The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread

[Segnosaur]

There is no reason throwing it out.

There might have been dangerous coronaviruses in the market. But there for sure were dangerous coronaviruses in the lab.

I can also say 'if it looks like it came from the lab, it came from the lab'.

There are animals being eaten everywhere. In every city all over the whole region. Yet by a chance it happened under 1km from only lab in the region which study exactly this kind of viruses ? Pls.

Except of course there is evidence that it didn't actually originate near the labs.

From: Origin of the Virus (The Guardian)
...“the early genome frequencies until 17 January do not favour Wuhan as an origin over other parts of China...In other words, it still remains far from certain that Wuhan was even necessarily where the virus first emerged.

Nobody knows for sure exactly where it happened, but the evidence is pointing away from Wuhan (and away from the location of the lab).

 

[Segnosaur]

You know what i would love to see?

A vaccine developed outside the United States, and distributed by the WHO. Given all of Trump's "America First" rhetoric, it will be fun to see Trump (or at least his supporters, since Trump has such an ego) humbled with the knowledge that other countries more amiable to the WHO get access to a vaccine while the U.S. does not.

Maybe the WHO has learned their lesson but they did pretty poorly at the onset of this pandemic.

Actually no, they didn't.

Keep in mind that the WHO is not some sort of omnipotent organization capable of ordering compliance with its various directives. That said, it did a fairly decent job... It developed test kits, made sure information was disseminated, etc.

They encouraged to keep trade and travel going...

As other people have noted, that is likely because studies have found travel restrictions to be of limited or no benefit. (At best they may delay the spread by a few days.)

From: Effect of Travel Restrctions... (Sciencemag)
...travel restrictions to and from mainland China only modestly affect the epidemic trajectory...

(In other words, travel restrictions had very little effect, and it diverts resources away from areas that can actually be benefitial.)

and then they refused to even call it a pandemic...

Ummm... so?

Labeling something a 'pandemic' is not some magic talisman that will ward off the virus. They labeled it a "Public health emergency", and the reaction by individual countries will have depended on their own situations rather than something the WHO dictated.

 

[Sherkeu]

Labeling something a 'pandemic' is not some magic talisman that will ward off the virus. They labeled it a "Public health emergency", and the reaction by individual countries will have depended on their own situations rather than something the WHO dictated.

When people are asking in governments, online, and in the msm why WHO was not labeling it as such when it looked serious and CLEARLY qualified based on past pandemics it seemed to downplay the seriousness of the emergency.

Public buy-in from people who are regular citizens of the world is essential to getting fast collective action. Marketing 101. Did they think it would shrink back at that point? From quickly infiltrating dozens of countries around the globe through travel for many weeks? They actually said it could be contained with good measures. Are they nuts? Did they think Europe could act like China? Maybe China didn't tell them all they needed to know but I could see it on TV and the internet for myself so I hardly think they were unaware.

I recall thinking at that time "They must know something I do not know about this to say that". But they didnt.

 

[Sherkeu]

Another misunderstood social media 'conclusion'.

The reason the WHO did not recommend stopping international travel is because it's ineffective, not because they missed the boat.And this was correct! But Trump is pushing this lie because he's hiding his own mistakes while pretending his blocking certain travel from China was effective. It wasn't. He's a liar (d'uh). Don't fall for his scapegoating.

How do you think the virus got to California and Europe in multiple waves of infection?

If you have even been to China, you'd know that you walk through at least 2 temperature scanners arriving AND departing. I had a friend detained in HK for a temp of 101. Is that worthless? Once one or 2 or out, then "who cares"? Global travel is of no consequence? Doesnt it all start with just one and move exponentially from there to the area it hits?

I just find it hard to believe except if you don't want to stop trade and leisure activities for something controllable like the first SARS was. Or MERS. Or Ebola. Those ones could be followed. This one was not like that and they knew it by then. Or should have. They dropped the ball. Big time.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Emily's Cat:

I'm comfortably willing to bet that you won't find many (or any at all) Antia supporters here. I don't think you'd find too many people in general looking kindly on their members dressing like cavemen and marching, heavily armed, into a government building where government employees are trying to go about their business.

I also find them to be an order of magnitude less threatening than the brutes currently besieging government buildings. This has to do with their numbers, and their goals and views, but also their representation in government. Again, the Antifa edgelords don't have a president encouraging them.

Charitable of you to at least admit that marching into government buildings with assault rifles is "kinda dumb", at least. That's a start.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Someone out of work and not seeing the virus directly affecting them wants to go back to work. I get that, even if I don't agree with it. Protesting because you really REALLY want the economy to open back up, again, I disagree but I understand.

What I DON'T understand : WTF do you need to bring a rifle with you to your protest? I say this as someone who grew up around firearms and have no fear of 'scary black guns'. You (generic) want to get back to normal and start getting a positive income again. And you need a firearm with you to do that ... why again?

I haven't yet perfected my mind-reading skills, I'm still a n00b. I'm speculating a combination of things.

I'd guess that a large portion of it is general constitutionalism, pushing back against what they perceive to be the erosion of their liberties. There are people who genuine see the lock-down as encroaching on their liberty - it inhibits their ability to observe their religion in groups, it limits their freedom, etc. So it likely gets all rolled up in a general protests for all the things that feel to them like their rights are being threatened, including gun rights.

I'd also guess that at least some of them view it as protection. There's a pretty strong partisan divide in the US right now, and it just keeps getting worse. Almost every topic gets a political spin, including reactions to this pandemic. It falls roughly into the eternal argument of individual liberty versus community safety, which parallels rough divisions of right and left in the US. And since our current political climate is a sprinkling of cotton fluff on top of a pile of tinder balanced on a stack of kindling precariously teetering over a bonfire soaked in pitch... There might be a tendency to preemptively prepare for potential opposition of the less-than-perfectly-peaceful type.

