Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - a little late to the party. Probably doing it to justify the riots.

---

How does the antibody test justify riots? Can you explain the connection you are making?

---

My point was these liberal organizations were ignoring the stats showing the virus was less dangerous than originally thought. It took the shifting narrative to the protests for them to finally admit what everyone else was already saying so now the virus isn't dangerous anymore so social distancing isn't as big a deal in these riots. My apologies, did not word it well. They never would have printed this article if the riots hadn't broken out.

Liberals are licking their chops. First the virus to blame Trump for, now the riots. Guarantee the first school shooting in Sept or Oct will be their trifecta.

---

105,000 deaths so far is not what I would consider less dangerous than origonally thought.

---

Original projections by the govt. were in the 260,000 range. And of course, the 105,000 number doesn't account for the over-reporting of deaths early on, as Dr. Brix has alluded to. She said it was over-reported by about 25%.

At the end of the day, it's going to be less than originally projected, certainly.

---

Don't know where you are getting that number from. My recollection was that once the CDC 15-day guidelines were put in place, the estimate was 100k-240k.

Also, there are just as many doctors and statisticians who say the death toll is underreported as who say it is over reported .

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - a little late to the party. Probably doing it to justify the riots.

---

How does the antibody test justify riots? Can you explain the connection you are making?

---

My point was these liberal organizations were ignoring the stats showing the virus was less dangerous than originally thought. It took the shifting narrative to the protests for them to finally admit what everyone else was already saying so now the virus isn't dangerous anymore so social distancing isn't as big a deal in these riots. My apologies, did not word it well. They never would have printed this article if the riots hadn't broken out.

Liberals are licking their chops. First the virus to blame Trump for, now the riots. Guarantee the first school shooting in Sept or Oct will be their trifecta.

---

Two big assumptions.

---

Assumptions?

About 5 days ago every liberal media station was trashing anyone w/out a mask or who was in a group. Less than a week later none of that matters anymore - why? Did Covid disappear?

---

Absolutely it disappeared! I mean if liberal hypocrites say so, it must be true. And science be damned.

---

Actually, to be fair I've seen media discuss the fact that the protesters are gathered in close proximity, many without masks, and that it may result in a surge in cases as a result.

---

True.

---

Who have you seen reporting on it? Curious. CNN isn't saying a peep.

---

I saw this article about it the other day: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/protests-pandemic/612460/

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - a little late to the party. Probably doing it to justify the riots.

---

How does the antibody test justify riots? Can you explain the connection you are making?

---

My point was these liberal organizations were ignoring the stats showing the virus was less dangerous than originally thought. It took the shifting narrative to the protests for them to finally admit what everyone else was already saying so now the virus isn't dangerous anymore so social distancing isn't as big a deal in these riots. My apologies, did not word it well. They never would have printed this article if the riots hadn't broken out.

Liberals are licking their chops. First the virus to blame Trump for, now the riots. Guarantee the first school shooting in Sept or Oct will be their trifecta.

---

105,000 deaths so far is not what I would consider less dangerous than origonally thought.

---

Original projections by the govt. were in the 260,000 range. And of course, the 105,000 number doesn't account for the over-reporting of deaths early on, as Dr. Brix has alluded to. She said it was over-reported by about 25%.

At the end of the day, it's going to be less than originally projected, certainly.

---

Don't know where you are getting that number from. My recollection was that once the CDC 15-day guidelines were put in place, the estimate was 100k-240k.

Also, there are just as many doctors and statisticians who say the death toll is underreported as who say it is over reported .

---

Meant 240,000, not 260,000. That was the original number thrown out by the govt. as being an estimate of what the number would/could reach. We will be far below that when it's all said and done.

I haven't seen any doctors saying the numbers are underreported, though I don't doubt there are those who believe that. That said, my comments were based on what Dr. Brix opined.

---

Mothra said:

---

In the range, perhaps, but far below the bookend high.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - a little late to the party. Probably doing it to justify the riots.

---

How does the antibody test justify riots? Can you explain the connection you are making?

