Is Coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested? Two Stanford medical professors suggest that current mortality estimates are way too high.

[Seawytch]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

I'd be happy to talk about "the massive corporate bailout with no oversight". It didn't exist; it was a made-up talking point for you leftist zombies to parrot to give Pelosi and Company cover under which to demand their goody package.

I'll talk about "abstinence only education" just as soon as you show me some actual proof any such thing happened. Until then, the only thing I have to say about it is, "Seabiscuit claims it, so it must be so much horseshit."

Your turn, Sparkles. Let's see you post something other than, "Well, how about THIS accusation I made up, and THIS one, and don't notice that I ignored all your questions." I dare you.

Are you incapable of searching things on the internet? Google broken? Does being a dripping slit of a bitch render you incapable of research?

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

"Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! I don't have to prove anything, go Google how right I am!" is another way of saying, "I have no proof! I just want to believe this!" Don't even get me started on the lame-ass broken link.

Debate over. You lost. Run along.

I gave you the link, your bitchness. Cute little hissy fit, but I provided the link you demanded.

Your link is bogus, Your Dodginess. Doesn't work. And there's nothing cute about your hypocrisy and deflection.

The link worked fine and so did the 2nd one. Abstinence only education was included in the stimulus.

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

The extension of funding for abstinence education is reportedly seen by Democrats as a favor to Republicans' constituents, similarly to how Republicans criticized elements in the House Democrats stimulus proposal, including funding for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, as...

www.foxnews.com

No, the first link didn't work.

As far as your "Look, ABSTINENCE! How DARE they!" fauxrage: there continues to be the question, assiduously avoided by you, about the vast amounts of pork the Democrats have shoved and keep shoving into this bill. Do you really think you're going to be able to put us onto the defensive with your accusations of "ABSTINENCE! Such WASTE!" sufficient to deflect from that?

I'm not surprised that Republicans countered with an agenda item of their own in response to Pelosi's shameless attempts to leverage the virus for her insane wishlist. At least the Republican agenda item has some vague connection to the need for social distancing. What's your excuse for how airline emission standards connect to this emergency?

Time for YOU to start answering some questions, instead of pretending that you just get to fire them out to others.

Look how adorable you are! “Yeah, well, but”...is that you trying to deflect? Why, yes, I think it is!
So, are we gonna have that discussion now about how both sides got a little “sumpin’ sumpin’ “ outta the stimulus?

I'll take that as a "Run away before I have to answer!"

Run away from what? Stuff that wasn't in the final bill? Okay, let's talk about stuff that wasn't in the bill. Trump getting money for his businesses wasn't in the bill. Corporations being able to give themselves bonuses or buyback stock options while still repaying on the loan wasn't in the bill either.

Yeah, somebody thought that maybe if we were going to give airlines a bunch of free money that maybe they could get them to curb their carbon emissions. It's as tenuous a connection as abstinence only education...which IS in the bill whereas limits on airline carbon emissions is not.

Now maybe you can explain what any of this has to do with how transmittable or how deadly this virus is...

I'm sorry, did I indicate at some point that I was going to allow you to redefine the question you are to address to your own personal spin? Have I ever, in any way, indicated that you were setting the parameters of ANY debate?

I didn't think so.

Scroll your ass back up past all your deflections and attempts to put others on the defensive, find the ACTUAL question at hand, and address it.

Or admit that you're afraid to address anything that isn't, "Trump is eeeeevil, explain why he's eeeeevil!"

Frankly, you aren't worth the effort of repeating myself. Run along.

So what is the "actual question at hand"?

I scrolled up and found your deflections. You didn't want to talk about anything but what "liberals" wanted in the stimulus. You didn't seem to care about what actually got into it, just what was proposed.

Where did I talk about Trump?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

I'd be happy to talk about "the massive corporate bailout with no oversight". It didn't exist; it was a made-up talking point for you leftist zombies to parrot to give Pelosi and Company cover under which to demand their goody package.

I'll talk about "abstinence only education" just as soon as you show me some actual proof any such thing happened. Until then, the only thing I have to say about it is, "Seabiscuit claims it, so it must be so much horseshit."

