Trump Thread 2.0

[roguetoaster]

^^^
I was writing about your refutation that deaths have occurred in the sub 18 age group as a direct result of CV. Clearly they have, and if they have it means that they probably will continue to do so. I also contend, but cannot prove that as children are sent back out in to the world the rate of infection and rate of death are both likely to rise. That does not even account for potential transmission from child to adult.

It really depends on what amount of people you feel can be sacrificed so that we can have whatever end result. Personally, I think that kids and parents of children need to be protected from unnecessary risk, and I do not see the harm in taking widespread, substantial precautions to shield them. However, those precautions are for naught if we do not control our infection rate throughout the populace.

Yes, it's not the plague (in terms of mortality), but it's also the 21st century, and we are limited in how we can treat infected people, so we take precautions to prevent infection, just as we did those hundreds of years ago. Clearly, death is not that only impact of contraction, even in healthy people, and that's the real concern in my book.

[CarpHunter]

Oh, he could have done what Sweden did, right?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87812

How about the Dutch?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-netherlands-gamble-on-limited-intelligent-lockdown-to-control-covid-19/

The government is not supposed to protect you from dying: the government is designed to protect people's rights. And don't get all stupid and say that "people have a right to be alive." Yeah, no shit Sherlock. But they are not entitled to lock people in their houses "for their own good." No, absolutely not.

First, I'm not attacking you, please refrain from the insults. Just asking a question about your opinion. Neither of your links dispute what I said. All i said is this country could learn from what is working in other countries. And apply that knowledge. And their not locking anyone in their homes. That's a ridiculous over exaggeration. Why is it all americans wanna do is stare at their phones and lay on their couch all day, but as soon as your asked to stay home, lay on your couch all day and stare at your phone it's some crazy issue? Not saying you specifically.

You did avoid the main question tho. I'm not leading with it. Really wanna know where you personally draw the line, is it numbers of dead, how long this continues? Like if it's a constant cycle of lock downs for the next 6 months to a a year or more. Look at texas and Florida among others, opened up just to close back down. What if that continues. At what point do you personally start saying shit's not being handled right?

[phillipj]

But again, being infected does not mean they die. We are worried about death here. And if we are worried about death, we identify the people most vulnerable (to Covid) and we work around them. Kids are not dying by this. They factually are not. Old people, nursing home patients and people with generalized poor health are at risk.

School age kids are not killing their parents from this either. That has not been proven even a little. Could they kill grandma? Yeah, really only if she is ill, has diabetes or other severe health problems.

Once again, the kid's lives are not threatened by this disease. Period.

"Are not killing their parents" ? In what, high enough measured numbers right now? Anyone gets it, they can pass it on. The little kid next door can pass it to my 72 year old Mom selling stupid lemonade!

And are we only worried about death? How about if you are bankrupted by hospital bills?

Let's say you lost your job and your health insurance in the pandemic, do you have the bank account to pay for this? There's no vaccine yet. Ok, go so you unfortunately get it, maybe it's bad enough and you go get hospitalized-- there's a mind-boggling ton of costs! And, eventually you do finally get some treatment, something like Remdesivir is priced at over $3,100 for just one course (even though taxpayer dollars subsidized the development of their drug heavily, which now Gilead is making a fortune on).

There are very severe cascading effects of this pandemic you completely forget about in about 1000 regards.

[marshallnoise]

Kids are actually dying, perhaps not in great numbers, but they certainly are. and with more opportunity for exposure, the base number and rate will undoubtedly rise.

We don't know how true or untrue it is, no large studies have been completed, and it's a large unknown at this point. However, we know that parents are not one monolithic block of healthy people, and without a doubt there are many out there who are very susceptible to severe infection.

Once again, they are, and you are really the only person I have ever heard refute that children are at risk. That said, death is not the only lasting impact of CV, we have seen a plethora of long term issues, and not just in those with severe cases requiring hospitalization.

Ultimately, if parents are not given a choice other than to send their kids back to physical school without regard to their individual circumstances we are undoubtedly putting more people of all ages at risk unnecessarily. Alternative solutions are needed, including for those who wish to send their kids back to school, which is fine if they have considered circumstances rationally.

I don't think its right to say "Kids are actually dying." Its ok to say that kids have died by Covid, but statistically, they are not. You have to be careful how you paint the picture.

Please, clarify for me: "Once again, they are, and you are really the only person I have ever heard refute that children are at risk." At risk for what? Death or infection? Because it is REALLY important. I am not saying and never have said that kids won't get infected. I said and will repeat saying, until data proves otherwise, that kids do not die from Coronavirus. Statistically, I am 100% right, even if 1000 kids die from Coronavirus, it really depends on the denominator of that equation. It is critical we have some perspective here. That is all I am trying to bring up.

