Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Class of '66 Old Fart

Coronavirus and Its Impact

Recommended Posts

My hope with this pandemic and how divided the country has been trending is that it finally galvanizes the whole of us. The country has accomplished some stupendous achievements when united. For whatever reasons, we have become so divided that two reasonable people can’t have a much needed conversation because they sit in their glass house lobbing stones at another. One day, one day..


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

My hope with this pandemic and how divided the country has been trending is that it finally galvanizes the whole of us. The country has accomplished some stupendous achievements when united. For whatever reasons, we have become so divided that two reasonable people can’t have a much needed conversation because they sit in their glass house lobbing stones at another. One day, one day..


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

All the "leaders" of this country did was use a pandemic that's killed 125K+ as rhetoric to fuel a culture war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HoosierAloha said:

My hope with this pandemic and how divided the country has been trending is that it finally galvanizes the whole of us. The country has accomplished some stupendous achievements when united. For whatever reasons, we have become so divided that two reasonable people can’t have a much needed conversation because they sit in their glass house lobbing stones at another. One day, one day..


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Won't happen. The current federal leadership is too divisive, and people are too committed to their political beliefs to change the way they think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Golfman25 said:

Not deflecting.  Just didn’t see you critically analyze the “hydroxy is bad” studies.  

Do you consider maybe it was because their weren’t the glaring issues with them?  Feel free to go back and check to see if the difference in their test groups had an average age difference of 6 years.  They didn’t.  Why would I criticize something that is non-existent?  And for the record, when there was a study from Brazil (I believe) that found that HCQ was causing horrible heart conditions, I did mention that the dosage rates they were using were twice the normal suggested dosage.

It’s also important to mention that those with heart conditions were automatically not placed on HCQ in the Henry Ford study....are we really surprised that an older AND less healthy group are more likely to die?  This clearly was not a gold standard study,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JSHoosier said:

Given the medication early in the infection too, I'm shocked early treatment has a higher survival rate especially when you consider they were given azithromycin too.

I saw other researchers are criticizing this study because of how it was conducted, for the reason you stated the patients were selected because they fit specific criteria.

They also didn’t account for the fact that those given HCQ been receiving twice the steroidal treatment than those not on HCQ.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting news from the Ivy League today.  Harvard announced that its plans for its Faculty of Arts and Sciences is to bring up to 40% of our undergraduates to campus, including all first-year students, for the fall semester. Assuming that we maintain 40% density in the spring semester, we would again bring back one class, and our priority at this time is to bring seniors to campus.  Under this plan, first years would return home and learn remotely in the spring.   This decision applies to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences only.  Harvard’s professional Schools have made determinations and announcements about their plans for fall 2020 based on their own unique considerations.

Princeton  announced undergrads may return to campus for one semester during the 2020-21 academic year.  First-year students and juniors are welcomed to campus for the fall semester, and sophomores and seniors for the spring semester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

Interesting news from the Ivy League today.  Harvard announced that its plans for its Faculty of Arts and Sciences is to bring up to 40% of our undergraduates to campus, including all first-year students, for the fall semester. Assuming that we maintain 40% density in the spring semester, we would again bring back one class, and our priority at this time is to bring seniors to campus.  Under this plan, first years would return home and learn remotely in the spring.   This decision applies to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences only.  Harvard’s professional Schools have made determinations and announcements about their plans for fall 2020 based on their own unique considerations.

Princeton  announced undergrads may return to campus for one semester during the 2020-21 academic year.  First-year students and juniors are welcomed to campus for the fall semester, and sophomores and seniors for the spring semester.

I think you are going to see a lot of different plans as places try to adjust to keep contact down.  Given Harvard's location and how hard Massachusetts has been hit with coronavirus (Massuchesetts is fourth in the U.S. for rate of death and could be #3 very soon), it's understandable why they are cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have officially started the process to pull out of the WHO during a pandemic.  I can’t believe I just typed that.  There are many angry things I can say about that, but we have officially isolated ourselves, buried beneath propaganda that in no way protects us, and further harms us going forward.  I understand some that don’t like the initial response and I get that, but every time you go to work and disagree with your boss are you walking out?  The key difference here is I am uncertain how we as a country can be frustrated with an organization that we never fully followed their advice.  We are the worst country in the world with response, message, cases, and deaths.  It’s not even really close.  Let’s pray for a weak flu season.  We are going to need it.  Before the hand full of Trump supporters that come out frequently on stuff like this start bashing my post I don’t blame him.  I blame the people that enabled him more than him.  The checks and balances have failed us.  This move in no way makes us safer.  That should be the only question on a decision like this.  Are we safer with or without?  We just aren’t.  We are removing the most prominent scientific resource with world data during a pandemic where we are far and away the worst.  Incredible 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mdn82 said:

