Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Do you think more women will vote for Trump than Biden now?

Early or not, NYC is gonna have to re-open, as was pointed out on another thread, and so there may be an uptick in COVID-19 deaths. (I hope mine won't be included. I have stuff to do.) But, as others have suggested, I think we may get to a place of acceptance with that, even though the country as a whole may ultimately see ten times the total deaths that we had with the H1N1 flu in Obama's first year.

So then the question reverts to what the economy will be like as November approaches. "Back to normal" is not going to describe it: More than a few businesses in NYC have shuttered for good, and I imagine the same will be true for the rest of the country. This was not just a pause.

I'm already puzzled that the Dow seems to be heading up, when the economy itself is (most probably) headed long-term in the other direction. The Dems' campaign may hinge on getting average Americans to recognize that their real-life situations aren't reflected by the markets.

If the Dems can focus on the the long-term effects of the pandemic in people's lives (their loss of healthcare when they lost their jobs, for instance), they might have a shot at the kind of results they had in 2018. But if they get caught up in the handling of the disease itself, I think that's going to be a nonstarter for them this fall. People will have established a level of acceptance with COVID-19 by then.

I never criticized you for talking about hotspots because, obviously, they do exist. Of course there will be concentrated outbreaks where you have high infection rates in a local area. That's the nature of a pandemic.

But you seemed to be arguing that the hotspots hold some hidden key to winning. I never understood what you were actually talking about.

agip wrote:

Remember, several on this thread criticized the idea that there are hotspots in this plague.

Untrue. People criticized you for adding and subtracting countries from your "hotspot rankings"(TM) to advance a narrative. Everytime the data wasn't advancing your story you would drop or add a different country, while totally ignoring other countries whose curves, deaths, and infection rates were similar or worse.

It was the idea that you were practicing data science without any understanding of what you were actually doing.

Sally Vix wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Trigged, no one cares about your dementia bellyaching and allegations coming out of the garage right-wing nutcase rags. Nobody besides lunatics like you care about this... it's ANYONE over trump. Get your head in the game.

Trollminator - you claim to be in grad school - how about shooting us a screenshot of your report card proving that you are actually attending school and that you are not actually a dunce. Thanks in advance!

You insecure frail thing. Good thing I didn’t reveal the institution’s name, then you would have really lost your shlt.

Well someone was saying that there was no sense in considering hotspots separately because we would all eventually have just as high contagion rates. That is almost for sure not going to happen.

As for analyzing data differently as the plague moved, that had to be done. Iran was obviously making stuff up and once in a while France would throw in another 500 deaths, to catch up. That was making day to day comparisons useless.

I’m pretty sure data analysis people toss out data they don’t trust, in hopes of gaining a truer picture of what is truly going on.

We’ve established that agip & his data are equally fake.

Old article but LOLz

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine-plaquenil.html

agip wrote:

Well someone was saying that there was no sense in considering hotspots separately because we would all eventually have just as high contagion rates. That is almost for sure not going to happen.

As for analyzing data differently as the plague moved, that had to be done. Iran was obviously making stuff up and once in a while France would throw in another 500 deaths, to catch up. That was making day to day comparisons useless.

I’m pretty sure data analysis people toss out data they don’t trust, in hopes of gaining a truer picture of what is truly going on.

That's the second time in a few posts you have made this assumption. How do we know this?

I'm not being sarcastic when I ask... that question is exactly why I have been so focused on asking why the deaths are so high in NY (mostly NYC). Because if the reason deaths are so high in NY is essentially a density issue then eventually the same thing (over a longer period) will happen everywhere else.

I'm not saying that will happen... I am actually looking for reasons why it will not. I am hoping the reason for NY's large amount of deaths per capita is some anomaly that has yet to be identified. Again, if it's because they started social distancing too late or couldn't properly follow because of density issues then that just means the disease spread more quickly than other places... which will happen everywhere unless we somehow figure out how to discover and isolate anyone with the disease (which I think is totally unrealistic in the US).

