MSM is getting pressure to not show Trump daily briefings because his poll and approval numbers are going through the roof. Scary stuff.

Don't worry, they have Joe Biden on the job.
He can reassure the American People.
We just have to wait a week or so while somebody above Joe's pay grade installs a camera and delivers a podium to Joe's house.
...well, Joe gave it the old Biden try.  Let's just say there were some glitches.
Joe is skipping today's Daily Briefing and hopes to have one in the near future.

---

MSM is getting pressure to not show Trump daily briefings because his poll and approval numbers are going through the roof. Scary stuff.

You're not wrong, at least about the polling, but there are two things in play here that you're not mentioning:

1. Every President's approval ratings go up during a time of major crisis. Roosevelt with WWII, George W. Bush with 9/11, even Carter when the Iran hostage crisis happened. Ratings come back down afterwards. Carter cratered after the crisis ended. Truman fell off a cliff after WWII and barely won reelection over a patsy challenger. It remains to be seen what Trump's dropoff looks like, but there is a second factor in play...

2. He's literally buying votes right now with the stimulus checks. That's not to say that it isn't the right thing to do. It unquestionably is, but the short term effects of a payment to every American will artificially bump his numbers, but it's not foolproof. Look at your own reaction. You're griping that people with a $200,000 income aren't getting paid. In that regard, he'd be an idiot not to make sure that a stimulus package with a bigger check and encompassing higher earners hits the Congressional floor in late September. If he does that, he wins, period.

And keep in mind that Biden is a patsy candidate. He's not expected to win. He's only expected to keep the seat warm for whoever runs in 2024.

---

There is always a trade-off when considering the economic impact of a virus. We know this is true, because we don't shut down for the flu each year, and many people die from it. So before the political narrative shifts, I wanted to ask a question: What amount of deaths or deaths per capita is going to be satisfactory in the chance that we stop social distancing mid April? Less than 1%? Less than .05%? Do we need to have the best numbers among Westernized countries? Top 5?

---

MSM is getting pressure to not show Trump daily briefings because his poll and approval numbers are going through the roof. Scary stuff.

You're not wrong, at least about the polling, but there are two things in play here that you're not mentioning:

1. Every President's approval ratings go up during a time of major crisis. Roosevelt with WWII, George W. Bush with 9/11, even Carter when the Iran hostage crisis happened. Ratings come back down afterwards. Carter cratered after the crisis ended. Truman fell off a cliff after WWII and barely won reelection over a patsy challenger. It remains to be seen what Trump's dropoff looks like, but there is a second factor in play...

2. He's literally buying votes right now with the stimulus checks. That's not to say that it isn't the right thing to do. It unquestionably is, but the short term effects of a payment to every American will artificially bump his numbers, but it's not foolproof. Look at your own reaction. You're griping that people with a $200,000 income aren't getting paid. In that regard, he'd be an idiot not to make sure that a stimulus package with a bigger check and encompassing higher earners hits the Congressional floor in late September. If he does that, he wins, period.

And keep in mind that Biden is a patsy candidate. He's not expected to win. He's only expected to keep the seat warm for whoever runs in 2024.

His response numbers were 60% favorable before the American people were promised a penny. I know it makes you feel better to convince yourself that the stimulus is the reason his response numbers are so high, but it is because of his incredible leadership.Stimulus is a cherry on top of an already grand ice cream sundae (2 scoops).

---

Case numbers don't really mean much country to country as it is a sign of how much testing has taken place.

However it's been clear for a while that it is rampant in some areas of the US. Unfortunately looks like you are about to become the next Italy. Was always a worry with your health system. Stay at home.

Buuuwwwaaaa!!! Deep thoughts from the board pom. Idiot. Pure and simple.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Case numbers don't really mean much country to country as it is a sign of how much testing has taken place.

However it's been clear for a while that it is rampant in some areas of the US. Unfortunately looks like you are about to become the next Italy. Was always a worry with your health system. Stay at home.

Buuuwwwaaaa!!! Deep thoughts from the board pom. Idiot. Pure and simple.

He must have been beaten up or violated by an American some time in his life and can't let go.

---

There is always a trade-off when considering the economic impact of a virus. We know this is true, because we don't shut down for the flu each year, and many people die from it. So before the political narrative shifts, I wanted to ask a question: What amount of deaths or deaths per capita is going to be satisfactory in the chance that we stop social distancing mid April? Less than 1%? Less than .05%? Do we need to have the best numbers among Westernized countries? Top 5?

No one is going to answer this question?

I realized that is framed with bias, so let's frame if for conservatives as well. Assuming we stop social distancing mid April, what amount of deaths would constitute a failure by the Trump administration? Over 1%? Worse death rate than most of Europe?