Your turn, Sparkles. Let's see you post something other than, "Well, how about THIS accusation I made up, and THIS one, and don't notice that I ignored all your questions." I dare you.

Are you incapable of searching things on the internet? Google broken? Does being a dripping slit of a bitch render you incapable of research?

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

"Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! I don't have to prove anything, go Google how right I am!" is another way of saying, "I have no proof! I just want to believe this!" Don't even get me started on the lame-ass broken link.

Debate over. You lost. Run along.

I gave you the link, your bitchness. Cute little hissy fit, but I provided the link you demanded.

Your link is bogus, Your Dodginess. Doesn't work. And there's nothing cute about your hypocrisy and deflection.

The link worked fine and so did the 2nd one. Abstinence only education was included in the stimulus.

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

The extension of funding for abstinence education is reportedly seen by Democrats as a favor to Republicans' constituents, similarly to how Republicans criticized elements in the House Democrats stimulus proposal, including funding for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, as...

www.foxnews.com

No, the first link didn't work.

As far as your "Look, ABSTINENCE! How DARE they!" fauxrage: there continues to be the question, assiduously avoided by you, about the vast amounts of pork the Democrats have shoved and keep shoving into this bill. Do you really think you're going to be able to put us onto the defensive with your accusations of "ABSTINENCE! Such WASTE!" sufficient to deflect from that?

I'm not surprised that Republicans countered with an agenda item of their own in response to Pelosi's shameless attempts to leverage the virus for her insane wishlist. At least the Republican agenda item has some vague connection to the need for social distancing. What's your excuse for how airline emission standards connect to this emergency?

Time for YOU to start answering some questions, instead of pretending that you just get to fire them out to others.

Look how adorable you are! “Yeah, well, but”...is that you trying to deflect? Why, yes, I think it is!
So, are we gonna have that discussion now about how both sides got a little “sumpin’ sumpin’ “ outta the stimulus?

I'll take that as a "Run away before I have to answer!"

Run away from what? Stuff that wasn't in the final bill? Okay, let's talk about stuff that wasn't in the bill. Trump getting money for his businesses wasn't in the bill. Corporations being able to give themselves bonuses or buyback stock options while still repaying on the loan wasn't in the bill either.

Yeah, somebody thought that maybe if we were going to give airlines a bunch of free money that maybe they could get them to curb their carbon emissions. It's as tenuous a connection as abstinence only education...which IS in the bill whereas limits on airline carbon emissions is not.

Now maybe you can explain what any of this has to do with how transmittable or how deadly this virus is...

I'm sorry, did I indicate at some point that I was going to allow you to redefine the question you are to address to your own personal spin? Have I ever, in any way, indicated that you were setting the parameters of ANY debate?

I didn't think so.

Scroll your ass back up past all your deflections and attempts to put others on the defensive, find the ACTUAL question at hand, and address it.

Or admit that you're afraid to address anything that isn't, "Trump is eeeeevil, explain why he's eeeeevil!"

Frankly, you aren't worth the effort of repeating myself. Run along.

So what is the "actual question at hand"?

I scrolled up and found your deflections. You didn't want to talk about anything but what "liberals" wanted in the stimulus. You didn't seem to care about what actually got into it, just what was proposed.

Where did I talk about Trump?

"Deflections" like post #35?

"Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk."

Oh, yeah, I never mentioned anything specific, and you didn't diddle around trying to divert the conversation, what with waiting until almost 50 posts later to even notice that you had been asked something.

And by the way, who the hell told you that you get to set the artificial debate parameter of "only what actually got in, not what was proposed"?

 

[Seawytch]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

I'd be happy to talk about "the massive corporate bailout with no oversight". It didn't exist; it was a made-up talking point for you leftist zombies to parrot to give Pelosi and Company cover under which to demand their goody package.

I'll talk about "abstinence only education" just as soon as you show me some actual proof any such thing happened. Until then, the only thing I have to say about it is, "Seabiscuit claims it, so it must be so much horseshit."

