“Talk About A War On Christmas!”: CNN Thrills With Airing Of Secret Taping of First Lady

Years ago, American politics left all notion of decency behind in our age of rage.  That was evident when the media and liberals celebrated the disgraceful conduct of Maryanne Trump betraying her aunt’s confidence in secretly recording her talking about her brother.  The same people reveled in the unethical conduct of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen who not only secretly recorded his client, President Donald Trump, but has been violating any notion of confidentiality in pushing his own tell all book. Now, CNN’s Anderson Cooper has been reduced to shilling for Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, the former assistant and friend of Melania Trump who secretly recorded their confidential chats and is now selling a book by playing embarrassing snip bits.

What is incredible about these people is that, while currying favors as false friends or counsels, they were actively taping people who trusted them in case they wanted to later cash in on their access.

In the latest example, CNN ran an entirely valueless significant in primetime to simply show the First Lady swearing and complaining about Christmas obligations. Melania “bashed” Christmas Decorations! Details at 8! This used to be the network of figures like Bernard Shaw.

As Melania Trump unburdened herself to her friend, Wolkoff kept recording and hoping for something juicy.  What she got was this line “I’m working… my ass off on the Christmas stuff, that you know, who gives a fuck about the Christmas stuff and decorations? But I need to do it, right?”

That thrilled Anderson Cooper, who once would have become physically ill at the notion of running such ill-gotten tripe.  Instead, he exclaims “Talk about a war on Christmas! It’s funny that she would be leading that.”

Talk about a war on journalism! CNN is now trafficking in material that would make the National Inquirer blush.

By the way . . . funny? Is that the most descriptive term for this story. What about pursuing the utter betrayal and dishonesty shown by Wolkoff in setting up a friend and boss?

There is nothing “funny” about CNN leading with this type of matter, of course.

The most newsworthy aspect of this story was the one largely untouched: the despicable level of dishonesty that motivates this type of banking of secret recordings by people like Wolkoff.

It is the very reason that viewers are abandoning the network and media has plummeted in polling in terms of perceived accuracy and honesty. I still view Cooper as an insightful and intelligent journalist but this is an example of how corrupting the current environment has become for many. There is a new sense of an absolute license to engage in any attack or distort any fact for the greater good. Indeed, we now have leading journalism professors denouncing the very concept of objectivity in journalism.

Next week CNN may be able to air recordings with Baron at his school cafeteria talking trash about Halloween. Better yet, Wolkoff may have new surreptitious recordings of her private chat with Anderson in the green room.

Jean-Paul Sartre said “Better a good journalist than a poor assassin.” It is of course possible to be both a bad journalist and a poor assassin.

479 thoughts on ““Talk About A War On Christmas!”: CNN Thrills With Airing Of Secret Taping of First Lady”

  1. You are a smart guy but don’t seem to “get it”. When fighting evil racist, fascist types like Donald Trump (or his ilk) anything goes. That’s why it is ok if the MSM selectively reports on events involving BLM or the Brave Masked Wonderful Warriors of Antifa ™ and describes their activities as “mostly peaceful”, Same with their “hit pieces” on those around Trump. They are building a better world so anything goes. As Comrade Lenin said, “One has to break a few eggs to make an omelet”.

    antonio

  2. If Barack Obama and Dr. Anthony Fauci had taken Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) seriously when he was President, COVID-19 would have never happened. Never.

    In Fauci’s own words:

    I think the important thing to emphasize to the American public is that this is not something right now that one you consider a really very serious threat because of the fact that we were made aware of it and because the virus does not spread readily from person to person

    1. “The truth is that American leader could have prevented death and destruction.”
      Yes, by not locking down the people and the economy, when the chance of death from the corona virus is 1 in a 1000 after being infected by it.
      The whole death and destruction was not from the coronavirus, but from the allergic and overreactive response that stupid, uninformed, hysterical and officious government leaders took in anticipation of the virus’s existence.
      They were informed more by too many watchings of zombie apocalypse movies and not enough attention to actual facts and statistics that are available to everyone.
      What’s worse, they keep on doing it, now as matter of embarrassment and reputation saving, to justify their irresponsible and reckless actions in the first place.
      This virus apocalypse it totally a product of psychology and inability for those in control to properly measure the power and public trust they were given by the electorate. The average age that the virus has killed is 78, and the average lifespan is 78 without the virus.
      There was no death and destruction from the virus. It was all due to our uninformed and hysterical governors and mayors.

  3. GOP Sen. Ron Johnson has now tested positive.

    Lyz Lenz: “Chuck Grassley is 87 and met with a senator who now has covid, but won’t get tested. Sounds great. Good logic. …”

    The WH reports that Trump has now taken Remdesivir. That’s normally not used unless the patient is in serious condition and can have serious side-effects. The WH really needs to have a doctor speak with the press about the President’s condition.

    “The White House’s handling of the period between the first known symptoms — those of Hicks on Wednesday — and the president’s infection, which was confirmed about 1 a.m. Friday, is what experts considered a case study in irresponsibility and mismanagement. … ‘Trump thought he could go to the fundraiser [at Bedminster] and keep it secret that Hicks had it,’ Republican donor Dan Eberhart said. Trump’s decision to proceed with the fundraiser after the known infection of Hicks, someone with whom he had extended recent close contact, went against the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other public health authorities.
    “‘They knew she was positive and they still let Marine One take off with the president. Why didn’t they ground him? That was the break in protocol,’ said Kavita Patel, a practicing physician and former health adviser in the Obama White House. ‘The CDC’s protocol clearly states that as soon as anybody, i.e. Hope Hicks, was confirmed positive, anybody she came into close contact with for at least 48 hours prior should have at least isolated.’ …
    “As White House officials worked to trace the origin of the outbreak, they became concerned about a series of events Saturday: Barrett’s Rose Garden announcement and the private indoor receptions surrounding it. A feeling of invincibility from the virus was pervasive. Guests were administered rapid coronavirus tests upon arrival and waited in a room wearing masks, according to Jenkins, the Notre Dame president. Then, he wrote in a statement Friday, ‘we were notified that we had all tested negative and were told that it was safe to remove our masks.’ Once escorted outside, guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together. …
    “The mixing continued at indoor receptions to celebrate Barrett, which two White House officials said Friday have caused deep concern within the president’s circle. They were attended by Cabinet members, senators, Barrett’s family, family members of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and other guests, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham. ‘They were all mingling without masks and in close quarters,’ one of the officials said. ‘No one was distanced.’ …”
    “‘We don’t want to be talking about coronavirus and now we’re talking about coronavirus,’ the outside adviser said. ‘The hit writes itself: He can’t protect the country. He couldn’t even protect himself.’”
    https://web.archive.org/web/20201003015516/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-virus-spread-white-house/2020/10/02/38c5b354-04cc-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

    Julian Sanchez: “For every famous political figure exposed at these events, there’s going to be a non-famous staffer who never makes the news, who doesn’t have the same access to rapid testing and treatment, and who had no say in the choice to eschew basic safety measures for symbolic reasons.”

    Another Post article: “Secret Service agents expressed their anger and frustration to colleagues and friends Friday, saying that the president’s actions have repeatedly put them at risk. ‘He’s never cared about us,’ one agent told a confidant…”

    1. One cannot take anything from the WP seriously. They have been spinning before Trump was elected creating an environment that seems to function in tandem with democrat interests and previously the Clinton campaign. Their false accusations about Trump and Russia are now being tied to the DNC and Clinton more firmly than ever. There is evidence that the man thought to be a Russian spy was working for the interests of the DNC and created a lot of the false information out there. Additionally the past administration weaponized our intelligence community and lied to the FISA Court. At the same time the WP has hidden Biden’s corruption which involved selling America to the Chinese for money while the Biden family had other ill gotten gains from the Russians and the Ukrainians and likely elsewhere. Why should anyone trust the WP or CTDHD?

      1. Allan doesn’t refute anything CTHD or the Washington Post wrote. Instead he deflects and whines about them. What a wuss.

        1. Anonymous, the distortions the WP writes aren’t revealed as distortions until long after the event has passed. That is why you forget how wrong the WP is when they are dealing with a political issue.

          One cannot refute statements that are made when they are based on a selected possibility. The facts aren’t in, so one has to determine the credibility of the source by dealing with issues already passed where the WP lost its credibility.

          You have the same problem as the WP. You lost your credibility the second you tied your name in with others and continue to lose it every time you mistakenly confuse your whims with fact.

          “What a wuss.”

          It’s not being a wuss. It is being intelligent and credible. Those are two things you lack.

          1. So you conveniently assume that you’re going to be able to refute something in the future, and you say that the facts aren’t in when a lot of them are out in the open. You can watch video showing that guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together.

            1. Anonymous, you need to reread what I wrote and your response. You have demonstrated, once again, a total lack of comprehension. (I didn’t say what you said I said.)

              1. You said “The facts aren’t in.” I gave you an example where the facts are in, because we can see them in the video. The WP also claimed Hicks had symptoms on Wednesday, Trump still went to a fundraiser on Thursday, doing so goes against CDC recommendations, Trump’s infection was announced on Friday about 1 a.m., Trump has now taken Remdesivir, and we’re talking about coronavirus now. Those are also examples where the facts are in.

                You said “One cannot refute statements that are made when they are based on a selected possibility,” when all of the above are certainties.

                1. You provided a WP op-ed/news story. You provided things like this ” one agent told a confidant…”. That is proof of something? Are you crazy. One Anonymous source told another and how do we verify what was said or what the context was?

                  When you post some facts combined with some distortions combined with some lies combined with anonymous sources what you have actually provided is garbage. You either are completely credible or you are not believable. You are not completely credible even though you might have a few things even I believe are true.

                  “You said “One cannot refute statements that are made when they are based on a selected possibility,” when all of the above are certainties.”

                  If you believe what you say now are all certainties then you should have written that alone and skipped the rest including anonymous talking anonymous about context uncertain material that is not documented.

                  1. I wasn’t the one who quoted the WP story, I only responded to your comment about it.

                    You tried to give the excuse that “The facts aren’t in,” so I gave you a bunch of examples where the facts are in.

                    1. “I wasn’t the one who quoted the WP story”

                      Anonymous wrote the response and you are Anonymous.

                      I am not even certain which response you are talking about. However, to be credible you can’t include wrong data and distorted data with good data. You are not credible so you have to be more careful in how you present your story and your proof.

                    2. Are you doing this by phone where it’s hard for you to see the entire thread? CTHD quoted the WP, not me. You replied to her, I replied to you, and the rest is between the two of us. What wrong data you talking about?

                    3. You are not specific enough in your responses to let a person know which post you are talking about and that combined with all the different people called Anonymous make it difficult to follow. That is a problem you create.

                      Restate what you want me to hear and quote what you think is pertinent. State your question, reasoning and proof. To avoid confusion with all the other posts make the new post stand on its own and I will reply based solely on what is in that single email as if nothing else was written on the subject. Of course that means you have to do the same.

                    4. It does not matter. Anonymous is playing games.

                      Even if the threading is as he claims – he still responded to your response to CTDHD, and he did so in a fashion that assumed her remarks were correct and yours were wrong.

                    5. Who CARES ?

                      Are you saying that CTDHD is responsible for the bad sourcing from WP ?

                      Then why are you arguing with Allan ?

                    6. This started with your response to CTHD, where you whined about her and the WP but didn’t refute anything CTHD or the WP wrote.

                      What a demanding little kid you are, telling me what I have to do for you instead of just rereading this part of the page for yourself.

                    7. When you make a point you are inadequate lacking the necessary skills. I didn’t ask you to do anything for me. I informed you of your inadequacies and what you needed to do to correct them. I don’t care if you do or don’t but you involved yourself with me not the other way around. Now you are whining because of the foolish way you handled yourself. This is something that isn’t new and something we see all the time from you. The problem is you lack the skill set to learn from your mistakes. That is why you are in this situation today.

                    8. There is no obligation to “refute” anonymous hearsay.

                      Do you have actual facts ? A real source ?

                    9. I’m informing you of your inadequacies: what you need to do to correct them is read the page instead of relying on email.

                      You accused the WP of “distortions” and said that “The facts aren’t in”, when a lot of the facts are out in the open for the WP story that CTHD linked to and you didn’t identify any distortions in that story. The WP said that that “guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together”, and I pointed out that you can watch video showing that guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together. I pointed out that the WP also claimed Hicks had symptoms on Wednesday, Trump still went to a fundraiser on Thursday after having been in contact with Hicks, doing so goes against CDC recommendations, Trump’s infection was announced on Friday about 1 a.m., Trump has now taken Remdesivir, and we’re all talking about coronavirus now. Those are also examples where the facts are in and the WP didn’t distort anything. You said “One cannot refute statements that are made when they are based on a selected possibility”, when all of these examples are certainties. You complain “You are not specific enough”, when I was plenty specific in all these examples.

                    10. The WP proved itself not credible with the use of anonymous sources that were wrong on the Russia hoax perhaps one of the biggest lies in American politics. To sensible people that still have some degree of intelligence that mean they are no longer a credible source.

                      Fools do not learn from prior experience.

                    11. What we have accused the WP of is pushing anonymous hearsay.

                      We do not need to identify “distortions” in hearsay or refure it – it is hearsay – it is not evidence.

