xofswen Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 On 9/14/2020 at 10:44 AM, Morch said: There, there...Putin still loves him. Trump is no friend of Putin, no one in the modern era has been tougher on Russia than president Trump including oil economics in the Baltic and arms support for Poland. For 8 years Putin kicked sand in Obama's face; Crimea peninsula, Ukraine, backing Assad in Syria, deleting US uranium supplies, ignoring weapons treaties, Iran nuc deal and more. Check Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, xofswen said: Trump is no friend of Putin, no one in the modern era has been tougher on Russia than president Trump including oil economics in the Baltic and arms support for Poland. For 8 years Putin kicked sand in Obama's face; Crimea peninsula, Ukraine, backing Assad in Syria, deleting US uranium supplies, ignoring weapons treaties, Iran nuc deal and more. Check Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia Almost every move aimed at curtailing Russia's actions was initiated by others than Trump. I don't think that there's much he did out of his own motivation. You're welcome to imagine otherwise. More like Trump's hand was forced, rather than he actively pursued a strong anti Russia position. Edited September 17, 2020 by Morch 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post stevenl Posted September 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, xofswen said: Trump is no friend of Putin, no one in the modern era has been tougher on Russia than president Trump including oil economics in the Baltic and arms support for Poland. For 8 years Putin kicked sand in Obama's face; Crimea peninsula, Ukraine, backing Assad in Syria, deleting US uranium supplies, ignoring weapons treaties, Iran nuc deal and more. Check Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia Ah, that's why Russia is trying to get Trump reelected. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xofswen Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 (edited) On 9/15/2020 at 3:10 PM, Stargrazer9889 said: On 9/15/2020 at 3:10 PM, Stargrazer9889 said: I would like to see how many of the people at this rally become sick with covid. I would also like to hear of how many deaths are caused by Trump holding this rally. Will his supporters charge him with the deaths of the people who get infected and die? Likely not, as he seems to be a Teflon person so far. I realise that Trumps followers thing that he walks on water, but that is also not true, just like so much of what he says. November hopefully will see the end of this clown in power. Even if Biden is not perfect, he will likely only be a one term president, and that would not be a bad thing. It is time for the USA to grow up and quit voting in old dinosaurs as their country leaders. Geezer Any covid numbers from the recent Sturgis rally attended by 460,000 people? Some experts would say "estimates" of 250,000 new covid cases, testing and facts present a different metric of less than 300 cases. Where do you go from here? Edited September 17, 2020 by xofswen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, xofswen said: Any covid numbers from the recent Sturgis rally attended by 460,000 people? Some experts would say "estimates" of 250,000 new covid cases, testing and facts present a different metric of less than 300 cases. Where do you go from here? Where did you see an expert prediction of 250k new cases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, xofswen said: Any covid numbers from the recent Sturgis rally attended by 460,000 people? Some experts would say "estimates" of 250,000 new covid cases, testing and facts present a different metric of less than 300 cases. Where do you go from here? Did The Sturgis Rally Cause 250,000 Coronavirus Cases? Here's Why Experts Are Skeptical https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/12/did-the-sturgis-rally-cause-250000-coronavirus-cases-heres-why-experts-are-skeptical/#3354411673a1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, stevenl said: Where did you see an expert prediction of 250k new cases? I think that's what he's referring to The Contagion Externality of a Superspreading Event:The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally and COVID-19 http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, Morch said: Did The Sturgis Rally Cause 250,000 Coronavirus Cases? Here's Why Experts Are Skeptical https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/12/did-the-sturgis-rally-cause-250000-coronavirus-cases-heres-why-experts-are-skeptical/#3354411673a1 4 minutes ago, Morch said: I think that's what he's referring to The Contagion Externality of a Superspreading Event:The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally and COVID-19 http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf Economic experts predicting virus spread. Maybe they're experts, but not in virology. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xofswen Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, Morch said: I think that's what he's referring to The Contagion Externality of a Superspreading Event:The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally and COVID-19 http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf Yes, SDSU study. https://cheps.sdsu.edu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, xofswen said: Yes, SDSU study. https://cheps.sdsu.edu Please read both the other link provided and the comment made by another poster above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xofswen Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, Morch said: Please read both the other link provided and the comment made by another poster above. Ok, but probably unnecessary now as the point being the risk of covid transmission appears low at mass gatherings although the models presented are not confirmed by epidemiologists, and they say the numbers of covid transmissions is more likely to be several hundred not 100,000's. "But a recent report published by Jennifer Dowd, deputy director of the Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science at the University of Oxford, says the 250,000 estimate is at best an “absolute worst-case scenario number,” and the actual number of infections may only be in the hundreds, with contact tracing efforts showing just over 250 cases in 12 states linked to the rally since Sept. 2, according to NPR." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 1 minute ago, xofswen said: Ok, but probably unnecessary now as the point being the risk of covid transmission appears low at mass gatherings although the models presented are not confirmed by epidemiologists, and they say the numbers of covid transmissions is more likely to be several hundred not 100,000's. "But a recent report published by Jennifer Dowd, deputy director of the Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science at the University of Oxford, says the 250,000 estimate is at best an “absolute worst-case scenario number,” and the actual number of infections may only be in the hundreds, with contact tracing efforts showing just over 250 cases in 12 states linked to the rally since Sept. 2, according to NPR." Because this gathering is exactly the same as Trump's rally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xofswen Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 1 hour ago, nakornpingpong said: Did you get this information from Q? Q who? Provide a link. You think people don't have their own thoughts? You should try it sometime. Why else is Biden and his running mate hiding in the closet, avoiding the public with the media's reprehensible complicity. They have a big huge whammy planned for Trump. Or, maybe it's just the Democrats are so confident they have irreversibly tarnished Trump that they believe they can defeat him with a candidate who's already ripe for the 25th Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 20 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said: I am not sure if you are saying this, but nearly all scientists say that a mask is better than no mask including those at the CDC. But Donald says that a mask may be worse than no mask, and he says he knows people who agree, so he's probably right. As you say it sounds like eye protection may be even better though. Not sure about wearing safety goggles to the supermarket. So not all scientists then? If it's not unanimous then it's not settled. If worried why not wear goggles? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sujo Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: So not all scientists then? If it's not unanimous then it's not settled. If worried why not wear goggles? Because the experts say to wear masks. Of course you are welcome to take no notice of experts and wear a pointy hat if you like. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat is a type of crazy Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: So not all scientists then? If it's not unanimous then it's not settled. If worried why not wear goggles? That's the beauty of science. Scientists get the opportunity to question the current beliefs and if they are smart enough and do the hard research they'll convince others. You and I aren't scientists so I think you'll agree there is a point where you have to draw a conclusion based on statistics logic and common sense. If 97 per cent of scientists believe in something I'll tend to go with that. You can always look at the arguments of the 3 per cent, and maybe 3 out of a 100 times they'll be right, but living day to day I'll go with the consensus. Similar with the goggles. If new research says my chances of catching it would be reduced by 97 per cent ..I'll wear goggles. At this point it appears to be a theory with some possible merit. Or I'll believe the scientists but just decide I don't want to wear goggles and I'll keep my distance. You can take the word of scientists and not be a sheep at the same time. Edited September 17, 2020 by Fat is a type of crazy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 A post containing misinformation has been removed along with replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 Darwinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, bendejo said: Darwinism. Not quite, because this can adversely effect people who did not make the same daft choices. If it was just a matter of each to his own, things would be simpler. Edited September 18, 2020 by Morch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now