# Trump: Don't let Coronavirus dominate you.



## Deleted User (Oct 6, 2020)

I just love his message which is the complete opposite of the media.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 6, 2020)

The media speak on behalf of scientists. Trump only speaks on his own behalf.

I mean...not letting corona dominate you is a lot easier when you've got an army of doctors at your disposal with top of the line treatment, and your job consists of signing blank papers.

But ey...nitpicking aside, I gotta agree. It's nice to hear him say something positive for once.


----------



## GhostLatte (Oct 6, 2020)

When you have access to drugs that cost more than what you paid taxes, of course you shouldn't let it dominate you.


----------



## leon315 (Oct 6, 2020)

tHAT UNNECESSARY CAR TRIP after i went out from Medical Center, putted all people (guards, driver) around him in danger, they are now forced to 14-day quarantine or even dead, cauz this Trump's show off.

I found it pretty amusing.



GhostLatte said:


> When you have access to drugs that cost more than what you paid taxes, of course you shouldn't let it dominate you.


His tax income was 600k as he said last week debate, btw what miracle drug was that? and really costs that much?


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 6, 2020)

Boesy said:


> I just love his message which is the complete opposite of the media.



"Don't let COVID dominate you. Just receive millions of dollars of personalized around the clock care from an entire team of doctors"


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 6, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> "Don't let COVID dominate you. Just receive millions of dollars of personalized around the clock care from an entire team of doctors"


yeah tell that to the people already dead from it.....oh wait he can't cause their dead,honestly why do you deem socialism bad (hint in no way affiliated with communism) we would've had free healthcare by now if the GOP didn't butcher obamacare (Have you read the UNALTERED proposial by Obama? it was an exact mirror of canada's system) but yeah considering the GOP mutalated it passed it is gonna repeal it (forcing many like me with pre existing conditions) off healthcare and still blaime it on obama? (now i can imagine if Obama did veto the bill and assuming the GOP reversed it to law by 2/3 vote they'll still blame obama and those gop supporters would believe that lie) anyways getting derailed by me,to sum it up socialism = many benifets including free healthcare which would possably save lives when this drug cocktail is approved because i can garuntee you big pharma doesn't hold the middle classes interest and will drive up the price of that treatment


----------



## Seliph (Oct 6, 2020)

"Don't let the coronavirus dominate you" he says as 200,000+ people lay dead and millions have lost their jobs and housing due to the pandemic.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

When he went home from Walter Reed, he pulled a stunt at the balcony, taking his mask off, and weaving his fist, then walking without a mask into the white house. Most of staff there is older. (Reportedly.)

Also, while on the balcony, he seemed to have problems breathing. The steroid he was given is given to help with lung function, currently the whitehouse is withholding information on his last negative test, and his lung scans. (Basically journalists way to try to find out if he has pneumonia.)

Also, no report on him getting the antibody cocktail anymore. It simply vanished from reporting. (Reporting now is based on the released list of medication he is on by Walter Reed and only includes medication that would be available to a general public.)


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 6, 2020)

Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu. Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020


According to Twitter: Liar, liar, pants on fire:



> This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about *spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.* However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Oct 6, 2020)

how come he is allowed to take the covid cure and no one else is?


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 6, 2020)

Says the guy that is trying to take people's healthcare away.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2020)

Bladexdsl said:


> how come he is allowed to take the covid cure and no one else is?



Why did Ruth Bader Ginsburg get personal therapy specialists, the best surgeons, and cutting edge anti-cancer treatments that extended her life an extra 21 years and through 5 bouts with cancer since first being diagnosed in 1999?

Same reason.


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Why did Ruth Bader Ginsburg get personal therapy specialists, the best surgeons, and cutting edge anti-cancer treatments that extended her life an extra 21 years and through 5 bouts with cancer since first being diagnosed in 1999?
> 
> Same reason.


This shit makes me mad either way. This level of care should be accessible to all americans. Also fuck RBG for letting trump get another supreme court pick. Her ass should've just stepped down under obama instead of dicking around and being petty.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

Bladexdsl said:


> how come he is allowed to take the covid cure and no one else is?


Economics.

Also its not a 'miracle cure'. Its a medication thats still in clinical testing, head of the corporation producing it came out and said, that the president was taking it as well:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-weight-age-gender-make-severe-covid-19-more-likely-11601660627
edit: and
https://nypost.com/2020/10/05/regeneron-ceo-says-trumps-use-of-drug-cocktail-puts-it-in-tough-spot/

Which will boost their stock price.


Think of it not as a cure, but as another medication in testing, with a potentially high success rate.

People will get access to it eventually, but currently its in clinical testing (same as with the vaccine, find out how people react to it).

When it does come out, it is likely, that it will only be available to those with money. Simply - because you cant produce it in necessary quantities for everyone.

And since you cant (if you have money, or not), it brings you back to the issue of 'rate of spread' is still the main issue.

You cant afford to treat "all people", especially not if many people infect themselves rapidly, so infection/outbreak prevention is really needed.

This is where a vaccine comes in. (But also masks and social distancing. And limits on public gatherings. And contact tracing. And...) Vaccine is a one shot/two shot thing, thats financeable for entire populations.
-

Also, some people die of covid, because their bodies produce too many antibodies, that in an adverse reaction might attack their own cells. So having those artificial ones is not that 'miracle cure' but still, statistically, it probably helps quite a lot.

Remdesivir and the Steroid he is on, more people that are infected already are getting. Depending probably also on availability - but both of those medications are comparatively cheap  (they were invented for other illnesses, so currently their producers cant hike price up, without looking like criminals...  ), and more widely available.


----------



## CMDreamer (Oct 6, 2020)

He got out of the hospital just for political reasons, people can't/shouldn't see him vulnerable/weak if he wants to get reelected.

More political drama show.

It's all about business, he's the TV Ad that some labs need to sell their overpriced "magic cure" to the masses.

In the process, Trumpet gets some points by showing the masses he's "invincible" and the labs get the media covering they need to sell their "magic".


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2020)

CMDreamer said:


> He got out of the hospital just for political reasons, people can't/shouldn't see him vulnerable/weak if he wants to get reelected.
> 
> More political drama show.




He no longer has any symptoms.
https://www.you  tube.com/watch?v=ZQ4hBAeIhyg


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

I agree with Trump. I never worried about it back in December 2019 when I first heard about it, didn't worry when the entire "we have to shut down for 2 weeks to slow the curve" deal and after 11 months I'm still not worried about. Worrying is pointless. You shouldn't be a scared baby and let these sorts of things control you. Sure, take precautions, but it's not a really deadly virus with only around a 1% death rate. It's also good to stay positive and own the moment as being a little whiny pussy never helps anyone.


----------



## CMDreamer (Oct 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> He no longer has any symptoms.
> https://www.you  tube.com/watch?v=ZQ4hBAeIhyg



Of course he don't have any symptoms, maybe he didn't even got Coronavirus.

Doctors will say whatever he wants them to say! It's all about business, political business! Don't forget the huge revenue that will come afterwards!


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

CMDreamer said:


> He got out of the hospital just for political reasons, people can't/shouldn't see him vulnerable/weak if he wants to get reelected.
> 
> More political drama show.
> 
> ...



He's also returning to the campaign trail. You'd imagine someone that was really sick couldn't walk let alone travel and stand up to talk for hours at a time. Like I've said in other threads, the odds of you getting really sick let alone dying from covid-19 are low. Most people who get it don't even show symptoms or get ill.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 6, 2020)

CMDreamer said:


> Of course he don't have any symptoms, maybe he didn't even got Coronavirus.
> 
> Doctors will say whatever he wants them to say! It's all about business, political business! Don't forget the huge revenue that will come afterwards!


Did you forget about the Hydroxychloroquine?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2020)

CMDreamer said:


> Of course he don't have any symptoms, maybe he didn't even got Coronavirus.
> 
> Doctors will say whatever he wants them to say! It's all about business, political business! Don't forget the huge revenue that will come afterwards!



I see the left pushing 'he's at death's door!' until he emerges, recovering well. Then I see the left pushing "he didn't even have it!"

Doctors will say whatever he wants them to say??? Are you suggesting medical personnel and 'scientists' opinions can be bought?!??! Extraordinary.

With all of these top people in the GOP testing positive, I think the 'he didn't even have it!' conspiracy is a flat tire. Sorry.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I see the left pushing 'he's at death's door!' until he emerges, recovering well. Then I see the left pushing "he didn't even have it!"
> 
> Doctors will say whatever he wants them to say??? Are you suggesting medical personnel and 'scientists' opinions can be bought?!??! Extraordinary.
> 
> With all of these top people in the GOP testing positive, I think the 'he didn't even have it!' conspiracy is a flat tire. Sorry.



"Orange man bad". Regardless of what he does, says, doesn't do or doesn't say the Liberals suffering from TDS will attack him. They don't think for themselves so they have no way to be rational as they are just following crooks and their lies. Pretty sad actually when you think about it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> "Orange man bad". Regardless of what he does, says, doesn't do or doesn't say the Liberals suffering from TDS will attack him. They don't think for themselves so they have no way to be rational as they are just following crooks and their lies. Pretty sad actually when you think about it.



Sad for everyone that sticky black goo touches.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> He's also returning to the campaign trail. You'd imagine someone that was really sick couldn't walk let alone travel and stand up to talk for hours at a time. Like I've said in other threads, the odds of you getting really sick let alone dying from covid-19 are low. Most people who get it don't even show symptoms or get ill.


Still the same old distorter of truth I see.. 

While most people contracting Covid 19 show no symptoms, you still have a death rate of 5-15% (more if older) on the elderly.

Also Trump showed symptoms, hes on a steroid to help with breathing, and needed oxygen. And an antibody cocktail, not available to anyone else (outside of patients that take part in clinical testing), that only should get prescribed, once you have problems breathing (so your immune system has tried to tackle it and failed (its important, that it tried).).

If you are wondering btw, a little more than half of patents show no symptoms (that are significant enough, that they would think of doing something about them socially - (people are good at denying, if they might think that they've done something wrong, when you ask them).

Which is why wearing masks is crucial.
-

Also - if from now on, if you are sixty - you die - maybe within five years, because everyone in society is acting like you. Thats also kind of something we should do something about.

If as a result live expectancy is falling - permanently - people might rebel also.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Still the same old distorter of truth I see..
> 
> While most people contracting Covid 19 show no symptoms, you still have a death rate of 5-15% (more if older) on the elderly.
> 
> ...



Overall between all the age groups the average death rate is around 1% and as we test more people and find out they had it and didn't know that rate decreases. Yes, if you are older the percentage hovers around 5%, but no more. I was counting the overall average though. So the more testing we do the more that 1% is going to decrease. There's worse and more deadly things in life and I don't go around hiding from them. There's no reason to be scared and let the fear control you, because then you'll be making irrational choices based on fear and not the facts. Trump will most likely not die and that's not my opinion it's the logical conclusion as the death rate is really low.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Still the same old distorter of truth I see..
> 
> While most people contracting Covid 19 show no symptoms, you still have a death rate of 5-15% (more if older) on the elderly.
> 
> ...


What about herd immunity, though?


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Overall between all the age groups the average death rate is around 1%


Jesus, how stubborn can you be. I've went through this with you before. Yes overall its below 1% which means that every eighth family would eventually have a family member die from it (4 grandparends, 4 parents, 4 children - (100/12)). And because infection death rate over the age of 60 is 5%, that statistically comes down to one in every fifth family. (More complicated math actually looking up the amount of people over a certain age in the US  ) And once you are over 80 - its 15%. Every year.

And the older you are, the more likely you die from it. Risk only goes up.

Reason why you are not seeing 10-20x of influenca death numbers currently, are the measures that are taken to prevent spread.

WHO currently estimates, that about a tenth of world population might have been infected by now.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What about herd immunity, though?



With the NIH, WHO and CDC releasing conflicting (wrong) information on a weekly basis it's still up in the air if heard immunity is happening with this virus. I believe it is because you have anti-bodies that protect you from the virus for about 3 months after you get over having it and since most people that get it don't even get sick or show symptoms the heard immunity might already be happening. It would be nice the the "experts" weren't releasing invalid/wrong information on a weekly basis, but that's just science mingling with politics for you.


----------



## kevin corms (Oct 6, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> The media speak on behalf of scientists. Trump only speaks on his own behalf.
> 
> I mean...not letting corona dominate you is a lot easier when you've got an army of doctors at your disposal with top of the line treatment, and your job consists of signing blank papers.
> 
> But ey...nitpicking aside, I gotta agree. It's nice to hear him say something positive for once.


Say what you will about Trump, the media does not speak on behalf of scientists. The media speaks on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. They have mislead and lied, then gaslighted us, then blamed Trump for everything despite their own part. Do some research on articles and news stories quoting random "experts" who are mostly pundits and corporate sponsored think tanks. I wish there was a "good guy" in this, but there just isnt.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Jesus, how stubborn can you be. I've went through this with you before. Yes overall its below 1% which means that every eighth family would eventually have a family member die from it (4 grandparends, 4 parents, 4 children - (100/12)). And because infection death rate over the age of 60 is 5%, that statistically comes down to one in every fifth family. (More complicated math actually looking up the amount of people over a certain age in the US  ) And once you are over 80 - its 15%. Every year.
> 
> And the older you are, the more likely you die from it. Risk only goes up.









The health experts who put this sign together beg to differ. I'm going to stick with the current official numbers. That's of course until they follow the current trend and get reduced even further.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kevin corms said:


> Say what you will about Trump, the media does not speak on behalf of scientists. The media speaks on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. They have mislead and lied, then gaslighted us, then blamed Trump for everything despite their own part. Do some research on articles and news stories quoting random "experts" who are mostly pundits and corporate sponsored think tanks. I wish there was a "good guy" in this, but there just isnt.



Sadly for Liberals any material that would go against their agenda is immediately discarded or not even looked at. You've got better chances raising a Camel to shit gold bricks then you do to get a Liberal to admit they're wrong.


----------



## kevin corms (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The health experts who put this sign together beg to differ. I'm going to stick with the current official numbers. That's of course until they follow the current trend and get reduced even further.


I expect survival rates to be lower in a country with such a high obesity rate and health care that is largely non accessible.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> With the NIH, WHO and CDC releasing conflicting (wrong) information on a weekly basis


Stop doing what you are doing.

It is possible to look up 'wrong in what sense' and 'by how much'. If they are wrong by a little bit - you call them all kinds of names, not understanding what the term estimates means, or how wrong models can be and still be valuable.


THE SAME FREAKING TACTIC TRUMP HIMSELF HAS USED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

Go home.



All you are sporting are brain imprints of deranged people. All your information is (at least partly) wrong.

And if you resort to political tactics (like people holding up signs with messages or numbers), to 'fight' against science, someone needs to stop you.

And I mean this seriously. You are misinformation spreading on this forums, like no one else.

WHO - arent angels, currently they have another abuse scandal on their heals - but they serve a purpose, and that purpose is not 'spreading structural misinformation to the countries they get payed by'. Regardless what you believe.


And one more thing. That you can so easily be baited to take 'information is wrong' and go straight into the depth of "we against them" "our president said, they were bad people" - so this is the gospel I'm following. Makes you so easily manipulatable. Take a step back, take a breath, ask sensible questions first. Like - 'by what margin are they off' and 'how does it matter'.

If you are open to emotional, ritualistic arguments, you make for a great grunt (always grafting, always moving, always on message), but you have shown little signs of actually thinking things through. (Critical thinking approach.)


----------



## kevin corms (Oct 6, 2020)

> Sadly for Liberals any material that would go against their agenda is immediately discarded or not even looked at. You've got better chances raising a Camel to shit gold bricks then you do to get a Liberal to admit they're wrong.


I dont think its really a liberal thing, its a tribal thing for a lot of people on both sides.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

kevin corms said:


> I expect survival rates to be lower in a country with such a high obesity rate and health care that is largely non accessible.



That would make sense, but the trend for months has been the more people we test the more we found they had it and didn't know so the survival rate keeps going down. If it was trending the other way I'd say so. I don't win any prizes for lying. I'm just repeating what I've been observing over the duration of the year.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

Yeah I don't think the media speaks on behalf of science.  Because if they did, they would be telling everyone to get N95 masks if they want to avoid transmitting/receiving the virus.  Surgical masks make no difference that would matter according to the CDC.  This is what it is, until they decide to change it for political reasons:

As I said in a another thread:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (_36_). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. *Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.*

We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility (Figure 2). However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.


