Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

Well at this point we know that a lot of the testing is flawed, for example detecting dead virus as active which had fueled the "infection does not confer immunity" rumors. And I say "rumors" referring to spoutings by medical authorities, who have been cynically wrong in their pronouncements over and over again. Even respected medical journal publishing is viewed with suspicion now that it appears political bias has invaded them and much of what has been published was not properly peer-reviewed as in the past.

Phone apps appear to be of dubious merit all around, ignoring possible tinfoil-hat privacy issues. Testing without isolation (quarantine incarceration?) obviously does little. And we have lots of evidence that lockdowns are ineffective and have dangerous economic effects: Sweden's "light touch" approach for one, New York's findings that 66% of hospitalizations came from those observing lockdowns in a serious study of 1000 cases from 100 hospitals for another.

It all fuels suspicions of some other agenda or incompetent panicked over-reaction. And it seems irrefutable that the only way out is for nearly everyone to become infected, the so-called "long game" nobody wants to face because of its obvious consequence that we could lose many people to the virus.

Some will tout South Korea, but it is already starting to fall apart in its second wave upon re-opening because it had bet the farm on lockdowns and tracking/tracing phone apps.

The lockdown approach may be worse than any alternative. Then pile on the economic impacts and you have to ask hard questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

And I say "rumors" referring to spoutings by medical authorities, who have been cynically wrong in their pronouncements over and over again. Even respected medical journal publishing is viewed with suspicion now that it appears political bias has invaded them and much of what has been published was not properly peer-reviewed as in the past.

---

I disagree with all of that. I don't feel they have been cynically wrong. The news wants people to state the facts, but when nobody knows, it's all just opinion backed by very little. Therefore, they are likely to be wrong, and probably would say so if reporters let them, but cynical? I wouldn't say so.

As for not peer reviewing papers, that's certainly true, but it's also terribly misleading. What's been happening is that pre-review papers have been getting posted. The vast majority of them go on to be peer reviewed and published, but that can take six months, or more. We haven't had the virus around for that long, so if we were going through that lengthy process, the first papers about it, those written back in December or earlier, would only be hitting the journals now. We know SO much more than that, despite not knowing so much. Due to the pace of things, the standard process has been expedited. In general, though, that system is working.

Quote:

---

Phone apps appear to be of dubious merit all around, ignoring possible tinfoil-hat privacy issues. Testing without isolation (quarantine incarceration?) obviously does little. And we have lots of evidence that lockdowns are ineffective and have dangerous economic effects: Sweden's "light touch" approach for one, New York's findings that 66% of hospitalizations came from those observing lockdowns in a serious study of 1000 cases from 100 hospitals for another.

It all fuels suspicions of some other agenda or incompetent panicked over-reaction. And it seems irrefutable that the only way out is for nearly everyone to become infected, the so-called "long game" nobody wants to face because of its obvious consequence that we could lose many people to the virus.

Some will tout South Korea, but it is already starting to fall apart in its second wave upon re-opening because it had bet the farm on lockdowns and tracking/tracing phone apps.

The lockdown approach may be worse than any alternative. Then pile on the economic impacts and you have to ask hard questions.

---

That all seems overly negative. For one thing, what's the alternative to lockdowns? We never really locked down, as you could still go to pretty much any store you wanted to. You couldn't get a sit-down meal, and you couldn't get a haircut, but you could get most things. So, what's the alternative? Ignore it? Real lockdown? Group orgy? Something else?

The only alternative I can imagine is a middle ground. Maybe one where more people didn't lose their jobs, but obviously precautions would still be necessary to help slow the spread. The reason to slow the spread would be to prevent overburdening health care so as effective health care as possible might remain available to those with serious symptoms.

All of it is highly variable though depending on population density, average population age, and so on. For example some populations seem to be more genetically prone to serious impacts and low income populations may have dietary issues and/or close-packed living conditions.

But one thing is true for all: until almost everyone has been infected it won't be over. For those not suffering economically it is easy to sniff, while gobbling designer ice cream and hummingbird liver paté. Not so much though for who have lost their jobs and small businesses.

Don't want to just pile on Dil but I guess I am.

Quote:

---

New York's findings that 66% of hospitalizations came from those observing lockdowns in a serious study of 1000 cases from 100 hospitals for another.

