frozen? really?!

Yes, sir: Frozen. I'm watching Disney+ today.

Play nice or I'll resort to this:

https://www.lc.ncu.edu.tw/learneng/script/AmericanPie.pdf

;)

There can be only one driver, Kick. :)

Trump University, am I right!?

You obviously won't listen to me or Bashi or facts, but it's laughable to watch you claim over and over that the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is limited to "one driver" when there is currently evidence of multiple drivers and research continues to evolve rapidly.

FACT: Not only are pathogens not limited to "one driver" of transmission, they are not even limited to a single type of driver, e.g. biological, ecological, behavioral, etc.

I'm being nice today and won't call you ignorant.
You're welcome. :)

Let it go, let it go... ~ Elsa (Idina Menzel), Frozen

well kick is the resident archivist of our group, so i'll leave it to her to certify whether i'm right or not about the timing. but i'm pretty sure, yeah.

Obama announced on February 10, 2007. I would wager (if I was a wagering kind of person) that EM was definitely singing Biden's praises on Huff Post before that. :)

Happy late Easter to you, too!

-R

Heh.

Happy Easter! Yesterday, of course. :)

The following post, my response to Kick from an older thread, is posted here because I think it is important enough to suspend my habit of leaving old threads behind - there's just not enough time to keep tracking back, you know …

The following post, my response to Elizabeth Miller from an older thread, is posted here because Elizabeth Miller's need to keep this post arguing (basically) semantics got the best of her so she's breaking her own rules again.

there's just not enough time to keep tracking back, you know …

Sounds lazy to me, and to be completely factual, we all have the same amount of time but just choose to use it in various assorted ways. One person's "not enough time" is another person's "too bloody lazy." :)

Kick,
61

Elizabeth Miller
63

Yes, there may be some element of airborne or pre-symptomatic transmission but this is not the driving force of the epidemic.

Okay, first off: It's a "pandemic"... so you referring to it as an "epidemic" is insulting to it since it's worldwide and not just pestering a community.

Secondly, I see you're making progress with the fact that all the elements of transmission of the disease are "driving forces." Good for you. It doesn't matter what degree to which they drive the disease, they are each a "driving force."

Well, they didn't miss the research you cite from Singapore. The WHO's Dr. Michael Ryan talked about this research out of Singapore that says 6% of the cases reported were asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic at one of the WHO daily press briefings on COVID-19.

So Dr. Ryan is admitting they are driving forces. Great. Then I cannot fathom why you keep taking issue when I say they are each driving forces that transmit the disease.

Here is what Dr. Ryan said about the Singapore research:

"So we have to look at what's driving this epidemic. There is always the possibility of asymptomatic transmission. There is always the possibility that we can have some element of airborne transmission. But what we have to look at is what is the main driver of this pandemic. And, in this case we still believe that the main driver of this pandemic is symptomatic individuals coughing or sneezing or contaminating surfaces or contaminating other individuals. Breaking that chain means ensuring that infected individuals are diagnosed and isolated, their contacts are traced and tracked and quarantined and that people are cared for very quickly in the system."

So you see there that Dr. Ryan characterized symptomatic transmission as the "main driver" of the virus.

So to recap:

All I am saying is that based on all of the evidence so far, the WHO is still saying that the driver of this pandemic is symptomatic transmission. ~ Elizabeth Miller

*

Well, it's being driven by:
* asymtomatic
* pre-symptomatic
* symptomatic
* all of the above... ~ Kick

Actually, as your quote from Dr. Ryan makes clear, what he said was "symptomatic transmission" is the main driver of the disease. The other modes of transmission I listed are still drivers of the disease... I never claimed they were the main drivers... simply listed all the drivers of the virus... whereupon you took issue with two of them as somehow not drivers.

Over and out.

This is where the insurance providers point their fingers at the hospitals wanting us to blame them for not having the supplies and hospital beds we now desperately need, but the insurance providers are the ones that decide which hospitals they work with... they chose to send us to hospitals they knew were deficient to care for their customers.

When profits are the most important factor in how hospitals are managed, how can we ever hope to be prepared for these tragedies? Preparedness is NOT profitable!

If this does not wake us up to the dire need for universal healthcare in this country, then we deserve what happens to us!

for example, liz has been advocating for joe biden's virtues as a potential president on this forum since before barack obama even declared his candidacy.