Since Covid-19 has been confirmed that it can be airborne in a room with no airflow for several hours, this seems to confirm virus particles of less than 5 nano meters.

So if the CDC says surgical masks will not stop the transmission of influenza, that would then apply to Covid-19 also.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Oct 6, 2020)

It's always easier to talk about current numbers after all the precautions that were taken while having no idea how much worse it would have been without said precautions.
The problem was (and still is in some places) to not overflow hospitals, which not only affect Covid patients, but other patients as well.

I have a family member right now who needs surgery but can't because getting to a hospital and getting covid would most likely kill her even before the surgery.

It's not a fucking joke. I don't care if you're for Trump or Biden, this is not a US centric issue.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Yeah I don't think the media speaks on behalf of science.  Because if they did, they would be telling everyone to get N95 masks if they want to avoid transmitting/receiving the virus.  Surgical masks make no difference that would matter according to the CDC.  This is what it is, until they decide to change it for political reasons:
> 
> As I said in a another thread:
> 
> ...



Surgical masks and simple cloth coverings do help reduce the dispersal of the particles you exhale, but you're right that they don't filter out the covid particles due to the size of the particles. Although, even though the covid particles are small they always stick to other things you're exhaling so that's why the N95 masks will protect you as they aren't even rated to filter out the small covid particles. It's just lucky they cling to the larger particles you exhale allowing the N95 masks to trap them.

So cloth coverings and surgical masks will reduce the dispersal rate and when you combine that with keeping 6 ft from someone that may be creating clouds of covid you're less likely to catch it. So you're correct that surgical masks don't filter out the smaller covid particles, but the particles always cling to other stuff so they are effective to a point. Of course, it would be best that everyone wore N95 rated masks.


----------



## kevin corms (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Yeah I don't think the media speaks on behalf of science.  Because if they did, they would be telling everyone to get N95 masks if they want to avoid transmitting/receiving the virus.  Surgical masks make no difference that would matter according to the CDC.  This is what it is, until they decide to change it for political reasons:
> 
> As I said in a another thread:
> 
> ...



The funny part is that Joe Rogan has an expert on his show over 6 months ago who told it like it was, if he was able to get an expert who actually got it right why couldnt anyone in American politics do so?


deinonychus71 said:


> It's always easier to talk about current numbers after all the precautions that were taken while having no idea how much worse it would have been without said precautions.
> The problem was (and still is in some places) to not overflow hospitals, which not only affect Covid patients, but other patients as well.
> 
> I have a family member right now who needs surgery but can't because getting to a hospital and getting covid would most likely kill her even before the surgery.
> ...


Neither of them seem to have much of a concrete plan for this, or if they do they arent sharing. Its populism vs populism, both claim everything will just be fine if you vote for them without telling us how.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

kevin corms said:


> Say what you will about Trump, the media does not speak on behalf of scientists. The media speaks on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. They have mislead and lied, then gaslighted us, then blamed Trump for everything despite their own part. Do some research on articles and news stories quoting random "experts" who are mostly pundits and corporate sponsored think tanks. I wish there was a "good guy" in this, but there just isnt.


The media is not a homogenious blob.

If it werent for 'the media' no one would talk about anything in this forum.

If it werent for the media Trump also would not have been elected. In 10 or more ways.

You are spreading misinformation - and do it so vaguely, that its hard to disprove you. Because you are voicing a believe. Nothing else.


And a debate shouldnt be about 'but I'm also entitled to a believe' without bringing examples, saying why....

Again - the people falling for that kind of propaganda, are the most stupid people in society, that have to look for the simplest explaniations for everything, and then stick to them, because it makes them feel informed.

Regardless, of that also being the thing that riles you up most, about liberals telling you all day. Part of it is an actual problem. If you need everything broken down to 'most easy level' - you will never have a sense of whats going on. That 'experts' do not as well, and that media is sensationalistic (more money), that outlets have some form of structural bias (financing), all is true at the same time.

Its driving everything to the extreme, on your part thats the problem (we against media). Democracy depends on you coming up with your own media outlets - not denounce people that are enabling an informed, and open (and yes, in some form biased) discussion.

Just because you are too stupid to understand that 'why cant I get ONE unbiased media outlet' (like state media in russia) never can be a solution. And that you not paying for news adds to the issue here - please dont promote an opinion that will literally destroy democracy.

Preventing counterspeach that gets heard, is the first thing a fashist does.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Maybe I'm just lucky ti
> 
> 
> Surgical masks and simple cloth coverings do help reduce the dispersal of the particles you exhale, but you're right that they don't filter out the covid particles due to the size of the particles. Although, even though the covid particles are small they always stick to other things you're exhaling so that's why the N95 masks will protect you as they aren't even rated to filter out the small covid particles. It's just lucky they cling to the larger particles you exhale allowing the N95 masks to trap them.
> ...



I was actually reading some articles earlier on how N95 masks miss some larger particles but trap really small ones.  It has something to do with static if I remember correctly in how really small particles move in nature.  I can't find it now.

The problem I have is that with surgical masks it won't prevent an asymptomatic person from spreading the Covid-19 basically at all, just them breathing expels the virus into the air surgical mask or not. (Giving a false sense of security)

I believe this could even lead to more susceptible people getting Covid-19.  The media could be responsible for older people thinking incorrectly they have some level of protection from a surgical mask. If you are high risk, I would not be going around ANY kids/teens/young adults (proven to produce a lot of virus output compared to adults)  My mom falls into that category.  I kept warning her.  Irony is she found out she already had it back in June, she has anti-bodies.  She just thought it was bad allergies.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Oct 6, 2020)

kevin corms said:


> Neither of them seem to have much of a concrete plan for this, or if they do they arent sharing. Its populism vs populism, both claim everything will just be fine if you vote for them without telling us how.



Well yeah, that's American politics 101. Insult your opponent, shower them with ads against them so you don't have to talk about your own program and ideas
Americans and American medias in general have no idea how to debate.

First step to debate is to respect your opponent. If you can't do that, you're not debating.


----------



## kevin corms (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> The media is not a homogenious blob.
> 
> If it werent for 'the media' no one would talk about anything in this forum.
> 
> ...



Yes they are one big blob owned by only 15 people at this point https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevi...n-americas-news-media-companies/#9854108660ad

second two points.. maybe?

last point, laughable.

You see the rapid downfall of the media started with Reagan, Clinton killed it off completely. Deregulations and allowing monopolistic practices, here we are now where you cant trust anything and the media actively tells you what to think.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I was actually reading some articles earlier on how N95 masks miss some larger particles but trap really small ones.  It has something to do with static if I remember correctly in how really small particles move in nature.  I can't find it now.
> 
> The problem I have is that with surgical masks it won't mask an asymptomatic person from spreading the Covid-19 basically at all, just them breathing expels the virus into the air surgical mask or not. (Giving a false sense of security)
> 
> I believe this could even lead to more susceptible people getting Covid-19.  The media could be responsible for older people thinking incorrectly they have some level of protection from a surgical mask. If you are high risk, I would not be going around ANY kids/teens/young adults (proven to produce a lot of virus output compared to adults)  My mom falls into that category.  I kept warning her.  Irony is she found out she already had it back in June, she has anti-bodies.  She just thought it was bad allergies.



The smaller covid particles cling to larger saliva and other types of particles you exhale so the surgical masks will stop some of them, but the main point of wearing a surgical mask or cloth covering is the stop the cloud you exhale. If you look up videos of people exhaling (with the infrared light to see) you'll notice the cloud of stuff you exhale goes really far away and is much larger if you're not covering your mouth. That's why if you've got to sneeze and don't have a mask simply sneezing into your shirt does help more than just exhaling out in the open. 

I do also agree if you're at risk, like if you're old and have a bunch of health issues that catching the virus is more risky than other groups catching it. In that case you should stay home. N95 rated masks would also be a good choice if you can find and afford them.


----------



## kevin corms (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> The media is not a homogenious blob.
> 
> If it werent for 'the media' no one would talk about anything in this forum.
> 
> ...



I guess ill respond to the edit... personal attacks and fallacy arguments... of course. I wouldnt expect anything else from someone trying to defend the media, their pundits, their paid think tanks. When you read an article claiming experts said something, do me a favor and actually check out who they are sourcing... read the studies to see if they make sense. Start with Fox News if you want to see it from one group at its strongest, check msnbc for the other side. At least they arent spreading islamophobia anymore now that they have boogieman Trump and domestic groups fighting in the streets.


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Oct 6, 2020)

#SAVETHEKIDS


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Because if they did, they would be telling everyone to get N95 masks if they want to avoid transmitting/receiving the virus. Surgical masks make no difference that would matter according to the CDC. This is what it is, until they decide to change it for political reasons:


Missinformation.

Lies.

Wrong advice.

They arguable reduce rate of spread by half. They arent used for 'personal protection' they are used to slow down spread.

People in Japan (tightly packed cities), dindt wear chirurgical masks for ages, because they were duped, as entire societies, the do it  - as a mitigation measure.


But the - you actually are stupid - thing becomes the issue here. Because when you actually tell people, that clothmasks, and surgical mask arent 'personal protection', they react like you do. And the time to then try to convince them, no - but you see, having you not spit into another persons face while you are speaking (micro droplets), and reducing the "cloud" of aerosols with the virus in it around you in size - also has its benefits - statistically.

But those benefits also could be reached, by people just - on their own - performing social distancing (distance between themselfs), and the better they do that, the less you need masks -- telling them all that in the yellow page news, makes no sense.

Most people would lose the train of though at the first half paragraph, and I'm not even joking.


Furthermore "telling people to get N95 masks for protection" would be DANGEROUS. Those are still in short supply and needed for medical personal, for the health system not to brake down in the middle of an epidemic.

So the more you tell people details, the more you have to bank on them, to also draw the right conclusions, and not act like absolute morons, in you case... (Help, media is lying to us!?)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If you want to act like morons, and spread dangerous ideas, go back to you far right breading places, and hate on society - and media - there.


----------



## eyeliner (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I agree with Trump. I never worried about it back in December 2019 when I first heard about it, didn't worry when the entire "we have to shut down for 2 weeks to slow the curve" deal and after 11 months I'm still not worried about. Worrying is pointless. You shouldn't be a scared baby and let these sorts of things control you. Sure, take precautions, but it's not a really deadly virus with only around a 1% death rate. It's also good to stay positive and own the moment as being a little whiny pussy never helps anyone.


The problem with the virus is not the death rate. It's the transmission rate that makes it special. It's not like mad cow disease, or that chicken whatever that, comparably, killed no one.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The smaller covid particles cling to larger saliva and other types of particles you exhale so the surgical masks will stop some of them, but the main point of wearing a surgical mask or cloth covering is the stop the cloud you exhale. If you look up videos of people exhaling (with the infrared light to see) you'll notice the cloud of stuff you exhale goes really far away and is much larger if you're not covering your mouth. That's why if you've got to sneeze and don't have a mask simply sneezing into your shirt does help more than just exhaling out in the open.
> 
> I do also agree if you're at risk, like if you're old and have a bunch of health issues that catching the virus is more risky than other groups catching it. In that case you should stay home. N95 rated masks would also be a good choice if you can find and afford them.



I found what I was referring to before:

“N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3,” Marr said. “If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counter intuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander, and small ones don’t get through.”

N95 masks actually have that name because they are 95% efficient at stopping particles in their least efficient particle size range — in this case those around 0.3 microns.

Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones noted by experts:

The first is something called “Brownian motion,” the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers.

Secondly, the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through.

“Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck,” said Professor Jiaxing Huang, a materials scientist at Northwestern University working to develop a new type of medical face mask. “When the charges are dissipated during usage or storage, the capability of stopping virus-sized particles diminishes. This is the main reason of not recommending the reuse of N95 masks.”

So if Covid-19 particles were 400 nano meters in size,  N95 masks would not help.

But because they are anywhere from 5-120 nano meters in size, N95 masks work.  But if the anti static feature wears off, then even an N95 mask is not going to keep out covid-19.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

kevin corms said:


> I guess ill respond to the edit... personal attacks and fallacy arguments... of course.


You are spreading dangerous misinformation. You are hurting everyone that believes you.

Of course personal attacks. But also - information.

Because I dont want you to stay an idiot in all those things for your entire life.

But then - you are producing more people blieving into absolute idiocies - as we speak. So personal attack so that you could at least potentially see the 'wrongs of your ways' and rethink positions.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Missinformation.
> 
> Lies.
> 
> ...



What are you talking about? I posted a CDC source.


----------



## kevin corms (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> You are spreading dangerous misinformation. You are hurting everyone that believe in you.
> 
> Of course personal attacks. But also - information.
> 
> Because I dont want you to stay an idiot in all those things for your entire life.




Im spreading which disinformation? what the heck are you going on about? I think you are watching/reading too much media, you are using some of their techniques to paint me as doing something without any actual evidence of it.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

-- please delete --


----------



## eyeliner (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I agree the transmission rate is very large, but even the WHO who says we've had Globally, as of 3:07pm CEST, 6 October 2020, there have been 35,347,404 confirmed cases of COVID-19 yet they believe that number isn't accurate and it's more like 760 million. Due to the fact that the infection rate is probably 2q


There you have it. It's not the killing per se, but the prospect of it if it hits the most fragile.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> What are you talking about? I posted a CDC source.


Is the idea, really so hard to understand?

Freaking heck.... This is getting to become work in here. We did this for half a year, you people never listened and learned.


WHILE surgical masks, and cloth masks are made from fabric that is too roughly weaved to prevent the virus from going trough them (its actually smaller, than the distance between treads), they prevent you spitting in other peoples faces (micro droplets, that are 10 to 100x larger than the virus, to which the virus attaches), and they reduce the diameter of the 'aerosol' (microdroplets so small they float in the air, with the virus attached), cloud around you.

So surgical masks protect other people - by statistically, reducing infection rate, per person, by about half. That percentage is dependent on 'how well people social distance', if they are A+ at holding distance and washing hands and, ... effectiveness of surgical masks goes down, because its hard to spit in someones face from edit 10 feet away, while talking.

*grrr*

DONT try to front with 'I dont know what you have - I posted CDC sources' if you have NO idea how to interpret what they tell you.

Misinterpretation still is misinformation.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> The problem with the virus is not the death rate. It's the transmission rate that makes it special. It's not like mad cow disease, or that chicken whatever that, comparably, killed no one.



Globally, as of 3:07pm CEST, 6 October 2020, there have been 35,347,404 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 1,039,406 deaths, reported to WHO. However, the WHO estimates that 760 million have been infected, which is 21 times more than what we know now. That means the virus is much less deadly than originally thought. So it does have a higher infection rate than the flu or some previous virii, but it's really not that deadly. The trend is the more people we test the lower the death rate becomes. I wonder then if the infected total was indeed 760 million how much lower the death rate would be, as most of the 760 million didn't die.

EDIT: Sorry, my first reply got cut off for some reason. Glitchy software.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> I found what I was referring to before:
> 
> “N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3,” Marr said. “If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counter intuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander, and small ones don’t get through.”
> 
> ...



Yeah, I've read about this subject months ago. I didn't mean to claim you were wrong about surgical masks not filtering out the particles, but just wanted to say that they do indeed help reduce the dispersal rate, mainly because the covid particles cling to larger particles. They are not fool proof, but not completely useless. 

I did hear about a plan that was scrapped to send everyone in the USA masks. I think that was a good idea, because lots of people that can't really afford masks that I see walking around have been wearing theirs for days if not weeks. If you're going to require everyone to wear a mask at the Government level it would probably make sense to send everyone a mask that works.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Is the idea, really so hard to understand?
> 
> Freaking heck.... This is getting to become work in here. We did this for half a year, you people never listened and learned.
> 
> ...



What CDC said:

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (_36_). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. *Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.*

We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility (Figure 2). However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.

You do realize the vast majority of Covid-19 transmissions out there in the "wild" occur when people are showing 0 symptoms. That is why so many people keep getting it.  There are many asymptomatic people, and people that do develop symptoms have a period of time before (and after) that they can continue to spread it.

Virus particles from Covid-19 are so small that you mine as well be wearing wire mesh on your face.

Social distancing helps, it does NOT help indoors in small spaces (what constitutes small I don't know)

Being outside where you have air movement is the best with social distancing.  Do I think surgical masks for the majority of cases helps either?  NO.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> Globally, as of 3:07pm CEST, 6 October 2020, there have been 35,347,404 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 1,039,406 deaths, reported to WHO. However, the WHO estimates that 760 million have been infected, which is 21 times more than what we know now. That means the virus is much less deadly than originally thought. So it does have a higher infection rate than the flu or some previous virii, but it's really not that deadly. The trend is the more people we test the lower the death rate becomes. I wonder then if the infected total was indeed 760 million how much lower the death rate would be, as most of the 760 million didn't die.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, my first reply got cut off for some reason. Glitchy software.
> 
> ...



