Trump's return means more anxiety for White House reporters:
President Donald Trump's return to the White House to recover from the coronavirus seems certain to raise the already heightened anxiety level of the journalists assigned to follow him.
Three reporters have tested positive for COVID-19 in recent days while covering a White House described as lax, at best, in following basic safety advice like wearing masks. Discomfort only increased Monday with news that press secretary Kayleigh McEnany had tested positive.
Journalists are left to wonder if a still-contagious president will gather them for a public appearance and how their safety will be ensured.
After McEnany's announcement Monday, Fox News chief White House correspondent John Roberts spent part of his afternoon waiting outside an urgent care center for his own test. He had attended McEnany's briefing last Thursday. She didn't wear a mask, and neither did one of her assistants who later tested positive, and Roberts sat near both of them. He tested negative.
He called it an inconvenience, but stronger emotions were spreading. American Urban Radio Networks correspondent April Ryan said she found it infuriating that Trump and his team had risked the health of her colleagues. CNN's Kaitlan Collins said it was "irresponsible, at best."
"It's frustrating," said Jonathan Karl, ABC News White House correspondent. "Frankly, it makes you angry."
Separately, Trump Halts Coronavirus Relief Talks Until After The Election:
President Trump says he has ordered his representatives to stop talks with Democrats on a new round of COVID-19 aid until after the election.
In a series of tweets, Trump said he has rejected Democrats' latest proposal for a more than $2 trillion relief bill because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "is not negotiating in good faith." Lawmakers had hoped to approve some relief measures before the election amid a recent decline in job growth and fears the economy could worsen without speedy intervention from Congress. Instead the president said any vote on legislation would wait until after the election.
[...] Pelosi, D-Calif., accused Trump of abandoning first responders, teachers, children and people who have lost their jobs due to the coronavirus.
"President Trump showed his true colors: putting himself first at the expense of the country, with the full complicity of the GOP Members of Congress," Pelosi said in a statement. "Walking away from coronavirus talks demonstrates that President Trump is unwilling to crush the virus, as is required by the Heroes Act."
Pelosi was in the midst of active talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in hopes of reaching a compromise on COVID-19 relief before the November election. The two continued to disagree on key portions, such as funding for state and local governments, but were set to continue talks. Pelosi also signaled to the airline industry that there were efforts to provide some help in the next bill.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @02:51PM (19 children)
Just wait it out. It might take a week, but Trump will be dead soon.
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 07 2020, @02:59PM
Wow, just like the rest of us. What a man of the people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:33PM (2 children)
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-authorizes-all-russia-clinton-email-probe-documents-declassified-no-redactions-1536912 [newsweek.com]
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:45PM (1 child)
Funny that he won't do that for his own party...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @06:15PM
Funny he hasn't pardoned all the people screwed over by the inquisitions of the dems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:52PM (1 child)
Sorry, but even without serious treatment most people who get COVID-19 live through it, even if they have lots of comorbidities.
The way to bet is that he'll live through it with few detectable resultant disabilities. Perhaps the most desirable outcome would be that Pence tries to get him declared incompetent for the office, and he disagrees, and they expend their efforts fighting each other until Jan. 20, but that's not the way to bet either. (OTOH, I think he was incompetent before he even got sick.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 08 2020, @03:35AM
Comorbidities like being old, fat, basically completely inactive his entire life, eating a diet of mostly fast food, a very stressful job, and who knows what other medical problems? I mean, yes, he might well live through it, but it's not like he was the picture of health before he got sick.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @05:44PM (1 child)
If that happens, Melanoma the Undead will resurrect him.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:28PM
I thought it was pronounced Metallica
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @08:28PM (10 children)
I would prefer he stand trial for his crimes. For anyone curious abkut Trump's crimes peruse https://whynot45.com/ [whynot45.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by ChrisMaple on Thursday October 08 2020, @01:21AM (4 children)
Let's go for the Obama-Clinton treason first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @02:36AM
hurr durr
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 08 2020, @03:38AM
If you can find any, you're welcome to do so.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday October 08 2020, @02:19PM (1 child)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Thursday October 08 2020, @10:07PM
It's not the worst idea. Start with somebody not currently in the hot seat and establish precedent for "no one is above the law." Then we can expand that doctrine to cover the sitting president, assuming he still is by the time the case closes. I, for one, have not forgotten Snowden.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 08 2020, @02:54AM (4 children)
Not a crime or corruption.
