2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[ABV 8.3%]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts (not true, plenty of experts ) , putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster.both, mostly, you dispise those that argue Some WHO? bother to cite experts Define an "expert" and what that is? and put some weight on such expertise,in other words, you are saying an "expert" is the nytimes editorial that I agree with" whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do. For THIS, we would need a clear example. For example, the hateful NOI (Nation of Islam) was hired to run security for Baltimores low income projects. What "expert" thought this was a good idea?

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result. How can you learn anything ,when you feel those lower than you, as NOT experts, are to be ignored. Not worthwhile. YOUR words, which I can cite example after example, not mine. I am only quoting you. Can you get banned for quoting others?

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided. Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible. I was a three time AA at UVA too? Will you listen to me know

but.....you can't read this

[MDlaxfan76]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts (not true, plenty of experts ) , putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster.both, mostly, you dispise those that argue Some WHO? bother to cite experts Define an "expert" and what that is? and put some weight on such expertise,in other words, you are saying an "expert" is the nytimes editorial that I agree with" whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do. For THIS, we would need a clear example. For example, the hateful NOI (Nation of Islam) was hired to run security for Baltimores low income projects. What "expert" thought this was a good idea?

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result. How can you learn anything ,when you feel those lower than you, as NOT experts, are to be ignored. Not worthwhile. YOUR words, which I can cite example after example, not mine. I am only quoting you. Can you get banned for quoting others?

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided. Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible. I was a three time AA at UVA too? Will you listen to me know

but.....you can't read this

I can read it, but comprehending the point of your gibberish above is another matter. I plead failure on that one.

[MDlaxfan76]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts, putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster. Some bother to cite experts and put some weight on such expertise, whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do.

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result.

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided.
i don't either. when that moves to false certainty and a refutation of other's opinions and possible other outcomes, that's when i either tune out or might have something to point out. scientific and political leaders are flailing to keep up with ever changing info. and that is not surprising.
Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible.
to each his own. for sure, if the focus was covid deaths, lockdowns (stay at home) and fear have been maybe the strongest correlator to rT directionally moving south for a time. imo. you can't hardly get it if you don't mingle with anyone. would have to be enforced, of course, and then the length of doing that runs into debate in some circles. we'll see what 2021 brings, i'm long individual vaxx effectiveness and short adoption of them right now.

hmmm, well let's just say that I, like the public health officials, find distancing and masking in some combination with rigor to be a more compelling path to better outcomes than a 'let'er rip' process. Lots and lots of evidence that doing so, even better if coupled with lots of testing and tracing rigor, reduces spread.

Balancing that out with the need to do various activities is not an exact science, certainly, but my own view is that we can do most activities while also doing the above, if we're careful to do so...but it needs to be widely done, not half assed.

and that's where the leadership comes in...persuading people to be conscious of the risks not simply to themselves but to others and resourcing the capabilities to do so, whether PPE or testing and tracing or financial support for those impacted by a reduction in economic activities...all requires leadership.

Trying to get precise about differential impact is far more problematic, but directionally, I just don't see the confounding variables, ignored data, etc that would refute that view.

I tend to agree re your long and short, though I'm currently a bit more optimistic about what the right sort of leadership can do to increase public adoption. We've already seen a big jump in public polling on this, fingers crossed that there won't be a lot of negative reactions that discourage that trend.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The President of The United States of America having a “working lunch”....

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 67456?s=21

[ABV 8.3%]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts, putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster. Some bother to cite experts and put some weight on such expertise, whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do.

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result.

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided.
i don't either. when that moves to false certainty and a refutation of other's opinions and possible other outcomes, that's when i either tune out or might have something to point out. scientific and political leaders are flailing to keep up with ever changing info. and that is not surprising.
Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible.
to each his own. for sure, if the focus was covid deaths, lockdowns (stay at home) and fear have been maybe the strongest correlator to rT directionally moving south for a time. imo. you can't hardly get it if you don't mingle with anyone. would have to be enforced, of course, and then the length of doing that runs into debate in some circles. we'll see what 2021 brings, i'm long individual vaxx effectiveness and short adoption of them right now.

hmmm, well let's just say that I, like the public health officials, find distancing and masking in some combination with rigor to be a more compelling path to better outcomes than a 'let'er rip' process. Lots and lots of evidence that doing so, even better if coupled with lots of testing and tracing rigor, reduces spread.