---

My point was these liberal organizations were ignoring the stats showing the virus was less dangerous than originally thought. It took the shifting narrative to the protests for them to finally admit what everyone else was already saying so now the virus isn't dangerous anymore so social distancing isn't as big a deal in these riots. My apologies, did not word it well. They never would have printed this article if the riots hadn't broken out.

Liberals are licking their chops. First the virus to blame Trump for, now the riots. Guarantee the first school shooting in Sept or Oct will be their trifecta.

---

Two big assumptions.

---

Assumptions?

About 5 days ago every liberal media station was trashing anyone w/out a mask or who was in a group. Less than a week later none of that matters anymore - why? Did Covid disappear?

---

Absolutely it disappeared! I mean if liberal hypocrites say so, it must be true. And science be damned.

---

Actually, to be fair I've seen media discuss the fact that the protesters are gathered in close proximity, many without masks, and that it may result in a surge in cases as a result.

---

True.

---

Who have you seen reporting on it? Curious. CNN isn't saying a peep.

---

I saw this article about it the other day: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/protests-pandemic/612460/

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Yours too, if you would just give it a chance, quash.

Take the loss and move on. You'll find a new cloud to yell at soon enough.

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Yours too, if you would just give it a chance, quash.

Take the loss and move on. You'll find a new cloud to yell at soon enough.

---

The win is having the death total at the low end of the range. Lives saved is hardly a cloud. If you want to claim the win for all those lives saved claim it. Doesn't matter to me. Thank you for saving them.

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Yours too, if you would just give it a chance, quash.

Take the loss and move on. You'll find a new cloud to yell at soon enough.

---

The win is having the death total at the low end of the range. Lives saved is hardly a cloud. If you want to claim the win for all those lives saved claim it. Doesn't matter to me. Thank you for saving them.

---

I am still for reporting the score at the end of the day.

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Yours too, if you would just give it a chance, quash.

Take the loss and move on. You'll find a new cloud to yell at soon enough.

---

The win is having the death total at the low end of the range. Lives saved is hardly a cloud. If you want to claim the win for all those lives saved claim it. Doesn't matter to me. Thank you for saving them.

---

I am still for reporting the score at the end of the day.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Yours too, if you would just give it a chance, quash.

Take the loss and move on. You'll find a new cloud to yell at soon enough.

---

The win is having the death total at the low end of the range. Lives saved is hardly a cloud. If you want to claim the win for all those lives saved claim it. Doesn't matter to me. Thank you for saving them.

---

I am still for reporting the score at the end of the day.

---

We're a long way from there. The predictions we're talking about were for a two-year period.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Yours too, if you would just give it a chance, quash.

Take the loss and move on. You'll find a new cloud to yell at soon enough.

---

The win is having the death total at the low end of the range. Lives saved is hardly a cloud. If you want to claim the win for all those lives saved claim it. Doesn't matter to me. Thank you for saving them.

---

I am still for reporting the score at the end of the day.

---

We're a long way from there. The predictions we're talking about were for a two-year period.

---

So go back and hide under your bed, Sam. We'll come get you around, say, 2022.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Yours too, if you would just give it a chance, quash.

Take the loss and move on. You'll find a new cloud to yell at soon enough.

---

The win is having the death total at the low end of the range. Lives saved is hardly a cloud. If you want to claim the win for all those lives saved claim it. Doesn't matter to me. Thank you for saving them.

---

I am still for reporting the score at the end of the day.

---

We're a long way from there. The predictions we're talking about were for a two-year period.

---

So go back and hide under your bed, Sam. We'll come get you around, say, 2022.

---

See? You can do math when you want to.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You get the response you earn, TS/Waco.

---

Hmm. What else should I expect from you, other than thoughtless and mindless attempts at provocation?

---

On the contrary, you have received a well-considered and salient response. I am in no way guilty of provocation, however you cannot say the same, sir.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You get the response you earn, TS/Waco.

---

Hmm. What else should I expect from you, other than thoughtless and mindless attempts at provocation?

---

On the contrary, you have received a well-considered and salient response. I am in no way guilty of provocation, however you cannot say the same, sir.

---

I just did. Read above.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL - a little late to the party. Probably doing it to justify the riots.

---

How does the antibody test justify riots? Can you explain the connection you are making?

