Politics 20/20

[Elerond]

Number of confirmed covid-19 cases world wide: 34,410,636

Number of deaths by covid-19: 1,022,787

So survival rate is currently 97%

Suvival rate in USA is only 0.1 percent better

Edited October 2, 2020 by Elerond

[Guard Dog]

15 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

survival rate is significantly worse for obese folks in their 70s with heart conditions. a number curious overlooked is the folks who get ill enough to require hospitalization, which is closer to 20% last we reviewed, but that were admitted a while ago and before increased testing, so could be lower... but again, whatever is the base rate for all population won't apply to trump as he presents multiple comorbidities. require hospitalization for a respiratory disease is no freaking joke, particular for old, fat and bad ticker. 

even so, most likely scenario is trump remains asymptomatic. 

HA! Good Fun!

As someone who hopes for the health and happiness of all his fellow humans I hope they are all asymptomatic. I would not wish wet lung respitory distress on anyone. 

[Gromnir]

can't believe we forgot to mention gender. men is noteworthy more likely to die from covid. but again, asymptomatic is the most common scenario even for old, fat, male, etc.

am thinking few o' the people being dismissive o' death rates has had to watch somebody die as they struggle for air.  as we noted already, our first thought on hearing the trump news were what a horrible death is possible from a covid infection. wouldn't wish that on anybody.

our second thought were, given our recognition o' how terrible is covid deaths (though drug induced comas make less horrible once all hope is lost) the cavalier attitude which the wh took once hope hicks were identified as symptomatic and then covid-19 positive angered us more than a little and we will be wanting an explanation o' such behaviour. recognizing the extreme transmissibility o' covid-19, a relative low mortality rate may still result in a large number o' deaths. willingness to expose others is at best irresponsible. at worst...

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

 

[Raithe]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Covid is hardly a death sentence. It does have a survival rate north of 99%. Even though quite a few folks have died. But this will certainly sideline Trump and possibly Biden right in the middle of the campaign. That means the next two debates are likely a no-go. So Trump loses two opoprtunities to make an even bigger jackass of himself. 

Although there have been a few studies showing that while the death rate might not be the thing to worry about, there is a higher increase in long-term physical issues for surviving it.  But as I recall it was more around "people in x age bracket are at much reduced risk of death. But higher risk of life affecting disabilities."

I wonder if they'd pushed that aspect people would have worried more and reacted to it.   People aren't that scared of "you might die" but telling them "you might have long term illness and crippling medical bills" might make them think more.

[Gfted1]

Imo, a nebulous low percentage chance "might" isnt a big enough motivator for a lot of people. But "seeing the result" of a "might" that came true would probably be motivational.

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

can't believe we forgot to mention gender. men is noteworthy more likely to die from covid. but again, asymptomatic is the most common scenario even for old, fat, male, etc.

am thinking few o' the people being dismissive o' death rates has had to watch somebody die as they struggle for air.  as we noted already, our first thought on hearing the trump news were what a horrible death is possible from a covid infection. wouldn't wish that on anybody.

our second thought were, given our recognition o' how terrible is covid deaths (though drug induced comas make less horrible once all hope is lost) the cavalier attitude which the wh took once hope hicks were identified as symptomatic and then covid-19 positive angered us more than a little and we will be wanting an explanation o' such behaviour. recognizing the extreme transmissibility o' covid-19, a relative low mortality rate may still result in a large number o' deaths. willingness to expose others is at best irresponsible. at worst...

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

 

 

You also forgot to mention low income as a risk factor.

[Malcador]

Pence is safe at least - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/02/vice-president-mike-pence-and-his-wife-test-negative-covid-19/5892854002/

Eh, he'll get the best treatment they can give and be back in no time.  Then again, it being Trump, maybe the whole thing is all lies

Edited October 2, 2020 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

I do wonder if it is a potential false positive. Given how often they get tested, I would think that would be a possible outcome here.

[Pidesco]

Mild symptoms are being reported now, though.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well ain't this something?