                      It could be true, but there is no way of knowing. It could just as easily be made up, or bad recollection or innumerable other things.

                      We do not place much weight in hearsay – because we can not critically examing it.
                      We can not even question it

                    12. You’ve now gone back to deflecting from the WP story that CTHD linked to.

                      You accused the WP of “distortions” and said that “The facts aren’t in”, when a lot of the facts are out in the open for the WP story that CTHD linked to and you didn’t identify any distortions in that story. The WP said that that “guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together”, and I pointed out that you can watch video showing that guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together. I pointed out that the WP also claimed Hicks had symptoms on Wednesday, Trump still went to a fundraiser on Thursday after having been in contact with Hicks, doing so goes against CDC recommendations, Trump’s infection was announced on Friday about 1 a.m., Trump has now taken Remdesivir, and we’re all talking about coronavirus now. Those are also examples where the facts are in and the WP didn’t distort anything. You said “One cannot refute statements that are made when they are based on a selected possibility”, when all of these examples are certainties. You complain “You are not specific enough”, when I was plenty specific in all these examples.

                      I don’t care whether you think the WP is a credible source. The facts they reported are out in the open. Can you focus on those facts or can’t you?

                    13. “You’ve now gone back to deflecting from the WP story that CTHD linked to.”

                      No. I am repeating what has been said before. You don’t make it clear what you are talking about and you don’t make it clear which of the Anonymous postings were yours. You expect everyone to figure it out. No. You are all grouped together and when you are not clear I pick what comments I wish to answer.

                      Yes, the WP is not credible unless you still believe the Russia hoax was absolutely true and all the Anonymous reports were true as well. Only a Stupid person would answer in the affirmative. You keep making up your own narrative that gets longer every post. State a singular fact in context, provide the quote and provide your interpretation. Only then can we see the discussion is really all about. But I have told you this before and but you continue with constant word salads.

                    14. The WP story remains anonymous hearsay.

                      The FACTS are not in.

                      Circling back to the same bad arguments over and over does not change the fact that the WP story is anonymous hearsay.

                    15. Yesterday, you told me “you need to reread what I wrote and your response. You have demonstrated, once again, a total lack of comprehension”. You need to do that yourself.

                      You say “you don’t make it clear what you are talking about”

                      What isn’t clear about “The WP said that that “guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together”, and I pointed out that you can watch video showing that guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together”?

                      What isn’t clear about “the WP also claimed Hicks had symptoms on Wednesday, Trump still went to a fundraiser on Thursday after having been in contact with Hicks, doing so goes against CDC recommendations”?

                      We haven’t been discussing the Russia investigation, but you keep trying to deflect to it. It’s like a baby blanket.

                    16. “What isn’t clear about ” The WP said …”

                      Your point? Be clear. I don’t like to guess.

                      My point was the WP lost all credibility because of the Russia Hoax. I might believe some of their facts, but certainly not their opinion and I even question their facts since they lied so much about the Russia hoax. Now if you are trying to tell me something based on the facts state the facts including where they came from and state what you are trying to tell me. Start from a new beginning so you don’t continuously confuse the issue with all the other postings from multiple people.

                    17. YOU mkmade a claim. You have yet to provide VERIFIABLE evidence that claim is true

                      I do not care who quoted WP

                      I have not seen anything from you that is more than gossip speculation and rumor.

        2. Allan points, correctly, to the tattered credibility of WP. Nothing in it should be read without suspicion and probably nothing in it should be read at all.

        3. CTDHD and WaPo are not credible. They are not entitled to a presumption that what they have said is true. They have a reputation THEY created on their own for spreading false information.

          It is therefore unnecescary to refute anything they say.

          Allan has a repution for being accurate and for correcting his errors when he makes mistakes.

          That reputation is the DEFINITION of credibility.

          When you go to the trouble to be sure what you say is true, and correct yourself when you are wrong – you are credible, there is good reason to beleive what you say – even without proof.

          When you repeat obvious nonsense, things that have no proof, because they fit you narative, when you fail to verify what you say. When you fail to correct the errors you make, when you continue to try to sell nonsense like the collusion delusion, when you are less likely to be right than bat$h!t crazy nutjobs like Alex Jones – then you are not credible. It is unnecescary to refute your claims.

          Worse still when you make moral accusations about others without proving them, you are not merely not credible – you are not moral.

    2. “Chuck Grassley is 87 and met with a senator who now has covid, but won’t get tested. Sounds great. Good logic. …”

      So ? If Grassely has no symptoms and does not wish to get tested why is that your business ?

      You have very weird values.

      Your choices relative to yourself are your business – whether they are wise choices of not.

    3. “The WH reports that Trump has now taken Remdesivir. That’s normally not used unless the patient is in serious condition and can have serious side-effects. The WH really needs to have a doctor speak with the press about the President’s condition.”

      Again So ?

      Remedesivir use is normally restricted – because there is a very limited supply.

      Is Trump is serious condition ? Maybe, Maybe not. What does your demand to be informed have to do with that ?

      Trump is near certain to be receiving the best possible treatment available – whether he is seriously ill or only mildly.
      We all expect that the president will get the best treatment possible no matter what.

      And that is what NEEDS to be done – meeting your voyeuristic whims is not especially important.

    4. “The White House’s handling of the period between the first known symptoms — those of Hicks on Wednesday — and the president’s infection, which was confirmed about 1 a.m. Friday, is what experts considered a case study in irresponsibility and mismanagement. … ”

      More Committed to Dishonest Discussion. What experts ? Experts in what ? Regardless, why the cite to “experts” ? Aren’t ordinary people capable of deciding what constitutes irresponsibility and mismanagement ?

      “‘Trump thought he could go to the fundraiser [at Bedminster] and keep it secret that Hicks had it,’ Republican donor Dan Eberhart said. ”
      How does anyone know what “trump thought” – regardless what has this assertion got to do with anything.

      It is a ludicrously stupid claim – Trump was tested, as was everyone exposed to Hicks. Hicks was quarantined the moment it was known that she was positive.

      As best as I can tell your claim is that this was irresponsible and mismanagement because Trump etc. were not clairvoyant.

      “Trump’s decision to proceed with the fundraiser after the known infection of Hicks, someone with whom he had extended recent close contact, went against the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other public health authorities.”
      Because you say so ?

      There as so many false assumptions in most everything you spray out.

      AGAIN hicks was quarantined as soon as it was determined she had Covid.

      THAT is the actual protocol.

      We have no evidence that people without symptoms can spread C19. Maybe they can – but like so many things that we COULD find out we have appeared to have deliberately decided NOT to.

      Masks is one of numerous examples – there are few studies on C19 and masks – all of the few we have are inconclusive and not especially well conducted. But those like YOU demand that we accept on faith that Masks are not only highly effective, but that we can impose them on all by FORCE.

      Wear a mask – don’t – it is your life.

      Go to church, a fund raiser, or hide in the basement – it is your life.

      I do not here lots of Trump supporters ranting about the choices they have made – whether they have chosen wisely or not.
      Whether they have been lucky or not.

      “‘They knew she was positive and they still let Marine One take off with the president. Why didn’t they ground him? That was the break in protocol,’ said Kavita Patel, a practicing physician and former health adviser in the Obama White House.

      More false facts and nonsense. Regardless Dr. Patel’s relevance ended with Obama’s presidency.

      ‘The CDC’s protocol clearly states that as soon as anybody, i.e. Hope Hicks, was confirmed positive, anybody she came into close contact with for at least 48 hours prior should have at least isolated.’ …

      FALSE, I went to the CDC’s web site – there is no such requirement. In fact people who test positive are not required to quarantine themselves ONLY people who have symptom’s are supposed to quarantine THEMSELVES.

        1. John is the fountain of misinformation.

          https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html
          Stay home for 14 days after your last contact with a person who has COVID-19.
          COVID-19 can be transmitted asymptomatically.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7518963/
          Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant protective effect of medical facemask use (combined or not with other interventions) in preventing the transmission of all respiratory infections including SARS-CoV-2

          1. Anonymous, you are a fountain of information. I no longer cross check what you write because frequently it is out of date or your assumptions of what was said was wrong. Alternatively you pick editorials meant to promote a commercial product or a conspiracy.

            Take what John said in quotes and put it against what your citations are saying and see if they match or more likely see if you screwed up again.

            1. Neither of those links are to editorials. Under each link are quote from the link, and the quotes contradict John’s claims.

              1. As Said before:”Take what John said in quotes and put it against what your citations are saying and see if they match or more likely see if you screwed up again.”

                There is no need for anyone to think you are credible. You might be right on occasions but you are not credible. Therefore you have to prove your points and the way to do that is laid out in the above quote.

                1. The CDC is credible. The International Journal of Infectious Diseases is credible. Instead of focusing on me, focus on the quotes I gave from those credible sources, which show John to be wrong about quarantining after exposure, asymptomatic transmission and mask effectiveness.

                  1. “The CDC is credible. The International Journal of Infectious Diseases is credible.”

                    They are acceptably credible but not always credible. The Journal can published articles that turn out not to be so good. In fact they might have one article saying one thing and another one saying the opposite. Likewise the CDC is acceptably credible and so are many of the experts we listen to. But if one bothers to actually assess credibility one will immediately note how the idea of wearing a mask was good one day and bad another. One will also note that they even lied about masks intentionally.

                    You have not compared what John says to what they say. (I’m not even assessing right and wrong in this instance). You are not putting the two ideas together with quotes and explanations. I don’t think you have a firm grasp of these things and for the most part I believe they are far over your head.

                    1. You should be able to do this for yourself. John said “there are few studies on C19 and masks – all of the few we have are inconclusive and not especially well conducted,” and I quoted peer-reviewed research that said “Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant protective effect of medical facemask use (combined or not with other interventions) in preventing the transmission of all respiratory infections including SARS-CoV-2,” and because it’s a meta-analysis, they draw on a number of studies. They make clear that they’re discussing “facemask use by the general public” and that “medical facemasks” refers to surgical facemasks, like the common disposable blue ones.

                      Do the other two for yourself. Or don’t. Getting you to understand John’s misinformation is more tedious than it’s worth.

                    2. One study is one study. It is not the end only the beginning. I believe there is some degree of protection from masks and so does John. He even wears one.

                      In this reply you are not providing what John said and only responding to what you think he said. He likely was responding in a limited fashion so you might not even have his full opinion especially since you should know he wears a mask and why.

                      Don’t be insulting when someone is replying in a serious and helpful fashion.

                      The first thing you have to do is assess what John actually said and include a quote.

                      Obtaining knowledge is tedious (the word you used) and that is why so many people lack sufficient knowledge to discuss scientific things on this blog. John’s factual statements have for the most part been correct.

                    3. He did not cite a study. He cited an anonymous oppinion on the CDC web site about an uncited meta analysis.

                    4. Anonymous has been wrong in at least one respect on virtually everything . It is the the model for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

                    5. Are you daft ?

                      The “quote” you provided is NOT peer reviewed research.
                      Not that I give a $hit whether it is peer reviewed – the actual standard for science is REPRODUCABLE.

                      The quite you provides was an oppinion based on an uncited meta-analysis – which is essentially an oppinion about a review of numerous studies.

                      If we were in court this would be tripple hearsay.

                      The actual studies are not cited – they are not even described. SWe are expected to trust some unknown person who summarized unknown studies and that summary then resulted in an oppinion from another unknown partyu that produced a recomendation.

                      And this is your idea of science ? or Proof ?

                      ACTUAL REAL WORLD DATA – got any ?

                      You do not know – and the CDC did not provide ANYTHING of use.

                      Do you know anything at all about the meta analysis – while meta analysis is often useful, it is not itself and actual study.
                      Do you know who produced it ? Do you know what studies it included or excluded and why ?

                      Do you know if the data was real world or laboratory ?

                      Do you know anything about it ?

                      MAYBE if the CDC had not flipped about this constantly this would be somewhat credible.

                      Faucci’s testimony to the house is really the best understanding.

                      Faucci admitted that he LIED because at the time masks were in short supply and needed by front line workers.

                      There is actually good reason to doubt what he is saying – front line medical workers did not need ALL possible masks – only the PolyPropholene ones.

                      But lets get past that.

                      One of the problems with Faucci – one of the problems with experts overall – particularly those on the left is that the LIE constantly, and they admit they do.

                      There are few credible climate scientists that actually beleive that extreme weather is caused by global warming – in fact nearly all the Global Climate models produce the opposite – more stable and consistent weather. Less day/night variation, less hurricanes, more moderate weather.

                      But that does nto scare people, So climate scientists cooked up extreme weather versions of the climate models to scare people into taking them seriously. And because on the left the ends justifies the means – that is OK – Lying is even viewed as a positive good if it gets people to behave as you want.

                      With respect to C19 we see a variation in the same thing. C DC, FDA, WHO and our adssorted state governments NEED to feel effective.
                      So they orderl people to do something – so that the appear to be acting.

                      We get this type of nonsense from the left all the time.

                      It is unimportant whether what you do actually works.

                      As I have said before – you could get everyone on the left to vote for a bill that murder all pets, if you called it the “all puppies go to heaven” bill.

                      Virtue signalling matters – not actually accomplishing something.

