Where are you seeing reference to that speculation in the article you just linked? The article you just linked doesn’t make that claim at all – or I have missed it and please point me to it… I’m not sure what the May speculative paper has to do with it. There is no evidence that the speculation was correct. The paper you’re referencing from May did not claim there was evidence for it, just posed several “what ifs”
Those speculations have not been supported by the data since May.
While he is telling America to stop testing, apparently hoping more people get sick and die, he and the White House staff are getting tested every day, sometimes more often.
He was also likely spreading it to others.
At the debate a doctor approached Melania to ask her to wear a mask per the rules of the facility and was told to go away (rules are for the little people).
We have a terribly irresponsible, uncaring President.
I’m not quite following since there were several different links you posted recently, the misinformation one and the non-herd immunity one, or responding to the Atlantic article? I was just re-iterating that social connectivity is important and variability reduces the required herd immunity threshold.
The article from May did not claim this. It only passed a thought experiment that IF ______ then the threshold would be lower. Which would be great m, but there did not seem to be evidence of such.
Yes the Atlantic article. I saw no reference in it of this hypothetical lower threshold for herd immunity. So I am missing how you were tieing the two things together.
An hour and a half of yelling that close to Biden and Wallace. Hopefully they weren’t infected too by the Trump Virus.
That also put in question why the heck they risked having a live audience at these TV debates. That was just a mindbogglingly stupid move in a pandemic especially when many in attendance refused to wear masks.
" The White House phased out mandatory mask-wearing and temperature checks in the West Wing in late June, CNN reported. According to The Washington Post, many aides were no longer wearing masks regularly.
In late July, Dr Jonathan Reiner, professor of medicine at The George Washington University Medical Centre, warned that lax use of masks was a danger to senior government members, according to The Independent.
Pointing to images of crowded hallways and maskless photo opportunities, he said that a “a very senior member, even higher in the government than the national security adviser will contract this virus,” if more stringent mask-wearing were not put in place."
For the most part wasnt the audience “friends and family” that would be exposed regardless? I dont know how separated the two sides were.
All of them agreed to the rules in advance, the audience was required to wear masks to have premiering to be on the property. Team Trump Virus then just violated the rules on site, removing masks after they were inside and seated. Security should have thrown them out. But then Baby Trump would have shaken his rattle and ordered the Secret Service to prevent the removal, and they would have been faced with the choice of disobeying an illegal order or blocking the security from doing their jobs… so what can you really expect them to do when the President decides to violate the law?
Other than vote him out, of course. And vote out other representatives that have shown they won’t remove from office after illegal activities.
What law?
Most of the “rallies” have been in direct violation of local laws. Either crowd sizes or refusal to enforce mask and distancing requirements.
In respect to the debate, it may not have been the president himself, presence on private property in violation of the rules is trespassing (if they don’t correct or leave… already went over why security trying to remove the president’s “guests” would have been an issue. They were approached and re- told the requirements and refused. ).
What laws? There are local guidelines virtually everywhere, but very few actual laws. And for the most part, compliance with such guidelines is voluntary regardless of any posturing to the contrary.
False. In most states, the orders specifically have the force of law. The governors have been delegated the authority by the legislatures. Local governments also already had the authority (not reserved by the state falls to county, city, etc), with exception of some states where the state legislators have taken away their authority.
Direct correlation during Trump’s erratic display at the “debate” between Biden odds going way up in betting markets and stock futures.
Are markets going to absolutely tank if odds reverse and it looks like Trump has a bigger chance?
Such as, if people nonsensically give him a sympathy bonus if he potentially has a rough recovery from the Trump Virus. (Nonsensical because it doesn’t make sense to sympathize with a serial killer who trips and falls on the knife they are running with between crime scenes).
I don’t think you can read much into a less than 1% move in overnight futures during the time they looked at. The moves in the betting markets seem more reflective of what people thought of the debate and how it was going for each party’s prospects.
If you have any doubt about your 401k, I can tell you now that if Biden’s tax plan looks at all likely to pass, including capital gains taxed as ordinary and raising both personal and corporate tax brackets, the market is going to be down a fair bit. Lower forward post-tax earnings for many stocks means the valuations now are too high, plus there’d be a big incentive to cash out your tech stock profits this year before the high taxes hit your gains the next year.
Edit - shouldn’t this be in the politics thread instead?
There would have to be a better place to put money for that to occur. At least that seems to be what all the big banks are saying, and that the Biden infrastructure plans look more advantageous to the US market and US economy.
I’m currently planning to stay mostly on the sideline in cash, probably until after the election. Seems like Trump recovering (from covid, this thread topic) and Biden winning would set up huge uncertainty due to what might occur between November and January. Add possible additional brain damage from covid recovery which is one of the long term effects (again, the thread topic) to the unstable occupant of the white house…
Tough to say, it’s was more about investment effects. And election is 100% about the virus now, debate “performance” may have been impacted by additional cognitive impairment from Covid. So there is some overlap. But probably some of that thread over here and vice versa. Good point. Probably should have put that one over there.
Here’s what Trump is taking in his currently early case of covid. Vit D, Zinc, REGN’s artificial antibodies, famotidine and a few other minor things.
https://twitter.com/MarkHalperin/status/1312123271165341696?s=20
Cites fatigue but otherwise well. Fatigue is a more common early symptom than some of the standard stuff like cough. Company PR on their antibodies being used.
https://investor.regeneron.com/static-files/fd58ba6a-f401-47b0-9d65-cfb01c313ec6
"Sean Conley, the president’s physician, said that Trump received an experimental drug made by Regeneron, which contains two antibodies against the coronavirus.
The medicine is currently in clinical trials and isn’t approved by the Food and Drug Administration. How the president’s medical team got the medicine wasn’t disclosed in the statement."
Any idea why they’re giving him melatonin? I’d guess he has a sleeping disorder and needs more sleep to be healthier. But maybe there’s something else, like improved vitamin D or Zinc absorption?
