Thumbs up
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
COVID-19 - Part 2
- Thread starter Chuck Murray
- Start date
- Status
Thumbs up
No need to cook em yet. Still 4 more deaths from snowmobile accidents here in Maine versus the bat “cough” flu
Give it a rest Wayup.... we get that you hate Trump.
Last edited:
.28 increase to .22 to .18 last 3 days.....the rate of increase slowing....doesn’t support your conclusion
Darius
Go 'cats!
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
I'd be stunned if any of my numbers or simple math are statistically valid. For amusement only.
This was posted earlier: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-infographic-datapack/
Scroll down to the second chart. Relatively, we ain't doing all that bad.
I'd be stunned if any of my numbers or simple math are statistically valid. For amusement only.
This was posted earlier: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-infographic-datapack/
Scroll down to the second chart. Relatively, we ain't doing all that bad.
Last edited:
HockeyRef
Well-known member
No need to cook em yet. Still 4 more deaths from snowmobile accidents here in Maine versus the bat “cough” flu
You think this is just a hoot dont you. People are dying lots of them. Just because you are safe (for now) you have zip empathy. This isn't about hating Trump it's about caring for people. I'm all done coming here and talking about what a terrible PATHETIC response he has mounted ...its about the peo PL le dealing with this. Awful.
You guys say to stop politicizing it Jesus C then you tell others to back off Trump. God I am out.
NCAA watcher
Registered User
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Its not real til it shows up in their neck of the woods. Leave them be, we've warned them all we can. No use trying to get people to believe what they are programed not to believe. They may not be impacted ultimately, its only a 2% rate, so maybe they get the last laugh. Take care of your own and educate those willing to listen.
Its not real til it shows up in their neck of the woods. Leave them be, we've warned them all we can. No use trying to get people to believe what they are programed not to believe. They may not be impacted ultimately, its only a 2% rate, so maybe they get the last laugh. Take care of your own and educate those willing to listen.
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Umm, NO to your directive. I hate Trump, you love him. What's the difference? When I see Fox news propaganda spewing in here, expect a response. If it went unchallenged, this place would be full of Trumpette laden crap that is getting people killed. So again, you post it, you'll get a response, get over it.
Unlike the below, I don't go after the poster, only generalize. I understand when one's argument is weak, its natural to get personal. I expect as much. I don't need to do that.
Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Murray View Post
So I come on here at lunchtime, with one set of plans for non-adversarial posting ... and due to the disingenuous behavior (at worst), or sheer stupidity and failure to comprehend (at best) of just one (1) poster - and it's a repeat offender, I'm afraid - it's time for some clean-up duty. To wit - please see my originating post, with an emphasis in bold, and keep that in mind for the following posts from the president of the Maine Chapter of Mensa ...
I mean … it takes a special degree of dumb infantile stupid to miss that by accident, and repeat it several times. Or you see it and you're disingenuous, because you've been stricken by an especially virulent strain of TDS.
Weren't you the one who was preaching telling us non-Britons about how Neville Chamberlain wasn't the Prime Minister who appeased the Germans in the late '30's, and how the US wasn't trying to avoid WW2 through the Battle of Britain (1940) up through the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor time when some people did something in the Pacific in late 1941?
I'll give you this much, though … at least you realized Hawaii wasn't a state yet in 1941. So while my initial take is that you were completely hopeless, you've now been upgraded to clueless. Congrats.
Umm, NO to your directive. I hate Trump, you love him. What's the difference? When I see Fox news propaganda spewing in here, expect a response. If it went unchallenged, this place would be full of Trumpette laden crap that is getting people killed. So again, you post it, you'll get a response, get over it.
Unlike the below, I don't go after the poster, only generalize. I understand when one's argument is weak, its natural to get personal. I expect as much. I don't need to do that.
Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Murray View Post
So I come on here at lunchtime, with one set of plans for non-adversarial posting ... and due to the disingenuous behavior (at worst), or sheer stupidity and failure to comprehend (at best) of just one (1) poster - and it's a repeat offender, I'm afraid - it's time for some clean-up duty. To wit - please see my originating post, with an emphasis in bold, and keep that in mind for the following posts from the president of the Maine Chapter of Mensa ...
I mean … it takes a special degree of dumb infantile stupid to miss that by accident, and repeat it several times. Or you see it and you're disingenuous, because you've been stricken by an especially virulent strain of TDS.
Weren't you the one who was preaching telling us non-Britons about how Neville Chamberlain wasn't the Prime Minister who appeased the Germans in the late '30's, and how the US wasn't trying to avoid WW2 through the Battle of Britain (1940) up through the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor time when some people did something in the Pacific in late 1941?
I'll give you this much, though … at least you realized Hawaii wasn't a state yet in 1941. So while my initial take is that you were completely hopeless, you've now been upgraded to clueless. Congrats.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
This is unfreaking believable. At a time when people are losing jobs, having their wages and/or hours cut, and we have government endorsed price gouging at the expense of the taxpayer. Eff this administration and all you aholes enabling them.
This is unfreaking believable. At a time when people are losing jobs, having their wages and/or hours cut, and we have government endorsed price gouging at the expense of the taxpayer. Eff this administration and all you aholes enabling them.
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Inside the coronavirus testing failure: Alarm and dismay among the scientists who sought to help
Shawn Boburg, Robert O'Harrow Jr., Neena Satija and Amy Goldstein, The Washington Post Published 6:20 pm CDT, Friday, April 3, 2020
On a Jan. 15 conference call, a leading scientist at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assured local and state public health officials from across the nation that there would soon be a test to detect a mysterious virus spreading from China. Stephen Lindstrom told them the threat was remote and they may not need the test his team was developing "unless the scope gets much larger than we anticipate," according to an email summarizing the call.
"We're in good hands," a public health official who participated in the call wrote in the email to colleagues.
Three weeks later, early on Feb. 8, one of the first CDC test kits arrived in a Federal Express package at a public health laboratory on the east side of Manhattan. By then, the virus had reached the United States, and the kits represented the government's best hope for containing it while that was still possible.
For hours, lab technicians struggled to verify that the test worked. Each time, it fell short, producing untrustworthy results.
That night, they called their lab director, Jennifer Rakeman, an assistant commissioner in the New York City health department, to tell her it had failed. "Oh, s---," she replied. "What are we going to do now?"
In the 21 days that followed, as Trump administration officials continued to rely on the flawed CDC test, many lab scientists eager to aid the faltering effort grew increasingly alarmed and exasperated by the federal government's actions, according to previously unreported email messages and other documents reviewed by The Washington Post, as well as exclusive interviews with scientists and officials involved.
In their private communications, scientists at academic, hospital and public health labs - one layer removed from federal agency operations - expressed dismay at the failure to move more quickly and frustration at bureaucratic demands that delayed their attempts to develop alternatives to the CDC test.
"We have the skills and resources as a community but we are collectively paralyzed by a bloated bureaucratic/administrative process," Marc Couturier, medical director at academic laboratory ARUP in Utah, wrote to other microbiologists on Feb. 27 after weeks of mounting frustration.
IMO, when all is said and done, we will see that the CDC totally failed us. The reputation of the CDC will be forever destroyed. They really ******ed up big time. They also botched the ordering of ventilators. They still can't figure out how the virus spreads. We should have been wearing face coverings from the start.
Federal bureaucracies are never the solution to anything.
Inside the coronavirus testing failure: Alarm and dismay among the scientists who sought to help
Shawn Boburg, Robert O'Harrow Jr., Neena Satija and Amy Goldstein, The Washington Post Published 6:20 pm CDT, Friday, April 3, 2020
On a Jan. 15 conference call, a leading scientist at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assured local and state public health officials from across the nation that there would soon be a test to detect a mysterious virus spreading from China. Stephen Lindstrom told them the threat was remote and they may not need the test his team was developing "unless the scope gets much larger than we anticipate," according to an email summarizing the call.