Your turn, Sparkles. Let's see you post something other than, "Well, how about THIS accusation I made up, and THIS one, and don't notice that I ignored all your questions." I dare you.

Are you incapable of searching things on the internet? Google broken? Does being a dripping slit of a bitch render you incapable of research?

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

"Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! I don't have to prove anything, go Google how right I am!" is another way of saying, "I have no proof! I just want to believe this!" Don't even get me started on the lame-ass broken link.

Debate over. You lost. Run along.

I gave you the link, your bitchness. Cute little hissy fit, but I provided the link you demanded.

Your link is bogus, Your Dodginess. Doesn't work. And there's nothing cute about your hypocrisy and deflection.

The link worked fine and so did the 2nd one. Abstinence only education was included in the stimulus.

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

The extension of funding for abstinence education is reportedly seen by Democrats as a favor to Republicans' constituents, similarly to how Republicans criticized elements in the House Democrats stimulus proposal, including funding for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, as...

www.foxnews.com

No, the first link didn't work.

As far as your "Look, ABSTINENCE! How DARE they!" fauxrage: there continues to be the question, assiduously avoided by you, about the vast amounts of pork the Democrats have shoved and keep shoving into this bill. Do you really think you're going to be able to put us onto the defensive with your accusations of "ABSTINENCE! Such WASTE!" sufficient to deflect from that?

I'm not surprised that Republicans countered with an agenda item of their own in response to Pelosi's shameless attempts to leverage the virus for her insane wishlist. At least the Republican agenda item has some vague connection to the need for social distancing. What's your excuse for how airline emission standards connect to this emergency?

Time for YOU to start answering some questions, instead of pretending that you just get to fire them out to others.

Look how adorable you are! “Yeah, well, but”...is that you trying to deflect? Why, yes, I think it is!
So, are we gonna have that discussion now about how both sides got a little “sumpin’ sumpin’ “ outta the stimulus?

I'll take that as a "Run away before I have to answer!"

Run away from what? Stuff that wasn't in the final bill? Okay, let's talk about stuff that wasn't in the bill. Trump getting money for his businesses wasn't in the bill. Corporations being able to give themselves bonuses or buyback stock options while still repaying on the loan wasn't in the bill either.

Yeah, somebody thought that maybe if we were going to give airlines a bunch of free money that maybe they could get them to curb their carbon emissions. It's as tenuous a connection as abstinence only education...which IS in the bill whereas limits on airline carbon emissions is not.

Now maybe you can explain what any of this has to do with how transmittable or how deadly this virus is...

I'm sorry, did I indicate at some point that I was going to allow you to redefine the question you are to address to your own personal spin? Have I ever, in any way, indicated that you were setting the parameters of ANY debate?

I didn't think so.

Scroll your ass back up past all your deflections and attempts to put others on the defensive, find the ACTUAL question at hand, and address it.

Or admit that you're afraid to address anything that isn't, "Trump is eeeeevil, explain why he's eeeeevil!"

Frankly, you aren't worth the effort of repeating myself. Run along.

So what is the "actual question at hand"?

I scrolled up and found your deflections. You didn't want to talk about anything but what "liberals" wanted in the stimulus. You didn't seem to care about what actually got into it, just what was proposed.

Where did I talk about Trump?

"Deflections" like post #35?

"Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk."

Oh, yeah, I never mentioned anything specific, and you didn't diddle around trying to divert the conversation, what with waiting until almost 50 posts later to even notice that you had been asked something.

And by the way, who the hell told you that you get to set the artificial debate parameter of "only what actually got in, not what was proposed"?

See, there you go again wanting to "discuss" things not in the bill. They aren't in the bill so what is there to discuss?

Funding for the arts was in the bill. Why is that bad? Museums are being hurt by the shutdown and losing revenue, yes?

What did i say even on the edges about Trump?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Breaking News! BriPat doesn't think enough people are dying! Go away Russian troll!

Not breaking new

This is what I've been saying all along, and the TDS morons have been trying to ignore. Their claims that the Wuhan flu is more deadly than the Swine flu is based on psuedo-science. It's based on figures that are clearly biased.

