That probably limits fatalities but it doesn’t help with what Spence describes, plus the whole randomly throwing blood clots in healthy people thing... but WTH what’s a little lung damage among friends...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We don’t have to concern ourselves with herd anything, Trump said there is a cure and we all know he never lies.

What Spence was saying are unanswered questions or conjectured possibilities, much of which exist even with mass quarantining. As well, there are injurious health, mental, and economic side effects created by prolonged mass quarantine that may be just as, or more, harmful to present and future generations. A lot is not for sure positively known, and there are differences of opinion in the scientific community. Just pointing that out to those who say follow THE science. I'm not going to try to debate or advocate about something I don't have the knowledge to do so. But I don't want to be persuaded to vote for someone by one-sided arguments made out of partial or total ignorance. Especially if those arguments are based on biased politics.

So when did Tweety last test negative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty clearly they are not telling because the answer is worse than not telling people. Should we assume at this point it was likely before the debate and they were assuming he would stay asymptomatic?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The difference between "should" and "could" is huge. And picking one over the other is very telling.

The fact there is no transparency and even the doctors won’t talk is also telling, that statement works both ways.

There has been a lot of transparency along with lack of it. "No" is not correct. As well, there has been a lack of transparency in the Biden campaign about what it's intentions are. Are we to assume (or is it better to say should we assume) that Biden is hiding something he does not want us to know?

Are we just gonna breeze past that trump and Giuliani and others on the re-election effort spent weeks talking about how Biden must be on drugs, only to shortly after have Trump apparently #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up on steroids while leading the country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did Trump and Giuliani comment on how Biden must be on medicinal steroids? And are we just going to breeze past Biden's lack of transparency?

Where are Melania, Ivanka, Jared, Bill Barr & whoever else I’m missing because they’ve been out of sight since the Rose Garden event?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only possible conclusion is they're on ventilators.

Tweety says!
China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This gave me a chuckle. Your so desperate to come up with more and more anti-Trump stuff that you have to drag out some old stuff and put it in the present tense.

This also was a bit desperately funny. The three scientists in the video did not specify their political party affiliation or if they had one. One is a Swede, another is a Brit, and the third is of Indian descent and either a U.S. national or just working here. The Brit did claim, when they all actually disavowed any political motivations for their mission, that she was far from any Libertarian political leaning--the odds are they are not "Conservative," certainly two are not Republican, and that they are Progressive.

And what they mean by herd immunity as well as their proposal to achieve it does not comport with what you claim is the " idea behind herd immunity". They certainly don't say "vulnerable should just worry about themselves." They specifically say that the vulnerable should be protected. The Swede admitted that the one fault of the Swedish method of no lockdown was that they didn't protect (quarantine) those in the nursing homes in which the vast majority of deaths occurred.

And the title of this thread is a direct quote from one of the scientists in the video. They distinguished the notion of herd immunity being a strategy from the supposition that it is a goal. The goal is to achieve herd immunity via their strategy for doing so, and that herd immunity is ultimately the goal of any strategy. Vaccines are a way to achieve herd immunity. Flattening curve through lockdown is a temporary way of slowing down the virus so it doesn't overwhelm the hospital system until their are mitigations and cures developed. But it is not an attempt to totally remove the virus from the face of the earth. Once it's here, it will remain as do all the other colds and flu viruses, but for which we have created mitigating protocols. And from which we will have achieved a "herd immunity" in which antibodies are naturally or artificially created so the virus will not be a pandemic threat.

But then you probably didn't watch the video. And you saw an occasion to throw in a zinger about Republican empathy.

Still stands
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know hold rallies not mandating mask or social distancing. Is all about Freedoms


Leaders lead by example ForTrumplicans his getting covid is leading by example their all f in the head

On it's head.

He did lead by example. He showed that, under his leadership, we are on the path to beating this thing. And if the Dems gain control, they will "inherit" what has been done to put us on that path. And they will claim the success as theirs and brand his administration as a total failure.

And if they don't eff up the economy by going back to their high tax high regulation Progressive model, they will have a record recovery and a period of American renaissance--until they reinstate their Progressive agenda.