                    6. “The “quote” you provided is NOT peer reviewed research.
                      Not that I give a $hit whether it is peer reviewed – the actual standard for science is REPRODUCABLE.”

                      Anonymous is ignorant of these things. One of my younger grandchildren who loves science would tell him the same thing and if his teacher was a leftist the teacher might not recognize he was correct. Science is not easy but people like Anonymous think it is because they think any answer will suffice and it will but only if one has the difficult ingredient, proof.

                    7. I already quoted John to you. That’s what the quotation marks mean in John said “there are few studies on C19 and masks – all of the few we have are inconclusive and not especially well conducted”.

                      Since you appear not to know what meta-analyses are and that they don’t refer to only one study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis

                    8. “That’s what the quotation marks mean in John said “there are few studies on C19 and masks”

                      True.

                      ” – all of the few we have are inconclusive and not especially well conducted”.

                      True.

                      Now you become insulting, not unusual for your type.

                      “Since you appear not to know what meta-analyses”

                      I have dealt with loads of meta-analyses.
                      What is your point?

                      ” are and that they don’t refer to only one study:”

                      So?
                      Again I miss your point if you have one.
                      Meta-analysis studies based on inconclusive studies are inconclusive.

                      It sounds as if you are totally ignorant about the subject matter.

                      What were you trained in? The sex life of an Amoeba?

                    9. We know what a meta analysis is.

                      I can not beleive you are this dense.

                      The link you provided did NOT cite a meta analysis.

                      It provided hearsay about one.

                      We do not have the actual meta-analysis, no link to it. no means to find it. Nothing to tell us what its conclusions actually were.
                      We do not know the studies it was based on. We do not know if they were real world or lab.

                      Basically we know nothing except that who ever published the web page on the CDC site said that masks are recommended and claimed that analysis of an unprovided meta-analsis confirmed that.

                      We already know that these “experts” do not know $shit and that they will lie to us if they think it is for our own (or their own) good.

                      And you beleive them based on WHAT ? A claim that support for their position might exist ?

                      You keep trying to argue things that are NOT ON POINT.

                      Where is the meta analysis ? Presumably if that is any good it will identify the actual studies it refers to.

                    10. The core of your argument is “trust me” or “trust the left” or “Trust someone you do not know who is probably with the CDC:”.

                      I am libertarian – I have NEVER been one to “trust” purported experts.

                      But beyond my own natural tendency to be mistrustful of claims of authority,
                      After the past 4 years you really expect others to buy into “trust me” ?

                      We have seen numerous government agencies and experts LIE.
                      We have seen the media LIE, we have seen John Brennan LIE, we have seen Obama, Biden, Comey, Yates, Rice, ….. LIE.
                      We have seen Faucci LIE and admit to it – for the good of all.

                      Someone “says so” is NOT good enough.

                      Someone says that someone says that someone says certainly is not.

                      Facts not gossip.

                    11. You’re saying that John’s opinion that “all of the few we have are inconclusive and not especially well conducted” is “True”. It’s his opinion. He made no attempt to give corroboration for his opinion, and you’ve made no attempt to corroborate yours. What’s your argument that the studies cited in the meta-analysis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7518963/) are all inconclusive and not especially well conducted? Go through the cited studies one by one.

                      You said “One study is one study” so I pointed out that meta-analyses don’t refer to only one study. Now you ask “So? Again I miss your point if you have one.” My point is that I cited a meta-analysis and you responded by saying “One study is one study” as if it’s only one study, which made me think that you don’t understand what meta-analyses are. Your opinion that “Meta-analysis studies based on inconclusive studies are inconclusive” also indicates that you don’t understand them as well as you think, because the outcomes from a meta-analysis may give a more precise estimate of the effect of the intervention than any individual study in the pooled analysis.

                      You’ve got balls to tell me “Now you become insulting, not unusual for your type” when you’re insulting me with “What were you trained in? The sex life of an Amoeba?”

                    12. ” It’s his opinion. He made no attempt to give corroboration for his opinion”

                      One doesn’t need to corroborate an opinion. If you wish to challenge it go ahead. Scientific thinking seems to be new to you.

                      Read what John has written over and over again about the studies he has seen, some of which are likely included in the meta study. That is your problem. It appears you can only incorporate one data point at a time in your arguments. Your point on inconclusiveness has some truth to it but you have to look at what the studies were trying to show and match that to John’s opinion. You haven’t done that and that is where you fail. The sad thing is, you won’t understand your own failure.

                      As far as the insults yours preceded mine so stop dramatizing your failure.

                    13. Alright – he provided a link to an actual meta-analysis FINALLY

                      “Results
                      The review included 12 primary studies on the effectiveness of medical facemask use to prevent influenza, influenza-like illness, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. ”

                      First the studies summarized cover a variety of flu like respiratory illnesses.

                      The R0 value for the flu is 1.4 that of C19 is between 2.4 and 3.8.
                      That difference is enormous.

                      Studies of the effectiveness of masks against the flu are interesting.
                      But they are very close to useless in drawingf conclusions regarding C19.

                      To get an R0 below 1.0 you need 40% effectiveness. You need to be more than twice as effective at 2.4 and several timnes more effective at 3.8

                      “Our meta-analysis demonstrates that facemask use significantly reduces the risk of transmitting these respiratory infections (pooled OR = 0.66, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.81).”

                      So an effectiveness of 0.66 times Transmission rate of 2.4 is a new transmission rate of 1.58 – you are STILL way about 1.0 and even abve the Flu.

                      Contra the purported conclusions of the study – these results indicate that masks are NOT effective.

                      That as I have said repeatedly they will prolong the epidemic, they will not reduce the number of deaths or infections.

                      Now in combination with other measures MAYBE masks will work. That will depend on whether the combination results in an overall effectiveness sufficient to reduce R0 below 1.0 CONSISTENTLY.

                      “Of the 12 studies, ten clinical trials suggest that respiratory infection incidence is lower with high medical facemask compliance, early use, and use in combination with intensive hand hygiene.”

                      First what does “clinical trial mean” – I am asking for real world data – not “clinical trials”. The distinction is important.

                      Look arround the real world – most people are not wearing N95 masks, those that are are not wearing them over their nose. They are not handling the masks only by the ear strings, they are not washing every time they handle the masks, …..

                      The real world matters. AGAIN unless you reduce the overall R0 below 1.0 in the REAL WORLD for a sustained long period you do nothing but prolong the epidemic.

                      “One cohort study conducted during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, demonstrated facemasks are effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission when used before those infected develop symptoms.”

                      I am assuming from this that only ONE study of the 12 involved C19.

                      “One case-control study reported that controls used medical facemasks more often than cases infected with SARS-CoV (p-value<0.05). No primary study on cloth facemask effectiveness to prevent respiratory infection transmission was found."

                      The last statement is pretty damning – these researchers found no studies of cloth facemasks.
                      Well the most famous facemasks study was published AFTER the Spanish Flu in 1918 and found that there was no difference in infection rates between the people in once city that mandated cloth face masks and a nearby one that did not.
                      The population sizes were in the 1000's

                      So after all this your meta-analsys is pretty much useless.

                      an effectiveness rate of .66 WILL NOT CUT IT.

                      You do not seem to grasp no one claims masks are not effective.
                      The question is whether they are effective enough.

                      I will give you a choice – I will zap you with a million volts for 1 second, or through an insulator that will reduce it to 500K for two seconds.

                      The insulator is 50% effective.

                      Your still dead.

                    14. Yes, it is my oppinion.

                      But in addition to that oppinion I have provided the relatively easy math that conclusively demonstrates that even at high levels of effectiveness Masks will not reduce R0 below 1.0 and therefore will accomplish nothing but stretch out the epidemic.

                      In addition to an oppinion on the effectiveness of masks. I have provided MATH that demonstrates that even at HIGH per encounter effectiveness – they will not work.

                      In addition while I have not cited specific case and death rates – I have noted that the evidence – readily available to all of us via our Mark I eyeballs is that no nation, no state has demonstrated the effectiveness of ANY policy against C19.

                      If masks worked – then nations and states that religiously used masks would all have done better than those like Sweden that did not.

                      The SELF EVIDENT fact is that no policy of any nation anywhere has been demonstrably effective.

                      I hopefully do not need studies and citations to support that “oppintion” – because it is reflected by REALITY.

                      We ALL – every one of us including myself would LOVE to see an example of a country or state that had taken some step and had an obviously beneficial result.

                      There are any.

                    15. Still being obtuse.

                      I would love a link to the meta-analysis.

                      CDC did not provide one.
                      You did not provide one.

                      What you and the CDC provided was hearsay and “trust me”.

                      That is not a meta analysis.

                      There is no means to verify ANYTHING.

                      All you have is one giant appeal to authority with the word meta analysis in it.

                      I am a capable writer – I have been published in technical journals half a dozen times.
                      I even have a chemistry paper that was published when I was in high school.

                      So I actually know something about both writing and technical writing.

                      In HS I learned that it was easy to dupe people with high sounding language. Especially technical language.

                      I take Orwell’s advice to heart – if you want to communicate effectively and truthfully – speak plainly.

                      When someone says “meta-analysis” to me – I say – where is it ?

                      You appear to say “ah ha, magic words, that means it is true”,

                      I guess that is why you were fooled by the collusion delusion.

                    16. Good to know that when you say “True,” you only mean it as an opinion and not as a fact.

                    17. If you were an intelligent person you would realize the word true can be both opinion and fact.

                    18. Talk about distortions.

                      True is something that is proveable – by FACTS.

                      You finally provided a link to the meta analysis.

                      I did not look to see whether it provided the actual studdies it rested on.

                      But only one was for C19. The rest were for Flu or other Flu like illnesses.

                      Those are interesting byt not dispositive.

                      The overall effectiveness your CDC study found was .66

                      That may sound good, but that is not even good enough to reduce Ro below 1.0 for a SINGLE exposure.
                      Further that result was obtained in a clinical setting and with people following strict protocols.

                      Do you honestly beleive that is happening in the real world ?

                      Your own meta analysis despite saying that masks are effective – actually demonstrates they are NOT.

                      And that would be obvious to anyone who grasps the goal is not to slow down the spread of C19 but to STOP it.

                    19. If you were an intelligent person you would be more interested in whether it’s actually true that all of the mask studies “are inconclusive and not especially well conducted”, and you’d be more curious about the meta-analysis I gave you.

                    20. “If you were an intelligent person ”

                      You are blind to logic so at least where logic is required you are not an intelligent person. I have gone over the data long before Covid and have seen a bunch of the data since.

                      If you don’t have personal immunity to Covid and I place you in a room with significant Covid virus eventually despite the mask and the gloves you will get covid.

                      I will provide the analogy again because I assume I am talking to Anonymous the Stupid who isn’t very bright.

                      A mask sealing a person off from Covid is like a steel mesh fence sealing you off from small bugs.

                    21. You provided a link to a meta analysis.

                      That meta analysis demonstrates that under optimal conditions n95 masks are NOT sufficient alone to reduce R0 below 1.0.
                      They basiscally reduce the treansmission rate to that of the Flu.

                      Rather than making your case the meta analysis refuted it.

                      Masks are effective – but not even close to effective enough.

                      The goal is not to kill people slowly it is to kill less people.

                    22. Pick one of the mask studies used in the meta-analysis and explain why you think it’s “inconclusive and not especially well conducted”.

                    23. “explain why you think it’s “inconclusive”

                      In other words you don’t understand the conclusions or the methodology and you need someone to interpret it for you.

                      Start stating the exact conclusion and then deal with the methodology etc. They may even provide you the answer you are looking for in the study. Pick a study where the complete study is available.

                    24. Allan the results section of the link he provided did not hold up.

                      Fundimetally what we are dealing with is a misunderstanding of what “effective” means.

                      Anonymous study found under optimal condidtions N95 masks were 66% effective.

                      Sounds good. But it si not enough to get the single exposure R0 value below 1.0.

                      Anonymous thinks we should all be forced to wear masks if that will make it take twice as long to kill us all.

                    25. “Pick one”

                      I directly addressed the conclusions of the meta-analysis.
                      I assumed they were correct.

                      First lets start with the results – the stuffy found a .66 effectiveness of masks used in a clinical setting.
                      That is not the real world, and it is not sufficient.

                      Next only one of the 12 studies was for C19. The others are interesting but have limited applicability.

                      Finally your study was not for masks of any kind but for N95 masks used perfectly.

                      Yes, N95 masks used optimally will prolong the epidemic significantly, but they will not change the number of dead or sick.

                      Your study rather than prove that masks should be mandated explained the real world results we are seeing – protracted epidemics with no ultimate effect on death of infection.

                    26. You’re the one who said it’s “True” that all of the mask studies we have “are inconclusive and not especially well conducted”, not me.

                      Are you going to explain why you think that?

                    27. “You’re the one who said it’s “True” that all of the mask studies we have “are inconclusive and not especially well conducted”, not me. Are you going to explain why you think that?

                      I already provided those answers and more by providing you the WHO study. Stop trying to hide your ignorance. What do you believe?

                    28. The WHO study you cited studied effectiveness in reducing influenza transmission, not SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

                      SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus, not an influenza virus. You should focus on all of the more recent studies that looked at SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

                    29. We are all waiting for your interpretation of the limited studies done with Covid. Why don’t you first inform us about how masks function and why you believe the previous studies have no significance. You make a lot of comments but say nothing.