---

My God you are terribly mis-informed.

I don't blame you.. my mother is scared beyond reason because all she listens to is German news (being German herself)

They have the lowest CFR by FAR.

While CFR essentially means nothing as nobody knows in reality how many cases they have, I'd love to see you back that up with a recent source. 

If you want to base it off CFR Australia, South Korea, Germany, Norway, Canada are all lower from what I can see.

No I'm saying all she listens to is the German media and she's scared to death even though Germany has the lowest death rate of any European country... yet the German news is all doom and gloom and end of the world.

It's just not the reality. So I don't blame you - you're misinformed because your media lies to you everyday.

---

...because of social distancing /quarantining.
They have to keep it up.
So do we.

Nah bruh, don't give me that crap.  not today.  These people sold the world that if we didn't shut down civilization until we found a vaccine that we were looking at 2 million deaths in the US and 500k deaths in the UK.  today in parliment, the lead researcher testified that in reality, we are only looking at potentially 20k deaths in the UK and extrapolating that means that we would have been looking at 80k deaths in the US.  That is one hell of a flu season, but not completely out of line with a really bad flu season.  Moreover, they expect the peak of the infection to occur in 2 to three weeks not 2 to three years.  Why?Because the rates of mortality and morbidity are nothing like the early days of wuhan or italy.  Italy is the outlier, not the rule.  roughly about 24% of adults between 18 to 49 live with their parents.  That model was never analogous to the US or most western countries.  

This is the model that caused the globe to shut down.  This is the model that just rang up a 2 trillion dollar tab and 3 million unemployed (which is about to skyrocket even further with the draft error in the stimulus package)  But hey, its only our economy.  IT's only going to be 20% unemployment, and depression era economics.  It's not like we cast aside every lesson we ever learned in the history of fighting viruses.  IT's not like we bought a computer model that had an infection rate 2 times that of the SPANISH FLU!!!  I can't believe this @#$P(

Even worse, we did this before the first treatment trial was finished, before the change of season that would have reduced transmission and really before we had any real picture of what the mortality and morbidity rate would have been in the US population.  This is going to be studied as one of the most massive government overreactions in the history of modern civilization.  I pray to God that we aren't too late to save some semblance of the Market economy.  I'm speechless right now.

You're wrong, and you spend three paragraphs being wrong.  Sad!
Remember you're never going to get that time back.  All you can do is try to do better in the future.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/co...edictions/

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're not wrong, at least about the polling, but there are two things in play here that you're not mentioning:

1. Every President's approval ratings go up during a time of major crisis. Roosevelt with WWII, George W. Bush with 9/11, even Carter when the Iran hostage crisis happened. Ratings come back down afterwards. Carter cratered after the crisis ended. Truman fell off a cliff after WWII and barely won reelection over a patsy challenger. It remains to be seen what Trump's dropoff looks like, but there is a second factor in play...

2. He's literally buying votes right now with the stimulus checks. That's not to say that it isn't the right thing to do. It unquestionably is, but the short term effects of a payment to every American will artificially bump his numbers, but it's not foolproof. Look at your own reaction. You're griping that people with a $200,000 income aren't getting paid. In that regard, he'd be an idiot not to make sure that a stimulus package with a bigger check and encompassing higher earners hits the Congressional floor in late September. If he does that, he wins, period.

And keep in mind that Biden is a patsy candidate. He's not expected to win. He's only expected to keep the seat warm for whoever runs in 2024.

His response numbers were 60% favorable before the American people were promised a penny. I know it makes you feel better to convince yourself that the stimulus is the reason his response numbers are so high, but it is because of his incredible leadership.Stimulus is a cherry on top of an already grand ice cream sundae (2 scoops).

Whatever you are consistently high on, I want some.

---

MSM is getting pressure to not show Trump daily briefings because his poll and approval numbers are going through the roof. Scary stuff.

You're not wrong, at least about the polling, but there are two things in play here that you're not mentioning:

1. Every President's approval ratings go up during a time of major crisis. Roosevelt with WWII, George W. Bush with 9/11, even Carter when the Iran hostage crisis happened. Ratings come back down afterwards. Carter cratered after the crisis ended. Truman fell off a cliff after WWII and barely won reelection over a patsy challenger. It remains to be seen what Trump's dropoff looks like, but there is a second factor in play...

2. He's literally buying votes right now with the stimulus checks. That's not to say that it isn't the right thing to do. It unquestionably is, but the short term effects of a payment to every American will artificially bump his numbers, but it's not foolproof. Look at your own reaction. You're griping that people with a $200,000 income aren't getting paid. In that regard, he'd be an idiot not to make sure that a stimulus package with a bigger check and encompassing higher earners hits the Congressional floor in late September. If he does that, he wins, period.

