COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

edit: kinda wanna say "What the hell, Woodward??" for sitting on this tape for months as hundreds of thousands of Americans died and millions more became infected.

Bob Woodward is horrible. 

[StrangeSox]

27 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Bob Woodward is horrible. 

I remember having a similar discussion re: Woodward back when his first Trump book was coming out. Dude's been covering for those in power for decades.

 

More infuriating news about how badly the White House has politicized our national response to a public health emergency.

A Trump administration appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services is trying to prevent Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, from speaking about the risks that coronavirus poses to children.

Emails obtained by POLITICO show Paul Alexander — a senior adviser to Michael Caputo, HHS’s assistant secretary for public affairs — instructing press officers and others at the National Institutes of Health about what Fauci should say during media interviews. The Trump adviser weighed in on Fauci’s planned responses to outlets including Bloomberg News, BuzzFeed, Huffington Post and the science journal Cell.

Alexander’s lengthy messages, some sent as recently as this week, are couched as scientific arguments. But they often contradict mainstream science while promoting political positions taken by the Trump administration on hot-button issues ranging from the use of convalescent plasma to school reopening.

 

 

The emails add to evidence that the White House, and Trump appointees within HHS, are pushing health agencies to promote a political message instead of a scientific one.

“I continue to have an issue with kids getting tested and repeatedly and even university students in a widespread manner…and I disagree with Dr. Fauci on this. Vehemently,” Alexander wrote in one Aug. 27 email, responding to a press-office summary of what Fauci intended to tell a Bloomberg reporter.

And on Tuesday, Alexander told Fauci’s press team that the scientist should not promote mask-wearing by children during an MSNBC interview.

“Can you ensure Dr. Fauci indicates masks are for the teachers in schools. Not for children,” Alexander wrote. “There is no data, none, zero, across the entire world, that shows children especially young children, spread this virus to other children, or to adults or to their teachers. None. And if it did occur, the risk is essentially zero,” he continued — adding without evidence that children take influenza home, but not the coronavirus.

In a statement attributed to Caputo, HHS said that Fauci is an important voice during the pandemic and that Alexander specializes in analyzing the work of other scientists.

[chw42]

3 hours ago, Tony said:

It's somehow a shocking story, but not shocking at all. 

What's funny is that when I listened to this, Trump didn't seem like an idiot like he usually does. Cause he was actually telling the truth. 

[Chisoxfn]

4 minutes ago, chw42 said:

What's funny is that when I listened to this, Trump didn't seem like an idiot like he usually does. Cause he was actually telling the truth. 

I actually thought the same thing - when I read his responses I thought - huh, he actually gets this - I wish he would actually speak this way to the public.  

[Chisoxfn]

5 minutes ago, Tony said:

I know what you're saying. Without turning this totally political, it's amazing the positive feedback Hillary received when she went on Stern, because she was real. She was so unlikeable on the campaign trail to so many (myself included) but when you get these people in a real conversation without rigid talking points that have gone through 18 focus groups, they are so much more relatable. Not sure when politicians will ever figure this out. 

I also get the construct around - you are going to be careful what you share with the public vs. not. Every president strategically keeps certain things from the public - and there is certainly places for where you draw the line. You wouldn't want the whole country rioting out of sheer of mass panic (i.e., Trump shouldn't have just got out and said - I've seen this thing - its terrible - we are all going to die) but the opposite is just as bad as it created the divide we are all dealing with. Those actions made everything political and there was never any need to do so - he needed to be honest and sincere about the difficulties we were facing but also share a plan and solution to ease the populations minds, etc.   

Funny part is - if he listened to the experts and got out in front of this and lead through this - he would be easily getting re-elected.  Instead....well...nothing more to be said.  

[ron883]

22 minutes ago, Tony said:

I know what you're saying. Without turning this totally political, it's amazing the positive feedback Hillary received when she went on Stern, because she was real. She was so unlikeable on the campaign trail to so many (myself included) but when you get these people in a real conversation without rigid talking points that have gone through 18 focus groups, they are so much more relatable. Not sure when politicians will ever figure this out. 