JL

with all respect, you're still relatively new here, so you're missing quite a bit of context.

JL

okay, i found your comment, and will address it as much as i'm capable (although i do disagree with your assertion that CW's lack of additional comment lends it any credibility).

Before I read the column I must comment on being labeled by you as a troll. Based on what?

based on your near constant attention-seeking behavior over the past five years, your attempt to hijack every thread possible for your own venture (whose relationship to any given blog-post is tangential at best), and the escalation of your provocation against the forum's host when ignored or rejected. attempting to provoke others into off-topic discussion with increasingly incendiary comments is one of the definitions of trolling. no matter how much you convince yourself that your posts have all been on-topic and appropriate, i don't think anyone else who read them would agree with that assessment.

As for language, when one of the real trolls behaves like an offensive word them I use that offensive word.

another common feature of internet trolls is attempting to redirect accusations of trolling behavior against those who respond in kind to their own trolling behavior. if the forum's host believes you fit that definition more than others, perhaps it's your responsibility to change things to influence his opinion, not his responsibility to change things to fit your opinion.

I do comment with my opinion on the articles and comments. And my opinion is that the problems we are facing right now are caused by big money corrupting our political process.

again, that may be true in your own assessment, but your assessment cannot be considered valid until you convince the forum's host that it's accurate.

Ignoring me doesn't work. Of course not. Why would it?

because most healthy individuals realize that after a few thousand times repeating a comment, if others aren't interested in responding then it makes sense to move on to a different topic or a different audience, rather than repeating the same topic to the same audience.

I comment with my opinion explaining why what you write about in your articles is either incorrect or the same principle you apply in the article should be applied to [me]. And usually how [i] can be part of the solution to what the article is about because [my pet issue] is [more important than] every other issue.
*[phrases paraphrased to provide POV/context]

from your own perspective this may seem valid, but the forum's host obviously sees this as seeking attention for yourself rather than making a productive contribution to HIS comments section. and as i've mentioned before, it's HIS space and therefore everyone else's responsibility to adhere to HIS opinions, not the other way 'round.

And when this is ignored I remain persistent in demanding an answer. Just like you have lauded others for doing to people that will not give them an answer.

the key difference between yourself and others in that position is that CW views the other people's demands as justified and yours as not justified. and again, on HIS column it's YOUR responsibility to adapt to HIS opinion on the subject, not HIS responsibility to adapt to YOUR opinion.

Ignoring me hasn't worked. Try something different.

That is precisely what CW has just suggested:

"If ignoring you doesn't work, then banning you just might...
"Is that clear enough?"
~CW

great, now that we've settled that issue...

I have not complained [cough, cough] about Kick or Listen and their trolling me. Are they on double secret probation or are they above reproach for some unknown reason? If my language offends then why are you not chastising Kick and Listen for provoking me instead of offering real discussion?

russ, victoria and michale all seem to grasp the same basic concept that you don't - namely, our responsibility as commentators is to contribute to this forum in ways that the host considers acceptable, and show a little consideration for all the effort he puts in to make it available for all. as such, personal conflicts still need to follow the forum's rules and respect the opinions of its host.

So no it is not clear.

if that's the case, you're literally the ONLY one to whom it isn't. everybody else seems to understand perfectly.

You will have to explain the inconsistencies in your comment, the conclusion and what it is based on that I am a troll and why Kick and Listen are seemingly not trolls.

no, HE doesn't have to explain anything whatsoever. it's HIS space, and therefore clearing up inconsistencies in your understanding is YOUR responsibility, NOT HIS.

Did you ever think that a person might get tired of being ignored by you and harassed by trolls?

if that's really going to continue to be the way you see it, CW has already suggested a simple remedy. found your own blog, where YOUR opinions are the ones that count.

If you think I'm a troll then prove it

again, this is HIS forum and that's not HIS responsibility. if you're unable to grasp that basic truth, i'm afraid your long and industrious time here will soon come to an abrupt end.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.
~a few good men

michale, if you're reading, that one was for you - and feel free to correct me if you think anything i just wrote for don was anything less than dead-on-ballz-accurate.

This is one of the reasons distancing or shelter-in-place is needed, because people don't always realise what it is quickly enough, and some still don't seem to realise how deadly it can be.

Precisely!