Is coronavirus less fatal than early predictions suggested?

Coronavirus is an icky disease that takes a cruel toll on the elderly, the sick, and the unlucky. In this modern era, we can outwit many things that once routinely killed people, but the Grim Reaper is still out there and he’ll eventually get all of us. Scary headlines have hinted that coronavirus is now the Grim Reaper's preferred method.

Media reports have told us that coronavirus is significantly more deadly than the flu, which annually kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans. Based on the speed with which it killed in China, Italy, Iran, and Spain, it looked as if the American death toll could easily top two million people annually. While that’s small potatoes compared to past pandemics (e.g., the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza), it’s a staggering toll in modern America. Any actions seemed worthwhile to America from turn into a viral slaughterhouse.

But that might not be what's happening.

At the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall), Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, two medical professors at Stanford, propose that we’re using the wrong math and that we are still missing the numbers we need to do the math correctly. However, by extrapolating from available data, one can argue that coronavirus’s mortality rate is significantly lower than the early estimates.

According to the doctors, “The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.” When calculating the mortality rate, while we know the numerator (the number who have died), we’re using the wrong denominator. If the denominator is only those sick enough to get the test in the first place, that small number will return a much higher mortality rate.

The real denominator should be the total number of people who catch this contagious virus.

Have you volunteered at you local Emergency Center yet? Someone as unconcerned about the virus as you are should be on the front lines fighting it.

So you aren't concerned about the virus?

I'm very concerned. You aren't. You should volunteer to help fight the virus on the "front lines". I am following recommended guidelines and staying home or only going to my workplace or grocery store.

Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk.

Sure, we can talk about those if you'd also like to talk about the massive corporate bailout with no oversight for corporations too. Or how about Republicans tacking on provisions about abstinence only education. Can't have one discussion without the other.

I'd be happy to talk about "the massive corporate bailout with no oversight". It didn't exist; it was a made-up talking point for you leftist zombies to parrot to give Pelosi and Company cover under which to demand their goody package.

I'll talk about "abstinence only education" just as soon as you show me some actual proof any such thing happened. Until then, the only thing I have to say about it is, "Seabiscuit claims it, so it must be so much horseshit."

Your turn, Sparkles. Let's see you post something other than, "Well, how about THIS accusation I made up, and THIS one, and don't notice that I ignored all your questions." I dare you.

Are you incapable of searching things on the internet? Google broken? Does being a dripping slit of a bitch render you incapable of research?

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

"Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! I don't have to prove anything, go Google how right I am!" is another way of saying, "I have no proof! I just want to believe this!" Don't even get me started on the lame-ass broken link.

Debate over. You lost. Run along.

I gave you the link, your bitchness. Cute little hissy fit, but I provided the link you demanded.

Your link is bogus, Your Dodginess. Doesn't work. And there's nothing cute about your hypocrisy and deflection.

The link worked fine and so did the 2nd one. Abstinence only education was included in the stimulus.

Senate stimulus bill extends funding for abstinence education

The extension of funding for abstinence education is reportedly seen by Democrats as a favor to Republicans' constituents, similarly to how Republicans criticized elements in the House Democrats stimulus proposal, including funding for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, as...

www.foxnews.com

No, the first link didn't work.

As far as your "Look, ABSTINENCE! How DARE they!" fauxrage: there continues to be the question, assiduously avoided by you, about the vast amounts of pork the Democrats have shoved and keep shoving into this bill. Do you really think you're going to be able to put us onto the defensive with your accusations of "ABSTINENCE! Such WASTE!" sufficient to deflect from that?

I'm not surprised that Republicans countered with an agenda item of their own in response to Pelosi's shameless attempts to leverage the virus for her insane wishlist. At least the Republican agenda item has some vague connection to the need for social distancing. What's your excuse for how airline emission standards connect to this emergency?

Time for YOU to start answering some questions, instead of pretending that you just get to fire them out to others.

Look how adorable you are! “Yeah, well, but”...is that you trying to deflect? Why, yes, I think it is!
So, are we gonna have that discussion now about how both sides got a little “sumpin’ sumpin’ “ outta the stimulus?