We have officially started the process to pull out of the WHO during a pandemic.  I can’t believe I just typed that.  There are many angry things I can say about that, but we have officially isolated ourselves, buried beneath propaganda that in no way protects us, and further harms us going forward.  I understand some that don’t like the initial response and I get that, but every time you go to work and disagree with your boss are you walking out?  The key difference here is I am uncertain how we as a country can be frustrated with an organization that we never fully followed their advice.  We are the worst country in the world with response, message, cases, and deaths.  It’s not even really close.  Let’s pray for a weak flu season.  We are going to need it.  Before the hand full of Trump supporters that come out frequently on stuff like this start bashing my post I don’t blame him.  I blame the people that enabled him more than him.  The checks and balances have failed us.  This move in no way makes us safer.  That should be the only question on a decision like this.  Are we safer with or without?  We just aren’t.  We are removing the most prominent scientific resource with world data during a pandemic where we are far and away the worst.  Incredible 

I saw that, it's a joke and not a good one.  You're right, the checks and balances have failed but really all it'd take for those to fail is the party in power to decide their political gain is more important than their constitutional responsibility.  Some of it has to fall on him though, he appointed people that are yes men and lackeys that'll go along with anything he suggests; checks and balances failing isn't, that's on elected officials not doing their jobs the way they should either because they feel political gain is more important than their constitutional responsibility of oversight or because they're cowards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdn82 said:

We have officially started the process to pull out of the WHO during a pandemic.  I can’t believe I just typed that.  There are many angry things I can say about that, but we have officially isolated ourselves, buried beneath propaganda that in no way protects us, and further harms us going forward.  I understand some that don’t like the initial response and I get that, but every time you go to work and disagree with your boss are you walking out?  The key difference here is I am uncertain how we as a country can be frustrated with an organization that we never fully followed their advice.  We are the worst country in the world with response, message, cases, and deaths.  It’s not even really close.  Let’s pray for a weak flu season.  We are going to need it.  Before the hand full of Trump supporters that come out frequently on stuff like this start bashing my post I don’t blame him.  I blame the people that enabled him more than him.  The checks and balances have failed us.  This move in no way makes us safer.  That should be the only question on a decision like this.  Are we safer with or without?  We just aren’t.  We are removing the most prominent scientific resource with world data during a pandemic where we are far and away the worst.  Incredible 

We have been isolating and pushing away many of our real allies (Europe mainly, but Canada and parts of Asia as well) for the past four years in favor of more aggressive foreign policy (Chinese tariffs, threats to EU, pulling out of several international treaties). Some people see this as us not putting up with foreign influence, to at one end I understand, but I see it as us lessening our ability to influence international policy to the point where many of our traditional allies openly mock us and go out of their way to say they don't agree and won't be following our lead. 

WHO definitely dropped the ball and deserves criticism, but we should be using our power and money to fix the system - not create a GIGANTIC opening for other rich and powerful countries (China) to fill in a dictate international influence. We are seeing this exact same issue in other places in the world (Africa and South America) where our inaction and isolationist policies have created an opening for an authoritarian government (again, China) to come in and create influence. 

Foreign policy in the 21st century is not and cannot be the same as it was in the 20th. Bombing countries only works so much and it doesn't lead to long term peace and prosperity. 

Sorry for the soapbox. Also want to be clear, I am talking about governments, not people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chips&Dipo said:

We have been isolating and pushing away many of our real allies (Europe mainly, but Canada and parts of Asia as well) for the past four years in favor of more aggressive foreign policy (Chinese tariffs, threats to EU, pulling out of several international treaties). Some people see this as us not putting up with foreign influence, to at one end I understand, but I see it as us lessening our ability to influence international policy to the point where many of our traditional allies openly mock us and go out of their way to say they don't agree and won't be following our lead. 

WHO definitely dropped the ball and deserves criticism, but we should be using our power and money to fix the system - not create a GIGANTIC opening for other rich and powerful countries (China) to fill in a dictate international influence. We are seeing this exact same issue in other places in the world (Africa and South America) where our inaction and isolationist policies have created an opening for an authoritarian government (again, China) to come in and create influence. 

Foreign policy in the 21st century is not and cannot be the same as it was in the 20th. Bombing countries only works so much and it doesn't lead to long term peace and prosperity. 

Sorry for the soapbox. Also want to be clear, I am talking about governments, not people. 

I believe we had (past tense) a person in the Chinese disease center but it was eliminated.  I know we had a pandemic response team but it was eliminated.  We could've and should've been better prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

We have literally watched the end of American Hegemony happen the last 3 years. And with no responsible country to fill the role China and Russia are free to meddle as they wish  

The only thing we've accomplished is weakening ourselves on the world stage; Putin is laughing his arse off because that was exactly what he wanted.

Oh I forgot, we also ticked off and insulted our allies and somehow made wearing masks a political statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

We have literally watched the end of American Hegemony happen the last    11  years. And with no responsible country to fill the role China and Russia are free to meddle as they wish  

Fixed it for you.   You're as blind and biased as I think you are if you truly believe Trump is at fault for that.  Seriously, man.  Do some homework and just be objective.   How anyone can blame DJT in total blows my mind beyond words.  The abject ignorance and blindness of that....

