Can’t have people looking for air purifiers and/or ventilation as part of their freedom of choice of which businesses and employers to frequent.
(if they also removed those new references)
No idea why it’d be a hot topic… unless people lack analytical skills. Isn’t even the regular flu airborne? I remember reading months ago some articles about early spread in a Hong Kong restaurant where several people got sick, even though they were seating at tables far away from “patient 0”. That clearly requires airborne transmission.
It seems to have something to do with the current administration and how they run things,
1 Like
1 Like
Just sort of painting here with a broad brush:
The evolution of this virus is disheartening for yours truly. Listened this morning to news out of Ontario (Canada). The virus is resurging there, and of course as well in Europe. It is hitting younger people now, with lots of asymptomatic cases as you would anticipate in the young. Past experience is providing a bit of protection for old folks, but younger people are understandably struggling to enjoy some semblance of a normal life and the virus is seriously impeding that effort. The virus is less politicized in Canada and Europe, but with the election so close the same cannot be said here. And that, too, is understandable.
Looking at history, which might not be fair or accurate, the pandemic 100 years ago swept in in 1918 and was gone mostly of its own accord fairly early in 1920. And that was in the absence of all the supposedly remedial measures provided us today by “modern science”. As the second wave of COVID-19 gathers steam worldwide, I wonder if we will see the virus disappear as rapidly as did Americans 100 years ago.
1 Like
All our “remedial” measures have prolonged the ‘crisis’. I understand the argument (I disagree, but understand) that the cost is well worth what’s being saved, but there’s no denying that “hide until it’s gone” has only extended the timeframe for getting to the point of being past it.
2 Likes
Quick question - did anyone ever believe them when they claimed those single infected individuals on flights from Italy posted no threat to the hundreds of others on the plane? While at the same time insisting that stopping by the grocery store was a significant health risk due to how infectious the virus is?
It’s been pretty clear all along that either the virus had/has penetrated far deeper into the population than anyone thinks, or it isn’t nearly as contagious as everyone claims. It’s pretty simple - you can’t have hundreds of people on a plane (or even more so, on subway cars) and expect a highly contagious virus to remain relatively isolated. They’re irreconcilable differences, one or the other has to be false.
2 Likes
False. Making something up (that there weren’t remediation efforts of social distancing and mask requirements) and saying it doesn’t make it true.
They had pretty much the same remediation measures available. But shutdowns were more substantial where applied and there weren’t as many anarchist terrorists refusing to wear masks where that was the policy. (There were still some. Not complying because one is addicted to nicotine like the example in the article is much different than not complying primarily because you want to kill other people…)
There were areas that took things less seriously. They paid for that in lives and in lasting economic losses. Like we are doing today.
There’s also plenty of data showing that mismanagement led to higher death tolls and more economic damage. Different cities can be compared.
1 Like
Well, that’s pretty true when 98% of the population has been unaffected, a lot of the other 2% wouldn’t have been mostly affected had a test not told them they were positive, and most of who’s left were in fact elderly or with significant complicating factors.
Of course, his comments lack any resemblance of the elegance you expect from an effective orator. But that doesn’t make them wrong.
1 Like
No, quite true and correct.
I had in mind modern hospitals, medicines, and immensely better understanding today of how diseases operate to harm us. 1918 was a time of medical stone knives and bearskins compared to today’s medicine. This is intuitively obvious even to a casual observer.
1 Like
Absent a vaccine (and even in conjunction with a vaccine), masks and social distancing are still the best tools we have for controlling a pandemic. They are not new.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html
Your claim that I correctly indicated as false and a complete fabrication was that in 1918 they didn’t use the same mitigation methods (and implied that they weren’t useful at all, and glitch’s contribution that mitigation only prolongs the effects) and that the pandemic just went away. Shutdowns, social distancing, and masks were all used in 1918. These are facts. The historical record is also clear, areas that better controlled the pandemic had lower death tolls and their economies also seem to have suffered less and recovered faster.
The same is valid today and in the USA we are already seeing businesses fall from the waterfall to bankruptcy as others are approaching. Largely due to incompetent public policy from the federal government.
Of course you had to weave that in. Typical.
I stand resolutely by what I wrote. The word “remedial” pertains to remedies. If you contract the virus today, your chances for survival are far better than they would have been back in 1918. Deal with it.
2 Likes
Got it, I see your point. Agreed, immediate deaths should have been somewhat lower if they had modern medicine back then. Aside from actual medical advances, what we have today is better communication within the medical community.
Unfortunately that’s not all that got them past the 1918 pandemic. It was also mitigation, for which the measures available were actually exactly the same as today (and the historical records are pretty clear on those, with differences in death rates and economic pain in different areas based on public policy differences).