Sure I get it stops something, but we are talking about really small particles.  No one even knows the virus dose level to my knowledge to infect someone with Covid-19 yet.  So if it is determined to be X, and they find that even with a surgical mask on you emit X whether you have symptoms or not, then that would mean it basically does not help at all.  (even if it can be calculated out to help .8 % or something)


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> What CDC said:
> 
> Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (_36_). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. *Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.*
> 
> ...



I just advise you to go watch how coverings over your mouth and nose effect the dispersal rate of what you exhale. You might look at simple cloth coverings differently afterwards?


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (_36_). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. *Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.*


And if your reaction to that is 'well' I think weve been lied to by media then - you still havent got a flipping clue.

First: Behavioral aspects:






Second: It heavily depends on your surroundings as far as I have understood it. If you go by "main vectors are mukus spread by f.e. talking to another person", and "concentration of the virus in aerosols around you" BOTH of them get reduced significantly by wearing surgical masks.

And now we are getting into statistics. If I sit on public transportation, and I'm infected, and the reach of my aerosol cloud might get reduced by half - and so is everyone elses, is that a benefit? And as far as I understand it it is. Same with not spitting another persons face.

So at this point, I would have to see what the CDCs analysis is based on. (What was the testing scenario.)


----------



## SonowRaevius (Oct 6, 2020)

[Deleted]


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I just advise you to go watch how coverings over your mouth and nose effect the dispersal rate of what you exhale. You might look at simple cloth coverings differently afterwards?



I have seen it.  The problem as I mentioned before is most spreading of this occurs with people that have no symptoms. When a person (especially a younger person) who is positive, is JUST breathing.  They are exhaling particles out of their mouth every time they breath.  And as the CDC has reported just the act of breathing by one of these people in an enclosed space. leave these particles suspended in air for up to hours (depending on humidity level)  The drier the longer they could be airborne.  The question would then be, what percent of these particles does a surgical mask block? With a new N95 mask it has been determined to be enough.

With a surgical mask, that is not the case. 

So then take someone who is symptomatic.

They are the same as above but their mask is catching large things we can see.  But everything else that is not stuck in phlegm, like the asymptomatic person above is going to go through or come into a surgical mask.

But to be clear, I am no anti-masker.  I have been wearing them when I go to the store since this started.  But now that I understand limitations on these masks and the sizes of virus particles, it does not make technical sense to me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> And if your reaction to that is 'well' I think weve been lied to by media then - you still havent got a flipping clue.
> 
> First: Behavioral aspects:
> 
> ...



The CDC found no help from surgical masks. 

I believe they are correct.  It adds up in my mind based on the size of the virus particles.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

If this is the CDC study you are referencing -
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

It states:



> We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (_37_) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit.
> 
> In lower-income settings, it is more likely that reusable cloth masks will be used rather than disposable medical masks because of cost and availability (_38_). There are still few uncertainties in the practice of face mask use, such as who should wear the mask and how long it should be used for. In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks, but compliance in uninfected close contacts could be a problem (_12_,_34_). Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission (_39_). Thus, education on the proper use and disposal of used face masks, including hand hygiene, is also needed.



So low compliance, some people were wearing masks in some scenarios, at their own leisure - not knowing how to use them: Little statistical evidence of them helping much.

If you make them mandatory in lets say the subway, for everyone in there - different scenario.

No I'm trying to find studies that support my hypothesis.

But before I do:

Lets say you were correct on this point, and there was little statistical evidence for clothmasks preventing many infections. If you just tell people to 'ignore it' and 'go to work' - you'd probably have riots in the streets, if you see others only treating patients with 'more serious' PPE.

Goal of media also is to prevent that, kind of. Because papers then dont sell so well.  So giving people 'something' is better than nothing, not only from the behavioral pov.

That said, I'm still looking for transmission propensity "halved" studies, which is what I have in my head.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> The CDC found no help from surgical masks.


Too simplistic, misinformation.

edit:
Thats the theoretical model: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042720300117

Still searching for 50% effectiveness 'proof'.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> If this is the CDC study you are referencing -
> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
> 
> It states:
> ...



It's all right there:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Another excerpt from it:

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; _I_2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (_33_). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (_9_,_10_). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

Here:

CDC:



> The general public can use cloth masks to protect against infection spread in the community. In community settings, masks may be used in 2 ways. First, they may be used by sick persons to prevent spread of infection (source control), and most health organizations (including WHO and CDC) recommend such use. In fact, a recent CDC policy change with regard to community use of cloth masks (_1_) is also based on high risk for transmission from asymptomatic or presymptomatic persons (_32_). According to some studies, ≈25%–50% of persons with COVID-19 have mild cases or are asymptomatic and potentially can transmit infection to others. So in areas of high transmission, mask use as source control may prevent spread of infection from persons with asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or mild infections. If medical masks are prioritized for healthcare workers, the general public can use cloth masks as an alternative. Second, masks may be used by healthy persons to protect them from acquiring respiratory infections; some randomized controlled trials have shown masks to be efficacious in closed community settings, with and without the practice of hand hygiene (_33_). Moreover, in a widespread pandemic, differentiating asymptomatic from healthy persons in the community is very difficult, so at least in high-transmission areas, universal face mask use may be beneficial. The general public should be educated about mask use because cloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their limited protection against acquiring infection (_16_).


https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

Referencing:
MacIntyre  CR, Chughtai  AA. Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ. 2015;350(apr09 1):h694.

The important part is 'in community settings'. Now searching for that article. (Limited protection is OK, 50% effectiveness is good enough, see models).


edit:
Here is the study they are referencing
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25858901/



> Facemasks are recommended for diseases transmitted through droplets and respirators for respiratory aerosols, yet recommendations and terminology vary between guidelines. The concepts of droplet and airborne transmission that are entrenched in clinical practice have recently been shown to be more complex than previously thought. Several randomised clinical trials of facemasks have been conducted in community and healthcare settings, using widely varying interventions, including mixed interventions (such as masks and handwashing), and diverse outcomes. Of the nine trials of facemasks identified in community settings, in all but one, facemasks were used for respiratory protection of well people. They found that facemasks and facemasks plus hand hygiene may prevent infection in community settings, subject to early use and compliance. Two trials in healthcare workers favoured respirators for clinical respiratory illness. The use of reusable cloth masks is widespread globally, particularly in Asia, which is an important region for emerging infections, but there is no clinical research to inform their use and most policies offer no guidance on them. Health economic analyses of facemasks are scarce and the few published cost effectiveness models do not use clinical efficacy data. The lack of research on facemasks and respirators is reflected in varied and sometimes conflicting policies and guidelines. Further research should focus on examining the efficacy of facemasks against specific infectious threats such as influenza and tuberculosis, assessing the efficacy of cloth masks, investigating common practices such as reuse of masks, assessing compliance, filling in policy gaps, and obtaining cost effectiveness data using clinical efficacy estimates.



Data on 'cloth masks' is sparse, as is data in general. The study you probably referenced, was a meta study on 'available data'.

There is data, on surgical masks combined with hand hygine making a difference in community settings.


----------



## XDel (Oct 6, 2020)

I worked 20 years in the health field working with the elderly and such, and we rarely had to wear masks in patients rooms except for under special circumstances which were rare in my case. We were not even required to wear them during flu and cold season, not even when there were out breaks more lethal than covi-19. This is about global economic re-organization. Hence the reason many banks and corporate monopolies are funding Black Lives matter and other Marxist organizations. The company I work for has Marxist ideologies on its walls and TV's. And again Marxism is not about the collapse of capitalism, it is about seizing control over it, and it's general philosophy was dreamed up in the 19th century by a group of men born into wealth that never really worked...


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Here:
> 
> CDC:
> 
> ...






notimp said:


> Here:
> 
> CDC:
> 
> ...



The article from the CDC I linked to that says they don't work is based on multiple studies where they show surgical masks do not help.

They even provide the tables with the data showing they do not work.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

Australian health department:



> *Modelling studies - effectiveness*
> 
> Few modelling studies have investigated the effects of PPE on an influenza pandemic. Most of these studies focused on the use of masks or respirators by the general public, and indicated benefits such as reductions in reproduction number, infectivity and susceptibility, as well as the ability to delay a pandemic and reduce its size.33, 34, 35, 36, 37 One study noted the size of the reduction depended heavily on when masks were implemented, with a difference of 7% in the eventual number of cases if masks were implemented at the time when 100 individuals were infected compared with when 1000 individuals were infected (of a hypothetical population of one million).33
> 
> All modelling studies of effectiveness considered differing levels of adherence to face mask use; however, none were able to take into account some of the more complex issues that would occur during a pandemic, such as the logistical issues of delivering masks to large numbers of the population, or different attack rates within different population subgroups.38. Modelling suggests that mask and respirator use will be effective in slowing and reducing the effect of an influenza pandemic.


https://www1.health.gov.au/internet...7e2ddcca257d47001b9948/$file/w-infection.docx

referencing:

33.       Tracht SM, Del Valle SY, Hyman JM. Mathematical modeling of the effectiveness of facemasks in reducing the spread of novel influenza A (H1N1)_._ _PLoS ONE_ 2010;5(2):e9018.

34.       Furuya H. Risk of transmission of airborne infection during train commute based on mathematical model_._ _Environ Health Prev Med_ 2007;12(2):78-83.

35.       Brienen NC, Timen A, Wallinga J, van Steenbergen JE, Teunis PF. The effect of mask use on the spread of influenza during a pandemic_._ _Risk Anal_ 2010;30(8):1210-1218.

36.       Wein LM, Atkinson MP. Assessing infection control measures for pandemic influenza_._ _Risk Anal_ 2009;29(7):949-962.

37.       Tracht SM, Del Valle SY, Edwards BK. Economic analysis of the use of facemasks during pandemic (H1N1) 2009_._ _J Theor Biol_ 2012;300:161-172.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> The article from the CDC I linked to that says they don't work is based on multiple studies where they show surgical masks do not help.


The study you potentially referenced, made this conclusion as a metastudy (as in they themself tested nothing), based and I quote 'a low rate of availability of this kind of studies/models', based on studies, where the study leads complained about 'low compliance' and 'wrong use of PPE' on part of the particiopents, and I'm entirely unsure, how many of them where done with 'community protection' in mind.

If those were studies, that basically said - yes in our setting we had 3 university students (most likely participants of studies) that came down with the flu every month, and after telling them to wear surgical masks, we still had 3 of them getting the flu every month - the applicability to something like "forcing your entire population to wearing masks while using the subway" might not be there at all.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Australian health department:
> 
> 
> https://www1.health.gov.au/internet...7e2ddcca257d47001b9948/$file/w-infection.docx
> ...



I actually believe the CDC for this, it makes technical sense in my opinion.   Based on how small the virus is size wise. 

I still wear a mask when I have to go to the store, they are cheap and I do care about others whether they work or not, and I have only recently come to the conclusion there is really no way they could help enough to matter enough.

I also witness people every time I go to the store that even if you were right, it would still make no difference.  It's kind of like the people who work in food service industry that wear gloves and handle money and then touch food and all kinds of other bad things.

So many people that wear their surgical masks likely increase there chances of getting Covid-19 then if they wore no mask.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> actually believe the CDC for this, it makes technical sense in my opinion. Based on how small the virus is size wise.


I linked you a CDC article where they say, that it makes sense in the case of Covid - dont read selectively.


edit: Here: Condensed down more (I linked a larger paragraph for context):


> So in areas of high transmission, mask use as source control may prevent spread of infection from persons with asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or mild infections. If medical masks are prioritized for healthcare workers, the general public can use cloth masks as an alternative. Second, masks may be used by healthy persons to protect them from acquiring respiratory infections; some randomized controlled trials have shown masks to be efficacious in closed community settings, with and without the practice of hand hygiene (_33_). Moreover, in a widespread pandemic, differentiating asymptomatic from healthy persons in the community is very difficult, so at least in high-transmission areas, universal face mask use may be beneficial.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> I linked you a CDC article where they say, that it makes sense in the case of Covid - dont read selectively.



I already read some link you posted on the CDC.  I read through and entire link you posted above somewhere that did not have multiple studies during multiple time periods show it worked.  The article I linked to at the CDC does, it is at multiple points in time in different places showing it does not help enough to matter.

That matches up to what I would expect with a virus particle of this size.

So explain this to me then, because I have done this many times now in different manners.

1. Why do you personally think in your mind that a surgical mask is going to stop 20-100 nano meter covid-19 particles from entering or exiting that mask?

2. Do you know what the virus dose level of covid-19 is, that is required to infect a person?


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I already read some link you posted on the CDC. I read through and entire link you posted above somewhere that did not have multiple studies during multiple time periods show it worked. The article I linked to at the CDC does, it is at multiple points in time in different places showing it does not help enough to matter.


Yeah, some of them providing historical evidence, I read it as well.

Also 'CDC' study is not 'about the CDC' but hosted by them as well. They are referencing in footnotes, and in text, that there were 9 studies in total where facemasks in a community setting (different from a clinical setting) were looked at and that they 'had mixed outcomes'.

All of them should be linked to in footnotes, because thats how science works.

So none of what you said, is actually true - but it leading the reader.
-


Here is the main point. It matters, if you have all people wear surgical masks while using the subway (even if they are only 50% effective), or not. Looking at it through the lens of a scenario where 'in an epidemic at the turn of the century, some people in spain wear clothmasks, and they also got infected' or through a lense of (in our clinical testing, we had three students getting the flu every month, then told them to wear surgical masks, and then still had three students infected every mont), might both not be the correct thing to do - even though both of them 'do tell you the statistical effectiveness of cloth or surgical masks - in their scenario'.

If you manage to get to a scenario, where both infected and source are wearing masks, at least potentially reducing mukus droplets by 50% - it works. At least some studies say it does. Some in addition to telling people to wash their hands more often. And in the end its hard to say what worked for sure in that scneario (handwashing in addtition to surcigal masks, and social distancing?), but it works.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> I linked you a CDC article where they say, that it makes sense in the case of Covid - dont read selectively.
> 
> 
> edit: Here: Condensed down more (I linked a larger paragraph for context):


Sir, You've been on fire this month, no doubt about that. You have supplied us with good arguments and references. _But will you please stop referencing CDC_? Haven't they already shown to be a political organization? They have been swayed and manipulated by political powers, and consequently have moved farther and farther away from science.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yeah, some of them providing historical evidence, I read it as well.
> 
> Also 'CDC' study is not 'about the CDC' but hosted by them as well. They are referencing in footnotes, and in text, that there were 9 studies in total where facemasks in a community setting (different from a clinical setting) were looked at and that they 'had mixed outcomes'.
> 
> ...



So are you going to answer my questions?

1. Why do you personally think in your mind that a surgical mask is going to stop 20-100 nano meter covid-19 particles from entering or exiting that mask?

2. Do you know what the virus dose level of covid-19 is, that is required to infect a person?


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 6, 2020)

Lol don't let the virus dominate you, even though it's wreaking havoc on himself.  Who is he fooling?  You see the clips of him after he took his mask off last night?  The man looks like he's on death's door struggling to breathe.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> 1. Why do you personally think in your mind that a surgical mask is going to stop 20-100 nano meter covid-19 particles from entering or exiting that mask?


If they get out of your mask they drop to the floor (heavier than air), and as you arent licking your boots that often - they become mostly a non factor.

The way Covid infects most people is through mucus infection (droplets) that are 'sprayed' in other peoples faces, while talking. Those droplets are bigger than the virus itself, so they would be stopped by cloth masks.

The way Covid stays in the air afair about two hours is, it being attached to smaller mucus droplets, that are warm and therefore can fly in the air for a while. While those droplets are smaller, and are not all absorbed by a surgical masks (also openings on those masks, as you mentioned), partical analysis suggestst, that it reduces the diameter of the mucus cloud around you. Which leads to lower concentration of the virus in any given room, which should also lead to lower infection numbers.

And all of this becomes significant (valuable) at 50% effectiveness.

Now - have a covid patient in a hermetically sealed car with two security service guys - probably not effective. Have two Covid patients on a subway train - probably efficient enough (50% infection reduction).


crimpshrine said:


> 2. Do you know what the virus dose level of covid-19 is, that is required to infect a person?


Thats the key question here.

