discussion comment
4 years ago
It's outrageous that I signed my ballot and up to human "judges" to tell whether it's valid.
discussion comment
4 years ago
![]()
IceyI put your ATF on a winning team
Aggregate of FL polls shows Biden up by 4 points as of today. It's absolutely true that Biden is way ahead among seniors -- by about 20 points.
discussion comment
4 years ago
My voting story from Colorado:
(1We got our ballots on time through the mail. We filled them out immediately...and dropped them in a steel ballot box.
There's ballot tracking, and my wife's ballot was accepted, but mine showed "received" instead of "accepted." Apparently my signature failed an automated reader. My ballot goes to a team of "judges" next. I called and told them in no uncertain terms that I would show up in person with an ID if this was not resolved within one week.
discussion comment
4 years ago
My voting story from Colorado:
(1We got our ballots on time through the mail. We filled them out immediately
discussion comment
4 years ago
... oh and thanks for quoting my most important sentence, Dugan. Everyone else has me on ignore.
discussion comment
4 years ago
These are approximate, back-of-the-envelope numbers:
If herd immunity occurs when 60% of the population gets the virus and the infection fatality rate is 0.3%, that would give 594K deaths.
If you're a retired gheezer like the OP, insulated from the pandemic, then several hundred thousand deaths doesn't mean anything.
discussion comment
4 years ago
The actual quote from David Nabarro that spawned this thread:
“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus.”
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
Notice the nuanced use of the phrase "primary means of control" not the nutty, hysterical tone of @BabyDoc's title "The WHO says to end the disastrous lockdowns".
Sunetra Guptra has proposed that herd immunity occurs when 10%- to 20% of the population has been infected. That's been called nonsense by other epidemiologists. The loss of life created by throwing caution to the wind and waiting for herd immunity is unacceptable.
Don't get your news from TUSCL cranks like the @OP.
discussion comment
4 years ago
Johns Hopkins pulls all their data from "The COVID Tracking Project" and uses the same methodology for all 50 states.
The most important reason for the discrepancy is the Hopkins does not include repeat testing for the same person.: If JohnSmith reports testing on 10/13 then JohnSmith is excluded from the math on 10/14, 10/15, etc.. if repeat testing done.
Believe what you want, and you can continue to work backwards to find sources that agree with your pre-conceived conclusion. I'm not going to argue with you.
discussion comment
4 years ago
@Dugan wrote: "...though positivity rates are now below 5%. "
______________________
No, that's not true. According to Johns Hopkins the positivity rate in FL is 11.7% as of today, and there's an unmistakably upward trend lately:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/florida
I did some research and the discrepancy b/w Hopkins and FL (and Maryland) is that Hopkins uses the number of unique people tested whereas some of the other states use the total number of tests. For example if someone is in the hospital and gets tested 10 times, that would be counted as one test by Hopkins and 10 tests by Florida.
That's why MDs, epidemiologists , and Nobel Prize winners quote Hopkins. Because they know what they're doing.
discussion comment
4 years ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1315680867919040513
^^ Trump gaslighting the public with a healthcare plan that doesn't exist and will never exist.
discussion comment
4 years ago
That's just fascinating @Papi. The problem is that the best election simulations show Trump with a 10- to 15% chance of winning.
discussion comment
4 years ago
@pistola wrote:
September 17, 2020
"Heres what you do Juice. You meet up with hot ass hoes for $300. Tell them 2x-3x week for $300. Explain its $2400-3600/mo but ppm only as youve been burned before. Fuck them silly. All holes. They think youre going to be the one so they go the extra mile. Then you ghost that ass and do it over again. And again. And again."
___________________________________
@Pistola gives a good example of what the girls on SA put up with: broke-ass fucking idiots pretending to be SDs to get some cheap sex (since Backpage is no longer in business).
The guys have it much easier, and it's simply a matter of being patient and meeting for unpaid meet&greets to screen out the escorts. I haven't been on in quite a while, but in the past five or six years, I've had some great experiences.
discussion comment
4 years ago
![]()
CJKent (Banned)“The more a person needs to be right, the less certain he is...”
According to Gallup, 90% of Republicans think that Trump will win. See, below, the third green chart as you scroll down in the Gallup polling:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321347/trump-pre-debate-job-approval-highest-may.aspx
State polls, not national polls, are used to construct election simulations. The simulations account for quicks in the electoral college.
Simulations show Trump losing badly with about a 10% - to 15% chance of winning:
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
So 90% of Republicans predict Trump will win and the simulations show Trump losing with 85% to 90% probability. You can expect violence after the votes are counted and reality sets in.
discussion comment
4 years ago
Here's the WSJ editorial:
"Judge Barrett and the Supreme Court won’t vote to overturn the health law."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gops-obamacare-self-sabotage-11601242872
discussion comment
4 years ago
To be more precise, those shopping for health insurance in the private market would lose protections for pre-existing conditions.
discussion comment
4 years ago
I hope you bookmark this post, @Pistola.
