanghai could do this and NYC could not.  What are the major differences in the 2 locales - in general and specific to late December up til now?

I think NYC could have but didn't.

A few advantages Shanghai had:
- there was a raging epidemic in a central province which focused attention
- it was cold rainy weather in Jan and Feb so people stayed in more due to bad weather and it was easier to abide by the lockdown when it was implemented circa Jan 24.  (also easier to wear masks in public in cold weather -- though that's largely irrelevant since you folks didn't have masks to wear or not wear)
- Chinese New Year was officially from Jan 24 - 30.  And so many businesses and most of the city was already in holiday shut-down mode, which is extensive (as in most years it's deserted enough you can walk down the center of many streets).

Shanghai Disadvantage:
- they had to deal with millions of folks returning to Shanghai after the holiday ended, some no doubt coming from in or around Hubei.  SH extended the holiday another full week, and tried to ensure people returned gradually and not all at once.  Some also postponed returning to a crowded urban zone, if they were able to.

New York Advantages:
- at least 2 months to prepare.  And to observe what worked well in Asia.
- less population than Shanghai, maybe half as many people.
- warmer Spring weather could hamper transmission -- but also gets more people out in public longer -- so can cut both ways

I just think there was a failure of leadership, a failure to prepare, inexcusable shortages, mixed messages, people didn't take things seriously, unnecessary delays.  To defeat the virus you need planning and timeliness and thorough measures being complied with.  Once you fritter away valuable time and wait until the virus is already spreading within your borders, it is much harder to contain and eradicate.  Infections and deaths increase dramatically and resources dwindle.

There was nothing draconian employed in Shanghai.  Just lots of good measures that limited transmission.  There was no law that said you had to wear a face mask, but everyone did in public, and after the first week the food stores and few other open public buildings wouldn't allow you in without a temp check and face mask. 

I think the SH airport could have done better to space people out and avoid crowds (masked, but still crowds).  But in the city, I thought the measures were sensible, thorough, and effective.

Who comes into Shanghai each day?

And New York?

[REDSTATEWARD]

Who says it's bogus, Ward?

EVERYBODY who cares about the truth:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/politics/fact-check-trump-coronavirus-briefing/index.html

The TDS has ruined the democrat party and what little credibility you have. But keep us up to date on CNN reporting. That stopped clock, by comparison, may win a Pulitzer!
LOL!

[kiidcarter8]

Daniel and Tara, reuinted

heh

(Daniel had gone off on his own to be in front of the CNN camera, all preppy and clean.  Surely on the fast track....)

[kiidcarter8]

A coordinated and thorough response could relatively easily have limited and contained the virus. 

I doubt this

Yet it is close to the truth

A coordinated and thorough response IS - though not so easily - limiting and containing the virus.

[NeedsAdjustments]

When the economy was in freefall after the Bush Crash, the Recovery Act, Obama's stimulus measure passed 246-183 in the House without a single Republican vote  the Senate by a vote of 60-38 with all Democrats and only three Republicans in support.

Obama was unable to get the amount over $1T which is what many advisers were calling for (roughly $1.2T).  Obama had to reduce the bill to under $800B in order to get the necessary GOP support to break a threatened filibuster, and was forced to include fairly useless tax breaks as over 1/3 of the bill.  McConnell led the opposition to the stimulus bill.  And most GOPers derided the notion that Gov't spending could resuscitate the economy and denied that govt money could have a multiplier effect.

That was how bipartisan the GOP was in an emergency when there was a DEM president (and the GOP crashed the economy).  Flash forward to today and you get unanimous votes in the Senate and just one jackass GOP thwarting things in the House.

See my post on this yesterday.

As I said, if the President was a Democrat (not to mention a Democrat facing election in 8 months) this bill doesn't happen. 

And when a Democrat is elected in November, Republicans will want all spending stopped because "deficits," even if the economy had not yet recovered at that point.

Fed quantitative easing program will get up to $1.5 Trillion.  Anyone remember what Republicans said when it was $600 Billion total under Obama?  I do.  They called it "cheating" "artificially floating the economy" and "political."   

You can't escape the conclusion that Republicans did what they could to tank the economy under Obama because they thought it helped them politically.  No matter the pain to ordinary Americans. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

A coordinated and thorough response could relatively easily have limited and contained the virus. 

I doubt this

Yet it is close to the truth

A coordinated and thorough response IS - though not so easily - limiting and containing the virus.

LOL.  Good catch kiidcarter8.  You faced up to the truth.  For a second, anyway.