Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Jack Trojan]

That "bla bla bla" is called SCIENCE.

You simply ignored every fact I pointed out about the transmission rate, the case numbers, and the anti-body studies, and just repeated your panic-party posturing.

The real question is, Why do you keep ignoring cold, hard facts that disprove your panic party?

"2,000 to 4,000 people will die with current infection rates"? Not if we adopt a sensible targeted strategy. And 2K to 4K more people dying from COVID-19 by the end of year would be fewer people than will die from medical errors, from diabetes, from accidents, etc., etc., in the same time frame.

The cure cannot be worse than the disease. No one is saying do nothing. We are saying stop the senseless one-size-fits-all approach and target the two groups that we know are by far the most vulnerable, and let everyone else resume normal life.

Herd immunity? Dr. Atlas, you are one sick puppy. If your ilk took the virus seriously, didn't play it down and didn't think that wearing a mask somehow infringed on your rights we wouldn't be in this pickle. Drumpf would have been deemed a hero and got re-elected in a landslide. The irony is particularly delicious.

If Drumpf had a dollar for every time he hoisted himself on his own petard, he would be able to pay off his debt to the Rooskies.

[Martin Weidmann]

The real question is, Why do you keep ignoring cold, hard facts that disprove your panic party?

"2,000 to 4,000 people will die with current infection rates"? Not if we adopt a sensible targeted strategy. And 2K to 4K more people dying from COVID-19 by the end of year would be fewer people than will die from medical errors, from diabetes, from accidents, etc., etc., in the same time frame.

The cure cannot be worse than the disease. No one is saying do nothing. We are saying stop the senseless one-size-fits-all approach and target the two groups that we know are by far the most vulnerable, and let everyone else resume normal life.

The real question is, Why do you keep ignoring cold, hard facts that disprove your panic party?

What cold, hard facts would that be? All you have presented so far is a lot of bogus selfserving rhetoric.

"2,000 to 4,000 people will die with current infection rates"?

Sure... based on the calculation of the numbers you have used. 180.000 infections x 2% mortality rate = 3600 deaths per day!

Not if we adopt a sensible targeted strategy.

Like what? Opening up states, allow mass gatherings and do away with masks and social distancing? What.... do tell?

And 2K to 4K more people dying from COVID-19 by the end of year would be fewer people than will die from medical errors, from diabetes, from accidents, etc., etc., in the same time frame.

Are you sure your crystal ball isn't defective, mr Science guy?

The cure cannot be worse than the disease.

Now we are getting somewhere.... The first admission that for you economics are more important than people's lives.
My answer to that is; an economy can be rebuild. Money lost can be made again but there is no way back from being dead!

No one is saying do nothing.

Of course that's what you are saying. So far, you and your orange führer haven't made one proposal to get the virus under control. In fact, the White House Chief of Staff is on record saying they are not even going to try to contain or control the spread of the virus.

We are saying stop the senseless one-size-fits-all approach and target the two groups that we know are by far the most vulnerable, and let everyone else resume normal life.

Yeah, that'll work.... Are you for real? Locking away the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions isn't going to solve anything. As long as the virus is out there, nobody will ever be able to resume their normal life. You don't live in a bubble. Return to normal life (i.e.  opening up the economy) means movement of people, which in turn means a faster spreading of the virus. Experience shows that no matter how many precautions you have in place, there is always possibility of an infection. Your best example is Trump and the White House staff. Tested and monitored every day, yet just about everybody who got on with their "normal" life got infected nevertheless. Do you really want to come home one day, being infected without knowing it, and infecting somebody who subsequently dies from covid-19?

Do you really want that on your conscience? And for what? You selfish desire to resume your "normal" life and f*ck everybody else? Is that who you are?

You really need to stop making emotional arguments instead of rational ones.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You can't be this dumb, can you? Science.... yeah right.

The death rate is calculated based on the known figures of infections and deaths. You did it yourself in an earlier post;

So, it doesn't matter that not everyone who is exposed to COVID-19 will catch it, nor does it matter that, in the early days, fewer than 60% of cruise ship passengers and/or fewer than 40% of a choir caught the virus.

