The sad thing is the redemsivir also doesn't seem to offer any help to covid19 patients, and there are good reasons to decry the stance Fauci has taken. Instead, they go there.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
The sad thing is the redemsivir also doesn't seem to offer any help to covid19 patients, and there are good reasons to decry the stance Fauci has taken. Instead, they go there.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I’d be interested to know how many people have actually been participating in the “opened up Georgia.” It’s one thing to claim that you’re open. It’s another thing to see restaurants full, nail salon appointment books full, and movie theaters sold out. I feel like there’s a lot of people still practicing social distancing regardless of what their state’s status is. I know utah is now “orange.” But like hell are my wife and I going to eat out or go to a movie theater.
State polling consistently shows 60+ percent of the population being uneasy and uncomfortable with “opening up.”
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
yes. It’s one America news network. It’s getting more and more attention from trump as it’s waging war on Fox news’s right flank.
here’s a good thread on it:
and article. It’s a bit older:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...75f0a4-4fa2-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html
Don JR is looking to invest in OANN. This was one of the main reasons why trump ran for office in the first place. They thought they could use the publicity to launch their own Fox News. Now his son will most likely try to use OANN to outflank Fox News.
Last edited by a moderator:
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Avery
Well-Known Member
As my bishop told me, don’t murder, vote.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Infuriating
The grifter Matt Gaetz spews this out on another grifter’s tv show on Fox News, And is believed by our dumbass president, this guy loses his Research funding. Research that could help us during this pandemic.
The grifter Matt Gaetz spews this out on another grifter’s tv show on Fox News, And is believed by our dumbass president, this guy loses his Research funding. Research that could help us during this pandemic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Red
Well-Known Member
https://pressthink.org/2020/05/the-plan-is-to-have-no-plan/
The plan is to have no plan, to let daily deaths between one and three thousand become a normal thing, and then to create massive confusion about who is responsible— by telling the governors they’re in charge without doing what only the federal government can do, by fighting with the press when it shows up to be briefed, by fixing blame for the virus on China or some other foreign element, and by “flooding the zone with ****,” Steve Bannon’s phrase for overwhelming the system with disinformation, distraction, and denial, which boosts what economists call “search costs” for reliable intelligence.
Stated another way, the plan is to default on public problem solving, and then prevent the public from understanding the consequences of that default. To succeed this will require one of the biggest propaganda and freedom of information fights in U.S. history, the execution of which will, I think, consume the president’s re-election campaign. So much has already been made public that the standard script for a White House cover up (worse than the crime…) won’t apply. Instead, everything will ride on the manufacture of confusion. The press won’t be able to “expose” the plot because it will all happen in stark daylight. The facts will be known, and simultaneously they will be inconceivable.
“The plan is to have no plan” is not a strategy, really. Nor would I call it a policy. It has a kind of logic to it, but this is different from saying it has a design— or a designer. Meaning: I do not want to be too conspiratorial about this. To wing it without a plan is merely the best this government can do, given who heads the table. The manufacture of confusion is just the ruins of Trump’s personality meeting the powers of the presidency. There is no genius there, only a damaged human being playing havoc with our lives.
-------------------------------
We cannot let Covid-19 deaths become normalized:
https://watson.brown.edu/research/2020/we-can-t-let-covid-19-deaths-become-normalized
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...de4c32-9090-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html
The plan is to have no plan, to let daily deaths between one and three thousand become a normal thing, and then to create massive confusion about who is responsible— by telling the governors they’re in charge without doing what only the federal government can do, by fighting with the press when it shows up to be briefed, by fixing blame for the virus on China or some other foreign element, and by “flooding the zone with ****,” Steve Bannon’s phrase for overwhelming the system with disinformation, distraction, and denial, which boosts what economists call “search costs” for reliable intelligence.
Stated another way, the plan is to default on public problem solving, and then prevent the public from understanding the consequences of that default. To succeed this will require one of the biggest propaganda and freedom of information fights in U.S. history, the execution of which will, I think, consume the president’s re-election campaign. So much has already been made public that the standard script for a White House cover up (worse than the crime…) won’t apply. Instead, everything will ride on the manufacture of confusion. The press won’t be able to “expose” the plot because it will all happen in stark daylight. The facts will be known, and simultaneously they will be inconceivable.
“The plan is to have no plan” is not a strategy, really. Nor would I call it a policy. It has a kind of logic to it, but this is different from saying it has a design— or a designer. Meaning: I do not want to be too conspiratorial about this. To wing it without a plan is merely the best this government can do, given who heads the table. The manufacture of confusion is just the ruins of Trump’s personality meeting the powers of the presidency. There is no genius there, only a damaged human being playing havoc with our lives.
-------------------------------
We cannot let Covid-19 deaths become normalized:
https://watson.brown.edu/research/2020/we-can-t-let-covid-19-deaths-become-normalized
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...de4c32-9090-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html
Last edited:
Avery
Well-Known Member
I actually agree with this to a point. The first key was to flatten the curve which has been done. I think the disagreement is that the curve continues to simply plateau vs. go down. A large part of this to a lack of overall strategy and different states employing different tactics. In short, we had no risk management plan for a pandemic, we're crafting it on the fly.
