Jacques Strap said:

---

Booray said:

---

That does not jibe with 100,000 dead already, would like to see if this CDC model is for solely causing a death or being a contributing cause of death.

If followed though, this is the number of infections v. expected death toll:

(Total infections x 65%) x 0.004

2,000,000 infection-5,200 deaths
5,000,000 infections-13,000 deaths
10,000,000 infections-26,000 deaths
25,000,000 infections-65,000 deaths
50,000,000 infections-130,000 deaths
100,000,000 infections-260,000 deaths
150,000,000 infections-390,000 deaths

I would guess all of the above assume a workable health care system. It would also suggest that if the death numbers are right, we have already had 36,500,000 infections

---

The death numbers are soft based on things I have posted, read and heard from MDs I know. When you get more money for coding COVID as cause of death you will get more COVID deaths. That's a data issue we may never overcome.

Also 35% of cases are estimated to be asymptomatic and the .004 number is fatality rate for symptomatic cases. So take 80,000 deaths / .0026 to get the total case estimate of 30,760,000 that would result in 80,000 deaths. That's a lot of cases given the current 1.6 million positive cases listed on the Johns Hopkis site.

Anyway the interesting thing is the fatality rate just keeps on keep dropping.

---

Two things: your second paragraph seems to just restate my formula, and we get the same results. Are you saying something different?

That was my point when I said given the JHU death number (then at 93.000) we would be at 36.5 million cases. I know people question the death toll, the absence of early testing and think there is a large number of asymptomatic infections, but the order of magnitude of difference suggests that there is still something we are missing here.

As to the death numbers, there seems to me to be pretty simple proof of Covid's lethality. Because the virus so disproportionately impacts the elderly, excess deaths among that age group would be a good indicator of Covid deaths.

In other words, if 100 people age 70+ usually die in a month and 150 die this month with no explanation for the increase , it's a pretty good bet that Covid contributed to the increased deaths.

My guess is that as you look at younger ages, Covid's contribution to the death is clearer. And that becomes truer as more testing was done. In the simplest case, if an otherwise healthy 40 year old tests positive for Covid and dies a week later, the doctor completing the medical certificate isn't guessing or getting extra reimbursement when she says Covid is a cause of death.

All to say the death numbers may be soft in terms of not being 100% certain, but those numbers are not wrong by a an amount that should be material to public health decisions.

Cuomo killed more New Yorkers with this health policy than the hijackers did on 9-11.

https://fee.org/articles/how-states-turned-nursing-homes-into-slaughter-houses-by-forcing-them-to-admit-discharged-covid-19-patients/

Quote:

---

At an April 23 press conference, Gov. Andrew Cuomo sounded indignant when a reporter asked if anyone had objected to New York's policy of forcing nursing homes to admit recently discharged COVID-19 patients.

"They don't have the right to object," Cuomo answered before the reporter finished his question. "That is the rule, and that is the regulation, and they have to comply with it."

New York isn't the only state to adopt a policy ordering long-term care facilities to admit COVID-19-infected patients discharged from hospitals. New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Californiathree states also hit particularly hard by the novel coronaviruspassed similar policies to free up hospital beds to make room for sicker patients.

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Booray said:

---

That does not jibe with 100,000 dead already, would like to see if this CDC model is for solely causing a death or being a contributing cause of death.

If followed though, this is the number of infections v. expected death toll:

(Total infections x 65%) x 0.004

2,000,000 infection-5,200 deaths
5,000,000 infections-13,000 deaths
10,000,000 infections-26,000 deaths
25,000,000 infections-65,000 deaths
50,000,000 infections-130,000 deaths
100,000,000 infections-260,000 deaths
150,000,000 infections-390,000 deaths

I would guess all of the above assume a workable health care system. It would also suggest that if the death numbers are right, we have already had 36,500,000 infections

---

The death numbers are soft based on things I have posted, read and heard from MDs I know. When you get more money for coding COVID as cause of death you will get more COVID deaths. That's a data issue we may never overcome.

Also 35% of cases are estimated to be asymptomatic and the .004 number is fatality rate for symptomatic cases. So take 80,000 deaths / .0026 to get the total case estimate of 30,760,000 that would result in 80,000 deaths. That's a lot of cases given the current 1.6 million positive cases listed on the Johns Hopkis site.

