.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
placeholder
-
Posts
24,662 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by placeholder
-
-
4 hours ago, NanLaew said:
Since they haven't developed a vaccine for the SARS coronavirus that kicked off almost 17 years go and weren't successful in getting one for the far more deadly MERS coronavirus from about 8 years ago either, why on earth would anyone be holding out hope for a silver bullet for this one?
Actually the reason that efforts to create a vaccine for the SARs virus never resulted in a vaccine was because the virus more or less disappeared and with it, the will to fund expensive vaccination trials. There was promising research done on a vaccine.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:
Eleanor McBean Phd and Naturapathic doctor wrote a book called the Poisoned Needle in 1954 about the origin of the vaccine concept which started in the 1790's.
She was a child during the 1918 spanish flu outbreak in which her entire family refused vaccines and were unscathed.
She has a very different take than todays doctors and pharmaceutical companies. If the book is accurate, profits supercede health.
The book in its entirety can be read online free. It is interesting that the citizens of the world were never presented with this data from news, politicians, doctors, or pharmaceutical companies over the years.
And the amazing thing is that absolutely no families that were vaccinated escaped unscathed. And we know this because....? Actually we don't know it at all. And if you think that the good fortune of her family counts as evidence...On the other hand the worst afflicted nation was India where 10-20 million died. Kind of doubt there was much available in the way of vaccines to the impoverished Indian masses back then. But hey, there was ayurvedic medicine.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:
Your opinion is not mine and not how I view the establishment called a disenfranchised and non cohesive government. It does not matter republican or Democrat, there are to many personality clashes and no one is doing what's best for the citizens. It is why I dislike politics.
You just previously claimed that if one side proposes something the other side will oppose it. Now you're claiming that it's all about personality clashes, not a binary situation at all.. You should definitely stick to those tired generalizations about nobody is doing what's best for citizens. They may not be provable, but they're not disprovable either.So general as to be diagnostically useless. Reality is not your friend.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
22 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:Think you need to do some research. She has authored many decisions, and has a fine record for a judge, even as a 7th circuit court judge. Her rulings may not be likeable, but rulings and writs are what they are.
Thanks for not getting the point. You're the one who claimed that predicting how Barrett will vote is proof of prejudice.
58 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:Could have, should have, and would have, all great and speculative terms. No one has the power to create certain legislation that would be opposed and held up, which no matter who it was in office the other side would have done there best to shut it down and then complain it was not done properly. Just like Mom's punishment not equaling dad's and Grandma and Grandpa having a fight over who was right and who was wrong. No win situation.
The Congress had already passed a law in past sessions that gave the President the authority to invoke the Defense Authorization Act to compel businesses to manufacture PPE equipment. He didn't need any further legislation.
And your claim that whatever the President proposed would be opposed by the other side has only one very tiny almost negligible problem: it's a thing called reality. The Democrats voted overwhelmingly to support the original emergency Covid bill. In fact they voted more heavily in favor than did the Republicans. Mitch McConnell has already made it clear that he won't support another bill as big as one that Trump backs. Is Mitch McConnell part of the "other side"?
And no legislation would be needed for the President to support the scientific consensus instead of undermining it at every turn. By politicizing issues and making partisan such practices as mask wearing and widespread testing of the Federal level, and holding indoor rallies, he did huge damage to the fight against the spread of the disease. And he's still doing it.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
24 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:
It is pretty much a forgone conclusion that she will be voted into the position she was nominated and passed through committee for. She is qualified in every aspect. She may not be what some want, but can she do the job as a conservative Judge following in the footsteps of her mentor, the answer is yes she can. The Dems do not like this and they are already making preconceived guesses about how she will vote on certain hearings schedule before SCOTUS. That my friend is call prejudice and is a true statement.
Because she has absolutely no record as a judge? Because she didn't acknowledge Antonin Scalia as a mentor? Because it hasn't been the case in the past that even though Supreme Court nominees refuse to commit themselves on the issues, their past has always been highly predictive of how they will vote?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, ThailandRyan said:
And you truly believe that just one man could have save countless lives. If you believe that then there is definitely something wrong with everyone else not doing there part as well. He must be superman, able to leap tall buildings, and to crush crime and everything else in your world view. It takes everyone pulling together. The Dems and the republicans never learn, and are always putting there beliefs ahead of what truly needs to be done. Then you have States rights and the Governors doing there own thing regardless of what the federal government says. Can you see how ludicrous your view truly is. One man or woman can not right the ill's of the country no matter who they may be.
