GG

I'm saying that the March lock down didn't save nearly as many lives as the "experts" give it credit for because the majority of the real damage was done in February. The City didn't fully shut down anyway. The subways didn't shut down and the cases peaked around Easter. The telling tale was the shocking revelation that 2/3 of positive cases into May were coming from people who were supposedly home quarantined. That is bad news for the doomsday crowd, because either the virus had a longer shelf life (unlikely based on data) or there was still a hell of a lot of interpersonal contact for the virus to spread. All the data coming from NY area (corroborated with personal anecdotal evidence) is that this thing cycled through rapidly and lethally, and then ran its course. My point is not that we shouldn't have shut things down, because based on data (very little) and absolutely zero understanding of his this thing evolves, shutting down was prudent. My beef is that it is borderline criminal to shut down the economy based on very sketchy data and dubious models (now proven they were dubious), but drag your feet to reopen, when there's so much more known. Yes, the Sweden story is bunk, because nothing changed in their scenario other than still having a higher death count than their neighbors, but much lower than other developed countries. The theory remains that until you get to a cure, vaccine or herd immunity, the people who are susceptible to this virus, will die. Sweden front loaded the cases (to be inelegant) and the numbers don't look good now. Check back in a year when it fully cycles through the other Nordics

You're too lazy or ignorant to connect the dots of what's been happening since 2008 because it will spoil your narrative. Obama did all the things that Trump is being slammed for, but as always received a pass . It's not hard to see the dominoes falling from his initial stab at starting a much needed dialogue based on personal experience, with the gravitas of the Presidency behind him, to the full on ***** show that remained when he left the office. If you want to walk down memory lane, go ahead with the grandma anecdote, and then a hard pivot to calling Boston PD irresponsible for responding to a routine call. Then personally inserting himself into highly charged legal battles (all on one side) and then not by standing up for LE, which led to riots and multiple officers executed in the line of duty. When the results didn't fall his way, his DoJ suddenly appeared on the scene to adjudicate the wrong verdicts handed down by local juries. Funny how nobody cared about Presidential interference in judicial affairs back then. You also can't look at the isolated incidents, but the culmination of how his actions derailed what was a noble BLM cause into another shouting match that made things worse by siding with life long hucksters and race baiting peddlers. That's how all the false narratives became enshrined in the vernacular, and why half the country immediately tuned it out. BLM movement morphed from shining a light at what the black community faces on a daily basis, and how the ingrained prejudice influences many conscious and subconscious responses, into arguing that the only issue that needed to be discussed was black deaths at the hands of law enforcement. By positioning BLM into this box, the movement turned off everyone who dared ask why would not all lives matter, did black lives matter if they were killed by fellow blacks, or are there solutions other than pandering to the cause. And then nobody in his administration or DNC dared to introduce the valid counterarguments or to extend the topics beyond blue check shame blaming. Obama had ample opportunities to begin the healing in 2008 and was in the best position that anyone in the history of this country has ever had to push a frank discussion, and like everything else in his tenure, he shrunk to the challenge.

So you believe that in the midst of every crisis, when the POTUS consistently backed one side of the story, personalized it, and didn't support the people under his charge had no effect on the outcome?

I believe that I answered and provided specific examples. But apparently it's not enough for you. So, long.

No more doing your homework for you.

Going back in time is hard, isn't it? Which President recounted a story of his grandmother switching the side of the street because there were black youth on the sidewalk? What was the reaction from the left? Which President, after that event, never took a "controversial" position whenever a racial issue popped up in his terms? Who personalized the Trayvon Martin incident? Under whose terms did racial strife worsen? What did the great communicator do to diffuse the tensions, instead of ratcheting them up?

Actually it's not. Obama was the perfect person to elevate the discussion about race, and actually started off in that direction until he caught flack from the far left, pivoted and made the situation far far worse.

We can wait until retroactive data is finalized, but the trickle of more recent statistics point that the lock down had a minimal effect on NYC. If policy experts were going to be honest, the lock down should have happened in early February. This is supported by data that's coming in showing that the majority of the early NYC cases were already in full swing in February, and the mid March lock down was too little too late. The viral spread also supports the theory that after the initial spike and mortality of the super deadly strain that hit NYC, the virus weakened significantly and the spread slowed down. This explains why the virus didn't grow past the immediate NYC commuter counties. It's also evident in the maligned Hasid communities, which saw case incidents materially drop after the initial spike. Note that there are no follow up news stories about the sects after mid-March when it became obvious they reached herd immunity within a month! The real data that's been available in the last month conclusively shows that the lock downs need to end immediately. The Sweden is bunk because Bloomberg doesn't provide the right context. While Sweden is near the top of the death rates, it's on par with France, and is much lower than the other Euro countries that got hit badly, and used the lockdowns to stop the spread. Few were arguing that Sweden's approach was going to slow the spread or have a lower death rate by taking a more hands off approach. The argument was that their end result would likely be the same as the other countries, but without sacrificing their economy. Looks like it's coming to fruition. Of course few people are talking about Belgium's numbers either, which are off the charts BAD, despite lockdowns & quarantines. BTW, Denmark opened up schools in April and it had virtually no effect on the spread. Instead everyone jumps on Brazil, which is an outlier in prevention & mitigation, but makes for a great scare story. The pattern is clear, glom onto a scary temporary statistic, and when the story changes move onto something else. Remember the pending disasters in Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Africa and Mexico? What happened? Still waiting for the Georgia & Colorado apocalypse.

You'd probably get responses if you weren't a bot programmed spam machine.

He's programmed that way.

I thought you were the one who likes asking hypothetical questions?

Did you stop beating your wife?

White privilege?

Is that a daily regimen?

Eh, she wrote a few mean texts, and some people did some things. Really, what difference does it make?

Show me where POTUS instructed military/police to forcefully clear out a park for a photo op.

Any other rhetorical non-events happen lately that occupy a small mind?

If the event you're describing happened, I would be against it. Now show me when that specific event as you describe it, happened. You know, real evidence like POTUS suspending a couple's wedding for an extra round of golf or holding up air traffic to LAX for 2 hours to get a haircut.

Coward. Show video evidence where the POTUS or WH staff instructed the military/police to clear out the park for a photo op.

Please point the video evidence of Trump clearing out the crowd.

Your lazy ass brain will have to work overtime now that industry bodies have commenced 6G standards discussions. Video evidence of Secret Service clearing the park and using tear gas?

I'm sure he'll change his post once he realizes the story was a hoax. Something you WON'T do.

Should you amend the headline to ask whether it's ok to push a false narrative to support another ill-conceived thread?

So, was there anything correct in the initial stories?

Nothing speaks for white privilege like this guy's name.