Anyway the interesting thing is the fatality rate just keeps on keep dropping.

---

Two things: your second paragraph seems to just restate my formula, and we get the same results. Are you saying something different?

That was my point when I said given the JHU death number (then at 93.000) we would be at 36.5 million cases. I know people question the death toll, the absence of early testing and think there is a large number of asymptomatic infections, but the order of magnitude of difference suggests that there is still something we are missing here.

As to the death numbers, there seems to me to be pretty simple proof of Covid's lethality. Because the virus so disproportionately impacts the elderly, excess deaths among that age group would be a good indicator of Covid deaths.

In other words, if 100 people age 70+ usually die in a month and 150 die this month with no explanation for the increase , it's a pretty good bet that Covid contributed to the increased deaths.

My guess is that as you look at younger ages, Covid's contribution to the death is clearer. And that becomes truer as more testing was done. In the simplest case, if an otherwise healthy 40 year old tests positive for Covid and dies a week later, the doctor completing the medical certificate isn't guessing or getting extra reimbursement when she says Covid is a cause of death.

All to say the death numbers may be soft in terms of not being 100% certain, but those numbers are not wrong by a an amount that should be material to public health decisions.

---

Sorry, I just missed it.

I do think the lockdown policy was not needed and is a total disaster. Not sure we agree on that..The hospitals were never close to being overwhelmed which was the reason given for the lockdown. So bad policy and not needed.

https://21stcenturywire.com/2020/05/21/report-coronavirus-in-canada-81-percent-of-covid-19-deaths-in-nursing-homes/

Canada: 81 percent of Coronavirus Deaths are in Nursing Homes

Quote:

---

From the beginning of the Coronavirus mass panic, one the main talking points for western governments was that "No one is immune. The disease can kill anyone at any time." Various versions of this propaganda set piece were used and recycled across all media platforms, whereby government's intention was actually to scare the public into accepting 'lockdown' or the shutdown of society and the economic, supposedly in order to "save lives." However, after a number of weeks that fear narrative is rapidly collapsing as real data and evidence comes flowing in which shows that the overwhelming majority of public were never at any serious risk of dying from COVID-19. In Europe, the UK and in the US, the overwhelming majority of COVID fatalities have been with elderly persons, and within that demographic nearly all have been from care homes. This fact alone destroys western governments' case for sweeping lockdown policies and school closures

---

.

Baseball returns in Memphis on the youth level May 22, 2020 / 11:14 PM CDT

https://wreg.com/sports/baseball-returns-in-memphis-on-the-youth-level/

Quote:

---

Friday night in Cordova, GameDay baseball played host to the first sporting event in Memphis since the pandemic began, a three day, 78-team youth baseball tournament.

Just across the state line in Desoto County (MS), another of the south's top baseball facilities, Snowden Grove in Southaven, remains closed.

So far during this pandemic, Snowden Grove has been forced to cancel seven tournaments, upwards of 800 teams.

Friday, Mississippi governor Tate Reeves announced plans to safely reopen outdoor facilities.

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

---

Last I checked, Trump supported the rule of law. And Michigan's law limits the governor to 30 days of emergency without the legislature's consent.

If nothing else, this will keep the lawyers busy fight other lawyers, which alone makes the state safer for the rest of us.

Jacques Strap said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Booray said:

---

That does not jibe with 100,000 dead already, would like to see if this CDC model is for solely causing a death or being a contributing cause of death.

If followed though, this is the number of infections v. expected death toll:

(Total infections x 65%) x 0.004

2,000,000 infection-5,200 deaths
5,000,000 infections-13,000 deaths
10,000,000 infections-26,000 deaths
25,000,000 infections-65,000 deaths
50,000,000 infections-130,000 deaths
100,000,000 infections-260,000 deaths
150,000,000 infections-390,000 deaths

I would guess all of the above assume a workable health care system. It would also suggest that if the death numbers are right, we have already had 36,500,000 infections

---

The death numbers are soft based on things I have posted, read and heard from MDs I know. When you get more money for coding COVID as cause of death you will get more COVID deaths. That's a data issue we may never overcome.

Also 35% of cases are estimated to be asymptomatic and the .004 number is fatality rate for symptomatic cases. So take 80,000 deaths / .0026 to get the total case estimate of 30,760,000 that would result in 80,000 deaths. That's a lot of cases given the current 1.6 million positive cases listed on the Johns Hopkis site.