I am 100% in agreement with your rational, thoughtful analysis of the situation in your last paragraph. We can have a reasonable debate over these things, but we cannot have a reasonable debate if the first thing out of someone's mouth is that the sky is falling and Covid is the new plague. That kind of hysteria is reserved for people who do not belong at the grown up table.

[roguetoaster]

That explains the United State's low rate of infection in children. But again, being infected does not mean they die. We are worried about death here. And if we are worried about death, we identify the people most vulnerable (to Covid) and we work around them. Kids are not dying by this. They factually are not. Old people, nursing home patients and people with generalized poor health are at risk.

School age kids are not killing their parents from this either. That has not been proven even a little. Could they kill grandma? Yeah, really only if she is ill, has diabetes or other severe health problems.

Once again, the kid's lives are not threatened by this disease. Period.

Kids are actually dying, perhaps not in great numbers, but they certainly are. and with more opportunity for exposure, the base number and rate will undoubtedly rise.

We don't know how true or untrue it is, no large studies have been completed, and it's a large unknown at this point. However, we know that parents are not one monolithic block of healthy people, and without a doubt there are many out there who are very susceptible to severe infection.

Once again, they are, and you are really the only person I have ever heard refute that children are at risk. That said, death is not the only lasting impact of CV, we have seen a plethora of long term issues, and not just in those with severe cases requiring hospitalization.

Ultimately, if parents are not given a choice other than to send their kids back to physical school without regard to their individual circumstances we are undoubtedly putting more people of all ages at risk unnecessarily. Alternative solutions are needed, including for those who wish to send their kids back to school, which is fine if they have considered circumstances rationally.

[marshallnoise]

You have to read in to it. Why were rates of infection low in children, probably because parents kept them at home, and they are probably less likely to get tested.

What about when rates are high? Do schools become an excellent transmission space, most likely.

Children are also far less likely to be able to restrain themselves and I suspect that they are more likely to be "invisible" carriers in a family or community space. What happens if the kid picks it up, displays minimum symptoms, passes it on to their parent, and then their parent becomes seriously ill or dead? Now who cares for that child, how does that impact their well-being and long term success, which seems to be the main point in that CDC page?

On a more basic level, these kids are the future of the country, they matter, we don't, maybe we should be more careful with their lives?

That explains the United State's low rate of infection in children. But again, being infected does not mean they die. We are worried about death here. And if we are worried about death, we identify the people most vulnerable (to Covid) and we work around them. Kids are not dying by this. They factually are not. Old people, nursing home patients and people with generalized poor health are at risk.

School age kids are not killing their parents from this either. That has not been proven even a little. Could they kill grandma? Yeah, really only if she is ill, has diabetes or other severe health problems.

Once again, the kid's lives are not threatened by this disease. Period.

[marshallnoise]

Criminally is probably taking it too far - but morally, yes you would be. At least, anyone with a shred of conscience and empathy for others would feel responsible. You know, people who aren't Trump loving psychopaths.

It would be difficult to prove and unlikely to be successful, but I'm sure there will be at least one case brought to the courts. This is America, after all.

No nando, if I did not intentionally infect someone, I would not be morally responsible for giving it to them. Would I feel bad? Yeah, but I would not feel responsible. No one should feel responsible.

Using your logic, Christopher Columbus, who had no idea he and his crew carried diseases that they had developed immunity for, is morally and legally culpable for the lack of immunity the natives had that wound up killing a bunch of them. Its unfortunate, but that's it man.

I forgot though, there are a whole bunch of people being taught in college that Columbus MURDERED the natives by showing up in the first place. People call it genocide!!! With that kind of distortion of reason going on...I don't know what to do with that.

For all of you who want some perspective, legitimate, actual perspective, read this article. https://www.kunc.org/show/kuncs-colo...orical-context

[roguetoaster]

Right! Keep your snot factory away from Grandpa and Grandma, problem solved! Kids can go back to school!! AMAZING SOLUTION!!!

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/

Nando, since you trust the government so much, here is the CDC telling you that you are stupid, ignorant and shameless. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...g-schools.html

As of July 17, 2020, the United States reported that children and adolescents under 18 years old account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.

Scientific studies suggest that COVID-19 transmission among children in schools may be low. International studies that have assessed how readily COVID-19 spreads in schools also reveal low rates of transmission when community transmission is low.

You have to read in to it. Why were rates of infection low in children, probably because parents kept them at home, and they are probably less likely to get tested.

What about when rates are high? Do schools become an excellent transmission space, most likely.

Children are also far less likely to be able to restrain themselves and I suspect that they are more likely to be "invisible" carriers in a family or community space. What happens if the kid picks it up, displays minimum symptoms, passes it on to their parent, and then their parent becomes seriously ill or dead? Now who cares for that child, how does that impact their well-being and long term success, which seems to be the main point in that CDC page?

