I may not be a pathologist... but...

What about them?

Humor me?

I think that's a gross mis-characterization. 234k people (and counting) is the equivalent 490 H1N1 pandemics from 2009. (https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/cdcresponse.htm).

The rate of death may be low at 1k/day, but I have to wonder, how long is this pandemic going to last? If you want to assume that everyone will get it, we've only had 9 million cases. Since the US population is 328 million, assume 234k deaths per 9 million populace, by the time this is over (barring no effective vaccines) that's a death count of 8.5 million. I am afraid I have to disagree with your characterization of "Bad Flu"

Not to mention that the standard vanilla influenza virus only kills 12k-61k people annually. 61k being the "bad year of flus" that you were talking about.

I'm not questioning the Presidents efforts in his attempts at handling it. I am questioning the administrations characterization of "The Pandemic is Over." I would whole-heartedly disagree on the premise that new cases are rising every day. I would characterize the pandemic as being over when

I understand that a Pandemic is over when one of three things are declared:
via herd immunity
immunizations
socially, when populations declare the pandemic over themselves by forgoing restrictions.

I think forgoing restrictions is a dangerous move and puts too many people at risk if that's the call the administration is making.

Fortunately, I live in a state that considers the community at large first.

Due to imgflip thread formatting, I'm not entirely sure what you're replying to.

Ah okay, so I was understanding correctly.

I provided a good answer (light blue) and you called it a bad faith argument. (purple)

Alright.

No, I'm trying to understand someone who holds 10 different conversations simultaneously in a system that does not make for coherent conversations due to the fact that at some point, the reply button no longer works.

Brown > Purple > Light Blue > then Dark Blue. Next entry is Purple replying to Brown pretending as if the light blue bar didn't happen.

How is it in Australia which has just gone through their Winter (mild winter) with 25 million people and hasn't had mask mandates they have only had 907 deaths.
On their death toll the U.S wouldn't have had 12000 deaths when extrapolated to our population.
No masks and considerably lower death from Corona. That is strange isn't.

For starters, I would say that our population density (per square kilometer) is twelve times higher than Australia.

Australia also does contact tracing, their government funds prescription deliveries, ensuring that anyone traveling into Australia quarantines upon arrival, opening fever clinics, applying travel restrictions (to this day)

Given all of that, I would say that their population density is 3 people per square kilometer where ours is 36, and extreme contact tracing. (Which we don't do)

Yes, quite strange. Almost as if we had started doing those things, it'd be better for us. But, we don't contact trace. Also, their rates of death are 2% higher than ours. They actually follow the guidelines and don't think that it's a bunch of malarkey (for the most part.) Funny how US Cases started spiking dramatically this October... Wouldn't have anything to do with rallies would it?

Nah, not really. The total cases per day didn't spike like the right-wing propaganda machine said they would, strangely enough. Yet, now in October, we're seeing record spikes. Hmm. I think you need to learn a few things about causation :)

So let me get this straight, because there are people saying the virus is deadly to people who are at risk, the death rate is low? Because of this, people have no understanding of epidemiology? Interesting. You're arguing against yourself. Those who are at risk, are staying home, while those close to them do their practices.

Check this out from the CDC:
"We estimated that 45.4% of US adults, with a wide range across age groups and states, might be at increased risks for complications from COVID-19 because of existing chronic conditions. The 18.7% who reported >2 chronic conditions might be at even greater risk on the basis of other studies (7). Although complication rates increased with increasing age, 53% of those at greater risk for complications were <60 years of age. Preliminary data suggest that some of these same chronic conditions increase risk for COVID-19 complications in the United States (8). Another BRFSS study that omitted hypertension and used a different definition of risk estimated that 37.6% of US adults were at risk for complications (9)."

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-0679_article

Yeah, cases did start to rise June 21st, nearly a month after the George Floyd Protests. They've been called criminal protests and rioting. It is quite shameful. So you're telling me that if a President organizes super spreader events that it's okay? At a 7-day moving average, the highest recorded number of cases was at 69,000 cases a day. Yet, for the purposes of harvesting a vote, it's okay to have a 7-day moving average currently of 77k? There isn't even a peak for this wave yet. As for total records, the highest in July was around 70k. It's October, and the highest case so far was 90k. Mind you, with direct correlation and timing to when these super spreader events started.