Bernie was pretty real as far as politicians go. People loved him for that. His views were just too radical for many.

Unfortunately most politicians answer to their big donors before the people, so of course they'll be lying through their teeth when talking to the people.

[Balta1701]

20 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I also get the construct around - you are going to be careful what you share with the public vs. not. Every president strategically keeps certain things from the public - and there is certainly places for where you draw the line. You wouldn't want the whole country rioting out of sheer of mass panic (i.e., Trump shouldn't have just got out and said - I've seen this thing - its terrible - we are all going to die) but the opposite is just as bad as it created the divide we are all dealing with. Those actions made everything political and there was never any need to do so - he needed to be honest and sincere about the difficulties we were facing but also share a plan and solution to ease the populations minds, etc.   

Funny part is - if he listened to the experts and got out in front of this and lead through this - he would be easily getting re-elected.  Instead....well...nothing more to be said.  

 

6 minutes ago, Tony said:

But we can use basic logic here. No one expected Trump to come out and pull a Michael Scott:

But he could of treated this pandemic with the respect it deserved, like other world leaders did around the world, taking it seriously and speaking to the country in a direct, honest manner. That didn't happen, he blew it off, and it was 100% for political reasons. By doing that, his millions of supporters followed in his footsteps and made fun of people wearing masks, told everyone this was virus was "fake news" and it's just like your common flu and cold season. But we now know Trump didn't even believe that and we also know when Trump says jump, around 50+ million American's will say "How high?"

As you said, if he would have just been an honest human being, which doesn't seem like it's asking a lot, he could have saved thousands upon thousands of lives and actually wrapped up his re-election campaign in October. But here we are... 

"Being President Doesn't Change Who You Are, It Reveals Who You Are."

-Michelle Obama.

[Jack Parkman]

8 minutes ago, Yearnin' for Yermin said:

Bernie was pretty real as far as politicians go. People loved him for that. His views were just too radical for many.

Unfortunately most politicians answer to their big donors before the people, so of course they'll be lying through their teeth when talking to the people.

Most of Bernie's views are actually pretty mainstream, but that's beside the point. 

The second part is the bigger issue, and as long as that's the case nothing will change. Outside of voting for people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC until there are enough of them in congress to actually remove money from politics, then we're stuck with corporate totalitarianism. The corporations and billionaires make the rules, and we're expected to follow them. 

 

[ron883]

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

Most of Bernie's views are actually pretty mainstream, but that's beside the point. 

The second part is the bigger issue, and as long as that's the case nothing will change. Outside of voting for people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC until there are enough of them in congress to actually remove money from politics, then we're stuck with corporate totalitarianism. The corporations and billionaires make the rules, and we're expected to follow them. 

 

If that was the case, Bernie wins the election.

[Jack Parkman]

21 minutes ago, Yearnin' for Yermin said:

If that was the case, Bernie wins the election.

A lot of his key policy points like M4A and making billionaires pay more taxes poll ~60%+ in favor nationally. 

Honestly, I'd argue that it was the money in politics that kept him from winning. They do a pretty good job of manipulating people. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Soxbadger]

18 minutes ago, Yearnin' for Yermin said:

If that was the case, Bernie wins the election.

I think if years ago Bernie would have switched from Independent to Democrat and been a better team player, he would have had a much better chance.

Hard to elect a guy to be president of the club he doesnt even want to join. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Soxbadger

[greg775]

Kansas football has only three positives at this time; how can this be?

[Jack Parkman]

9 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I think if years ago Bernie would have switched from Independent to Democrat and been a better team player, he would have had a much better chance.

Hard to elect a guy to be president of the club he doesnt even want to join. 

A lot of Bernie's appeal is that he was actually principled and didn't cave to the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. 

There are a lot of people that think that Democrats and Republicans are on the same team. It's pretty insidious actually. Democrats pretend to be on your side and do nothing to help you, while Republicans tell you exactly who they are. That is why Republicans win elections. More people would vote for an honest asshole than a liar. 

