All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (11 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[Heathen]

What are you on about? What I'm describing is worse in the US. You have the President and his administration actively and routinely attacking all 'negative media' as 'fake news'. Lord Sugar retweeting memes is a drop in the ocean compared to that.

Yep. And to add to that, we have no real HC system that will be able to take care of the potential millions that will get this virus when it's all said and done and will be without a means to acquire health insurance.

It will take hundreds of thousands dying for our politicians to bat an eye. Because part of the eye batting puts them on thin ice with lobbyists and $$$$$.

That's called vested interest if I've ever heard of it.

 

[Saintamaniac]

She may have been expressing personal angst, but her recent comments and some she has made previously indicate that she maintains a constant state of anger. Again, there may be substance to some of what she sees as wrong, but I don't see the value in stoking racial anger for its own sake.

I can see where you might draw your conclusions but if you slapped in the face every day of your life (figuratively speaking), at what point would you stop being angry? The anger comes from years of problems that you have to face everyday of your life simply being ignored. You see it as stoking racial anger for its own sake. I can't speak for her but maybe from her viewpoint, it's a problem that has been stated over and over again that never seems to get addressed or at best gets superficially addressed.

 

[Beach Friends]

What are you on about? What I'm describing is worse in the US. You have the President and his administration actively and routinely attacking all 'negative media' as 'fake news'. Lord Sugar retweeting memes is a drop in the ocean compared to that.

Oh don't be daft, you know bloody well what I am talking about. If you are not able to speak freely about it then I will create the thread.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'm calling BS on this

If you show up somewhere and literally everyone but you has a mask on you wouldn't ask "Do I need a mask?"

Nobody said "Mr. Vice President, you should put a mask on"?

I almost believe he didn't do it because he didn't want to ruin the photo op
================================================
Second lady Karen Pence said Thursday that Vice President Pence had been unaware of the Mayo Clinic's policy requiring all visitors to wear a face covering until after he left visiting the facility on Tuesday.

"As our medical experts have told us, wearing a mask prevents you from spreading disease. And knowing he doesn't have COVID-19, he didn't wear one," she said on "Fox & Friends."

"It was actually after he left Mayo Clinic that he found out they had a policy of asking everyone to wear a mask," the second lady continued. "So someone who's worked on this whole task force for over two months is not someone who would have done anything offend anyone, or hurt anyone, or scare anyone."...........

Karen Pence says vice president didn't know about Mayo Clinic mask policy until he left

 

[lurk]

Yeah it is good first step.

And it also gives a path of other things that might be effective.

Well, I mean, it's an antiviral, so it's not particularly novel or insightful that it might have some effect. There are labs that have done extensive, ongoing research with remdesivir and coronaviruses for a decade+ (Vanderbilt comes to mind in particular), and it's always been shown to be effective to one degree or another. I don't think this is very likely to give us a Eureka! moment that has us target some other seemingly-unrelated drug that turns out to be extremely effective or anything.

Having said that, the reason I responded to your first post had nothing to do with your post itself (which I had no issue with) and everything to do with the article you linked. I think Fauci's comments yesterday were a bit more exuberant than warranted given the data that's been released so far; but the article, especially in its headline, took that enthusiasm several steps further, and I thought it important to add some perspective to that framing of things (which was getting to a point that could be misleading to someone who didn't know better).

Hospital volume in peak times is one of this virus's most significant hurdles from a reopening-society-and-functioning-during-the-crisis standpoint. It would naturally follow, then, that a 31% reduced hospital course for patients with this disease would be a significant and helpful tool for clinicians to have. Keep in mind, however, that that number did not translate to mortality in a statistically significant way which suggests (impossible to know for sure until the full data is released) that it had a minimal impact, if any, on ultimately-terminal patients. Those are your patients that are going to use the most resources (personnel, equipment, pharmacological, etc.) during their stays. They are also the patients that have, by far, the longest stays. You could have eight COVID patients that eventually recover pass through a single regular hospital bed in the amount of time that one ultimately-terminal patient occupies a single ICU bed and vent - which is again what makes this disease such a difficult strain on our health system. It's those regular hospitalized patients that this is likely having the biggest impact on, given the disparity between its impact on stay vs. mortality, and that's why I think it's important that this data gets viewed in context to what it is rather than something greater than it is (see also: the brothers chloroquine).