Anyway the interesting thing is the fatality rate just keeps on keep dropping.

---

Two things: your second paragraph seems to just restate my formula, and we get the same results. Are you saying something different?

That was my point when I said given the JHU death number (then at 93.000) we would be at 36.5 million cases. I know people question the death toll, the absence of early testing and think there is a large number of asymptomatic infections, but the order of magnitude of difference suggests that there is still something we are missing here.

As to the death numbers, there seems to me to be pretty simple proof of Covid's lethality. Because the virus so disproportionately impacts the elderly, excess deaths among that age group would be a good indicator of Covid deaths.

In other words, if 100 people age 70+ usually die in a month and 150 die this month with no explanation for the increase , it's a pretty good bet that Covid contributed to the increased deaths.

My guess is that as you look at younger ages, Covid's contribution to the death is clearer. And that becomes truer as more testing was done. In the simplest case, if an otherwise healthy 40 year old tests positive for Covid and dies a week later, the doctor completing the medical certificate isn't guessing or getting extra reimbursement when she says Covid is a cause of death.

All to say the death numbers may be soft in terms of not being 100% certain, but those numbers are not wrong by a an amount that should be material to public health decisions.

---

Sorry, I just missed it.

I do think the lockdown policy was not needed and is a total disaster. Not sure we agree on that..The hospitals were never close to being overwhelmed which was the reason given for the lockdown. So bad policy and not needed.

---

I would say that the more severe restrictions today appeared flawed and over inclusive, but that we might learn something tomorrow that indicates they were justified. I would also say that the decision makers were working with very limited and often changing information.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

---

Last I checked, Trump supported the rule of law. And Michigan's law limits the governor to 30 days of emergency without the legislature's consent.

If nothing else, this will keep the lawyers busy fight other lawyers, which alone makes the state safer for the rest of us.

---

He "supports the rule of law" because he says he supports it. And that is about it.

The Michigan argument is an interesting one, both sides have decent arguments. That is what Courts are for. But it is purely a state issue under Michigan's state constitution.

Herewith, a recap:

Trump said first he had ultimate authority on this sort of thing (is that what you mean by saying he is for"the rule of law?") then he said Governors should be making these decisions. Now he-through his justice department-is saying, Governors are going too far with the restrictions and should be checked. That was why he privately supported the Georgia governor in loosening restrictions. Right before he told the country the Georgia governor had gone too far in loosening restrictions.

The man has no coherent policy of governance other than "look at me."

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Booray said:

---

That does not jibe with 100,000 dead already, would like to see if this CDC model is for solely causing a death or being a contributing cause of death.

If followed though, this is the number of infections v. expected death toll:

(Total infections x 65%) x 0.004

2,000,000 infection-5,200 deaths
5,000,000 infections-13,000 deaths
10,000,000 infections-26,000 deaths
25,000,000 infections-65,000 deaths
50,000,000 infections-130,000 deaths
100,000,000 infections-260,000 deaths
150,000,000 infections-390,000 deaths

I would guess all of the above assume a workable health care system. It would also suggest that if the death numbers are right, we have already had 36,500,000 infections

---

The death numbers are soft based on things I have posted, read and heard from MDs I know. When you get more money for coding COVID as cause of death you will get more COVID deaths. That's a data issue we may never overcome.

Also 35% of cases are estimated to be asymptomatic and the .004 number is fatality rate for symptomatic cases. So take 80,000 deaths / .0026 to get the total case estimate of 30,760,000 that would result in 80,000 deaths. That's a lot of cases given the current 1.6 million positive cases listed on the Johns Hopkis site.

Anyway the interesting thing is the fatality rate just keeps on keep dropping.

---

Two things: your second paragraph seems to just restate my formula, and we get the same results. Are you saying something different?

That was my point when I said given the JHU death number (then at 93.000) we would be at 36.5 million cases. I know people question the death toll, the absence of early testing and think there is a large number of asymptomatic infections, but the order of magnitude of difference suggests that there is still something we are missing here.

As to the death numbers, there seems to me to be pretty simple proof of Covid's lethality. Because the virus so disproportionately impacts the elderly, excess deaths among that age group would be a good indicator of Covid deaths.

