TPS

Wait Mitch, are you saying the administration wasn't focused on this early...? Yes, somewhere in this thread I said de Blasio and Trump were similar in this.

And that's the excuse those with TLS use--blame China or no one could see it coming. My criticism has been their lack of response once it was here. While he deserves credit for closing off with China, they sqaundered that time by not taking it seriously enough.

Now that he’s admitting there could be anywhere from 100-200k deaths from this, do you still Think this? I was saying 4 weeks ago they are not taking this seriously enough, putting the stock market/economy above health and safety, while trump was talking about only 15 cases and we’ll be down to 0. Most here were saying it’s being driven by media hype or Dems wanting to hurt his re-election chances. I wonder how many have admitted they were wrong about that, or is it still perceived as the truth? Is this just another flu that’s been overhyped? As for predictions, I made the opposite one Back then (which seems like months now), that his lack of urgency and response would be his undoing on this. We’ll see....

There is a large group in both, true.

You're an idiot.... ?

I had this discussion already. I have in the past given credit to trump on some of his policies, and I have said that Russia gate was bs from the start, so I have shown the ability to take both sides. How many people here can say they've ever criticized a trump policy? If you've never criticized his policies, then either you can't get past your own bias, in which case it's impossible to have a real discussion and you're a political hack like people accuse Tibs of being, or Trump has never been wrong about anything....

It seems to be a cult with Trump. When people are unable to criticize him objectively, it's a bit difficult to have any kind of debate. I'll try to refrain though...

Says the guy who hasn't criticized one trump policy in over 3 years.... At least you admitted it, so kudos there.

Yes, I agree, when testing is rolled out on a significant scale in any country, you don't know if the number of new cases is due to the ramping up of testing or not. However... The data JH uses is based on the number of days since the first 100 cases, which is a decent measure (there is no perfect measure yet) because testing started out a such a low rate in most countries, and most of those early cases are (most likely) associated with hospitalizations. Using that assumption shows the US is 10 days behind Italy. It is also consistent with using the number of days each country experienced their first 100 deaths (probably a better measure), which is around March 4th for Italy and around the 17th for the US. So, yes, when widespread testing starts, it influences the number of new cases, which is why it's more accurate (not perfect) to use the "first 100 metrics."

Maybe he looks at data? According to the Johns Hopkins site, using "days since 100 cases," Italy is on day 35, the US is on day 25, 10 days behind.

Hmmm...Birx now predicting 100-200K deaths, so why are they inciting fear now? Fake news? Inflating the expectations so they can tout success when they're lower? So many questions...

The site I use is Johns Hopkins. Currently, both NY and MA are exponential, but NY's weekly growth rate is less than MA's, which makes NY's doubling time about 3.3 days and MA''s just over 2. However, the most recent (3/29) daily change was about the same for both states, but I wouldn't suggest that's a trend yet...

You may want to find my interaction with 3rd on this a few weeks back, it will save you from wasting your time...

Where do get that MA is weeks behind NY? MA had its first cases in the last week of Feb, and NY was about same. One of the sites I use shows the growth as of the 20th case, and MA is only 3 days behind NY. Oh, and I wasn't trying to link to an article, rather my response to your error-filled critique of Pueyo.

Not unless you expect a big move up in prices. Steep contango creates a built-in loss for commodity etfs through what's known as the roll yield. For example, the value of USO is derived from its purchase of futures on oil, the contracts closest to expiration. Before the contracts expire, the etf managers have to sell (so as not to take delivery) and then buy the next month contracts. In contango, your selling price is less than your buying price--the fund is selling futures low and buying high, creating a "negative roll yield." As that eats away at the value of the underlying assets, it also eats away at the price of the etf, unless you have a bunch uninformed investors piling in, which can temporarily push the price above underlying value...So, if you see "professionals" hyping USO or other oil etfs when the markets in contango, be wary...

A bit melodramatic, don't you think?

Yes, it's all the media's fault. Otherwise, Trump has handled this just hugely...and the ratings on his press conferences are through the roof!

Maybe he should've taken it seriously a month ago...

No. Futures prices are in a steep "contango," which means the current price is less than the future price to such an extent that it more than covers the cost of storage. That means you can make a risk-free profit by buying oil today and storing it tankers--banks and hedge funds do this. When the above ground storage runs out, and financial traders can't take advantage of this any longer, the Saudis will be forced to reduce pumping and meet the "real" demand for oil.

That's saying a lot, because Hughes had a very good game too.

He's a good player, but not a great player. If @Virgil is right, they offered him what they thought he was worth, especially for a player who will get less snaps than Oliver.

I thought he was the best DL in the playoff game, but that's just my opinion man...

I should've linked to this response instead of repeated things. Maybe you missed it...it's on that page at least