"We're in good hands," a public health official who participated in the call wrote in the email to colleagues.
Three weeks later, early on Feb. 8, one of the first CDC test kits arrived in a Federal Express package at a public health laboratory on the east side of Manhattan. By then, the virus had reached the United States, and the kits represented the government's best hope for containing it while that was still possible.
For hours, lab technicians struggled to verify that the test worked. Each time, it fell short, producing untrustworthy results.
That night, they called their lab director, Jennifer Rakeman, an assistant commissioner in the New York City health department, to tell her it had failed. "Oh, s---," she replied. "What are we going to do now?"
In the 21 days that followed, as Trump administration officials continued to rely on the flawed CDC test, many lab scientists eager to aid the faltering effort grew increasingly alarmed and exasperated by the federal government's actions, according to previously unreported email messages and other documents reviewed by The Washington Post, as well as exclusive interviews with scientists and officials involved.
In their private communications, scientists at academic, hospital and public health labs - one layer removed from federal agency operations - expressed dismay at the failure to move more quickly and frustration at bureaucratic demands that delayed their attempts to develop alternatives to the CDC test.
"We have the skills and resources as a community but we are collectively paralyzed by a bloated bureaucratic/administrative process," Marc Couturier, medical director at academic laboratory ARUP in Utah, wrote to other microbiologists on Feb. 27 after weeks of mounting frustration.
IMO, when all is said and done, we will see that the CDC totally failed us. The reputation of the CDC will be forever destroyed. They really ******ed up big time. They also botched the ordering of ventilators. They still can't figure out how the virus spreads. We should have been wearing face coverings from the start.
Federal bureaucracies are never the solution to anything.
Last edited:
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
This morning, we get to revisit the discussion of State vs. states. I'm sure everyone is thrilled ...
Amazingly clueless for someone who otherwise seems intelligent … you see, "states" (as in the United States - not United State) are 50 different governments, which are indeed combined at the Federal level. But below that, the states all elect their separate governors, and Senates and Houses are filled with elected officials from those states, which combine to enact the laws in each of their separate states, and enact fiscal and social policy in those states. Those states have different laws, and different priorities. Let's say Nebraska focuses on agricultural priorities, Michigan focuses on manufacturing, Maine focuses on fishing/forestry, and New York focuses on finance. They enact their own budgets and raise their own taxes to fund their priorities. Makes sense, right?
Even when citizens of these states vote, most of the people they vote for are not working in Washington DC. Maybe you skip the local elections, that's your right. But they still happen, and they still matter. Because that's how the states all choose their Reps and Senators who serve them in the Federal government. And as far as the President goes, <s>he</s> that person is elected by the Electoral College - which in turn consists of electors appointed by the states (not State). Hardly an "anachronism" it's how things have worked - according to the Constitution - for about 230 or so years now.
Taking this down to the level of planning for ventilators … the question is not whether states planned for them - they all did - but whether they planned sufficiently for them. Sadly, in the case of NY, they did not. So the Federal government backstops for the state's (or states') poor budget planning decisions. That does not absolve the states who made those budgeting decisions. We'll debate 'til the cows come home who should have done what, but for NY to blame the Feds for NY getting caught low is kinda rich.
Fair point, TUPD. That's an issue that's going to be the subject of increasing discussion and debate over the coming weeks, and it's a discussion we were starting to have several weeks ago on the predecessor thread in the D-1 Forum, which is why I continued a Part Two thread. That discussion has gone kind of dormant lately with other more pressing issues, and with some decisions that have since been undertaken. But that discussion is creeping back up, and I think Tucker Carlson did a nice job explaining it last night - basically, does it make sense to let medical people make economic policy?
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6146994296001#sp=show-clips
Draw your own conclusions … but the question of whether the "cure" is going to be worse than the condition itself at some point is inevitably (and appropriately) going to come up again, likely later this month.
