Trump does “adjust” things, as needed. 
And he does give his opinion on folks. Even folks from the UK, residing in Canada. 
And how long does the UK think, it will take - to get back to normal? 
At the press conference Fauci made later in the day, he repeated the death figure. I listened to him to get the wording because I could not find it in any written report online even though the initial alarming 100,000 to 200,000 death figure estimate for the USA was emblazoned almost everywhere online.
This is what Fauci said (or as close as I could get) later in the day.
“The number I gave out is based on modelling if we do not mitigate to the extent that we are trying to do, that you could reach that number. Yah, yah, it’s possible. You could make a big sound bite about it, but it’s possible. What we are trying to do is not let that happen.”
He said a few more words after that but I got tired of going back to get his exact words. So, he claims the figure is based on not mitigating to the extent that they are trying to do. It is not the case that he feels the figure holds “Despite the drastic shutdown of much of the country.”
1 Like
This is from today’s Morning Brew. Very brief and good summary.
Anyway, many decades ago - I helped with maintenance work in college. One of the workers said he checked the newspaper obituaries each day. If he couldn’t find his name, then it was a good day. I’m going to start following this guidance, during the pandemic.
And here’s a dedicated song, to reflect the current world’s journey.
Yes, that’s the way I heard him too. His word “might” implied a maximum if mitigation is lax. But I sense even the best estimates by epidemiologists involves some speculation.
From American Greatness: (neither ‘side’ is blameless in this)
"Democrats decided that the Chinese coronavirus pandemic was a great time to try and backdoor their long laundry list of Leftie goals. While Americans are fearing for their lives and livelihoods, Pelosi and her crew were treating the crisis as though it were a political gift—a genie in a bottle who could make all their wishes come true.
Green New Deal, open borders, funding sanctuary cities, forcing unions on mid-sized companies (500-10,000 employees) if they take government funds, ballot harvesting, and a cool $350 million for migrants and refugees, among other items.
But even more insulting is that the Democrats decided it was time to take advantage of a crisis to hand out goodies for their friends: $75 million for the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, $50 million for the Office of Museum and Library services that already got funded for the year , $8 billion for tribal governments, $10 billion for the U.S. Postal Service, $25 million for the Kennedy Center (because nothing says helping the American people like giving the Kennedy Center a facelift even though it’s sitting on a $140 million endowment), and—wait for it kids—a $25 million pay raise for the House of Representatives as well as $20 million for the FBI to cover “salaries and expenses.”
But don’t worry: just be good little people and you’ll get your $1,200 check as well as $500 per kid, unless of course the geniuses in Congress have deemed you to make too much money. Then you get squadoosh. Think of all this as a bowl of porridge for Americans in exchange for your inheritance kinda deal.
Not only that, but let’s not forget the other time Congress repurposed your taxpayer dollars to benefit themselves: remember the $25 million they used to hush up sexual harassment suits? That would be tens of millions more to bail out the American people and small business owners, but sorry, gotta keep that immoral congressional behavior on the sly to help re-elections so they can sell us out again.
The overarching trouble with Congress today is that most of them view you as their ATM to fund their priorities. But let’s face it: They also view laws as a series of suggestions for themselves rather than as the rules that govern our nation and ensure it runs smoothly.
While we all hope we can get back to normal sometime soon, there’s almost zero reason to believe Congress will start acting in a responsible way and this is exactly the kind of “normal” we should hope to avoid. Perhaps the electorate can look forward to the fall elections and hold accountable those who exacerbated an already unbelievable situation."
What’s new in the BBC?
A Republican up to no good? What’s this world coming to?
A bit of science to boot.
And a picture is worth, a thousand words.
What is your point in linking this to me? Is what I said in my post not true, considering the timing of my post? Is what I said not true in an absolute sense? Did Fauci not say what I said he said? Is it not true that the original story about Fauci was emblazoned across the internet? Is it not true that the follow-up by Fauci was not so emblazoned?
If you have some astute observation to make regarding what I said, please just come out and reveal it unambiguously, instead of confusingly linking to a story.
2 Likes
This video misses the point. The masks prevent the passing of disease-carrying particles from the wearer of the mask to others because they trap larger particles, like droplets of saliva that would disperse when the person speaks, for example, and oral and nasal secretions from coughs and sneezes. That’s why surgeons wear them during surgeries–to prevent them from passing on infective particles in their saliva and in other secretions from their mouth and nose to the patient.
If all people wore masks in an area, far fewer infective particles would be passed on to others in these salivary and nasal secretions, even if the masks do not prevent tiny virus and bacterial particles in the air from moving in to the wearer. This would work because salivary and other secretions would be trapped and thus tiny virus and bacterial particles in them would never be passed on in the air as the secretion drops they were immersed in dried in the air.
Wearing masks would be especially effective in early carriers of disease, who do not know they carry disease and could pass it on in speaking, coughing, and sneezing if they were not wearing masks.
I think wearing masks is a very strong preventive measure we could take to slow the spread of diseases like covid-19, especially in public places. But everyone must do it for maximum effectiveness.
Wearing masks is not self-protective. It is altruistic. But if we ALL wore them, we would ALL benefit.
Yes of course, my exact response to you above was:
I did not at all mean to suggest you had posted anything wrong. The reason I linked to your note about what Fauci said being disseminated with the post article, is that it suggests that the president also processed is as reflecting that he needed to be ready to explain 200,000 deaths as a success.
Unless I’m seriously mistaken (I heard that!) the BBC articles HF posted were not anti-Trump!!
True. I think if any BBC writers are anti-Trump (it really depends on the writer), they will tone down any rhetoric - during the pandemic. Hopefully, publications like the New York Times and The Washington Post - will do the same.
We should be yelling this instead.
1 Like
I still do not see how this explains why you linked the story to my post.
Not surprisingly a good bit of this manages to find it’s way back to the DNC.
The reason I linked to your note’s quote about what Fauci said, is that the Post article connects to his words by suggesting how the president interpreted Fauci’s words about 200,000 deaths.
Well, that would deserve an independent post with Fauci quotes that you deem important. A link to my post is unnecessary.
I’m sorry quoting the info you posted left the impression that I was questioning the truth of what you wrote and seemed unfair toward you. As I said, I actually applauded what you had wrote as totally accurate, and did not intend to slight you. I apologize for this convenient but aggravating shortcut.
.