In other words, if 100 people age 70+ usually die in a month and 150 die this month with no explanation for the increase , it's a pretty good bet that Covid contributed to the increased deaths.

My guess is that as you look at younger ages, Covid's contribution to the death is clearer. And that becomes truer as more testing was done. In the simplest case, if an otherwise healthy 40 year old tests positive for Covid and dies a week later, the doctor completing the medical certificate isn't guessing or getting extra reimbursement when she says Covid is a cause of death.

All to say the death numbers may be soft in terms of not being 100% certain, but those numbers are not wrong by a an amount that should be material to public health decisions.

---

Sorry, I just missed it.

I do think the lockdown policy was not needed and is a total disaster. Not sure we agree on that..The hospitals were never close to being overwhelmed which was the reason given for the lockdown. So bad policy and not needed.

---

I would say that the more severe restrictions today appeared flawed and over inclusive, but that we might learn something tomorrow that indicates they were justified. I would also say that the decision makers were working with very limited and often changing information.

---

I agree that decision makers were working with limited information, but we also have a lot more information now.

The lockdowns were generally excessive and did some harm which was ignored.

Yet there are still people taking the binary and fear-based position that we cannot do what always worked in past pandemics, but must obey without question whatever a politician tells us, because Obey.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

---

Last I checked, Trump supported the rule of law. And Michigan's law limits the governor to 30 days of emergency without the legislature's consent.

If nothing else, this will keep the lawyers busy fight other lawyers, which alone makes the state safer for the rest of us.

---

He "supports the rule of law" because he says he supports it. And that is about it.

The Michigan argument is an interesting one, both sides have decent arguments. That is what Courts are for. But it is purely a state issue under Michigan's state constitution. trump said first he had ultimate authority on this sort of thing (is that what you mean by saying he is for"the rule of law?") then he said Governors should be making these decisions. Now he-through his justice department-is saying, Governors are going too far with the restrictions and should be checked. That was why he privately supported the Georgia governor in loosening restrictions. Right before he told the country the Georgia governor had gone too far in loosening restrictions.

The man has no coherent policy of governance other than "look at me."

---

Your hatred of the President has caused you to warp him into a caricature you can attack.

There are specific things the President has done and said which can be criticized, but you have resorted - yet again - to 'Orange Man Bad''.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

---

Last I checked, Trump supported the rule of law. And Michigan's law limits the governor to 30 days of emergency without the legislature's consent.

If nothing else, this will keep the lawyers busy fight other lawyers, which alone makes the state safer for the rest of us.

---

He "supports the rule of law" because he says he supports it. And that is about it.

The Michigan argument is an interesting one, both sides have decent arguments. That is what Courts are for. But it is purely a state issue under Michigan's state constitution. trump said first he had ultimate authority on this sort of thing (is that what you mean by saying he is for"the rule of law?") then he said Governors should be making these decisions. Now he-through his justice department-is saying, Governors are going too far with the restrictions and should be checked. That was why he privately supported the Georgia governor in loosening restrictions. Right before he told the country the Georgia governor had gone too far in loosening restrictions.

The man has no coherent policy of governance other than "look at me."

---

Your hatred of the President has caused you to warp him into a caricature you can attack.

There are specific things the President has done and said which can be criticized, but you have resorted - yet again - to 'Orange Man Bad''.

---

No I haven't. That is an accurate recap of his position on state authority v. lock downs. The fact that is perceived as caricature is a function of the person making the decisions, not the person portraying them.

I note that, as usual, you don't deny those things actually happened.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

---

Last I checked, Trump supported the rule of law. And Michigan's law limits the governor to 30 days of emergency without the legislature's consent.

If nothing else, this will keep the lawyers busy fight other lawyers, which alone makes the state safer for the rest of us.

---

He "supports the rule of law" because he says he supports it. And that is about it.

The Michigan argument is an interesting one, both sides have decent arguments. That is what Courts are for. But it is purely a state issue under Michigan's state constitution. trump said first he had ultimate authority on this sort of thing (is that what you mean by saying he is for"the rule of law?") then he said Governors should be making these decisions. Now he-through his justice department-is saying, Governors are going too far with the restrictions and should be checked. That was why he privately supported the Georgia governor in loosening restrictions. Right before he told the country the Georgia governor had gone too far in loosening restrictions.