Please. The president had plenty of executive powers to greatly mitigate the effects of the pandemic. He could have invoked the Defense Act to compell companies to manufacture all the PPE equipment which was in such short supply. He could have supported the scientists instead of politicizing and opposing the measures needed to subdue the pandemic. There are lots of issues in which a President's power is very limited. This isn't one of them.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 minutes ago, Tug said:Trump surrendered to covid when he realized to deal with it it would hurt the economy hurting his chances of re-election with the caveat of his narcissism not allowing him to delegate the handeling of the response to competent personnel and stand back leave them alone.he continues to hold super spreader events (rallies) the callous disregard for us is staggering let’s end the chaos and get a handle on this virus manage your risk follow safe protocols don’t be a spreader and good luck
I believe a huge factor in his denial is his huge financial exposure to a shutdown of domestic tourism. In addition, not only did he wait for 40 days after sort of shut down air travel from china to cut off air travel to continental europe,, but he waited another 4 to do the same to the UK and Ireland. 2 countries where he happens to have 3 golf resorts. 3 resorts that already were a financial drain. I think a lot of the lunatic assertions he made about the imminent decline of covid-19 and his push for a premature reopening were made out of panic. He has big loans coming due on his properties. Properties that have declined in value thanks both to his having his name attached to them and to the pandemic. And the banks mistrust him so much that he is personally responsible for almost half a billion in loans.
-
4
-
1
-
12 minutes ago, animalmagic said:
It was the start ten months ago!
If the US is fortunate, contact tracing may finally start up on Jan 20th, 2021. Although it's going to be a hugely more costly than it would have been had it been done from the start.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, placeholder said:
People of Praise, the sect to which Judge Barrett belongs is an apostolate in the catholic church:
Seems extremely evangelical to me.
Especially considering that it's membership is open to non-Catholic Christians as well.
An apostolate is a Christian organization "directed to serving and evangelizing the world", most often associated with the Anglican Communion or the Catholic Church.[1] In more general usage, an apostolate is an association of persons dedicated to the propagation of a religion or a doctrine.
Seems extremely evangelical to me.
Especially considering that it's membership is open to non-Catholic Christians as well.
They also encourage speaking in tongues, which is characteristic of certain Protestant evangelicals.
Haven't been able to determine yet if they also practice snake handling.
If Judge Barrett wasn't involved with this, I don't think most reasonable people would hesitate to call it a cult.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, rabas said:
Re: religion. Evangelical refers christians, sometimes meaning not catholic. Anyway, I doubt the media mentioned that when Ami is confirmed, the SC will have six (6) catholic judges and a 7th who was raised catholic and is now Episcopalian. The rest are Jewish. [ref] So take heart, there is only one evangelical, the Episcopalian.
People of Praise, the sect to which Judge Barrett belongs is an apostolate in the catholic church:
Seems extremely evangelical to me.
Especially considering that it's membership is open to non-Catholic Christians as well.
An apostolate is a Christian organization "directed to serving and evangelizing the world", most often associated with the Anglican Communion or the Catholic Church.[1] In more general usage, an apostolate is an association of persons dedicated to the propagation of a religion or a doctrine.
Seems extremely evangelical to me.
Especially considering that it's membership is open to non-Catholic Christians as well.
-
Just wait until she votes to overturn the previous gay marriage decision of the supreme court. 2 of the justices who voted against the decision are still there. 2 of the justices who voted in favor are gone. All have since been replaced by conservative judges. Gorsuch would probably vote to uphold the decision. But Kavanaugh almost certainly not. And Barrett is as close to a definite "no" as you can get give her past affiliations with vehemently anti-gay groups.
-
2 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:
This a perplexing question, 'what if'.
I just posted this graph over in the thread regarding Macron's comments.
The mortality ratio is what you need to look at. I took US, France, Sweden and the UK. You can play with the data yourself and pull more countries.
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid?country=USA~FRA~SWE~GBR
Don't think so. Did you notice this advisory on the graph?
Case fatality rate of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
The Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is the ratio between confirmed deaths and confirmed cases. During an outbreak of a pandemic the CFR is a poor measure of the mortality risk of the disease. We explain this in detail at OurWorldInData.org/Coronavirus
Here's the precise link: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-mortality-risk
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 minutes ago, RickG16 said:What a mess.... could this be because they are doing more testing?
