Coronavirus

[Mikado463]

Uninflated beach ball. Just sayin'.

I like it ! and then inflate it !!

 

[KEW]

true, the mere gesture of him pointing to his head(as if he was some kind of genius) when giving his 'Lysol' talk just further proves your point.

Shifting gears and in all seriousness, if Biden does in fact get elected he's inheriting a mess and one that I don't see him capable of cleaning up. I know TLS thinks Trumpy has Pick's disease, well I for one think Joe has the beginning of dementia as well.

Biden seems to be doing well. He has had a reputation for sound bite gaffs since he was young, so don't use that as an indicator of decline.
However, Trump did a very dangerous thing. He has consistently dismantled the expertise in his advisers and committees and replaced them ... with loyalty as the primary qualification over experience. Within the "checks and balances" provided by our system, he is doing everything possible to get as close to being a dictator as he can and it is scary how far he has gotten.
That is not Biden's character. He is likely to have a tough time finding the level of experts that were in place before Trump, but he appreciates the concept of having knowledgeable advisers and will listen to them. I certainly prefer an intelligent and mentally capable president, but would far rather have an "out to lunch" president who takes advantage of his advisers.
I suspect that over the years, we have had a few presidents, who, by the end of their term were being "handled" by their advisers. While I don't think that is the ideal, I don't see it as outright dangerous the way having a grandiose narcissist for president is!

 

[Dan]

"I suspect that over the years, we have had a few presidents, who, by the end of their term were being "handled" by their advisers."

I a bit of a US history buff so a few come to mind some of which are generally well thought of no matter your bias. FDR certainly was declining especially after the 1944 election. He was not well by Yalta in early 1945. I'm not sure Yalta would have worked out any differently if he was healthier, by then they didn't have much leverage over Stalin.

Wilson was completely incapacitated by a stroke for more than a year before he left office. His wife was effectively president. This is the origin of the 25th amendment.

Eisenhower was slowing down as his presidency wore on. He lived nearly nine more years but he had carried heavy burdens for a long time. It may have been a desire to relax more than a true loss of mental function, I know of no evidence to suggest he was slowing mentally. It has been well shown however that Reagan was well into Alzheimer's disease by the time he left office and much less was heard from him the last couple of years he was in office. He was significantly slowed after being shot as well.

Assassinations created vacuums for both Garfield and McKinley lingered after being shot. McKinley for a week but Garfield 2 months both before dying.

Washington may also have been slowing down, he didn't live much beyond his second term but I haven't read anything to support this. Once the essential elements of the government were established, he was a fairly hands off president certainly by today's standards.

Any others?

 

[GO-NAD!]

There's Puerto Rican OAKs...
View attachment 35682
...and there's Puerto Rican AOC's:
View attachment 35683

Now as to which one I'd rather sit under for shade, hmmm...

I was guessing that he meant AOC, but I didn't want to assume.

 

[shadyJ]

"I suspect that over the years, we have had a few presidents, who, by the end of their term were being "handled" by their advisers."

I a bit of a US history buff so a few come to mind some of which are generally well thought of no matter your bias. FDR certainly was declining especially after the 1944 election. He was not well by Yalta in early 1945. I'm not sure Yalta would have worked out any differently if he was healthier, by then they didn't have much leverage over Stalin.

Wilson was completely incapacitated by a stroke for more than a year before he left office. His wife was effectively president. This is the origin of the 25th amendment.

Eisenhower was slowing down as his presidency wore on. He lived nearly nine more years but he had carried heavy burdens for a long time. It may have been a desire to relax more than a true loss of mental function, I know of no evidence to suggest he was slowing mentally. It has been well shown however that Reagan was well into Alzheimer's disease by the time he left office and much less was heard from him the last couple of years he was in office. He was significantly slowed after being shot as well.

Assassinations created vacuums for both Garfield and McKinley lingered after being shot. McKinley for a week but Garfield 2 months both before dying.

Washington may also have been slowing down, he didn't live much beyond his second term but I haven't read anything to support this. Once the essential elements of the government were established, he was a fairly hands off president certainly by today's standards.

Any others?

The Yalta conference is one of history's great comedic moments, at least from the vantage of the present (I'm sure it wasn't funny to the many millions who suffered due to Stalin's machinations at Yalta). Think of Churchill's frustrations at out-of-it FDR's concessions to a conniving Stalin. It would make for a great comedy, albeit a very dark comedy. I think Yalta would have ended very differently had FDR had his wits about him. He "held most of the cards" at that moment, politically speaking.