---

If you remember, this was a study that was done after the NY spike, while new cases were going down. It still was a worrying report.

Quote:

---

Some will tout South Korea, but it is already starting to fall apart in its second wave upon re-opening because it had bet the farm on lockdowns and tracking/tracing phone apps.

---

I've heard these kind of statements but see no evidence,

Attachment 177387

But I don't don't see a Second Wave. As restrictions have been eased there has been a slight increase in new cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

The only alternative I can imagine is a middle ground. Maybe one where more people didn't lose their jobs, but obviously precautions would still be necessary to help slow the spread. The reason to slow the spread would be to prevent overburdening health care so as effective health care as possible might remain available to those with serious symptoms.

All of it is highly variable though depending on population density, average population age, and so on. For example some populations seem to be more genetically prone to serious impacts and low income populations may have dietary issues and/or close-packed living conditions.

But one thing is true for all: until almost everyone has been infected it won't be over. For those not suffering economically it is easy to sniff, while gobbling designer ice cream and hummingbird liver paté. Not so much though for who have lost their jobs and small businesses.

---

Some countries just covered the pay for people who were unable to go to work. That would cover a whole lot, but gig workers would take it in the shorts.

Yes, France did that.
Covered up to 84% of the net salary (that's called partial activity or partial unemployment, it is normally the company who pays but in this case, the government will refund the companies and extended that to small companies and self-employment/freelance). And if you were at risk (diabetic, asthmatic, high blood pressure) or have children to keep, they allowed you to take sick days up to 21 (with full pay). If you are really sick, it is of course not limited.

But, at some point, we will have to "pay back" in a way or an other .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delaney

Yes, France did that.
Covered up to 84% of the net salary (that's called partial activity or partial unemployment, it is normally the company who pays but in this case, the government will refund the companies and extended that to small companies and self-employment/freelance). And if you were at risk (diabetic, asthmatic, high blood pressure) or have children to keep, they allowed you to take sick days up to 21 (with full pay). If you are really sick, it is of course not limited.

But, at some point, we will have to "pay back" in a way or an other .

---

That's interesting. Are most people there happy with this method and how it's being handled??? It always amazes me how governments can just reach into their pockets and pull out what ever amount of money they decided they need. And your right, one way or the other, we will have to pay back.

Quote:

---

Are most people there happy with this method and how it's being handled???

---

That's what we did in the UK and, yes, we're pretty happy with it. It hasn't been perfect and some people have been missed (including me) but, on the whole, it's allowed us to keep our economy running in the short term. The scheme is planned to end in October and it sounds like the government are going to require companies to share some of the burden before then.

But, you're right to raise this point:-

Quote:

---

It always amazes me how governments can just reach into their pockets and pull out what ever amount of money they decided they need.

---

It goes on the national debt. In the UK we're fortunate enough to have a very strong credit rating so this is an option. I suspect it wouldn't be for a lot of other countries (probably would be for the US though). In essence it's that same as when we bailed the banks out - short term borrowing to prevent economic collapse.

Of course we do have to pay that debt back and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out over the next 10 years. It's going to be the same arguments of Austerity vs Stimulus as followed the banking crises. Following that we pursued austerity and I do think that was probably the right decision if you look at it purely through the lens of the economy. Something that the virus has starkly laid bare is the costs of those cuts. We've faired worse than the rest of the world except the US (so yay for the special relationship) and I'm pretty sure a lot of that can be laid at the door of cuts to the NHS and supporting infrastructure. We were simply unable to respond to this crisis as well as the rest of the world.

You can pay it back, or expand the economy to make it smaller relative to GDP. Naturally, people would prefer the latter, as the former means higher taxes and/or reduced spending, neither of which are very popular with people. However, you CAN make those two happen, whereas growing the economy is never a certain thing.

Those observing lockdowns might be looking for entertainment, having exhausted video collections and the more obvious streaming choices. Here's one you may have missed.

Brief one-season TV show. Eerie, perhaps a bit sad. Maybe enough to be compared to the world of 2011's Melancholia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6rbK3H-BOU


If you prefer a bit of action there is always the relatively unknown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUBowkexpkE


And no, I'm not stalking Jodie Foster. ;) Though her portrayal of "Nurse" in Hotel Artemis does remind me more than a little of my ex.