On a more basic level, these kids are the future of the country, they matter, we don't, maybe we should be more careful with their lives?

[marshallnoise]

yes you are



in addition to sucking it would be criminally negligent



yes you would



yes it can



that is exactly how you make it go away



yes it is

You seem clever, but...yer not.

I forgot though, I have successfully hidden from the flu every year. Oh wait...

[marshallnoise]

Marshal, I'm curious, and not looking to fight here. But I have to ask, if 150+ thousand dead americans isn't cause to say this administration dropped the ball, how many is? At what death toll would you start to question things?

The fact is america is doing the worst globally. That's not a dig at the current administration, that's just a sad fact. When comparing nations for this, it's not about population numbers. It's about population density. The denser the population, the higher the chances of infection. On that metric, the u.s. has one of the lowest population densities in the world. As of 2019, it ranked #174 globally, whereas say south korea, which ranks #23.

Do I personally think another administration would of handled this better? Yes, without question. I compare this by how various administrations globally have handled it so far. In countries like south korea, new Zealand, germany, where administrations listened to doctors and were proactive, they are beating it and returning to a new normal. In countries like america, Brazil, Turkey, where administrations have ignored medical science and instead downplayed or worse, called it a hoax, are doing worse. Reclosing, explosive case numbers, failing economy.

So I just don't understand when you say there was nothing more or different "trump" could do. Because factually there is. He could do what nations that are beating this have done and are doing.

Oh, he could have done what Sweden did, right?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87812

How about the Dutch?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-netherlands-gamble-on-limited-intelligent-lockdown-to-control-covid-19/

The government is not supposed to protect you from dying: the government is designed to protect people's rights. And don't get all stupid and say that "people have a right to be alive." Yeah, no shit Sherlock. But they are not entitled to lock people in their houses "for their own good." No, absolutely not.

[marshallnoise]

Children have definitely died from CV-19, although deaths and severity is relatively low. But it does happen.

My Mom was out recently for a walk in their Chicago-area neighborhood and stopped at the neighbor kids lemonade stand on their street. She got a lemonade and some cookies in an effort to be nice to the little girls. Now why on earth the neighbors thought their daughters running a lemonade stand during a pandemic was a good idea, I don't know. TLDR: My mom has been quarantining and just got tested because she got a call a day later from that girl's Mom that Jenny had come down with CV. Apparently got it from a Summer camp where she had just came back from.

So kids can get CV too and pass it along! And just because most do not get sick or die so easily doesn't mean they can't pass it along to my 72 year old mother or father or your parents that may be way more likely to get super sick or even die.

Right! Keep your snot factory away from Grandpa and Grandma, problem solved! Kids can go back to school!! AMAZING SOLUTION!!!

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/

Nando, since you trust the government so much, here is the CDC telling you that you are stupid, ignorant and shameless. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...g-schools.html

[marshallnoise]

...do you really have no idea what started all this shit?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/03/us/ge...eak/index.html

there you go. cops murdering a dude because they suspected he used a fake $20. if it wasn't murder, why'd they all get fired and one of them *brought up on a murder charge*?

and you're the one who called for war, so don't gaslight me

I can't believe I missed this gem! The guy will be acquitted for murder 2. The officer did not murder him at all based on both autopsies. He was freaking out because he was high as fuck. He died from being high as fuck and being stressed out. But it ain't murder, that's for sure. So fuck off with that really, really horrible spin.

So once again, the whole nation went ape shit over nothing, essentially. It sucks he died. It sucks that he was high as fuck and it sucks that he was breaking laws in the first place. But, its "murder."

[ForcedFirebird]

yes you are



in addition to sucking it would be criminally negligent



yes you would



yes it can



that is exactly how you make it go away



yes it is

OMG! Just spat my drink out of my nose.

[nando]

Criminally is probably taking it too far - but morally, yes you would be. At least, anyone with a shred of conscience and empathy for others would feel responsible. You know, people who aren't Trump loving psychopaths.

It would be difficult to prove and unlikely to be successful, but I'm sure there will be at least one case brought to the courts. This is America, after all.

[roguetoaster]

yes you are

in addition to sucking it would be criminally negligent

yes you would

yes it can

that is exactly how you make it go away

yes it is

Unfortunately, to be criminally liable (or likely on the civil side too) one would probably have to know that they are infected (and be contagious), and then knowingly interact with others without any precautions. All the defense would have to do to protect their client would be to prove that the person who was sickened was in contact with one other potentially contagious individual. Clearly, direct intent matters, but I don't see many successful prosecutions or suits coming down the pipe.

All the legal precedent in the world for this was set during the early years of HIV/AIDS.