Coronavirus

Mr. Deez said:
At least by their rhetoric, one thing would have been different. They would have let thousands of infected Chinese people fly into the US and cough on people - and for entirely politically correct ******** reasons. Don't ever let them forget that. They're actively trying to rewrite history. Bring it up every time they say anybody was too slow.

On a similar note, one particularly sanctimonious slogan I keep hearing from the more radical and shrill globalists is that the "virus knows no borders." Do they know how dumb that sounds?

So if we restrict our border to China, would the virus have gotten sneezed out by someone in China, swum across the Pacific, and infected people on West Coast beaches? It can't survive in sunlight, but it can swim. A far more accurate statement would be that the "virus doesn't know borders that are open."
Click to expand...

You are correct that the left would’ve kept Chinese travel open longer; that doing so would’ve infected more people here; and that their reasons were the worst kind of political correctness.

And sure — a truly sealed border would stop the spread altogether. Unfortunately, a truly sealed border is unrealistic, and a partly sealed border does little. Not nothing, but little.

In this case, Trump did slow travel from China, but he did not stop it. Plus, travel from Europe and elsewhere continued, and our worst cases came from there. This shows how easy it is for viruses to travel the world. It is 99.9% true to say that “viruses know no borders”. Adding “that are open” might make it 100% true, but mostly it’s just misleading.

As I’ve said before, my issue with Trump’s response to the virus was not his decision to restrict Chinese travel. My issue was his initial resistance to social distancing. Ultimately, the only way to slow a virus down is social distancing. Restricting travel is a bandaid. Useful, but not nearly sufficient.

Note that I’m not saying we should have imposed radical social distancing immediately. If anything, starting earlier could have prevented the need for more stringent measures later.
 
EXQcpWNXQAEeXqJ
 
You can armchair this till the cows come home, but frankly Trump has done a better job then any President I can imagine that came before him. The main reasons are he is very action oriented,wants to be thought of the greatest president ever and he isn't a ***** to any lobbyist.
 
NJlonghorn said:
You are correct that the left would’ve kept Chinese travel open longer; that doing so would’ve infected more people here; and that their reasons were the worst kind of political correctness.

And sure — a truly sealed border would stop the spread altogether. Unfortunately, a truly sealed border is unrealistic, and a partly sealed border does little. Not nothing, but little.

In this case, Trump did slow travel from China, but he did not stop it. Plus, travel from Europe and elsewhere continued, and our worst cases came from there. This shows how easy it is for viruses to travel the world. It is 99.9% true to say that “viruses know no borders”. Adding “that are open” might make it 100% true, but mostly it’s just misleading.

As I’ve said before, my issue with Trump’s response to the virus was not his decision to restrict Chinese travel. My issue was his initial resistance to social distancing. Ultimately, the only way to slow a virus down is social distancing. Restricting travel is a bandaid. Useful, but not nearly sufficient.

Note that I’m not saying we should have imposed radical social distancing immediately. If anything, starting earlier could have prevented the need for more stringent measures later.
Click to expand...
What amazes me is people that let the federal government think for them, and then criticize the government after the fact.
 
NJlonghorn said:
You are correct that the left would’ve kept Chinese travel open longer; that doing so would’ve infected more people here; and that their reasons were the worst kind of political correctness.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not sure that they wouldn't have shut it down. It's just too obvious of a measure when politics are removed from the situation. I think the criticisms at the time were entirely political, not a good faith disagreement.

NJlonghorn said:
n this case, Trump did slow travel from China, but he did not stop it.
Click to expand...

He stopped what he realistically could stop. Obviously, we can't bar US citizens and legal residents of the United States from returning. Democrats wanting to rewrite history are raising that criticism, but it's weak coming from them.

And can you imagine the fit they would have thrown if he had? Good chance a disproportionate share of US citizens and green card holders visiting China are ethnically Chinese. They would have analogized it with the internment of Japanese-Americans.

NJlonghorn said:
Plus, travel from Europe and elsewhere continued, and our worst cases came from there.
Click to expand...

We eventually did restrict travel from Europe, and predictably, they threw a fit about it.

NJlonghorn said:
It is 99.9% true to say that “viruses know no borders”. Adding “that are open” might make it 100% true, but mostly it’s just misleading.
Click to expand...

I think you're exaggerating a bit. Doing something substantial but not absolute (because it would likely be unconstitutional) is a lot better than doing nothing.

NJlonghorn said:
As I’ve said before, my issue with Trump’s response to the virus was not his decision to restrict Chinese travel. My issue was his initial resistance to social distancing. Ultimately, the only way to slow a virus down is social distancing. Restricting travel is a bandaid. Useful, but not nearly sufficient.

Note that I’m not saying we should have imposed radical social distancing immediately. If anything, starting earlier could have prevented the need for more stringent measures later.
Click to expand...

There is room to criticize Trump's early handling of this. I've done it some, and it's fair game. What isn't fair game is rewriting history or making a criticism that he didn't go far enough with something when the critic was saying to do nothing. The same goes for the social distancing. I can't take a critic seriously if he or she criticizes Trump for not advocating social distancing early enough when that same critic was saying to go party in Chinatown and to keep riding the NYC subways.

As is so often the case, the problem isn't a lack of basis to criticize Trump. It's the lack of credibility and abundance of bad faith, hyperbole, and dishonesty coming from the critics.

And to be fair not all Democrats got this wrong. Sen. Chris Murphy (as well as Republican Sen. Tom Cotton) were on the ball with this pretty early on and earlier than Trump was. However, they were largely on their own.
 
I am not advocating for completely sealed borders.

BUT, if the US was completely sealed, there would be NO need for social distancing. That is a fact. So let's quit acting like social distancing is some panacea. I mean we could lock each other in coffins 6 ft apart from one another, it solves the Corona virus, but it isn't a solution. But it is social distancing.
 
JF, John Fund has been at National Review for a few years now.

The Imperial College model foisted on us by Neil Ferguson is the biggest evil that has come out of the pandemic, other than the virus itself. Ferguson should be shunned and required to change careers based on how wrong he has been on everything really. This isn't his first miss through modeling.
 
Austin_Bill said:
If I were a judge, I'd put that kid in jail for 6 months to a year. I would push for no parole and I would make sure this follows him for the rest of his life.

I'm sick of this quarantine as everyone else is, but that **** is out of bounds. Hope he gets prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Click to expand...
You do realize that parole ONLY applies to felonies of the first, second or third degree. A term of six months to a year is misdemeanor sanction in Texas.

Further, a conviction in Texas DOES remain on the record. We don't remove them just because a few years have passed like some of the other States do...the only way something would be removed post-sanction is if there was a deferred adjudication that is successfully completed, since those are then dismissed. But those also were never a conviction.
 
If you already got your "stimulus check"
And you used it to buy baby chickens
Then you can legitimately say you got your money for nothing and your chicks for free
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
I wonder if, once it's all over (assuming it has an end), if all the rates are actually the same and the differences can be explained away via system coding or accounting differences?

Anyway, here is the "death rate %" for a handful of countries
UK: 15.08%.
France: 14.98%
Italy: 13.72%
Sweden: 12.19%
Canada: 6.46%
US: 5.84%​
click once to enlarge
EXR46qBWsAEYbdp.png
source The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic 2019-20 | Statista
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top