We're only dealing with known cases, so as long as there are 180.000 known infections a day, with a mortality rate of 2%, 3600 people will still die from covid-19 every day, notwithstanding your pathetic attempt to argue that the actual infection rate is much higher and thus the mortality rate much lower. That's not science, that's a mumbo jumbo argument for argument's sake.

The bottom line in all of this is simply that you don't like lockdowns and you will say anything to rationalize your opposition to them.

Yes, it is called SCIENCE.

I am still waiting for any of you to supply a single source to back up the claim that "many" survivors are going to suffer serious health issues. So far, this has not been the case, as I have documented with CDC and Johns Hopkins links.

"So, it doesn't matter that not everyone who is exposed to COVID-19 will catch it."

Phew! What?! That is beyond stupid. Yes, the transmission rate of a virus most certainly does matter, for obvious reasons. If only, say, 40% of the U.S. population would ever catch COVID-19, then it makes no sense to base your response policy on models that assume that 330 million Americans could get infected and that therefore project wild death numbers based on that false assumption, right? Right? You understand why this is self-evidently true, right?

"so as long as there are 180.000 known infections a day, with a mortality rate of 2%, 3600 people will still die from covid-19 every day."

180,000 infections and 3600 deaths per day? WHERE? If you're talking about the entire planet/worldwide, then 3,600 deaths per day, which equals 432K deaths per year, would put COVID-19 on the same level as the common flu (400K-500K deaths per year), and far, far behind diabetes (4 million deaths per year), road accidents (800K deaths per year), Alzheimer's (2.2 million deaths per year), stroke (5.8 million deaths per year), and heart disease (9.8 million deaths per year), among several other leading worldwide causes of death.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death

We, the U.S., have been averaging about 800 deaths per day since mid-July. If that rate were to continue to the end of the year, that would be an additional 37,600 deaths in the U.S., plus the 245K who have already died, giving us a grand total of 282,600 deaths for the year. That is not terribly more than the number of Americans who died from the Asian Flu in 1958 (216,000 adjusted for current population), during which we did not close schools, or businesses, or churches, etc., and therefore did not cause tens of millions of people to lose their jobs, did not cause tens of thousands of people to wipe out their life savings waiting for restrictions to end, did not cause tens of thousands of businesses to shut down (about 30% of which would never come back), and did not senselessly force tens of millions of school kids to stay home.

"Like what? Opening up states, allow mass gatherings and do away with masks and social distancing? What.... do tell?"

Well, first of all, let's remember that states that opted for no lockdowns or only mild lockdowns did just as well as, or better than, states that opted for harsh lockdowns. So your assumption that lockdowns were the correct approach is flawed from the outset. I have asked you guys several times to address this fact, but you keep ignoring it.

Florida (21M) -- 17.5K deaths/875K cases // MILD LOCKDOWN
New York (19.4M) -- 33.5K deaths/561K cases // HARSH LOCKDOWN
Georgia (10.6M) -- 8.7K deaths/408K cases // MILD LOCKDOWN
Michigan (10M) -- 8.3K deaths/275K cases // HARSH LOCKDOWN

A rational person willing to be honest would look at these numbers and conclude that the harsh lockdowns were not necessary to combat the virus.

Here is the approach that many disease experts and other scholars have suggested:

Focus protective measures on the two high-risk groups: the elderly and the medically ill.

Reopen schools, since people aged 1-24 face a much lower risk of death from COVID-19 than they do from the common flu. Require teachers over the age of 35, or those who are medically ill regardless of age, to wear masks at school. Require teachers who are over 65 to both mask and social distance.

Allow mass gatherings but require the elderly and the medically ill to mask and to social distance, until they can be vaccinated. For sporting events, we could even designate a reasonably sized section of seating for the elderly and the medically ill, and still require them to mask--again, until they can be vaccinated.

Allow "non-essential" businesses (they're surely essential for those who own them and who depend on them for income) to operate at full capacity, but require elderly and medically ill customers to mask, and require workers who serve/interact with them to mask during service/interaction.

If we had followed this approach from the beginning, we would have suffered far, far less economic damage, both as a nation and in many cases as individuals, and our death numbers would probably be lower than they are now, or at least no worse.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, it is called SCIENCE.