No. Hospitalizations are also rising sharply.
-
7
-
2
-
1
-
1 hour ago, BritManToo said:
How was Hillary Vs Trump before the election?
9 days before 2016 election
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
9 days before 2020 election
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:
Who said "all vaccines"? The author is referencing those currently in Phase 3 trials.
Really? Where in the article does it say he is reference all those currently in Phase 3 trials?
"In a sobering essay, Doshi said those hoping for a breakthrough to end the pandemic would be disappointed, with some vaccines likely to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection by only 30%."
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
47 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:Who built the cages?
Who purposely created a policy of separating thousands and thousands of children - even infants and toddlers - from their parents? 545 of those children still are separated.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
44 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:
Marched to prison....for what?
Well, he is being investigated by NY State for fraud:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-new-york-lawsuit-idUSKBN25K1XG
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:
Yes, that's what 30% efficacy means...if you take the vaccine and are exposed to an infectious dose of the virus, you're 70% likely to get it and 30% not. I also posted the link to the original BMJ article, which I have read, for anyone who wanted to review the primary source material.
Do you have a "second off"?
Do you understand what it means when he writes "some vaccines"? That it doesn't mean the same thing as all vaccines?
-
My favorite part of the debate was how Trump responded to criticism of his policy of forcibly separating children from their parents and how 545 of those children still haven't been reconnected to their parents.
“They are so well taken care of,” Trump said of the children, some as young as 4 months old, whom his Customs and Border Protection agents ripped from their mothers and fathers before deporting the parents. “They’re in facilities that were so clean.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/family-separation-trump-debate.html
What makes it even better is that his administration argued in court that they weren't responsible for providing the children dry clothing, toothbrushes, soap, towels, or sleep.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Not just Trump rejoicing.
"The Senate majority is conducting the most rushed, the most partisan and the least legitimate process in the long history of Supreme Court nominations," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told reporters after the vote.
I saw a clip of him complaining. I really enjoyed his "outrage".
I saw some democrat on tv complaining that Barrett is going to influence the US for many years and I agree. However, I doubt we have the same opinion as to whether that will be good or bad though.
Roll on Monday, and her confirmation by the full ( or perhaps just the GOP senators ) senate.
What particular issues have earned Justice Barrett your support?
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:
which is totally immaterial. As is the fact that Obama was denied because he didn't have control of the senate.
Boo hoo, so unfair, unless that unfairness favors the Democrats of course. Standard hypocrisy and grumbling when can't have their own way.
It was the Republicans who created the doctrine that a candidate for the supreme court shouldn't be nominated during the last year of a presidential term. So who are the hypocrites?
-
2
-
-
Just now, Pattaya Spotter said:
Yes, Doshi points out in the article that despite wider uptake of the annual influenza vaccine over the years, the number of deaths per year is relatively constant. If I understand his argument, it's similar to the one he's making about the current round of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials...that they aren't being tested enough on people who are most susceptible to serious outcomes if they get the virus.
First off, whatever the article did say, it did not say
"Vaccines Not Looking Good...Only 30% Efficacy"
Here's what it did say on that score:
"In a sobering essay, Doshi said those hoping for a breakthrough to end the pandemic would be disappointed, with some vaccines likely to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection by only 30%."
-
Utah officials issued urgent pleas and said they were planning to open a field hospital, which Wisconsin has already done. At least 14 states have a record number of coronavirus hospitalizations.
-
The author of the article cited, Peter Doshi, is also sceptical of flu vaccines
http://theorcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/John-Hopkins-Study.pdf
‘At Capacity’: Covid-19 Patients Push U.S. Hospitals to Brink
in COVID-19 Coronavirus
Posted
There's been a 40% increase nationwide in hospitalizations over the past month. The pandemic is now worst in the Midwest and Mountain states.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/hospitals-crisis-us-nears-high-covid-19-cases-73792757
Rocky Mountain States Emerge as New Covid-19 Hotspot
Cases are surging and hospital beds are filling up in Utah, Montana, Wyoming and beyond; officials fault resistance to face masks
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rocky-mountain-states-emerge-as-new-covid-19-hotspot-11603454400
https://www.kitco.com/news/2020-10-22/U-S-hit-by-spike-in-coronavirus-cases-rising-infections-strain-Europe-s-hospitals.html