 

[First Time Poster]

So, I made the below post on 04/07/2020, post 1893. For reference, we are up to post 2956.

All things political. Coronavirus Edition.

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is...

madaboutpolitics.com

These were the opening sentences of that post:

So it seems as if the AA community will be particularly devastated by C19. Of the reliable data we are getting, it seems the black community is disproportionately being affected more than others.

The very FIRST response to that post, was this (not full, but opening statement):

I realize you're(First Time Poster) trying to make this political and racial,

I guess my response to the below is:

Her underlying frustrations are a valid one, even if poorly articulated, and this is more prime examples of the rot that is Fox and the danger of its consumption. The equivalent of the most side tenuous poster on a forum only going after the lowest hanging arguments.

Anything else you want to tell black people they shouldn’t talk about during the crisis?

There are important questions to ask in relation to why the virus has disproportionally affected certain demographics.

But effectively telling groups of people they should just shut up, is, in itself, divisive.

Should we really be surprised? Even anecdotally, with the response I received on our own board, I immediately was rebuffed for even mentioning the topic. You can read my post. It wasn't inflammatory, vitriolic or even heavily accusatory. It was well sourced and largely just informative.

There was some light discussion on it after that, a page over, but I wasn't going to participate much more or attempt to keep the topic going. Why bother?

I think what NOB is saying is that finding the worst articulation of something and saying, "How's this helpful?" only largely serves to delegitimize the topic as a whole. Because if we are being honest, the topic can be articulated and presented in a way that's "helpful" and the response, some of the time, most of the time, is the same--to be dismissed. Accused of race baiting, accused of politicizing, accused of being a distraction from "the real problem."

When is it the right time to speak on these things happening in your community, even when articulated "helpfully?" For a lot of minorities, that answer seems to always be a moving goalpost. For some, it gets to be frustrating and, in turn, that frustration can lead to inarticulate and angry rhetoric.

Some food for thought.

 

[dtc]

You may recall that yesterday I posted an opinion piece in Huffington Post wherein an "academic" at Oxford University expressed anxiety over the prospect that Oxford would wine the race in the development of a vaccine because it would place white people and Western civilization in a positive light,

Now we see this "academic" expressing her strongly held beliefs that "Trump supporters" are responsible for the outbreak of the virus.

So what do these two proffessors have in common? They are both gender studies professors.

Which brings me to a question. Suppose you are hiring for a position that does not require a college degree, but you value education nonetheless. You have two candidates that you like, one is a high school dropout and the other finished with honors with a degree in gender studies. All other things being fairly equal, which would you choose? I am going with the high school dropout every time,

Again, you misstated what she said.

She did not blame Trump supporters for the existence of the virus. She blamed them for the lack of response which she attributes partly to racism and racist policies of Trump and his supporters.

Given what you know about Trump, would you deny there's a possibility that he would slow walk a response to this pandemic if it were to say target illegal immigrants? Black people?

Be very careful while you consider this and make sure you consider the fact that Trump has suggested he's going to withhold federal aid to Sanctuary Cities.

Is there no basis upon which someone could reach her conclusion? I'd say it's at least as rational as the belief that Obama was a black, Muslim terrorist planted by Kenyans to overthrow the US and there are plenty who believe that today.

 

[Beach Friends]

So, I made the below post on 04/07/2020, post 1893. For reference, we are up to post 2956.

All things political. Coronavirus Edition.