And keep in mind that Biden is a patsy candidate. He's not expected to win. He's only expected to keep the seat warm for whoever runs in 2024.

#2 is where the loan forgiveness comes in to play. He can literally buy the Bernie Bros off with a SLF program sometime the end of summer.

---

Buuuwwwaaaa!!! Deep thoughts from the board pom. Idiot. Pure and simple.

He must have been beaten up or violated by an American some time in his life and can't let go.

Probably some American doctor wanted $20 to treat his hangnail.

---

While CFR essentially means nothing as nobody knows in reality how many cases they have, I'd love to see you back that up with a recent source. 

If you want to base it off CFR Australia, South Korea, Germany, Norway, Canada are all lower from what I can see.

No I'm saying all she listens to is the German media and she's scared to death even though Germany has the lowest death rate of any European country... yet the German news is all doom and gloom and end of the world.

It's just not the reality. So I don't blame you - you're misinformed because your media lies to you everyday.

Reading comprehension isn't his strong suit. Sad.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There is always a trade-off when considering the economic impact of a virus. We know this is true, because we don't shut down for the flu each year, and many people die from it. So before the political narrative shifts, I wanted to ask a question: What amount of deaths or deaths per capita is going to be satisfactory in the chance that we stop social distancing mid April? Less than 1%? Less than .05%? Do we need to have the best numbers among Westernized countries? Top 5?

You're asking the wrong questions.  This distancing has little to do with the death rate, and everything to do with not running out of beds and ventilators.

1) The social distancing is to "flatten the curve".  The unspoken presumption when we talk about flattening the curve is that a very large proportion of the population will eventually be infected, but, we want to spread those infections out across time so that we don't run out of ventilators.  So each time there is someone who just got sick and needs a ventilator, there is someone else who is just recovered and doesn't need that ventilator anymore.  Unfortunately, if social distancing is our only intervention, we have to more or less keep it up until there is a vaccine.  We might be able to open up an area of the country once the number of new infections in an area is down to the single digits per week, but inevitably we will have to close that area back up again in 6 to 8 weeks because the virus will come back.

2) New treatments will help.  If there is a combination of drugs that reduces the likelihood of a patient needing a ventilator, that will help greatly, and we will be able to tolerate more social interactions and more new infections before closing an area up.

3) More ventilators will help.  We should be building as many ventilators as possible.  Factories should be building them without worrying about who will buy them, hospitals should be buying them without worrying about who will pay.  Beds and ventilators need to be set up in the closed schools.  The more capacity we have, the more new infections we can tolerate without having to close society back up again.

4) Serum/titer tests will help.  If certain people are able to prove that they caught the virus and aren't contagious anymore, those people could be given a certificate so that they are allowed to lead a normal life while everyone else does social distancing.  Of course healthcare workers and first responders should take the test first, but eventually ordinary joes like us might get an opportunity to take it before the vaccine comes out.

5) Additional test capacity will help.  Ideally, everyone who wants a test to see if they have the virus should be able to get one, no cost, no questions asked.  

None of those things alone are going to get us to a point where we can open up all of the country during the next 18 months.  But all together, they could get us there.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm not asking the wrong questions, because I don't care about whatever it is you just typed. I am asking a social question based on what I believe to be the next narrative, and I'm asking people to give an answer before it influence their opinions.

---

I'm not asking the wrong questions, because I don't care about whatever it is you just typed. I am asking a social question based on what I believe to be the next narrative, and I'm asking people to give an answer before it influence their opinions.

"If the acceptable limit of sick and dying affects me or my family, then it is unacceptable."

-- Everyone

---

Nah bruh, don't give me that crap.  not today.  These people sold the world that if we didn't shut down civilization until we found a vaccine that we were looking at 2 million deaths in the US and 500k deaths in the UK.  today in parliment, the lead researcher testified that in reality, we are only looking at potentially 20k deaths in the UK and extrapolating that means that we would have been looking at 80k deaths in the US.  That is one hell of a flu season, but not completely out of line with a really bad flu season.  Moreover, they expect the peak of the infection to occur in 2 to three weeks not 2 to three years.  Why?Because the rates of mortality and morbidity are nothing like the early days of wuhan or italy.  Italy is the outlier, not the rule.  roughly about 24% of adults between 18 to 49 live with their parents.  That model was never analogous to the US or most western countries.  