Balancing that out with the need to do various activities is not an exact science, certainly, but my own view is that we can do most activities while also doing the above, if we're careful to do so...but it needs to be widely done, not half assed.

and that's where the leadership comes in...persuading people to be conscious of the risks not simply to themselves but to others and resourcing the capabilities to do so, whether PPE or testing and tracing or financial support for those impacted by a reduction in economic activities...all requires leadership.

Trying to get precise about differential impact is far more problematic, but directionally, I just don't see the confounding variables, ignored data, etc that would refute that view.

I tend to agree re your long and short, though I'm currently a bit more optimistic about what the right sort of leadership can do to increase public adoption. We've already seen a big jump in public polling on this, fingers crossed that there won't be a lot of negative reactions that discourage that trend.

IT all begins, and ends, with two words:

French Laundry.


You know one thing that tRump doesn't have, over other Covid Leadership ? A hypocritical action. tRump, the useless clown that he is, at least never made it illegal to eat inside, and than get caught eating. INside. While other humans suffer.

But, you don't care. Thousands of other leadership examples, from World Health Organization, CDC, Bill Gates, Mass General, Hopkins, etc, were too stoopid, only weeks ago....literally....weeks ago..to understand that masks were a simple, possible stop gap measure. Plenty of blame to go around.

Suddenly, all this data.... on masks. Guess the smartest people in the room decided that drinking lead and using leaches was silly too.

[ABV 8.3%]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts (not true, plenty of experts ) , putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster.both, mostly, you dispise those that argue Some WHO? bother to cite experts Define an "expert" and what that is? and put some weight on such expertise,in other words, you are saying an "expert" is the nytimes editorial that I agree with" whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do. For THIS, we would need a clear example. For example, the hateful NOI (Nation of Islam) was hired to run security for Baltimores low income projects. What "expert" thought this was a good idea?

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result. How can you learn anything ,when you feel those lower than you, as NOT experts, are to be ignored. Not worthwhile. YOUR words, which I can cite example after example, not mine. I am only quoting you. Can you get banned for quoting others?

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided. Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible. I was a three time AA at UVA too? Will you listen to me know

but.....you can't read this

I can read it, but comprehending the point of your gibberish above is another matter. I plead failure on that one.

You are confused by every single thought and question? That no one comes across as an "expert" on ANY topic, based on a profession, either themselves, or some family member? For geez sake, we know, from all the experts resume's (because they are CONstantly letting us know

that you have a MBA from the same place that Shrub Bush got his. And DocB went across the street. (he doesn't remember, but we shared a bowl while trying to pick up chicks in "shanty town" DIVEST now party in the yard.

"I", "I, I, I"

"I" "ain't gonna play Sun City. no way"

https://vimeo.com/444032934

....or their wife IS

or, their son/daughter

And, of course, seacoaster posting a NY times "news" article. Classic duck N cover argument, where you can claim ignorance. After all, I don't agree with everything Joe Biden says....just disagree with everything YOU say. Because you didn'tgo to Harvard. Or UPENN, like Trump? Or own a successful, (or legal business.

How is the crime in Baltimore

[Typical Lax Dad]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts, putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster. Some bother to cite experts and put some weight on such expertise, whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do.

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result.