Which only shows that you haven't got a clue what science is.

I am still waiting for any of you to supply a single source to back up the claim that "many" survivors are going to suffer serious health issues. So far, this has not been the case, as I have documented with CDC and Johns Hopkins links.

Well, you can keep on waiting as far as I am concerned, because all I said on that subject is (1) the European media have reported on it and (2) that the mere fact that so far not many survivors suffer from serious health issues (if true) that still doesn't mean it isn't true.

"So, it doesn't matter that not everyone who is exposed to COVID-19 will catch it."

Phew! What?! That is beyond stupid. Yes, the transmission rate of a virus most certainly does matter, for obvious reasons. If only, say, 40% of the U.S. population would ever catch COVID-19, then it makes no sense to base your response policy on models that assume that 330 million Americans could get infected and that therefore project wild death numbers based on that false assumption, right? Right? You understand why this is self-evidently true, right?

We were talking about the mortality rate of 2% of those infected. The argument you are making now is an entirely different one. The flaw in your reasoning is that you can not predict with any kind of certainty who will fall in that 40% group, so it makes complete sense to assume that everybody could get infected.

"so as long as there are 180.000 known infections a day, with a mortality rate of 2%, 3600 people will still die from covid-19 every day."

180,000 infections and 3600 deaths per day? WHERE? If you're talking about the entire planet/worldwide, then 3,600 deaths per day, which equals 432K deaths per year, would put COVID-19 on the same level as the common flu (400K-500K deaths per year), and far, far behind diabetes (4 million deaths per year), road accidents (800K deaths per year), Alzheimer's (2.2 million deaths per year), stroke (5.8 million deaths per year), and heart disease (9.8 million deaths per year), among several other leading worldwide causes of death.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death

Oh boy. Let's try baby steps.... You argued that with a mortality rate of a little more than 2% would mean that a little more than 97% of those infected would survive. I merely pointed out that the current daily infection rate in the entire country is 180.000 cases per day, which means that, with a mortality rate of 2%, every day 3600 people will still die. It's a simple calculation to make. If you have to, you can use a calculator. And btw I can't help it that you don't understand this was merely a theoretical calculation based on your information to counter one of your bogus arguments.

We, the U.S., have been averaging about 800 deaths per day since mid-July. If that rate were to continue to the end of year, that would be an additional 37,600 deaths in the U.S., plus the 245K who have already died, giving us a grand total of 282,600 deaths for the year. That is not terribly more than the number of Americans who died from the Asian Flu in 1958 (216,000 adjusted for current population), during which we did not close schools, or businesses, or churches, etc., and therefore did not cause tens of millions of people to lose their jobs, did not cause tens of thousands of people to wipe out their life savings waiting for restrictions to end, did not cause tens of thousands of shut down (about 30% of which would never come back), and did not senselessly force tens of millions of school kids to stay home.

There he goes again with his averages.... As for the rest; apples and oranges.

"Like what? Opening up states, allow mass gatherings and do away with masks and social distancing? What.... do tell?"

Well, first of all, let's remember that states that opted for no lockdowns or only mild lockdowns did just as well as, or better than, states that opted for harsh lockdowns. So your assumption that lockdowns were the correct approach is flawed from the outset. I have asked you guys several times to address this fact, but you keep ignoring it.

Florida (21M) -- 17.5K deaths/875K cases // MILD LOCKDOWN
New York (19.4M) -- 33.5K deaths/561K cases // HARSH LOCKDOWN
Georgia (10.6M) -- 8.7K deaths/408K cases // MILD LOCKDOWN
Michigan (10M) -- 8.3K deaths/275K cases // HARSH LOCKDOWN

A rational person willing to be honest would look at these numbers and conclude that the harsh lockdowns were not necessary to combat the virus.

Another non sequitur.

Here is the approach that many disease experts and other scholars have suggested:

Focus protective measures on the two high-risk groups: the elderly and the medically ill.

Reopen schools, since people aged 1-24 face a much lower risk of death from COVID-19 than they do from the common flu. Require teachers over the age of 35, or those who are medically ill regardless of age, to wear masks at school. Require teachers who are over 65 to both mask and social distance.