And, I sure hope 'people' will be held to account at the ballot box.

The guy who wrote in the Washington Post about developing symptoms on the plane evacuating him and others from one of the cruise ships pointed out that had he been at home, and not part of a group who knew they had been exposed, he probably would have gone to work with a 'cold'. And he seems to have been relatively lucky in not developing pneumonia.

The early symptoms of this are not unlike colds and even allergic coughs (ask anyone allergic to tree pollen, like me--I've been coughing off and on since early February), so it's not just whether people are asymptomatic, but whether they recognise relatively mild symptoms for what they are and isolate themselves.

This is one of the reasons distancing or shelter-in-place is needed, because people don't always realise what it is quickly enough, and some still don't seem to realise how deadly it can be. It's also one of the reasons politicians and others who down-played the seriousness of this coronavirus and ignored expert advise must be held to account at the ballot box and possibly, eventually, in the courts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/28/i-have-coronavirus-so-far-it-isnt-that-bad/

It's currently though that asymptomatic carriers make up 20-40% of the currently infected.

So, what do you propose be done about that, in terms of the response?

As you imply, it's important to talk about dose and viral load and level of infectiousness.

The WHO is not saying that transmission is only by symptomatic individuals and there are all kinds of estimates out there about what percentage of infections are caused by pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic shedding of virus.

The question is what should be the response.

It's currently though that asymptomatic carriers make up 20-40% of the currently infected.

So, what do you propose be done about that, in terms of the response?

The WHO looks at all the papers and research and interact with the researchers, on a continuous basis, 24/7.

If you are one of those who enjoys bashing the WHO, go for it. But, I won't engage.

That article is 9 days old. That's the pleistocene on a situation as fast as this is developing. It's currently though that asymptomatic carriers make up 20-40% of the currently infected.

But, it's interaction of those numbers and not the numbers themselves that is important. Yes, those pumping out bodily fluids at higher rates are generally more infectious. But it's the asymptomatic carriers that bring it to new populations. Both have to be planned around, and planned around at rate that might not be proportional to overall numbers.

As to the WHO, in a situation like this you will see the best of science. Lots of collaboration and the organization with the best funding and/or most packed with experts are not guaranteed the breakthrough. Everyone must be read if you want to keep up on the most current science.

Kick,

but make no mistake there is evidence that it's being driven by asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, as well as symptomatic transmission... every one of them apply.

Yes, there may be some element of airborne or pre-symptomatic transmission but this is not the driving force of the epidemic.

Apparently [the WHO] missed some research.

Well, they didn't miss the research you cite from Singapore. The WHO's Dr. Michael Ryan talked about this research out of Singapore that says 6% of the cases reported were asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic at one of the WHO daily press briefings on COVID-19.

Here is what Dr. Ryan said about the Singapore research:

"There are many articles coming out at the moment on types of transmission and pre-symptomatic transmission. I've seen one recently from I think Singapore where there was an estimation that about 6% of cases may have been caused by people who were pre-symptomatic. I'm not here to question that - there are many different estimates. But the corollary of that, the opposite of that is clearly that 94% of infections are caused by people who ARE symptomatic.

"Breaking that chain means ensuring that infected individuals are diagnosed and isolated, their contacts are traced and tracked and quarantined and that people are cared for very quickly in the system."

Maybe the WHO will get with the program and catch up.

No, Kick, the WHO is the premier organization fighting this pandemic and they are, in fact, poring over ALL of the research. It is well worth the time to take a look at their daily coronavirus briefings.

This pandemic is changing everything and challenging our systems and what we know.

It should also change how we think and what we need to do ensure our future.

Demanding that Biden run a small donor only campaign to earn our votes (Biden recently said he knows he needs to earn our votes) is similar to demanding that he accept the War on Habitat as being real, supporting a 15 dollar an hour wage or any other thing that Dems demand of their candidates.

Interesting. How, exactly, is your demand that candidates take only small donations similar to the voting base wanting a minimum $15 hourly wage? One helps people obtain a livable wage and yours is nothing more than your own liberal purity test that does not really accomplish anything!

The difference is that running a small donor only campaign is the only way to know if they are going to try to do the other things they promise.

Without the small donor only commitment the other promises are lies.

Running a small donor campaign is the ONLY WAY TO KNOW if they are going to try to do the other things they promise??? How? How does this work? What guarantees the success of the desire to raise minimum wages for candidates that accept only smaller donations?