                    30. John, you just wrote “he provided a link to an actual meta-analysis FINALLY,” when everyone can see that I first posted that link on October 3, 2020 at 5:11 PM. You move the goalposts, demanding that the study show an R0 below 1.0, when my reason for posting it was to show that you were wrong that “all of the few we have are inconclusive and not especially well conducted”. A reduction in transmission can be conclusive and well-conducted even if the R0 is above 1. Mask use alone doesn’t have to reduce the R0 below 0; it can be combined with other behaviors, like social distancing. You also ask questions that indicate you never bothered to look at the references, because they answered your questions.

                      You’re acting like just as much of a jackass as Allan, and I wasted too much time with him, so I won’t waste more time with you. I bet you’ll reply with more of your voluminous and poorly considered replies.

                    31. Not moving any goal posts.
                      The goal is to save lives and reduce infections.
                      Reducing R0 is the only meaningful test of policy based approaches to doing so.

                      It has absolutely never been my goal to make the epidemic last longer. Is it yours ?

                      If you are standing on the beach as a 100′ tsunami approaches and the army corp of engineers arrives and instantly errects a wave break that reduces the tidal wave to 50′

                      Your still dead.

                      If you are running down the street being chased by armed violent gang members in a car going 30mph, slowing them down to 15mph will still leave you dead when they catch you.

                      dead is dead.

                      a .66 efectiveness is not sufficient to accomplish anything but delay with C19.

                      You are arguing about time stamps.

                      I go through posts in the order received.

                      You made many posts about this meta-analysis without ever providing anything to be able to find it.

                      Yes, I was exceited when you did.

                    32. “Mask use alone doesn’t have to reduce the R0 below 0; it can be combined with other behaviors, like social distancing. ”

                      Correct. Regardless you MUST reduce R0 below 1.0 overall and you MUST maintain it below 1.0 for a long time – longer the closer to 1.0 you are.

                      Look arround the world. It is self evident that most every western country has through a combination of policy measures reduced R0.
                      It is also self evident that no country has reduced R0 below 1.0 through any combination of measures.

                      AGAIN I asked for an actual real world study – this is really just a permutation of a laboratory study.

                      In the real world people do not wear N95 masks, they do not wear the masks properly, they constantly touch their faces and masks, they do not wash their hands every time they touch the mask, ….

                      In the real world – even in combination with Social Distancing you are not getting R0 below 1.0.

                      I would be very happy to discover that you had. All of us would.

                      But I am not unterested in myths, feel good measures and virtue signalling.

                      Nor am I interested in people who want to beat others because they are not perfect.

                      I have zero interest in supporting mask nazi’s.

                      “You’re acting like just as much of a jackass as Allan, and I wasted too much time with him, so I won’t waste more time with you. I bet you’ll reply with more of your voluminous and poorly considered replies.”

                      If expecting valid arguments supported by facts, logic and reason make me a jackass – then I plead guilty.

                    33. 14 randomized controlled studies of the use of hygiene and masks against the flu found…. no support for a substantial effect on transmission.

                      This not merely blows a hole in your masks nonsense but hand washing as well.

                      If you want to wear a mask – do so.
                      If you want to wash your hands – do so.

                      I have no problems with CDC “recommending” either.

                      But if you want to FORCE either – you need far better scientific support than you have.

                      I would further note that if you can not stop the flu – it will be an order of magnitude harder to stop C19.

                      https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

                      Abstract
                      There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.

                  2. “The CDC is credible.”
                    No they are NOT. They have repeatedly provided contradictory claims. Further even the links you provided are OPPINIONS based on THEIR analysis of evidence NOT PROVIDED.

                    “The International Journal of Infectious Diseases is credible.”
                    No they are not. They are a publisher. The STUDIES they publish are credible or not based on the reproducability of the studies and the evidence those studies provide.

                    You do not seem to grasp what constitutes EVIDENCE. An oppinion is not evidence – not even if it is from a prestigious source or in a prestigious magazine.

                    “Instead of focusing on me”
                    We are focusing on you because you are not providing credible information.

                    “focus on the quotes”
                    A quote is nothing more than a quote. It is a statement of opinion. It MIGHT be credible – if it cites the FACTS, the Actual studies or data or mathematics and logic that back it up.

                    “I gave from those credible sources, which show John to be wrong about quarantining after exposure, asymptomatic transmission and mask effectiveness.”

                    No you did not. You cited purportedly expert oppinions from sources that YOU have decided are credible.

                    Sources that have repeatedly flip flopped on the very issues in debate.

                    I provided you a link to a CDC page that did NOT require quarantining if you are notified that you have been in contact with someone who tested positive.

                    Wow, you found a CDC page that might say something different.

                    So the CDC is inconsistent – News at 11!!!

                    You have still not provided data on asymptomatic transmission.

                    Nor have you provided actual data on mask effectivness.

                    You have also made it readily apparent that you do not understand the entire concept of effectiveness.

                    A perfectly conducted lab test demonstrates the theoretical maximum acheivable in a lab under perfect conditions for a SINGLE EXPOSURE.

                    My recollection is that an N95 mask is about 70% effective in a lab.
                    The best estimates are that it is 30-50% effective in the real world. Ordinary people touch their face and eyes about 20 times an hour.
                    Wearing a mask actually increases that frequency for most people. Ordinary people do not wear masks properly.

                    Ordinary people do not have a single encounter with a single person who may or may not be infected.

                    Once AGAIN which you still do not grasp and which all the health experts you have embued with god like qualities are eliding.

                    You MUST reduce R0 below 1.0 – and hopefully significantly below 1.0 and you MUST do that for a long period several weeks.
                    You can impose 10,000 policies that each have positive benefit, but unless in combinationt hey reduce R0 below 1.0 SUSTAINABLY you FAIL – and in fact you make this worse.

                    And that is what we are seeing throughtout the world, Countries that got slammed fast by C19 and did little until it was too late are past C19. Countries like Sweden that did not lockdown and imposed minimal mandates are past C19. Countries and states that threw the kitchen sink at C19 are still dealing with it.

                    Those are irrefutable facts.

                    While you have nothing but oppinions to support the nonsense you arfe spewing – even if you had something more substantive – in the real world – not only has the US failed – but every other country that has tried draconian measures has FAILED. And increasingly it looks as if they made things WORSE.

                2. What is amazing about those on the left is that they are right far LESS than even random chance would dictate.

                  1. True. The funny thing is that Stupidity not supposed to be communicable but it seems those Anonymous hangs out with are among the most wrong.

                    1. The funny thing is that what I said is true. Stupidity is not supposed to be communicable but it seems those Anonymous hangs out with are among the most wrong.

                    2. Nassim Taleeb uses the phrase IYI – intellectual yet idiot.

                      That describes much of the left.

              2. How does a “quote” contradict anything – DATA actually proves or disproves claims

                Not appeals to authority – particularly not appeals to authorities that are not consistent.
                Nor appeals to authorities that are expressing an oppinion.

                One of the issues we are addressing is the effectiveness of masks.

                Show me a REAL WORLD study that shows masks are effective – frankly against anything.

                Not a lab test – HCQ si dramatically effective in the lab – but you will not accept that as effective.

                Why is HCQ which destroys C19 in blood samples in a lab not proof of the effectiveness of HCQ and driving recomendations by WHO and CDC while Masks which IN THE LAB show about a 71% reduction in transmission are touted as incredibly beneficial without any real world evidence.

                There are numerous real world studies on HCQ. The overwhelming majority of those find it to reduce deaths and severity by about 50%.
                Yet, neither you now these agencies you fawn over accept that – the same agencies that are selling steroids – with almost exactly the same study results, and masks – with absolutely no real world study results.

                There are innumerable important reasons that real world studies are critical.

                The first is that any policy measure – or all policy measures in agregate are USELESS unless they reduce the R0 value below 1.0.
                That is damn near impossible for a virus with an R0 of 2.4-3.8.

                Absolutely positively a properly worn mask in a single encounter will greatly reduce your risk of getting C19.

                But unless you are planning on living in a cave for 6 months and only coming out ONCE, you are going to have multiple encounters.

                And when you multiple numbers between 0 and 1 they get ever smaller. For every single encounter you have with a C19 infected person while wearing a mask your likelyhood of getting C19 rises.

                If you can not reduce the R0 below 1.0 you accomplish nothing but delay.
                And worse you increase the risk to the most vulnerable.

          2. Do you know what a meta analysis is ?

            Regardless, your refutation is links to CDC pages which make assertions. They do not cite studies. The claim to have done a meta analysis and come to a conclusion.

            Absent data and actual studies or even a link to the actual meta study that is just a naked assertion.

            I would further note that both CDC and WHO and other health groups have made conflicting claims over time. WHO only reversed its position on Masks recently.

            Sweden – whose results look better every day – does not require masks and few swedes wear masks and then only in crowded situations like Public Transportation.

            Regardless the EVIDENCE – that is so obvious that an ordinary person can see it with there “mark I eyeball” is that there is not a single Public Policy that has worked.

            JHU has data on its website documenting each state and when it imposed and relaxes policies and daily C19 cases. There should be a 4 day lag between imposing policies and seeing an effect, and between removing them and seeing a negative effect.

            No such pattern exists

            There should be a similar pattern for polices and deaths – but with a 14 day lag – no such pattern exists.

            There should be the same patterns for other countries – no such pattern exists.

            It should be possible to compare different countries that have followed different policies and see how those polices correlated to benefits.
            No such pattern exists.

            The only public policy related pattern evident in the data is that those countries with the most draconian polices took the longest to get through C19 and many are still mired in it. While Sweden has gone through the classic logistics curve of an epidemic and has cases tappering down to zero.

            While the entire west is seeing a different pattern – a greatly stretched epidemic with multiple spikes and it increasingly looks like MORE total deaths per million.

            There are pronounces correlations that are evident between countries.

            Population density increases the cases and deaths.
            Population age increases cases and deaths.
            Population heatlh increases ages and deaths.
            Higher lattitudes increase cases and deaths.

            Inside the US it “appears” that democratic governors also increase cases and deaths. But that is more likely a factor of lattitufe and population density.

            But if you wish to continue this nonsense that you or democrats actually have a clue what they are doing – then you must OWN the fact that the data shows democratic states have FAILED to deal with C19.

              1. Yes, I read it and I found it completely persuasive.

                Masks don’t work. 66% effectiveness under optimal conditions for a single exposure is not even close to good enough.

                If you can not demonstrate a consistent sustained reduction in R0 below 1.o – you FAIL

                You make things worse.

                I would further note that of the 12 studies part of the meta analysis – only one was for C19.

                And of the 12 studies NONE were under real world conditions.

          3. I have given you facts. You have given me fallacious appeals to the oppinions of authorities that have not even been consistent in their oppinions.

            That refutes nothing.

            It is likely to take years before the health community admits to MASSIVE failure in dealing with C19.

            It is hard to admit that man is powerless in the face of nature.

            Lefties in particular fixate on nature and the environment but they fixate on the idiotic beleif that man is an evil external to nature with massive power to screw it up, rather than recognizing that man is part of nature and for all our accomplishments still powerless in comparison.

            A typical hurricane generates 5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day that is almost as much energy as all humans are capable of generating in a year.

            The left is full of hubris about the ability fo man to do harm.

            And insufficiently respectful of the tremendous power of nature itself.

            1. Anonymous should take heed. Empedocles thought he was smart (actually he thought he was a god). To prove it he jumped into a volcano and like Anonymous was roasted.

                1. So when you can’t make your point using facts, logic, reason, the next step is to demand your opponent be silenced ?

                  I have not asked you to go away, or demanded your silence.
                  I have not insulted you – though I can not protect you from the facts.

                  My arguments stand on their own – as do yours. The world can look at them and judge.

                    1. I’ll repeat John’s prior answer in my own way. You are a typical leftist that can’t stand opinions that differ from yours especially when they are based on fact and truth. Instead of providing more speech you wish to restrict the speech of others. That is why you vote for a democrat. They want to censor free speech so that only their speech is found acceptable.

                      It is that type of thinking that promotes your type of Stupidity.

                    2. Yep, two bloviators:

                      John and Allan

                      This section of the blog is for comments and that is my comment. I don’t have to have “an argument.”

                    3. “This section of the blog is for comments and that is my comment. I don’t have to have “an argument.””

                      I don’t think that comes as any surprise.

                      You do know that comments can have argument and proof. Without that they are worthless.

                      You have just admitted to being worthless.

                    4. You do if you expect to be credible.

                      This is a legal blog – not a rant idiocy blog.

                      Obviously you can do either, but not credibly.

                  1. I noted vitamin D levels being tested a good number of years ago. I took vitamin D and with Covid raised the dose. When we do anything that affects nature we have to assume other things will happen. We created sun tan lotion, special clothing to block the sun and advised people to stay out of the sun. We knew about Melanoma but we didn’t know or predict the unknown vitamin D deficiency.

                    1. Vitamin D declines in most people naturally with age though not uniformly. Vitamin D also strongly correlates to latitude.
                      Though there are cultures that eat foods that are rich in vitamin D at high latitudes.