Reality is that with interstate commerce freely happening and a lack of a singular form of contact tracing that we've basically made 1k-2k deaths normalized. Other countries took aggressive means to return to normal but here in the states, we're trying to pray it away and looking at each other to actually doing something vs. taking the lead.
No way to sugarcoat 80k+ deaths and rising when the rest of the world isn't anywhere close to us.
I've been thinking a bit about the different models and their limitations in this current situation.
The problem of a lot of models about this current pandemic is that we've never gone through something like that in that type of scale and the data was limited and the earliest of data was coming from:
1. quite possibly an unreliable source(China)
2. the hardest hit country in the world(Italy) - in a way an outlier.
That's not to say that trying to avoid an Italy case scenario wasn't good. It is great. The question is - did most countries/counties need that type of intervention in order to avoid Italy case scenario? That analysis will need to be done after this thing is gone in case something like this comes around again. For example - it's possible such strict measures were needed for some of the most densely populated areas with a lot of human traffic(NY? big cities in general, cities with tons of tourist appeal?), but more modest measures were possible to limit the spread in other places?
In essence... my thoughts in the last week or so have been centered around the questions of could we have flattened the curve to the point where the healthcare system could handle a steady income of new patients with lower level of alert/emergency? I want to stress here - I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just wondering if it is? Could we have not had world wide lockdowns, but instead issued strong recommendations and even laws for social distancing, wearing masks, personal hygiene, etc.?
A lot of countries and states are lifting up some of the restrictions right now and we will be getting more information about how much of an effect did specific measures have. Maybe just some subset of them would be enough to keep the spread under control until vaccines are available? Or maybe we will see spikes in spread once those measures are dropped and if we see spikes, can we handle them or would we need to roll back some of those restrictions? Maybe as we lift some restrictions we tighten up and expand other measures that are less intrusive(contact tracing and isolation of new cases).
I guess my point is... we know the measures most countries in the world took were effective. They largely accomplished their goal - we broke the exponential growth and to some degree the spread of the virus is mitigated and controlled and in most parts of the world the healthcare systems can handle the new cases. Now the question is - could we still keep the situation manageable if we lift some of the measures?
BTW don't mistake this for me criticizing governments for taking the stricter measures. They absolutely should have done it IMO, because avoiding Italy and Wuhan and NY like scenarios is valuable and very understandable even if you overshoot the target initially. The cost would have been much greater had most places in the world turned into a Bergamo or a NY. This is more about developing an understanding about what the most efficient and least intrusive measures are in case of a future pandemic ... and in order to get out of this one in the best shape possible...
The problem of a lot of models about this current pandemic is that we've never gone through something like that in that type of scale and the data was limited and the earliest of data was coming from:
1. quite possibly an unreliable source(China)
2. the hardest hit country in the world(Italy) - in a way an outlier.
That's not to say that trying to avoid an Italy case scenario wasn't good. It is great. The question is - did most countries/counties need that type of intervention in order to avoid Italy case scenario? That analysis will need to be done after this thing is gone in case something like this comes around again. For example - it's possible such strict measures were needed for some of the most densely populated areas with a lot of human traffic(NY? big cities in general, cities with tons of tourist appeal?), but more modest measures were possible to limit the spread in other places?
In essence... my thoughts in the last week or so have been centered around the questions of could we have flattened the curve to the point where the healthcare system could handle a steady income of new patients with lower level of alert/emergency? I want to stress here - I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just wondering if it is? Could we have not had world wide lockdowns, but instead issued strong recommendations and even laws for social distancing, wearing masks, personal hygiene, etc.?
A lot of countries and states are lifting up some of the restrictions right now and we will be getting more information about how much of an effect did specific measures have. Maybe just some subset of them would be enough to keep the spread under control until vaccines are available? Or maybe we will see spikes in spread once those measures are dropped and if we see spikes, can we handle them or would we need to roll back some of those restrictions? Maybe as we lift some restrictions we tighten up and expand other measures that are less intrusive(contact tracing and isolation of new cases).
I guess my point is... we know the measures most countries in the world took were effective. They largely accomplished their goal - we broke the exponential growth and to some degree the spread of the virus is mitigated and controlled and in most parts of the world the healthcare systems can handle the new cases. Now the question is - could we still keep the situation manageable if we lift some of the measures?
BTW don't mistake this for me criticizing governments for taking the stricter measures. They absolutely should have done it IMO, because avoiding Italy and Wuhan and NY like scenarios is valuable and very understandable even if you overshoot the target initially. The cost would have been much greater had most places in the world turned into a Bergamo or a NY. This is more about developing an understanding about what the most efficient and least intrusive measures are in case of a future pandemic ... and in order to get out of this one in the best shape possible...
Last edited: