The Truth about Corona Virus Situation and what every person

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:16:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:54:51 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 13:22:51 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/03/2020 03:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:19:49 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:20:06 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

That is true. And perhaps, since you seem to have failed to grasp basic
logic, you think that implies I don't want to consider ideas. This is,
of course, false.

And people who have repeatedly explained things in detail, may also
resort to hard truths. I am not insulting you, I am stating obvious
truths. You have rejected logic, explanations, information, references
to experts, and appeals to your humanity (this is all from many people
here).

What's humane about letting sick old people die, when we have drugs
that could help and are known to be safe?

They may not be safe in the new context where we want to use them. Until
there is evidence that they work then they should be restricted to
clinical trials only. If it works then fine but if it doesn't...
It's not just old people, 40% of serious cases are people 20 to 64.

It is mostly people with underlying health conditions though. Some
countries specialise in being vastly overweight and type II diabetes.

Men are twice as likely to die as women. I agree that the decision
to try off label use of approved drugs should be up to the patient
and their doctor. It's already happening. We're headed towards
an epic disaster, where hospitals will soon have to triage patients
and just let some die because we don't have ICU beds and ventilators.
It's not 2019 anymore. Taking some small risk is more than justified
and it should be up to the patient.

On the other hand, Trump should stop using the words game changer and
giving people false hope.

It is the only thing he knows how to do. He's a fucking game show host!
That and "YOU'RE FIRED!" - a phrase that he has now used on all the good
advisors in his administration that actually had any worthwhile ability.
He is surrounded now by clueless sycophants.

“I’m not being overly optimistic or pessimistic,” Trump added. “I sure
as hell think we ought to give it a try. There’s been some interesting
things happening and some very good things. Let’s see what happens. We
have nothing to lose.”

“You know the expression: What the hell do you have to lose?”

The only good thing to come out of this pandemic is that President
Flatulance will be toast by the end of the year. If he doesn't cancel
the presidential elections and install himself as dictator in chief.

Polls vary, but his popularity has gone up lately.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

says he has got all the way up to 43.2% approval.He got up to 44.6% after the Senate irresponsibly refused to impeach him.

I think this virus thing helps him, no matter how it goes.

It give him more exposure. The people who are blind to his obvious faults get reminded that he exists.

If his incompetence ends up killing loads of American, even people as dim as John Larkin may notice.

China contained the infection at 81,054 cases and 3,261 deaths.

Italy is starting to slow down the rate of infection, but they've got 53,578 cases and 4825 deaths, and if the number of cases levels off it's unlikely to do it below 100,000.

That's stupid, even for you.

The US has had 27,069 cases and only 84 deaths so far, but the number of new cases is still rising on an exponential curve.

So is Italy, stupid.

If US infections and deaths top China's, despite having China's example as a warning and a case study in how to contain the infection, Trump is going to stuck with the responsibility - probably correctly.

That's almost a certainty at this point, at least with infections.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:25:15 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 2:19:07 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 9:18:12 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 1:10:56 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 10:45:56 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 12:42:37 PM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:16:40 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:29:09 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-19 20:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:43:03 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-19 19:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:35:42 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-19 16:56, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

Phil Hobbs wrote:

snip

I told you it was growing exponentially over a month ago when
you said it was being controlled.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Over a month ago would have been before the 20th February 2020.

If you look at the logarithmic version of the US case number graph it hits the axis on the 22nd February. In reality there were 35 cases by that date, so you didn't have enough numbers to justify that assertion rationally.

Sadly, you don't think clearly enough for your ravings to be taken as seriously as you'd like.

You just can't stand the truth. I was right.

You made a prediction that turned out to be correct. You did it at the point where the US Covid-19 cases were all imported - there were 35 of them at the time.

BS. When I said the Covid was growing out of control there were ZERO
cases in the US.

And when was that?

Patient zero in the exponential cascade probably got infected around the 17th February,

That's wrong too, the first patient was Jan 20.

Imported cases got quarantined, which should have stopped them starting an exponential cascade - and clearly did for the 20th January patient.

Wrong again. The scientists say that the mutations of the first patient
most closely match the nursing home of death, meaning he infected others
BEFORE he was quarantined.



If you extrapolate the linear part of the US logarithmic plot back to the axis - zero - and the logarithm of 1 is zero - it hits the axis on the 22nd February 2020.

Extrapolate your ass.