I'll take that as a "Run away before I have to answer!"

Run away from what? Stuff that wasn't in the final bill? Okay, let's talk about stuff that wasn't in the bill. Trump getting money for his businesses wasn't in the bill. Corporations being able to give themselves bonuses or buyback stock options while still repaying on the loan wasn't in the bill either.

Yeah, somebody thought that maybe if we were going to give airlines a bunch of free money that maybe they could get them to curb their carbon emissions. It's as tenuous a connection as abstinence only education...which IS in the bill whereas limits on airline carbon emissions is not.

Now maybe you can explain what any of this has to do with how transmittable or how deadly this virus is...

I'm sorry, did I indicate at some point that I was going to allow you to redefine the question you are to address to your own personal spin? Have I ever, in any way, indicated that you were setting the parameters of ANY debate?

I didn't think so.

Scroll your ass back up past all your deflections and attempts to put others on the defensive, find the ACTUAL question at hand, and address it.

Or admit that you're afraid to address anything that isn't, "Trump is eeeeevil, explain why he's eeeeevil!"

Frankly, you aren't worth the effort of repeating myself. Run along.

So what is the "actual question at hand"?

I scrolled up and found your deflections. You didn't want to talk about anything but what "liberals" wanted in the stimulus. You didn't seem to care about what actually got into it, just what was proposed.

Where did I talk about Trump?

"Deflections" like post #35?

"Tell us how concerned you are when your leaders aren't wasting time trying to use the virus to advance their political agenda, and you aren't making excuses for them doing it.

When I see your hypocritical ass demanding to know what funding for the arts and airplane emissions standards have to do with the coronavirus, we'll talk."

Oh, yeah, I never mentioned anything specific, and you didn't diddle around trying to divert the conversation, what with waiting until almost 50 posts later to even notice that you had been asked something.

And by the way, who the hell told you that you get to set the artificial debate parameter of "only what actually got in, not what was proposed"?

See, there you go again wanting to "discuss" things not in the bill. They aren't in the bill so what is there to discuss?

Funding for the arts was in the bill. Why is that bad? Museums are being hurt by the shutdown and losing revenue, yes?

What did i say even on the edges about Trump?

See, there you go again, trying to pretend that you get to set debate parameters.

Why is that bad? Because there's no need for special, earmarked funds for vague "arts" spending when - as far as I'm aware - they're able to access the same funding for employers every other business is. And there's definitely no need to earmark that much money for one place (the JFK Center). And what the fuck does funding to the NEA have to do with coronavirus?

And don't think I didn't notice that you started out pretending that I was talking about stuff that didn't make it into the final bill, and ended up tacitly admitting that it DID make it in.

 

[Seawytch]

See, there you go again, trying to pretend that you get to set debate parameters.

Why is that bad? Because there's no need for special, earmarked funds for vague "arts" spending when - as far as I'm aware - they're able to access the same funding for employers every other business is. And there's definitely no need to earmark that much money for one place (the JFK Center). And what the fuck does funding to the NEA have to do with coronavirus?

And don't think I didn't notice that you started out pretending that I was talking about stuff that didn't make it into the final bill, and ended up tacitly admitting that it DID make it in.

So my not letting you deflect with your personal bugaboos means I'm trying to set debate parameters? Guess what, oh Queen of the Bitches, you don't get to set the debate parameters either.

Money was given to NEA because they can pass it on to the institutions that need it. It's not FOR the NEA they are just managing the distributions. As to the Kennedy Center, they are home to the NATIONAL Symphony Orchestra and Washington NATIONAL Opera. Do you understand what the Congressional Designation "National" means?

Fox didn't cover that I take it?

 

[WEATHER53]

We all know the numbers have been skewed from the start to present an unlikely worst case scenario instead of the most likely scenario. That helps scare people into freedom surrendering compliance

More lost in the Media sauce, deliberately , is that the vast majority of deaths are from 65+ year olds who have other conditions and that only 15% of ALL corona deaths are attributed to Corona alone; 85% are multiple prexisting condions leading to the demise of which Corona was one.’