 

[ryanosaur]

Isn't AOC 30, now? she'd still be too young to serve as president in 2028/29, not until the following election in 2032.

I'm pulling for Corey Booker to make a strong run next time around. Possibly Kamala. Don't forget Gavin is likely to run soon, too.

Mind, I'd also be willing to consider a non-dem, as long as they aren't right-wing-nut crazy and do away with the social conservative religious BS.

 

[Mikado463]

Depending how NY State comes out of this mess in the end, it wouldn't surprise me to see Cuomo make a run in 2024 or 28

 

[JerryLove]

Who is OAC?

My typo. Sorry. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, U.S. Representative for New York's 14th congressional district. Though, of course, my actual support, or lack thereof, in 2028 (should she even run) depends on her history at that point, her platform, and her opponent.... but so far I've liked what I've seen.

 

[JerryLove]

Isn't AOC 30, now? she'd still be too young to serve as president in 2028/29, not until the following election in 2032.

I'm pulling for Corey Booker to make a strong run next time around. Possibly Kamala. Don't forget Gavin is likely to run soon, too.

I thought O'Rourke was pretty promising.

Fine. 2032.

It's agism that there's a minimum age but not a maximum

Mind, I'd also be willing to consider a non-dem, as long as they aren't right-wing-nut crazy and do away with the social conservative religious BS.

Speaking of candidates we like from the side we don't normally vote for: I remember long ago when Colin Powell was being pondered as a nominee. I really wanted that man to run. He would have gotten my vote at least.

 

[Kvn_Walker]

Mind, I'd also be willing to consider a non-dem, as long as they aren't right-wing-nut crazy and do away with the social conservative religious BS.

I was set to vote for McCain... until the first time I heard Sarah Palin speak.

 

[ryanosaur]

Speaking of candidates we like from the side we don't normally vote for: I remember long ago when Colin Powell was being pondered as a nominee. I really wanted that man to run. He would have gotten my vote at least.

Agreed. I think I would have considered Condi, too.

It's agism that there's a minimum age but not a maximum

It's true, to a certain extent. And possibly unfortunate. The PM of Finland is 34, after all. But at the point where four major candidates in the last two elections all faced concerns about their age and potential fitness to serve out their term(s), I do think it reasonable to consider a maximum age for candidacy as well: say 65 as an arbitrary number. Two terms would have them leaving office by 73. Perhaps older candidates be considered on the basis of public (not private) health evaluation, too.
Likewise, I think it reasonable to mandate public health exams for our leaders beyond the scope of the standard physical which may or may not be divulged, or trigger a separate mandate for removal from office due to health concerns that is separated from any partisan consideration. Any symptoms of the onset of a cognitive decline need to be known. Concerns about Reagan and Alzheimer's, or Trump and Pick's Disease resonate here.
*shrugs
Dunno, just spitballing on the theme here.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Remind when the last time it was that the annual flu killed 50000 Americans in 2 months? I'll be waiting.

Don't forget the known infection close to 1mil in that time span. That is 32% of known world infections with only a 5% of world population.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There's Puerto Rican OAKs...
View attachment 35682
...and there's Puerto Rican AOC's:


Now as to which one I'd rather sit under for shade, hmmm...

That is a nice oak tree Wonder if I can get those for yard.

 

[mtrycrafts]

ahhhh, but another perspective .........

And, they know more than Fauci...right.

 

[JerryLove]

And, they know more than Fauci...right.

Since no data was actually put up by the two, I don't think looking at who they are runs afowl of an ad homenim.

They *own* an urgent care clinic.

Do you think their profits will go up or down if people stop sheltering in place?

 

[JerryLove]

Likewise, I think it reasonable to mandate public health exams for our leaders beyond the scope of the standard physical which may or may not be divulged, or trigger a separate mandate for removal from office due to health concerns that is separated from any partisan consideration. Any symptoms of the onset of a cognitive decline need to be known. Concerns about Reagan and Alzheimer's, or Trump and Pick's Disease resonate here.

The thing is, if the president in question isn't constantly doing purges for disloyalty: the cabinet can remove him.

If he's not a member of a party locked into abused spouse syndrome; congress can remove him.

This is all more than the competence of the man at the top. This is about an infrastructure that has supported one unqualified and unprincipled appointment after another in pursuit of their own power. Congress has absolutely not performed in its oversight role.

To use the impeachment as a simple example:
Congress should have demanded and protected an independent investigation (I'm fine with Muller), and removed the president from office if he prevented it (for example, refusing to allow interviews/depositions or refusing to turn over subpoenaed evidence).