Who are you really, and what have you done to Darius?!?
Now on to the Maine v. Maine debate which broke out while I was away …
I know, it must be painful to come on here and get your lunch handed to you on a daily basis. So, big deal, I guess when YOU intentionally omit (or are too ____ to notice) THE key qualifier to my previous post about obligations of the Federal government, it's poor form for me to call you out for your treachery, old sport. Well, tally ho and all that rot, dental hygiene is overrated, and God Save the Queen, but you and your pal Neville Chamberlain both had it coming for your "just because" naivete. Luckily for Jolly Old England, your _____ only reflects upon you. Unfortunately, I don't see Winston Churchill coming to clean up after you.
But please do stay tuned, old chap … I'll be back with my long-promised guest later this weekend, and (among other things) he'll be weighing in on the near-term future of the British Royal Family, the 2020 Presidential election, and on climate change.
Just to further tease the item … he looks to have something for everyone - from the right AND left, and everyone in-between.
This morning, we get to revisit the discussion of State vs. states. I'm sure everyone is thrilled ...
Amazingly clueless for someone who otherwise seems intelligent … you see, "states" (as in the United States - not United State) are 50 different governments, which are indeed combined at the Federal level. But below that, the states all elect their separate governors, and Senates and Houses are filled with elected officials from those states, which combine to enact the laws in each of their separate states, and enact fiscal and social policy in those states. Those states have different laws, and different priorities. Let's say Nebraska focuses on agricultural priorities, Michigan focuses on manufacturing, Maine focuses on fishing/forestry, and New York focuses on finance. They enact their own budgets and raise their own taxes to fund their priorities. Makes sense, right?
Even when citizens of these states vote, most of the people they vote for are not working in Washington DC. Maybe you skip the local elections, that's your right. But they still happen, and they still matter. Because that's how the states all choose their Reps and Senators who serve them in the Federal government. And as far as the President goes, <s>he</s> that person is elected by the Electoral College - which in turn consists of electors appointed by the states (not State). Hardly an "anachronism" it's how things have worked - according to the Constitution - for about 230 or so years now.
Taking this down to the level of planning for ventilators … the question is not whether states planned for them - they all did - but whether they planned sufficiently for them. Sadly, in the case of NY, they did not. So the Federal government backstops for the state's (or states') poor budget planning decisions. That does not absolve the states who made those budgeting decisions. We'll debate 'til the cows come home who should have done what, but for NY to blame the Feds for NY getting caught low is kinda rich.
Fair point, TUPD. That's an issue that's going to be the subject of increasing discussion and debate over the coming weeks, and it's a discussion we were starting to have several weeks ago on the predecessor thread in the D-1 Forum, which is why I continued a Part Two thread. That discussion has gone kind of dormant lately with other more pressing issues, and with some decisions that have since been undertaken. But that discussion is creeping back up, and I think Tucker Carlson did a nice job explaining it last night - basically, does it make sense to let medical people make economic policy?
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6146994296001#sp=show-clips
Draw your own conclusions … but the question of whether the "cure" is going to be worse than the condition itself at some point is inevitably (and appropriately) going to come up again, likely later this month.
Who are you really, and what have you done to Darius?!?
Now on to the Maine v. Maine debate which broke out while I was away …
I know, it must be painful to come on here and get your lunch handed to you on a daily basis. So, big deal, I guess when YOU intentionally omit (or are too ____ to notice) THE key qualifier to my previous post about obligations of the Federal government, it's poor form for me to call you out for your treachery, old sport. Well, tally ho and all that rot, dental hygiene is overrated, and God Save the Queen, but you and your pal Neville Chamberlain both had it coming for your "just because" naivete. Luckily for Jolly Old England, your _____ only reflects upon you. Unfortunately, I don't see Winston Churchill coming to clean up after you.
But please do stay tuned, old chap … I'll be back with my long-promised guest later this weekend, and (among other things) he'll be weighing in on the near-term future of the British Royal Family, the 2020 Presidential election, and on climate change.