"See: Emoluments Violations". Is his usage of his properties more unusual than when he wasn't a president?
Again, not a crime or corruption.
What was unbased about the conspiracy theory? Joe's son got rich somehow and the elder Biden did block an investigation of his son using his power as vice president..
The first part is not a crime or corruption. The second part doesn't mean collusion even happening shortly after the first. This is so fucking dumb.
Not a crime or corruption.
Notice the key phrase "unindicted". It's just not that hard to indict someone, if you have the evidence.
Then there's the section "Emoluments Violations/Profiting off of the Presidency". A fair number of these are genuine complaints. I'd go as far as to consider them corruption, but not criminal acts. Future juries might disagree.
First, it's sequester not divest. The money still belongs to the politician, it's just managed by someone else and out of their control. It's also worth noting that there is no such obligation to sequester, and Trump has a lot more money than any other president did.
He'd be paying someone. And is his use of his properties more unusual than before he was president.
Ok? Sounds like a billing error to me even with the explanation (which just baldly states that it happened).
Sounds like a legit conflict of interest that shouldn't have happened.
I can't help but notice zero indictments coming from these activities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @03:50AM (1 child)
You're such a worthless piece of shit khallow [lsu.edu].
As you well know (see link above), the only way to "indict" a *sitting* president is for the House to impeach him, and they'd *never* do that! Oh, wait...
Is this whole lying through your teeth thing a long-term character issue, or are you just channeling the jackass?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 08 2020, @04:04AM
Well, they didn't. Instead, they impeached Trump on one of the non-criminal activities. It's remarkable what a waste this conversation is.
I also notice that the memorandum you describe comes from the Department of Justice. It's not legally binding on anyone else and probably not on the DoJ either, should its boss ever decide to allow the DoJ to act against them.
I think it's your ignorance talking. There is this incredible disconnect from the way criminal cases are actually done. First, a crime needs to be described. So many of the examples above didn't even meet those minimal standards. Then there needs to be evidence that Trump was involved in the crime. That's it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @09:51PM (1 child)
Wow you're ignirant. Well, brainwashed really, because if that list were about HRC you'd be salivating at taking her down. Instead we have a government coopted by a corrupt lolitical party that protects against flagrant crimes and abuses. Just because the corruot people lie about their crimes does not make them magically not criminals.
Read the report you waste of breath. You'll be hearing about it soon enough now that a judge ordered the unredacted version be released.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 12 2020, @03:26AM
If that list were about her email server, it'd contain actual felonies:
1) Classified documents [soylentnews.org] (classified by other departments than the State Department - so Clinton's authority as Secretary of State doesn't count, containing information such as satellite photos and names of CIA assets) sent to private email server. Particularly since no corrective actions were ever taken by Clinton or her staff, that's gross negligence in the handling of classified information, which are felonies.
2) Deletion [soylentnews.org] of email and other evidence after Clinton and her staff became aware of the investigation. That's destruction of evidence/obstruction of an investigation. That's a felony.
3) Not archiving these emails in a secure way that makes them accessible via the Freedom of Information Act. Not criminal, but not legal either. Now, if it can be shown that she deliberately set up this email server so that she could bypass the FOIA, then that would be yet another felony, but I grant that would be hard to prove in the absence of statements of intent.
Fuck no. If there's anything in that report, the critics will find it and I will easily hear about that criticism. I don't need to waste my time doing your job.
There won't be the nebulous lists of charges, vague yarn diagrams (claiming crimes because people knew each other to some degree), and ridiculous interpretations of tweets that Mueller or some flaky Internet conspiracy theorists strongly feels could be construed as crimes.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:00PM (63 children)
As long as the reporters are wearing the masks, they should be safe. At least that is what the MSM has been telling us. The reporters are wearing their masks, right? Even when the cameras are off?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:14PM (7 children)
Should I be more afraid that an obese mcdonalds eating senior man survived?