But since 'aerosol' based infections are always 'written into and out of the public eye' (afair the CDC about five days ago has declaired again, that they are a thing, and the last time they took that statement off of a website, stating that this was just a temp text, that wasnt meant to go online was... ehm, didnt exist, no comment..  ) frequently - its at least sensible to believe, that mask would reduce them (in large public gatherings f.e.), edit: by reducing concentration of airborn aerosols.

All the information that I have in my head about that is, that usually close proximity to an infected person for about 15 minutes is needed for transmission.


If you are interested in particle physics, watch this video:


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> Lol don't let the virus dominate you, even though it's wreaking havoc on himself.  Who is he fooling?  You see the clips of him after he took his mask off last night?  The man looks like he's on death's door struggling to breathe.



Well the doctors say he is at 95%-97% oxygen levels, sounds like he is out of the woods.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Well the doctors say he is at 95%-97% oxygen levels, sounds like he is out of the woods.



Anyone that believes he's out of the woods has not been educated properly.  He's about to hit the most critical point for his age group having covid, weeks 2 and 3.  Often at this point the patient may seem to be doing better only for weeks 2 and/or 3 to hit worse than ever.  I'll believe he's all well and good, if he's look so, right around the time of the election. Until around then it would be a bit premature to assume the worst is over for him.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> If they get out of your mask they drop to the floor (heavier than air), and as you arent licking your boots that often - they become mostly a non factor.
> 
> The way Covid infects most people is through mucus infection (droplets) that are 'sprayed' in other peoples faces, while talking. Those droplets are bigger than the virus itself, so they would be stopped by cloth mask.
> 
> ...



You must have missed it.  The CDC updated their information the other day.  They are admitting it is air borne now.  They say some times. LOL

And you understand how long something of this size stays in the air is dependent on a few things.  Air flow, and humidity level.  The drier it is, the longer it will remain in the air.  

And most spreading occurs with asymptomatic people.  

From CDC:

When people with COVID-19 cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or *breathe* they produce *respiratory droplets*. These droplets can range in size from larger droplets (some of which are visible) to smaller droplets. Small droplets can also form particles when they dry very quickly in the airstream.

Breathing which a surgical mask is not going to stop the sized particles that covid-19 is in from exiting or entering a mask.


Some infections can be spread by exposure to virus in small droplets and particles that can linger in the air for minutes to hours. These viruses may be able to infect people who are further than 6 feet away from the person who is infected or after that person has left the space.
This kind of spread is referred to as *airborne transmission* and is an important way that infections like tuberculosis, measles, and chicken pox are spread.
I get it, you think surgical masks help.

I don't.  

In an enclosed space the only thing that will keep you from possibly getting Covid-19 is an N95 mask.  That is why doctors don't wear surgical masks alone.  If they worked that well they would trust them.

And to my knowledge they still don't know how much covid-19 it takes to infect somebody.  So no one can accurately even calculate how much a surgical mask would help in theory.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 6, 2020)

Even if one doesn't think masks help, I hope they at least put one on for the sake of others when going out, because most people do believe it helps, and it isn't hard or harmful to yourself to put it on, so just put the damn thing on.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 6, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> Anyone that believes he's out of the woods has not been educated properly.  He's about to hit the most critical point for his age group having covid, weeks 2 and 3.  Often at this point the patient may seem to be doing better only for weeks 2 and/or 3 to hit worse than ever.  I'll believe he's all well and good, if he's look so, right around the time of the election. Until around then it would be a bit premature to assume the worst is over for him.



Why do you think the doctors specifically called out his oxygen levels?  For those that encounter issues it is a progression in which their oxygen levels decrease over time.  People that hit issues at weeks 2 and 3 were not feeling dandy at the end of week #1.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Why do you think the doctors specifically called out his oxygen levels?  For those that encounter issues it is a progression in which their oxygen levels decrease over time.  People that hit issues at weeks 2 and 3 were not feeling dandy at the end of week #1.



Hmm, I know a few people that seemed to get better after the first week only to get worse in the second, my friend's grandma died that way earlier this summer


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> You must have missed it. The CDC updated their information the other day. They are admitting it is air borne now. They say some times. LOL


Good, than it was the CDC. Was unsure on that. 

And the issue here is not - 'is the virus airborn'? (For about two ours), but is there an airborn infection vector. This is the 'concentration' question. Because we know for a while that the virus can stay airborn (you can do tests that show that), what we didnt know was - if people get infected that way, or if virus concentration in the air is too low. CDC afair has stated a few days ago, that yes, this is the case sometimes. Majority of people still get infected through 'droplets' (meant, not airborne, but while speaking to others).


----------



## MENTALDOMINANCE (Oct 6, 2020)

I think what alot of people are missing is at a certain point, it just doesn't matter.
If the virus is airborn then I don't care how many statistics are spouted because it is not preventable at that point anymore
unless you work in an underground lab like in The Andromeda Strain.
People with masks become infected, people who don't wear masks don't. Etc.
I am not an anti masker, I wear a mask and I think anyone who doesn't is stupid because it isn't a big deal, just wear one, right?
HOWEVER - After precautions are taken, it really boils down to fate and luck because you could do everything right and still
get it while people who don't do anything at all to protect themselves don't.
And again, if it's airborn then I don't care what is said to be done about it, it just can not be stopped and most things people do
to try to stop it are really just doing nothing. I mean go ahead and do every precaution possible but don't blame people if you get it.
Don't blame the president, etc. - it is no one's fault. Shit just happens in life. I wish more people could understand this.


----------



## notimp (Oct 6, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Breathing which a surgical mask is not going to stop the sized particles that covid-19 is in from exiting or entering a mask.


Not all of them, but its going to reduce larger ones. With most of the Covid in them... 

And since you cant do 'infection experiments' ethically, you are are guessing on the 'how much is needed' part - essentially.

We did - for months, refrain from even telling people its airborn - and now it should be mostly transmitted by being airbord, on small particles? While still not every person being in contact with a covid patient even for longer than 15 minutes gets infected?

Its seems like 'bull' to me to say - this is "all or nothing", so since small particles arent filtered by surcical masks, you can drop them entirely (aside from the behavioral argument (xkcd comic))



MENTALDOMINANCE said:


> I think what alot of people are missing is at a certain point, it just doesn't matter. If the virus is airborn then I don't care how many statistics are spouted because it is not preventable at that point anymore


 Not true, concentration and time of exposure matter. In summer, you have a window open, matters. Not everyone in contact with a Covid patient instantly is infected as well. Statistically, every Covid patient infects three other people. Not 23, like Trump... 

Also, see partical physics of aerosols, while wearing a mask, compared to no mask.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 6, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> it isn't hard or harmful to yourself to put it on, so just put the damn thing on.


Tell that to my ears.


----------



## MENTALDOMINANCE (Oct 6, 2020)

notimp: Why does Trump always need to be jabbed? "Like Trump" you say.
You do not know anything for sure, only what a biased media says.
Why are so many people hating on him and seem to be unable to even converse without throwing a jab, blaming him for
every single thing bad that occurs yet giving him no credit for the good?

No one knows for sure if he has infected anyone. Anyone who can't see how biased the media is is blind.
They claim "doctors" or "scientists" say X but every "doctor" or "scientist" they talk to is on the left.
Then you go to doctors and scientists on the right and they say the exact opposite.
_Of course_ there is a general consensus but it stands to reason that any "doctor" or "scientist" who is talking to
the media has a political agenda or is in the pocket of some agenda. Why aren't they in a lab working?

What I don't like is when people who don't know a particular trade comment on it.
Like when you have to take the word of a so-called "expert" because you don't have the expertise.
This happens in the tech arena all the time, "experts" distort terminology, they give the impression things work how
they really don't work, they focus on things that simply don't matter, etc.
Thankfully people are smarter today than ever before! In my day, they would advertise "Sonic is cooler than Mario"
even though the SNES was more powerful than the GENESIS. In Europe, the advertisements would simply be
a list of tech specs and people would look at them and go "Oh, this is better! I'll buy it!"
But in America, it was all marketing b.s. and lies.
So the Genesis ends up being the best seller in America, but the SNES sells better everywhere else.
"New 32 MEG game!" but they distort the difference between MEGABYTE and MEGABIT,so it's really only a 4 MEG
game cuz everything that referred to MEG up to that point always meant MEGABYTE. ETC.
The media is simply playing this game.

The media lies. Most people on this planet are stupid. All the media does is corral the sheep and rile them up.
The people who were riding with Trump in the car were already around him elsewhere.
They are his protection. They volunteered for the job. No one is being picked on. Trump isn't killing people.
And yes, what I said still stands which is - You can still do everything right and get it while people who do nothing
to protect themselves don't. There is a random factor that is not being acknowledged.
You mentioned more statistics and factors and as I stated, it just doesn't matter at a certain point.
At a certain point it's best to just not go outside and put yourself in a bunker if you really want to consider all of the
scientific possibilities of how the virus could possibly reach you because they're infinite.
I hope we just find a vaccine and/or cure soon.

I think the president was taken out of context, as usual, when he said don't be afraid of COVID.
What he meant was don't let fear rule you. Take precautions, yes.
But at a certain point, you have to live. The country has to go on. We can't just shut down.

UltraSupra: Yeah you are right, it does hurt the ears. And it makes it suck to breathe.
But my point is I am willing to endure that minor bit of suffering for the greater good.
I don't _like_ wearing masks, but I will do it.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Did you forget about the Hydroxychloroquine?


 Yeah I wonder why the president wasn't treated with it





MikaDubbz said:


> Hmm, I know a few people that seemed to get better after the first week only to get worse in the second, my friend's grandma died that way earlier this summer


Sorry for your friend's grandmother. that's just plain unfortunate





UltraSUPRA said:


> Tell that to my ears.


_Ah I see so it must of been harmful to all the surgeon doctors who wore a mask before the pandemic. I guess they can't breath while they work._(I hope you can hear my intense sarcasm)
Also, I'm going to link this video again. Since the amount of political nonsense versus science is genuinely getting stupid for now the nth time in a row.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 6, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Sorry for your friend's grandmother. that's just plain unfortunate



I'm sure he appreciates your condolences, it's just such a genuine shame that this new disease just exists now.  I see people try to play it down all the time with it's low death rate, but to me that rate is meaningless, all that matters is that people are dying now from a thing that they weren't a year ago.  If this virus didn't exist, if these conditions were that of a year ago, October 2019, 200,000 dead people in our country alone wouldn't be dead right now, and that's what truly sucks.  That isn't something to hide away, or pretend isn't all that big of a deal, we lost a little over 3,000 people on 9/11 and that event changed everything, so how it is that people can try and rationalize this away as no big deal, when it's so much more impactful than an insane event like that just boggles my mind.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 6, 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mutations/?arc404=true

Just gonna post this here for anyone who still thinks masks work.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mutations/?arc404=true
> 
> Just gonna post this here for anyone who still thinks masks work.


They do work. Though now we have a mutation problem because idiots like you refuse to wear a mask.


----------



## MENTALDOMINANCE (Oct 6, 2020)

Virus mutating eh? Well to mention The Andromeda Strain again, anyone remember how that book/movie ends?
It finally mutates to a non-lethal state. 8) Wouldn't it be great if COVID did that?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 6, 2020)

MENTALDOMINANCE said:


> Virus mutating eh? Well to mention The Andromeda Strain again, anyone remember how that book/movie ends?
> It finally mutates to a non-lethal state. 8) Wouldn't it be great if COVID did that?


Issue it's not a virus in that book. second off, it's stupid to compare fiction to to reality, and is highly unlikely that it will mutate to a non-leathal state. it's means of reproducing/hijacking cells are within the respiratory system.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 7, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> They do work. Though now we have a mutation problem because idiots like you refuse to wear a mask.


Except for the fact that my state mandates masks. That's why I'm complaining in the first place.
I don't have a problem with other people wearing masks, or businesses mandating them. It's when the government does it that I have a problem. If it's just businesses, I can go somewhere else.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Except for the fact that my state mandates masks. That's why I'm complaining in the first place.
> I don't have a problem with other people wearing masks, or businesses mandating them. It's when the government does it that I have a problem. If it's just businesses, I can go somewhere else.


And multiple states don't mandate one still.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 7, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> And multiple states don't mandate one still.


Good. The problem is that the one that I live in does.


----------



## MENTALDOMINANCE (Oct 7, 2020)

monkeyman: It's not a virus per-se in movie either it's just like a real small mutated toxic particle isn't it?
Anyhow I was only being half-serious.

I live in Illinois and I don't think our state mandates mask wearing but all I know is no one wears a mask
where I'm from unless they're in a store but then as soon as they go out on street or anywhere else
they all take them off. They all have them off at the gas station, the bars are open and of course no one
wears them there, the ice-cream stand is open and no one wears them there either.
Also what about those people who get warned they aren't wearing a mask and then all they do is pull
their damn shirt up to hang over their nose? That shouldn't even be allowed, it's so retarded.
My wife is always freaking out on people and worried constantly, she just went and got a free test that
was being offered in a town like 60 miles away and it came back negative today.
I wear a mask but as stated, nothing guarantees protection.
It's a scary time. I hope we find a vaccine/cure soon.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 7, 2020)

MENTALDOMINANCE said:


> monkeyman: It's not a virus per-se in movie either it's just like a real small mutated toxic particle isn't it?
> Anyhow I was only being half-serious.


Sorry but no I don't play those games, you can't just state it and then claim "it's just a prank bro"
I ain't dealing with that shit. Either you mean it or you don't. And since it wasn't a joke, or a sense of satire I could notice, I'm going to presume you meant that comparison seriously.
"it's not a virus per-se in movie either it's just like a real small mutated toxic particle isn't it?"
No. In the movie/book it's a micro-organism. Fact your comparing a virus to a an organism already is not a good look on your part. It's like saying a viral infection is the same as a bacterial one. they are not the same.


----------



## MENTALDOMINANCE (Oct 7, 2020)

monkeyman: Are you a humorless leftist? I _did_ mean it. Just not as a serious scientific statement.
And how is it not obvious when I ASK you "wasn't it this way?" that I am not claiming to be an expert
on the book or the film as you so gloriously are? I did not imply "It is _this_ way" I implied "I _think_ it is this
way" and then basically asked "Am I right?"
Just because something is lighthearted doesn't mean a person doesn't mean it.
I'll be sure next time to make a disclaimer not to try to compile my code when it isn't meant to be.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> They do work. Though now we have a mutation problem because idiots like you refuse to wear a mask.





monkeyman4412 said:


> Yeah I wonder why the president wasn't treated with it
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Only problem your video is based on math that does not apply to surgical and home made masks. You do understand that, right?  - More specifically he uses #'s like 50% effective and 25% effective.  No one knows how effective a surgeons mask or home made mask is.  If it is only .1 % effective, that does not add up to much.

You do know that surgical masks (and these are ones that are certified ones) can only handle particles in the 3 micron range.

A virus particle is around .14 microns in size (they can be smaller like with Covid-19)


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 7, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Only problem your video is based on math that does not apply to surgical and home made masks. You do understand that, right?  - More specifically he uses #'s like 50% effective and 25% effective.  No one knows how effective a surgeons mask or home made mask is.  If it is only .1 % effective, that does not add up to much.
> 
> You do know that surgical masks (and these are ones that are certified ones) can only handle particles in the 3 micron range.
> 
> A virus particle is around .14 microns in size (they can be smaller like with Covid-19)


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422
https://aatishb.com/maskmath/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

"In a frequently cited study showing that hamsters are less likely to contract SARS-CoV-2 infection with a surgical mask partition"
Covid is based on SARS. In other words, wearing masks help. Now let's stop being anti science ffs. Also regarding the video, it seems you didn't watch it all the way through.
Tl;dr if a mask was theoretically 50% effective. Then two people wearing masks should be 50% effective right?
No. It's actually 75% effective due to masks not only stopping incoming transmission, but also out. if one person is wearing a mask, then it drops to 50%.
also he also states that a well worn surgical mask would be closer to 50% reduction. And a poorly worn N95 would be 50%.


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 7, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I agree with Trump. I never worried about it back in December 2019 when I first heard about it, didn't worry when the entire "we have to shut down for 2 weeks to slow the curve" deal and after 11 months I'm still not worried about. Worrying is pointless. You shouldn't be a scared baby and let these sorts of things control you. Sure, take precautions, but it's not a really deadly virus with only around a 1% death rate. It's also good to stay positive and own the moment as being a little whiny pussy never helps anyone.