You have a different definition of beating this virus, but that’s to be expected, so when we reach 300,000 dead with still no comprehensive government plan or consistent messaging in place, will that be “winning”?

you know the standards you set for progressives.. How about using the same standards on Trump .. that was you might not sound like a cult member to late "American renaissance" plz explain

There is no evidence that Biden, or Hillary, or any Dem, would have done better. If anything, Biden and the Dems and the WHO and the Press and China said he overreacted and was xenophobic with his travel bans--which strongly indicates that they all would not have acted as early as Trump. And the "messaging" of the Dems early on was to be carefree and mingle in crowds with no mention of masks.

And Trump sped up the process for producing and getting vaccines and cures ready. There's no evidence that the Dems would have done that. If anything, the Dem "messaging" was that Trump was putting us in danger by trying to speed up the process. The normal process would have taken years. To this day they still try to put doubt in any vaccine that is produced under this administration. Which doesn't seem to me to be concerned with the well being of our people or with defeating the virus.

So I see no evidence that any Dem would have done better. What they have done very, very well is "message" all manner of doubt and disbelief in anything Trump says or does--starting before he even became President. And they did anything from a constant barrage of negative and even lying press, to unproven and unfounded accusations of treason, a stupid show trial impeachment, claiming without proof that he mishandled the pandemic by not starting early enough, saying that he has no national plan when he obviously has had a plan but is limited by his constitutional powers and therefor letting the states do what they are constitutionally given the power to do, and a relentless portrayal of orange man bad to really really bad.

To me, the Dem "message" that Trump is totally responsible exposes the authoritarian nature of their Progressive ideal--an all powerful central government in charge of every aspect of our lives. And a dictatorial executive administration that assumes all the governmental powers of the nation.

It is obvious, as with those anti-Trumpers on this forum, that their mission was not to join in on suggestions or help in anything other than bringing Trump down. They have gone way beyond the usual obstruction of an opposing administration.

I said we are on "the path" to beating it, not that it has been beaten. And Trump has laid down a foundation for winning as proven by his speedy recovery with the aid of one of the medications resulting from his operation warp speed. . . if the Dems don't mess it up.

To use your typical argument might have means nada and by the way they aren’t running the show and it’s not going to be a top ten shoe, going down as the worst EVER!

WTH are you talking about?

Thought you’d catch the meaning (no sleep last night your slipping) since your argument on anyone’s post using rhetoric like looks like, or might be, or maybe no evidence in your case just doesn’t hold water. To try to argue what a different administration may or may not have done in your own words is ludicrous and again Biden isn’t running this show and it’s a looser.

I didn't say there might be evidence nor that there might not be evidence. I definitively said there is no evidence. I even specifically pointed out in their own words and actions that Biden and the Dems would not have acted earlier than Trump since they criticized him for doing so. Are you claiming that the Dems were just being hypocritical? Your accusation that Trump didn't act soon enough is based on opinion with no fact or evidence. You didn't say that he might have acted too late. You definitively said he did. I gave you factual information that puts the lie to any argument that the Dems would have acted earlier. Those facts are not a "they might have happened." It's a "they did happen."

Your making the initial accusation that Trump didn't act soon enough. The burden of proof is on you. I am making a rebuttal saying that the Dems would not have acted sooner, with facts to support it. You are the one making a definitive accusation with no facts to support it. Your accusation is speculation.

And I stated the fact that Trump sped up the process of finding vaccines. And I pointed out the fact that the Dems criticized him for doing so. These are not "might have, looks like, maybe" speculations. They are "did happen" facts. In there own words the Dems were indicating that they would not have sped up the process . . . unless they were being hypocritical liars.

And since you keep insisting that Trump's messaging is destructive and inconsistent, I pointed out how the Dem's messaging was and is inconsistent and damaging, and yes, in my opinion, far more damaging and politically motivated than Trump's.

And yet with all you stay Trump did we are rapidly approaching 300,000 dead and initial actions by Trump were a bandaid on a hemorrhaging problem a partial ban followed by terrible mixed messaging even to this day, have resulted in a failed economy and attempt at handling this health crisis. To suggest you know how Biden or another administration would handle this by comments they made without the intel this current administration had is in your own words pure speculation. Keep it up DeBarr eventually someone might buy into your BS argument but it won’t be me.

I used the Democrat's own words. I made an argument. You don't have an argument. You just say stuff.

The White House has repeatedly meddled with decisions by career professionals at the FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other science-based agencies. Many of the nation’s leading scientists, including some of the top doctors in the administration, are deeply disturbed by the collision of politics and science and bemoan its effects on public health.