I am not sure how afraid I need to be.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:20PM (5 children)
Believe in the Narrative. Be so afraid that you vote straight D. After the election is done in their favor, Scientists will tell you that the imminent danger is over, and now get back to work.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:32PM (4 children)
What about the rest of the world?
Can we all vote straight D too, and when the D's take over in our countries will the epidemic be over?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @10:27PM (1 child)
The epidemic will be over in your country when your Betters say it is. Could coincide with a US democrat sweep.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 07 2020, @10:45PM
Nah. We're about to have an election, and because we're a democracy, many of those people are going to be looking for new jobs and they know it.
You guys should try it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2020, @03:06AM
According to that lying sack of shit [bbc.com], we already are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2020, @03:06AM
According to that lying sack of shit [bbc.com], we already are.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday October 08 2020, @01:41AM
Albert Stevens had over 100kBq of plutonium inside him and lived a long and happy life. Does this mean we can all eat plutonium and have nothing to worry about?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:18PM (21 children)
No, you wear a mask to prevent spreading it to others.
If they wear a mask trump can still spit viruses into their eyes.
Try sticking your head outside your bubble a little further next time, you might actually hear what they are really saying.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:24PM (4 children)
Those poor reporters have a 99.995% chance of living!
Terrible.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Wednesday October 07 2020, @08:39PM (1 child)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:59PM
I don't think there is any bottom to the level of rationalizing the right will do to excuse their own behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @10:47PM
Unfortunately so does Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @01:16AM
And here's hoping you join the ones who have died from it. That'll teach Trump.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:06PM (4 children)
Masks do protect the wearer somewhat -- but not as well as they protect the people near the wearer.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday October 08 2020, @01:18AM (3 children)
And so if EVERYONE wore a mask, EVERYONE would be protected!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday October 08 2020, @03:52AM
Masks still are not a hundred percent, though, pulling number out of my ass, 80% is a lot better then nothing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @03:54AM
But that's not really enough. Whenever possible EVERYONE should do the "Staying The Hell Away From Everybody Else"™ maneuver, and washing your hands frequently too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @11:15AM
Sounds like communism to me. Ya'll ain't a Red is ya?
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:10PM (9 children)
you wear a mask to prevent spreading to others, right...
and that's why it has always been the patients instead of the hospital staff wearing those masks /sarcasm
the masks are personal protective equipment they are designed to protect the wearer
that they also have the side effect of limiting spread of virus if the wearer is infected is a bonus, it's not something they were designed for
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:15PM (3 children)
Never mind that cloth masks are only suitable for submission / virtue signaling.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:43PM (2 children)
Lucky for you this isn't true or your life expectancy would be significantly shorter.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:47PM (1 child)
Nope. I'm not 80+ with significant morbidities, so my china flu risk is negligible. According to the Scientists, natch.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Informative) by pe1rxq on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:21PM (3 children)
When hospital staff protect themselves against a (suspected) Covid patient they will wear a lot more than a simple mask.
And yes, hospital staff also wear masks to protect the patient. (Ever wondered why they do so much work to keep an operating room sterile? Hint: it is not for the staff)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:27PM (1 child)
FTFY.
Point: the staff also benefits from the lack of staph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @06:22PM
But - without a staph, won't the caduceous collapse, and the snakes just crawl away, the wings flutter off, and the entire magic of science and healthcare crumble around us?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @07:57PM
Operating rooms are not "sterile", they are sanitized. There is a BIG diffference.
If there are humans in a room, it cannot be sterile.
(Score: 2, Informative) by arubaro on Wednesday October 07 2020, @08:06PM
health personal wear masks to not infect the patients.., that's why surgeons must follow a strict desinfection procedure before cutting your appendix
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @05:00PM
shove your NWO propaganda up your ass.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:26PM
Until an idiot conditions the way they are doing the job by taking risks in dropping they masks [usatoday.com].