Why not promise that it will cure the coronavirus too while you are making idiotic claims?

JL

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/01/april-is-the-cruelest-month/#comment-156925

And I already explained why that does not apply in my response to CW.

i was curious what your response to CW actually was, so i looked it up. it was as follows:

"Comment 54- Where are you?"
-Theme from "Car 54 Where are you?

well okay then, that certainly clears it up.

As CW has not responded to that I can assume it was an [sic] reasonable response.

that's certainly one possibility. i'll leave it up to others to generate alternative hypotheses.

JL

Happy Easter Sunday everyone, despite our circumstances.

https://dictionary.apa.org/monomania

https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/easter-pie-recipe-1952152

I have to admit that I haven't the energy to go on and on about the AUMF in Iraq and whether it was a de facto vote for war or why Biden voted for the 2005 bankruptcy bill.

I've been over it too many times, including right here in these comments sections, through the years.

But, if you have anything you'd like my opinion on regarding these issues or any other than concern Biden or his senate voting record, I'll be more than happy to give it.

Once we OPEN UP OUR GREAT COUNTRY, and it will be sooner rather than later, the horror of the Invisible Enemy, except for those that sadly lost a family member or friend, must be quickly forgotten. Our Economy will BOOM, perhaps like never before!!!

Got that? We're all supposed to just quickly forget the entire crisis.

Trump, Republicans in Congress, Fox News, and their useful idiots will tweet their revisionist history and spend multiple months and millions (if not billions) trying to convince you that you didn’t see and hear what they said and did in January, February, and March up until Friday the 13th when they ceased to refer to the deadly virus as the "Democrat hoax."

All that time spent undermining trust in government, pissing on experts, and ridiculing science... then irony catches up to your standard con job so you'd naturally like it "quickly forgotten." *shakes head*

nypoet22 wrote

your idea of putting out a joint statement with bernie might have been a good one, but who knows what went on behind the scenes..

I don't think Bernie was any obstacle to a joint plea for the safety of Wisconsin voters because delaying as many primaries as possible would increase the (longshot) possibility that Joe stumbles, gets caught up in scandal or even, perish the thought, catches and dies of Covid-19.

I think they collectively missed a great chance to show concern for the electorate that Trump and the Repugs obviously lack, with no significant effect on the overall contest between them.

i think you're right and it was a political calculation. probably not the best one either, but hardly worthy of a "most" disappointing. it was at worst a missed opportunity, and at best a minefield avoided. your idea of putting out a joint statement with bernie might have been a good one, but who knows what went on behind the scenes..

JL

Don Harris are you seriously willing to help Trump get reelected because Joe won't go small doner? Respectfully, man, that makes you appear to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Don't you think that another 4 years of Trump will make your campaign even less likely to succeed?

[48]

Agreed. Again, I think Joe not calling for the postponment of the Wisconsin primary was a political calculation the avoid even the appearance of Democratic "thumb on the scale to help Biden." But announcing together with Bernie would have protected Wisconsin voters without any kind of rancour.

“Quarantine in place, you can’t leave your home,” Cuomo said. “The fear, the panic is a bigger problem than the virus.”'
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-order-for-new-york-city.html

The difference: Newsom issued a 'stay at home' order on 19 March.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/19/governor-gavin-newsom-issues-stay-at-home-order/

The day before, New York governor Cuomo REFUSED to issue a similar order for his state, DESPITE the mayor of New York begging him to do so.
'Cuomo said that such drastic policies would create more fear amid the COVID-19 outbreak, which has now infected more than 6,500 people across the U.S. and killed at least 115, according to Johns Hopkins University. With 1,717 confirmed infections, New York state has more cases than any other state in the country. However, Cuomo has said the true number is likely much higher due to limited testing capacity and stringent federal guidelines over who’s eligible for diagnostic testing.

“Quarantine in place, you can’t leave your home,” Cuomo said. “The fear, the panic is a bigger problem than the virus.”'
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-order-for-new-york-city.html

G'Nite! This was fun

Oh, puleeeeeeze.

Ditto for the bankruptcy bill.

Later!

G'nite.

Are you versed enough in Joe to elaborate on that? Tell me the good stuff, for we have to go into November with the Biden we have. I'm stuck on the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq War votes among other things.