Hotel Artimus felt like an attempt at cashing in on John Wick popularity with out having to pay John Wick.

-tg

I've seen reviewers place it as part of that universe, so that might be a fair comparison. I watched it for free without having viewed the trailer so I got my money's worth. Trailers often give away a lot though, exposing the high spots and spoiling the film.

I wouldn't class it as a big movie. Quite the contrary. Fairly small story.

FD, SH,

My bigger concern is about the states. I don't see any other choices other than taxes or cut services. Also, they can't have a debt (I don't know alot about this but that's what I've been hearing) so this is gonna have to be a quick fix for a very complicated problem.

Probably wont have much of an affect on me because age/retired. But I worry for my children/grand/great grand kids. Also the people on the fringes that need help with food and housing, mental health, the disabled, the infirmed .

The moron in chief strikes again:

President Trump has announced that he is immediately halting the decades-long U.S. membership in the World Health Organization over its response to China's handling of the corona virus epidemic.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ority-to-do-it

Despite the rest of the world imploring for help:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...190431765.html

I hope this orange stain on the world doesn't get another four years to hurt us like this over and over again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjSxXpoWoTI

Quote:

---

My bigger concern is about the states

---

Is covering peoples salaries something that would sit with the individual states? I'd have expected it to be a federal thing as it's basically part of a crisis response.

Quote:

---

this is gonna have to be a quick fix for a very complicated problem.

---

I agree, but I do think we needed to apply the fix. The alternative was to just let the economy collapse.

Quote:

---

I'm not stalking Jodie Foster.

---

I've had a crush on Jodie Foster the 90s but she's made it pretty clear that I'm not her type:(.

Quote:

---

I've had a crush on Jodie Foster the 90s but she's made it pretty clear that I'm not her type.

---

That's a diplomatic way of saying that ;)

I only brought it up because of the odd coincidence of Jodie Foster's involvement in both projects above. As far as I can recall she didn't actually appear in any episode of Tales From The Loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Is covering peoples salaries something that would sit with the individual states? I'd have expected it to be a federal thing as it's basically part of a crisis response.

---

The answer to that is....yessss....ish...

In the US, there is unemployment insurance. This is paid into by the employer, and provides some cushion for workers who get laid off. There are several holes in that net (technically, if there are no holes, it isn't a net, it's a tarp, but still...). For one thing, the states are free to set unemployment amounts and eligibility rules largely as they choose. Some states, especially southern states, pay very little. Most states have some requirement about looking for work, but that can mean different things in different places. There's also some flexibility in how long the benefits last.

Then Congress added further funding and altered eligibility and requirements in the bailout. So, they've put their oar in, as well, and everybody is stirring the stew. In my state, the office handling unemployment pretty much went into full on meltdown due to the number of claims at a time when people weren't thrilled with showing up at the office (many offices were closed, though I'm not sure how that agency was impacted). The governor has said repeatedly that the response amounted to a disgraceful failure, but there's not much he can really do. They were set up to handle N cases per month, and got 100N, or something like that. They couldn't cope, and probably knew that ahead of time. They were staffed for normal times and mile emergencies, not for what hit them. Still, that means that a whole lot of people were pretty much on hold for a month or two.

So, it's state by state in implementation, response, staffing, and everything else.

Also, I did mention the bit about the employers paying into the unemployment insurance system. What happens to gig workers, who are not considered employees? What happens to the self employed? Traditionally: Nothing happens for them. In this case, I believe it was in the bailout that they would get covered, which meant that they got put in the interminable queue along with everybody else, further overloading a system that couldn't handle the case load. The system was there, it was state by state...and federal, and in no way was it designed to handle the situation that arose.

[Wuhan notified the results of concentrated nucleic acid testing: more than 9.89 million people were detected, no confirmed cases]

From 0:00 on May 14 to 24:00 on June 1, Wuhan City tested 9899828 people and found no confirmed cases. 300 asymptomatic infections were detected, and the detection rate was 0.303/10,000.