I also suspect that some of the people there are not actually protesting the lock-down, but are just trying to make the protesters look like bad people who are insane. But that might just be my natural cynicism seeping through.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's the thing for me. In my family and the people I grew up with guns were sort of like chainsaws : seriously dangerous if you don't know what you're doing or are playing around with them, but safe and useful if you just pay attention and took care. They were neither sinister instruments of death which would kill you if you looked at them, nor were they the last best hope to prevent governmental tyranny.

It wasn't until I got older that I started running into people who weren't firearms enthusiasts, they were firearms fetishists. The dickheads protesting aren't protesting some upcoming gun legislation, they're demanding businesses and the economy reopen. Zero reason to do this armed unless their aim is to provoke.

Or, as you say, help their wedding tackle get back to at least half-mast.

Lol, I also grew up with guns, and my spouse and I have many firearms. Mostly because they're fun, but also because they're useful. Our not-quite-a-joke is that the only problem with guns is the people who own them. We have a small group of friends that we enjoy shooting with... but there's a huge number of "gun people" that we don't want anything to do with.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Occam's Razor: there is no reason to throw a lab into the sequence of events.

I hear you, I'm just not convinced that spontaneous transmission from bat to pangolin to human in a wet market is the razor solution when there is a lab in that area that was actively studying this particular virus. It's entirely possible that either method could occur. But in this particular case, I don't think that considering an accidental release is CT territory.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And you need a firearm with you to do that ... why again?

It's to intimidate, plain and simple terrorism.

 

[thaiboxerken]

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/it...SIgl14OqX6Gvh_Fl2vAiwXjRxVePmGCgTidjq-l7kn0Ug

"Protestors" are chanting that the virus pandemic is a hoax. I wonder where they got that idea.

 

[Stacyhs]

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/it...SIgl14OqX6Gvh_Fl2vAiwXjRxVePmGCgTidjq-l7kn0Ug

"Protestors" are chanting that the virus pandemic is a hoax. I wonder where they got that idea.

And they wonder why we think they are stupid.

 

[Mumbles]

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/it...SIgl14OqX6Gvh_Fl2vAiwXjRxVePmGCgTidjq-l7kn0Ug

"Protestors" are chanting that the virus pandemic is a hoax. I wonder where they got that idea.

Hogan, from what I hard, noted that the people who showed up for this protest in our state, were fewer than the number of people who died of COVID-19 that day.

This seems to be fringe nonsense. And so, likely bussed from place to place to place, to scream and march in their fake military gear...

I'd like to have a good media strategy to investigate these guys screaming into cops faces, but I don't know how, and frankly, I'd rather they just treat them like if a group of black people ran up and started screaming at them. As in, beat them, spray them with tear gas, and potentially shoot to kill..

of course, there's an alternate, but I don't think they'd like it much....

 

[William Parcher]

You haven't heard of the events where they have been shooting, then?

No, I have not heard of any events with militias shooting. At least not recently. We did have militias shooting in the American Civil War.

Which militia shooting events are you thinking of?

 

[thaiboxerken]

They don't need to shoot, since their wielding of fire-arms is enough to terrorize people.

 

[William Parcher]

They don't need to shoot, since their wielding of fire-arms is enough to terrorize people.

I had never really thought of the Black Panthers as terrorists.

 

[EHocking]

I had never really thought of the Black Panthers as terrorists.

One man's freedom fighter... etc.

 

[phiwum]

Wouldn't that sentiment be generally in line with antifa's principles?

Well, I suppose that if you see me defending antifa, you might bring this point up.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I had never really thought of the Black Panthers as terrorists.

I did, at least the armed ones.

 

[Trebuchet]

Reply shifted here from the Science and Medicine thread, where it's not appropriate.

As of yesterday, 68,633. Today's fiasco has not yet landed.

Now I will grant that your prediction might have been a bit previous, given the data at the time. That is OK by me, it is a situation in motion, hard predictions are a big ask in such a volatile scenario. I would not be willing to nail any number on it.

Postdictions are something the hell else.

Doghouse Reilly stated that 65k deaths would only be reached in August. Yet here the US is in May exceeding that number already, while intentionally undercounting.

So can anyone suggest why he has not returned to defend his failed figures?

OTOH, Jean Tate equally failed with her projections. Does that not make those the same?

Of course not. Jean Tate made a predictive based on current status.

Doghouse stated as fact something we know to be false right now.

And that is why he is avoiding this thread. He has good reason to avoid this thread. He made a statement of fact that never happened. The facts on the ground prove him flat out wrong.

Jean Tate made an estimation assuming current trends. It was an estimation. Not an unreasonable one. Estimations are subject to revision as the evidence is gathered.

Jean Tate would happily revise her opinion as data comes forth in whichever direction.

Other people care not for any evidence.

For what it may be worth, Jean Tate has been a rock of rational thought against a tide of superstitious bullpoopery. I appreciate it even if nobody else does.

DR's position was based solely on politics. Trump said the situation was trivial, therefore it was. At one point someone, I think DR but am not sure, said that since influenza kills about 50,000 a year, we shouldn't worry until Covid-19 was killing 4000 a month. For most of last month it was killing 4000 every two days.

And if somehow all the action taken HAD kept it down to 65,000; he'd be crowing about how that proved the shutdowns weren't necessary.

It's kind of sad.

I am MORE than ready for things to open up, but I totally understand why they aren't. And it's not some Commie Globalist Conspiracy.

 

[phiwum]

Congresspeople are generally considered to be a step or two more credible than the average joe on the street. You know this.

And, to be fair to the average Joe on the street, he's a step or two more credible than the President of the United States.