This is the model that caused the globe to shut down.  This is the model that just rang up a 2 trillion dollar tab and 3 million unemployed (which is about to skyrocket even further with the draft error in the stimulus package)  But hey, its only our economy.  IT's only going to be 20% unemployment, and depression era economics.  It's not like we cast aside every lesson we ever learned in the history of fighting viruses.  IT's not like we bought a computer model that had an infection rate 2 times that of the SPANISH FLU!!!  I can't believe this @#$P(

Even worse, we did this before the first treatment trial was finished, before the change of season that would have reduced transmission and really before we had any real picture of what the mortality and morbidity rate would have been in the US population.  This is going to be studied as one of the most massive government overreactions in the history of modern civilization.  I pray to God that we aren't too late to save some semblance of the Market economy.  I'm speechless right now.

You're wrong, and you spend three paragraphs being wrong.  Sad!
Remember you're never going to get that time back.  All you can do is try to do better in the future.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/co...edictions/

If nothing else, the original Imperial model will be obsolete soon, because it didn’t predict what could happen with extensive testing and contact tracing, which is likely the next step once the spread is contained and we have enough tests to go around. But it hasn’t been walked back just yet

My gosh....  lock yourselves away for 18 months....  vaccine or starve.  

Death rate, hospitalization rate, infection rate, and upper limit of the succeptable population ALL WRONG from the original simulation causing the next depression.  I told u bruh.  NOT TODAY.  

btw, you still need to acknowledge that using anti HIV meds isn't "conventional care" from the garbage Bloomberg article....  ILL WAIT.  

3 days on ld is supposed to result in a 96% reduction in death rates...  lol.  Get on my level.  

#dotsdontwashtheirhands

---

I'm not asking the wrong questions, because I don't care about whatever it is you just typed. I am asking a social question based on what I believe to be the next narrative, and I'm asking people to give an answer before it influence their opinions.

When the cure is worse than the disease.  

You are in fact asking the wrong question.  Its about worldview.  

Are we under the assumption public policy can stop all diseases and death or do we recognize that our ability to influence them is inherently constrained?

---

I'm not asking the wrong questions, because I don't care about whatever it is you just typed. I am asking a social question based on what I believe to be the next narrative, and I'm asking people to give an answer before it influence their opinions.

OK.  see if anyone else wants to play your game.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm not asking the wrong questions, because I don't care about whatever it is you just typed. I am asking a social question based on what I believe to be the next narrative, and I'm asking people to give an answer before it influence their opinions.

When the cure is worse than the disease.  

You are in fact asking the wrong question.  Its about worldview.  

Are we under the assumption public policy can stop all diseases and death or do we recognize that our ability to influence them is inherently constrained?

You're speaking in absolutes.
Not everyone listens to public policy guidance.  But most people do.
Public policy can't stop all diseases.
But public policy can mitigate many diseases.
Adapt your mind to think in terms of floating point ranges instead of 1's and 0's.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I have some experience in hospitals, especially in hospital supply, and also married an ICU nurse.
I can tell you the supplies tend to disappear or get mis-allocated depending on the local power structure.

---

When the cure is worse than the disease.  

You are in fact asking the wrong question.  Its about worldview.  

Are we under the assumption public policy can stop all diseases and death or do we recognize that our ability to influence them is inherently constrained?

You're speaking in absolutes.
Not everyone listens to public policy guidance.  But most people do.
Public policy can't stop all diseases.
But public policy can mitigate many diseases.
Adapt your mind to think in terms of floating point ranges instead of 1's and 0's.

Childish.  

The entire idea of "how much death is acceptable" is a precursor to the fallacy "if we can save just one life" that is the justification for emotionally abandoning the best solution in search of a perfect solution that doesnt exist.  

What was my response?  When the cure is worse than the disease, which is an inherent acknowledgement that there is a balance between disease mitigation and broader economic growth, not a pure choice.  My point is that, despite what were being told, there is no perfect solution to prevent all death from the disease AND there is no solution to mitigate the disease that doesnt on the other hand carry with it a promise of death and destruction in another form.

More often than not it's the alarmists taking the position that were "choosing our 401k over our grandparents" that dont acknowledge all the variables involved and bury their head in the sand that people will die on the other side of the totalitarian shutdown equation.  

My point from the beginning in this thread has been that we need to weigh the real lethality of the disease and the potential negative impacts of our mitigation efforts to determine the public policy that's best.  In other words, if a mitigation action saves more lives than it would potentially cost in resources economic destruction and death then take it, but I think the data is about to show that in places like Sweden and Japan there were much less invasive courses of action like washing your hands, wearingmasks when sick and being less physically intimate while greeting that still had efficacy in mitigation without shutting down an entire economy.  

#policynotvirtuesignalling

---