I think that's one of the things I've always liked about him.

Elizabeth,

Does is right in core of his wheelhouse, though in Canadian translate to, "is right up his alley," in 'Murican?

Elizabeth I don't think Joe can avoid just rolling with whatever Trump, that is expressing outrage as needed (yup, Don Harris is right. Joe should have, say, enlisted Bernie for a joint declaration to Wisconsin to delay the Primary. BOTH of them so there's no thumb on the scale appearance whatsoever.).

Other than that Joe has simply been [Establishment] Joe. Joe when he was down and now when he's the man. No sin there, Don. WYSIWYG and all.

But I digress. Joe's outrage must appear a relatively spontaneous reaction to when Trump really crosses the line. And not every last Trump boo-boo, either.

Am I the only one who wonders if Trump knows it'll likely be less, and if so he'll get to claim he did a fabulous job protecting us?

Signed-

Cynical or Realistic? I can't decide.

Methinks it ought to be a judicious mix.

I think you're quite right about that. But, what does a judicious mix look like?

Presidential leadership is right in core of his wheelhouse, though.

The question is, how are we going to get him in the oval office?

"The adult in the room, always be."

-Yoda

**Preferably after he decides how far left he has to go to win the Progressives

Will [Biden] attack Trump or just try to "be presidential," and by doing so show in stark contrast why such a difference is crucial in a time of crisis?

I'm afraid that is going to require a lot of thought to answer. See ya next week!

Methinks it ou

I just received my first of at least four monthly payments of $2000, directly deposited, of course. :)

B-b-b-but that sounds like socialism! OMG socialism is, like, EVIL! We just can't have that in the USA USA USA!

Great. He's going to listen to all the experts - science and economic - and he may as well toss a coin.

Good God.

You mean 'simpleton' questions, right Chris? Heh.

I just couldn't resist - they did better today, though.

Well, Democrats will have to find a way to counter Trump's persistent claims of mail-in ballot fraud if these two talking points are to have any legs.

I mean, they'll have to get specific about the process and how it works. Perhaps, even entice a Republican governor whose state has this down pat to do the explaining - shouldn't be too hard to pull off considering we're all in the fight of our lives together to bring the coronavirus to its knees.

It's hard to imagine - I mean really hard to wrap my mind around - how anyone could say that. I guess less hard to imagine in the case of Bill O'Reilly.

He and his cohorts really don't care at all, do they?

That will be hard to beat, I'm guessing ...

Will [Biden] attack Trump or just try to "be presidential," and by doing so show in stark contrast why such a difference is crucial in a time of crisis?

I'm afraid that is going to require a lot of thought to answer. See ya next week!

As for the MIDOTW award … well, all I can find the energy to say is … … is, I concur. :)

If, only.

I just received my first of at least four monthly payments of $2000, directly deposited, of course. :)

The Wall Street Journal always “forgets” to mention that the ratings for the White House Press Briefings are “through the roof” (Monday Night Football, Bachelor Finale, according to @nytimes) & is only way for me to escape the Fake News & get my views across. WSJ is Fake News!

Someone should tell him that there would be no higher TV ratings than Trump announcing he was stepping down as president...ratings through the roof! I honestly think Donald might actually consider stepping down if he was assured it would garner the highest TV ratings any show has ever gotten. His ego could not resist such a honor.

President Trump's advisers are reportedly deeply worried that his narcissistic daily briefings on coronavirus are hurting his reelection chances.

Did you watch the briefing today? Trump was back taking questions and he seemed to tone it down a bit. At least, it looked like he was trying very hard but just couldn't resist at a couple of points.

Having said that, guess what's more scary than his narcissistic briefings? Oh, that would be the kind of briefing he had today where on at least two occasions, in response to rather surprisingly enlightening questions, he appeared stone cold clueless.

When confronted with a geopolitical question about what should be the US response to an emboldened China in the South China Sea and evirons, considering that a US aircraft carrier in the area is out of commission.

I think I may have stood up and applauded the journalist who asked the question, smiles all around!

But, I rather stood aghast as Trump went on his typical anti-China tirade about how, ever since the WTO let them in, China has been taking advantage of the US because the US had stupid leaders but they won't be taking advantage of US anymore with me in charge.

I just picked my jaw off the floor very recently. :(