In reality a couple of cases didn't get quarantined and the exponential cascade probably stated in several different places a couple of days after the 22nd.

but they probably hadn't infected anybody on the 20th February 2020, so the number infected wasn't "growing exponentially" at that point.

Confident assertions by half-wits can sometimes be right, but that doesn't make them any less half-witted.

Drone on, stupid.

The stupidity here is all yours - as I've just demonstrated, again.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Isn't it time to go hump the kangaroos?

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:33:10 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:16:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It give him more exposure. The people who are blind to his obvious faults get reminded that he exists.

If his incompetence ends up killing loads of American, even people as dim as John Larkin may notice.

China contained the infection at 81,054 cases and 3,261 deaths.

Italy is starting to slow down the rate of infection, but they've got 53,578 cases and 4825 deaths, and if the number of cases levels off it's unlikely to do it below 100,000.

That's stupid, even for you.

What does that mean??? He cites facts and then talks about where the trend is headed and you call it "stupid"??? So you don't wish to discuss any facts?

The US has had 27,069 cases and only 84 deaths so far, but the number of new cases is still rising on an exponential curve.

So is Italy, stupid.

The US seems to be on a faster track than most other countries. We have lately increased our rate of growth from 10x every 8-9 days to 10x every 7-8 days. Clearly our weak federal response to the situation is not helping. So we can expect to see our hospitals overwhelmed even faster than I expected.

If US infections and deaths top China's, despite having China's example as a warning and a case study in how to contain the infection, Trump is going to stuck with the responsibility - probably correctly.

That's almost a certainty at this point, at least with infections.

It is such a shame. Trump seemed like the sort of President who would have been strong in taking the lead and acting to help this situation. But he was more interested in calming the financial markets to keep the "economy" going. So instead of limiting the damage to the country, Trump has us leaning into a left hook.

It is so sad that we made a mistake almost four years ago and we are paying the price now.

--

Rick C.

+--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:11:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> It is so sad that we made a mistake almost four years ago and we are paying the price now.

You mean, the mistake of letting "crooked" Hillary run?

I'm just messin' with you Rick.

I know you probably don't want to hear it, but you might need to get used to another four years. I just don't see Bernie or Biden winning.

And I also don't think it's fair to pin Coronavirus on one person, no matter who it is. Maybe someone else could govern better, but I strongly suspect there are MANY MORE politicians out there who would do a whole lot WORSE job - both Dem and Rep. (Dick Cheney comes to mind, even a younger Jimmy Carter.)

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:55475046-cd87-45f9-8624-e7036481fcbb@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:16:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:

says he has got all the way up to 43.2% approval.He got up to
44.6% after the Senate irresponsibly refused to impeach him.

Trump WAS impeached; the Senate did not convict him.
Perhaps you meant to say the Senate irresponsibly refused to
remove him from office?

Which in my opinion was the right call.
But let's not get into it.

In a cell, down at GITMO, along with a few other also criminal
family members, and rude motherfucker Rudy as well.

For trashing that woman's career alone. They should burn.

Absofuckinglute removal AND absofuckinglute disqualification from
running this year or ever again. CRIMINAL PERIOD. JAIL PERIOD.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:22:31 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:11:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
It is so sad that we made a mistake almost four years ago and we are paying the price now.

You mean, the mistake of letting "crooked" Hillary run?

I'm just messin' with you Rick.

I know you probably don't want to hear it, but you might need to get used to another four years. I just don't see Bernie or Biden winning.

Yes, just one of many things you can't see.

I'm just messin' with you.


> And I also don't think it's fair to pin Coronavirus on one person, no matter who it is. Maybe someone else could govern better, but I strongly suspect there are MANY MORE politicians out there who would do a whole lot WORSE job - both Dem and Rep. (Dick Cheney comes to mind, even a younger Jimmy Carter.)

No one is blaming anyone for the coronavirus (unless you believe it was made in a Chinese or US lab). I blame many offices in the various US government for the expected outcome which will prove to have been largely preventable.

What others may or may not have done is irrelevant. What matters is what has been and will have been done. These are literally life and death decisions and so far no one in the US is coming down hard enough on this disease.

We are in the early stages of a total melt down. I hoping not, but your guns may well come into play. Then you will finally be right about something..

--

Rick C.

+-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:72da8f4c-07eb-44e7-
bcb6-25b2ddfb4c24@googlegroups.com:

Isn't it time to go hump the kangaroos?