Doesn't it strike you as odd that very small number of Dems got it but the Whitehouse cluster [wikipedia.org] is expanding as we speak? Maybe it has something to do with the observation (or lack thereof) of epidemics countermeasures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:36PM
Lookit dis troll all tryin to do da gotcha and falling back on lame consoiracy shite. Yeet this little cunt
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:54PM
Are you an idiot, or a troll?
Masks primarily help keep the wearer from spreading COVID. Their use as a protection is moderate.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:57PM (4 children)
Masks reduce risk by reducing exposure. They don't eliminate risk unless you're wearing a bio-hazard rated respirator along with a full hazmat suit.
Plus, the cloth/surgical masks that most people are wearing are a LOT more effective at reducing the amount of spread by the wearer, than protecting the wearer themselves from catching the disease. They're still better than nothing, but it's like pissing and pants: if someone tries pissing on your leg while you're wearing pants, you won't get nearly as wet as if you were naked, but you'd still be a lot better off if *they* were wearing pants, in which case they'd mostly just be pissing on their own legs.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @07:29PM
Right, and they're mostly to protect other people from you in case you might have it and not know it, by reducing the amount of stuff that you cough / spit / breathe out.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday October 07 2020, @11:03PM (1 child)
That's actually very helpful. "Pretend a guy's not wearing pants. Now pretend he's pissing on you, and if he's a spitter, pretend he's really trying to hit you. How far away should you be to ensure you get *no* (even aerosolized) urine on your clothes?
Visualize that when you're around people not wearing masks, and that's an extra-safe COVID-19 safety range."
Note: will not work for people who wish to be peed on [youtu.be].
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 08 2020, @01:30PM
Hey, the difference between a chick pea and a garbanzo bean is that the president never paid a garbanzo to bean on him!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @03:59AM
Unless you're into that sort of thing, I guess.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @06:59PM (2 children)
No. The scientists and the MSM have been telling us that wearing a mask provides *other people* some protection from *you* if you're infected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @05:10PM (1 child)
all you retarded motherfuckers regurgitate the talking points like drones with the inside scoop. pitiful slaves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2020, @04:31PM
You're adorable! Are you available for parties? Good parties always have a clown.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday October 07 2020, @08:03PM
They've been telling you to take ALL the precautions, masks, social distancing, washing hands. quarantining when sick, quarantining when exposed, and a few other things. If all you saw was "MASK IS INVINCIBILITY SHIELD" that's on you.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Wednesday October 07 2020, @08:37PM (20 children)
Masks only protect their wearers from social media attacks.
On a large scale they seem to have roughly no effect on the spread of the disease.
Its just astounding really. Take cigarette smoking rates from 45% in the 50s to 15% now, and lung cancer death rates peaked in 1980 and have dropped 20% since then. Or consider the historical triumph where vitamin C consumption essentially eliminated scurvy.
Then you have a carefully tracked disease with intense propaganda and sophistry campaign about how we must go from 0% mask wearing to 100% 24x7 mask wearing... and it doesn't even show up as a blip on the transmission graphs.
Social distancing per cell phone data also seems to have no effect on infection rates.
I'm not arguing that masks and lockdowns are not supported by authoritarians, or by leftist organizations, or any of that. I'm just saying they're scientifically useless based on existing large scale pragmatic experimental data at preventing the spread of covid. They're literally feel-good activities.
You will literally get the same arguments as applied in support of communism and gun control. Well, we just need to try harder. We never really tried it enough. If we just give up more then everything will be better. Endlessly repeated into infinity.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:34PM (2 children)
I'm not sure where you got your data about mask effectiveness from, this investigation in Nature suggests that they are quite effective [nature.com] (though not a panacea). I'd be interested in seeing your sources stating that they are not effective.
I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that the US is anywhere near 100% mask wearing.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Thursday October 08 2020, @12:05PM (1 child)
The linked article was sadly mathless and authoritarian and anecdotal.
Here's all the right people saying the right things, end of story.