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is...

madaboutpolitics.com

These were the opening sentences of that post:



The very FIRST response to that post, was this (not full, but opening statement):



I guess my response to the below is:









Should we really be surprised? Even anecdotally, with the response I received on our own board, I immediately was rebuffed for even mentioning the topic. You can read my post. It wasn't inflammatory, vitriolic or even heavily accusatory. It was well sourced and largely just informative.

There was some light discussion on it after that, a page over, but I wasn't going to participate much more or attempt to keep the topic going. Why bother?

I think what NOB is saying is that finding the worst articulation of something and saying, "How's this helpful?" only largely serves to delegitimize the topic as a whole. Because if we are being honest, the topic can be articulated and presented in a way that's "helpful" and the response, some of the time, most of the time, is the same--to be dismissed. Accused of race baiting, accused of politicizing, accused of being a distraction from "the real problem."

When is it the right time to speak on these things happening in your community, even when articulated "helpfully?" For a lot of minorities, that answer seems to always be a moving goalpost. For some, it gets to be frustrating and, in turn, that frustration can lead to inarticulate and angry rhetoric.

Some food for thought.

So, you brought a set of problems to light, and another poster, who was not involved in the earlier conversation, brought a different, but related, set of problems to light.

I know we live in a world where things can't be said even if they are true, but some additional food for thought is that perhaps people would not be so quick to think, "here we go again" if it wasn't for people expressing opinions in the manner that associate professor did.

That professor is not the only one who has made outrageous statements such as that. I cited another professor who wrote an article, signed her name to it and submitted it for publication and nowhere in that process did she realize how twisted it was to be worried that it would make white people look good if Oxford was the first to come up with a vaccine. To the extent it matters, this particular professor was white.

There is a problem with making everything about race. I am not pointing the finger at you or the AA community. IMO, the blame for insisting that we look at every issue as power struggle between identity groups lies primarily with some programs in our universities.

Having said that, these particular professors are not alone in expressing such divisive views - the media has been right there with them.

ETA - I think it is going to be important going forward to study why the AA community was hit so hard. I hope it can be done honestly and without preconceived notions making the process useless. It's obviously in all of our best interests for the lessons learned to be the right lessons.

 

[wardorican]

I cannot listen to this, but I am curious as to what is the point.

I am not sure how the United States, or really almost any western democracy, could do what China did. China walled off Wuhan. Remember when Trump suggested banning travel into and out of the NYC Metro area? Trump's suggestion was dumb because it was illegal as hell and it elicited a lot of fair criticism.
You look at Europe and the controversy surrounding nations closing off national borders and pausing the Schengen Agreement - that is not even considering walling off areas within countries themselves.

When people advocate China's response - one of the more authoritarian regimes in the world - it at best feeds the worst conspiracy theories about this virus, and at worst promotes authoritarian responses here.

First, they didn't spend a ton of time on China. The title really is a disservice, but he does highlight some good points. He also lays out the whole landscape of moving forward, which I think most people would do well to listen to. And yes, China can get away with more than we probably can, but health emergencies are a Compelling State interest that could probably stand up in court, to a level. I mean, various states put out stronger stay at home orders than others. But, a bigger part is the coordination of the government resources and what we could have done vs what we did. He really doesn't spend a lot of time complaining, other than saying our testing volume sucks. From what I remember. But it's like a 30-40 min chat that covers a lot.

So, I hope your curiosity leads you to eventually listen to it. I really wasn't planning on writing a 'book report'.

What did China do well?

Well first off, after they realized something was going on and Wuhan was trying to cover it up (Wuhan silenced the doctors, not China), they came down like a ton of bricks, made that mayor apologize on TV, and they shut that city down.

They created fever clinics to get people tested, you'd wait there while waiting for testing, if positive, you'd say. They'd feed you, watch over you, shelter you, then you could go home to your family. Some was by force, but most Chinese people did it to protect their families. This is better than potentially bringing it home, or people not following the orders.

They created an app to let you know that you've been potentially near someone who tested positive. I know apple and google are actually working on something like this. It makes contact tracing easier. Sure, massive intrusion on privacy, but definitely a way to green light, yellow light, red light folks to get checked.