                      From very early in C19 it has been observed that the patterns of C19 seriousness correlate incredibly strongly to the patterns of vitamin D deficiency.

                      What is really disturbing is that it has taken 6 months to get a study. The one treatment study I noted is small but still produced unbeleivable results. The authors were careful to call the Vitamin D analog they were using a treatment not a cure.

                      But the results look pretty much like a cure.

                      I am not aware of any other C19 treatment that is as effective as the results of this study.

                      So why is this not running on every single news channel right now ?

                      Sure I would like more studies – so why don’t we have them ?

                      Regardless, this also appears to be a treatment that in 99% of cases is going to be at worst harmless.

                      And yes I have been both getting more sun than normal AND taking Vitamin D suppliments for several months – since it became clear to me how strongly bad C19 cases correlated to Vitamin D deficiency.

                      There appears to be good biology on exactly how this works – with Vitamin D blocking several or the most damaging vectors that C19 uses.

                    2. In my wanderings regarding C19 i tripped over something else.

                      A doctor – real MD who went into holistic medicine and has been treating flu and similar viral diseases with an IV mix of his own.
                      When Covid came out he started using it to treat C19 with what he claims were incredible results.

                      Then the FTC “shut him down” – he can still treat patients, that is outside the FTC’s domain. But he is barred from discussing his results.

                      So he got a study published in a peer reviewed medical journal – so the information on his treatment got out there.

                      According to him he has had no deaths amoung more than 1000 serious C19 patients.

                      While this sounds promising the story is actually old – months old and I am not commenting because the treatment is effective.
                      Maybe it is, maybe it isn;t.

                      I am posting the comment because an important element in his treatment is injecting hydrogen peroxide. AKA Bleach.

                      Put simply Trump was accurately reporting on a published and peer reviewed medical study. This doctor is actually injecting hydrogen peroxide into people to fight a number of respiratory viruses. That published study indicates that it is successful.

                      Maybe it is not, maybe it is quackery. But the fact still is that a doctor really is injecting bleach into C19 patients and has provided data that the process is successful.

                      I would not personally go for this treatment – unless I was near death. Injecting hydrogen peroxide sounds scarry as $h!t.

                      But the point is that it is near certain this study is what Trump was talking about. And his comments were accurate.

                    3. “hydrogen peroxide. AKA Bleach”

                      John, both are bleaching agents but most people may not realize they are not the same. Hydrogen peroxide is part of the peroxide group linked with 2 Oxygens. You could call it an oxygen bleach. The body produces hypoclorous acid which is a precursor to hypochlorite. That is used by the body as a cleansing agent. You could call the latter a Chlorine bleach. The body produces loads of different things to protect itself. Despite the ridicule the President, when he made mention of bleach, was actually thinking out of the box as a lay person. Those who criticized him did so based on faulty knowledge and a poor education.

                    4. I do not disagree with you on the “science”. That was not my point.

                      The only point I was making is that Trump’s comment was not completely stupid nonsense. It was an accurate lay description of a treatment that is actually being used and has been published and is peer reviewed.

                      I was aware at the moment that Trump said it that “bleach” does not mean “Clorox”, Bleaching is the process of oxidizing something.

                      This doctors treatment – which was published in medical journals at the time of Trump’s comment matches well with Trump’s description.

                      I would further note that as personally suspicious as I am of injecting hydrogen peroxide – I am still happy to see informed trials, studies and results. I do not have any problem beleiving that is it POSSIBLE for such a treatment to be both safe and effective – I would just like more data before doing it to myself.

                      Right now I am more interested in Vitamin D and analogues – these appear dramatically effective and safe.

                      Just based on the preliminary results the CDC and WHO and … should ALL be pushing Vitamin D HEAVILY. Unlike most of the other nonsense spewed, this might help and has very low risk of harm.

                      If you want to beat C19 (and just raise health generally) pushing Vitamin D would be wise.

                      It appears to be far more effective than a mask, and it has many other benefits.

                      And even if it does nto work – it is still boosting your immune system.

                      So instead of selling us dubious virtue signally measures why can’t CDC recomend things that are actually good for us

                      Finally why wasn’t vitamin D being pushed by CDC, WHO from the start ? We know it is good for immune systems, that alone is a good idea – just like hand washing. And we have had strong clues based on the nature of C19 that mortality might tie to vitamin D deficiency.

                      It also would be wise now to correlate Vitamin D deficiency to C19 death rates accross the world.

                      We have all taken the lower death and incidence rates in the third world with a grain of salt – after all these countries are in the third world and their medical and data collection is poor compared to ours.

                      But maybe that is only partly true.

                      Is there evidence that poor countries with high vitamin D levels have not been hit hard ?

                      This would also explain why countries that have high intakes of fatty fish – like Japan and norway have had it easy.

                    5. “Bleaching is the process of oxidizing something.”

                      John, I knew that you understood that, but I worried that the way you put it, it would confuse others. That is why I commented. Also I commented because Trump was on track. The media and the left demonstrated significant ignorance. I too believe that we need not wait for proof to add zinc and significant vitamin D possibly along with C. For the past decade or so there has been rising concern about Vit D levels and illness. Doctors are testing for it more frequently and note the reduction in the level due to sun avoidance. They are frequently telling patients to add D.

                      Those countries that are near China seem not to be as badly infected as the western nations. That makes one think of what happened when westerners came to the New World and nearly wiped out the Indian population.

                    6. We are busy recomending things that may be little more than virtue signaling while ignoring things that are certain to have benefit one way or another even if they are not directly beneficial regarding Covid.

                      At the top of CDC;s recomendations EXACTLY like washing hands should be getting enough vitamin C & D (and likely B) – Zinc can not hurt.

                      Long before nonsense about masks.

                      Even HCQ as a propholacitc has more data behind it than masks.

                      I would note that the effectiveness of HCQ as a propholactic is OVERALL, not per exposure as masks are.

                      And the propholactic dose is very small and not likely a risk to anyone – including those with arythmia.

                      I do not think that HCQ is a miracle cure. But it absolutely should have been on the approved and recomended treatment list.

                      The cocktail that Trump got is incredibly effective – we just got an incredibly high profile demonstration of that.

                      Though it is also possible that Trump’s avid golfing raised his Vitamin D levels.

                      Regardless, that is not so readily available that everyone can have it.
                      But Vitamin D and HCQ are.

    5. ““As White House officials worked to trace the origin of the outbreak, they became concerned about a series of events Saturday: Barrett’s Rose Garden announcement and the private indoor receptions surrounding it. A feeling of invincibility from the virus was pervasive. Guests were administered rapid coronavirus tests upon arrival and waited in a room wearing masks, according to Jenkins, the Notre Dame president. Then, he wrote in a statement Friday, ‘we were notified that we had all tested negative and were told that it was safe to remove our masks.’ Once escorted outside, guests mingled in the Rose Garden shaking hands and hugging, then took seats positioned closely together. …”

      Actually read the very things you write – everyone present was tested and confirmed negative.
      Sounds like Barrett’s reception was done pretty much exactly as it should have been done.

      ““The mixing continued at indoor receptions to celebrate Barrett, which two White House officials said Friday have caused deep concern within the president’s circle. They were attended by Cabinet members, senators, Barrett’s family, family members of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and other guests, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham. ‘They were all mingling without masks and in close quarters,’ one of the officials said. ‘No one was distanced.’ …””

      Again – as YOU noted all of them had been tested and tested negative.

      ““‘We don’t want to be talking about coronavirus and now we’re talking about coronavirus,’ the outside adviser said. ‘The hit writes itself: He can’t protect the country. He couldn’t even protect himself.’””

      And guess what the people of the country get to decide on that themselves.

      Of course the facts are that masks, tests, … there is no magical means of preventing this disease.

      It is outside of the presidents power – whether he is Biden or Trump to protect everyone.

      The flu kills people every year. As do auto accidents. Many more people die from cancer each year than will die from Covid.

      The president can not stop this – none of us can.

      Ranting will not change this. Wishing will not change this.

      Trump will get treated. He will live, or he will die. Just as many many others.

      And tomorow you or i could get hit by a truck and die.

      And nothing you or anyone else can do can stop that.

    6. I am pretty sure there is not a single secret service agent who is old enough to be at as high a risk from C19 as they are from the flu.

      I do not know what secret service agents are ACTUALLY saying – you and the press are not credible today.

      And I find it hard to beleive that people who have pledged to take a bullet to protect the president or whoever it is that they are to protect, are complaining about C19.

      But if they are – they need to find a new job.

    7. Chris Christie has now announced that he’s tested positive for COVID-19. He was also at the Rose Garden announcement of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination. Like most others there, he was maskless and talking in close proximity.

      People who were there and have now tested positive:
      Pres. Trump
      Melania Trump
      Kellyanne Conway
      Sen. Mike Lee
      Sen. Thom Tillis
      Father John Jenkins (Notre Dame U. President — Barrett got her J.D. at Notre Dame)
      Gov. Christie

      A reminder that it can take over a week for someone to test positive after contracting the virus. Other people who attended and were in close contact with the people listed above include AG Barr and VP Pence, who so far have tested negative.

      Others who’ve been in contact with Trump in the last week and have tested positive:
      Hope Hicks – Trump advisor (diagnosed prior to Trump testing positive)
      Bill Stepien – Trump campaign manager
      Ronna McDaniel – GOP chairwoman
      11 people who worked on the debate in Cleveland, most from out of state

      Sen. Ron Johnson also tested positive while he was quarantining from a prior exposure. All 3 Senators are on the Judiciary Committee, which is supposed to start hearings on Barrett’s nomination in a week.

      Trump’s doctor, Sean Conley, gave a press conference a little while ago, updating people on Trump’s status and answering some questions but not others.

      1. “Trump’s doctor, Sean Conley, gave a press conference a little while ago, updating people on Trump’s status and answering some questions but not others.”
        ***
        Of course there are ethical and legal limits to what a physician can reveal about a patient in his care. Some of the questions pressed against those limits. But your post is true.

      2. One strange thing from the briefing: Conley said that Trump was diagnosed 72 hours ago (which would be Wed.), and another doctor said that therapy began 48 hours ago (Thursday). But public disclosure was on Friday at 1 a.m., which was less than 36 hours ago.

        What was the actual timeline? Are the doctors mistaken about the timeline, or did the WH instead wait to disclose to the public?
        Conley refused to answer the question about when Trump’s last negative test was.

        One of the questions that Conley was evasive about is whether Trump had gotten supplemental oxygen since his diagnosis. Conley said that Trump’s not on oxygen now, and when pressed, also said not on Thursday and not while at Walter Reed. Peter Baker of the NYT: “Two people close to the White House said in separate interviews that the president had trouble breathing on Friday and that his oxygen level dropped, prompting his doctors to give him supplemental oxygen while at the White House.” Seems like Conley was trying to avoid saying that.

        1. Seems like Conley was trying to avoid saying that. [about supplemental oxygen].
          ****
          I noticed that too. I would expect him to be given oxygen the moment his sats dropped. I suspected that the question was dodged to avoid giving alarm but it was artless. Better to avoid the subject or to say something like we followed normal precautions and gave it to him during the initial evaluation stage and decided he doesn’t need it.

        2. Oh, My god! News at 11 – Trumps doctor does not wish to give left wing nuts details about Trump’s treatment with oxygen!

          I have no idea what is correct – nor do I care.

          But I would trust Trump’s doctor more than unnamed purportedly whitehouse sources – or more likely the immagination of some reporter.

          This is a typical left wing nut reporter tactic – manufacture a story and then try to turn it into the truth by trying to get people who might actually know the truth to confirm or deny what you have made up.

          Worse still doi it about nothing.

          Trump will recover quickly – or not, or even die. And that will happen regardless of how gapponglyu voyeuristic you are.

      3. Olivia Nuzzi (New York Magazine):
        “UPDATE: Immediately after the press conference ended and before the anonymous statement was sent out, Mark Meadows briefed reporters without cameras—but he was caught on a feed asking to be off the record.”
        https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/1312429131079057409 — video in the tweet

        Trump complains about anonymous sources while WH staff make statements that are off the record.

        Earlier in that thread, Nuzzi explains the anonymous statement she’s referring to:
        “A source familiar with the president’s health tells the White House pool: ‘The president’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care. We’re still not on a clear path to a full recovery.’ This anonymous quote was sent to the White House pool reporters. It arrived in my inbox and the inboxes of other reporters who cover this White House. I do not know where this quote came from, and why this anonymous person has the authority to contradict the president’s doctors. … we have the White House chief of staff on camera, anonymously providing contradictory information to reporters right after the president’s doctors briefed the public.”

        1. What you are actually documenting is that reporters are not trustworthy.

          There are lots of reasons to be off the record. Even legitimate ones.

          But reporting information given off the record and worse attributing it to a names source is immoral – or it used to be.
          But the left is clueless about morality.

      4. I watched the press conference. Must have been a different one than you watched because he answered everything he could under HIPPA laws, maybe even releasing some he should not unless he had Trumps permission. He did finally answer that Trump had not received oxygen Thursday, Friday or Sat. after dogging the question a couple times.

        1. If Conley is reporting on Trump’s health, why would HIPPA disallow Conley from saying when Trump’s last negative test was?