Obama used divisive rhetoric on a regular basis, starting with "cynical voters cling to their guns and religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."     He said "anti-immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment" is a way to explain their frustrations.   Obama called all opposed to same sex marriage "bigots."  Obama called the pro-life movement a "war on women."  He called immigration enforcement "racist."  Obama called the GOP "the enemy of Hispanics."  Then...Obama was the one who claimed Trump was somehow capitalizing on America's traditional resentments.

Obama was the president who ran with the narratives in Ferguson, MO in 2014; never offering an apology once facts came out, eye-witnesses testified, and the officer was acquitted because Brown had in fact reached for his (officer's) gun.  Obama has selective memory, just as the media seems to.  He is not detached from the division as he seems to think he is, and in fact was the main culprit.  Trump took the opposite side, so it's HIS fault?  No.  Sorry.  

Facts :  Unemployment under Trump...lower for black people, lower for Hispanic people, lower for women than under Obama.  GDP growth up from Obama.  Wages up from Obama.  But sure.  Blame Trump.  Other than rhetoric, what action or policy has led to the "end of American hegemony?"     If you don't or won't see the division in Obama's presidency (hell, it's why Trump WON), you're either blind, ignorant, or in denial.  There is no other explanation.  Not much of the above is my opinion, so don't give me yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

Fixed it for you.   You're as blind and biased as I think you are if you truly believe Trump is at fault for that.  Seriously, man.  Do some homework and just be objective.   How anyone can blame DJT in total blows my mind beyond words.  The abject ignorance and blindness of that....

Obama used divisive rhetoric on a regular basis, starting with "cynical voters cling to their guns and religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."     He said "anti-immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment" is a way to explain their frustrations.   Obama called all opposed to same sex marriage "bigots."  Obama called the pro-life movement a "war on women."  He called immigration enforcement "racist."  Obama called the GOP "the enemy of Hispanics."  Then...Obama was the one who claimed Trump was somehow capitalizing on America's traditional resentments.

Obama was the president who ran with the narratives in Ferguson, MO in 2014; never offering an apology once facts came out, eye-witnesses testified, and the officer was acquitted because Brown had in fact reached for his (officer's) gun.  Obama has selective memory, just as the media seems to.  He is not detached from the division as he seems to think he is, and in fact was the main culprit.  Trump took the opposite side, so it's HIS fault?  No.  Sorry.  

Facts :  Unemployment under Trump...lower for black people, lower for Hispanic people, lower for women than under Obama.  GDP growth up from Obama.  Wages up from Obama.  But sure.  Blame Trump.  Other than rhetoric, what action or policy has led to the "end of American hegemony?"     If you don't or won't see the division in Obama's presidency (hell, it's why Trump WON), you're either blind, ignorant, or in denial.  There is no other explanation.  Not much of the above is my opinion, so don't give me yours.

Lol our allies were still our allies during the Obama years. Nice try to try and pretend this started in 2008. 
 

What’s unemployment now out of curiosity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

Fixed it for you.   You're as blind and biased as I think you are if you truly believe Trump is at fault for that.  Seriously, man.  Do some homework and just be objective.   How anyone can blame DJT in total blows my mind beyond words.  The abject ignorance and blindness of that....

Obama used divisive rhetoric on a regular basis, starting with "cynical voters cling to their guns and religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."     He said "anti-immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment" is a way to explain their frustrations.   Obama called all opposed to same sex marriage "bigots."  Obama called the pro-life movement a "war on women."  He called immigration enforcement "racist."  Obama called the GOP "the enemy of Hispanics."  Then...Obama was the one who claimed Trump was somehow capitalizing on America's traditional resentments.

Obama was the president who ran with the narratives in Ferguson, MO in 2014; never offering an apology once facts came out, eye-witnesses testified, and the officer was acquitted because Brown had in fact reached for his (officer's) gun.  Obama has selective memory, just as the media seems to.  He is not detached from the division as he seems to think he is, and in fact was the main culprit.  Trump took the opposite side, so it's HIS fault?  No.  Sorry.  

Facts :  Unemployment under Trump...lower for black people, lower for Hispanic people, lower for women than under Obama.  GDP growth up from Obama.  Wages up from Obama.  But sure.  Blame Trump.  Other than rhetoric, what action or policy has led to the "end of American hegemony?"     If you don't or won't see the division in Obama's presidency (hell, it's why Trump WON), you're either blind, ignorant, or in denial.  There is no other explanation.  Not much of the above is my opinion, so don't give me yours.

 

I'm not gonna comment on the substance of the post, except for...lol on the portion I bolded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have literally watched the end of American Hegemony happen the last 3 years. And with no responsible country to fill the role China and Russia are free to meddle as they wish  

Pure BS as usual from you!


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

I'm not gonna comment on the substance of the post, except for...lol on the portion I bolded.

 

Some of it isn't even entirely true.  Obama had 4 quarters where GDP was 4% or higher, Trump has had 0; GDP under Trump is higher than the tail end of Obama's time but has not reached Obama's peak.  Not to mention yearly deficits and national debt being worse under Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×