I hope you contract it and then suffer from it, and then suffer some
more from it while you beg for an unavailable respirator, then DIE, you
retarded motherfucker.

Here are soem parting gifts, just for you and your unamerican
attitude.

FOAD Fuck Off And DIE!

HOAD Head Off And DIE!

SPAD Suffer Pain And DIE!

CIAD Contract It And DIE!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:33:10 PM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:16:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:54:51 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 13:22:51 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/03/2020 03:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:19:49 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:20:06 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

<snip>

If his incompetence ends up killing loads of American, even people as dim as John Larkin may notice.

China contained the infection at 81,054 cases and 3,261 deaths.

Italy is starting to slow down the rate of infection, but they've got 53,578 cases and 4825 deaths, and if the number of cases levels off it's unlikely to do it below 100,000.

That's stupid, even for you.

By which you mean you disagree. You are too stupid to say why.

The US has had 27,069 cases and only 84 deaths so far, but the number of new cases is still rising on an exponential curve.

So is Italy, stupid.

Actually it isn't.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

If you look at the logarithmic plot of the total number of cases, it isn't a straight line but rather has started bending down below the pure exponential.

Their social distancing isn't working all that well, but it is clearly having some effect.

The corresponding curve for the USA is depressingly straight.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Tiawan, Singapore and Hong Kong got the message, and seem to have done as well

If US infections and deaths top China's, despite having China's example as a warning and a case study in how to contain the infection, Trump is going to stuck with the responsibility - probably correctly.

That's almost a certainty at this point, at least with infections.

As if your opinion was worth posting.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 2:22:31 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:11:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
It is so sad that we made a mistake almost four years ago and we are paying the price now.

You mean, the mistake of letting "crooked" Hillary run?

I'm just messin' with you Rick.

I know you probably don't want to hear it, but you might need to get used to another four years. I just don't see Bernie or Biden winning.

And I also don't think it's fair to pin Coronavirus on one person, no matter who it is. Maybe someone else could govern better, but I strongly suspect there are MANY MORE politicians out there who would do a whole lot WORSE job - both Dem and Rep. (Dick Cheney comes to mind, even a younger Jimmy Carter.)

The problem isn't "strength" but competence, and Trump is uniquely incapable of exhibiting that, and enthusiastic about getting rid of colleagues who are competent enough to want to disagree with him. What he wants is sycophants rather than aids.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:88a80f26-aa8c-4923-8a2a-fd7d4dd2fbb7@googlegroups.com:

> You can't excise the whole party,

Every senator whom took the oath and then denied it would face
prison in my redress. Several congress men and women as well. ALL
republicans. They made their bed. It was criminal in nature. They
should not get a pass for that. I do not expect a total self imposed
retard like you to understand.

90% think Trump is doing a
fantastic job, stupid.

You were told, stupid. Your numbers are off. Since you were told
just above in the post, you are *REALLY STUPID*.

> And you're part of it, the cult of Trump.

Well, a face to face would have you eating through a straw for at
least 8 months afterward, if you lived at all. Only because your
retarded brain threw that stupid shit up. You have been speaking
praise of Trump and his behavior. You are TrumpTainted, PUTZ! And
you saying that I am for Trump means that you would shake hands with
a nice, fast moving hunk of lead as our introduction. I'd give your
face a nice high five right out of the clip.

HOAD

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:28:27 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:16:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

says he has got all the way up to 43.2% approval.He got up to 44.6% after the Senate irresponsibly refused to impeach him.

Trump WAS impeached; the Senate did not convict him.
Perhaps you meant to say the Senate irresponsibly refused to remove him from office?

Their unwillingess to listen to any witnesses could be seem as irresponsible.

> Which in my opinion was the right call.

So the President who probably got into office because the Russians chose to intervene on his behalf is perfectly entitled to try to get the Ukranians to intervene on his behalf in the 2020 elections.

That tells us where your opinion comes from.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
> But let's not get into it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:35:41 PM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:25:15 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 2:19:07 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 9:18:12 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 1:10:56 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 10:45:56 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 12:42:37 PM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 9:16:40 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:29:09 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-19 20:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:43:03 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-19 19:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:35:42 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-19 16:56, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

Phil Hobbs wrote:

<snip>

I told you it was growing exponentially over a month ago when
you said it was being controlled.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Over a month ago would have been before the 20th February 2020.