They worked out a system to keep restaurants open later. They have check points to get on subways and shopping centers. They regularly spray sanitizer, even in the air handling systems.

the rest of his discussion is more around the massive amount of testing, how to open up in a micro/macro way, and how only with robust, massive testing, can we get there. i.e. how you can shut down (when I say shut down, I mean stay home orders or similar) a small hot spot within a state, but leave the rest of the state alone. A way to focus on protecting vulnerable people (I think). i.e. if Miami is having issues, but Jacksonville isn't, then leave Jacksonville alone.

He also lays out the timeline of major events where organizations and people were sounding the alarm early, that was ignored. It's a good reminder of the whole story.

 

[wardorican]

I wonder what analysis you went through to conclude that the United States of America was dead last in the entire world in handling this virus. Setting aside the numbers for a moment, did you consider the preservation or infringement on human liberty?

It may be easy to overlook that, but it's not exactly a small issue. Take a look at the following video, and although it is not the most egregious example you will see in the clip- pay particular attention to the first incident where Chinese officials pay a visit to a home to "moderate" what the residents said on social media:



Before you shrug off the infringement of civil liberties as only being tangential to how a nation has "handled" the pandemic, remember that doctors in Wuhan tried to warn early on that the virus was spread between humans and those doctors were arrested for spreading "misinformation" and causing a civil disturbance. Yeah, when you look at it in that light, freedom of speech is kind of a big deal.

I know, you probably think that sort of thing can't happen here - but it can.

Give me liberty or give me death? Well, when you also give your neighbor death, what do we do?

As I stated, Wuhan's city officials silenced the doctors, and Beijing forced that mayor to apologize.

 

[wardorican]

I'm calling BS on this

If you show up somewhere and literally everyone but you has a mask on you wouldn't ask "Do I need a mask?"

Nobody said "Mr. Vice President, you should put a mask on"?

I almost believe he didn't do it because he didn't want to ruin the photo op
================================================
Second lady Karen Pence said Thursday that Vice President Pence had been unaware of the Mayo Clinic's policy requiring all visitors to wear a face covering until after he left visiting the facility on Tuesday.

"As our medical experts have told us, wearing a mask prevents you from spreading disease. And knowing he doesn't have COVID-19, he didn't wear one," she said on "Fox & Friends."

"It was actually after he left Mayo Clinic that he found out they had a policy of asking everyone to wear a mask," the second lady continued. "So someone who's worked on this whole task force for over two months is not someone who would have done anything offend anyone, or hurt anyone, or scare anyone."...........

Karen Pence says vice president didn't know about Mayo Clinic mask policy until he left

I'll say this. He is regularly tested. So, he wasn't a risk for anyone. He just slightly increased his risk of catching it.

I'm sure they check him and the president almost daily.

 

[First Time Poster]

So, you brought a set of problems to light, and another poster, who was not involved in the earlier conversation, brought a different, but related, set of problems to light.

I know we live in a world where things can't be said even if they are true, but some additional food for thought is that perhaps people would not be so quick to think, "here we go again" if it wasn't for people expressing opinions in the manner that associate professor did.

That professor is not the only one who has made outrageous statements such as that. I cited another professor who wrote an article, signed her name to it and submitted it for publication and nowhere in that process did she realize how twisted it was to be worried that it would make white people look good if Oxford was the first to come up with a vaccine. To the extent it matters, this particular professor was white.

There is a problem with making everything about race. I am not pointing the finger at you or the AA community. IMO, the blame for insisting that we look at every issue as power struggle between identity groups lies primarily with some programs in our universities.

Having said that, these particular professors are not alone in expressing such divisive views - the media has been right there with them.

ETA - I think it is going to be important going forward to study why the AA community was hit so hard. I hope it can be done honestly and without preconceived notions making the process useless. It's obviously in all of our best interests for the lessons learned to be the right lessons.

