Jump to content

Trump calls Fauci remarks on risks to reopening schools, economy unacceptable


Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I disagree with your opening sentence but agree with everything else.

 

Dunno how you disagree with it. The US can not print any more money without winding in spending, and before you melt down, we can wind in spending AND have lower taxes. Stock markets are holding, showing confidence in recovery, but continued lockdowns and printing trillions of dollars will spook investors and could bring it all down. 

 

This is just as valid of a concern as the virus, and its not a viable long term strategy. 

  • Sad 2
Posted
29 minutes ago, mrfill said:

Cases reported are based on people tested, so the figure is not 'underreported' as you cannot report unless you test, and to get an accurate figure, the entire population of the world has to be tested with 100% accurate tests.

That’s a flawed argument.

 

Testing is subject to error, so will never be 100% , the results of mass testing therefore always be subject to a ‘degree of confidence’.

 

Statistical sampling is very well established as a means to determine the incidence of a disease in a population based on partial sampling - also to within a ‘degree of confidence’.

 

There are a number of problems with relying only on testing as the basis of reporting the incidence of the disease, not least the President’s own words on the matter of testing:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-too-much-coronavirus-testing-makes-us-look-bad-2020-5

 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Dunno how you disagree with it. The US can not print any more money without winding in spending, and before you melt down, we can wind in spending AND have lower taxes. Stock markets are holding, showing confidence in recovery, but continued lockdowns and printing trillions of dollars will spook investors and could bring it all down. 

 

This is just as valid of a concern as the virus, and its not a viable long term strategy. 

Again it all comes down to credibility.

 

Will you take your family to the restaurant, mall, city center if it opens tomorrow?

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Tug said:

Sooo who to belive a scientist doctor and expert in his field or a pathological liar up for re-election hummm that one is a simple choice for most folks and btw imo dr Fauci kept the gloves on so to speak

He isn't an economist so you need to balance it out. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again it all comes down to credibility.

 

Thats doesn't even mean anything. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Will you take your family to the restaurant, mall, city center if it opens tomorrow?

 

Depends on where it is and the situation in the state/county, because its not a blanket solution. 

Posted
2 hours ago, stevenl said:

It is his right to disagree. Fauci had his pov from the medical side, others will chime in from the economical side. And then decisions will have to be made based on guidelines from the federal government.

 

Unfortunately in the past the guidelines have been ignored by the states and the WH.

 

'Unacceptable' seems a bad choice of words btw.

 

Location by location is seemingly choosing it's own side of the issue now. The lockdowns are increasingly broken as people become more desperate.

Posted

A post without a source link and a reply has been removed, it should be noted that a source link has now been provided later in the topic.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Why don't you just stay inside unless you are a felon and we let you out?

Eeeeh??? What are you talking about? I was posting in regards to the OP.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Eeeeh??? What are you talking about? I was posting in regards to the OP.

 

You are collecting a check and sheltering in place? Meanwhile the jails in the USA are emptied out making the felons free and the free people prisoners. It wasn't really a shot at you directly. 

Posted
36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s a flawed argument.

 

Testing is subject to error, so will never be 100% , the results of mass testing therefore always be subject to a ‘degree of confidence’.

 

Statistical sampling is very well established as a means to determine the incidence of a disease in a population based on partial sampling - also to within a ‘degree of confidence’.

 

There are a number of problems with relying only on testing as the basis of reporting the incidence of the disease, not least the President’s own words on the matter of testing:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-too-much-coronavirus-testing-makes-us-look-bad-2020-5

 

How can you report an incidence without testing to see if there actually is an incidence? You may be reporting a non-incidence because you would not know.

Also in the original article Yinn quoted, it says "Halloran said the actual number of US cases could be anywhere from 5 to 20 times the current number, based on recent models. But any model, she added, should be taken with a grain of salt.".

That is quite some 'degree of confidence' and looks rather more like a 'guess'

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...