If you look at the logarithmic version of the US case number graph it hits the axis on the 22nd February. In reality there were 35 cases by that date, so you didn't have enough numbers to justify that assertion rationally.

Sadly, you don't think clearly enough for your ravings to be taken as seriously as you'd like.

You just can't stand the truth. I was right.

You made a prediction that turned out to be correct. You did it at the point where the US Covid-19 cases were all imported - there were 35 of them at the time.

BS. When I said the Covid was growing out of control there were ZERO
cases in the US.

And when was that?

Patient zero in the exponential cascade probably got infected around the 17th February,

That's wrong too, the first patient was Jan 20.

Imported cases got quarantined, which should have stopped them starting an exponential cascade - and clearly did for the 20th January patient.

Wrong again. The scientists say that the mutations of the first patient
most closely match the nursing home of death, meaning he infected others
BEFORE he was quarantined.

Causing more deaths isn't initiating an exponential cascade. It may have been getting started on it, but if the nursing home of death outbreak didn't make it into the general community, he wasn't patient zero.

If you extrapolate the linear part of the US logarithmic plot back to the axis - zero - and the logarithm of 1 is zero - it hits the axis on the 22nd February 2020.

Extrapolate your ass.

If you can't understand what was being said, you could have said so leastless rudely - but you are a half-wit, with no inhibitions about making it obvious.

In reality a couple of cases didn't get quarantined and the exponential cascade probably stated in several different places a couple of days after the 22nd.

but they probably hadn't infected anybody on the 20th February 2020, so the number infected wasn't "growing exponentially" at that point.

Confident assertions by half-wits can sometimes be right, but that doesn't make them any less half-witted.

Drone on, stupid.

The stupidity here is all yours - as I've just demonstrated, again.

Isn't it time to go hump the kangaroos?

That's your kind of stupidity - not mine.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 8:50:16 PM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

I hope you contract it and then suffer from it, and then suffer some
more from it while...

Ill-wishes and bland "we're on top of the issue" pronouncements are equally
ineffective responses to this communicable disease (or any other).

Wash your hands. And, then your mouth.

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:692a16bd-57eb-492b-ac39-2ffaa4a674be@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 8:50:16 PM UTC-7,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

I hope you contract it and then suffer from it, and then suffer
some
more from it while...

Ill-wishes and bland "we're on top of the issue" pronouncements
are equally
ineffective responses to this communicable disease (or any
other).

Wash your hands. And, then your mouth.

Nope. Whoey full of shit louey can eat shit and die. In the most
horrid way possible.

I'll wash as regularly as I do at all times.

Nothing the slimey bastard he sucks up to says or him or you will
change that.

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:46:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:28:27 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:16:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Their unwillingess to listen to any witnesses could be seem as irresponsible.
First, it is not the Senate's job to call new witnesses, nor is it their job to make the case - that job belongs to the House of Representatives. The Senate did consider the testimony of the witnesses the House included in their impeachment articles, and made their decision. The reason the House didn't call all of the witnesses they wanted is that they (reasonably) knew the President would invoke executive privilege, as is his right. It would then have to go to Court, and that would extend the timeline beyond the 2020 elections (if they even prevailed, which is unlikely).

The House could also have called exculpatory witnesses, but the chose not to - that tell you a lot about the process (and witch hunt) right there.

Finally, when the Senate offered to hear new witnesses, the House would only allow it if the Senate agreed to NOT call Joe Biden and Hunter Biden as witnesses. The House would not agree to that. Again, that says all you need to know.

My opinions come from common sense, and fact as we know them.
And, one could argue, history, as the feeble attempt to remove Trump from office failed miserably. As it should have, since Trump in fact did not commit a "high crimes or misdemeanors", the requirement for conviction. !!!

Have you ever been to Ukraine?
(I completely disagree with your assertion that somehow the Russian's put Trump in power. But I don't want to get into it with you. At least not now..)

I will say: The average American could not care in the least about $400M in foreign aid to Ukraine, and do not see the Russians as the boogyman. "Why are we giving them aid in the first place?", and "Where's MY aid?", is what you're likely to hear.

About 250 days from now, this country will re-elect Trump in a landslide election. It won't even be close. So for all the bitching about Trump, he must be doing something right. Time will tell.

Which in my opinion was the right call.

So the President who probably got into office because the Russians chose to intervene on his behalf is perfectly entitled to try to get the Ukranians to intervene on his behalf in the 2020 elections.

That tells us where your opinion comes from.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
But let's not get into it.