The man has no coherent policy of governance other than "look at me."

---

Your hatred of the President has caused you to warp him into a caricature you can attack.

There are specific things the President has done and said which can be criticized, but you have resorted - yet again - to 'Orange Man Bad''.

---

No I haven't. That is an accurate recap of his position on state authority v. lock downs. The fact that is perceived as caricature is a function of the person making the decisions, not the person portraying them.

I note that, as usual, you don't deny those things actually happened.

---

Actually, the denial is yours.

Predictable, and also ironic - your behavior, collectively, causes moderates and independents to re-examine attacks on Trump with a more discerning eye.

The Left used the same tactics in 2016, yet you never stopped to wonder why they did not work.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

---

Last I checked, Trump supported the rule of law. And Michigan's law limits the governor to 30 days of emergency without the legislature's consent.

If nothing else, this will keep the lawyers busy fight other lawyers, which alone makes the state safer for the rest of us.

---

He "supports the rule of law" because he says he supports it. And that is about it.

The Michigan argument is an interesting one, both sides have decent arguments. That is what Courts are for. But it is purely a state issue under Michigan's state constitution. trump said first he had ultimate authority on this sort of thing (is that what you mean by saying he is for"the rule of law?") then he said Governors should be making these decisions. Now he-through his justice department-is saying, Governors are going too far with the restrictions and should be checked. That was why he privately supported the Georgia governor in loosening restrictions. Right before he told the country the Georgia governor had gone too far in loosening restrictions.

The man has no coherent policy of governance other than "look at me."

---

Your hatred of the President has caused you to warp him into a caricature you can attack.

There are specific things the President has done and said which can be criticized, but you have resorted - yet again - to 'Orange Man Bad''.

---

No I haven't. That is an accurate recap of his position on state authority v. lock downs. The fact that is perceived as caricature is a function of the person making the decisions, not the person portraying them.

I note that, as usual, you don't deny those things actually happened.

---

Actually, the denial is yours.

Predictable, and also ironic - your behavior, collectively, causes moderates and independents to re-examine attacks on Trump with a more discerning eye.

The Left used the same tactics in 2016, yet you never stopped to wonder why they did not work.

---

Again, did the Trump flip flops I outlined happen or not?

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

---

Last I checked, Trump supported the rule of law. And Michigan's law limits the governor to 30 days of emergency without the legislature's consent.

If nothing else, this will keep the lawyers busy fight other lawyers, which alone makes the state safer for the rest of us.

---

He "supports the rule of law" because he says he supports it. And that is about it.

The Michigan argument is an interesting one, both sides have decent arguments. That is what Courts are for. But it is purely a state issue under Michigan's state constitution. trump said first he had ultimate authority on this sort of thing (is that what you mean by saying he is for"the rule of law?") then he said Governors should be making these decisions. Now he-through his justice department-is saying, Governors are going too far with the restrictions and should be checked. That was why he privately supported the Georgia governor in loosening restrictions. Right before he told the country the Georgia governor had gone too far in loosening restrictions.

The man has no coherent policy of governance other than "look at me."

---

Your hatred of the President has caused you to warp him into a caricature you can attack.

There are specific things the President has done and said which can be criticized, but you have resorted - yet again - to 'Orange Man Bad''.

---

No I haven't. That is an accurate recap of his position on state authority v. lock downs. The fact that is perceived as caricature is a function of the person making the decisions, not the person portraying them.

I note that, as usual, you don't deny those things actually happened.

---

Actually, the denial is yours.

Predictable, and also ironic - your behavior, collectively, causes moderates and independents to re-examine attacks on Trump with a more discerning eye.

The Left used the same tactics in 2016, yet you never stopped to wonder why they did not work.

---

Again, did the Trump flip flops I outlined happen or not?

---

Not the way you describe, and certainly no worse than flips by Fauci and Cuomo. Or have you forgotten that Fauci originally said masks were not needed, or that Cuomo encouraged New Yorkers to celebrate in public in order to defy 'racism'?

A lot of people made mistakes, but we should be able to agree that everyone wants to keep people safe and protect their constituents. Using one standard for your enemies while ignoring the same behavior by people you support is not only hypocritical, but also makes you look unreliable in your statements of opinion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

---

Is this what Trump meant by "Its the governors' call?"

