Oregon Gov cancels sportz thru Sept

[FirefightnRick]

49 minutes ago, greenminer said:

Family physician vs. epidemiology, so....

A scientist who likens this to a season flu.  I roll my eyes at that, but FINE! I  will revisit the numbers again to see how they compare.

I don't think this was enough to be pulled down, though.

There’s been plenty of scientists, virologists and epidemiologists that have given dissenting opinions on the lock downs.  

 

Rick

[RiseUNT]

Can we lock this thread?

[FirefightnRick]

29 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Show me one person that has made that statement.

Well there’s always democrat Micheal Bloomberg’s  take on that.

 

Rick

[97and03]

51 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Show me one person that has made that statement.

Every person that has uttered the words “it mainly just affects old people and the ill” or “we need to protect the economy.”

That is exactly what those words mean. Maybe they aren’t intended by some but  that is what they mean. 
People often speak in code on online forums. I would bet there are posters here that participate in other online forums. They likely use words like “jogger” to describe members of our society. And I would guess they might have even posted here in this thread. 
 

[FirefightnRick]

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

Family physician vs. epidemiology, so....

A scientist who likens this to a season flu.  I roll my eyes at that, but FINE! I  will revisit the numbers again to see how they compare.

I don't think this was enough to be pulled down, though.

And does a director of the CDC meet your criteria?

Dr. Deborah Birx, a leading member of the White House task force combating the coronavirus, and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reportedly clashed last week over the veracity of data the center collects regarding cases and deaths

 

....”“There is nothing from the CDC that I can trust," Birx reportedly said.“......

 

Rick

 

 

[FirefightnRick]

San Diego County supervisor says six of 194 confirmed deaths are 'pure, solely coronavirus' deaths

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/san-diego-county-supervisor-says-six-of-194-confirmed-deaths-are-pure-solely-coronavirus-deaths

...”“We’ve unfortunately had six pure, solely coronavirus deaths — six out of 3.3 million people,” San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond said in an interview this week, according to the San Diego Tribune. “I mean, what number are we trying to get to with those odds? I mean, it’s incredible. We want to be safe, and we can do it, but unfortunately, it’s more about control than getting the economy going again and keeping people safe.”....

 

 

Rick

[THOR]

1 hour ago, 97and03 said:

Every person that has uttered the words “it mainly just affects old people and the ill” or “we need to protect the economy.”

That is exactly what those words mean. Maybe they aren’t intended by some but  that is what they mean. 
People often speak in code on online forums. I would bet there are posters here that participate in other online forums. They likely use words like “jogger” to describe members of our society. And I would guess they might have even posted here in this thread. 
 

that is REALLY reaching when the science has shown that that statement is true.  that doesn't mean people want them to die.  it means they need to take precautions and not be out and about.  the economy needs to get going.  the younger, under 65 and healthy, need to get out and work.  people need money for their families.

you're a smart dude, but your explanation is batshit crazy.  

[Hunter Green]

On 5/13/2020 at 12:53 PM, greenminer said:

So because it was a poor model, we shouldn't use a model? or we should use a politicians model? What road are we supposed to take here?

 

Common sense for a starter.

[UNTLifer]

7 hours ago, 97and03 said:

Every person that has uttered the words “it mainly just affects old people and the ill” or “we need to protect the economy.”

That is exactly what those words mean. Maybe they aren’t intended by some but  that is what they mean. 
People often speak in code on online forums. I would bet there are posters here that participate in other online forums. They likely use words like “jogger” to describe members of our society. And I would guess they might have even posted here in this thread. 
 

I would bet your opinion is wrong. 

[greenminer]

8 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

And does a director of the CDC meet your criteria?

Dr. Deborah Birx, a leading member of the White House task force combating the coronavirus, and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reportedly clashed last week over the veracity of data the center collects regarding cases and deaths

 

....”“There is nothing from the CDC that I can trust," Birx reportedly said.“......

 

Rick

 

 

Robert Redfield is a virologist, so I would consider him a step above a family physician. That’s a poorly-worded sentence that can lead one to believe Birx is the CDC director  I trust you didn’t think that way.

But I don’t think the physician was attacking the CDC, moreso just protesting the federal orders to stay at home.

i would encourage people to consider what the majority view is among virology/epidemiology (Not just CDC) and factor that in. Not just handpick a small collection.

regardless, of it hasn’t been posted already, I would say we are at the point (maybe past?) where keeping the economy closed might hurt more lives than reopening.

i don’t know how you would calculate or predict the numbers. Just something to think about as we all would like to save as many lives as possible.