Covid is the leading cause of death in the US currently. So you can eat my duck and choke on it you bitch boy


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8
> https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422
> https://aatishb.com/maskmath/
> ...



https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

There are multiple studies from over the years that CDC sites that show there is basically no significant effect on limiting the transmission or receiving while wearing these surgeon masks.  I would have to guess these cloth masks would be even worse.

So you will have to forgive me when I think anyone that would rate a surgeons mask as being 50% effective when properly worn to an N95 which is 95% effective when properly worn as just making that # up.

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (_36_). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

And covid-19 is more transmissible then influenza and smaller particles.  And we don't even understand yet what the viral dose needs to be to contract covid-19, it could be insanely low.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 7, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Covid is the leading cause of death in the US currently. So you can eat my duck and choke on it you bitch boy


third leading, not number one. Even then, it shouldn't even be that high. (which in other words, we are badly handling it)


----------



## CMDreamer (Oct 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Did you forget about the Hydroxychloroquine?



No, I haven't:

_"President Trump has used it as a preventative measure, and President Bolsonaro of Brazil has also taken it.

But despite some early studies raising hopes, *one subsequent larger scale trial has shown it's not effective as a treatment*.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has halted its trials, *saying that the drug doesn't reduce death rates in patients with coronavirus*.

[...]

It concluded that "there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with Covid-19" and the drug has now been pulled from the trial."
_
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731

Something like a "miraculous cure" doesn't exist at all.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 7, 2020)

At this point, COVID is ripping through the upper ranks of our administration and government.

*As of now, several people have tested positive for Covid-19, including:*

President Donald Trump & Melania Trump

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC)

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Bill Stiepen (Trump campaign manager)

Ronna McDaniel (GOP Chairwoman)

Hope Hicks (Trump political advisor)

Kellyanne Conway

Chris Christie

Nick Luna (Oval Office Operations Director & Trump's body man)

Kayleigh McEnany (White House press secretary)

Chad Gilmartin (White House spokesman)

Karoline Leavitt (White House spokeswoman)

Admiral Charles Ray (U.S. Coast Guard second-in-command)

Jalen Drummond (White House spokesman)

Stephen Miller (White House Senior Advisor)

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA 24th District)


The white house is actively refusing to contact trace, or even supply tests. this is an absolute shitshow.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

CMDreamer said:


> No, I haven't:
> 
> _"President Trump has used it as a preventative measure, and President Bolsonaro of Brazil has also taken it.
> 
> ...



That's not true, many parts of the world have continued to use it with success.   I was just looking at a new retroactive study today that showed over the last 6 months at least 21,682 patients over numerous studies evaluated where they saw it help.  Many of which were peer reviewed.

And it is not miraculous, but a 30% less chance of dying for someone at high risk is not nothing.  There are other means for treatment out there, but many other countries can't afford or cannot get the other treatments.  So HCQ continues to be used in many parts of the world.  It's dirt cheap.

People should be asking in the USA who screwed up in our FDA and found what no other one has? (That it increased death rate)  This was politicized in the USA all because Trump said it was good back in winter.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520301281

Meta analysis of 43 studies: "HCQ was found consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early, in the outpatient setting. It was found overall effective also including inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse event was found.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> The media speak on behalf of scientists. Trump only speaks on his own behalf.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...licans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/

And inb4 you think that's off:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Politics

In 2017, a Gallup poll found that the majority of Americans view the news media favoring a particular political party; 64% believed it favored the Democratic Party, compared to 22% who believed it favored the Republican Party.
[...]
A September 2014 Gallup poll found that a plurality of Americans believe the media is biased to favor liberal politics. According to the poll, 44% of Americans feel that news media are "too liberal" (70% of self-identified conservatives, 35% of self-identified moderates, and 15% of self-identified liberals), 19% believe them to be "too conservative" (12% of self-identified conservatives, 18% of self-identified moderates, and 33% of self-identified liberals), and 34% find it "just about right" (49% of self-identified liberals, 44% of self-identified moderates, and 16% of self-identified conservatives)."

Tl;Dr: there's a clear liberal/left sided/democratic bias in the media.

Who runs the media?

https://www.mrc.org/commentary/over-30-major-news-organizations-linked-george-soros

Well a majority of it's ran by George Soros. Or companies he is VERY close to. Or *insert rant here*.

The Media speaks on behalf of the money, make no mistake. Whatever makes the biggest fires that aim for their beliefs is what they want. 

I mean, we all heard of George Floyd. But next to no-media spoke about https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...g-bike-shot-dead-neighbor-25-two-sisters.html .

*Now back to ignoring the political end* 

If you really think the media speaks on behalf of scientists, *those scientists need a nice long look in history to see how fanatical and absurd they've been*. Anyone else remember pieces from this list? I do!







Remember this? Yeah, I remember a LOT of them. The conspiracy theories spread not only by media, but by so-called Scientists with far more reliability than Greta-more-important-than-she-really-is-Thunberg, is utterly frickin' hilarious and I don't trust ANY media Scientist anymore.


----------



## Sizednochi (Oct 7, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Remember this? Yeah, I remember a LOT of them. The conspiracy theories spread not only by media, but by so-called Scientists with far more reliability than Greta-more-important-than-she-really-is-Thunberg, is utterly frickin' hilarious and I don't trust ANY media Scientist anymore.



Lmao. I remember several of those over the years. Kind of amazing seeing all of this laid down like that.



Rj.MoG said:


> Covid is the leading cause of death in the US currently. So you can eat my duck and choke on it you bitch boy



People say that but I don't know anyone that even has caught the virus, let alone died from it. And Brazil is only behind the US in cases and deaths. Now I don't doubt the numbers of course, but I'm more afraid of getting shot by some random crackhead thug in the streets than getting Corona, because it's far more likely to happen.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 7, 2020)

Sizednochi said:


> Lmao. I remember several of those over the years. Kind of amazing seeing all of this laid down like that.
> 
> 
> 
> People say that but I don't know anyone that even has caught the virus, let alone died from it. And Brazil is only behind the US in cases and deaths. Now I don't doubt the numbers of course, but I'm more afraid of getting shot by some random crackhead thug in the streets than getting Corona, because it's far more likely to happen.



I know 8 people in my social circle that have had it. 2 almost died, 5 had moderate symptoms, and 1 was asymptomatic. 4 of the 8 live in New York, one of the 2 that almost died lives in CA, the other in GA. the asymptomatic friend lives in CO. granted it's probably more likely that you will know people who have had the sickness if you have actual friends.


----------



## notimp (Oct 7, 2020)

> Surgical face masks were found to reduce presence of influenza and coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets and aerosols from infected individuals.
> 
> The CDC has just recommended that the general U.S. population begin wearing cloth face coverings to decrease the community-based transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Two new studies provide some support for the CDC guidelines.
> 
> ...


https://www.jwatch.org/na51322/2020/04/13/surgical-masks-provide-source-control-respiratory-viruses



> *Who Should Wear A Mask?*
> * General public*
> 
> 
> CDC recommends all people 2 years of age and older wear a mask in public settings and when around people who don’t live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.





> Masks are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the mask coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows masks reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet), so the use of masks is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain. CDC’s recommendations for masks will be updated as new scientific evidence becomes available.


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

You were cherrypicking results, not unterstanding what they mean. Then proved resistant to all diverging information out there. Then tried to hide behin, 'i ondly trust the CDC, thank you', so here you go. Trust the CDC, thank you.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 7, 2020)

kevin corms said:


> Say what you will about Trump, the media does not speak on behalf of scientists. The media speaks on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. They have mislead and lied, then gaslighted us, then blamed Trump for everything despite their own part. Do some research on articles and news stories quoting random "experts" who are mostly pundits and corporate sponsored think tanks. I wish there was a "good guy" in this, but there just isnt.


Sorry, I was talking about global media. I naturally assumed that because Trump directly contradicts scientists, the press have the thankless job of having to say "urm...this quote doesn't match with what people working on it have found out". With the bits I get from liberal US media, they seem to do it, but I'll admit they're just that: bits. They can be pushing all sorts of medication for all I know...I don't follow them that closely.
It's certainly not the case here in Belgium (media is still a ...I belive 'meritocracy' is the correct word. In any case, news outlets squandering their reputation lose value too fast to truly survive. As such, I can't recall a single instance of the media pushing for anything but proper hygiene, mouth masks and social distancing). But it might very well be in the US. I can't tell... 

But to get back to that "Say what you will about Trump": it's getting pretty hard convincing people that that positive news isn't a cynical one. Not wearing a face mask while having corona puts everyone's health around him at risk (the list of top infections is already way longer than it has any right to be), and his actions to halt any stimulus until "after he's elected" proves his sociopathic nature. I mean...is he really that hellbent to ensure he's the only one getting properly treated(1)? 
This is, of course, assuming he'll survive the treatment. It's experimental for a reason. 



(1): in a rather ironic sidenote: the drugs he's currently on have serious side effects. Trumpists who want to defend him need to carefully calculate whether or not to back him, because in a few weeks it's very possible Donald says something like "yeah, I didn't mean that...it was just the drugs making me paranoid". Yeah...I'm just curious just who will notice a difference in his behavior...


----------



## notimp (Oct 7, 2020)

> The science supports that face coverings save lives, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8



Masks work, they really do.  That's how I read that paper.

Lets compare people in masks (many did not wear masks) at a *outdoor* BLM protest to a bunch of young *kids indoors* not wearing masks.

Nevertheless, the anecdotal evidence “builds up the picture”, says Theo Vos, a health-policy researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle.

They cautiously suggest that mandates might have averted as many as 450,000 cases, after controlling for other mitigation measures, such as physical distancing.

They have no way of knowing this, they are guessing and putting it down on paper and selling it as science.

And this study on hamsters just does not prove much in my opinion.  Hamsters won't have a false sense of security from masks, they are not touching the masks and adjusting them, and hamsters still got infected at reduced rates taking those key items out of the picture.  Did they run the same exact test 10 times and come up with the same results? 

If you read the results of that hamster paper, it already sounds like the guy is looking for predetermined results.

The top microbiologist said the team carried out the study as the necessity of wearing masks, something he had long advocated, was being challenged worldwide, including by the World Health Organisation.

There are years of data available (back to the 70's) and there is no slam dunk consensus that masks make any positive impact on influenza transmission.  If they did, there would be overwhelming evidence study after study.  And this virus is smaller and spreads easier (probably partially due to the size) than influenza.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

I see some updated stats for universities.  And Covid-19.  70K positive, only 3 required hospitalization - 0 deaths.

Worse than the flu? LOL


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 7, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I see some updated stats for universities.  And Covid-19.  70K positive, only 3 required hospitalization - 0 deaths.
> 
> Worse than the flu? LOL
> 
> View attachment 227455


cool chart, but where is the source


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Covid is the leading cause of death in the US currently. So you can eat my duck and choke on it you bitch boy



You're free to be scared of something with a 1% overall death rate, but I choose not to be.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> At this point, COVID is ripping through the upper ranks of our administration and government.
> 
> *As of now, several people have tested positive for Covid-19, including:*
> 
> ...



And the chances of any of the people dying on your list are very low. Most probably won't even get sick.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 7, 2020)

The fact that Trump continues to try to downplay Covid is why America continues to have the highest rate of infected. People are spreading this virus and getting infected at a rapid rate because of his stupidity and their blind following of him.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> The fact that Trump continues to try to downplay Covid is why America continues to have the highest rate of infected. People are spreading this virus and getting infected at a rapid rate because of his stupidity and their blind following of him.



You may think because so many Conservatives aren't scared of the COVID is because they are blindly following Trump, but you're wrong. You're simply projecting because that's what Liberals do - they blindly follow people. Most Trump supporters that aren't scared of the virus aren't scared of it because of facts and data. The USA isn't the only country caught up in this mess as almost every single one still is seeing the virus spread and lots of them pale in physical size compared to the USA. You'd figure the size and population would need to be taken into account. Either way, most Trump supporters don't blindly follow him, they choose to based on reality and not some feel good fantasy.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> The fact that Trump continues to try to downplay Covid is why America continues to have the highest rate of infected. People are spreading this virus and getting infected at a rapid rate because of his stupidity and their blind following of him.



Lilith, you do understand the governors of each state put into place their restrictions and rules regarding how the virus is handled at a state level?  

The more you test the more you will find of a highly transmissible virus like this.  You can't stop it without some silver bullet solution.  And there is none.  The USA tests more than ANY country on this planet.  We are at 120 million tested at this point.  

India has had 6.8 million positive tests.
USA has had 7.53 million positive tests.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Lilith, you do understand the governors of each state put into place their restrictions and rules regarding how the virus is handled at a state level?
> 
> The more you test the more you will find of a highly transmissible virus like this.  You can't stop it without some silver bullet solution.  And there is none.  The USA tests more than ANY country on this planet.  We are at 120 million tested at this point.
> 
> ...



The more people we test the more we find out that people had it and didn't even know they had it. That 1% overall death rate is decreasing with every single test that's done in the USA. You're also right about each State as each State Government is handing how they respond to the virus. Trump isn't making all of the States policy decisions. I'm pretty sure Trump would get slammed with overreaching if he tried to micro manage every state as that's not his job.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 7, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Lilith, you do understand the governors of each state put into place their restrictions and rules regarding how the virus is handled at a state level?
> 
> The more you test the more you will find of a highly transmissible virus like this.  You can't stop it without some silver bullet solution.  And there is none.  The USA tests more than ANY country on this planet.  We are at 120 million tested at this point.
> 
> ...


That's really not the point of my post, but ok


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> The fact that Trump continues to try to downplay Covid is why America continues to have the highest rate of infected.


No, the reason America has the highest rate of infected is because of the fact we have the absolute worst healthcare system (that actually works/exists) in the world. We make people afraid as F to take precautionary visits to the hospital for their own health. Also, excluding China (which has a cubic fuckton of problems including intentionally hiding the # of infected), America is perhaps the country with the most high-density population centers in the world, which makes spread infinitely easier.

The real problem with the U.S. is our healthcare system is ultimately ass. We charge a leg just to have a check up to ensure we aren't sick. We charge two arms for medicine that might not even work because the drugs are basically on auction to the doctors - whoever pays the hospital/doctors more gets the higher chance of being the medicine they default to suggesting (I would know - I went through hoops as a child over some meds I needed). We've made a business out of people's health - out of keeping people alive - and that's atrocious. People's health should be a basic right, instead we need to pay exorbitant fees for it. Healthcare is, in practice, the problem with capitalism, and one of the FEW sectors of our society I wholly believe a more socialistic function should exist - same as Police and Firefighters.

Were there less fighting over money and the sort for medicine, the doctors could focus more on actually aiding/saving lives. And as a result of this, Americans are hesitant to get tested for diseases that Covid may latch onto that cause its fatality rate (and rate of crippling individuals afterwords). That's where the majority of the deaths TRULY come from.

And as for contraction, even to this day the WHO and CDC can't figure out the fuck Covid really does, and continue to swap their opinion about how it works literally every other frickin' week to month, give or take. If you honestly think most people make their decisions about Covid BECAUSE of Trump, and not because that's their inherent behavior/mentality, you sincerely underrate the stupidity of the human race.

Edit: And like Gregory said: The management on Covid's on a state level. There's only so much Trump could do when he has people who intentionally go against EVERYTHING he decides, almost violently, just to oppose him as a fascist. Hell, let's be honest with ourselves, IF TRUMP DID SHUT DOWN THE COUNTRY TO PREVENT A COVID INFLOW, they'd just call him a fascist anyhow for it!


----------



## emigre (Oct 7, 2020)

Boesy said:


> I just love his message which is the complete opposite of the media.



I agree, I'm going to stop wearing a mask and social distance cos gotta break a few eggs for that freedom omelette...


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> That's really not the point of my post, but ok



LOL ... *swoosh* .... You can't blame Trump if he's not the one making the policies.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 7, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> No, the reason America has the highest rate of infected is because of the fact we have the absolute worst healthcare system (that actually works/exists) in the world. We make people afraid as F to take precautionary visits to the hospital for their own health. Also, excluding China (which has a cubic fuckton of problems including intentionally hiding the # of infected), America is perhaps the country with the most high-density population centers in the world, which makes spread infinitely easier.
> 
> The real problem with the U.S. is our healthcare system is ultimately ass. We charge a leg just to have a check up to ensure we aren't sick. We charge two arms for medicine that might not even work because the drugs are basically on auction to the doctors - whoever pays the hospital/doctors more gets the higher chance of being the medicine they default to suggesting (I would know - I went through hoops as a child over some meds I needed). We've made a business out of people's health - out of keeping people alive - and that's atrocious. People's health should be a basic right, instead we need to pay exorbitant fees for it. Healthcare is, in practice, the problem with capitalism, and one of the FEW sectors of our society I wholly believe a more socialistic function should exist - same as Police and Firefighters.
> 
> ...