The FDA doesn’t want an early vaccine it seems.
FDA set to announce tougher standards for granting emergency use authorization to a COVID-19 vaccine – Washington Post
• Citing sources, the Washington Post reports that the FDA is expected to release new guidance for what it will require to approve a COVID-19 vaccine under emergency use authorization, including that:
• The vaccine manufacturers follow participants in the trials for a median of two months after receiving their second dose
• At least five severe COVID-19 cases are presented in the placebo group of each trial, as well as some cases in more elderly participants
• The guidance is also expected to state that the agency is requiring data for emergency use authorization that is close to what would be required for full approval, according to the report
• The Post notes that the tougher requirements make it unlikely a vaccine will be approved prior to the election
1 Like
Is this pandemic the end of the line for Trump?
At this moment, over on his page, Drudge has a WSJ item entitled:
GRAND CHICAGO HOTEL in Foreclosure, Symbol of Pandemic Toll on Hospitality…
Because of the WSJ firewall you have to click Drudge’s link, over on his page, if you want to read the piece. I did so and it got me to thinking:
First, if Trump loses the election it will in significant measure be on account of the pandemic. But let’s look beyond that. Let’s consider instead Trump’s personal fortune:
As I read the article I thought of Trump and how this pandemic must be scorching him personally, completely outside of politics, because of his holdings. Boy, it cannot be good for him! Many of the considerations mentioned in that article apply as well to properties Trump owns.
On a personal note, I stayed at the Palmer House back when I was a teenager and won an all expenses paid trip to Chicago on the Broadway Limited (that is a train for anyone unfamiliar). It was a pretty nifty joint in those days, let me tell you. Reading about the impact of this pandemic, as documented by the WSJ, is hard for me. We’re losing our country bit by bit. And too much of this stuff cannot be replaced.
President Trump’s support is gaining in swing states, so it makes sense for Democrats to move from the SSM Captain Party Candidate Joseph Biden to anything else, including the weather.
Yes, you’re all for the Kiwis. I’m shocked.
Because more people or forced to stay home and spread the virus to their canine protectors and life extenders. Thank the blue state governors for not only killing the elderly, but defenseless animals, too.
Wow! Is Boris becoming a Progressive. If so, he needs to work harder on finding ways to take people’s money.
OTOH, how many lives would have been saved if we had done this with AIDS?
And bringing their lazy politics with them. Thus, we can expect Colorado to be in the all-heart – no-brain category for years to come.
WTH? You mean, you like low taxes? Why do you think the taxes are low? Lots of people move from high tax states to low tax states and they bring their high tax ideas and high tax votes with them. Do they not have the commons sense to realize the result? Or do they not care and figure they’ll move to another low tax state when their current one is ruined?
The Al Capone of software is trying to buy a good name via money and denigration. Maybe he should re-visit that 640k line.
Finally, I’m with you on one. For all those who pray to the maskers, the Fauci-ites and bow to the CDC (or Saudi princes), you have a solution - stop breathing air. Go to straight oxygen, but be forewarned, the additional oxygen to the brain may turn you into a conservative. 
Wait, can President Trump be wrong on somehting. I find it hard to believe, but recall hearing that black folks and Democrats (not completely redundant, as we’ll see in the election) and the elderly in nursing homes (just ask Fredo’s brother) are victims of the virus.
Oh wait, that info/opinion might have come from big media, so never mind.
Is that because there was no racism then? Then why weren’t their any violent peaceful protests? Can you imagine how awful the flu would have been if they had?
Does that mean that NYC should be turning a profit by the last fiscal qtr?
State taxes covering capital gains just works out poorly vs. taxable savings/investments.
Additionally, single filer taxes are pretty high, especially with the increase for single filers in the last GOP “large tax cuts for the 0.1%, minor tax cuts for families, increased taxes for single filers”.
Just the way it is. Much harder to make up the COLA difference by salary difference when going from 24% to 35% 39.2% marginal rates (5% state = .95*.68 with 32% federal = .646 = 35.4% + 3.8% NIIT), along with also an additional 28% to the taxes paid on capital gains (19.25% instead of 15%…) that would hit the compounding earnings from my accumulated savings.
In general, the salaries are higher and account for the state taxes and then some. But that is only if you’re looking at MFJ single-income household and/or without capital gains.
The CO state taxes fund things like the parks and trails, which is a big part of why someone would move there.
Edit: forgot about the 3.8% NIIT. Although it’s on the capital gains I applied it to marginal, as it would only apply to the over $200k, and that would be driven partly by the higher W2 salary.
1 Like