Unfortunately the most likely outcome is that Trump survives and claims that his survival means Covid-19 is no big deal while he will pushes for stuff that endangers more people. By now it should be obvious that Trump doesn't care about the danger of Covid-19 and would gladly sacrifice millions of people at the altar of productivity, anyone hoping for a "come to God" moment is delusional.

[Azdeus]

17 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

Well ain't this something?

Unfortunately the most likely outcome is that Trump survives and claims that his survival means Covid-19 is no big deal while he will pushes for stuff that endangers more people. By now it should be obvious that Trump doesn't care about the danger of Covid-19 and would gladly sacrifice millions of people at the altar of productivity, anyone hoping for a "come to God" moment is delusional.

Though I think he should stay on the safe side and inject some bleach.

[HoonDing]

[ComradeYellow]

This theater or what?  You never can tell with the orange.

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, HoonDing said:

I think this gif is more appropriate 

[Gfted1]

Who is the first guy?

[Malcador]

6 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Who is the first guy?

James Poyser.  And this one is also good

Edited October 2, 2020 by Malcador

[majestic]

13 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Please refer to a specific rule or regulation set forth and required that Poland or Hungary agreed to by joining EU that they not abide by. I will wait. Hungary was criticized by ABIDING to the rules set forth by EU regarding illegal immigrants that Angela Merkel by herself changed on the fly. Poland is criticized by not following EU guideline (not laws!) in matters of internal politics that EU treaty specifically states are internal matters of membership countries and EU have no jurisdiction over.

So yeah. Mr Law And Order gets upset when EU breaks their own rules to hurt countries that don't obey ideology and are using such morbid terminology to do so.

Specifics? Well, why not. The ECJ has judged Poland's judiciary reforms (or parts thereof) to be in violation of Article 19, Treaty of the European Union on two separate occasions. To be even more specific: Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531; judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 November 2019, Commission v Poland, C-192/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:924.

But yes, we're all very well aware of how PiS thinks that these are just guidelines and the EU should not concern themselves with them. That was their official explanatory statement, wasn't it? In particular for ignoring certain ECJ rulings.

But never mind. I'll be out now, I think I've had my fair share of interaction in this thread for the time being. Not sure how or why I let myself get suckered into this every now and then.

[Gromnir]

am annoyed by numerous folks continuing to mislead regarding what a negative test for covid-19 means. covid-19 incubation period is two to fourteen days, although there is a significant drop-off after seven days. five days is typical. therefore, if you were in contact with trump or hicks on thursday, your covid-19 negative results is not genuine showing you managed to avoid infection from those individuals until october 8. 

that goes for biden too btw. former vp should get tests the next few days before he does anything in-person. 

wh individuals who had recent contact with trump and hicks continuing to show up and interact with folks sans masks is complete irresponsible and again, doesn't matter if the wh staff tested negative yesterday or today.

HA! Good Fun!

ps as fauci has observed, there is nothing ordinary 'bout covid-19. a typical covid-19 patient is not all that typical. nevertheless, IF trump follows the typical progression o' a person who has already shown symptoms, then 5-7 days from yesterday is when trump need be particular concerned, 'cause IF a covid-19 patient progresses from mild to severe symptoms that is the typical time frame in which it happens.

but again, one o' the things which epidemiologists continue to stress is just how "protean" is covid-19. is not that the disease is changing, though there is some mutation. what fauci meant were how folks same age and with identical comorbidities infected by same exact strain would nevertheless have different reactions to the virus with greater than expected frequency.  a typical case is an elusive definition.

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Skarpen said:

This is something to worry about. Trump not being able to make his rallies will hurt him as much as it would hurt Biden if they made him make rallies.

Interestingly enough this election is one of the very few elections where if either candidate is unable to attend rallies I doubt  it would change most voting outcomes 

The Trump presidency has irrefutably resulted in extreme views on both sides and that has lead to many Americans opinions on the voting choice decided. And the people at rallies are Republicans but generally Trump supporters. They known exactly who they are voting for and most of these rallies are really about the Trump base and how many people  at these rallied really enjoy the spectacle and theater of how Trump makes his point. I have watched parts of these rallies and I find entertaining....Trump can be funny

So for me this is a very unusual election because most US citizens know who they voting for and what is said at rallies is not going to change that. Also if you look at some of the core points both Biden and Trump have raised against each other they both are often based on external factors and its impact like the pandemic or the reality of anarchy and violence in some US cities 

And these criticisms are not really fair in certain ways to undermine either candidate but they are legitimate criticisms so in other words these rallies I dont think are going to change most peoples voting choices ?