 

[David Brown]

On 21/03/2020 05:16, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 11:27:46 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 18:30:17 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 06:52:55 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
If you were dying from a C19 infection, and were offered these drugs
now, before proper clinical trials were published and meta-analyzed,
would you take them?

There's a fairly good chance that he would be dead:
http://archive.vn/zC30G
The drug touted by the U.S. President Donald Trump as a
possible line of treatment against the coronavirus comes
with severe warnings in China and can kill in dosages
as little as two grams.
China, where the deadly pathogen first emerged in December,
recommended the decades-old malaria drug chloroquine
to treat infected patients in guidelines issued in February
after seeing encouraging results in clinical trials.
But within days, it cautioned doctors and health officials
about the drug’s lethal side effects and rolled back
its usage. This came after local media reported that
a Wuhan Institute of Virology study found that the drug
can kill an adult just dosed at twice the daily amount
recommended for treatment, which is one gram.

This drug has been used sucessfully for decades, against several
illnesses. I don't recommend that anyone take a lethal overdose of any
drug.

So what is the right dose for COVID-19?

This is a very important point - and one that is being missed regularly
by news reports, as well as the ignorant numpties (that includes Trump
and Larkin). Fortunately, it doesn't include doctors and medial
authorities who are mostly a lot more conservative and careful.

Chloroquine has been shown to be effective in vitro - in a testtube, or
glass plate. It is very common that drugs or chemicals are found to be
effective in vitro - but the step from there to a real medical treatment
is long, and usually impossible. You don't have to look far to see
internet articles on vitamins that "cure" HIV, or spices that "cure"
cancer. But if you look at the numbers to figure out what doses you
need to get the levels used in the in vitro tests, you have to eat
kilograms of the spice or tons of carrots per day.

Chloroquine is relatively safe in the doses used for malaria and certain
auto-immune diseases. Whether it is safe in the doses needed to be
effective for corona is a very different question. (One to which I do
not know the answer.)

 

[David Brown]

On 20/03/2020 17:42, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 12:26:03 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 20/03/2020 16:38, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 10:06:56 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 20/03/2020 14:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:32:11 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:



He is no hero - he is a narcissistic buffoon, whose single
skill (and he's /really/ good at this one) is blowing his
own trumpet.

His other rare skills include lack of caution and common
sense.


It is true - he /does/ have an unusual lack of common sense.
I wouldn't call that a skill, however.

You responded to a dog whistle. Talking about his lack of
common sense is a veiled reference to the poor "common sense" of
his opponents.

I hadn't heard that reference (there is a limit to how much
Trumpism I bother to follow from over here). Trump clearly
/thinks/ he has a lot of common sense, but he doesn't - his
connection with reality is vague at best.

"Dog whistle" is more of a conservative thing than a Trump thing.
It's a phrase that only has meaning to your followers. A lot of
conservatives here will talk in dog whistles and feel like they've
made a statement when they really have said nothing at all to anyone
who doesn't know the code.

Thanks for the explanation. I can see how the term could apply
regularly in Trump's world!

And you are also right that he has an astounding lack of
caution - he just opens his mouth and lets his belly rumble, in
the bizarre belief that he is an expert on everything. Again,
that is not a skill.

I've reached a point where I'm just not going to respond to his
posts. Talking to him makes literally no difference in his
opinions and he wouldn't recognize a fact if it smacked him in
the head. In other words, he is unteachable.


Wise advice.

It always amazes me how many respond to his baiting.

It is sad, but if he is not taking this disease seriously (which
I think he is in spite of his words) he will be creating a
potential Darwin moment for himself and his wife.


What is sad is that I don't think he is alone in the way he thinks.
I just hope it is a small minority.

What JL and others think is not so important. What is important is
how our leader think and act.

The two are connected.

Obviously what Trump says and does is more relevant, and has a more
immediate effect. When JL said chloroquine cures Corona, there was no
rush of chloroquine overdose victims in Nigerian hospitals - it came
when Trump announced it.

However, Trump doesn't have much in the way of original thoughts or
ideas, and what he says and does has little connection with what he
really thinks. He says what he thinks his brain-dead followers will
want him to say. So what JL and others like him think is very relevant
to what Trump will say and do.

Also, Americans are a freedom-loving people, and are not known for
blindly following rules and requirements from their authorities. If
there is a big enough gap between what your leadership says and what a
lot of people think, then there will be conflict.