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided.
i don't either. when that moves to false certainty and a refutation of other's opinions and possible other outcomes, that's when i either tune out or might have something to point out. scientific and political leaders are flailing to keep up with ever changing info. and that is not surprising.
Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible.
to each his own. for sure, if the focus was covid deaths, lockdowns (stay at home) and fear have been maybe the strongest correlator to rT directionally moving south for a time. imo. you can't hardly get it if you don't mingle with anyone. would have to be enforced, of course, and then the length of doing that runs into debate in some circles. we'll see what 2021 brings, i'm long individual vaxx effectiveness and short adoption of them right now.

hmmm, well let's just say that I, like the public health officials, find distancing and masking in some combination with rigor to be a more compelling path to better outcomes than a 'let'er rip' process. Lots and lots of evidence that doing so, even better if coupled with lots of testing and tracing rigor, reduces spread.

Balancing that out with the need to do various activities is not an exact science, certainly, but my own view is that we can do most activities while also doing the above, if we're careful to do so...but it needs to be widely done, not half assed.

and that's where the leadership comes in...persuading people to be conscious of the risks not simply to themselves but to others and resourcing the capabilities to do so, whether PPE or testing and tracing or financial support for those impacted by a reduction in economic activities...all requires leadership.

Trying to get precise about differential impact is far more problematic, but directionally, I just don't see the confounding variables, ignored data, etc that would refute that view.

I tend to agree re your long and short, though I'm currently a bit more optimistic about what the right sort of leadership can do to increase public adoption. We've already seen a big jump in public polling on this, fingers crossed that there won't be a lot of negative reactions that discourage that trend.

IT all begins, and ends, with two words:

French Laundry.


You know one thing that tRump doesn't have, over other Covid Leadership ? A hypocritical action. tRump, the useless clown that he is, at least never made it illegal to eat inside, and than get caught eating. INside. While other humans suffer.

But, you don't care. Thousands of other leadership examples, from World Health Organization, CDC, Bill Gates, Mass General, Hopkins, etc, were too stoopid, only weeks ago....literally....weeks ago..to understand that masks were a simple, possible stop gap measure. Plenty of blame to go around.

Suddenly, all this data.... on masks. Guess the smartest people in the room decided that drinking lead and using leaches was silly too.

You don’t wear a mask.

[ABV 8.3%]

No, according to you, I wear a "gator".

Which, according to my state's leadership, is perfectly fine.

So, if I am complying with the rules of my leadership, where is the problem?

and, of course, there IS this

https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-update ... ck-gaiters

But that’s not what the media took away from his paper. Rather, news reports focused on one anomalous result — his single test of the neck gaiter, which produced slightly more, and smaller, respiratory droplets than he’d measured in the baseline, no-mask condition. Fischer and his colleagues, none of them aerosol scientists, speculated that perhaps this particular fabric somehow functioned to splice large respiratory droplets into smaller ones. If true, this would, indeed, make a gaiter worse than no mask at all.

But, based on aerosol science, this is unlikely.

and, here you are, still trumpeting the fear porn and mask shaming.

[Typical Lax Dad]

No, according to you, I wear a "gator".

Which, according to my state's leadership, is perfectly fine.

So, if I am complying with the rules of my leadership, where is the problem?

You do wear a gaiter. You come across as being educated. Your government suggested that you wear a gaiter?

[ABV 8.3%]

No, according to you, I wear a "gator".

Which, according to my state's leadership, is perfectly fine.

So, if I am complying with the rules of my leadership, where is the problem?

You do wear a gaiter. You come across as being educated. Your government suggested that you wear a gaiter?

No, you said I wear a gaitor. As far as I remember I never said what kind of mask I wore/wear.

I do have a cammo type gator, use for duck hunting. Don't ask where I got it.

I wear a mask. just NOT when I eat at nice places, like French Laundry. These are YOUR peeps. not mine.

[wgdsr]

our government suggests what kind of masks to wear?

[CU77]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... rings.html

[wgdsr]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... rings.html

my point: for every message i hear about wearing proper masks, wearing them properly... i (and everyone else) hears 50? 100 times? "masks".

and what did i hear from these boards alone in discussing this: "troll". you remember that, 77, right?

[wgdsr]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts, putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster. Some bother to cite experts and put some weight on such expertise, whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do.

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result.