So, I think the first, mistake is the wrong word, the first disconnect is presenting the two problems as an equivalence. Right? That may not be intended but, ultimately, they are treated as such. So, Problem A--Covid is ravaging the AA community disproportionately to others. Problem B--Persons inflammatory rhetoric about why Covid is ravaging the AA community disproportionately.

See what I'm saying? Does Problem B help Problem A? No, it doesn't. At all. Does mitigating or even eliminating Problem B help solve Problem A? No, it doesn't. At all. So which issue is more pressing? Which issue should get more attention? The persons speaking recklessly about Problem A or Problem A itself? Part of the exhaustion minorities feel about discussing our issues is that every time we open our mouths to express angst over ______ we are forced to ALSO discuss the low hanging fruit amongst us who inflame, exaggerate, manipulate or weaponize the issue in an inarticulate way. Most of the time, THAT discussion, the latter, happens first or more dominantly than the former.

Your house floods.You have insurance. The adjuster comes and, instead of evaluating the issues you are facing and writing you a check, he spends some or most of the visit talking about insurance fraud. How many fraudulent claims he has seen with this recent flood. You may start thinking that's messed up. Those fraudsters aren't helping the situation. In fact, they are hurting us who needs these claims. That needs to be addressed. Until you find out that with this flood there has been less than 1% of the thousands of claims filed that were fraudulent. Changes your perspective on the adjusters priorities doesn't it? The next time he comes and he begins his rant on fraud you will probably tell him to focus on the issue, my flooded house. I'm not worried about something that seems important or not helpful, to you, in the larger scheme of things.

As a minority, that's how it feels in these discussions sometimes. We never properly get to talk about THE issue, our issue, my issue. No, first, or also, we gotta discuss this other issue this other group or persons think is equally or just as important because, you know, it doesn't help your issue at all. Fix that first, or too. Does the professor's rhetoric help our plight? Frankly, no it doesn't. But they are low hanging fruit, in the minority, and we can ignore them and focus on the folks who are articulating and discussing the issue in a helpful way. So if persons are approaching the conversation with a "here we go again" attitude because they are only listening or focusing on the >1% fraud claims out of the thousands of legitimate grievances, then being equally as frank, that sounds like a you problem, not a me problem. It sounds like those folks need to start listening, focusing and giving some other persons more attention.

"There is a problem with making everything about race." Yeah, there is and unfortunately I get to live that problem daily. If my race didn't matter all of the time that would be glorious for me but I don't get to live in that fantasy world. I don't know what to tell you. It permeates every thing I do. I'm constantly reminded of it. I constantly have to be aware of it. I don't get the luxury of making decisions without considering how my race will be a factor. It's just a reality of my life. Talking about it and airing those grievances...I don't know of any other productive way. If yall think hearing and talking about it is exhaustive imagine living in it and with it constantly. I can't run from it though. It's there and whether persons want to discuss it or not, I have to deal with it. And so it goes...

 

[Beach Friends]

So, you brought a set of problems to light, and another poster, who was not involved in the earlier conversation, brought a different, but related, set of problems to light.

I know we live in a world where things can't be said even if they are true, but some additional food for thought is that perhaps people would not be so quick to think, "here we go again" if it wasn't for people expressing opinions in the manner that associate professor did.

That professor is not the only one who has made outrageous statements such as that. I cited another professor who wrote an article, signed her name to it and submitted it for publication and nowhere in that process did she realize how twisted it was to be worried that it would make white people look good if Oxford was the first to come up with a vaccine. To the extent it matters, this particular professor was white.

There is problem with making everything about race. I am not pointing the finger at you or the AA community. IMO, the blame for insisting that we look at every issue as power struggle between identity groups lies primarily with some programs in our universities.

Having said that, these particular professors are not alone in expressing such divisive views - the media has been right there with them.