Allow mass gatherings but require the elderly and the medically ill to mask and to social distance, until they can be vaccinated. For sporting events, we could even designate a reasonably sized section of seating for the elderly and the medically ill, and still require them to mask--again, until they can be vaccinated.

Allow "non-essential" businesses (they're surely essential for those who own them and who depend on them for income) to operate at full capacity, but require elderly and medically ill customers to mask, and require workers who serve/interact with them to mask during service/interaction.

If we had followed this approach from the beginning, we would have suffered far, far less economic damage, both as a nation and in many cases as individuals, and our death numbers would probably be lower than they are now, or at least no worse.

many disease experts and other scholars

Another appeal to authority? Really? Who are these experts and scholars? It sounds like Trump's talking points to me.

It seems to me that real experts would know and understand that you simply can not prevent the spread of the virus with those measures. In fact, anybody with a functional brain should be able to understand that.

If we had followed this approach from the beginning, we would have suffered far, far less economic damage, both as a nation and in many cases as individuals,

There is the "money over people" argument again.... and it's still pure speculation!

In your favorite country, Sweden, there was no formal lock down, yet there are still more people out of work and more businesses closing down than normal, simply because most people decided to stay home as much as possible anyway.

What does it take for you to understand that there is no return to normal life as long as the virus is not under control?

and our death numbers would probably be lower than they are now, or at least no worse.

Pure selfserving speculation. The whole notion that by opening everything up you could reduce the rate of infections and/or deaths is outright silly.

You use way too many words to say what you are actually saying. You want everything to open up and, self absorbed as you clearly are, you want to go back to your normal life. If somebody else gets infected with the virus and/or dies from it, that's simply too bad, as long as it isn't you.

That, and nothing else, is what this is all about for you, so why not simply come out and say that instead of doing this pathetic song and dance. You have your opinion and are convinced that you are right. You will never understand or accept that your way means that this crisis drags on for much longer than it needs to.

That makes you, just like others like you, part of the problem.

[Rick Plant]

Rick it’s apples and oranges I'm afraid. NZ was able to go for eradication because of the low numbers, isolation and aggressive lockdown including shutting all borders. Here in Australia we went for mitigation strategy initially, similar to US, remember "lowering the curve". We went harder and a bit earlier than the US and are now in a position similar to NZ, where eradication has been seen as a possible strategy for a few months. I’m afraid that the US has so much widespread community infection that even a lockdown at this stage will take months to have a real effect. My fear is, unless you do, your health system and it’s workers seem to be at point of overload with numbers increasing exponentially.

Colin,

If the United States had competent leadership, this virus wouldn't have gotten out of control and thousands of lives would have been saved. Not to mention, our lives would have been more normal than what we have been facing the last 8 months.

Donald Trump knew from the beginning that COVID-19 was a deadly airborne virus. He admitted to Bob Woodward on tape telling him "he wanted to always downplay the virus". That lead to tens of thousands of deaths because of him.

Right from the get go, Donald Trump lied about COVID-19 calling it a "hoax" and sought to politicize a non political virus. Instead of fighting to save Americans, he wanted to attack Democrats and downplay the virus because he thought it would help him win an election but he failed miserably.   

The right wing media from day one downplayed the virus and started putting out disinformation that posters here parrot. They also caused massive death in this country. People listened to their lies and blew the virus off as a joke and spread the virus around their communities.

We had no national plan that would have helped to combat the virus. Some states had restrictions and red states had none so sick people crossing state lines continued to spread COVID. Most states saw significant improvement and then Donald Trump started demanding states to open and told his deranged cult to force states to open. That's when we lost the war on COVID.

Donald Trump wants herd immunity and doesn't care how many people get sick or die. He held many hate rallies that exploded the spreading of the virus. Over 1 million new cases were recorded this week. Hospitals are at full capacity so new sick patients that require hospitalization won't be able to be admitted. Over 1200 deaths are being recorded each day. Right wingers refuse to lock down or do anything to stop the spread. They are engaging in mass murder.