South Park had it right in 2004 with the Douche/Turd episode. 

If Bernie won the democratic nomination in 2016 he'd have killed Trump in the GE. 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Timmy U]

34 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Most of Bernie's views are actually pretty mainstream, but that's beside the point. 

The second part is the bigger issue, and as long as that's the case nothing will change. Outside of voting for people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC until there are enough of them in congress to actually remove money from politics, then we're stuck with corporate totalitarianism. The corporations and billionaires make the rules, and we're expected to follow them. 

 

Don’t know if you’re aware of this Princeton study but it is the single most depressing analysis of the phenomenon you’re talking about.  The donor class is really the only group that matters when it comes to public policy.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

[Jack Parkman]

3 hours ago, Timmy U said:

Don’t know if you’re aware of this Princeton study but it is the single most depressing analysis of the phenomenon you’re talking about.  The donor class is really the only group that matters when it comes to public policy.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

I'm highly aware and cite it regularly. 

I'd suggest you read this book if you're interested any further: 

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533763/democracy-in-chains-by-nancy-maclean/

 

Also: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

 

Honestly we  should all be marching in the streets nationwide to take our democracy back. 

Trump winning re-election wouldn't be the end of US democracy, as it was already gone a couple decades ago. Trump just exposed how far gone the system already was, and if you look back to the founding of the US the system was designed to prevent the people from ever having complete control of public policy. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Kyyle23]

21 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Kansas football has only three positives at this time; how can this be?

Because the concept of a bubble has evolved and these kids are probably starting to understand that if they risk themselves, they risk everyone and everything they are working for.

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

I also get the construct around - you are going to be careful what you share with the public vs. not. Every president strategically keeps certain things from the public - and there is certainly places for where you draw the line. You wouldn't want the whole country rioting out of sheer of mass panic (i.e., Trump shouldn't have just got out and said - I've seen this thing - its terrible - we are all going to die) but the opposite is just as bad as it created the divide we are all dealing with. Those actions made everything political and there was never any need to do so - he needed to be honest and sincere about the difficulties we were facing but also share a plan and solution to ease the populations minds, etc.   

Funny part is - if he listened to the experts and got out in front of this and lead through this - he would be easily getting re-elected.  Instead....well...nothing more to be said.  

I would have been fully OK if he had downplayed this to the general public, but busted his ass to get the country ready for when it did get here, as he 100% knew it was coming.  This combination is flat out criminal negligence.  He should be facing about 200,000 cases of negligent homicide, and counting.

[turnin' two]

42 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

If Bernie won the democratic nomination in 2016 he'd have killed Trump in the GE. 

 

I don't see any way Bernie would have won any of, PA, OH, FL or WI.  Michigan, maybe, likely even.  

[Jack Parkman]

16 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

I don't see any way Bernie would have won any of, PA, OH, FL or WI.  Michigan, maybe, likely even.  

I'll give you FL, but I think he'd have won all the other ones. 

If you actually look at why people voted Trump in PA/OH/WI/MI, Bernie would have also appealed to those people. The margins in those states were pretty thin and enough would have gone the other way.

Bernie actually wants to help make the average working person's life better......his policies would actually help people. Don't underestimate the power of that. 

As Harry Truman said(paraphrased) 

Socialism is a scare word that they use to describe policies that actually help people. 

Bernie owns it because it isn't this scary thing like people make it out to be. Nobody is suggesting that we go to a state planned economy or anything like that. Hybrid models work. You have to take care of the average citizen first, because if they don't have the power to consume, the entire economy dies. 

In the US anything to the left of overt fascism is considered "socialism" 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[NWINFan]

All Trump needed to do in this case was be a leader and he wasn't. It was really pretty simple. All resources of the federal government and the country should have been used to battle this pandemic. That would have helped enormously and the country and Trump would have been much better off. Instead we have wide-spread denial and utter stupidity. Yes, everything - the sickness, the deaths, the tragedies- were all engineered to embarrass Trump. Yep. Dumb asses. God-damned dumb asses.

