Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
That's exactly what Trump did, by spending three years draining the agencies of expertise and applying loyalty tests, disbanding the NSC pandemic response team, appointing sycophant incompetents like Azar at HHS (to whom the FDA and CDC heads report), downplaying the threat for months, etc etc etc.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.htmlNearly 90 percent of U.S. mayors who responded to a national survey on coronavirus preparedness said they lack sufficient tests kits, face masks and other protective equipment for their emergency responders and medical workers, while 85 percent said they do not have enough ventilators for their hospitals — critical shortages that could lead cities and towns to be quickly overwhelmed should the virus spread through their communities.
Michigan and Wisconsin are a day or two from the same kind of news you are hearing from New Orleans.ggait wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:08 pmTo a striking extent right now, the virus is hot only in blue counties and cities -- SF, NYC, NOLA being in the vanguard. Red counties much less affected -- so far. And the income of retired folks in those red counties is not as impacted by layoffs. Many of the seniors I know (even though at high risk) are pretty insulated right now. Hunkered down inside, cashing annuity checks and watching FNC.Saw someone opine that the only way now to get the South to buy-in to shelter in place is to have the college football coaches explain that if that action doesn’t happen now, there will no be games this fall.
TBD if the red counties mostly dodge the first wave. Or have enough of a delayed impact that they are better able to handle it. I think you can understand a lot of the current Trump and federal response through that lens. It isn't bad (yet) in Trump country.
Big risk/gamble though. Lots of older vulnerable people in those red counties. And rural health systems are not that robust. If/when the wave hits the red counties, it will hit very hard. And no SEC football games in the fall wouldn't be a good look leading into the election.
If it hits the fan hard enough in Florida to impact voting, Trump is over.
ggait wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:08 pmTo a striking extent right now, the virus is hot only in blue counties and cities -- SF, NYC, NOLA being in the vanguard. Red counties much less affected -- so far. And the income of retired folks in those red counties is not as impacted by layoffs. Many of the seniors I know (even though at high risk) are pretty insulated right now. Hunkered down inside, cashing annuity checks and watching FNC.Saw someone opine that the only way now to get the South to buy-in to shelter in place is to have the college football coaches explain that if that action doesn’t happen now, there will no be games this fall.
TBD if the red counties mostly dodge the first wave. Or have enough of a delayed impact that they are better able to handle it. I think you can understand a lot of the current Trump and federal response through that lens. It isn't bad (yet) in Trump country.
Big risk/gamble though. Lots of older vulnerable people in those red counties. And rural health systems are not that robust. If/when the wave hits the red counties, it will hit very hard. And no SEC football games in the fall wouldn't be a good look leading into the election.
If it hits the fan hard enough in Florida to impact voting, Trump is over.
What do you think it means?youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:26 pm Can someone help clear this up?
If go to the CDC site here then scroll down to this portion (COVID-19 cases in the United States by date of illness onset) If the single row does not appear, click the + sign. If you follow cases by day using the scroll bar, you can clearly see a significant decline beginning around the 20th of March. What is significant about the decline starting on or about the 2oth?
youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:26 pmI am hearing it is due to the release and increase of 5G.
Citation please. An actual MSM news story that said this.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:28 pm did anyone repeat the lie that repealing net neutrality would lead to deaths? Because I sure heard that often on the news.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/61892890 ... t-dead-yetCU77 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:32 pmCitation please. An actual MSM news story that said this.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:28 pm did anyone repeat the lie that repealing net neutrality would lead to deaths? Because I sure heard that often on the news.
That's news to me. Never heard it, or saw it, and I read a fair amount.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:28 pmyouthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:26 pmI am hearing it is due to the release and increase of 5G.
Indeed, if we are to scrub the past here, did anyone repeat the lie that repealing net neutrality would lead to deaths? Because I sure heard that often on the news. I assume people here repeated it
