Trump holds campaign rally indoors despite coronavirus concerns

[xofswen]

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

[Morch]

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

[stevenl]

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.

[xofswen]

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

[stevenl]

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?

[Morch]

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

[Morch]

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

[stevenl]

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.

[xofswen]

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

[Morch]

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.

[xofswen]

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."

[Morch]

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?

[xofswen]

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.

[thaibeachlovers]

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?

[Sujo]

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.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

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

[Scott]

A post containing misinformation has been removed along with replies.  

 

[bendejo]

Darwinism.

 

 

[Morch]

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