You want the virus to work through the entire US population? Are you f**king stupid? Assuming the lethality stays the same, that would kill 9 million people.

Where in my previous post did I fear monger?

So, it's okay for Trump to fear monger but not others? I recognize the whataboutism in the statement, but to point out the double standard, you kinda have to take a hit.

It's not about answering every comment. I just simply don't have the kind of stamina for the amount of crazy that comes out of your fingertips to the screen.

Like I said, there is a drawback in pointing out the double standard. When the "left" fear mongers, it's shameful. Trump fear mongers, it's okay. He's speaking the truth. Boy, oh boy.

I like how you focused on one sentence, but not the other as that was the intentional low hanging fruit.

So you're giving me free reign on you? Thanks.

You and I were having a live discussion.

Me leaving for the night due to the need to... I donno... sleep to go to work the next day does not make you a victor. Quite the opposite. It just shows your desperation to feel like you accomplished something when no one was there to contest you.

You know what? I'll let you have it, you need it more than I do. But I am here anyway, so I guess it doesn't really matter either way..

Just because you repeat your lies over and over again doesn't make them truth. It just makes you desperate.

Tell me, if ten million people catch the virus, then recover completely, would it be a problem?

234k people (and counting) are not completely recovering... That's like 58,500 Benghazis... or 490 H1N1 pandemics (https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/cdcresponse.htm) Synthesizing vaccines for H1N1 came a lot easier.

So, I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Eh. Not directly. I was referring to "Benghazi" as the outrage that resulted from four deaths. Not HRC herself. There's a difference.

Still trying to feign ignorance of the context that was implied? Aight you can play with that ball all you like.

You're putting HRC and Obama into those situations. The outrage was directed at Obama and HRC. Yet, it wouldn't matter who was responsible if it had been someone else, no? The same level of outrage would be placed upon the individual. This is why I refer to it in relation of the outrage surrounding the incidents not the individuals specifically as they're inconsequential. Yet, here we are, with someone who happens to be on the party for who holds the responsibility of those deaths. The deaths are higher, and their value is held at a much smaller value than H1N1 or Benghazi.

The only difference with this outrage is where it is coming (or not) coming from. The double standard is clear.

I'll repeat this more simply. It doesn't matter who was involved in those incidents. What matters is they were the opposing party at the proverbial helm. Because of this, GOP got mad at lives lost. Now they're at the helm, lives lost are okay because death rates are low.

What? Where did that passion for human life go?

Oh, yes. Tell me, would President Hillary have prevented every single one of those deaths? Is that your contention? Because if not, you're just yammering pointlessly, aren't you?

It is deflection as HRC is not the President. That is by definition non-sequitur. Blaming the President is not idiotic as there are measures he could have taken to combat this a little more effectively.

Ooooh, the big topic H1N1 the virus that out of 60 million people killed twelve thousand people.

I love the 2.2 million death argument. It makes you look just as stupid as the people you're suggesting who believe it.

The model you're referring to was a worst-case simulation which came up with 2.2 million deaths by simply assuming that 81% of the population gets infected ­–268 million people– and that 0.9% of them die. It did not assume health systems would have to be overwhelmed to result in so many deaths, though it did make that prediction.

Neither the high infection rate nor the high fatality rate holds up under scrutiny.

To project that nearly everyone becomes infected the report had to assume that each person infects 2.4 others and those people, in turn, infect 2.4 others and so on, with the result that the number infected doubles roughly every four days. This 2.4 "reproduction number" (R0) was "based on . . . the early growth-rate of the epidemic in Wuhan." But the reproduction number always appears highest during the early phase of an epidemic (partly due to increased testing).

Nope, the point being made was that Hilary would have done a worse job. This cannot be stated as the challenge was not placed before her. We lie like we breathe? You're projecting again.

Armchari quarterbacking? Huh, I never thought of that when nearly every other country does contact tracing, and people within our country have been calling for more serious contact tracing. I've been saying since the beginning to do contact tracing. Claiming this is ex post facto is laughable.

So, while using the argument of what ifs, the argument I am facing is: "What would it look like if HRC was president?" Okay, the double standards are real here folks.

I never said those 12k lives didn't matter, that's a strawman argument. I was laughing at the audacity of how one tries to compare these two viruses to each other.