          And Conley didn’t say no oxygen on Friday. He said none on Thursday and none at Walter Reed, but he didn’t rule out the possibility of Trump having gotten oxygen at the WH yesterday prior to arriving at Walter Reed. I haven’t found a transcript from the press conference, and I don’t feel like transcribing it myself right now.

          1. This morbid obsession requires minute by minute updates especially of the exciting type to provide her gruesome life feeding food.

            It is better to hope and pray that the President will do well and that all with this affliction do well also. The news will come soon enough.

            1. Allan– She is being more polite lately but her updates smell of an eagerness for disaster that she is reluctant to reveal.

              1. Young, she has learned a bit but I believe her underlying personality hasn’t changed. She is a bit too rigid and too old for such rapid change.

                I even wonder if she is a she.

          2. Well what each of us hears can be different slightly based on our interest. Working in healthcare for as long I did makes me less interested if Trump had a cough, shortness of breath, fever and received oxygen for a short period of time if he did than if he was on oxygen for many hours. And I suspected something more than “minor symptoms and fever” when they took him to the hospital. He would have stayed with his wife in isolation.

            But that governments operating playbook. All of them. Handle the public using the mushroom treatment. Keep us in the dark and feed us horse $+\=.

          3. Hippa bars medical personel from sharing the medical information about a patient without their permission.

            I have no idea whether Trump gave Conley permission or whether Hippa does not apply to the president or to Walter Reed – i.e. government doctors.

            I doubt you do either.

            I have no problems with Conley making decisions as to what he should share and what he should not.

            1. HIPPA supercedes any presidential rights, regulations or requirements.

              If the president did not specifically say, “give out ALL pertinent info” then he has to approve each medical issue he is being treated or the results that come back

              Just like lung damage, if the president did not say it was o.k. to confirm lung condition, his doctor said “HIPPA”.

              And anyone smart enough to ask the questions about oxygen and hearing the avoidance by Trumps doc should be smart enough to figure out he received oxygen sometime at the white house and either said do not share or did not give permission to share. And Trump is Trump. No way his ego is going to allow that info until it damages him politically as it became an issue after the docs dodged the issue.

              1. I would be carefull about conclusions on any federal law as applied to the government itself.

                It is common – and often does not have to be written in that any general law does NOT apply to the federal government or its employees.
                Sometimes federal laws do not apply to states or their employees.

                The president is a federal employee being treated in a federal fascility – I would not be surprised if Hippa did not apply.

                1. Well “John” 🙊, I have learned not to make a comment without checking. I checked on this and the two sites that came up said the president is covered by the same HIPPA privacy as civilians. So given that, I am 90% sure he is.

                  1. You may be right – but I would not trust “two sites”. I would be looking to see if Hippa applied to federal employees and the federal government.

        2. OK, I decided to go back to the tape and transcribe:

          Q: He has not received any supplemental oxygen?
          Conley: He’s not on oxygen right now, that’s right.
          Q: He’s not received any at all?
          C: He’s not needed any this morning today at all, that’s right.

          Q: Has he *ever* been on supplemental oxygen?
          Conley: He-, right now he is not on oxygen.
          Q: I understand, I know you keep saying “right now,” but should we read into the fact that he had been previously?
          Conley: Yesterday and today he was not on oxygen.
          Q: So he has not been on it during his COVID treatment?
          Conley: He is not on oxygen right now.

          Reporter: I’m going to try to pin you down one more time. I know you said there was no oxygen yesterday [overlapping talk, and I’m not going to try to transcribe that part].
          Conley: He’s not on oxygen today.
          Q: Did he receive any on Thursday?
          Conley: What’s today? Saturday. No, no, Thursday -.
          Reporter: No Thursday, no Friday, no Saturday. That was why we were confused.
          Conley: Thursday no oxygen, none at this moment, yeah, and yesterday with the team (indicates with his head to those behind him on Trump’s healthcare team at Walter Reed) while we were all here, he was not on oxygen.

          So Conley does initially say “Yesterday and today he was not on oxygen,” but then makes the more limited statement “yesterday with the team while we were all here, he was not on oxygen.”

          I’ll note that Conley is clearly willing to lie on Trump’s behalf. For example, he said that Trump is “slightly overweight.” Trump is much more than slightly overweight. Trump’s obese, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the height (6’3″) and weight (243lbs) released for him aren’t accurate, which could increase his BMI even further (for example, Trudeau is said to be 6’2″ and in photos is clearly taller than Trump; Trump’s license apparently said 6’2″, and it’s common for people to lose height as they age).

          1. Trump’s BMI is just on the other side of the line between overweight and class 1 obese. Some believe it better for people in the older age groups to carry a bit more weight so maybe we could classify him as overweight. He is definitely not class 2 obese or class 3 obese (morbid obesity)

            He is far more active than most 74 year olds.

            1. The first studies of Vitamin D are statring to become available.

              A huge question is why it took so long ?

              I beleive there are only two studies at the moment:

              One in which a hospital compare outcomes for Vitamin D deficient patients and those with normal Vitamin D.
              With deficient being determined by tests done the prior year.

              I beleive there were about 500 people total in the study and the results were dramatic. No therapuetic we have looked at is as effective.

              In the 2nd study seriously sick people were given a vitamin D analog – basically Vitamin D after processing by your Kidneys and liver.
              The analog was used because for normal Vitamin D it takes several days to build up in your body. This allowed boosting Vitiman D levels in hours rather than days.

              The results were incredible. Of all patients treated with Vitamin D only one ended up in ICU and non died.
              Of the control group 50% ended up in the ICU and 12 died.

              Again no other theraputic we hace comes near this – not remedisvir, not Steriods

              I bring this up because Trump is an avid golfer and if it is not from a bottle is well tanned.

              It is highly likely that he has normal levels of Vitamin D.

              This is not true of most 74 year olds.

              I do not understand why extensive Vitamin D testing was not done long ago.

              Anything that has the age and latitude preferences that C19 does has a very high probability of being effected by vitamin D levels.

        3. HIPPA isn’t everything. State confidentiality laws are more important and I agree that by normal standards the doctor went a little further with disclosures than he should have done but it will be overlooked.

          1. Young, I don’t think it proper for the press after being given an answer more than once to press a treating physician with questions that put him into direct conflict with the law involving confidentiality. The physician is doctor not a spokesperson or a lawyer.

            The press could simply make a statement saying what they understand is true and what they aren’t sure of permitting the doctor to add or subtract at his desire. Oxygen is in the room with all the apparatus. If someone were to have put O2 on by mistake and the doctor said absolutely no O2 because he didn’t know it at the time then there would be chaos.

            1. The press have no morals. They will pry out what they can even if it is an invasion of privacy and will make it up if it suits the narrative.

    1. They don’t call the commenters here: honest, democratic (w a small d), or receptive to non conspiratorial scientific facts. What a bunch of suited up wingnuts!

      JT is a whinny grievance driven victim like the rest of you cold, aging, worthless, hateful, retarded proto fascists.

      Thank goodness the kids are precipitously more open minded than you lot. The world will be better off when your mindset is decomposing in the ground.

      Wear masks and stop being whiny babies. Jeeze!

  4. Tulsa Gabbard showed considerable class in sending her regards to the Trump family with her Hope’s for a speedy recovery. Democrats in general used to be like that. Not so much these days.

      1. Yes, Hillary Clinton had more class than Trump did when Clinton had pneumonia. Yesterday, Clinton said: “We wish the President and First Lady a speedy recovery, and hope for the safety of the White House staff, the Secret Service, and others putting their lives on the line. This pandemic has affected so many. We must continue to protect ourselves, our families, and communities.”

        A sample of well-wishes from other Democrats:

        Barack Obama tweeted: “Michelle and I hope that the President, First Lady, and all those affected by the coronavirus around the country are getting the care they need and are on the path to a speedy recovery.” He also made similar remarks at a fundraiser for Biden.

        Joe Biden: “Jill and I send our thoughts to President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump for a swift recovery. We will continue to pray for the health and safety of the president and his family.”

        Biden also took down all of his negative ads. In contrast, yesterday the Trump Campaign sent out a fundraising letter referring to “Lyin’ Obama,” “Phony Kamala Harris,” and “Sleepy Joe … who is probably already asleep in his basement,” when Biden was out campaigning.

        Kamala Harris: “Doug and I join Joe Biden and Dr. Biden in wishing President Trump and the First Lady a full and speedy recovery. We’re keeping them and the entire Trump family in our thoughts.”

        Chuck Schumer: “I wish President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump and any White House staff members who are infected a speedy recovery. I join the nation in praying for the First Family’s health and safety.”

        Rachel Maddow: “God bless the president and the first lady. If you pray, please pray for their speedy and complete recovery – and for everyone infected, everywhere.”

        Young chose not to check before posting his comment.

      2. Of course if one reads the article one can see that much of what the author said wasn’t true and was pure spin much like the leftist fact check articles. On the other hand we can see the leftist indecent attitudes on this blog whether they are lip smacking hoping the President dies or acting in a similar fashion.

  5. Funny thing, if Wolkoff is a Republican the Democrats will still not like or trust her and the Republicans will see her as untrustworthy scum. What’s left? Will anyone in business risk dealing with her? I wonder if she will enjoy her new life? Not likely ever to be the same again.

        1. One should never be candid with her ilk. You look at her bio and it’s obvious she comes from a certain clique of social climbers with no loyalty.

          Moreover. at an unmarried and childless 50 years old, she has thinning hair, beady eyes, an unusually large jutting chin for a woman, a general ratlike facial appearance. And in her circles they all get plastic surgery so one wonders what a dog she was before-hand. I was going to post a picture of her but the one I pulled up cracked the monitor.

          she obviously hit the wall some time ago, and has played her last card. it’s all downhill from here

  6. Thomas Drake: “Did COVID-19 turn #Trump & his entourage into a super-spreader group? All kinds of people in 45’s proximity orbit now reporting they are infected. Asking for everybody.” -via Twitter

    “Superspreader-in-Chief: For Months Trump Spread COVID Lies, Now He May Have Spread the Virus Itself”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z7AijbtoNY

    AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to a tweet of a Bloomberg reporter. This is really interesting. It was tweeted by Jennifer Jacobs. She broke the Bloomberg story on Hope Hicks. And this is very important. The White House did not reveal this. And so, they did not reveal that she was sick with COVID-19 on the plane at night Wednesday and Thursday morning, before President Trump flew to Bedminster. So, the people who met him at Bedminster, his high donors, in a closed event of about a hundred people, they did not know. The people on the plane, and so often the concern about staffers who serve him, did not know that he had been exposed to COVID. But it’s not just Hope Hicks.

    Jennifer Jacobs tweets, “Some of Trump’s closest aides sensed on WEDNESDAY that the president was feeling poorly. The president seemed exhausted, I’m told. Some chalked it up to fatigue from an intense campaign schedule, others began to worry he had the coronavirus.” This was on Wednesday, as he flew in a plane, knowing that Hope Hicks, one of his closest aides, had tested positive for COVID-19. What does that mean, to fly in a plane when you know you’ve been exposed to someone with active coronavirus, not to mention may not be feeling well himself?

    DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: I mean, frankly, this is — it’s unethical behavior. I mean, the minute you think you may be a conduit for someone else’s illness, you have a responsibility to declare that. And to fly on a plane with all of the people, all of the aides who are on that plane with you, thinking that it is a safe place to be, you knowing that you potentially could be ill and making them ill, that is an unethical thing to do. But it is also in keeping with the way that this president has dealt with this virus all along.

    And then he gets off the plane, has a meeting in a closed-door area, where he is potentially knowingly exposing a whole bunch of his supporters to this. I mean, all of this speaks to just an unwillingness and, frankly, a moral failure around engaging this virus for what it is, keeping the people that he has sworn to serve safe, and recognizing how the science works around transmitting this disease among people. It’s unethical. Frankly, it’s immoral. And we’re seeing what the consequences are.

    1. And at the debate on Tues., Trump mocked Biden for wearing a mask all the time. I doubt Trump was wearing a mask when he was meeting with all of these people, which would have helped protect those other people a bit.

              1. Doesn’t your employer give you any paid days off? Or is it because its election time and they are paying you time and a half?

                1. You’re welcome. If you’re not familiar with the Internet Archive, it’s a useful resource.

        1. I wonder if it spreads enough into congress that they have to suspend meeting and his SCOTUS nominess does not get voted on that he will realize the importance of a mask then? But when one has an adviser like Fauchi, one can understand not beleiving anything.

  7. It really is disgusting to prey upon a woman, pretending to be her friend, while secretly taping her confidences about her family, the stresses of the holidays, and other personal remarks.

    Melania Trump has the right to have a say over her public announcements.

    This kind of underhanded betrayal is seedy, even for Democrat activists. And people wonder why the Trumps prefer to keep close family in their inner circle.

    The media, like academia, has lost its laurels.

    1. Karen:

      Wolkoff isn’t a Democratic activist. She’s a Republican who helped stage Trump’s inauguration and was a senior advisor to Melania Trump. My understanding is that Trump scapegoated Wolkoff for inauguration finance irregularities, and she struck back by recording Melania Trump and writing a tell-all. You can certainly criticize that, but don’t put it on Democrats.

      1. Sometimes politics is secondary. Wolkoff is a miserable creature with the morality of a toad.

        Can anyone ever again trust this wretched person’s smiles?