I am aware that American healthcare is one of the biggest problems with the US. That being said, the point of my post is that Trump's continued downplaying Covid only adds to the problem, and its part of the reason why it's spreading so rapidly in the US. People aren't taking Covid seriously, people aren't practicing social distancing or wearing a mask, people continue to see Covid as something political because of Trump's continued downplaying is a factor that needs to be called out.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> That's really not the point of my post, but ok



So what is your point?  Are you saying because Trump is not afraid of Covid-19 as you are, he is leading to people everywhere in the USA contracting it at a greater rate?

Does he also cause the same for Indian citizens then?  They are almost up to our #'s and we test more, so of course we will find more cases.

Remember a large # of people display no symptoms with the virus.  That is one reason why it spreads and continues to do so.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 7, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> So what is your point?  Are you saying because Trump is not afraid of Covid-19 as you are, he is leading to people everywhere in the USA contracting it at a greater rate?
> 
> Does he also cause the same for Indian citizens then?  They are almost up to our #'s and we test more, so of course we will find more cases.
> 
> Remember a large # of people display no symptoms with the virus.  That is one reason why it spreads and continues to do so.





Lilith Valentine said:


> I am aware that American healthcare is one of the biggest problems with the US. That being said, the point of my post is that Trump's continued downplaying Covid only adds to the problem, and its part of the reason why it's spreading so rapidly in the US. People aren't taking Covid seriously, people aren't practicing social distancing or wearing a mask, people continue to see Covid as something political because of Trump's continued downplaying is a factor that needs to be called out.


Added note, India has a far more tightly dense population in a far smaller area than the US. Considering the nature of how this virus spreads, it's no shock that India also has a problem with it rabidly spreading.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

You are basing that off of a feeling then.  Data is not backing that up in my opinion.

In MY state based on what I see daily, people are taking it very seriously.  I don't ever see people not going into stores masked. 

And I am in a state that's positive #'s have stayed steady for months now.  Ever since we came out of lock down. They have not changed at all.  Same rate basically week after week, month after month.

The mayors/businesses etc take the direction of the governor.  Trump has NOTHING to do with that.

But you are saying because Trump personally chooses to not be afraid of that, and reflect that.  He is CAUSING more people to get Covid-19 in all states?  LOL I don't understand your rationality at all.

The data does not seem to reflect what your feelings tell you.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> No, the reason America has the highest rate of infected is because of the fact we have the absolute worst healthcare system (that actually works/exists) in the world. We make people afraid as F to take precautionary visits to the hospital for their own health. Also, excluding China (which has a cubic fuckton of problems including intentionally hiding the # of infected), America is perhaps the country with the most high-density population centers in the world, which makes spread infinitely easier.
> 
> The real problem with the U.S. is our healthcare system is ultimately ass. We charge a leg just to have a check up to ensure we aren't sick. We charge two arms for medicine that might not even work because the drugs are basically on auction to the doctors - whoever pays the hospital/doctors more gets the higher chance of being the medicine they default to suggesting (I would know - I went through hoops as a child over some meds I needed). We've made a business out of people's health - out of keeping people alive - and that's atrocious. People's health should be a basic right, instead we need to pay exorbitant fees for it. Healthcare is, in practice, the problem with capitalism, and one of the FEW sectors of our society I wholly believe a more socialistic function should exist - same as Police and Firefighters.
> 
> ...



The US Health care system is a mess, but I don't believe making it a socialistic system would help. That would just remove the freedom you have to choose what Doctors you see or what operations you can have. What might help would be making rules to making the experience like a stop at the grocery store. You know what you're buying and how much it costs before you decide to buy it. Also getting the prescription prices down would help and it seems that the current administration is pushing to bring prescription drug manufacturing into the USA so we don't have to depend on foreign entities. I do disagree with you that it's a human right. I mean, we have stuff that's actual human rights now and look how much they are policed, regulated and restricted. I like the idea that you must work and have income to afford to pay for medical costs, but if you're disabled or worked all your life then I see no reason to not keep how we have medicaid and medicare now. I would just like if you knew exactly what the costs are when making decisions on what sort of treatment you are after.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am aware that American healthcare is one of the biggest problems with the US. That being said, the point of my post is that Trump's continued downplaying Covid only adds to the problem, and its part of the reason why it's spreading so rapidly in the US. People aren't taking Covid seriously, people aren't practicing social distancing or wearing a mask, people continue to see Covid as something political because of Trump's continued downplaying is a factor that needs to be called out.


HOW did it 'add' to the problem? Do you honestly see anyone actually saying "Well Trump said it's okay so it's okay"? No. You see people CLAIMING people are doing it BECAUSE Trump is downplaying it. There's no evidence, just a lot of finger pointing and conspiracy. And as I've pointed out in ANOTHER topic - the media LOVES its conspiracy theories of all sorts.

People take it not seriously because in the larger scheme it's a not-serious threat. A 1% deathrate is nowhere near the level of threat those people believe is necessary to shut down everything and wear a mask over. The FLU, while less lethal, has a similar infection rate. The Flu's able to kill, why not shut down for it too whenever it's Flu season, is the point of view they make.

End of the day, nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, proves that all these people *DON'T* wear masks *BECAUSE* of Trump! At most, maybe a SMALL HANDFUL of those who don't. Don't place blame on Trump what can be blamed on common human belief and/or stupidity.

NOTE: Yes, I wear a mask when I go out. That doesn't mean I don't TRY to understand their point of view.


----------



## AkGBA (Oct 7, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The US Health care system is a mess, but I don't believe making it a socialistic system would help. That would just remove the freedom you have to choose what Doctors you see or what operations you can have.



There's a middle ground you know.
I live in a country with universal healthcare, and you can choose the doctor you want, and have the procedures you want/need (if your doctor agrees).


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> There's a middle ground you know.
> I live in a country with universal healthcare, and you can choose the doctor you want, and have the procedures you want/need (if your doctor agrees).


See, this is what I mean. A more socialistic healthcare system CAN work. You can work it to a middleground, but a more socialist-style one would NOT hurt, it could only help by removing a degree of the problems in the system.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> There's a middle ground you know.
> I live in a country with universal healthcare, and you can choose the doctor you want, and have the procedures you want/need (if your doctor agrees).



Yeah, but this is the USA. If you think all the greedy fucked up people who run the system now are just going to retire and the new system will be full of people that actually give a shit you're delusional. We'd only be giving more power to the assholes that control things now. Look at things that are actual human rights, like the freedom of speech, assembly and the right to bear arms. There's so many damned restrictions and rules regarding things that are supposed to be free it's insane. I don't think giving the people in control now absolute power over the peoples choices would fix anything.

Liberals - "The government is evil, let's give them more power".

Me - "Yeah, nope".


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 7, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> HOW did it 'add' to the problem? Do you honestly see anyone actually saying "Well Trump said it's okay so it's okay"? No. You see people CLAIMING people are doing it BECAUSE Trump is downplaying it. There's no evidence, just a lot of finger pointing and conspiracy. And as I've pointed out in ANOTHER topic - the media LOVES its conspiracy theories of all sorts.
> 
> People take it not seriously because in the larger scheme it's a not-serious threat. A 1% deathrate is nowhere near the level of threat those people believe is necessary to shut down everything and wear a mask over. The FLU, while less lethal, has a similar infection rate. The Flu's able to kill, why not shut down for it too whenever it's Flu season, is the point of view they make.
> 
> ...


Actually, yes, yes I do hear people saying shit along those lines. I work in a sales job where I get several people who have told me some conspiracy they either attribute to Trump or is repeated in Conservative circles. Does this reflect everyone? Of course not. These kinds of people are in the minority. That being said, I feel like you might be misinterpreting what I am trying to explain, what I am trying to say is that continuing to downplay the issue plays into why many people downplay COVID. This isn't to say Trump is telling people not to wear a mask but it is to say that Trump pretending COVID isn't a big deal affects people. I am not saying the blame squarely falls on him, I am just saying that he's not helping by downplaying things. I don't think I worded my previous posts very well, so that's something I will own up to. I tend to tackle things from a very emotional direction and get a bit heated at times. That being said, it's not the death rate that's the issue, it's the rapid rate of spread and lack of treatment that is an issue. The flu is pretty well understood and a new vaccine is pretty quickly created every year and or with every new strain. The flu is also understood enough to the point where we do have treatments for it and this is coupled with the lack of long-term side-effects related to catching the flu. COVID, on the other hand, doesn't have this same level of understanding, treatment, nor preventatives beyond social distancing, maskings, and regular cleanliness. There's also the fact that catching COVID comes with an increased risk of long-term side-effects that still aren't fully understood.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Actually, yes, yes I do hear people saying shit along those lines. I work in a sales job where I get several people who have told me some conspiracy they either attribute to Trump or is repeated in Conservative circles. Does this reflect everyone? Of course not. These kinds of people are in the minority. That being said, I feel like you might be misinterpreting what I am trying to explain, what I am trying to say is that continuing to downplay the issue plays into why many people downplay COVID. This isn't to say Trump is telling people not to wear a mask but it is to say that Trump pretending COVID isn't a big deal affects people. I am not saying the blame squarely falls on him, I am just saying that he's not helping by downplaying things. I don't think I worded my previous posts very well, so that's something I will own up to. I tend to tackle things from a very emotional direction and get a bit heated at times. That being said, it's not the death rate that's the issue, it's the rapid rate of spread and lack of treatment that is an issue. The flu is pretty well understood and a new vaccine is pretty quickly created every year and or with every new strain. The flu is also understood enough to the point where we do have treatments for it and this is coupled with the lack of long-term side-effects related to catching the flu. COVID, on the other hand, doesn't have this same level of understanding, treatment, nor preventatives beyond social distancing, maskings, and regular cleanliness. There's also the fact that catching COVID comes with an increased risk of long-term side-effects that still aren't fully understood.



Even if I hinged on every one of Trump's words he doesn't have to downplay it because I wasn't concerned about it back in December 2019 and I'm still not concerned. Sure, if there's mask rules I'll either wear one or not enter the place that requires them and maybe I'm washing my hands a little more than normal, but I'm not afraid of COVID19. Taking simple precautions doesn't indicate fear. However, I don't blindly follow anyone and am old enough to know that most leaders will downplay the seriousness of all sorts of fucked up events in an attempt to keep people from panicking. Leaders being leaders like normal is nothing new. I would actually feel sorry for anyone that would blindly follow others, which is why I feel sorry for Liberals.


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 7, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Yeah, but this is the USA. If you think all the greedy fucked up people who run the system now are just going to retire and the new system will be full of people that actually give a shit you're delusional. We'd only be giving more power to the assholes that control things now. Look at things that are actual human rights, like the freedom of speech, assembly and the right to bear arms. There's so many damned restrictions and rules regarding things that are supposed to be free it's insane. I don't think giving the people in control now absolute power over the peoples choices would fix anything.
> 
> Liberals - "The government is evil, let's give them more power".
> 
> Me - "Yeah, nope".


Imagine being a complete fucking retard that's never actually worked in government or healthcare and thinking yo know anything. Go fuck yourself


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Imagine being a complete fucking retard that's never actually worked in government or healthcare and thinking yo know anything. Go fuck yourself



Hey, at least I'm not the one scared of a not-so-deadly virus. Sorry buddy, but the sky isn't falling.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> This isn't to say Trump is telling people not to wear a mask but it is to say that Trump pretending COVID isn't a big deal affects people.


Because it isn't. As far as 'lethal' viruses go it doesn't even enter the Top 10.

https://ceufast.com/blog/historys-deadliest-viruses-illustrated-to-scale
https://chippenhammed.com/blog/entry/historys-nine-most-contagious-diseases-where-are-they-now

Hell, don't even meet top 15 lethality, at best it's #10 on infection rate. All but maybe 2 of those viruses still exist today. Their mortality rates were FAR WORSE than Corona. *Corona literally isn't within the top 10 of either, and some of these like rabies appeared on TWO lists - most lethal AND most contagious*. Hell HIV/AIDS had at its peak a FAR higher mortality AND infection rate.

Coronavirus is a small blip in history overblown by panic and absurd actions. It is, quite literally, a *joke* in the history of major virus threats overblown by panic because nobody understands how it works, and its perceived lethality and infection rates are about as consistent as Donald Trump himself (1%? 2.3%? 6%? Nobody can make up their f'ing mind about the lethality rate).

Again - HIV/AIDs was far worse and yet we never went into lockdown over it. And back then science was worse and less likely to discover ANYTHING about the virus. I don't

I don't buy anyone treating Coronavirus as more than a minor threat, at best, myself.


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 7, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Hey, at least I'm not the one scared of a not-so-deadly virus. Sorry buddy, but the sky isn't falling.


Oh sorry you’re right and every other expert in the world is wrong. I should’ve know .


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Oh sorry you’re right and every other expert in the world is wrong. I should’ve know .



Being scared of something is a personal choice. You may not approve or understand why another person is scared of something, but being scared doesn't mean you're right or wrong. The reason you don't hear the voices of the people that are acting within reason and following logic is because the major players on the Internet censor and delete anyone that won't go along with the main stream media's lies. COVID isn't that deadly nor do I worry about catching it. I'm with the people who are willing to infect themselves and test potential vaccines, again, because it's not that deadly. You're free to be scared of and it do whatever it is you want to do. That's the beauty of living in a free country as if I turned into a socialist country you'd no longer have freedom to do what you want to do or say what you want to say.


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 7, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Being scared of something is a personal choice. You may not approve or understand why another person is scared of something, but being scared doesn't mean you're right or wrong. The reason you don't hear the voices of the people that are acting within reason and following logic is because the major players on the Internet censor and delete anyone that won't go along with the main stream media's lies. COVID isn't that deadly nor do I worry about catching it. I'm with the people who are willing to infect themselves and test potential vaccines, again, because it's not that deadly. You're free to be scared of and it do whatever it is you want to do. That's the beauty of living in a free country as if I turned into a socialist country you'd no longer have freedom to do what you want to do or say what you want to say.


Lol Jesus Christ you fucking jackass. I don’t  see how you people really believe this stuff. America ranks pretty low on the freedom index. I don’t think you understand what people mean by “socialism” or even understand our own system of government. I may not agree with the general Democratic Party but if the current leader of this country made the right decisions less Americans would be dead. If people were supportive of science and reason the impact on our economy would’ve been lessened. Things are worse because of the Conservative party. And the “liberals” as you call them are further to the right in America than conservatives elsewhere. Biden is so ridiculously conservative a candidate. It’s upsetting that people like you can be so fucking stupid and think you’re right


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Lol Jesus Christ you fucking jackass. I don’t  see how you people really believe this stuff. America ranks pretty low on the freedom index. I don’t think you understand what people mean by “socialism” or even understand our own system of government. I may not agree with the general Democratic Party but if the current leader of this country made the right decisions less Americans would be dead. If people were supportive of science and reason the impact on our economy would’ve been lessened. Things are worse because of the Conservative party. And the “liberals” as you call them are further to the right in America than conservatives elsewhere. Biden is so ridiculously conservative a candidate. It’s upsetting that people like you can be so fucking stupid and think you’re right



It's funny how people blame Trump for the virus deaths in light of the fact he started acting in January to combat it and all the Democrats and Liberals did was call him "racist" for closing the borders and putting together teams of people to deal with the threat. During the entire time Trump was acting, which was during January and February the Liberals and Democrats only concern was to impeach Trump as they didn't lift a finger to combat the virus. If you're going to play the blame game at least get your facts straight.


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 7, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It's funny how people blame Trump for the virus deaths in light of the fact he started acting in January to combat it and all the Democrats and Liberals did was call him "racist" for closing the borders and putting together teams of people to deal with the threat. During the entire time Trump was acting, which was during January and February the Liberals and Democrats only concern was to impeach Trump as they didn't lift a finger to combat the virus. If you're going to play the blame game at least get your facts straight.