So, I think the first, mistake is the wrong word, the first disconnect is presenting the two problems as an equivalence. Right? That may not be intended but, ultimately, they are treated as such. So, Problem A--Covid is ravaging the AA community disproportionately to others. Problem B--Persons inflammatory rhetoric about why Covid is ravaging the AA community disproportionately.

See what I'm saying? Does Problem B help Problem A? No, it doesn't. At all. Does mitigating or even eliminating Problem B help solve Problem A? No, it doesn't. At all. So which issue is more pressing? Which issue should get more attention? The persons speaking recklessly about Problem A or Problem A itself? Part of the exhaustion minorities feel about discussing our issues is that every time we open our mouths to express angst over ______ we are forced to ALSO discuss the low hanging fruit amongst us who inflame, exaggerate, manipulate or weaponize the issue in an inarticulate way. Most of the time, THAT discussion, the latter, happens first or more dominantly than the former.

Your house floods.You have insurance. The adjuster comes and, instead of evaluating the issues you are facing and writing you a check, he spends some or most of the visit talking about insurance fraud. How many fraudulent claims he has seen with this recent flood. You may start thinking that's messed up. Those fraudsters aren't helping the situation. In fact, they are hurting us who needs these claims. That needs to be addressed. Until you find out that with this flood there has been less than 1% of the thousands of claims filed that were fraudulent. Changes your perspective on the adjusters priorities doesn't it? The next time he comes and he begins his rant on fraud you will probably tell him to focus on the issue, my flooded house. I'm not worried about something that seems important or not helpful, to you, in the larger scheme of things.

As a minority, that's how it feels in these discussions sometimes. We never properly get to talk about THE issue, our issue, my issue. No, first, or also, we gotta discuss this other issue this other group or persons think is equally or just as important because, you know, it doesn't help your issue at all. Fix that first, or too. Does the professor's rhetoric help our plight? Frankly, no it doesn't. But they are low hanging fruit, in the minority, and we can ignore them and focus on the folks who are articulating and discussing the issue in a helpful way. So if persons are approaching the conversation with a "here we go again" attitude because they are only listening or focusing on the >1% fraud claims out of the thousands of legitimate grievances, then being equally as frank, that sounds like a you problem, not a me problem. It sounds like those folks need to start listening, focusing and giving some other persons more attention.

"There is a problem with making everything about race." Yeah, there is and unfortunately I get to live that problem daily. If my race didn't matter all of the time that would be glorious for me but I don't get to live in that fantasy world. I don't know what to tell you. It permeates every thing I do. I'm constantly reminded of it. I constantly have to be aware of it. I don't get the luxury of making decisions without considering how my race will be a factor. It's just a reality of my life. Talking about it and airing those grievances...I don't know of any other productive way. If yall think hearing and talking about it is exhaustive imagine living in it and with it constantly. I can't run from it though. It's there and whether persons want to discuss it or not, I have to deal with it. And so it goes...

Believe it or not, I see lot of common ground. I absolutely agree that the real health issue is the greater issue.

I also appreciate that you recognize that people like the two professors are not helping legitimate issues be heard.

I wish I had more time to respond - but maybe less is more anyway.

 

[Heathen]

Armed Michigan right wing protestors stormed the state capital today to try mob tactics against Gov. Whitmer.

Ill repeat that...angry armed protestors carrying rifles and body armor occupied a state building today.

They could be terrorists for all anyone knows. But you know why they're 'patriots' instead.

It's lawful, apparently. Smart? That's another story.

Hundreds of protesters, some carrying guns in the state Capitol, demonstrate against Michigan's emergency measures

Lawmakers declined to extend the state's emergency declaration and voted to bring a lawsuit to challenge Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's authority. Whitmer then issued new emergency orders.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Going all in on blaming China
=================

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump contradicted a rare on-the-record statement from his own intelligence community by claiming Thursday that he has seen evidence that gives him a "high degree of confidence" the novel coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, but declined to provide details to back up his assertion.

The comments undercut a public statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued just hours earlier which stated no such assessment has been made and continues to "rigorously examine" whether the outbreak "began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan."