Do you know *anything* about the SC suit challenging the ACA? Be honest, can you explain the main features without Googling?
You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that the suit is profoundly stupid. As recently as last week the WSJ said as much in an editorial. Should I dig out the link for you? Or Google one of the many articles by Nicholas Bagley (law professor at U of Michigan). I wouldn't be surprised if the ACA lawsuit is struck down unanimously with or without Barrett.
In the unlikely event that the ACA is struck down by the SC, 20M people would lose their healthcare and the rest of us would lose protection for pre-existing. It would be absolute chaos and life/death for many people. In the unlikely case that the ACA is struck down, Biden wins, and the Dems control the Senate, I think the Dems should go nuclear and do whatever it takes to restore healthcare coverage.
Open your fucking ears Pistola and you might learn something.
discussion comment
4 years ago
![]()
IceyI put your ATF on a winning team
"whine-x needs to get a life and get off these boards for at least 10 minutes. Seems like he/she lives here."
____
Ditto.
He chatters on like a little magpie and never shuts up.
discussion comment
4 years ago
Moot point since Dems are only slightly favored to win Senate. Also would depend on how irrational the Court is. For example, if the ACA is struck down with this ludicrous SC case, then court packing may be the necessary response.
discussion comment
4 years ago
Dems would have to win Senate.
discussion comment
4 years ago
If it was a yamaca, you probably brought home a man.
discussion comment
4 years ago
![]()
IceyI put your ATF on a winning team
"Herman was a dumb coon RIP BOZO😂"
___________
I think that's what you call "black humor."
Poor guy sacrificed his life to attend an indoor Trump rally.
discussion comment
4 years ago
What a nutcase, @Mark. The scientific community has nothing but contempt for Trump. To someone like yourself, who reads from the cesspool of pseudo-science and conspiracy theory websites, there's nobody that has less credibility on the subject than you do.
Scientific American and New England Journal of Medicine take a stand for the first time in their 175-yr and 208-year histories:
Scientific American is endorsing Biden -- the first time in 175 years that publication has endorsed *any* presidential candidate:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/
New England Journal of Medicine: editorial signed by 34 editors said the Trump administration had responded so poorly to the pandemic that they "have taken the crisis and turned it into a tragedy."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/health/new-england-journal-trump.html
"Throughout its 208-year history, The New England Journal of Medicine has remained staunchly nonpartisan. The world’s most prestigious medical journal has never supported or condemned a political candidate.
Until now.
In an editorial signed by 34 editors who are United States citizens (one editor is not) and published on Wednesday, the journal said the Trump administration had responded so poorly to the coronavirus pandemic that they “have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy.”
The journal did not explicitly endorse Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee, but that was the only possible inference, other scientists noted.
The editor in chief, Dr. Eric Rubin, said the scathing editorial was one of only four in the journal’s history that were signed by all of the editors. The N.E.J.M.’s editors join those of another influential publication, Scientific American, who last month endorsed Mr. Biden, the former vice president."
discussion comment
4 years ago
![]()
gammanu95My casual drinking is your alcohol poisoning.
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
Biden has 91% chance of winning as of this morning.
discussion comment
4 years ago
![]()
gammanu95My casual drinking is your alcohol poisoning.
The moderator Susan Page came prepared with some well-crafted questions, but she failed to enforce the rules and did an even worse job than Chris Wallace. Pence kept droning on past his allotted time and just wouldn't shut up. Even worse, Pence ignored questions he didn't want to answer. Harris was guilty of the same behavior, although not as bad as Pence. I felt like screaming into the TV: "Just answer the fucking question."
Example: Pence was asked to detail what plan is in place to protect pre-existing conditions if the ACA is overturned. Instead of answering the question, Pence changed the subject to court-packing. Instead of forcing Pence to answer the question, Harris took the bait and the topic evaporated. She's a mediocre debater.
Another general theme is that Pence lies almost as much as Trump, just in a calmer and smarmier way. He's repulsive and boring.
Nobody will remember this useless debate and it won't make any difference. Trump is getting slaughtered in the polls.
discussion comment
4 years ago
"...but aren't as eager to show when their last test result was. And no one has ever asked me "
________________
I can bring up my own test results on my phone. On several occasions I've paid for my SB's testing.
For those of you with multiple partners per month, condoms are only 30- to 50% effective at preventing HSV and HPV. Of course Covid is a far greater concern right now.