Magox

To piggyback off of an earlier post about how the death rate continues to fall. Its gonna bottom out pretty soon. The question is does it begin to rise and at what rate?

Berenson does Yeoman’s work as he cuts through the crap as good as anyone.

New Jersey did a “probable death” data dump. Excluding that the death count continues to defy odds and marches downward. My guess about a month ago was that we would most likely bottom out at around 500 deaths a day. 7 day average right now is around 600.

This is an interesting report. On one hand, you have a stubbornly high amount of people continuing to file for unemployment benefits and on the other you have less overall people receiving them, which shows that there is a lot of rehiring. This sort of underscores a point that I was making to a friend of mine the other day. This is not the sort of recovery where everything will just snap back or is fully dependent on whether or not a company is allowed to come online, and smooth sailing ahead. Even though some of these companies are reopening they are still struggling, they have to operate at less than full capacity. It's difficult to sustain that for many small businesses, so unless some sort of urgent action of additional stimulus is provided for these small businesses, I do think we will continue to keep seeing lots of layoffs for some time while seeing lots of companies and employees coming back online. Definitely some crosscurrents are at play.

Definitely an out of step take from Nikki but hardly an unforgivable one. Some of these politicians are not in tune with the base and that tweet strikes me as tone deaf.

I would imagine that the outcome of the elections would greatly influence whoever the nominee will be in 2024. Things are looking pretty bad for Trump at this stage, things can change of course but if Trump were to lose he would still cast a huge shadow over the field. I could easily see all the establishment like and even non Trump conservatives dump him like a bad habit if he were to lose. But even if that were the case, Trump probably would still have a significant influence over the primary process. I think most of the field would kiss the ring and look for his endorsement. Trump loses, I could see that giving more of an edge to Nikki Haley, Scott or Rubio. If he wins, then whoever Trump endorses would win the nomination. Pence, DeSantis, Cotton or Cruz?

I have Tibs and his multiple personalities on ignore. Gary, he's on probation. I'll let him off in about a week.

That's what happens when rules are applied arbitrarily. Ultimately a human is behind the switches and every human has their own inherent biases, it's not an indictment on any specific person, it's just a fact of life. I'm generally for a free board and I'd rather have this than how rules are applied over on the other side but there are various posters here whose main purpose is to troll. They don't actively engage in substantive conversation, they litter the board with troll threads and trolling conversations.

Which Mod suspended him?

Kidding aside, I don't think there is anyone who is more in tune with the anger and dissatisfaction with what we are seeing today than Tucker Carlson. He has been ???

Deaths still trending down Will be interesting to see if that trend continues or if it begins to bottom out and go back higher.

If Tim Scott could make it through the primaries, I could see him being the toughest one to beat. He's not a divisive figure so the Anti Scott vote really wouldn't be strong. He appeals to both conservatives and moderate Republicans. I could see him doing well with suburban women voters and he could conceivably get 20%+ of the African American vote, which would seal the deal for him.

Provide names. I just put names there that were at the top of my head.

I could be wrong. My political analysis is often wrong.

Nikki Haley would be the establishment favorite. Tim Scott could compete for that vote, but I could see him doing well. DeSantis is a little goofy but he's competent and he doesn't back down and would be a favorite to get Trump's endorsement which would matter a lot. No matter if Trump won or lost. Cotton would be the new Cruz and compete for the hard right and populists, but I'm not sure how much more appeal he'd have over what Cruz had. Crenshaw could be the compromise candidate. Very quick on his feet, could be liked some by all. Pence could be strong with the evangelicals and of course if he got the endorsement of Trump that would make him a major player. Rubio, Cruz and Rand I think are a thing of the past.

Crap. Forgot about him. Of course he will run

2 months. Our schools start in the latter half of August.

Who do you guys believe will be the next Republican nominee for 2024? A lot depends on whether or not Trump wins or not. I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts.

Let's see here. Option A) We can't go back in the past Option B) Schools aren't open Option C) Schools will be open in a couple months Through process of elimination, Option A and B aren't an option. So that leaves us with Drum roll, please.............. Option C) When the schools open back up. Gene, this wasn't too hard to conclude. You're slippin

Have you devolved?

We are beyond the point of understanding that this is highly political. The question is, what are people going to do about it? Suggested answer: Vote

They do. It's part of the CARE's ACT. If a COVID infected or assumed to be infected patient dies and is on a Medicare or a Ventilator they get paid more.

Surveillance and contact tracing testing is skewing the age of the confirmed positives lower. So the people who are testing positive and getting hospitalized are younger which means their probability of living are higher. Plus Medical professionals are getting better at treating their patients. I think to get a really clear picture you'd have to get hospital data at a much more granular level than what we are privy to. I have heard some theories that every single patient in the hospital is being tested, which would do a couple things, it would get more confirmed positives and it would imply that the patients were hospitalized due to non COVID reasons. I don't believe there is one single reason as to why this clear divergence of hospitalizations and deaths, I think it's due to a bevy of reasons.

That's not what I said. I said "Open up the schools". I didn't say "We should have opened up the schools", even though in hindsight we should have. We know for a fact that the virus is less deadly than the common flu for kids under the age of 19. That is proven in the data. So on that front, the kids are at a very relatively low risk. So now the only question is, if we send to kids to school will they serve as a potent vector of transmission of COVID to other kids and adults? Sweden didn't shut down their schools and there is plenty of data to suggest from Sweden that shows that the schools played no virtually no role in transmitting the virus. Countless studies have all shown the same. Any responsible decision maker doesn't purely look at things from a vacuum, in this case a COVID vacuum. Now that we know that kids are at relatively low risk from dying from the virus and that there is plenty of data to show that they are low emitters of the virus, is it worth the risk to have children fall behind in their education? Who are the kids that suffer the most? Families of lower socio economic demographics, many of these families don't have internet or laptops and are falling behind in their education. Many of these kids depend on the school lunch programs for nourishment. Many of these kids are at home with abusive parents who are stressed out over everything that is going on. Many of these kids are suffering from their own depressions and anxieties not having the social contact that many need. When you balance out the ledger, it is clear that going to school makes sense.