Ok those on the left here is your chance.

Is the corona virus death toll be used as a political tool?

  • YES

    Votes: 13 61.9%

  • NO

    Votes: 7 33.3%

  • DON'T KNOW

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
Grumpy said:
It's meaningless when considering relaxing the stay at home rules.
Click to expand...

I do agree we can't stay at home endlessly,we do need to open up some.
But continue social distancing and wear a mask in public.
I also agreed with Trump on telling meat packers to stay open.
 
Grumpy said:
You all are making such a big deal on the number of deaths in the US.

Other than figuring how lethal the corona virus is, how does it figure in on reopening the states? Be honest and give reasons not BS!
Click to expand...

Putting aside the death toll, the virus is still overwhelming hospitals because of people getting tested or treated. So the numbers should be considered before opening states.
 
The conversation between Legion and Concart has to be one of the strangest ones I have ever seen. It's astounding to see how dumb Legion is.

I feel bad. :(
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
Because that is how it appears to break down. The left want to turn this into a major issue tanking the economy in an effort to drag their pathetic candidate across the finish line in November.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah people in other countries want our economy to tank, risking their economies, just to spite Trump. :rolleyes:
 
AProudLefty said:
Oh yeah people in other countries want our economy to tank, risking their economies, just to spite Trump. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just look at what some in America have been willing to do over these last years for no other reason than to spite Trump.

ARGUMENT REJECTED!
 
Hawkeye10 said:
???

Make statements..... It was never my job to educate you and I have demands.
Click to expand...

You made this claim: "Just look at what some in America have been willing to do over these last years for no other reason than to spite Trump."

What is it they were willing to do?
 
AProudLefty said:
You made this claim: "Just look at what some in America have been willing to do over these last years for no other reason than to spite Trump."

What is it they were willing to do?
Click to expand...

I pointed you in a very helpful direction if you should desire to get yourself educated.

"Learn or Leave" ..Mel Gibson in A Man Without A Face

If you must be dragged then I am not your guy.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I pointed you in a very helpful direction if you should desire to get yourself educated.

"Learn or Leave" ..Mel Gibson in A Man Without A Face

If you must be dragged then I am not your guy.
Click to expand...

If you can't expound on your claim, then how can I make a proper reply?
 
To the OP, of course the coronavirus is being used as a political tool in both sides. Seriously, people act as if it's something new. Trump has been using it as a political tool to blame Democrats and Obama.
 
Concart said:
No. The infection rate is just as important if not more so. If we infect 40% of the population and we have a mortality rate of 0.3% that's still 600,000 dead. And if we overrun our healthcare system, 0.3% is probably really low
Click to expand...

You are forgetting about herd immunity and Farr's Law, there is substantial evidence to suggest that it is achieved once 10-20% of the populace is infected. Which means that all.of the lockdown measures and the destruction of world economies was mostly futile. That arsehole Neil Ferguson has a lot to answer for, in my opinion.

Since mid-March there has been an assumption that herd immunity against Covid-19 would not be achieved until around 60 per cent of the population has been infected. It is a figure which gave rise to the now-famous paper by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, which claimed that a herd immunity policy (which the government denies ever following) would result in the deaths of 250,000 people in Britain. That figure has been challenged by scientists who have questioned some of the assumptions behind it – for example, it assumed a mortality rate of 0.9 per cent which Imperial College itself has since revised downwards to 0.66 per cent, and some believe is lower still.

But today comes another challenge. A team led by Gabriela Gomes of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine argues that it is wrong to assume that herd immunity will only be achieved when 60 per cent of people have been infected. It is more likely, they argue, that the true figure lies between 10 and 20 per cent. The 60 per cent figure, they say, is based on the idea that we are all equally likely to contract the virus. In reality, there is a wide variation in an individual’s susceptibility to becoming infected. People who are frail or who have greater exposure to the virus – perhaps because they are working in an intensive care unit – are in practice far more likely to contract the disease. As the epidemic progresses the pool of easily-infected individuals dries up and the virus has to search out new victims who are less-easily infected.

Modelling by Gomes’ team aims to calculate the ‘coefficient of variation’, which quantifies the variability in individuals’ susceptibility to the virus – with zero denoting no variability at all (ie we are equally likely to be infected). If this coefficient really were zero, say the scientists, then herd immunity would only be achieved when over 60 percent of the population has been infected. If the coefficient were four, on the other hand, it would be achieved when 10 per cent of us were infected. The team then looked at real-life data to try to deduce what the coefficient of variation really is and concluded that it is in the range of just under two to just over three. That would mean herd immunity could be achieved when between 10 and 20 per cent of us have been infected.

The usual health warnings apply. Gomes’ work is theoretical modelling and, in common with a lot of material on Covid-19 that is being pre-published at the moment (including Ferguson’s paper of 16 March), it has not been peer-reviewed. But it is interesting that it gives an estimate for herd immunity of between 10 and 20 per cent, because that echoes real-life experience. The closest we have to a controlled experiment on the spread of Covid-19 was the cruise ship Diamond Princess, where the disease was able to spread uncontrolled in January, and almost all were later tested for the disease. Out of the 3,711 passengers and crew, 712 – or 19 per cent – were infected.

If herd immunity really is achieved at between 10 to 20 per cent it could mean that many parts of the world are approaching it – or are there already. A study of 1,000 residents in the North West German town of Gangelt in early April suggested that 14 per cent had already been infected(many without even knowing it). A study of 1,300 New Yorkers in late April suggested that 21 per cent have been infected
Click to expand...

https://app.spectator.co.uk/2020/05...er-cent-of-people-to-be-infected/content.html
 
AProudLefty said:
Well I apologize for making an assumption about you.

I'm just wanting to understand what you were referring to.
Click to expand...

I wanted you to think about what you have seen in the last years that could be filed under "During what ever it takes to hurt Trump, even if it hurts people or otherwise makes America weaker..for instance by being unjust".

This is all about you, not me.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I wanted you to think about what you have seen in the last years that could be filed under "During what ever it takes to hurt Trump, even if it hurts people or otherwise makes America weaker..for instance by being unjust".

This is all about you, not me.
Click to expand...

I know what you meant. I just want specifics. For example, Democrats are using coronavirus to try to hurt Trump, no matter if the economy tanks and it kills people.
That's quite a whopper.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I wanted you to think about what you have seen in the last years that could be filed under "During what ever it takes to hurt Trump, even if it hurts people or otherwise makes America weaker..for instance by being unjust".

This is all about you, not me.
Click to expand...
The Russian hoax destroyed the Russian reset..In between there was the annexation of Crimea,but even that was driven by the Euromaidan -and we drove that protest into a full blown revolution
 
Concart said:
No. The infection rate is just as important if not more so. If we infect 40% of the population and we have a mortality rate of 0.3% that's still 600,000 dead. And if we overrun our healthcare system, 0.3% is probably really low
Click to expand...

You are forgetting about herd immunity, there is substantial evidence to suggest that it is achieved once 10-20% of the populace is infected. Which means that all.of the lockdown measures and the destruction of world economies was mostly futile. That arsehole Neil Ferguson has a lot to answer for, in my opinion.

https://app.spectator.co.uk/2020/05...er-cent-of-people-to-be-infected/content.html
 
AProudLefty said:
I know what you meant. I just want specifics. For example, Democrats are using coronavirus to try to hurt Trump, no matter if the economy tanks and it kills people.
That's quite a whopper.
Click to expand...

If your education is so not up to snuff that you have no idea what I am talking about then you are not worth talking to....you are not paying any attention.

Separating the wheat from chaff is an important skill to learn how to accomplish efficiently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top