Taro T

As NY had already said last week it would start following this policy, curious if that accounts for at least some of the spike in reported deaths we saw yesterday. If people that did a month ago are getting added to the daily totals, we're going to see elevated death tolls until they've gone through the entire list.

One might expect that response, but the typical one is that this proves we need MORE government because clearly the problem was there wasn't enough government. Had there been more, these delays and crashes would've been avoided. And, it should properly be democrats rolling out the technologies used by government because they did such a wonderful job with the ACA Insurance Exchanges and the Iowa Caucus vote reporting.

IF this is how they've reported suspected deaths from flu and other illnesses then don't have a huge issue with it, but doubt that's the case. Every year, when the CDC reports flu deaths they provide a count but also report the upper and lower confidence intervals for that range. On the surface, it seems this new policy will cause the reported deaths to be extremely close to the high end of that confidence interval. Will have to look back through the CARES Act and see how the sections on medical aid determine how that is allocated. Expecting that it's based on total cases and this way NY is goosing the total cases. It'd also make NY's cardiologists and pulmonary care Drs. appear to be miracle workers as they'll've somehow reduced deaths from heart attacks and diseases such as emphysema and pneumonia down to record lows. Win - win. The state gets more CARES Act cash and also gets higher Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement rates as outcomes are improved.

At least in NYS hospitals already HAD such agreements to loan equipment to hospitals that have shortages if others had spare capacity. Which makes the Friday Cuomo press conference a week back saying he was calling in the National Guard so confounding. Of course, maybe somebody explained that to him over that weekend which would explain his about face on that Monday.

The media definitely helped Biden get through to the finish line of the preliminary race. But, ironically, their helping push 45 through HIS preliminary race back in '16, which backfired spectacularly for them in the General Election when their chosen one, the one that they helped through to the D's preliminary race back then, lost bigly to him, will end up dooming their efforts again in '20. They thought that The Donald was the 1 guy on the R side that absolutely positively couldn't beat Hillary in the General and pushed him hard early in the R primaries. They just failed to realize how frustrated a lot of people were with the Washington insiders and ended up pushing a guy that clicked with those voters and actually found the 1 guy that could beat the Clinton machine. Their putting their thumb on the scale isn't nearly as transparent as it was in the past. You definitely have reason to be mad at them. But, until 44 finally endored him today, thought for sure the D's would draft somebody (not named Bernie) to replace Biden at the convention. Now, expect that Joe's their guy until the gory end. How, out of ~100MM D's HE is their choice as the best choice, is simply boggling (until corruption gets added into the equation).

No wonder his ratings are down. If he doesn't listen to himself, then why should anybody else should listen to him?

Well, would say something about him once again demonstrating his followership or lead-from-behindship, but, in fairness he did get to endorsing Biden before Hillary did. Something he's done that she probably will never do. So, he's more of a leader than her at least. Once again.

If 45 tries to be the person deciding how/ when individual states will ACTUALLY be allowed to reopen; then will decry his actions right there with you. If, what comes from the administration is guidelines on how to do that, won't have any issue as that's what should happen. Rarely get worked up over his words, but do cringe a lot. Fortunately, for all of us, his actual actions have been far less cringeworthy and a lot have been beneficial over the past 3 years (generalizing beyond just this issue/ set of issues).

That one wasn't due to the 'no 2nd helmet's rule. That 1 was due to Levy not wanting to make the players break in 2nd helmets. Other teams went to alternate helmets that year - e.g. Houston went with the powder blues when they played Buffalo in the Bill's road throwback game that year. The Bills could've, they just didn't want to.

Been told to expect at least 3 weeks before those loans/Grant's start coming through. But also was told that when the applications actually work through the system that the funds are released within 3 days. That's for both the PPP & EIDL programs. Don't know much about the other programs the SBA is administering as they weren't remotely applicable to my situation.

Xi.

No idea who they're gonna draft (though guess is it'd be Fredo's bro), but just can't see them running Biden after their convention. He makes Mondale look electable.

Kissinger's still alive? TIL. Dude looked like he was in his 60's when he worked for Nixon.

Personally, my expectation is that we've and we'll continue to make this overblown by a bit, but due to our tendency as a whole to ignore guidelines, doubt that we wouldn't be royally ####ed without having shut stuff down. UK tried to use common sense with this trusting the citizenry not to be idjits, but it seems that last part was the unrealistic part of it. Still expect we'll be able to open back up sooner than later, but people will need to try to do the right thing on their own or all this tracking bull#### that people are proposing will actually happen and then we'll be ####ed way worse than we were. Seeing how bad NYC got hit and NO likely will has to be kept as a reminder of how not looking out for each other when stuff reopens will put us back where we were/are. (Because we can repeat that if we aren't smart.) We really are at a very real cross roads for keeping our freedom. Don't let the fascists or communists simply take it from us. Practice good hygiene and stay home from work if you're sick. Oh, and thinking China needs to forgive about $2T worth of our debt and probably a comparable amount around the rest of the world too. They've got the reserves to cover it and maybe next time their government will get their heads out of their arses rather than just let it get out into the world.

Agreed. But Hillary wouldn't have waited because of fear of being called a racist (everybody knows D's can't be racist by definition ). She'd have waited because it would have cut off essentially a personal money spigot of hers when the Chinese would have been threatening behind the scenes to stop funding Clinton Foundation initiatives.