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson wants to minimize this disease.

“People are going to have to work. People do need to recognize the
fact that this is not Ebola. This is not MERS. It's not quite the
seasonal flu,”

So he is echoing comparisons to the flu. He also seems to think
between 1% and 3.4% death rates are perfectly acceptable costs to
keep the factories open. There is no reason to keep making autos and
other items. Few people are going out to buy them. That's the real
reason why GM and other automakers shut down. They knew they would
only be creating a huge inventory of cars they couldn't sell.

Yeah, the economy is going to take a hit. Better than taking a hit
to your health.

A balance is always going to be necessary. You risk your life every
time you drive to work. But the balance has to be sensible - some
politicians seem to want do all they can to preserve the economy,
forgetting that dead or hospitalised people can't work.

That said, I am going to have to go out today for groceries.

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:47:49 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

> We are in the early stages of a total melt down. I hoping not, but your guns may well come into play. Then you will finally be right about something.

I take a longer view.
We (this country) got through four years of the Civil War; I think we'll get through this coronavirus thing OK.

I also think the coronavirus solution requires cooperation from the citizenry. Come down "too hard", and you're likely to lose that, in which case all efforts would be doomed. I think that's why you're not seeing a strong presence of federal troops in NYC enforcing a 24-hour, locked down curfew. I don't agree with him often, but Gov. Cuomo is right: The panic that would ensue would be worse than the disease.

That said, if cases continue to spiral (as I think you are correctly predicting they will), maybe we will see troops in the streets of NYC. Won't be pretty...!

As for guns, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why I choose to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights. But let's move on from that..

My boss at work (of all people!) got me aside on Thursday and asked me about various handguns he's researching for purchase. To me, he's become the poster-child for people who are of the mind to get armed during periods of uncertainty. Previously, I would have considered him "middle-of-the-road", at best, when it comes to gun rights. His son, who also now wants to get armed, was heretofore dead set against gun rights. (But his son smokes pot recreationally, so he's in for a rude awakening when he tries to buy a gun.)

I'm just mentioning it because it came out of left field. I totally did not see that coming, but it might mean there is some hope for many folks who have been drinking the anti-2A Kool-Aid a bit too long. But, to each his own.

Lastly: (as you make know...) There's been a run on gun and ammo purchases.. All the local and online store are out, running super-low inventory, or only have the oddball or very expensive stuff left.

Even I am shocked by how quick that response has been. (Paper towels, hand sanitizer, and ammo.) We're looking at hundreds of thousands of new, first-time gun owners. It's really amazing.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 11:35:51 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:46:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:28:27 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 10:16:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Their unwillingess to listen to any witnesses could be seem as irresponsible.
First, it is not the Senate's job to call new witnesses, nor is it their job to make the case - that job belongs to the House of Representatives. The Senate did consider the testimony of the witnesses the House included in their impeachment articles, and made their decision. The reason the House didn't call all of the witnesses they wanted is that they (reasonably) knew the President would invoke executive privilege, as is his right. It would then have to go to Court, and that would extend the timeline beyond the 2020 elections (if they even prevailed, which is unlikely).

The House could also have called exculpatory witnesses, but the chose not to - that tell you a lot about the process (and witch hunt) right there.

Not perhaps as much as you'd like to think. I've never heard any suggestion that Trump had a legitimate excuse for what he did - his defense seems to be that he wasn't indulging in any kind of extortion, which isn't exactly credible.

> Finally, when the Senate offered to hear new witnesses, the House would only allow it if the Senate agreed to NOT call Joe Biden and Hunter Biden as witnesses. The House would not agree to that. Again, that says all you need to know.

Trump's claim that he suddenly felt the urge to get Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, when he could have asked the FBI to do as soon as he came to power makes it entirely obvious that they didn't have anything to offer an enquiry.

Trump's game plan was always to get as much mud as possible thrown at Joe Biden. The FBI wouldn't done it - there hadn't anything going on that any prosecutor could take seriously - but the Ukrainians might have been persuade to throw some mud, and Trump's Senate Republicans could have been relied to deliver any amount of fatuous slander.

> My opinions come from common sense, and fact as we know them.

You may like to think so.

> And, one could argue, history, as the feeble attempt to remove Trump from office failed miserably. As it should have, since Trump in fact did not commit a "high crimes or misdemeanors", the requirement for conviction. !!!

So trying to extort the Ukraine into throwing mud at his most likely opponent in this years election was an entirely presidential gesture? Pull the other leg.