I'm saying something entirely different, look at the experimental run of entire populations in my state, other states, other countries, the cold math science seems to indicate masks are a an ineffective panacea.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday October 08 2020, @09:39PM
Pot, meet kettle?
The article I linked doesn't include the math itself, but it does include multiple links to the actual papers of a number of studies (where you can crunch the numbers to your heart's content).
Your linked evidence doesn't... oh, wait. You didn't even include any link, data or not. Just your opinion. We can't debate the difference in our numbers if only one of us is supplying them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @10:16PM (13 children)
Just more rightwing nonsense to justify their selfish behavior. I refer you to all the countries that have contained their COVID infections quite successfully.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @12:21AM (1 child)
So you mean Sweden right? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-strategy-idUSKBN25Z2TM [reuters.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @02:39AM
404
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 08 2020, @12:32PM (10 children)
Honestly at this point masks are like gun control. Everyone knows it doesn't work, but we need more more more.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday October 08 2020, @02:31PM (8 children)
There's over 25 people right now wishing they had at least tried wearing a mask when they recently attended a supers-spreader event.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday October 09 2020, @01:04PM (7 children)
They don't work so they need more, OK then. Which brings us right back to the gun control argument. If we just had stricter gun control then baltimore would finally be safe.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday October 09 2020, @01:41PM (6 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday October 09 2020, @05:27PM (5 children)
Yet people who do wear masks get sick at seemingly the same rate as people who do, per months of actual data...
I don't see what's so complicated about this. Pop up a graph of infection rate vs mask wearing rate a week or two previous to that recorded rate. What is the observed historical relationship? Approximately none. What would be a rational prediction of future change in infection rate vs various mask policies ranging from give up on them completely to draconian authoritarianism? Approximately none.
Mask wearing seems pragmatically based on historical data to be a false sense of security and a waste of time and money.
Maybe a better comparison than gun control would be proposing the solution to the problem of lung cancer caused by tobacco smoking is prayer and faith healing. Just because it doesn't actually work, doesn't mean some people don't think others shouldn't be forced to do it at the point of a sword as government policy. Certainly the correlation coefficient between lung cancer and faith healing wouldn't be much lower than between mask wearing and infection rates.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday October 09 2020, @05:35PM (4 children)
You really should look what's happening with the White House and the Pentagon right now.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 11 2020, @02:42PM (3 children)
Cool. Your anecdote has less than a dozen people over a two week news cycle.
My experimental data source has five million in my state over eight months.
http://covid19.healthdata.org/ [healthdata.org]
I mean, nice anecdote, it just doesn't mean anything vs a vastly larger, longer term experimental sample data set.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday October 11 2020, @04:19PM (2 children)
(psst! The data you showed me corroborates the benefits of wearing masks! Cool!)
As for the 'anecdote' you found so uncomfortable you still haven't paid proper attention to it: The man that got infected had unlimited resources to keep him safe AND an insistence on not wearing masks. Heh. Din't work.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2020, @01:20PM (1 child)
Technically their numbers and graphs claim the opposite of their verbal claim, which is interesting but very unconvincing
Come on man, you know enough about engineering and medical and statistical stuff to know anecdotes are meaningless.
"I know someone's grannie who smoked 7 packs of cigars a day and she didn't die of lung cancer so tobacco smoke is healthy"
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday October 13 2020, @02:46PM
That is a unique view. By your own rules it'd be filtered out. ;)
Heh. What i said was you hadn't been paying attention to it. This is what happens when you're willful in your 'data hunt'.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @10:02PM
Repeatedly showing off your stupidity doesn't make it better.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday October 08 2020, @03:15AM (2 children)
Sorry, there's a month long period of time in the US from February 28 through to March 27 where the daily growth rate in cases never fell below 23%. Now, with masks and social distancing it's about 0.6%. Something is working, it's definitely not just herd immunity.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 08 2020, @12:30PM (1 child)
Really? Point it out to me.
I'm mostly using http://covid19.healthdata.org/ [healthdata.org] which may or may not be trustworthy. I don't think its connected to the Chinese or WHO organization so its probably honest.