Edited May 16, 2020 by greenminer

[greenminer]

7 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

San Diego County supervisor says six of 194 confirmed deaths are 'pure, solely coronavirus' deaths

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/san-diego-county-supervisor-says-six-of-194-confirmed-deaths-are-pure-solely-coronavirus-deaths

...”“We’ve unfortunately had six pure, solely coronavirus deaths — six out of 3.3 million people,” San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond said in an interview this week, according to the San Diego Tribune. “I mean, what number are we trying to get to with those odds? I mean, it’s incredible. We want to be safe, and we can do it, but unfortunately, it’s more about control than getting the economy going again and keeping people safe.”....

 

 

Rick

I find it fascinating that the same article quotes two sources that say it was a heated exchange, then a few paragraphs later mention that admin officials say it was NOT heated.

why do that? When faced with that kind of conflict, instead of investigating it further they just leave it out there. Almost as if knowingly creating or amplifying a divide, political or whatever.

ive never heard of Wash Examiner but IMO this and the poor language at the top just doesn’t make them look good.

Edited May 16, 2020 by greenminer

[97and03]

The Washington Examiner is generally not considered a fully credible news source, although it’s content is less biased than its headlines. It’s editorial policy is pretty hard right. It was essentially a replacement for the old Washington Times. I had some experience with it related to my work. Lobbyists sometimes used it to place pro-oligarch editorials in American media. 
 

• Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.
• The Washington Examiner is owned by Clarity Media Group, which is in turn owned by Philip Anschutz, who is an American billionaire entrepreneur who describes himself as a “conservative Christian.” Anschutz is also the owner of the right leaning Weekly Standardand has donated millions of dollars to right leaning causes, including anti-LGBT groups,such as the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group. 
  While the headlines may be sensational, the content of articles are written with less bias and tend to be properly sourced to credible media outlets. Editorially, the Washington Examiner is 100% right. It is virtually impossible to find a single editorial that offers some form of balance. Most editorials have anti-left loaded headlines...

[TheColonyEagle]

5 hours ago, 97and03 said:

The Washington Examiner is generally not considered a fully credible news source, although it’s content is less biased than its headlines. It’s editorial policy is pretty hard right. It was essentially a replacement for the old Washington Times. I had some experience with it related to my work. Lobbyists sometimes used it to place pro-oligarch editorials in American media. 
 

• Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.
• The Washington Examiner is owned by Clarity Media Group, which is in turn owned by Philip Anschutz, who is an American billionaire entrepreneur who describes himself as a “conservative Christian.” Anschutz is also the owner of the right leaning Weekly Standardand has donated millions of dollars to right leaning causes, including anti-LGBT groups,such as the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group. 
  While the headlines may be sensational, the content of articles are written with less bias and tend to be properly sourced to credible media outlets. Editorially, the Washington Examiner is 100% right. It is virtually impossible to find a single editorial that offers some form of balance. Most editorials have anti-left loaded headlines...

So what would you consider a credible news source? 

[MCMLXXX]

 

11 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

So what would you consider a credible news source? 

Credibility, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  

[CMJ]

Throwing out all deaths that had pre-existing conditions is also ridiculous I must say.  It's estimated that at least 54 million non-elderly Americans have some sort of pre-existing condition.  That's roughly 20% of the non elderly population.   Throw in older folks and that's a whole lot of people that are susceptible.

Edited May 16, 2020 by CMJ

[97and03]

31 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

So what would you consider a credible news source? 

Well most major city papers have credible news stories. Some do have editorial biases, and that ok. For example in the US papers take editorial decisions and endorse political candidates. As long as one reads knowing the editorial stance then there isn’t much problem in that as long as the news articles are factual. In the specific case of the Examiner, it was specifically founded to promote a political perspective, although in the analysis I read it said that the paper does generally good local news.
In general for pure news I use multiple sources when possible. I use NPR, BBC, CNN, the major papers and networks, Al Jazeera, and some other international sources. Obviously for international news I have better sources than just the media. 😉

[El Paso Eagle]

6 hours ago, 97and03 said:

The Washington Examiner is generally not considered a fully credible news source, although it’s content is less biased than its headlines. It’s editorial policy is pretty hard right. It was essentially a replacement for the old Washington Times. I had some experience with it related to my work. Lobbyists sometimes used it to place pro-oligarch editorials in American media. 
 

• Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.
• The Washington Examiner is owned by Clarity Media Group, which is in turn owned by Philip Anschutz, who is an American billionaire entrepreneur who describes himself as a “conservative Christian.” Anschutz is also the owner of the right leaning Weekly Standardand has donated millions of dollars to right leaning causes, including anti-LGBT groups,such as the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group. 
  While the headlines may be sensational, the content of articles are written with less bias and tend to be properly sourced to credible media outlets. Editorially, the Washington Examiner is 100% right. It is virtually impossible to find a single editorial that offers some form of balance. Most editorials have anti-left loaded headlines...

So based on this logic anything from the NY Times or Washington Post should not be used?

[97and03]

3 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

So based on this logic anything from the NY Times or Washington Post should not be used?

See my other comments on news content versus editorial content. 
Also both papers you mentioned are a liberal lean but do allow conservatives columns in their editorial section. Their overall editorial policy is left of center. 

[El Paso Eagle]

1 minute ago, 97and03 said:

See my other comments on news content versus editorial content. 
Also both papers you mentioned are a liberal lean but do allow conservatives columns in their editorial section. Their overall editorial policy is left of center. 

Sadly, not many news sources left that actually provide stories and information without a political spin to the right or left

[97and03]

2 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Sadly, not many news sources left that actually provide stories and information without a political spin to the right or left

There are a couple of useful charts out there that are pretty accurate 

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by 97and03

[FirefightnRick]

 

9 hours ago, greenminer said:

I find it fascinating that the same article quotes two sources that say it was a heated exchange, then a few paragraphs later mention that admin officials say it was NOT heated.

why do that? When faced with that kind of conflict, instead of investigating it further they just leave it out there. Almost as if knowingly creating or amplifying a divide, political or whatever.

ive never heard of Wash Examiner but IMO this and the poor language at the top just doesn’t make them look good.

 

Birx is a 30 year practicing MD and an immunologist and has worked with Fauci as well. Now suddenly her expertise is in question?  Her video stating she doesn’t trust the numbers was all over the news the other day  You can look it up if you don’t like my source.  

There’s been many doctors and scientists that have come out questioning the lock downs, closing schools and wearing masks.  I’m quite amused at the lengths the fear porn’ers go to try and disqualify their opinions.

....”FOLLOW THE SCIENCE!,...NO, NOT YOUR SCIENCE,...MY SCIENCE,...AND REMEMBER,...MY SCIENCE IS FINAL!”...

[FirefightnRick]

7 hours ago, 97and03 said:

The Washington Examiner is generally not considered a fully credible news source, although it’s content is less biased than its headlines. It’s editorial policy is pretty hard right. It was essentially a replacement for the old Washington Times. I had some experience with it related to my work. Lobbyists sometimes used it to place pro-oligarch editorials in American media. 
 

• Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.
• The Washington Examiner is owned by Clarity Media Group, which is in turn owned by Philip Anschutz, who is an American billionaire entrepreneur who describes himself as a “conservative Christian.” Anschutz is also the owner of the right leaning Weekly Standardand has donated millions of dollars to right leaning causes, including anti-LGBT groups,such as the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group. 
  While the headlines may be sensational, the content of articles are written with less bias and tend to be properly sourced to credible media outlets. Editorially, the Washington Examiner is 100% right. It is virtually impossible to find a single editorial that offers some form of balance. Most editorials have anti-left loaded headlines...

....”FOLLOW THE SCIENCE!,...NO, NOT YOUR SCIENCE,...MY SCIENCE,...AND REMEMBER,...MY SCIENCE IS FINAL!”

[CMJ]

Of course, the numbers are in no way out of whack if compared to figures from countries like the UK, Spain, France, etc..  Other than the fact that some folks never thought they'd get this high, there's really little to no reason to doubt them.

 

When adjusting for population they're still currently well under figures from several European nations.  

 

Not to mention the CDC doesn't even the most up to date figures -- they're way delayed.  Gotta check places like worldometers or Johns Hopkins for those.  Though I guess now people don't trust them either, because they aren't as low as they wanted them to be.

Edited May 16, 2020 by CMJ

[FirefightnRick]

1 hour ago, CMJ said:

Throwing out all deaths that had pre-existing conditions is also ridiculous I must say.  

I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than getting my advice on health from the Crypt Keeper?

 This is your Director of Health.  Good God!!!,....  just  how bad has it really gotten out in L.A.?

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by FirefightnRick

[CMJ]

Going after an appearance of someone - always the mark of a weak argument.