In addition, 1174 close contacts were tracked. Their nucleic acid test results were negative. The cost of centralized testing is borne by the government, and the cost is reduced through centralized procurement. The total expenditure is about 900 million yuan (RMB).

https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_7668909

Thanks to Shaggy for the explanation. I think I understand better now. The fundamental difference between your approach and ours, I feel, is that ours is divorced from unemployment where as you've tried to utilise your unemployment support systems to cover this gap. The problem with that is that it requires people to become unemployed before the support is injected. Our approach is intended to help people remain employed which seems a much better approach to me. Not saying our system is perfect though.

Yes, that's one of the problems. Another is figuring out who was 'employed' to begin with. With loads of gig workers, and their employers fighting acknowledging them as employees, there are plenty of cracks to slip through.

Of course, the problem with taking over wage payments, as some European countries are doing, is what happens if the job never does come back?

No solution is perfect. The US approach is really good for some, highly deficient to others, and bizarre to a few of us. However, they acted quickly, even if the results didn't necessarily land quickly. Seeing Congress move quickly was a bit of a revelation in itself.

Quote:

---

Another is figuring out who was 'employed' to begin with

---

What we did was allow the self employed to submit three years of tax returns and get 80% of that

I think we ended up doing something like that. It was in the stimulus bill from Congress. Whether states had the leeway to alter the rules, or set the rules, or anything else, I'm not sure. The clear intention was that folks that fell through the standard unemployment insurance cracks would get covered in some fashion, but I didn't dig into the details of it.

During one of the recent protests around the White House Trump was taken down to the security bunker along with his wife and son. According to news reports he didn't like the appearance of that as it was reported in the media. That is also supposedly why he had the police bust up a peaceful protest a the White House to have a photo op in front of that church. He was just speaking on Faux news and he said he only went down there to inspect it. Of course the lying moron is lying, but, Faux news didn't ask "why did you take your wife and son on the inspection?" :rolleyes:

Was going to make some comment about the UK leading in Deaths/1M pop (except for Belgium) at 585. BUT then I noticed that New York is 1,551. So that shut me up.

Quote:

---

why did you take your wife and son on the inspection?

---

And a bible? Which you didn't even open, let alone read.

Quote:

---

Was going to make some comment about the UK leading in Deaths/1M pop (except for Belgium) at 585. BUT then I noticed that New York is 1,551. So that shut me up.

---

It's not a race either of us want to win. Things are tailing off but they're still at frightening levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

And a bible? Which you didn't even open, let alone read.

---

That was for the photo op at the church, not the visit to the safe room I doubt he took a bible down there, after all, his name isn't in most of them...Though he may have had his own created so he could get top billing. After all, when asked whether the bible he was holding was HIS bible, he replied that it was A bible.

Quote:

---

It's not a race either of us want to win. Things are tailing off but they're still at frightening levels.

---

Take your victories where you can, they aren't so common these days.

Definitely not a race. My thoughts were more about the situation not making sense. How could our two countries handle this situation so badly. Was it arrogance, lack of leadership, I don't know. Thought we were world leaders. Well, I guess we are but not in a good way.

Quote:

---

That was for the photo op at the church, not the visit to the safe room

---

My mistake. I misread Tyson's post. I don't feel it changes the narrative though.

Quote:

---

Was it arrogance, lack of leadership

---

I think both of those. A sense of exceptionalism has definitely played a part both sides of the pond.

I'm watching media coverage of people coming out and cleaning up rioting damage. Just us everyday folks coming out and cleaning up the moron's around us mess. It brings tears to my eyes...

Antifa and a radical seventy-five year old provocateur faking his injury almost got away with their fraud. Luckily we have a president that is not fooled by the fake press

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...antifa-police/

Yeah, if you watch the footage you can see him bleeding heavily from the head. You've got to admire his commitment to the bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Yeah, if you watch the footage you can see him bleeding heavily from the head. You've got to admire his commitment to the bit.

---

I believe it's called "method acting."

-tg

To be fair, Trump is built like a padded weeble, so he may not believe that falling down is possible, let alone harmful.

How Bill Gates monopolized global health
[ ENGLISH ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5k4khfUk8Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG91_HY5qew

Google Translate:

【#Research shows that only 0.08% of the new coronavirus from the UK is imported from China and the impact is insignificant#】
Recently, the University of Oxford, the University of Edinburgh and Cog-UK, a joint academic research organization, jointly released a report saying that through the gene sequencing of viruses carried by more than 20,000 new crown infections in the United Kingdom, at least 1356 independent new crown viruses were found to spread. Chain. After tracing these transmission chains, it was found that more than one-third (34%) of the original sources were from Spain, 29% from France, 14% from Italy, and only 0.08% from China, which had negligible impact. The report said that early cases imported from China and other parts of Asia accounted for only a “minimal” portion of all cases imported from outside the UK.