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided.
i don't either. when that moves to false certainty and a refutation of other's opinions and possible other outcomes, that's when i either tune out or might have something to point out. scientific and political leaders are flailing to keep up with ever changing info. and that is not surprising.
Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible.
to each his own. for sure, if the focus was covid deaths, lockdowns (stay at home) and fear have been maybe the strongest correlator to rT directionally moving south for a time. imo. you can't hardly get it if you don't mingle with anyone. would have to be enforced, of course, and then the length of doing that runs into debate in some circles. we'll see what 2021 brings, i'm long individual vaxx effectiveness and short adoption of them right now.

hmmm, well let's just say that I, like the public health officials, find distancing and masking in some combination with rigor to be a more compelling path to better outcomes than a 'let'er rip' process. Lots and lots of evidence that doing so, even better if coupled with lots of testing and tracing rigor, reduces spread.

Balancing that out with the need to do various activities is not an exact science, certainly, but my own view is that we can do most activities while also doing the above, if we're careful to do so...but it needs to be widely done, not half assed.

and that's where the leadership comes in...persuading people to be conscious of the risks not simply to themselves but to others and resourcing the capabilities to do so, whether PPE or testing and tracing or financial support for those impacted by a reduction in economic activities...all requires leadership.

Trying to get precise about differential impact is far more problematic, but directionally, I just don't see the confounding variables, ignored data, etc that would refute that view.

I tend to agree re your long and short, though I'm currently a bit more optimistic about what the right sort of leadership can do to increase public adoption. We've already seen a big jump in public polling on this, fingers crossed that there won't be a lot of negative reactions that discourage that trend.

lot to unpack here. some i agree with, some not.
let me start with one piece:
why did your niece(?) and her fiancee take a ride to the airport with your nephew?

[Typical Lax Dad]

No, according to you, I wear a "gator".

Which, according to my state's leadership, is perfectly fine.

So, if I am complying with the rules of my leadership, where is the problem?

You do wear a gaiter. You come across as being educated. Your government suggested that you wear a gaiter?

No, you said I wear a gaitor. As far as I remember I never said what kind of mask I wore/wear.

I do have a cammo type gator, use for duck hunting. Don't ask where I got it.

I wear a mask. just NOT when I eat at nice places, like French Laundry. These are YOUR peeps. not mine.

I knew you wore a gaiter.....I would have have bet it was camo...but my suspicion is that you don’t have a beard and a big gut....(goatee doesn’t count). Pretty fit....you work out with MMA guys? anyway you are ahead of me. I have eaten out once since March. It was outside on Neponset Ave. Had lunch with my cousin’s daughter. I usually call ahead and pick up and leave a good tip here locally.... Every bit helps. I would have bailee out that industry and things may have been less intrusive for the rest of us. Live and learn. Politicians are hypocrites. At least Trump isn’t......thanks for pointing that out.

[CU77]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... rings.html

my point: for every message i hear about wearing proper masks, wearing them properly... i (and everyone else) hears 50? 100 times? "masks".

and what did i hear from these boards alone in discussing this: "troll". you remember that, 77, right?

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I have seen MANY news shows, media articles, etc etc etc, explaining the proper way to wear masks, and that they should be (at minimum) two layers. And the official CDC guidance is easy to find.

Also, I don't believe I ever called you, or anyone else, a "troll".

Also, you often post in enigmatic half-sentences that I find hard to understand.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... rings.html

my point: for every message i hear about wearing proper masks, wearing them properly... i (and everyone else) hears 50? 100 times? "masks".

and what did i hear from these boards alone in discussing this: "troll". you remember that, 77, right?

We didn’t want to social distance....and people ignore the, “if you can’t social distance, wear a mask” part....people hear what they want to hear....it’s like recruits....they hear what they want to hear and not necessarily what they were told.

[MDlaxfan76]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts, putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster. Some bother to cite experts and put some weight on such expertise, whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do.

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result.