The Democrats would have preferred not to bother, but Trump's antics got leaked, and they didn't feel that they could get away with ignoring them.

Have you ever been to Ukraine?

Apart from flying over the top of it a few times, not all.

> (I completely disagree with your assertion that somehow the Russian's put Trump in power. But I don't want to get into it with you. At least not now.)

Why bother? Mueller has already gone into it in great detail, and indicted a bunch of Russians for their activities. They clearly intended to help Trump get elected - how effective they were is uncertain, but he won on a very narrow margin in three states where there had been a lot of pro-Trump Russian activty on social media.

I will say: The average American could not care in the least about $400M in foreign aid to Ukraine, and do not see the Russians as the boogyman. "Why are we giving them aid in the first place?", and "Where's MY aid?", is what you're likely to hear.

43% of Americans approve of Trump's performance as president. They've got to have a below average moral sense. They may not see the Russians as any great threat, but they'd be mad to imagine that the current Russian administration is favourably disposed towards America or anybody else who isn't likely to become one of their partners in crime.

Several of Trump's election team went to prison for collaborating with Russian (and Eastern European) criminal activity.

> About 250 days from now, this country will re-elect Trump in a landslide election.

You may need a better crystal ball than the one you are relying on at the moment.

>It won't even be close. So for all the bitching about Trump, he must be doing something right. Time will tell.

It will. What Trump does seem to be doing right is his keeping his half-witted supporters on-side. This isn't doing anything for the long term interests of the US, but right-wing politics does go in for short term thinking, when it thinks at all.

> > > Which in my opinion was the right call.

Far-right, at any rate.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 9:40:47 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not perhaps as much as you'd like to think. I've never heard any suggestion that Trump had a legitimate excuse for what he did - his defense seems to be that he wasn't indulging in any kind of extortion, which isn't exactly credible.

Well, if the Ukraine is corrupt (and all signs are that it is), I still content that it is fundamentally responsible to establish whether or not American aid dollars actually end up going to the right places. Whether it was Trump or some other person/department, as a taxpayer, I want assurances that our aid dollars work as intended.

> Trump's claim that he suddenly felt the urge to get Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, when he could have asked the FBI to do as soon as he came to power makes it entirely obvious that they didn't have anything to offer an enquiry.

Maybe, and I won't argue it.
But Trump probably has a million details to deal with. He may very well have simply latched onto the idea late in his first term. Doesn't necessarily establish that there was malice to it. (One could argue he's still doing his job?)

Anyway, I'm on the side that believes the Biden's are corrupt. Maybe Trump is too, but I can't shake the notion that the whole Hunter Biden thing stinks, and Joe let it stand.

My opinions come from common sense, and fact as we know them.

You may like to think so.

I do. Thank you for noticing.

So trying to extort the Ukraine into throwing mud at his most likely opponent in this years election was an entirely presidential gesture? Pull the other leg.

One man's "extortion" is another man's "making sure the American aid dollars go to the right places, and for the reasons intended".

The Democrats would have preferred not to bother, but Trump's antics got leaked, and they didn't feel that they could get away with ignoring them.

Well, that's one way to look at it.
But then you have freshman democrats vowing to impeach Trump before they had even taken office.


> Why bother? Mueller has already gone into it in great detail, and indicted a bunch of Russians for their activities. They clearly intended to help Trump get elected - how effective they were is uncertain, but he won on a very narrow margin in three states where there had been a lot of pro-Trump Russian activty on social media.

Correct. Mueller indicted un-named "Russians" (Oh, watch out - the Russians are coming - it's fucking laughable, really). But note, importantly, Mueller DID NOT indict Trump. Humm..

> 43% of Americans approve of Trump's performance as president. They've got to have a below average moral sense. They may not see the Russians as any great threat, but they'd be mad to imagine that the current Russian administration is favourably disposed towards America or anybody else who isn't likely to become one of their partners in crime.

Agree, partially.
I believe the American electorate knew what they were getting with Trump, and wanted it anyway.

It [the election] will [be close]. What Trump does seem to be doing right is his keeping his half-witted supporters on-side. This isn't doing anything for the long term interests of the US, but right-wing politics does go in for short term thinking, when it thinks at all.

The election was close with Hillary, but I don't think Biden and/or Bernie have the same draw. Democrats may just sit this election out, and for sure the Republican base is fired up. TBD.