Immediate lockdowns tomorrow would help stop the spread of the virus and so would wearing masks where eventually we would see progress being made.

There are only two options. Do nothing want watch the economy go under and witness massive death and infection or lockdown and get this virus under control.                 

[Rick Plant]

What?! Moderators should remove your posts for sheer stupidity. We do not "currently have the highest" death rate since the pandemic started. That is demonstrably false, as anyone can confirm by checking the CDC site, the Johns Hopkins site, or the WHO site. During the lockdowns, the death rate got as high as 5.67%. But, it began to drop dramatically after states began to reopen, and it is now at  2.3% (243K deaths/10.6 million cases). That means the average survival rate is up to 97.7%. Can you do basic math?

Part of the problem is that you guys keep focusing on case numbers and ignore the dramatic drop in the death rate. You just don't seem to care that the death rate has dropped to 2.3%, which means that the average survival rate is 97.7%

I've already answered this liberal talking point, and you keep ignoring the answer and just keep on citing liberal rags like the New York Times. New Zealand is an ISLAND and has a very low population density. How about we talk about Taiwan, which has a much higher population density--24 million people in 14K square miles vs. New Zealand's 4.8 million people in 103K square miles? Taiwan refused to impose a lockdown and kept its businesses and schools open--and Taiwan has the lowest infection and death rates in the world.

HOGWASH! You are just too ignorant to do basic math. You keep focusing on case numbers. Look at the death rate, since that is the key stat. I dare you to divide the number of cases by the number of deaths. If you do so, if you know how, you will see that the death rate is now down to 2.3%. Then, go back to the middle of the lockdowns and do the same calculation, and you will see that the death rate was consistently well over 5% for weeks during the lockdowns.

No, I'm posting facts as always, you are spreading lies and disinformation which is dangerous. The death rate is NOT dropping, it's recording record highs. You are lying. We are recording record number of infections each day. You are lying and your b.s. disinformation has been easily debunked. What's your agenda by purposely posting disinformation?   

U.S. records 1 million new coronavirus cases in the past 6 days
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-sees-1-million-new-coronavirus-cases-in-the-past-6-days-01605478933

U.S. coronavirus deaths accelerate to an average of 1,100 a day
https://www.axios.com/us-covid-deaths-surge-near-summer-levels-b1fee672-d658-449b-90b9-b30c407a8d3a.html

[Rick Plant]

So you are saying the videos are fake? Is that what you're saying? How about the hundreds of thousands that have been discovered to have only votes for Biden on them and no votes for other candidates or proposed amendments? How about the whistleblowers who have come forward about fraud involving mail-in ballots? How about the fact that in some counties, Democratic turnout was over 80%, sometimes over 90%, a phenomenon that is not only markedly unprecedented but that election analysts say is essentially impossible.

Wow, talk about "alternate reality"! What do you mean Trump's lawyers have been unable "to produce any evidence of fraud"? That is pure fiction. I guess the left-wing news sources you trust are telling you there is no such evidence, and you are not bothering to examine the other side. You might start with this summary of the evidence by Trump election attorney Sidney Powell--then come back and tell me with a straight face that Trump's lawyers have cited no evidence of election fraud:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6208201476001#sp=show-clips

And I ask you again, are you saying that the videos that show election fraud have been faked?

Uh, violating election law is a form of election fraud, so this has everything to do with election fraud. Do you care about the law? Do you believe elected officials should follow election law until it is changed via the democratic process? By Pennsylvania law, no ballots can be counted if they are received after election day, except for absentee ballots of military and diplomatic personnel stationed in other states and overseas. But the state's Democratic governor and secretary of state decided that the law was "unfair" and issued illegal orders to extend the deadline. Thankfully, the judge followed the law.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Recounts are not automatic under Georgia law. If the margin of victory is below 1% or 0.5%, depending on the level of the election, a candidate can request a recount, but a recount is not automatic but is at the discretion of the Georgia secretary of state.

Whatever "news" sources told you that recounts are automatic in Georgia were wrong. You might want to consider expanding your news sources to include sources like The Federalist, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Just the News, and Newsmax.