 

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Specifics? Well, why not. The ECJ has judged Poland's judiciary reforms (or parts thereof) to be in violation of Article 19, Treaty of the European Union on two separate occasions. To be even more specific: Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531; judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 November 2019, Commission v Poland, C-192/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:924.

But yes, we're all very well aware of how PiS thinks that these are just guidelines and the EU should not concern themselves with them. That was their official explanatory statement, wasn't it? In particular for ignoring certain ECJ rulings.

But never mind. I'll be out now, I think I've had my fair share of interaction in this thread for the time being. Not sure how or why I let myself get suckered into this every now and then.

Yes, the ECJ ruled that the judicary reform wasn't in accordance with EU laws, so the reform was revoked and new laws were passed in accordance with ECJ ruling. So Poland did abide by the law and ruling of EU. Why then you support Germany's plan to starve Poland financially?

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

You also forgot to mention low income as a risk factor.

Presumably because it doesn't really apply to Trump.

Obviously low income would be an appropriate factor for Trump in 2015 and the years previous going by his tax returns, but he at least gets the Presidential income now- not as high as many would think, but which is certainly well above low income.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Zoraptor

[majestic]

  

44 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

 Why then you support Germany's plan to starve Poland financially?

I don't. Let me quote myself:

20 hours ago, majestic said:

This is not an endorsement of the terminology used ("aushungern") nor an endorsement of any sanctions against member nations. That's an entirely different topic, and a really tricky one. Personally I'd rather not slash subsidies because that just hurts the general population, misses the mark and allows for politicians to use such sanctions to double down on an already entrenched us vs. them divide. Proof in the quote, and all that.

It just caused a mild chuckle to see you being annoyed by what you perceived as a fascist statement by a German representative of the European Parliament in response to an interim report of a Spanish Member of the European Parliament on the rule of law in Poland after you happily cheer any fascists in the US just as long as they are against leftards.

The report also seems to vehemently disagree with your statement that the reforms were adapted or rescinded enough:

The European Parliament expressed its concerns regarding the rule of law situation in Poland in several resolutions adopted during the past years. Those concerns relate to the functioning of the legislative and electoral system; the independence of the judiciary and the rights of judges; and the protection of fundamental rights, including rights of persons belonging to minorities. Since the situation of the rule of law in Poland has not only not been addressed but has seriously deteriorated since the triggering of the Article 7(1) TEU, the Rapporteur emphasizes the importance of this interim report, which aims to,[...]

However you're not entirely wrong by calling these rules mere "guidelines" of a sort. People complain about the cucumber law of the European Union, but that there has been no solution for the Copenhagen dilemma is far more problematic.

For those who are reading and interested, the Copenhagen dilemma is the issue that while there are set criteria for EU membership applicants they need to conform to before being allowed to join they immediately go away and can no longer be applied to member nations after their accession. In other words, while a proto-dicatorship like Turkey or an actual one like Belarus would never be allowed to join the EU the EU can't really do anything if an existing member nation would become one.

Or arguably has become/is at the brink of becoming a proto-dictatorship in Hungary's case.

Nothing except triggering Article 7. Which obversably amounts to nothing.

[Skarpen]

6 minutes ago, majestic said:

after you happily cheer any fascists in the US just as long as they are against leftards.

I have never and will not ever cheer, endorse or support any fascist in any country. 

[Hurlshort]

I have some other reasons, but this is probably in the top ten for why I'm voting blue this year:

 

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

Presumably because it doesn't really apply to Trump.

Obviously low income would be an appropriate factor for Trump in 2015 and the years previous going by his tax returns, but he at least gets the Presidential income now- not as high as many would think, but which is certainly well above low income.

Failed joke.