You're right, I did call you stupid in this thread. The comment you're referring to "I haven't said one cross word to you." Was in a different thread. I didn't think you took things so personally from one thread to the next. I'll be more mindful of your feelings next time. I'm sorry.

So, what are you referring to with two million deaths? What model? Can you cite it? The only one I know of is 2.2mil death model produced by the Imperial College of London.
Here's where Birx, Fauci and Trump found the projected 2 million deaths.

Also while Fauci did recognize the worst case scenario as a possibility, he said this: "Although people like to model it," Fauci told Tapper, "let's just look at the data of what we have, and not worry about these worst-case and best-case scenarios."
https://reason.com/2020/03/30/as-trump-imagines-2-2-million-deaths-from-covid-19-in-the-u-s-a-top-federal-disease-expert-cautions-against-believing-worst-case-scenarios/

Trump clings to his success in avoiding the worst case scenario without having done much himself to avoid that and instead left it to the states.

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

I can't answer that because HRC wasn't the president. Didn't you say something about whatifs and candy? You're applying Obama and HRC to the message. I am referring to the outrage surrounding them. In this case, you're showing that the outrage is political. It has nothing to do with the deaths.

But you know the right.... Deny, deny, deny.

Responding to Red Below...

You can read into that all you want, but I stand by my statement. The same value of life is not consistent within the Republican Party. Rather than take preventative measures to the loss of life and share in the responsibility of community, they would rather completely immobilize those at high risk and attempt herd-immunity which is just a dangerously stupid idea.

I don't know how else to explain this. It's like you guys have no problem with the deaths that are happening every day simply because the death rates are low.

"The Right" would be you. Since you describe me as a leftist, that would denote that I am to the left of you. You're disagreeing with me, you're evidently politically to the right. I've had constructive with Libertarian right-wingers before as I can find common ground with them on most issues.

So, how are you working to eliminate this left/right paradigm by labeling people leftists and liberals? In the same paragraph you're saying that I'm suffering from the left/right paradigm. Yet, you go ahead and classify everyone who has a different agenda than you with different perspectives "the Left."

Maybe we're going about this the wrong way in understanding each other. Let's try a different approach. What do we have in common?

I believe in the right of free speech, the freedom to bear arms, the freedom in the choice of religion, self-expression. I mean, if I were to sum it up, provided that you are not directly interfering with the lives of others, you should be free to do as you wish.

I know you're going to raise questions at that last sentence regarding masks, so let me clarify. The limits of freedom imposed on those during a pandemic to stay home in the situation of attempting herd-immunity is far more oppressive than requiring everyone to wear a mask equally so that everyone can enjoy the liberties of movement, the right to work, and self-sustain. In this respect, I take a more utilitarian approach.

Just realized you posted comments to 9 of my replies...

Ooo that is someone who has a vendetta.

Um, okay lol.

"Avoiding engagement with an argument by creating a new one. Also called 'whataboutery', this is the classic red herring or deflection tactic. In the form of 'relativism' it is used to make one's own errors (or crimes) appear smaller by comparison with greater errors (or atrocities, calamities, etc) elsewhere."

So, not only in this case are you citing the work and effectiveness of someone else by creating a new argument about said person, you're using it to minimize Trump's errors when the first party never had the challenge in the first place.

You're making up arguments out of thin air with whataboutisms coupled with whatifs.

Just stop.

It's embarrassing.

Yammering pointlessly? I'm not the one throwing around non-sequitur arguments...

Contrarians. Gotta love'em.

'Fraid not bucco :)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Hmm. Trust newsmax or....

"Worldometer was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.

Worldometer is a provider of global COVID-19 statistics for many caring people around the world. Our data is also trusted and used by the UK Government, Johns Hopkins CSSE, the Government of Thailand, the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Sri Lanka, Government of Vietnam, Financial Times, The New York Times, Business Insider, BBC, and many others.

Over the past 15 years, our statistics have been requested by, and provided to: Oxford University Press, Wiley, Pearson, CERN, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), The Atlantic, BBC, Milton J. Rubenstein Museum of Science & Technology, Science Museum of Virginia, Morgan Stanley, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Kaspersky, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Amazon Alexa, Google Translate, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the U2 concert, and many others.

Worldometer is cited as a source in over 10,000 published books and in more than 6,000 professional journal articles."

Gotta say, that's a tough call.

Lol, that moment when the data tells a different story than the idiot.