SectionC3

With what?

Lots of work to prove my point. Nobody here said the drug should be prescribed. Carry on.

Your truculence has caused me — forced me, actually — to establish a new list. More outbursts like that one and I’ll have no choice but to put you on it. Unless we’re talking about article I and the emoluments clause. Those have been disregarded for the past couple of years.

Fake news. This is why you’re on the fake news list.

Hoax. I said what I meant on both of the relevant posts.

Hoax. Nobody here has said that doctors should prescribe the drug to COVID patients before clinical trials have been completed. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that such a statement had been made, the differences between Pepcid and at least one other drug thought, but not proven, to effectively combat COVID are stark. Pepcid has a long history of safety. Hydroxychloroquine, for example and by contrast, has very serious side effects that include irregularity of heart rhythm that could lead to death. Carry on.

Maybe flip flopper? (joke)

Yup. NYC illustrates the point well. Density there is comparable to Italy, and herd immunity would be a bad plan in that area. But it might work, or might have worked, in many parts of the western United States. I don't know how reasonable it would have been with interstate travel here, but it's an interesting topic for the "autopsy" of the pandemic response.

Didn't Great Britain initially take the same approach? I'm not saying that the gamble is a bad one because Great Britain may have backed off of it. It may also be that the "herd immunity" approach works better in countries and areas with lesser population density (obviously) with a populace sufficiently educated to grasp and respect the risk of the virus. No kidding on the Pepcid. I saw that this morning and was stunned. Crazier things have happened, I guess.

Not an issue. I wouldn't take you on as a client. So nothing to worry about there. Yeah he's on the snowflake list. He wimped out today. Can't take the heat. With respect to the last comment, I hope you aren't a self-loather. That's probably a tough way to walk the journey of life.

If Jared Kushner is on the job I am confident that it will get done right. /end sarcasm

Yup. Your feelings are hurt pretty easily. I was right to say that you belong on the snowflake list. Also, gentle reminder: you're on the bad grammar list because of your disrespect for the serial comma. It just happened again. Finally, for what it's worth, I have no interest in "dominat[ing] this board." Not one bit. I also have neither care for nor concern about "why people here compare [me] to past posters." I though the Grampa Simpson reference pertained to one of Trump's daily briefings there for a second.

That's not a very nice thing to say. Because I disagree with you my personality therefore is bad? Sounds like you're offended very easily and should be on the snowflake list.

I actually thought the rapper Lil' Kim had passed when I read this. Good to know that she has not died.

Nobody moved the goalposts here. You indicated that the economy should reopen for those under 55 because the virus is unlikely to harm such a person. My response reflects the obvious point, which you have overlooked either intentionally or otherwise, that the data to date reflects only that the mortality rate for persons under the age of 55 is lower than the mortality rate for persons over the age of 55. "Death" and "harm," of course, are related but still vastly different concepts. One cannot die without being harmed, but one can be harmed without dying. Bottom line: your point that no harm will inure to the under-55 group is based on the misconception that harm and death are coterminous concepts. Fake news.

"Not kill" and "not harm" are two different things. I suspect you're trying to say that the candle isn't worth the game for the under-55 crowd in terms of closures and "stay at home." But there's no scientific support (yet) that the disease "will not harm" those persons. Self-explanatory.

Good luck with that one. If Nevada's standards for challenging administrative action are anything like those of New York State, then this proceeding almost certainly is a stone cold loser. (I haven't read the link or the papers, but that doesn't seem necessary here and, in any event, it's not something that I care to do.) Of course, that might not be the motivation for the lawsuit. It's always good to rile up the base and score some political points.

I wouldn't call it the Holy Grail. But I appreciate your kind wishes. Also, you and I both need some cofeve. My "thaw misguided notion" and your "down stratefy" reference suggest a shared caffeine deficiency. On a completely unrelated note, has science identified the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection? Even if people under 55 have a low near-term mortality rate, do we know that infection will not shorten the life span of those in that age group who are infected?

That's a good point. And the state, to my knowledge, doesn't have authority to close local parks. Here, state parks have remained open, principally on the theory that their typically large size allows for adequate social distancing. Many town parks also are open, with only certain areas (e.g. playground sets and picnic shelters) closed.

Stupid question. I only have one personality.

I’d be upset, too, if I was on the sheep list.

Could have, but kemp illustrates the point perfectly given that Trump impliedly encouraged Georgia’s reopening before condemning the approach. Do you dispute that the kemp issue does not well illustrate this point?

Fake logic. A failure to include is not to exclude. Carry on.

Comments like that will get you on the washed up psycho list. Be careful.

Brian Kemp agrees. Unfortunately as a member of the sheep list you are not allowed to start your own lists. Carry on.