I haven't found the source of this research report, and I cannot confirm whether the above report is true.

Edit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52993734
https://www.soundhealthandlastingwea...ate-occasions/

Well, it makes sense, really. A virus is most likely to spread from the place you get most visitors from. GB should get the most visits from Europe, so you would expect the bulk of the infections would come from there.

Back in the 90s, the level of genetics ability was such that we could tell a dog from a fox, but not a dog from a wolf, let alone a poodle from a pug. Now, we have reached a point where we can track individual mutations within a strain of virus.

I'm thinking, why did the virus not spread from GB to Spain, but from Spain to GB?

These are like reflections in a ripple tank. Pretty much just as expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreammanor

I'm thinking, why did the virus not spread from GB to Spain, but from Spain to GB?

---

I may be misremembering, and I'm not about to go look it up, but didn't Spain rise before GB?

Yes, it rose before GB. It was first Italy, then Spain , then France and all other Eu countries after that

So is this just "right wing crazy" or is there perhaps something to it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5BGHuK1zo

He seems to be dancing around the point: The death rate is still one per person.

It pretty much sounds like he's saying that if you're going to die eventually, why complain if it is from this thing or that thing, or if it is today or tomorrow. There's a point there, but I don't think very many people jump off a cliff because if they don't, they might end up getting cancer next year, or die of a heart attack the year after that. Eventually, though, a fair number of people DO come to that conclusion, usually once they have a fatal diagnosis that they believe in. That was pretty much the plot of Gran Torino. Once Eastwood's character accepted that his death was pretty near, he opted to die in a way that he felt would do some good. He was basically choosing now for this reason vs tomorrow for no reason.

On the other hand, I think we may get to find whether or not the underlying point is correct. With cases rising in states that won't be able to lock down, again, we may find out what happens when the number of cases exceeds the capacity of the facilities. We got right to the edge of that in NYC, but now....we may see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I may be misremembering, and I'm not about to go look it up, but didn't Spain rise before GB?

---

I mean, there were more personnel exchanges between GB and China. Why wasn't it the first outbreak in GB? In other words, why weren't outbreak happening in Europe at the same time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreammanor

I mean, there were more personnel exchanges between GB and China. Why wasn't it the first outbreak in GB? In other words, why weren't outbreak happening in Europe at the same time?

---

You believe there were more personnel exchanges between two countries on opposite sides of the globe than between two countries that can almost see each other (had it been France, then they COULD see each other).

Also, what do you mean when you ask why weren't outbreaks happening in Europe at the same time? At the same time as what? Spain IS in Europe, Italy got going before Spain, and they are also part of Europe. In fact, I think that Italy was the first large scale outbreak outside of China that got reported (Iran may have been even earlier, but they weren't reporting). It all seems pretty reasonable, to me, based on what we know. Some super spreader brought the virus from China to Italy, Italy had a major outbreak in the richer north. That made it less likely to be contained, and it duly spread to other parts of Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Also, what do you mean when you ask why weren't outbreaks happening in Europe at the same time? At the same time as what?

---

IMO, the United States and European countries did not take protective measures in the early stage of the outbreak, and their outbreak time and probability should be equal or similar.

If scientists are also superstitious about "super communicators", then they will never find the answer. Scientists' judgment on the new coronavirus is often inconsistent, so that they cannot provide a reliable solution for the government. IMO, there are several reasons for this:
(1) They did not know the true origin of the virus
(2) They did not know when the virus was originally generated
(3) They did not know the exact transmission path of the virus

The cause of the serious epidemic in Italy is the same as that in Wuhan, where rumours and panic caused the collapse of medical resources, which led to a large number of infections to nurses and doctors, and then they further infected a large number of people who came to the hospital for examination.

Quote:

---

IMO, the United States and European countries did not take protective measures in the early stage of the outbreak, and their outbreak time and probability should be equal or similar.