Whatever one thinks of government-imposed pandemic restrictions, Trump being all over the board on them is not helpful.

---

Last I checked, Trump supported the rule of law. And Michigan's law limits the governor to 30 days of emergency without the legislature's consent.

If nothing else, this will keep the lawyers busy fight other lawyers, which alone makes the state safer for the rest of us.

---

He "supports the rule of law" because he says he supports it. And that is about it.

The Michigan argument is an interesting one, both sides have decent arguments. That is what Courts are for. But it is purely a state issue under Michigan's state constitution. trump said first he had ultimate authority on this sort of thing (is that what you mean by saying he is for"the rule of law?") then he said Governors should be making these decisions. Now he-through his justice department-is saying, Governors are going too far with the restrictions and should be checked. That was why he privately supported the Georgia governor in loosening restrictions. Right before he told the country the Georgia governor had gone too far in loosening restrictions.

The man has no coherent policy of governance other than "look at me."

---

Your hatred of the President has caused you to warp him into a caricature you can attack.

There are specific things the President has done and said which can be criticized, but you have resorted - yet again - to 'Orange Man Bad''.

---

No I haven't. That is an accurate recap of his position on state authority v. lock downs. The fact that is perceived as caricature is a function of the person making the decisions, not the person portraying them.

I note that, as usual, you don't deny those things actually happened.

---

Actually, the denial is yours.

Predictable, and also ironic - your behavior, collectively, causes moderates and independents to re-examine attacks on Trump with a more discerning eye.

The Left used the same tactics in 2016, yet you never stopped to wonder why they did not work.

---

Again, did the Trump flip flops I outlined happen or not?

---

Not the way you describe, and certainly no worse than flips by Fauci and Cuomo. Or have you forgotten that Fauci originally said masks were not needed, or that Cuomo encouraged New Yorkers to celebrate in public in order to defy 'racism'?

A lot of people made mistakes, but we should be able to agree that everyone wants to keep people safe and protect their constituents. Using one standard for your enemies while ignoring the same behavior by people you support is not only hypocritical, but also makes you look unreliable in your statements of opinion.

---

First, the issue is whether Donald Trump supports the "rule of law" which is what you claimed. Whatever mistaken impressions Andrew Cuomo and Dr. Fauci had about the pandemic and the appropriate responses to it are irrelevant to the question.

Second, they are irrelevant for two reasons. Most obviously they are not Donald Trump, which gives too much credit because Dr. Fauci is a part of Trump's team-his mistakes are administration mistakes. But more importantly, changing public health policy in light of changing information about the pandemic is not only understandable, it should be expected. Changing one's concept of federalism on a daily basis is not understandable, wise or remotely analogous.

Third, I am not a Cuomo "supporter." I have no idea why you would assume I am. To my recollection, the only thing I have posted about him is that the decision to force Covid positive people back to nursing homes was one of the two the biggest mistakes made in the pandemic." I guess you assumed I was a Cuomo "supporter" because I am a Trump critic. Sort of binary of you, wouldn't you say?

As to Fauci, "supporter" is not appropriate for a non-elected official. I do admire him and his work.

edit: Trump's flip flops happened exactly the way I describe. For example: One day he says the governors should decide these things. The very next day he tweets "Liberate [fill in the blank]" because he doesn't like the governors' decision. Not even 24 hours later!

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

To whoever was posting the daily updates: might be more useful to post positive test rate (#positives over #tests). That's more informative in many ways. Trending down in most states. There was a site I found that tracks it state to state; will look for later when not on phone.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

---

Suitably cropped to remove any inconvenient context, I am sure.

I do "address the facts". I simply don't play into your hands.

It's plainly obvious to people paying attention to elections in historical context, that this one is going to b undecided for a while. The virus and the response to it will obviously have a big impact on the election, but both parties have made blunders which keep them from claiming leadership points. Also, public reaction varies from state to state - it should not surprise anyone that New Yorkers generally approve of Cuomo and disapprove of Trump, but in Georgia Trump has complete support along with Governor Kemp. Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

Those are the relevant facts. The rest is trivia.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

---

Suitably cropped to remove any inconvenient context, I am sure.

I do "address the facts". I simply don't play into your hands.