I am Sam wrote:

Do you guys realise that your problem is not choosing between an obviously demented person and a narcissist, lying , moron....but actually yourselves, the voters who cannot find a better person in 330M so called 1st world educated people.

The voter who continues dogmatically to support whatever a moron says just to make himself sound clever (but resultantly stupid), vs the voter who ignores the failures of a senile man just so they can boot out the former.

1) The vast majority of Americans do not want to be President, and then there are a ton who aren't old enough to run, so there really aren't 330M people to choose from. It is much less than that.

2) There is no evidence that Biden is senile. He's an old man and he has always had noticeable issues with public speaking including his little bit of stutter that still exists. You can slip a bit with advanced age and not be "senile."

This election is only about getting rid of Trump.

Corona Trump wrote:

semsurrrrrr wrote:

Looks like Trump was right about a "disinfectant" that you can "inject" to treat coronavirus...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWc0kWMXQAA_Cbw.jpg

Then why did Trump say he was sarcastic?

You see if Trump hadn't repeated lied or hadn't repeatedly pretended he was an expert on things he had no knowledge about, or made constant attacks ridiculing other people his comments might not have been a story.

But Trump has ZERO credibility, and his hateful divisive rhetoric has caused him to be hated.

So when he says something that sounds crazy and for which he can be ridiculed, he deserves no, and gets no pass.

This is what Trump really meant.

semsurrrrrr wrote:

Looks like Trump was right about a "disinfectant" that you can "inject" to treat coronavirus...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWc0kWMXQAA_Cbw.jpg

No, Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 suggests otherwise, look it up if you please. “In order for ozone to be effective as a germicide, it must be present in a concentration far greater than that which can be safely tolerated by man and animals” - FDA.

Anyway, he claimed be was being sarcastic.

Aren't you overthinking this?

The virus needs a high density population of people to survive because it transmits from person to person.

If you have people spaced far apart, in houses and cars, the virus will not survive. Therefore people will not get hit by the high virus loads that are particularly dangerous.

So no, the per capita rates should not be as high everywhere as NYC.

Unless I'm missing some mathematical subtlety regarding per capita rates vs absolute numbers of people infected.

but take your question to the extreme to test it. 4 people, standing in a corn field, 100 meters between them.

or 1,000 people in a cornfield, 2 meters between them.

Which place will have higher contagion and death rates?

But I'm sure you understand this...what am I missing about your argument?

agip wrote:

but take your question to the extreme to test it. 4 people, standing in a corn field, 100 meters between them.

or 1,000 people in a cornfield, 2 meters between them.

Which place will have higher contagion and death rates?

But I'm sure you understand this...what am I missing about your argument?

Contagion is higher with density. It's not obvious that death rate (deaths/infection) would be correlated with population density.

Climate activists go home devastated. Now Michael Moore is siding with fossil fuel industries.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down

Well, ok then wrote:

agip wrote:

but take your question to the extreme to test it. 4 people, standing in a corn field, 100 meters between them.

or 1,000 people in a cornfield, 2 meters between them.

Which place will have higher contagion and death rates?

But I'm sure you understand this...what am I missing about your argument?

Contagion is higher with density. It's not obvious that death rate (deaths/infection) would be correlated with population density.

well ok starting to see where you are coming from

but my understanding is that viral load matters a lot, and I suspect that you are likely to get hit by a higher viral load in NYC than in a suburb or rural place. Just more people, more viruses around you.

NYT:

The number of virus patients newly admitted to hospitals in New York has dropped over 70 percent.

The number of coronavirus patients newly admitted to hospitals has fallen more than 70 percent since the outbreak’s peak earlier this month, according to statistics cited by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Tuesday.

The number reported Tuesday was below 1,000 for the first time in over a month, down from more than 3,000 on April 7, providing further evidence that the outbreak is waning.