“I’ve never seen anything that closely resembles this. It’s like a pressure cooker,” Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview.

You keep defending and I will keep chuckling and raising the flag. :bs:

Yeah, well the FDA and CDC have f*cked up many times. They are run by fallible humans not perfectly programmed robots. And many top doctors and scientists disagree with some of your favorite top docotors and scientists. And Fauci said that Trump did whatever his team asked for.

And your little BS flag ain't about chit.

NEW: Erin Banco spoke to Fauci about the Trump campaign:

"By doing this against my will, they are in effect harassing me. Since campaign ads are about getting votes, their harassment of me might have the opposite effect of turning some voters off."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That might be true.

Washington Examiner:

The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19 urged world leaders this week to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method.”


“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”


Nabarro went on to point out several of the negative consequences lockdowns have caused across the world, including devastating tourism industries and increased hunger and poverty.


"Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays,” he said. “Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. ... Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”

Earlier this week, thousands of medical health experts signed their names to a petition calling for the end of coronavirus lockdowns, citing the “irreparable damage” they’ve caused.

"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection,” read the petition, known as the Great Barrington Declaration. "Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health."

In the United States, lockdowns have been tied to increased thoughts of suicide from children, a surge in drug overdoses, an uptick in domestic violence, and a study conducted in May concluded that stress and anxiety from lockdowns could destroy seven times the years of life that lockdowns potentially save.

For a more in depth study of the effects of stress from the lockdowns: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...wns-save-study

Hey guess what everyone has been saying for a long time earlier action by governments, mask Wearing being essential, social distancing and limiting the size of gatherings would have saved lives. Basically everything Trump has refused to do all along.

The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19 Dr. David Nabarro in an interview stated lockdowns are not helpful as the primary means to control COVID-19. He advocated a middle path which means holding the virus at bay whilst keeping economy and social life going. It would require "high level of organization by governments and remarkable degree of engagement of people" with robust infectious disease control services or public health. He emphasized combining of several measures such as "physical distancing , face protection, hygiene, isolating the ill and protecting the vulnerable" as an effective method.

And then you have Covita's rally in a state with a remarkable disengagement of people and a a positivity rate that's 14% higher than 2 weeks ago, so if you don't do a, b, c, d and e you might end up needing to do a lockdown.

But he's immune

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TipqZ4bAcXc

Trump has worn masks in certain situations. He has social distanced in certain situations. He has no authority to make people do it. That is a state responsibility. And he certainly hasn't said that we shouldn't follow mask and distancing guidelines,

When asked whether he would wear a mask, Trump told Fox Business in a White House interview, "Oh, I would. I have. I mean people have seen me wearing one. If I'm in a group of people where we're not 10 feet away -- but usually I'm not in that position and everyone's tested."

Under interstate commerce power:
July 3 (UPI) -- The Trump administration has issued guidance to airports and airlines to mandate the use of face coverings at all times as well as employ social distancing measures and minimize in-person interactions to prevent further spread of the coronavirus.

And Trump was right to call for a loosening up of lockdowns and freeing up the economy--which he was criticized for.

Covita in July: "We have one of the lowest, maybe the lowest, mortality rate anywhere in the world

New study: "The proportion of Americans dying from coronavirus infections is the highest in the developed world"

Quite a way to make America great again

Oh, so now you don't think I found an incorrect solution?

And it is highly hypocritical to praise large outdoor "protests" in which there is no social distancing and many are not wearing masks, and to allow large indoor various studio audiences such as Progressive SNL shows where there is no social distancing or many without face masks.

Trump's rallies are outdoors. And there are some mask wearers. What's good for the goose is apparently not necessarily, for you, good for the gander.

And BTW, I wish he would ask all those coming to his rallies to wear masks. As the speaker, he would have to remove a mask. And it is outdoors, and he is several feet removed from the audience. But he leaves it up to them, as is their constitutional right. If they are breaking a state mandate, then the state should prosecute them.

And he was right to push for opening up the society and economy.

And I am optimistic that his warp speed agenda will soon produce the medical mitigations to help us reach an eventual herd immunity. And I like his economic agenda way better than the economy choking Dem agenda. And I like what he has done with foreign economic treaties. And that he has not got us into a bunch of stupid never ending wars.

Overall, for me, especially considering the fate of our Republic and its Constitution and our unalienable rights if the Progressive agenda is not checked, a Republican electoral victory is the better choice, by far.