Ohhhhhhh! Really???!!!!! And how about what Democrats said about Stacey Abrams' race in Georgia *two years ago*? She demanded a recount, lost the recount, and never did concede, and you guys thought that was just fine. Or how about the 2000 election, when Al Gore refused to concede for **35 days**, when he lost the statewide recount, demanded recounts only in heavily Democratic counties, and then tried to get away with a phony statewide recount that was only going to recount the undervotes (since Gore believed the undervotes would tilt heavily for him)? Huh? You guys screamed bloody murder that Gore was entirely justified in refusing to concede and in demanding selective recounts.

Or how about Hillary's emphatic comment just a few months ago that Biden should not concede under any circumstances if he thought there was any indication of voter fraud? Hey? You people are incredible hypocrites.

You have a problem with honesty, don't you? We both know that you have misleadingly cherry-picked your comparison countries. I think you and I have had this discussion before. As I have pointed out several times, Sweden's COVID-19 numbers are better than those of several other European nations and worse than those of other nations. Sweden falls somewhere toward the middle when it comes to COVID-19 numbers, yet Sweden has done this without suffering nearly as much economic damage as those other nations because Sweden had the good sense not to impose a lockdown but to keep businesses and most schools open.

And I notice you ignored the point that Sweden's daily COVID-19 deaths have dropped dramatically since August, and that if you adjust for population size, Sweden has had over 80% fewer daily deaths than America has had.

Or, let's compare Sweden's nearly flatline number of daily deaths to France's. Over the last 30 days, France has averaged nearly 500 daily deaths, compared to Sweden's average of 4 daily deaths. If we adjust Sweden's numbers for France's population size (66 million), 4 daily deaths equals 26 daily deaths. This means that Sweden's number of daily deaths, adjusted for population size, is over 6 times lower than France's number of daily deaths.

Facts are stubborn things.

 

Donald Trump's lawyers dropped their bogus cases. There is no fraud. It's a scam. Even Republicans are telling this lunatic to concede. You have no facts, only disinformation. Sweden is a disaster with coronavirus just like the United States. 

]More Republicans call on Trump to concede as election fraud cases collapse
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/more-republicans-call-on-trump-to-concede-as-election-fraud-cases-collapse/

Sweden has admitted its coronavirus immunity predictions were wrong as cases soar across the country
https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-herd-immunity-second-wave-coronavirus-cases-hospitalisations-surge-2020-11

[Rick Plant]

Another fact update on COVID-19: Over the last three days, the death rate has dropped once again. Three days ago, the death rate was 2.3%--243K deaths/10.6 million cases. As of this morning, it is 2.26%--244K deaths/10.8 million cases. You can Google the numbers and do the simple math yourself. 244,000 deaths out of 10.8 million cases equals a case death rate of 2.26%, which means the average survival rate is 97.74%.

And when you break down the numbers by age group, you see that for about 60% of the U.S. population, COVID-19 poses either a lower risk than the flu or about the same risk as the flu. If you doubt this, go to the CDC or Johns Hopkins site and divide the number of cases by the number of deaths for the age groups that those sites use. And/or go to state websites and do the same calculation for the age groups they use. Different sites use different age groups. You will see that for ages 0-19, the death rate is far below the flu's death rate; that for ages 20-49, the death rate is nearly the same as that of the flu (0.11% to 0.29%, almost identical to the flu's death rate range); that for ages 50-64, the death rate is right around 1.97%, which equals a survival rate of 98.03%. Only with ages 65 and up does the death rate enter genuinely dangerous territory: it is around 14%, which still equals a survival rate of 86%, far, far better than the odds of beating most forms of cancer.

But liberals continue to scare people by focusing on the number of cases without telling people that the death rate continues to drop steadily. Nor do liberals bother to tell people that for weeks during the lockdowns, the death rate was over 5% and did not start to noticeably drop until states began to reopen. If more people had this crucial information, they would immediately begin to question the lockdown approach.

More bogus disinformation. You are dragging the credibility of this forum down. Deaths and infections are soaring.

U.S. COVID-19 cases cross 11 million as pandemic intensifies
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-usa-records/us-covid-19-cases-cross-11-million-as-pandemic-intensifies-idUSFWN2I006W