Debates
31 Oct 20
31 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidActually it is.
My post isn't based on that as you well know. So why lie and claim it is?
31 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidSo you know that the chance of death is very small but choose to act like it is high.
You're dishonest as well as ridiculous.
I'm perfectly aware of the estimated Infection Fatality Rate of COVID19 and have discussed it on this Form many times. You are perfectly aware of this.
31 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidWhy? Most of them would die soon anyhow and they could make decisions for themselves.
It's an irrelevant point.
I don't regard the possibility of almost a million people unnecessarily dying in this country as trivial. You do.
Are you in favor of making all things illegal if it results in people endangering their lives?
31 Oct 20
@eladar saidNo, they won't "die soon anyhow" as the mortality stats I've given show.
Why? Most of them would die soon anyhow and they could make decisions for themselves.
Are you in favor of making all things illegal if it results in people endangering their lives?
This is a contagious disease; one electing to expose themselves is endangering others, so it is not a "personal freedom" issue. You have no right to endanger others. And yes we make things illegal that endangers others all the time and should.
We also require restrictions on actual freedoms IF they are necessary to reduce deaths and injuries to others. Traffic lights and speed limits would be obvious examples.
31 Oct 20
@eladar saidOr ........ How different you are...hmmm ?
@Duchess64
Thanks for demonstrating once again how different you are.
01 Nov 20
@eladar saidYou mean give ME liberty or give YOU death.
You mean that people made a choice and had freedom?
Give me liberty or give me death?
I suppose those words mean nothing to some.
And it's not even 'liberty' you want. You already have that.
01 Nov 20
@deepthought saidHave you not heard of the 'drive-in' rallies for Biden across the US?
Have the Democrats not held rallies? I don't know, I pay partial attention to British politics most of the time never mind US politics. However, assuming they have and, because mask wearing behaviour is a politicised thing in the US one might expect the Democrat attendees to be compliant in this matter, it would be interesting to see a comparison with Democrat rallies. ...[text shortened]... the advice of experts who are right might be regarded as an indication of unsuitability for office.
01 Nov 20
@no1marauder saidThanks. Although this is not quite what I mean by official channels. Like some sort of formal notification of the risks. Rather than, well the data's there why aren't you using it.
Of course, Trump has been warned against holding mass rallies:
"Some 10,000 people are expected to attend a Trump campaign rally at an airport hangar in Des Moines, Iowa, Wednesday night. "Do you consider that type of event dangerous?" O'Donnell asked.
Fauci said his general advice should answer that question: "When people are close to each other, and you don't have ...[text shortened]...
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mocks-fox-news-host-laura-ingraham-face-mask-rally-2020-10
01 Nov 20
@deepthought saidFauci is head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases which " is one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Allergy_and_Infectious_Diseases
Thanks. Although this is not quite what I mean by official channels. Like some sort of formal notification of the risks. Rather than, well the data's there why aren't you using it.
His statements are in his official capacity so I'm not exactly sure why they don't meet your criteria of "formal notification of the risks"; in any event, Trump is head of the Executive Department and feels free to ignore any directives from agencies within it.
No public statements from the CDC criticizing Trump's reckless activities are presently possible:
"The health department’s politically appointed communications aides have demanded the right to review and seek changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly scientific reports charting the progress of the coronavirus pandemic, in what officials characterized as an attempt to intimidate the reports’ authors and water down their communications to health professionals.
In some cases, emails from communications aides to CDC Director Robert Redfield and other senior officials openly complained that the agency’s reports would undermine President Donald Trump's optimistic messages about the outbreak, according to emails reviewed by POLITICO and three people familiar with the situation.
CDC officials have fought back against the most sweeping changes, but have increasingly agreed to allow the political officials to review the reports and, in a few cases, compromised on the wording, according to three people familiar with the exchanges. The communications aides’ efforts to change the language in the CDC’s reports have been constant across the summer and continued as recently as Friday afternoon."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809