It's plainly obvious to people paying attention to elections in historical context, that this one is going to b undecided for a while. The virus and the response to it will obviously have a big impact on the election, but both parties have made blunders which keep them from claiming leadership points. Also, public reaction varies from state to state - it should not surprise anyone that New Yorkers generally approve of Cuomo and disapprove of Trump, but in Georgia Trump has complete support along with Governor Kemp. Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

Those are the relevant facts. The rest is trivia.

---

Truly a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those are the facts that you think demonstrate President Trump supports the rule of law?

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

---

Suitably cropped to remove any inconvenient context, I am sure.

I do "address the facts". I simply don't play into your hands.

It's plainly obvious to people paying attention to elections in historical context, that this one is going to b undecided for a while. The virus and the response to it will obviously have a big impact on the election, but both parties have made blunders which keep them from claiming leadership points. Also, public reaction varies from state to state - it should not surprise anyone that New Yorkers generally approve of Cuomo and disapprove of Trump, but in Georgia Trump has complete support along with Governor Kemp. Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

Those are the relevant facts. The rest is trivia.

---

Truly a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those are the facts that you think demonstrate President Trump supports the rule of law?

---

Those are the facts which direct behavior by political leaders on both sides.

You know this, of course.

But it's easier to play at insults and puerile attacks.

Quote:

---

Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

---

This is a true statement. Trump must win at least one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin to win. This assumes he keeps the other states he won in 2016, which is problematic in some cases. It is unlikely he picks up a state he lost in 2016. Those three states normally go Dem and Trump barely won them. Essentially anyone on this board not living in one of those states has zilch effect on the election at the top level.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

---

Suitably cropped to remove any inconvenient context, I am sure.

I do "address the facts". I simply don't play into your hands.

It's plainly obvious to people paying attention to elections in historical context, that this one is going to b undecided for a while. The virus and the response to it will obviously have a big impact on the election, but both parties have made blunders which keep them from claiming leadership points. Also, public reaction varies from state to state - it should not surprise anyone that New Yorkers generally approve of Cuomo and disapprove of Trump, but in Georgia Trump has complete support along with Governor Kemp. Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

Those are the relevant facts. The rest is trivia.

---

Truly a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those are the facts that you think demonstrate President Trump supports the rule of law?

---

Those are the facts which direct behavior by political leaders on both sides.

You know this, of course.

But it's easier to play at insults and puerile attacks.

---

If you don't want to address the facts underlying Booray's point just save us all the time and say so.

Trump claimed final authority, then he didn't, then he did. Two of those three stances contradict the rule of law.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

---

Suitably cropped to remove any inconvenient context, I am sure.

I do "address the facts". I simply don't play into your hands.

It's plainly obvious to people paying attention to elections in historical context, that this one is going to b undecided for a while. The virus and the response to it will obviously have a big impact on the election, but both parties have made blunders which keep them from claiming leadership points. Also, public reaction varies from state to state - it should not surprise anyone that New Yorkers generally approve of Cuomo and disapprove of Trump, but in Georgia Trump has complete support along with Governor Kemp. Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

Those are the relevant facts. The rest is trivia.

---

Truly a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those are the facts that you think demonstrate President Trump supports the rule of law?

---

Those are the facts which direct behavior by political leaders on both sides.

You know this, of course.

But it's easier to play at insults and puerile attacks.

---

If you don't want to address the facts underlying Booray's point just save us all the time and say so.

Trump claimed final authority, then he didn't, then he did. Two of those three stances contradict the rule of law.

---

Sorry, I'm sticking to relevant facts, not DNC talking points.

But tell Michigan's governor thanks for helping Trump's chances in the Rust Belt again.

LTbear said:

---

To whoever was posting the daily updates: might be more useful to post positive test rate (#positives over #tests). That's more informative in many ways. Trending down in most states. There was a site I found that tracks it state to state; will look for later when not on phone.

---

I did include the test rates on my last update, and will do so on the. Ext one. I'm doing them every several days because there are adjustments each 3-4 day window.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

---

Suitably cropped to remove any inconvenient context, I am sure.

I do "address the facts". I simply don't play into your hands.

It's plainly obvious to people paying attention to elections in historical context, that this one is going to b undecided for a while. The virus and the response to it will obviously have a big impact on the election, but both parties have made blunders which keep them from claiming leadership points. Also, public reaction varies from state to state - it should not surprise anyone that New Yorkers generally approve of Cuomo and disapprove of Trump, but in Georgia Trump has complete support along with Governor Kemp. Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

Those are the relevant facts. The rest is trivia.