There is a legal standard here. When, for example, a company or person destroys evidence that they were compelled to turn over; the jury should assume that the evidence was damning. The idea that you cannot interpret a refusal to testify as guilt only applies when that refusal is a direct right (self incrimination).

The (Trump appointed) judiciary isn't doing their job. The (afraid of Trump) congress isn't doing theirs. The (trump appointed) cabinet isn't doing theirs either.

Trump isn't making all this happen on his own. He's being supported.

 

[Danzilla31]

And, they know more than Fauci...right.

Could they? I'm not saying I agree with them but they are on the front lines

Maybe people with more medical experience can chime in.

Also are they having any other reasons for advocating for this?

They claim they're being pressured to report claims of COVID for political reasons or fear or control etc

Could they be pressured to say what there saying for other reasons

Could there place of practice be financially at risk? For example

I'm not saying they are wrong or right but it would be nice if we could dig into the story to get a more accurate story if that makes sense

There are a lot more studies and reports of situations like this coming out know

You guys know my stance on how I feel about our economics

BUT

I don't want to just run with stories that say what I want to hear unless they are really looked into

Even the researchers at Stanford etc that are doing the serological testing maintain the initial shutdown was absolutely neccessary

Now you can feel the pressure from both sides on where to go from here

The news is just as much about the economy as it is about COVID

The next few weeks or months should be very revealing

I pray for all the places trying to open back up that things go okay especially Georgia who the way there trying it frankly worries me

I pray for all those who could be affected by it from COVID

And I pray for all those who are affected by unemployment

My hospital for psychiatric care is getting a huge influx of patients that are ED by the cops people are starting to crack

I applaud my hospital though despite the fact that we could fill up completely they are limiting there admissions so that our patient count isn't to high on the units and so we can implement better social distancing measures

A lot of us are rotating our shifts so that everyone can get hours since the census is down so much

I'm working the front gate doing screenings for people coming in next week so other coworkers can get there hours on the units

I'm worried though if our hospital goes under and Haven for Hope is no longer admitting in homeless the mentally ill in our community are going to suffer from this greatly

But I applaud our hospitals choice to put safety first even if it's hurting them financially

Just don't know how long they can hold out

But I digress my apologies it was an interesting article and gives a different perspective to chew on

Or at least steam about

 

[ryanosaur]

Agreed... just speaking in that ever so idealistic manner, was trying to remove the current "what is happening" from the equation and suggest a non-partisan mandated solution that should never be undone, in terms of identifying any candidates health risks and who can be eligible to run for ANY office with a direct line to the presidential title. (Which should include VP, Speaker of the House, etc...)

(That said, I don't think Pelosi should be in the position she is, not because I dislike her, but because if she were to be elevated to the role of presidency, could she perform the role and see even a full 4-yr term through to conclusion?)

Again, just being idealistic on this slightly related tangent.

 

[TLS Guy]

The Yalta conference is one of history's great comedic moments, at least from the vantage of the present (I'm sure it wasn't funny to the many millions who suffered due to Stalin's machinations at Yalta). Think of Churchill's frustrations at out-of-it FDR's concessions to a conniving Stalin. It would make for a great comedy, albeit a very dark comedy. I think Yalta would have ended very differently had FDR had his wits about him. He "held most of the cards" at that moment, politically speaking.

That was Churchill's take on it in his memoirs.

 

[Mr._Clark]

If you were to ask me, the answer would be "yes." Of course, no one has asked me so it's a moot point.

>>>Should scientists infect healthy people with the coronavirus to test vaccines?

Radical proposal to conduct ‘human challenge’ studies could dramatically speed up vaccine research. . . .

Many scientists see a vaccine as the only solution to the pandemic. Clinical safety trials began this month for one candidate vaccine, and others will soon follow. But one of the biggest hurdles will be showing that a vaccine works. Typically, this is done through large phase III studies, in which thousands to tens of thousands of people receive either a vaccine or a placebo, and researchers track who becomes infected in the course of their daily lives.

A quicker option would be to conduct a ‘human challenge’ study, argue scientists in a provocative paper this month. This would involve exposing perhaps 100 healthy young people to the virus and seeing whether those who get the vaccine escape infection.

Nir Eyal, the director of the Center for Population-Level Bioethics at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and lead author of the preprint, tells Nature how the study could be done safely and ethically. Participants, he argues, might even be better off for it.<<<

Should scientists infect healthy young people with coronavirus?

Radical proposal to conduct ‘human challenge’ studies could dramatically speed up vaccine research.

www.nature.com