Ok what did he do to combat the virus? There’s quotes from late February where he was downplaying it. In March he was insistent on not closing the country. In May he insisted on reopening the country. And what borders did you think he closed? You’re so “open minded” but all I see you do is parroting the same ridiculous talking points the RNC does. And for someone that doesn’t hang onto trumps every word you’re defending him vehemently. I’d have more respect for republicans if they weren’t a bunch of pussies scared of everything. They masquerade every action as being for freedom or religious rights when it’s all about stuffing their own pockets in some way. They don’t care about anyone’s rights or healthcare. They don’t even actually care about abortion. They just use these pathetic talking points as a means of control. We’re a fucking laughing stock because of idiots like you that want to pretend you’re so much better and smarter than everyone. You’re so insistent on being contrarian you just sound fucking dense. You people call others weak and snowflakes while getting offended at every turn. Other countries closed down briefly and have already begun recovering. Our lack of initial action worsened the situation and as a result we’re looking at a second wave of this shit.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Ok what did he do to combat the virus? There’s quotes from late February where he was downplaying it. In March he was insistent on not closing the country. In May he insisted on reopening the country. And what borders did you think he closed? You’re so “open minded” but all I see you do is parroting the same ridiculous talking points the RNC does. And for someone that doesn’t hang onto trumps every word you’re defending him vehemently. I’d have more respect for republicans if they weren’t a bunch of pussies scared of everything. They masquerade every action as being for freedom or religious rights when it’s all about stuffing their own pockets in some way. They don’t care about anyone’s rights or healthcare. They don’t even actually care about abortion. They just use these pathetic talking points as a means of control. We’re a fucking laughing stock because of idiots like you that want to pretend you’re so much better and smarter than everyone. You’re so insistent on being contrarian you just sound fucking dense. You people call others weak and snowflakes while getting offended at every turn. Other countries closed down briefly and have already begun recovering. Our lack of initial action worsened the situation and as a result we’re looking at a second wave of this shit.



You're free to deny Trump started responding to the virus threat back in January and the Liberals/Democrats didn't until March, but that's what happened. I'm defending Trump because everyone is attacking him all of the time and he's the President of the USA. I did the same for Obama, Clinton, and a couple of Bush's plus Reagan. If Trump didn't start acting while all the Democrats did was call him racist then I'd state he didn't act soon enough, but history tells a different story than what the Liberals are selling.

I also care about aborted babies. Just because I don't want to raise other people's kids or pay their way to raise them doesn't mean I don't care that unborn human life is murdered on a daily basis. The two parents should be responsible and raise their child and that includes clothing, feeding and providing shelter and care. It's not my fault other people are horrible parents nor is it my job to pay for or raise other people's children.

I also don't get how you can claim I'm offended like a snowflake. You've been calling me all sorts of names and all I've been doing is chuckling a little. I'm not offended by your attacks nor offended because other people don't like Trump. The Left owns the label of perpetually offended, not me.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 7, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Imagine being a complete fucking retard that's never actually worked in government or healthcare and thinking yo know anything. Go fuck yourself



Sounds like you are talking about yourself. Such irony.

His comments are 100% true and the forefathers built the system the way they did hoping to avoid exactly what is going on and has been going on.

Providing examples of universal healthcare in another country and saying it works, and saying I don't see why it can't be simple to make it the same here is so short sighted it is not funny.

In the USA we already have anywhere from 250,000 - 450,000 people killed by medical error/malpractive per year.  Do you think if you get the government involved at that level that would get better or worse?



Rj.MoG said:


> Lol Jesus Christ you fucking jackass. I don’t  see how you people really believe this stuff. America ranks pretty low on the freedom index. I don’t think you understand what people mean by “socialism” or even understand our own system of government. I may not agree with the general Democratic Party but if the current leader of this country made the right decisions less Americans would be dead. If people were supportive of science and reason the impact on our economy would’ve been lessened. Things are worse because of the Conservative party. And the “liberals” as you call them are further to the right in America than conservatives elsewhere. Biden is so ridiculously conservative a candidate. It’s upsetting that people like you can be so fucking stupid and think you’re right



The irony is so strong with you, quit smelling your own farts.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 7, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> His comments are 100% true and the forefathers built the system the way they did hoping to avoid exactly what is going on and has been going on.



QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

 “A Republic, *if you can keep it.*” 

*Freedom isn't free.*



> AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
> 
> ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 7, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Sounds like you are talking about yourself. Such irony.
> 
> His comments are 100% true and the forefathers built the system the way they did hoping to avoid exactly what is going on and has been going on.
> 
> ...


The forefathers were in their mid 20s. They were children not some messiahs. I hate how people hold them up on a pedestal like geniuses. They created a deeply flawed system that’s cracks are starting to show in a young nation.


gregory-samba said:


> QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, *if you can keep it.*”
> 
> *Freedom isn't free.*


Woah a quote! I’m defeated. I’m voting for TRUMP


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 8, 2020)

If you give up your freedoms, you don't get them back.


----------



## _abysswalker_ (Oct 8, 2020)

A 2-party system lobbied, sponsored and steered by corporate/external interests can only, and at best, yield the lesser evil. It forces anyone who doesn't agree with party A to fall in line (whether one likes it or not) with party B. This duality seems to be everywhere in the U.S. - create a multitude of opposing pillars, polarize them and let the emotional roller-coaster that follows be your smokescreen. By the time policy A or notion B is in effect the people on the ground are exhausted by tearing themselves out.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If you give up your freedoms, you don't get them back.



Without a bunch of dead bodies anyways


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 8, 2020)

CallmeBerto said:


> Without a bunch of dead bodies anyways


Republicans have long given up the guise of protecting any freedom. They’ve stolen land, sold privacy rights and physical rights out from under us. Anyone that defends them as if they care about anyone’s rights can eat one.


splymb said:


> A 2-party system lobbied, sponsored and steered by corporate/external interests can only, and at best, yield the lesser evil. It forces anyone who doesn't agree with party A to fall in line (whether one likes it or not) with party B. This duality seems to be everywhere in the U.S. - create a multitude of opposing pillars, polarize them and let the emotional roller-coaster that follows be your smokescreen. By the time policy A or notion B is in effect the people on the ground are exhausted by tearing themselves out.


Yes. Both parties are crocks of shit. I’m voting for Biden because at least democrats don’t drive by calling my wife a n****, telling my children expletives or throwing beer bottles at us for being a mixed couple. People say how “Obama divided the country”. Fuck that. It just made the racist pieces of shit show their true colors. Our oligarch is failing and with it the people die.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 8, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Republicans have long given up the guise of protecting any freedom. They’ve stolen land, sold privacy rights and physical rights out from under us. Anyone that defends them as if they care about anyone’s rights can eat one.
> 
> Yes. Both parties are crocks of shit. I’m voting for Biden because at least democrats don’t drive by calling my wife a n****, telling my children expletives or throwing beer bottles at us for being a mixed couple. People say how “Obama divided the country”. Fuck that. It just made the racist pieces of shit show their true colors. Our oligarch is failing and with it the people die.



There are bad apples in humans everywhere.  It is not party dependent.  History backs that up.  I believe society as a whole in America is less racist now then before.  Not getting worse.  What state/city do you live in where people still make racist remarks openly to you and your family and throw bottles at them?

And if that was the case why would you not move?

Party affiliation does not indicate if you are racist.  There are liberals who are openly racists, that does not mean they all are.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 8, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Republicans have long given up the guise of protecting any freedom. They’ve stolen land, sold privacy rights and physical rights out from under us. Anyone that defends them as if they care about anyone’s rights can eat one.


What rights did we "sell"?


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 8, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> There are bad apples in humans everywhere.  It is not party dependent.  History backs that up.  I believe society as a whole in America is less racist now then before.  Not getting worse.  What state/city do you live in where people still make racist remarks openly to you and your family and throw bottles at them?
> 
> And if that was the case why would you not move?
> 
> Party affiliation does not indicate if you are racist.  There are liberals who are openly racists, that does not mean they all are.


I lived in Texas but have since moved. Because the area I lived in was a shithole and only got worse over time. And you’re right about party affiliation but only one party openly welcomes those types and protects them. And more recent refuses to condemn them. Things are better than they used to be but right now we are moving backwards. Things are only better and have gotten better over time in the US because of uppity “liberals”.


UltraSUPRA said:


> What rights did we "sell"?


Are you really that out of touch with what’s been happening with our rights to privacy and monitoring agencies? Not aware of citizens United or the patriot act? The only rights that are protected are those of wealthy individuals or corporations. Our government has chosen time and time again to fuck the citizens and what’s best for them.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 8, 2020)

CallmeBerto said:


> Without a bunch of dead bodies anyways


Irony, considering the "freedom" they want has done just that. Pick and choose safety precautions because their leader said so.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 8, 2020)




----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 8, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> I lived in Texas but have since moved. Because the area I lived in was a shithole and only got worse over time. And you’re right about party affiliation but only one party openly welcomes those types and protects them. And more recent refuses to condemn them. Things are better than they used to be but right now we are moving backwards. Things are only better and have gotten better over time in the US because of uppity “liberals”.
> 
> Are you really that out of touch with what’s been happening with our rights to privacy and monitoring agencies? Not aware of citizens United or the patriot act? The only rights that are protected are those of wealthy individuals or corporations. Our government has chosen time and time again to fuck the citizens and what’s best for them.



Not sure what you are saying, over the years Trump has condemned in MANY words numerous times all hate groups which include the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and David Duke specifically.

Here is a video showing Trump doing it 20 separate times over the years.  And even Biden saying he has NEVER done this before.  If you want to lie to yourself that is fine, but it is still a lie.

https://streamable.com/sr9o2s

Trump has even officially done it in text.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump/



> As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  It has no place in America.
> 
> And as I have said many times before:  No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.  We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
> 
> Racism is evil.  And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.



Democrats get as many intolerant nutjobs as republicans get (or more)  There are good people in every race/political group on this planet, but also bad.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 8, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Not sure what you are saying, over the years Trump has condemned in MANY words numerous times all hate groups which include the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and David Duke specifically.
> 
> Here is a video showing Trump doing it 20 separate times over the years.  And even Biden saying he has NEVER done this before.  If you want to lie to yourself that is fine, but it is still a lie.
> 
> ...



Just more Liberal lies, although, the default reaction from the Left is to not watch the video and keep living in a fantasy world.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 8, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *Just more *Liberal* lies*, although, the default reaction from the Left is to not watch the video and keep living in a fantasy world.


Let's not forget that *Donald Trump* is the leader of the Republican Party.


----------



## Rj.MoG (Oct 8, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Not sure what you are saying, over the years Trump has condemned in MANY words numerous times all hate groups which include the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and David Duke specifically.
> 
> Here is a video showing Trump doing it 20 separate times over the years.  And even Biden saying he has NEVER done this before.  If you want to lie to yourself that is fine, but it is still a lie.
> 
> ...


Dude I don’t know what kind of lala land you live in but ok. I also condemned democrats in my posts. But keep voting Republican if it makes you feel better. I’m done with this shit.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 8, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Dude I don’t know what kind of lala land you live in but ok. I also condemned democrats in my posts. But keep voting Republican if it makes you feel better. I’m done with this shit.


Anyone who condemns both Democrats and Republicans is OK in my book.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 8, 2020)

Rj.MoG said:


> Dude I don’t know what kind of lala land you live in but ok. I also condemned democrats in my posts. But keep voting Republican if it makes you feel better. I’m done with this shit.



The post I responded to you said:



> And you’re right about party affiliation but only one party openly welcomes those types and protects them. And more recent refuses to condemn them.



That was why I responded with what I did.  You made a statement that is jut not true.  Now if you actually meant the democrats, I was mistaken. 

I did not vote for Trump in 2016, I also did not vote for Clinton in 2016.  At the time I knew how crooked Hilary Clinton was/is and politicians often say whatever they think you want to hear in order to get elected.  And I thought there is no way Trump would be good for this country.  But in the last 4 years I see I was totally wrong to have judged Trump at that time, Trump is capable regardless of how polarizing his personality is.  He does what he says he is going to do, he actually made so many positive changes that had improvements for people across the board.  Liberals like to say yeah only the rich benefited.  Nope, not correct.   And there is so much data to back that up.  That liberals love to ignore.  The data supports this.

So yeah I am going to vote Trump this year, and almost everyone I know will be doing the same.  Honestly I would probably vote for any republican at this point in order to avoid what would occur with our country if the Democrats were to win this election.  I get the whole psychology around "Fans" of either party.  But honestly with democrats I feel like you truly are fanatical for you to ignore  the fact you have been conned with your emotions this entire time.  Kind of like the debates last night with the VP's.  Everyone keeps asking the Trump team if they will accept the election results.  Democrats still have not accepted the 2016 results, to the point that I believe people in the democratic party from recent proof did things that are treasonous.  Biden and Harris will change what they say at any given time to get your vote, they will pander to other racist liberals for their votes and they don't care.   I am sure this kind of crap has been going on for a long time at the top of our political food chain.  If Biden and Harris are elected their handlers will make sure things are adjusted so this never occurs again and the corruption will be much worse.


----------



## notimp (Oct 8, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I did not vote for Trump in 2016, I also did not vote for Clinton in 2016. At the time I knew how crooked Hilary Clinton was/is and politicians often say whatever they think you want to hear in order to get elected.


First you fake to be an undecided voter and not a hardcore.
Then you use the naming scheme dreamed up and allowed into political discussion by Trump, that has one purpose, and one purpose only. To destroy debate. Crooked Hilary can never loose crooked status, and this is so much fun - every one with nothing to say laughs about it. Ha ha ha. End of everything you want to teach everyone around you. Just prevent them from learning more, and keep them amused.

Then you double down an that fact, by reminding everyone that politicians lie.
-

Lets look at this structurally, why dont we. Vicepresidential debate serves as a great education piece.

What politicians are during an election campaign, and sometimes in general.

Ego driven liars trying to bring you on their side, so they can get societal recognition and power. On both sides, in almost all cases, this is how the system works. Both sides lied and manipulated their asses off while talking to the public. Both sides went through a plethora of rhetorical tricks, while doing so. Both side know that they are speaking to entirely dumb, uneducated bafoons, which they believe will be convinced by a display of 'asserting leadership', faking 'common set of values' ('i'm the best vessel/puppet' for your interests'), and pretty much nothing else.

When they reach a position of power, they are supposed to rule 'in the best interest of their constituency' which either means personal corruption, or the promise of kickbacks later in lives, in almost all cases.

If you are religiously motivatable, you'll be lied to, if you are emotionally motivatable, you'll be lied to. If you are idiologically motivatable, you will be lied to, if you are logically motivatable - you will be lied to (by preselection of topics that are 'fit for debate').

If you win as a politician you are supposed to wield your power to further the development of your constituency, all restraints for 'higher goals' in a society without ideals, have been snuffed.

Instead of it you gain emotionally loaded "values", that are only there to reduce voters to the reptilian brain function level, where they are even easier to manipulate. When in 2020 you are discussing 'babykillers' before an election again, you roughly know whats expected of you as a voter.

And on that level, we could end the discussion, and dumb down the process to its  ultimate end.

If it werent for the topics that can also be chosen for societal significance. (Activism can bring them onto the agenda.)
--

Democracy is just the system that allows for peaceful transition of power, as well as separation of power.

But you can undermine even that, as long as you can confuse the public for long enough.
--

Which is largely the problem, when a Vice president in a debate does two personal emotional callbacks to families that lost a son, then argues that Trump cant be a racist, because of his jewish grandchildren, and purposefully holds back information, that they killed an iranian general in violation of international law, without jurisdiction - and played the 'I dont know why you have not supported that' card - because quote "they were a bad man". And then read the future on that the pragmatic person in front of him was an ultra idealist, and would ban fracking, just because, they said so five years back, when not running for vice president.

If you get down to that level of idiocy. You can charge up your fans with literally anything (bread and circuses), give them slogans to chant - and do whatever you like -- which most likely will never be in the interest of the people.

Part of this is whats expected, and whats needed, because as a leader you cant be a slave to 'ideals' or doctrines, when put on a spot - you are supposed to make decisions based on circumstances, and largely 'cost benefit'. So you should be able to lie, and you should be able to change your position at whim - for something akin to a 'greater goal'. (Usually the benefit of society.) Which you dont believe in - in the poetical sense. But claim, that you do.

So the idea in any election is to fake the reasonably concerned guy or gal, that also can wield power, and make tough decisions, best. Everyone knows it everyone expects it. Thats how its supposed to work.

Yet, if you manage to run an entire election on superflous stuff, you can let yourself be payed by financial interests, and just sell american people elections as entertainment.
--

Which brings us to the main criticism of the republican party, these days. (You can do one for the democrats later..  )

You prevent any cooperation, any progress, any balance, any public education, any separation of power (f.e. by the way you pick judges (you pick idiots with strong political affiliations (down to religious cults)), and any discussion about societal topics that arent religious conflicts from the middle ages. Let yourself be paid f.e. by the industrial and energy lobby - and this would still be acceptable in a democracy like the US - unless the public notices. Also you destroy international relations, and by some estimates even the world, but you think that in any case, there would be someone stopping you from doing it, if it were actually relevant. Probably within your own lines.