Definitely seeing the benefits of the ignore feature.

People "seem to be throwing caution to the wind" is what's giving you the vapors about this? Seriously? The medicine can ONLY be prescribed by a doctor. Obviously, the Dr. will discuss with the patient the reasons for taking it and the potential side effects to watch for. But, the federal government is hoarding it! Or maybe they're ensuring there will be a supply and giving producers a guarantee that if they make the medicine in amounts previously too great to ensure sale by the expiration date that they'll be able to sell it? Which seems more plausible? But people are buying it OTC & dying! No, they aren't. Morons bought something similar but with enough other ingredients in it to be lethal. That ISN'T buying it OTC. Stop giving engineers a bad name.

The US has dropped well over $2T here and probably $B's elsewhere where the government's don't have their citizens chant "death to America." As soon as the Mullahs are gone, we can consider giving them monetary aid. But until then Feinstein can stick her proposal where the sun doesn't shine. If she really wants to help the Iranians, she should push for regime change. If she just kind of wants to help, quite certain her former driver has access to some higher ups in China. Maybe he could as them to help. We're tapped out.

Don't worry. If the DNC decides to swap horses midstream, those outlets will post at least as many articles about her.

Fair enough. Got hung up on the phrase about the left being "overly reliant on science" and read it differently than you'd intended it to be read.

Wouldn't expect you to agree with that, as I don't either for the VAST majority of people that consider themselves to be to the left. (See paragraph below it for my version of the less cynical, and likely more correct, answer for why the vast majority of those reflexively countering the suggestion do so.) But, it is a fallacy to claim that the left relies on science and the right doesn't trust science. Astrology and crystal power both find way more adherents from the left than the right. Neither of which is in any way shape or form "science." And another popular item of "science" from the left - single use plastic bag bans looks like it had a veritable truckload of science behind it. As for "climate change," nobody denies the climate is changing. Nobody claims that mankind has no impact on it either. What gets questioned is how much of changes we see are primarily due to natural fluctuations of the sun and Earth itself and how much are due to mankind. Also, and far more importantly, the proposed remedies are questioned far more than the "science" especially when darn near every single model that predicts climate changes has over predicted the change, the proposed remedies are all costing in the TRILLIONS of $'s, and the people pushing these draconian solutions tend to be big winners should any of the remedies get enacted, the scientists don't let people see their data (falsifiability being a huge part of good science as opposed to concensus) and none change their own behavior to limit their own "carbon footprint". Being old enough to not only remember the old "the next ice age is coming" warnings but to have read several books on the subject, tend to take all these predictions with more than a heavy grain of salt. And having been an air quality engineer for a number of years, have a bit of an understanding about the science of it too. A lot of the debates on whether to "believe science" or not (and science isn't about belief, it's about hypothesizing, testing, and measuring and quantifying what it can) aren't even really about science at all. They're about people wanting to tell others how they should act and live and others fighting back against that. And that happens with actors from both sides. Science and religion get pushed hard when they support one's preferred policy of what others must do and get questioned when they don't. The climate change scientists haven't proved their theories in the scientific meaning of that term. Until their models start accurately predicting events, don't see where we should drop more $T's on their theories. If they have remedies that cost in the $MM's, might be willing to see them implemented, but they'd better do better if they want to continue to push implementation of solutions that are 5-6 orders of magnitude greater. Personally, would much rather see the environmentalists get back to focusing on actual pollution rather than their current money grabs. Rant over. Sorry for the rant. Did not mean to take away from the focus of this thread.

If those deaths occur in another locality, say Florida, do they count towards NYC's deaths or Florida's? There are an awful lot of snowbirds. If Florida takes the hit when they die during the winter, that could explain a large portion of these rough, back of the envelope counts & discrepancies.

The cynical answer is because the left would rather see people die than see 45 get "a win." Really believe it is less sinister than that. The left reflexively believes that anything 45 supports is necessarily wrong or nefarious, sometimes both. And it takes a bit of doing to get over that reflexive 'this has to be fake or bad' reaction. That the national level media almost entirely in unison can't stand him being president and most all the people they interact with daily think like mindedly, and it isn't too hard to see why they still can't open up to the possibility that this might work. And except in very rare cases, at a minimum it won't hurt.

The way it's been reported is that if a person dies at home and exhibited any COVID type symptoms that the death will now be reported as being caused by the virus. (Assuming that is accurate, but it might not be.) If that's the way they've handled/counted deaths in the home before this hit, then that's how they should be counting them, but if it isn't, then they shouldn't. Did they previously consider a person who passed at his/her home that had flu-like symptoms as dying from the flu? If yes, then count these deaths as COVID-19 as it's more likely they had that than the flu. If they didn't, then they shouldn't change the method of assigning the cause of death and shouldn't automatically label them as being from the virus. It would help with understanding if they had a standardized determination/reporting methodology that doesn't change with this new situation. And how events such as deaths are categorized has a tremendous effect on perception. How much longer would the American life expectancy be, and how much lower would the infant mortality stats be, if the US treated live births that were known to be ending tragically shortly after the birth as a miscarriage like the rest of the world does? (Or, better yet, how much different would the rest of the world's data look if they treated those events the way we do? (Which seems a more honest / accurate accounting of those death IMHO.) Things have been bad down there, there's no denying that. But they shouldn't be artificially skewed in either direction.

Well, if he can't get that record to play on his record player ...