In the old days quantity of tests were constrained so confirmed tests in the oldest days were smaller. So I've been using estimated, which admittedly start tracking together around July.
I see things in the data like 30% mask use in May resulted in about 100K infections, and around 50% mask use by mid-late september results in about 100K infections around now. So mask use increased from 30% to 50% with no change in results. Or percent people not wearing masks, presumably spreading the disease, decreased from 70% to 50% with no observable change in disease spreading rate. None. So if mask wearing and disease spreading are statistically independent unrelated uncorrelated variables, why is mask wearing a public health policy?
The growth in infection rate stopped and peaked around late march. So... something happened to crash the infection rate in early to mid march. Observed mask use went from 4% in late feb to 3% in mid march. Clearly, whatever stopped the infection in its tracks was NOT masks. I don't know what it was for sure, but we know based on data it was not masks. Social distancing graph of cell phone data DID kick in around mid march. Interesting.
However, social distancing seems to be a scam later on. Observed cell phone data based social distancing actual performance at the peak of the USA lockdown was measured at 52% down by the start of April. Supposedly, takes about two weeks to die. By mid april, 52% social distancing two weeks previous resulted in a daily death rate around 2250 per day. Measured cell phone based social distancing data indicates actual performance rose to a mere 20% or so around July and has remained there since then. Dire doom and gloom predictions of going from 50+% social distancing to 20% social distancing would seem to indicate exponential death rates should have wiped the country out already. However ACTUAL death rates since mid July have remained in the high hundreds rarely if ever barely cracking 1000 per day. So it would seem the scientific data predicts that every 10% or so of social distancing kills about 700 additional people per day. Yet the propaganda message has always been gatherings kill people, despite actual evidence to the contrary.
I would propose based on scientific data that social distancing to around a depth of 20% or so (like around now per cell phone data) seems to stop growth of the disease in its tracks but doesn't eliminate it or reduce it in any way, but then again neither did 50% social distancing. 0% social distancing resulted in high spread rates. Mask use has had zero impact on disease spread based on actual historical data. It would seem the main social policy gain has been the government and businesses forcing "people with coughs and fevers" aka COVID cases, to stay home from work instead of toughing it out and infecting the rest of the office.
The masker and distancer types have relied on every form of sophistry and authoritarianism and propaganda. Odd they've never tried math, science, or statistics. Apparently because the statistics and graphs based on actual results universally disagree with their policy. So why are they pushing that science denialist policy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2020, @04:34PM
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html [jhu.edu]
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page [nyc.gov]
(Score: -1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:08PM (17 children)
Can't they make up their narrative from home?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:03PM (14 children)
Very true. The reporters are just making shit up constantly. They don't even need to be present in the whthouse briefing room to continue making stuff up.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:36PM
No, but being there makes more (gullible) people believe reporters' editorialized stories.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @05:07PM (12 children)
Trump is also making shit up constantly. In fact he's been lying through his teeth basically all his miserable wortless life. But you seem to give him a free pass for that.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @05:29PM (11 children)
Point to one?
The supposed lies by Trump pale in comparison to the reporters making shit up.
The reporters are doing things like if Trump were to say: "the world is a globe" then the reporters would report that he said "the world is flat" (i.e., exact opposite of what he really said). Most of what you think he is lying about is this made up shit by the reporters (because they never give you the full context of what was said so you could validate the accuracy of their reporting).
Plus, second, anyone who does not think a politician is lying anytime they are speaking is a fool. They all lie, even Biden is lying every time he opens his mouth to speak, so there's nothing unusual about it.
But, the reporters, they should not be lying, and converting a statement of "the world is a globe" into "the world is a flat plane" is just the reporters lying for their own advertising gain.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 07 2020, @06:26PM
Agree/disagree. The reporter's "gain" is simply keeping his lucrative job. The reporters don't so much make up these lies, as they are toeing a line drawn by their employers. Only some of the high-visibility "reporters" have any part in controlling the narrative. The narrative comes down from on high, starting with the billionaires like Soros.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @07:01PM (5 children)
Links please.
Otherwise you're just making noise.