Same thing on the left. You promise a notion of caring about groups and not individuals, that if push comes to shove you always have to shed, and that you forget about, when things reach 'procedural normalcy' (we dont want too much change). You lie to people about the 'job creation potential' of green new deal jobs. You invented current day 'identity politics'. And you sell out to progressive interests that invested in developments of new sectors, or transnational cooperation (which is hedging your bets, in that sector, currently - because the other people went ultra nationalist. (But just in verbiage, not so much in economic planning. Well - apart from fracking (lower energy costs).))

The only thing thats different is to what people you sell out. And american people are supposed to pick between 'change' and 'four more years'.

But here is the kicker, dont get too disillusioned by this not to vote, because if you do - public sentiment is even easier to manipulate/manage. 

Now live with that. 

edit:

If thats too much for you - rejoice in the notion, that if you are not a person intrinsicly driven to power, not caring about abusing or lying to others, you still have institutions that dont bank on 'the will of the people', but more rational concepts of managing societies.

Because, yes - all of this comes as a result of how people work. As individuals, as leaders, as groups, and as populations.

If you want to believe in something else, you'll be manipulated. But since you likely be anyhow - you might as well believe in public displays of values, or some 'sh*t' (sorry  ) like that.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> First you fake to be an undecided voter and not a hardcore.
> Then you use the naming scheme dreamed up and allowed into political discussion by Trump, that has one purpose, and one purpose only. To destroy debate. Crooked Hilary can never loose crooked status, and this is so much fun - every one with nothing to say laughs about it. Ha ha ha. End of everything you want to teach everyone around you. Just prevent them from learning more, and keep them amused.



I used the word crooked not because it is Trumps word but because that is how I have always viewed her.  Same with her husband, you do realize they both have a very sorted history in politics that goes MANY years back.  Just because I used that word does not mean anything outside of the word itself.  It is not some secret Trump sign that I used to debate with.  I really think she is crooked, and same with her husband.  I always have.

Edit: I just re-read what I had actually said.  I did not call her Crooked Hillary, I said that she was crooked.  You are really gone aren't you?

The very recent declassification of the documents that Obama was fully aware of to tie The Trump Campaign to Russia to distract the public from her email scandal is very crooked and fits perfectly with my sentiments towards her and her pedophile husband.

I did not bother reading any more of what you had to say because if one single word can make you decide you know my intents are, I have 0 interest in having a discussion with you.


----------



## notimp (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I used the word crooked not because it is Trumps word but because that is how I have always viewed her


Then it comes down to why? Because they founded a foundation that is actively engaged in foreign politics?

Most of the scandals she is known for are low tier not so much of an issue.

Foundation arguably got donations for access to political decision makers, which is a conflict of interest - but a similar thing to what lobbyist would do as well.

Or the other way around, whats so inherently bad about the clinton foundation?

Email server is problemetic if you gage this from the publics perspective, but presidents have done similar, and in a sense worse things in the past by founding presidential libraries and storing their documents there, so they have control over when, if at all documents become part of the public record.

So whats so special about her? As an informed comment, and how is she going to defend her position, if the otherside just calls her names, and tries to have them stick?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

notimp said:


> Then it comes down to why? Because they founded a foundation that is actively engaged in foreign politics?
> 
> Most of the scandals she is known for are low tier not so much of an issue.
> 
> ...



I find it odd, you ask why and I even gave you one recent example in my response.  Why did you not comment on that?



> The very recent declassification of the documents that Obama was fully aware of to tie The Trump Campaign to Russia to distract the public from her email scandal is very crooked and fits perfectly with my sentiments towards her and her pedophile husband.


----------



## notimp (Oct 9, 2020)

Sure, her husband is not pedofile until proven guilty.
Campaigning is a dirty business, and the russia connection was in place. Hillary didnt make him do it.

Its just that responsibility delegation and potential deniability were in place on the Trump side as well (you have a patsy meet with them, who then can admit responsibility, and get fired). And that is far easier for Trump, once elected and the US establishment in general, to find opportunities/to buy him off 'interest wise', and in terms of potential business ventures for his children, than to "fight a public morals war that contains the word russia" in it for what five years now?

Russian influence was always gonna be smaller than establishment interest in the US, once the man got elected. I mean who are we kidding here...

You have no proof what soever, that there is a 'because you did this, we do that' anywhere in the example you bring. Campaign politics is a dirty business.

But - and as I've always said, the russian influence on US elections was overplayed, this was always obvious, and if you fell for it, thats you being played - I can take no responsibility for that. (And dont worry, I even met people in liberal european meetups that mistook it for truth we absolutely have to protect against, and take action on. Which in some european countries you do - but for jebus sake, not because you learned about it, when Hilary made it a talking point...)

Why you bring this up at this point - is beyond me - because even the admission that Obama was briefed, that this was a Clinton campaign hitpiece, is a whole lot of nothing. Of course it was. For freaks sake, all of a sudden all support for Assange dropped on the side of the DNC, and they wouldnt even give interviews on the topic anymore?

The email scandal, pretty much got a 1:1 repetition in the Trump administration with the presidents in office daughter - and it has been a long time practice by standing presidents to hand over their office documents to a foundation they themself found, called a presidential library, to prevent freedom of information requests.

Freedom of information requests, that btw. mostly media only ever brings forward. I've never see a radio host or youtuber do it. Its called investigative journalism, people dont understand it anymore, these days.. 

If you can produce outrage over this, thats only focused on one person, that in itself doesnt seem quite fair.

And you can stop provoking at this point, because if you know nothing about how politics functions, taking part of a PR spiel, and running with it - running it into the ground even, doesnt help.

You still are faked out. You have no idea whats important or not, you are crying you heart out over stuff of little to no structural importance, no legal importance, and you still run with rumors (pedophile) that can destroy a person (just the rumors alone).

And you get wet and all flustered, because a CIA intel chief, selectively declassified documents, with the word Obama in it - that say close to nothing, and are released for another political theatre piece.

I couldnt be this dumb to make this into a cohesive 'crooked' betrayal story - if I tried.

You just know too little, and are tripped up by every little piece of political theatre there is. Then you drum up an audience for it.

If you dont want to bother to learn more than the talking points, when you should be outraged, because someone told you so - then dont, but then also dont waste my time... And dont be astonished, if I call you someone that moves propaganda to misinform other people.

No one is trying to paint their candidate into the highly moral superior being you long for, because everyone knows, that this would be considered 'weak' by a voting public. But everyone is telling children stories, to make the candidate of the other side look like not that highly of a moral superior being. Yes, of course not. What campaign PR is over exaggerating the ultimate importance of a thing? I'm shocked, I tell you, absolutely shocked.

You know that shock ads are a thing since the 1980s? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_advertising )


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sure, her husband is not pedofile until proven guilty.
> Campaigning is a dirty business, and the russia connection was in place. Hillary didnt make him do it.
> 
> Its just that responsibility delegation and potential deniability were in place on the Trump side as well (you have a patsy meet with them, who then can admit responsibility, and get fired). And that is far easier for Trump, once elected and the US establishment in general, to find opportunities/to buy him off 'interest wise', and in terms of potential business ventures for his children, than to "fight a public morals war that contains the word russia" in it for what five years now?
> ...





> Why you bring this up at this point - is beyond me



I gave you 1 VERY specific item that was uncovered recently that proves without a doubt she was doing something crooked.  Likely a felony level offense.  And both Obama and (likely Biden) knew about this.

John Brennan briefed Obama in 2016 on Hillary's plan to created this scandal tying Trump  to Russia with the sole purpose to distract the controversy over her private mail server.

She was trying to kill two birds with one stone.  If evidence was uncovered with Trump doing the same, liberal nuts would be asking for his death because for some it would be considered Treason.

The double standards in people like you that you apply to logic is crazy.


----------



## notimp (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I gave you 1 VERY specific item that was uncovered recently that proves without a doubt she was doing something crooked. Likely a felony level offense. And both Obama and (likely Biden) knew about this.


No. First not a felony level offense. Just a PR spiel. Felony offense for what - bringing attention to a topic?

Second - again, 'her campaign' was doing it, not her personally - again potential deniability, you'll find a campain manager that takes the fall.

You attributing that to her personally is a logic jump. Making her 'crooked' for it also is one.

Whats the offense here, except for 'telling the public'?

You gave one current example of 'complete nothingness' thats used as another piece of pre election theatre. This year.

If thats your proof for 'crookedness' you have nothing.

Remember when you were going on about Benghazi all summer, once? Thats pretty much the same thing, coming from the other side. Is that crooked?

If you dont understand that CIA and 'declassified' doesnt always mean scandal. Or highly moral offense. I cant help. Sometimes it just means political favor. And distraction.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

notimp said:


> No. First not a felony level offense. Just a PR spiel. Felony offense for what - bringing attention to a topic?
> 
> Second - again, 'her campaign' was doing it, not her personally - again potential deniability, you'll find a campain manager that takes the fall.
> 
> ...



You are making excuses to why what she did does not rise to the level of what I said exposes her as being "crooked"

But this, but that, etc..  It's not really her.  The fact of the matter is that it happened and Hillary was behind it.  It is 1 item in a long list of things that I believe make her crooked.

And the funny thing to me is that this 1 crooked item she did was created to distract from another crooked item she did.  But I am sure you have a bunch of reasons that is cool with you also.  (Which you don't need to tell me - I get it)

You are cool with her actions, many are not.  Try and give Trump the same benefit of doubt. (That is a joke, you are incapable)

And I never said anything about Benghazi, not sure what you are talking about.


----------



## notimp (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> But this, but that, etc.. It's not really her. The fact of the matter is that it happened and Hillary was behind it. It is 1 item in a long list of things that I believe make her crooked.


Yeah, what if that long list never existed, and someone just made it up.

Because accusing a PR campaign of doing PR stunts... Well is of limited use.

But you are correct, in our exchange I'm 'finding excuses' on behalf of a political person or party (DNC) that I dont have an affiliation with. I dont like that. But if the accusations are almost entirely - thin air - then its hard for me not to take position here.

Once more - read my reaction to the vice presidential debate. Both sides lie, willingly and knowingly to embellish their position. Both sides are using rhetorical gambits that are far worse than accusing your political opponent to affiliate with russian security sources (which the campaign did).

And the point of attacking your opponents character in a political campaign is actually to point at character flaws. Not to say - that somewhere in their institution, something amoral happened, and that they might have condoned it. If thats you definition of a character flaw, and in addition your rectification of calling someone by a damaging nickname in public, five years after the initial event - I want to know why.

But there is a long list...

Coulndt it be - just in theory, that all those excuses and allegations you heard were attack PR? With almost nothing behind? And that you took so much to that, that even five years later you are using the catchphrases they coined?

Ok, Clinton foundation needs financing, where do they get it from. As a foundation. You find out.  (Learn what foundations are..  )


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yeah, what if that long list never existed, and someone just made it up.
> 
> Because accusing a PR campaign of doing PR stunts... Well is of limited use.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with you that politicians lie.  And it is a political game for many of them.

You know my feelings towards Hillary and I know you are fine with the game she plays.

I don't agree with you on the 1st VP debate.

And I personally think at this point in time that the best outcome for me and my family is another Republican win this election.  If they take the house also, that would be awesome.

And if I can't have my wish I hope that at least republicans control the Senate to keep Kamala at bay.


----------



## notimp (Oct 9, 2020)

Yes, and this outcome was not informed by anything in the discussion and fixed in your mind for a while. Can you give reasons? No. Can you explain your feels, why you dont agree with the pretty much fact based assesment on the first debate - just a bit dark, but still? No.

Do I care - frankly no - but still, once you try to flog your idea of 'why to vote for a politician, because of a nickname - I cant explain, why I'm using" - we clash.

Because your display of complete not understanding of the political - sure lets call it game. Makes you not able to influence the voting decisions of others positively.

That you stick to your schemes of explanations, which include allegories, stories, and feelings makes you unfit to discuss anything aproximating realpolitics. In that case better stick to 'I make more than 400k a year so I'd rather not see my taxes increse, and call it a day by voting republican". Even though you went through a national health scare 2x worse than canada, even though your president failed to denounce radical elements of society, even though your vice preseident presented about 10 inspirational stories in the debate instead of educating voters on actual issues -. even though in 50 court of appeals and circuit court replacements, that were granted by this president for life, not a single one was black, even though the replacement pick for supreme court has affiliations to a religious cult, and in debate prooves first and foremost, dull.

You and everyone else that still believes, that you vote for a person, mostly or only - when going into a presidential election.

Because the entire idea, that you call a person by a derogatory nickname for five years, and dont even know why - just because you dont want her to play a role in your life - is not politics. Its something else.

You are basically the reason, why politicians have to lie - in a sense. But dont worry, this time its a good thing, because how would politics look, if people actually debated their opponents in the vice presidential debates based on factual grounds, calling out the manipulation tactics their opponent is pullting? Horrible.

So in conclusion, you just want the pleasant lie. And feel better because once in a while your guy wins. Hey its all to move you forward as a nation. (Its not. But it sounds so much better...) And in essence, this is why most people are 'interested in politics' they confuse it for a team sport.. 


For those still interested in facts, no dems will not forbid fracking, this has become a none issue since OPEC dropped the oil price to below where fracking becomes sustainable.

No the vice president doesnt care about the loss of that military familiy even though he fakes it, because that would mean he never could make a decision where he endangers a life.

Say stop, when you want me to stop popping illusions.. 

But no - its derogatory nickname, conspiracy theory, 'I dont agree delivery' and then scram. No discussion, no reflection on standpoints, not reflection on behavior, no reflection on the nature of politics (pretty pragmatic, and opportunistic, in equal parts, facilitating the economy before society - certainly with Covid relieve).


The point made was not, that politicians lie. Of course they do. We all do - some more, some less. The point made was, why they have to - to win a publics approval.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yes, and this outcome was not informed by anything in the discussion and fixed in your mind for a while. Can you give reasons? No. Can you explain your feels, why you dont agree with the pretty much fact based assesment on the first debate - just a bit dark, but still? No.
> 
> Do I care - frankly no - but still, once you try to flog your idea of 'why to vote for a politician, because of a nickname - I cant explain, why I'm using" - we clash.
> 
> ...



Not even going to bother on all of this, sorry.  I don't follow your logic.

And I don't see you popping any illusions.  I see someone who is delusional.

I will just pick one item:

For those still interested in facts, no dems will not forbid fracking, this has become a none issue since OPEC dropped the oil price to below where fracking becomes sustainable.

They are all on record multiple times saying they will ban it. Biden himself has waffled back and forth on that a few times in the last 30 days.  But of course in your brain that does not matter, because you believe something else negates that.  That is mental gymnastics to avoid the point.

Biden has shown time and time again he is willing to say whatever he needs to say if he thinks you will vote for him.  

I don't understand how you can use the word fact and suggest it would never happen anyhow because of the price of oil at this single point in time.  

You have no idea what the future holds.  If we go based on logic and things going back to normal, it will only go up and has been doing that.  (The only reason it went down for a bit is because I believe it was Libya that put more on the market from lockdown times)  Oil usage is not going down.  LOL

The price of oil will continue to rise as we move forward.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 10, 2020)

California is hell. I'm glad I don't live there. This tweet was from a couple days ago, but I felt the need to post it here anyway.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> California is hell. I'm glad I don't live there. This tweet was from a couple days ago, but I felt the need to post it here anyway.
> View attachment 228019


It appears the anti-maskers have stronger than expected competition in the "who's dumber" contest.


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Oct 15, 2020)

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=660665168219524


----------



## omgcat (Oct 15, 2020)

Seems like trump and his rich pals all took this thing seriously when it first started, while downplaying how bad it actually was.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/trump-administration-warned-its-rich-pals-about-covid-19

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



scroeffie1984 said:


> https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=660665168219524



god i forgot how cancerous facebook is, i deleted mine 3 years ago.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

Trump: Covid? Yeah, I ended it.

*White House science office says Trump ended COVID-19 pandemic as US hits record cases*
https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...ce-says-trump-ended-covid-pandemic-as-us-hits

What a country! What a country.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Trump: Covid? Yeah, I ended it.
> 
> *White House science office says Trump ended COVID-19 pandemic as US hits record cases*
> https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...ce-says-trump-ended-covid-pandemic-as-us-hits
> ...


----------