Just to further tease the item … he looks to have something for everyone - from the right AND left, and everyone in-between. This morning, we get to revisit the discussion of State vs. states. I'm sure everyone is thrilled ...
Amazingly clueless for someone who otherwise seems intelligent … you see, "states" (as in the United States - not United State) are 50 different governments, which are indeed combined at the Federal level. But below that, the states all elect their separate governors, and Senates and Houses are filled with elected officials from those states, which combine to enact the laws in each of their separate states, and enact fiscal and social policy in those states. Those states have different laws, and different priorities. Let's say Nebraska focuses on agricultural priorities, Michigan focuses on manufacturing, Maine focuses on fishing/forestry, and New York focuses on finance. They enact their own budgets and raise their own taxes to fund their priorities. Makes sense, right?
Even when citizens of these states vote, most of the people they vote for are not working in Washington DC. Maybe you skip the local elections, that's your right. But they still happen, and they still matter. Because that's how the states all choose their Reps and Senators who serve them in the Federal government. And as far as the President goes, <s>he</s> that person is elected by the Electoral College - which in turn consists of electors appointed by the states (not State). Hardly an "anachronism" it's how things have worked - according to the Constitution - for about 230 or so years now.
Taking this down to the level of planning for ventilators … the question is not whether states planned for them - they all did - but whether they planned sufficiently for them. Sadly, in the case of NY, they did not. So the Federal government backstops for the state's (or states') poor budget planning decisions. That does not absolve the states who made those budgeting decisions. We'll debate 'til the cows come home who should have done what, but for NY to blame the Feds for NY getting caught low is kinda rich.
Fair point, TUPD. That's an issue that's going to be the subject of increasing discussion and debate over the coming weeks, and it's a discussion we were starting to have several weeks ago on the predecessor thread in the D-1 Forum, which is why I continued a Part Two thread. That discussion has gone kind of dormant lately with other more pressing issues, and with some decisions that have since been undertaken. But that discussion is creeping back up, and I think Tucker Carlson did a nice job explaining it last night - basically, does it make sense to let medical people make economic policy?
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6146994296001#sp=show-clips
Draw your own conclusions … but the question of whether the "cure" is going to be worse than the condition itself at some point is inevitably (and appropriately) going to come up again, likely later this month.
Who are you really, and what have you done to Darius?!?
Now on to the Maine v. Maine debate which broke out while I was away …
I know, it must be painful to come on here and get your lunch handed to you on a daily basis. So, big deal, I guess when YOU intentionally omit (or are too ____ to notice) THE key qualifier to my previous post about obligations of the Federal government, it's poor form for me to call you out for your treachery, old sport. Well, tally ho and all that rot, dental hygiene is overrated, and God Save the Queen, but you and your pal Neville Chamberlain both had it coming for your "just because" naivete. Luckily for Jolly Old England, your _____ only reflects upon you. Unfortunately, I don't see Winston Churchill coming to clean up after you.
But please do stay tuned, old chap … I'll be back with my long-promised guest later this weekend, and (among other things) he'll be weighing in on the near-term future of the British Royal Family, the 2020 Presidential election, and on climate change.
Still obsessed I see.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Agree 100%. A necessary evil to an extent, but ours are way too big, and way too inefficient.
Agree 100%. A necessary evil to an extent, but ours are way too big, and way too inefficient.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Lol. Most posters don’t go to your extremes of having to refute anything, I mean anything, posted that doesn’t conform to your views. Your excessive use of quotes and then the personal attacks of “stupid “, etc. because you don’t agree is a red flag of ego issues. Just like your hero.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
We are the United States - plural, States - of America.
We are NOT the United State (singular) of America, or the Federal State (singular) of America.
I know this cuts against the Left's statist fantasies, but the spelling does count. Sorry.
No no
Ben Gates explained this in national treasure 2
We stopped saying the United States are, and changed to the United States is
- Status