Evidence, motherfucker. Do you have any?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @07:24PM (4 children)
You can't handle the truth!
Ok, you want links. Lets take the major one. The source of the fine people hoax.
2017, after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville,
CNN reported it as: "Donald Trump called neo-nazi's and white supremacists fine people".
That, on CNN's part, was CNN lying, because Trump did not, ever, call neo-nazi's and white supremacists fine people. In fact, he said the exact opposite, during the very talk where CNN reported the exact opposite:
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Third_statement: [wikipedia.org]
Quote from the Wikipedia link above, with highlighting added to show the relevant portions:
So, what you have is that Trump said this (shortened to just the pertinent quotes):
Yet you had CNN reporting:
Trump called neo-nazi's and white nationalists "fine people". Which is the exact opposite of what he actually said.
One you finally see that the news has been lying to you, by cropping statements short to make them sound like the opposite of what they really meant, you'll start to see them doing it all the time. Not one of the "news" sources can be trusted to report facts anymore, it is all opinions dressed up to look like facts, with quotes cropped off to make the quote sound like it supports the opinion piece they want to run with in the first place.
I.e., they are just making shit up and presenting it as if it were factual news.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Mykl on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:41PM
It's like that Access Hollywood tape. We all got to see "Grab 'em by the pussy", but they cut it before he said "because cat owners love it when you show affection to their pets".
Same as when he said that his inauguration celebration was the biggest ever. The media conveniently cut out the bit after where he said "for all of the inaugurations that have been for me. In 2017."
Or that time when he told Bob Woodward that he deliberately downplayed the effects of COVID despite knowing how dangerous it is. What he actually said afterward was... ah crap I can't even make something up for that one.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 08 2020, @12:38PM (2 children)
But isn't that true?
I mean, BLM riots gun down dozens and burn down entire cities. Right wingers... carry some signs and chant for a couple hours.
We all know know which side the Israeli's in the legacy media like and dislike and thus bias their coverage. But, I, and everyone who pays attention to politics, know which protesters I'd feel safer with in my neighborhood, which side is more aligned to the success of the nation and my family.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @02:48PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @10:04PM
More lies from the racist moron. Can you go back to AC shitposting? Or just leave entirely? Kthxbye
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @07:16PM (1 child)
Peak feelz over realz by that ac troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2020, @02:42AM
you ain't seen nothing yet
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @07:19PM
Not quite so badly, but perhaps something like this:
(all voices muffled through a mask)
- Trump said today that the world is a globe. You know, sometimes it seems we have a kindergartner as President. With us in the studio Jack Foo, planetary science professor at UCLA. Jack, what's your take?
- Hehe, yeah, of course we all learned in first grade that the world is actually a planet. As in a vast agglomeration of rock, water and air, traveling in outer space. Not a printed beach ball.
- Some in the president's base are going to say "he didn't mean it that way".
- That is the problem with Trump. He spouts off inaccuracies all day, and anti-science education deprived people are ready to excuse anything he says. These are difficult times our country is going through, and our preeminence in being a country that attracts scientists from around the world is in danger.
- Just astounding. Thank you, Jack Foo, professor at UCLA, clearing up the science. Up next: Joe Biden makes a surprise stop at the Southminster Dog Show, some cute pictures of the presidential candidate to come right after these messages!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday October 08 2020, @02:42PM
“I think that's a problem that’s going to go away… They have studied it. They know very much. In fact, we’re very close to a vaccine.” -- Trump. Feb 25th 2020.
The reporters did not make up a narrative that ended in a large number of Trump Administration staffers getting sick from a super-spreader event. I haven't seen the reporters claim something like Trump saying the world is flat (chances are he said both, your choice of news sources seems to be omitting that...), but that particular example would not have a death count attached to it.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:09PM (1 child)
Sure, but they have to go to where their boss tells them to go, and write what their boss tells them to write.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:13PM
Yeah, that's a good point.
If they just started making it up at home, it would become too clearly apparent to everyone that they are just making shit up constantly anyway.
They have to give the "appearance" of not making it up for the illusion to be maintained.