---

Truly a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those are the facts that you think demonstrate President Trump supports the rule of law?

---

Those are the facts which direct behavior by political leaders on both sides.

You know this, of course.

But it's easier to play at insults and puerile attacks.

---

If you don't want to address the facts underlying Booray's point just save us all the time and say so.

Trump claimed final authority, then he didn't, then he did. Two of those three stances contradict the rule of law.

---

Sorry, I'm sticking to relevant facts, not DNC talking points.

But tell Michigan's governor thanks for helping Trump's chances in the Rust Belt again.

---

He doesn't have a good argument, so he deflects and when all else fails, throws out insults.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

---

Suitably cropped to remove any inconvenient context, I am sure.

I do "address the facts". I simply don't play into your hands.

It's plainly obvious to people paying attention to elections in historical context, that this one is going to b undecided for a while. The virus and the response to it will obviously have a big impact on the election, but both parties have made blunders which keep them from claiming leadership points. Also, public reaction varies from state to state - it should not surprise anyone that New Yorkers generally approve of Cuomo and disapprove of Trump, but in Georgia Trump has complete support along with Governor Kemp. Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

Those are the relevant facts. The rest is trivia.

---

Truly a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those are the facts that you think demonstrate President Trump supports the rule of law?

---

Those are the facts which direct behavior by political leaders on both sides.

You know this, of course.

But it's easier to play at insults and puerile attacks.

---

If you don't want to address the facts underlying Booray's point just save us all the time and say so.

Trump claimed final authority, then he didn't, then he did. Two of those three stances contradict the rule of law.

---

Sorry, I'm sticking to relevant facts, not DNC talking points.

But tell Michigan's governor thanks for helping Trump's chances in the Rust Belt again.

---

He doesn't have a good argument, so he deflects and when all else fails, throws out insults.

---

Governor Whitmer is a woman, but otherwise that post is accurate about her.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Denial remains strong with this one.

No worries, Booray's continued divorce from facts is going to hurt Democrats, not help them, so if he wants to continue with the charade, that's fine.

---

Says the guy who will never address the facts. Explain Donald Trump's position on where state/federal authority boundaries are in imposing public health restrictions as part of the pandemic response.

Whatever you say, I guarantee you I can produce a quote from Trump that says the opposite.

---

Suitably cropped to remove any inconvenient context, I am sure.

I do "address the facts". I simply don't play into your hands.

It's plainly obvious to people paying attention to elections in historical context, that this one is going to b undecided for a while. The virus and the response to it will obviously have a big impact on the election, but both parties have made blunders which keep them from claiming leadership points. Also, public reaction varies from state to state - it should not surprise anyone that New Yorkers generally approve of Cuomo and disapprove of Trump, but in Georgia Trump has complete support along with Governor Kemp. Like 2016, there are a handful of battleground states which will decide the election, and the debate is going to be intense for a while.

Those are the relevant facts. The rest is trivia.

---

Truly a bizarre non-sequitur.

Those are the facts that you think demonstrate President Trump supports the rule of law?

---

Those are the facts which direct behavior by political leaders on both sides.

You know this, of course.

But it's easier to play at insults and puerile attacks.

---

If you don't want to address the facts underlying Booray's point just save us all the time and say so.

Trump claimed final authority, then he didn't, then he did. Two of those three stances contradict the rule of law.

---

Sorry, I'm sticking to relevant facts, not DNC talking points.

But tell Michigan's governor thanks for helping Trump's chances in the Rust Belt again.

---

He doesn't have a good argument, so he deflects and when all else fails, throws out insults.

---

Governor Whitmer is a woman, but otherwise that post is accurate about her.

---

"Gov Witless" but the rest is on target

Youth baseball semi started today In Georgia. My son's travel team had their team seeding scrimmages today. No dugouts, which was brutal as it was hot today, but would definitely scorch any virus in the air. Umpire was behind the pitcher. Coaches didn't get within 6 feet of the players. Players didn't always social distance on the side of the field. Parents weren't allowed into the complex. Huge place and had to watch from the parking lots and live streams from the park. Actually tailgated with some other families for the 5 hours we were together since we couldn't go in. Was a nice return to a little taste of normalcy.