"Yes, I have," Trump said when asked whether he's seen evidence that would suggest the virus originated in the lab.

Later, asked why he was confident in that assessment, Trump demurred.
"I can't tell you that. I'm not allowed to tell you that," he said..........

Trump contradicts US intel community by claiming he’s seen evidence coronavirus originated in Chinese lab | CNN Politics

President Donald Trump contradicted a rare on-the-record statement from his own intelligence community by claiming Thursday that he has seen evidence that gives him a “high degree of confidence” the novel coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, but declined to provide details to...

www.cnn.com

 

[lurk]

I'll say this. He is regularly tested. So, he wasn't a risk for anyone. He just slightly increased his risk of catching it.

This is extremely poor reasoning: 1) the test has a false negative rate up to 33% depending on which test is done, 2) the test takes time to process and is not instantaneous, 3) the faster-processing the version of the test they go with, the more exponentially the false negative rate climbs, 4) there is a lag between infection and the sufficient presence of the virus in the mucus to trigger a positive result on the test (this on top of the false negative rate), 5) mucus that contains the virus must be caught on the swab for there to be anything to test positive in the first place (again, this on top of the inherent false negative rate and far from an impossible concern with a disease process that extremely rarely results in excess mucus production).

The Clinic has very firm masking rules in place for all staff, visitors, and many patients for very good, scientifically-sound reasons. They are not suggestions, they are hard rules for anyone entering one of the buildings, and I would suggest that you stop going out of your way to make excuses for someone flouting them for absolutely no reason.

 

[FullMonte]

This is extremely poor reasoning: 1) the test has a false negative rate up to 33% depending on which test is done, 2) the test takes time to process and is not instantaneous, 3) the faster-processing the version of the test they go with, the more exponentially the false negative rate climbs, 4) there is a lag between infection and the sufficient presence of the virus in the mucus to trigger a positive result on the test (this on top of the false negative rate), 5) mucus that contains the virus must be caught on the swab for there to be anything to test positive in the first place (again, this on top of the inherent false negative rate and far from an impossible concern with a disease process that extremely rarely results in excess mucus production).

The Clinic has very firm masking rules in place for all staff, visitors, and many patients for very good, scientifically-sound reasons. They are not suggestions, they are hard rules for anyone entering one of the buildings, and I would suggest that you stop going out of your way to make excuses for someone flouting them for absolutely no reason.

Forget all of that....it's not the point. I don't care if he was 1000% certain he didn't have the virus and he has proven he is immune.

--The CDC recommends people wear cloth masks in public
--The Mayo Clinic has a policy that everyone wear a mask
--The Mayo Clinic has stated publicly that they told Pence of that policy
--Pence could see that everyone (including his own staff) was wearing masks.

As a "leader," he should model the behavior that he expects. He should wear a mask in public as an example to the rest of the US. Being the head of the Coronavirus Task Force and saying "I don't care what anyone says about masks, I'm not wearing one," is a horrible look

 

[The moose]

Armed Michigan right wing protestors stormed the state capital today to try mob tactics against Gov. Whitmer.

Ill repeat that...angry armed protestors carrying rifles and body armor occupied a state building today.

They could be terrorists for all anyone knows. But you know why they're 'patriots' instead.

It's lawful, apparently. Smart? That's another story.

Hundreds of protesters, some carrying guns in the state Capitol, demonstrate against Michigan's emergency measures

Lawmakers declined to extend the state's emergency declaration and voted to bring a lawsuit to challenge Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's authority. Whitmer then issued new emergency orders.

www.nbcnews.com

This is absolutely pathetic.

I would like to think that these guys are facing real jail time. I would like to think that would be actions enough for them to have their gun rights taken.

The messages sent from this administration and fox news are exceptionally dangerous.

When will the people spouting nonsense be held accountable for their actions? Like these guys should definitely.

I would first expect a serious mental evaluation if gun rights are ever returned to them.