---

My point was these liberal organizations were ignoring the stats showing the virus was less dangerous than originally thought. It took the shifting narrative to the protests for them to finally admit what everyone else was already saying so now the virus isn't dangerous anymore so social distancing isn't as big a deal in these riots. My apologies, did not word it well. They never would have printed this article if the riots hadn't broken out.

Liberals are licking their chops. First the virus to blame Trump for, now the riots. Guarantee the first school shooting in Sept or Oct will be their trifecta.

---

Two big assumptions.

---

Assumptions?

About 5 days ago every liberal media station was trashing anyone w/out a mask or who was in a group. Less than a week later none of that matters anymore - why? Did Covid disappear?

---

Absolutely it disappeared! I mean if liberal hypocrites say so, it must be true. And science be damned.

---

Actually, to be fair I've seen media discuss the fact that the protesters are gathered in close proximity, many without masks, and that it may result in a surge in cases as a result.

---

True.

---

Who have you seen reporting on it? Curious. CNN isn't saying a peep.

---

I saw this article about it the other day: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/protests-pandemic/612460/

---

Yet the DMN reported different opinion from former public health official

---

BaylorBJM said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "As noted the high was if nobody reacted."

No, the 'nobody reacted' number was 2.2 million

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

Just take the loss and move on, q.

---

Within a range. Context is your friend.

---

Yours too, if you would just give it a chance, quash.

Take the loss and move on. You'll find a new cloud to yell at soon enough.

---

The win is having the death total at the low end of the range. Lives saved is hardly a cloud. If you want to claim the win for all those lives saved claim it. Doesn't matter to me. Thank you for saving them.

---

I am still for reporting the score at the end of the day.

---

We're a long way from there. The predictions we're talking about were for a two-year period.

---

So go back and hide under your bed, Sam. We'll come get you around, say, 2022.

---

See? You can do math when you want to.

---

I always do the math. And I noticed long ago the fear mongers math was way off.

---

I suppose the opposite is true too then right?

Like when you said in the first couple pages of this thread the virus was "largely contained to China" (oops)?

Or what about when you said the City of Austin and City of Houston were "just playing politics" when they cancelled SXSW and the Houston Rodeo because 300k tourists to each of those cities "wouldn't have been a big deal."

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mister you are delusional. A few cherry-picked snips out of context does nothing but make you a dog barking in the back yard, angry his opinion does not count for more than noise.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, petty person, BJM.

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, petty person, BJM.

---

Aw, did you get the response you deserved?

---

blackie said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Uh...oh.

"We are about to see the best economic data we've seen in the history of this country," says a top former economic adviser to Obama.

The general election scenario that Democrats are dreading

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/26/2020-election-democrats-281470

---

The eagerness to get out + the stimulus checks are going to give us massive and quick economic gains.

Q3 will probably give us the best GDP quarter in modern history.

---

Doc, I would scale back a little bit to avoid disappointment. The "eagerness to get out" is not shared by probably a third or more of the population that fall into the most at-risk population.....people over 65 and those with underlying conditions. That probably doesn't even account for much less at-risk people who in their families are reluctant in fear of bringing it home to older parents and such that are living with them. It is going to be a while before this group goes back whole hog as long as there is no treatment or convincing signs that the virus has played itself out. Especially when they see crowds of people doing their best to transmit any virus they may be carrying to everyone they can because of their refusal to even consider any transmission precautions.

Without this group of people, it is not reasonable to expect the economy to get back anywhere near where it was. The unemployment numbers will still be abysmal. The stimulus checks.......they have already been spent, unless you are going to send out a whole bunch more. The younger people who are so eager to get out don't have the income or means to make up for those that will be able, but choose not to get out with anything close to their behavior pre-virus.

The only thing you might see is the difference between Q2 and Q3. That could be quite a bit in some areas, but that will only be a relative figure compared to a horrible Q2. Nothing anywhere near the "best GDP quarter in modern history". You have to look at absolutes, not relative comparisons.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are a sad, petty person, BJM.

---

Aw, did you get the response you deserved?

---

No, just a couple dogs barking because they could not follow the discussion.

Above their heads.

---