---

Quote:

---

(1) They did not know the true origin of the virus
(2) They did not know when the virus was originally generated
(3) They did not know the exact transmission path of the virus

---

No thats just not right, there has been a lot of genetic mapping work done by Scientist now where they can trace the mutation patterns and they show that in the UK for instance most transmission cases came from Spain, then Italy then France (we did also have some from other places including China but we have a lot more travel with Spain and Italy and France)

Italy just happened to have travellers who had been to China and where infected first, then there is a lot more Internal EU travel than EU > China travel so once the virus was inside the EU it was spread by EU citizens travelling around from one EU country to another.

I thought of another thing: GB did not participate in the World Military Games held in Wuhan, China in October 2019.

Interesting observations on high fructose, vitamin D, and oxidative stress in COVID-19:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zfWkvbBaw

So avoid high fructose, exercise, and eat your onions and garlic along with vitamin D and zinc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreammanor

IMO, the United States and European countries did not take protective measures in the early stage of the outbreak, and their outbreak time and probability should be equal or similar.

---

They certainly did NOT take protective measures early. They also didn't test all that early. NYC has shown that the first cases occurred a bit earlier than the first cases were reported. For an event that moved fast over the course of a couple months, a few weeks one way or the other is highly significant. Still, there is not reason to think that the outbreak time and probability would be equal, though similar is a question of splitting hairs: Yeah, so what?

Quote:

---

If scientists are also superstitious about "super communicators", then they will never find the answer. Scientists' judgment on the new coronavirus is often inconsistent, so that they cannot provide a reliable solution for the government.

---

Superstitious is probably a bad choice of words. For a new virus, the rate of increase in knowledge about how it spreads is impressive. A few incorrect conclusions are likely, and that will make inconsistency. Would you rather they say nothing at all until they are absolutely certain that they have all the answers? If so, even with this pace, they won't be saying anything for a couple more years, yet. Since that's not acceptable, they say what they are seeing. Some of that will prove to be wrong, but people insist on them speaking prematurely, so it is certainly unkind of you to pillory them for getting some things wrong. The whole thing about super spreaders has only appeared in the last few weeks. It shouldn't be a surprise, as this has been seem plenty of times in the past with other diseases, but to call it a superstition? That seems like a rash and unusually harsh judgement. Do you have evidence that super spreaders don't exist?

Quote:

---

IMO, there are several reasons for this:
(1) They did not know the true origin of the virus
(2) They did not know when the virus was originally generated
(3) They did not know the exact transmission path of the virus

---

I don't see why point #1 is relevant to anybody other than politicians wanting to place/dodge blame.
Point #2 appears to have no greater utility, except that it could be useful for help with #3.
Point #3 is something that has been changing over time. At first, since nobody knew anything at all, people were scrubbing vegetables, not touching toilets, and burning cell towers. As greater and greater understanding of the transmission path is coming out, responses will become increasingly focused. The problem is, that what has emerged is this super spreader idea, which you are dismissing as superstition. So, as point #3 gets answered, will you accept the answer?

The Food and Drug Administration has revoked its emergency use authorization for the drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for the treatment of Covid-19.

Hydroxychloroquine was frequently touted by President Donald Trump, and he has claimed to have used it himself.
After reviewing the current research available on the drugs, the FDA determined that the drugs do not meet "the statutory criteria" for emergency use authorization as they are unlikely to be effective in treating Covid-19 based on the latest scientific evidence, the agency noted on its website on Monday.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/polit...rus/index.html

Not long ago the moron in chief sent two million doses to Brazil.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2370RU

What are friends for :rolleyes:

He and Balsanaro are birds of a feather.

Yeah, who can hold their water awaiting President "You ain't black, shoot 'em in the leg" Biden? With his VP Harris, together they'll make sure there is plenty of prison, illegal immigrant, and offshore labor. What a great time to bow to the elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Yeah, who can hold their water awaiting President "You ain't black, shoot 'em in the leg" Biden? With his VP Harris, together they'll make sure there is plenty of prison, illegal immigrant, and offshore labor. What a great time to bow to the elite.

---

Do you realize your arguments to support Trump always devolve into name calling blurbs like this one or those ridiculous videos you find under rocks? It is because their is no thoughtful intelligent way to defend someone as unfit to be president as Trump.

Pots and kettles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Pots and kettles.

---

If the shoe fits :p

If the cliche is simple?