Edited September 9, 2020 by NWINFan

[turnin' two]

17 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I'll give you FL, but I think he'd have won all the other ones. 

If you actually look at why people voted Trump in PA/OH/WI/MI, Bernie would have also appealed to those people. The margins in those states were pretty thin and enough would have gone the other way.

Bernie actually wants to help make the average working person's life better......his policies would actually help people. Don't underestimate the power of that. 

As Harry Truman said(paraphrased) 

Socialism is a scare word that they use to describe policies that actually help people. 

Bernie owns it because it isn't this scary thing like people make it out to be. Nobody is suggesting that we go to a state planned economy or anything like that. Hybrid models work. You have to take care of the average citizen first, because if they don't have the power to consume, the entire economy dies. 

In the US anything to the left of overt fascism is considered "socialism" 

I spend a lot of time in Wisconsin.  There is no way Trump wasn't winning it.  If any of the experts had spent any time there at all, they would have known.  The entire state (aside from Madison) was basically a Trump billboard.

And as for your last statement, it is hyperbole like that which makes any sort of real conversations impossible.  

[The Beast]

2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

A lot of Bernie's appeal is that he was actually principled and didn't cave to the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. 

There are a lot of people that think that Democrats and Republicans are on the same team. It's pretty insidious actually. Democrats pretend to be on your side and do nothing to help you, while Republicans tell you exactly who they are. That is why Republicans win elections. More people would vote for an honest asshole than a liar. 

South Park had it right in 2004 with the Douche/Turd episode. 

If Bernie won the democratic nomination in 2016 he'd have killed Trump in the GE. 

 

What about moderate democrats and republicans? They do exist...

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, turnin' two said:

I spend a lot of time in Wisconsin.  There is no way Trump wasn't winning it.  If any of the experts had spent any time there at all, they would have known.  The entire state (aside from Madison) was basically a Trump billboard.

And as for your last statement, it is hyperbole like that which makes any sort of real conversations impossible.  

I spend a lot of time in Wisconsin as well. Most of the population of the state lives in Madison and Milwaukee. Those areas vote heavily democratic. I've been going to rural Sauk county for 20 years. I was actually surprised that I saw a bunch of Biden/Pocan signs out there when I went a few weeks ago. I know of the phenomenon of which you speak. I wouldn't call it 50/50, but maybe 60/40 in favor of Trump. 

BTW I prefer to discuss the right/left political spectrum on a global level. 

On a purely global political level, Bernie Sanders and AOC are centrists, and calling the mainstream/moderate Democrats center-right is generous. The GOP is very clearly radical right. These are facts. The US political system is skewed heavily to the right. 

Also, based on what comes out of GOP lawmakers mouths what that statement is accurate. The GOP is calling Biden a socialist which is beyond ludicrous. By even US standards, Biden is a centrist. However, I agree with the fact that real conversations are impossible, quite frankly because you believe that last statement is hyperbole. Is it a slight exaggeration, sure. But it's nowhere near close to hyperbole. It's very close to accurate honestly. 

GOP: FU you're on your own

DNC: We *might* give you a few table scraps...if we can convince those guys that you can have some. 

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Jack Parkman]

16 minutes ago, The Beast said:

What about moderate democrats and republicans? They do exist...

Not going there. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[ron883]

2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I'll give you FL, but I think he'd have won all the other ones. 

If you actually look at why people voted Trump in PA/OH/WI/MI, Bernie would have also appealed to those people. The margins in those states were pretty thin and enough would have gone the other way.

Bernie actually wants to help make the average working person's life better......his policies would actually help people. Don't underestimate the power of that. 

As Harry Truman said(paraphrased) 

Socialism is a scare word that they use to describe policies that actually help people. 

Bernie owns it because it isn't this scary thing like people make it out to be. Nobody is suggesting that we go to a state planned economy or anything like that. Hybrid models work. You have to take care of the average citizen first, because if they don't have the power to consume, the entire economy dies. 

In the US anything to the left of overt fascism is considered "socialism" 

So would you say this administration is full blown fascist?