        Could anyone, anywhere, ever again trust this person in a private conversation?

        There will always be doubts.

        1. Young, many people today have zero regard for personal loyalty

          say, I just heard a song about that! people will love the cultural diversity of this hip hop selection, and consider its relevance

            1. This is coming from an anonymous person who doesn’t even carry a name. Sounds like some of the other Anonymous persons already here.

              Perhaps it is Anonymous the Stupid who likes to flash.

              1. Perhaps you resort to ad hom because you have no good response about Trump having zero regard for personal loyalty.

                1. When you hire your doctor and after years of being with him you note his skills are deteriorating, are you loyal to him and remain in his practice? Of course not.

                  You are confusing what constitutes loyalty. If you are an electrical contractor are you loyal to an employee that isn’t doing the job or are you loyal to your customer?

                  You need to learn what loyalty means and who deserves your loyalty. Trump is loyal to this country. You won’t find many politicians with that much loyalty. (that doesn’t mean you have to agree with his positions) What you may be looking for is a President that is loyal to you. and what you believe. That makes sense from your perspective but not to the perspective of others.

                  As far as the ad hominem problem one shouldn’t create an environment that causes hatred.

                  If you read a recent PaintChips comment you can almost hear him smacking his lips in joy that Trump has a disease that can kill him (unlikely). PaintChips deserves what he gets ad hominem and all.

          1. Kurtz – many people today have zero regard for personal loyalty.

            It seems that is becoming true. We are failing as a society if we don’t imbue people with a sense of honor.

            1. Loyalty and honor come from groups willing to enforce codes of honor

              right now all the groups which value honor are being dwarfed by the titanic rise of money powers

              Silicon valley wall street and and the Federal Reserve have colluded i n the covid response on monetary policy that has created massive wealth in their hands in 2020–
              and left everything else in the dust

          1. Anonymous the Stupid is at it again. Are you bitter because you weren’t endowed with intellect so you could diss Trump a little more elegantly?

        2. ” Wolkoff is a miserable creature with the morality of a toad.”

          She has the honor of a democrat which is supplemented by the amoral PaintChips who was smacking his lips at the potential death of Trump.

      2. scapegoated her or allocated responsibility where it was due?

        losers love to throw shade to evade their own consequences

      3. So ?

        Is it republicans who are eating this up ? Who are buying Wolkoff’s book ? Who are shilling this on the news ?

        Regardless, Yes I have a problem with Wolkoff and several others – some republican for thinking it is OK to record others without theirknowlege for the purpose of personal profit or personal attacks later.

        I also have a problem with the media for thinking this is a story.

        And with you because you find it titillating ?

        Might as well be Melania reading stock prices.

        The only story here is that you find this newsworthy.

        Yet you are ignoring such stories as that Hunter was paid millions by a putin surogate, and was involved in prostitution with trafficeked women.

        Or that the CIA director Brennan briefed Comey and Obama in July 2016 that the Russians had intelligence that Clinton was trying to frame Trump for colluding with the Russians.

        And Comey is actually proud of the total F’d up job he did at the FBI especially the collusion delusion.

        This is not something to be proud of. It is something that must never happen again. It is what Nixon dreamed of doing but was unable to.

        And YOU participated in selling this obvious lie, and still fail to grasp that is was WRONG.

        Every day brings new revalations of how totally ludicrous this was. I doubt even Alex Jones offered a conspiracy theory as far fetched as the CIA found out that the Russians found out that Clinton concocted the whole Collusion delusion BEFORE it was shilled to the FBI, and the FBI STILL treated it seriously and DID NOT investigate Clinton for ACTUAL collusion with Russia.

        And we KNOW there is more than Haspell is sand bagging us all on.

        What could there possibly be that Haspell feels needs burried ?

        1. Good post.

          I thought I’d say so before moving on tonight.

          One of the things I find interesting about Alex Jones is much the time is just repeating what’s written in the papers of people or institutions or govts of what they say they are planning, they then commit the deed. Much it;s not speculation at all.

          Not conspiracy theorist but conspiracy annalist.

          Now everyone can see Haspell, Comey, McCabe & the other actual conspirators against the US citizens need to be held to account.

    2. The media, like academia, has lost its laurels.

      And its honor and its heart.

      Commit says Wolkoff is not a Democratic activist and that is likely true. But Anderson Cooper could certainly qualify as one. Walter Cronkite was a leftist but I can’t imagine Cronkite running with a slimy story like this.

      Apparently Wolkoff was not happy with her pay for inauguration activities. If her company had a contract and a legitimate claim then make a demand and sue if necessary.

      One wonders how long she taped her conversations with Melanie and when it began.

      I think she will be surprised how many people on left and right view her with utter contempt just now.

  8. Jonathan: Get real. Everyone loves juicy gossip. Just like all media, CNN leads with it because it draws viewers. Everyone wants to know about the secret and sordid lives of the rich and famous. But because it involves Melania Trump you are in a tizzy. Melania’s comment to her assistant about having to put up all the Christmas decorations in the White House probably reflects her frustration at having to even be there with Trump. It’s no secret they have been on the outs for some time…at least that’s what my wife tells me. Melania Trump’s comments are just the tip of the iceberg about what has gone on in Trump’s White House since he took office. For almost all the past 4 years Trump has mostly been successful in keeping a lid on his secrets by making everyone in the White House sign confidentiality agreements. The “kiss and tell” books by John Bolton and Mary Trump have been the few exceptions although Trump did sue, without success, to prevent their publication. Now more and more former members of the Trump administration are starting to speak put. They see the handwriting on the wall and want us to believe they were opposed to Trump’s lies and corruption all along. Take retired Lt. General HR McMaster, former defense secretary Jim Mattis and retired 4-star General John Kelly. They are all now speaking out against Trump only because they see Trump’s boat sinking and want to preserve their shaky reputations by grabbing a life vest and abandoning ship. However that’s hard to square with their loyal support and defense of Trump when they were part of the inner circle!

    To a certain extent I can sympathize with Melania but she made her bed and now has to lie in it…or maybe she doesn’t because my wife thinks Melania sleeps somewhere else in the White House. My wife and I can’t wait to get a copy of Stephanie Wolkoff’s tell all book so we can learn more about the First Lady and life inside Trump’s White House. We thank you for bringing the book to our attention.

    1. what’s wrong with separate beds? conjugal pleasure does not require co-sleeping, never make the mistake of thinking spouses who choose to sleep in their own beds are not close!

      it’s increasingly common

    1. Great comments by Gov Desantis, now for the icing on the cake if he’ll only issue an arrest warrant for Dr Fauci, Bill Gates, level 3/4 bio weapons builders, etc…

      Keep in mind, those aholes are still on the loose building god knows what next that are crimes against humanity.

      Enough with their explaintion BS, Oops our bad.

      Lockem up already as the law is already on the books ie: Dr Francis Boyle.

    2. yes yes desantis has good advisers does he not? seems like somebody said use RICO on these cretins about a hundred times on this very website!

      “Violent assembly, 3rd degree felony. Blocking the road? Felony. Don’t touch monuments (no mention of penalty) Harassment of Citizens in public accommodations also penalized, , My most thunderous applause was when he announced that R.I.C.O. will be applied to those organizing or funding riots. If you are arrested in a riot, not Portland’s Catch and Release: you are staying till you see a judge. Touch a cop? Six months mandatory minimum. And enhanced penalties for other crimes committed during the riots. (ouch)”

      1. ” My most thunderous applause was when he announced that R.I.C.O.”

        Kurtz, I think we mentioned that in an earlier thread.

        Didn’t he include a stiffer penalty for those coming from out of state?

        1. i dont know but florida has a history of extra experience bringing RICO cases than some other states do. vice crimes from drugs to prostit.

          if any state could do it, FL could

          1. Florida also has guns. I understand home intrusions are low in Florida because thieves never know when they will be faced with competent armed opposition.

  9. This is like claiming that a woman bashed Thanksgiving if she was secretly recorded griping about how much work it is to produce a family dinner. She might love Thanksgiving, but if she unloads herself to a false friend, and she’s a Republican, it will be news at 8.

    Standards do not apply to Democrats. They only reply to Republicans.

    I am also sad to see friends whom I always considered moderate sliding into serious extremism and hatred. I now regularly hear and see comments plastered all over social media that Republicans are racist, etc. It is the death of logic.

  10. Ah, poor Jonny. Does the truth hurt so much that you have to make the truth about your lord and protector sound bad? Where are your columns with all the NON-facts that are espoused by Trump, Fox News, and all the sycophants? What a great Trump supporter you are. I assume the Proud Boys are YOUR biggest fans these days. Oh the shame of it all in your trying to get noticed for the SCOTUS–will not happen.

    1. In what world do you live ?

      This is your idea of a story that makes Trump or Melania look bad ?

      Sorry, this is a story that makes the purveyors of the story and those fetishizing it – you look bad.

      This is your idea of news ? Speaks volumes about you.

      AS to to the stories I related – they are FACTS – there are bank records regarding Biden. There are classified documents that have been released regarding the Clinton Putin story.

      Did Clinton order Trump to be framed in July 2016 ? Do not know, but it is certainly plausible, and certainly consistant with past Clinton conduct.
      Did the Russian’s find out ? Do not know, but again it is plausible.

      Did the CIA determine that Russia beleived this to be the case ? That has been confirmed.

      How credible was this ? Credible enough for CIA director Brennan to brief Comey and Obama personally.

      OOPS.

      So AFTER the FBI and Obama learn that the CIA has russian intelligence that Clinton is trying to frame Trump, what does Obama and the FBI do ? Join the Frameup.

      So what you appear to have is the US government – president Obama and the FBI COLLUDING with the Russians and the clinton campaign to frame trump ?

      Could there be less than that ? Possibly. The Russian story could have been disinformation – in which case the FBI and Obama are DUPES of the russians.

      There is not a good way this plays out.

      And both the hunter biden story – which addresses conduct that is highly sketchy and criminal, and the CIA Clinton frame up story are far more significant news.

      The latter is specifically about the incompetence and/or misconduct of the US government.

    1. Take a look at the photo of how many people attended the announcement of Coney Barrett’s nomination, hardly any wearing masks, sitting close together:
      https://twitter.com/bhrenton/status/1312068816386617345

      At least 5 people there (Trump, First Lady, Sen. Mike Lee, Hope Hicks, and Notre Dame University President – Rev. John Jenkins) have now tasted positive.

      Think about how many other people in significant leadership positions were there (Pence, Barr, …). It would be ironic if a bunch of other GOP Senators besides Lee get sick and that interrupts Barrett’s confirmation hearings. (I’m guessing that there weren’t Democratic Senators there, but I don’t actually know.)

      1. Plus it’s burning through the military, as well.

        Democrat Raul Grijalva of AZ tested positive back in August. This is making its way through our government, as well as world leaders. Staffers and aids are often part of the young demographic group who are the most socially active. Plus, it is election season, so people are getting together, mixing, in great numbers. There are planning sessions, rallies, BLM protests, Sturgis, etc.

        The basic message to stay at least 6 feet apart has been thrown out the window.

        1. Fatality Ratios for COVID-19 Among Noninstitutionalized Persons 12 and Older: Results of a Random-Sample Prevalence Study | Annals of Internal Medicine

          https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352

          Infection Fatality Ratio IFR was 0.26%.

          President Trump and First Lady Melania will be fine. Few people die from COVID even if mandated lockdowns and masks (Virginia Governor Ralph Northam), media panic p*rn and authoritarian govt orders have prevailed for months. Ask Ralph how these worked for his wife and he.

          1. Fatalities are not randomly distributed among people 12 and older. Over 200,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. You may consider that “few,” but I don’t.

            Nor is fatality the only medical concern. Some people who recover still develop serious COVID-related health problems, like myocarditis.

            He’s already been moved to Walter Reed out of caution.

            1. I don’t know how many times CTDHD has pointed out the number of Covid deaths (forgetting that the number is likely overblown and a huge number are in nursing homes) even though the death rate to working Americans and younger is very low. She even sounds near hysterical when she considers the number of African American deaths from Covid. Does she care about African Americans dying or just the morbid thrill of Covid’s political side? Has anyone ever heard her talk about the leading cause of death for African American males age 1-44? Absolutely not for in reality she doesn’t care.

              Homicide is the biggest cause of death for males in our African American community but what does she care? It’s the fourth leading cause of death of African American males of any age. What does she care?

              The crocodile tears we hear are for show.

              1. here you go Allan. I gave a presentation last month using the following data points. You might enjoy them.

                NB: please walk away from the internet for a week. Unplug. Your behaviors on here fighting phantasms are really concerning.

                ….
                Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland | NEJM
                https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116.

                We estimate that the risk of death from infection was 0.3% and that 44% of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland were not diagnosed by qPCR.

                Estimates of Deaths Associated with Seasonal Influenza — United States, 1976–2007
                https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a1.htm

                The distribution of mortality across age groups was similar for the two groups of coded deaths. For pneumonia and influenza causes, the proportions of average deaths overall were 1.5%, 10.6%, and 87.9% for persons aged <19 years, 19–64 years, and ≥65 years, respectively. For respiratory and circulatory causes, the proportions were 0.5%, 10.1%, and 89.4%.