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided.
i don't either. when that moves to false certainty and a refutation of other's opinions and possible other outcomes, that's when i either tune out or might have something to point out. scientific and political leaders are flailing to keep up with ever changing info. and that is not surprising.
Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible.
to each his own. for sure, if the focus was covid deaths, lockdowns (stay at home) and fear have been maybe the strongest correlator to rT directionally moving south for a time. imo. you can't hardly get it if you don't mingle with anyone. would have to be enforced, of course, and then the length of doing that runs into debate in some circles. we'll see what 2021 brings, i'm long individual vaxx effectiveness and short adoption of them right now.

hmmm, well let's just say that I, like the public health officials, find distancing and masking in some combination with rigor to be a more compelling path to better outcomes than a 'let'er rip' process. Lots and lots of evidence that doing so, even better if coupled with lots of testing and tracing rigor, reduces spread.

Balancing that out with the need to do various activities is not an exact science, certainly, but my own view is that we can do most activities while also doing the above, if we're careful to do so...but it needs to be widely done, not half assed.

and that's where the leadership comes in...persuading people to be conscious of the risks not simply to themselves but to others and resourcing the capabilities to do so, whether PPE or testing and tracing or financial support for those impacted by a reduction in economic activities...all requires leadership.

Trying to get precise about differential impact is far more problematic, but directionally, I just don't see the confounding variables, ignored data, etc that would refute that view.

I tend to agree re your long and short, though I'm currently a bit more optimistic about what the right sort of leadership can do to increase public adoption. We've already seen a big jump in public polling on this, fingers crossed that there won't be a lot of negative reactions that discourage that trend.

lot to unpack here. some i agree with, some not.
let me start with one piece:
why did your niece(?) and her fiancee take a ride to the airport with your nephew?

They considered each other in their 'bubble', but in retrospect were horrified that they'd put parents and grandparents at risk. The niece and fiance could have driven and parked or taken an uber. Would likely have been masked in an uber or plexiglass separation.

If your point is that there's risk in almost anything, I quite agree...it's all about reducing aggregated risk of transmission. You obviously know that, so I feel like I could sound pedantic...

or were you driving at something else?

[MDlaxfan76]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts (not true, plenty of experts ) , putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster.both, mostly, you dispise those that argue Some WHO? bother to cite experts Define an "expert" and what that is? and put some weight on such expertise,in other words, you are saying an "expert" is the nytimes editorial that I agree with" whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do. For THIS, we would need a clear example. For example, the hateful NOI (Nation of Islam) was hired to run security for Baltimores low income projects. What "expert" thought this was a good idea?

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result. How can you learn anything ,when you feel those lower than you, as NOT experts, are to be ignored. Not worthwhile. YOUR words, which I can cite example after example, not mine. I am only quoting you. Can you get banned for quoting others?

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided. Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible. I was a three time AA at UVA too? Will you listen to me know

but.....you can't read this

I can read it, but comprehending the point of your gibberish above is another matter. I plead failure on that one.

You are confused by every single thought and question? That no one comes across as an "expert" on ANY topic, based on a profession, either themselves, or some family member? For geez sake, we know, from all the experts resume's (because they are CONstantly letting us know

that you have a MBA from the same place that Shrub Bush got his. And DocB went across the street. (he doesn't remember, but we shared a bowl while trying to pick up chicks in "shanty town" DIVEST now party in the yard.

"I", "I, I, I"

"I" "ain't gonna play Sun City. no way"

https://vimeo.com/444032934

....or their wife IS

or, their son/daughter

And, of course, seacoaster posting a NY times "news" article. Classic duck N cover argument, where you can claim ignorance. After all, I don't agree with everything Joe Biden says....just disagree with everything YOU say. Because you didn'tgo to Harvard. Or UPENN, like Trump? Or own a successful, (or legal business.

How is the crime in Baltimore

and yet again, gibberish...

[ABV 8.3%]

Speaking only for myself, I believe wgdsdr is pointing out the exact same thing that I am .

French Laundry.

Or, do we need to pull up all you hypocritical posts about "stoopid spring breakers", etc. In 'retrospect" perhaps, they too, were , or are horrified at the peril they place older people in

aka: hypocrite