                Based on an average annual count of 74,363 for all pneumonia and influenza deaths, and an average annual estimate of 6,309 deaths associated with influenza in this category, 8.5% of all pneumonia and influenza deaths were influenza associated. Based on an annual average count of 1,132,319 for all respiratory and circulatory deaths and an average annual estimate of 23,607 deaths associated with influenza in this category, 2.1% of all respiratory and circulatory deaths were influenza associated.

                The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, the models do not account for cocirculating pathogens such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Future research should replicate and extend models that distinguish between deaths associated with influenza versus RSV (2). Second, estimates over time might not be comparable because the influenza virus surveillance data used to model mortality rely on national influenza testing practices, which have changed over the past decade (8). Future research should consider how trends in testing practices can be included in these models and cross-season estimates of influenza-associated mortality. Third, increases in the U.S. population aged ≥65 years during the study period could have contributed to a general increase in influenza-associated mortality. Age-adjusting future estimates or estimating deaths in smaller age categories among older adults could address this issue. Finally, because the estimates made in this report rely on national death certificate data and these data currently are available only through 2007, preliminary estimates of 2009 influenza A(H1N1)-associated deaths are not directly comparable with these results.*

                Debate will continue regarding the most appropriate statistical models and cause of death categories to use in estimating the number of influenza-associated deaths (1,7). This study's provision of estimates for more narrow (pneumonia and influenza causes) and more broad (respiratory and circulatory causes) categories continues the strategy of comparing and contrasting results from different models as advocated by CDC (1–3) and others (7).

                1. Estovir, thanks for your concern but I am perfectly OK. You can have your opinion that wasn’t asked for and you can be insulting while you provide it. That is your problem not mine. I have different interests than you and a different background.

                  I pursue things in my own way and luckily I have been extremely successful in the workplace and at home. I haven’t had to work for many years but continued doing so. Now that I have slowed up I continue to run things from the background. That is my prerogative. The wife and children are doing great. They are well regarded by others and sought after for their abilities. The grandchildren are fantastic. What more would I want?

                  I don’t spend my Sundays at church but I don’t criticize you for doing so.

                  Why you want to stop me from wasting time when I have run my life in an extremely successful manner for decades makes me wonder about you, not me. I am a bit older than you so I forgive you for your youthful indiscretions.

                2. Estovir, Allan is incapable of walking away. He says “You can have your opinion that wasn’t asked for and you can be insulting while you provide it” while he spews insulting comments all day long. He doesn’t even recognize that he’s insulting you for behavior that he engages in.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, you complain but insult people all the time with your broad brush statements, lies, etc.. You are, however, correct. Allan doesn’t walk away. Allan does what he wants to do when he wants to do it. It is a characteristic that helps create very successful people.

                    Is this your attempt to lure Estovir to your rat latrine? You need more help. You cannot function independently or without people patting you on the back. You take the easy road skipping critical thinking. You are incomplete.

                  2. My sister-in-law, age in her mid 40s, contracted COVID back in June. Mild symptoms. She got it from her husband, also in his mid 40s, a correctional officer at a state prison in Florida. He was placed in a medically induced coma for 4 weeks. He was eventually discharged and is now in rehab. He had a BMI of 40, morbidly obese, Type 2 diabetic, hypertensive, kidney transplant recipient. My sister-in-law now recalls the many conversations I had with her over the years about losing weight. She too is obese, BMI mid-30s, ran a hair salon out of a nice shed behind her home which she had to let go to care for her husband. Several years ago my mother-in-law was borderline diabetic, in her early 70s, and also obese, on multiple medications. She asked me for guidance. We had “the talk”. Today she has a BMI of 25, looks phenomenal, no longer borderline-diabetic, she calls me to tell me about her meals, Zumba classes, fast paced walk with friends and is medication free. Her daughter is livid. One took charge of their deteriorating life while the other refuses to recognize her hand in her demise.

                    Americans no longer look inwardly. Everything is an external locus of control. We blame everyone for everything. Its easier. Depression, anxiety, exhaustion, alienation, emotional dysregulation, Axis II personality disorder traits have climbed these past few years incredibly so.

                    A large part of what we do in medicine is assess and treat, provide suggestions on lifestyle modifications to have favorable outcomes and show concern. I’m in my 50s. I wake at 4 am daily, at Gold’s Gym by 4:45 am, back home to eat, shower and get on with the POD. Some days it is hard to wake but I go anyways. Adopting healthy lifestyles is like shaving, brushing your teeth, showering, going to the bathroom. You don’t even think about doing these because they are part of our daily regimen. The Jesuits teach that we should do a fearless moral inventory every night, review our faults, say our prayers and strive to do better the next day. Church attendance is beneficial because it allows an accountability of sorts with peers, a spiritual leader (Catholic priests), an outside perspective and Catholics have the Sacraments to receive God’s graces in spite of ourselves. Church attendance is a time to slam the breaks, engage, listen, reflect, interact and pray. Self-reliance is folly. Americans think they are the center of the universe. It shows in their many medical, self-induced pathologies.

                    How will this all end? I see evolution at work. To beat the odds of survival fitness is key. Giving in to our urges, our appetites, and dysregulation lead to unfavorable outcomes (see above about my sister-in-law). We are all stressed these days so we have to strike a balance between being perfect and allowing ourselves to be imperfect. I’ve been a real pr*ck at times on this forum. I’m a bigger pr*ck in real life. I apologize often to my family. However, the goal is to be more present for others, more compassionate, more understanding, show mercy and practice the 2 greatest commandments. Rum and coke helps! May God have mercy on us all

                    1. ” I’m a bigger pr*ck in real life. I apologize often to my family.”

                      Estovir, the way I see it the number one thing is not to be a pr*ck to your family. The apology will be noted but the pain will persist and mount up. You should learn to be a bigger pr*ck elsewhere.

                      Maybe gym time should be before you go home to your family so that the days stresses are relieved in the gym rather than at home.

                    2. You should learn to be a bigger pr*ck elsewhere.

                      We are all pr*cks Allan. That was my point.

                      “…..for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
                      Romans 3:23

                      If you should ask me what are the ways of God, I would tell you that the first is humility, the second is humility, and the third is humility. Not that there are no other precepts to give, but if humility does not preceed all that we do, our efforts are fruitless.
                      – Saint Augustine

                    3. “We are all pr*cks Allan. That was my point.”

                      Yet, Estovir, according to you there is a degree of how pr*cky one is. …And you added another dimension. ” I’m a bigger pr*ck in real life. I apologize often to my family.”

                      Being a pr*ck to one’s family is not a good idea. If one has to apologize over and over again that demonstrates a lack of sincerity. When you are told to say 10 Hail Mary’s and do the same thing again that too is insincere. You believe God forgives you for that lapse but should he?

                      “…..for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

                      This is true no matter what one believes as long as there is some type of moral belief. However, when the sin is done over and over again that is not forgivable in the good world. Sinning by being a pr*ck to one’s family is not forgivable. Family is everything. Children are a gift of God.

                      St.Augustine might have been preaching humility very appropriately but even humble people can be sinners.

                      You have told others in a superior manner that their diets and lack of exercise… You can fill in the words. That is not humility. Being a pr*ck is not humility, Apologizing doesn’t instantly make you sorry. The problem at least with regard to family demands a solution. Going to the gym to release the stresses and the pr*ckiness of the day can save your soul.

            2. Over 200,000 Americans have died from COVID-19.

              With an IFR of 0.26%, the numbers tell the story, your hand-wringing notwithstanding. Remove obesity, hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes and the deaths are infinitesimally small. 200,000 out of a population of 330,000,000 is peanuts. The long term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 are due to the hyper-immune activation and hyperinflammatory condition that obesity, et al cause

              Trump wont die from SARS-CoV-2. He is being taken to the hospital out of caution with medical care you will never receive in part because he is a walking time bomb and bc he runs this country, sadly. His death however would be a blessing and a curse: Pence would be a monstrosity far worse.

              You are welcome to view SARS-CoV-2 as a fatal pathogen like MRSA, Ebola, Prions (Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (CJD), and HIV but they are not anything close to the lethal pathogen your leaders in the Marxist–Leninist politburo have propagated to the sheeple

              Besides, post-election our nation will descend into outright chaos. Your friends on the Left remind us daily

              You may consider that “few,” but I don’t.
              in 2016 there were 623,471 abortions in America, yet you rally around those deaths. Spare us your ComitmentToDishonestDisussion

              1. An embryo isn’t a person.
                An early stage fetus isn’t a person.
                Exceptionally few abortions occur after the fetus reaches viability, and they generally occur either because the mother’s life or health are endangered or because the fetus is diagnosed with a condition like anencephaly that’s incompatible with life after birth.
                If you think all embryos are people, you should be as concerned about the large numbers if IVF embryos that are discarded annually. Do you want to pass a law demanding that they be implanted?

                It would be totally fine with me if no woman ever chose to have an abortion.
                I have never encouraged anyone to have an abortion.
                I’ve never had an abortion myself.
                I do want abortions to be legal prior to viability and in rare cases later.

                The situation with COVID-19 killing hundreds of thousands of people is nothing like abortions of embryos.
                You’re free to believe that “200,000 out of a population of 330,000,000 is peanuts,” but I don’t.
                It’s more than twice the number of Americans killed in all of our wars since WW2 combined. Maybe you also think that those deaths were “peanuts,” but I don’t.

                If you have a magic wand and can “remove obesity, hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes,” do it. I don’t think you have that magic wand. You want to discount the deaths of people with specific comorbidities. I don’t. Those people died, and COVID-19 is the reason that they’re not still alive with their comorbidities.

                Our values are clearly different.

                1. Yet you never blame the Chinese for letting this loose on the world and hiding the fact while it spread. Instead you say ‘Trump’.

          2. I would like to see statistics that does not included NY and NJ decisions by governors early.in the virus. If they jew now, what people know now, would their deaths per million approach anywhere near what it is now.

            Everyone learns by mistakes. Sending covid positive into nursing homes was a HUGE mistake. The issue today is what is the mortaliry rate fir those infected over the last 90 days.

          3. our country’s economy has been destroyed by a real virus which small mortality rate has provoked deadly fear

        2. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and his wife, Pam, test positive for coronavirus
          https://www.pilotonline.com/government/virginia/vp-nw-coronavirus-northam-wife-positive-20200925-vdto5welgffvhfzi5pjeg6rwwa-story.html

          Northam, the only physician among the nation’s governors, is experiencing no symptoms, while his wife is experiencing mild symptoms, the administration said in a news release

          In spite of Ralph’s authoritarian shutdown of the Commonwealth, forced wearing of masks, and laughably being the only physician…..governors he STILL got the virus. Now his wife has the sniffles

          Outrageous

      2. Kellyanne Conway’s teenage daughter reports that her mom has been coughing a lot at home. Conway attended the Rose Garden announcement of Coney Barrett’s nomination, and she was sitting near Melania Trump, Sen. Mike Lee, and Rev. John Jenkins, 3 of the people who’ve already been diagnosed with COVID-19.

        News says that GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, who also attended the Rose Garden announcement, has tested positive.

        Meanwhile, Cleveland announces “at this time, we are aware of 11 cases stemming from pre-debate planning and set-up, with the majority of cases occurring among out of state residents.”

    2. CTHD:

      The best protection against Covid-19 is to maintain 6 feet of distance. Barring that, masks offer the limited protection of keeping some of your expelled moisture to yourself. In Asia, as soon as someone feels ill, they wear a mask if they have to go out. It’s common courtesy.

      I can’t tell you how frustrating I find it that people will not follow basic and reasonable precautions. I have seen, with my own eyes, Republicans, Democrats, young, and old, ALL getting together, hugging, having people fly in to visit, going on vacation, and not wearing a mask. Typically, young adults totally throw caution to the wind. Anyone with a teen or someone in their 20s in their family, regardless of political affiliation, is probably exposed to the highest risk behavior. I personally know people who are doing this. They either think Covid was overplayed, and it’s not really a big deal, or they’re just exhausted from all the precautions and don’t care anymore.

      Since I have asthma, and my husband will lose his business if he or his employees get ill, this is incredibly frustrating.

      If you get sick, but you took every precaution possible, at least you can say you did your best. But if you get sick, or you get someone vulnerable sick, and you ignored recommendations, that can be a bitter regret.

      Frankly, I have always thought Trump et al should wear masks, out of solidarity if nothing else.

      SARS-CoV2 is 70 nm. Typical mask pore size is 20,000 nm. The idea that only the vulnerable need to wear masks is ludicrous. Wearing a mask keeps your own exhalation moisture to yourself. You will breathe in others’ cooties from people not wearing a mask just fine.

      1. Karen, just as you comment, the young are invisible. Just look at college communities and how this spreads. Look at minority communities and how it spreads due to distrust of government. When government decides they are not the nations mama and understands only about 30% will follow directives, then maybe they will begin working with community experts that can communicate in a non political manner.

    3. And you have real world studies that prove masks are effective against C19 ?

      Yes, it is not wise to hug people that you are not arround alot.

      At the same time Mike Lee gets to make his own choices.

      Just like you – where a mask all you want. Hug, don’t hug, your choice.

      But you do not get to dictate the non-violent behavior of others.

Leave a Reply