• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Around 350,000 Americans will die from COVID in 12 months. Is that winning?

I noticed all of that and still see a decline in all your graphs.

And where have you ever seen me saying otherwise?

Are you following the way that the trend lines are CHANGING? I am.

But more important is that you jumped to your own conclusions too fast and misintreped me as suggesting that everything is just fine in the US. I'm actually leaning toward thinking that everything if far from fine but I've left the politics out of it.

From an apolitical POV, do you consider 500 deaths per day as pandemic proportions?

The number of deaths per day has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a disease is a "pandemic".
A pandemic is an epidemic occurring on a scale that crosses international boundaries, usually affecting people on a worldwide scale.[10] A disease or condition is not a pandemic merely because it is widespread or kills many people; it must also be infectious. For instance, cancer is responsible for many deaths but is not considered a pandemic because the disease is neither infectious nor contagious.​
[SOURCE]​

The Nazi murder camps killed approximately 15,000,000 people over approximately 5 years for an approximately daily death toll of 8,200. That did not constitute a "pandemic".
 
Actually, even now the numbers are not good. The rate as measured in testing per million hass indeed improved a lot and the US is among the best performers among countries of considerrable size (it is easier to achieve good testing rates in small countries with good infrastructure), but this is not the whole story.
Because the US has a much higher rate of cases per million, it needs to have also proportionally a much higher testing per million. And this is not happening. Plus, there is the issue of delay in getting the results


It is the first time the prestigious medical journal has taken a stance on a U.S. presidential election since it was founded in 1812.

And from the Editorial itself


And we continue to be way behind the curve in testing. While the absolute numbers of tests have increased substantially, the more useful metric is the number of tests performed per infected person, a rate that puts us far down the international list, below such places as Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia, countries that cannot boast the biomedical infrastructure or the manufacturing capacity that we have.2 Moreover, a lack of emphasis on developing capacity has meant that U.S. test results are often long delayed, rendering the results useless for disease control.

If one had been standing in fecal material up to their eyebrows and was now standing in fecal material that ONLY came up to the bridge of their nose, their condition would have "improved" but it would be difficult to say that everything was smelling like roses for them.
 
And where have you ever seen me saying otherwise?

Are you following the way that the trend lines are CHANGING? I am.

I think I am. The infection rate is going up and that's not being influenced by the number of tests being conducted. The daily death rate in the US is going down over a time scale that I'v chosen to consider to be relevant. However, the decline in the death rate is beginning to look like it's being reversed.
I'm relying on worldometers for my information.





The Nazi murder camps killed approximately 15,000,000 people over approximately 5 years for an approximately daily death toll of 8,200. That did not constitute a "pandemic".

I'm not interested in following you on that level of debate. The death rate most certainly does have something to do with defining a pandemic, but is not limited to just that statistic.

But fwiw, the Nazi death camps did not kill 15 million people. First of all you'll need to learn what camps were death camps and which weren't. Then when you've narrowed it down to 1 or possibly 2 camps, you can begin by reading up on real figures for one or both.
 
I think I am. The infection rate is going up and that's not being influenced by the number of tests being conducted. The daily death rate in the US is going down over a time scale that I'v chosen to consider to be relevant. However, the decline in the death rate is beginning to look like it's being reversed.
I'm relying on worldometers for my information.







I'm not interested in following you on that level of debate. The death rate most certainly does have something to do with defining a pandemic, but is not limited to just that statistic.

But fwiw, the Nazi death camps did not kill 15 million people. First of all you'll need to learn what camps were death camps and which weren't. Then when you've narrowed it down to 1 or possibly 2 camps, you can begin by reading up on real figures for one or both.
hoo boy
 
Hell no. Your candidate has promised to shut down the entire US economy based solely on Dr. Fauci's say so. His ever changing positions unequivocally show us the "science" is a frigging coin toss depending on what data they are looking at that day. A leader does not abdicate his duty to a scientist.
VP Biden has never promised to shut down the economy, he promised to follow scientists guidance. Here's a hint, listen top what the doctor says, not what djt says he says. A true leader doesn't pretend to be the smartest person in the room and would absolutely listen to scientists guidance. If djt knows more than everybody, as he regularly says, why doesn't he know anything about qanon?
 
VP Biden has never promised to shut down the economy, he promised to follow scientists guidance. Here's a hint, listen top what the doctor says, not what djt says he says. A true leader doesn't pretend to be the smartest person in the room and would absolutely listen to scientists guidance. If djt knows more than everybody, as he regularly says, why doesn't he know anything about qanon?

Asked specifically whether he’d push to shutter economic activity if scientists said it was necessary, Biden replied: “I would shut it down.”

 
Asked specifically whether he’d push to shutter economic activity if scientists said it was necessary, Biden replied: “I would shut it down.”


An actual shutdown worked just fine for New Zealand.
 
Asked specifically whether he’d push to shutter economic activity if scientists said it was necessary, Biden replied: “I would shut it down.”

Thanks for proving my point. He'd follow the science.
 
An actual shutdown worked just fine for New Zealand.
Sure. It's an island. With a population of less than Alabama
 
Thanks for proving my point. He'd follow the science.
Uh, That was my point "Your candidate has promised to shut down the entire US economy based solely on Dr. Fauci's say so" To which you said NO NO NO he didn't. Well, yes he did. Fauci says shut it down, Biden is shutting down the economy
 
Remember back when this all started and Jared poo pooed having a national COVID plan because **** it... it was hitting blue states hardest?

Let's see how's that working out for him now in the travel risk map out today...

lowrisk.jpg

Even little old Washington D.C. colored green.
 
Not one brain dead liberal has offered a better plan to save lives.
Actually, even now the numbers are not good. The rate as measured in testing per million hass indeed improved a lot and the US is among the best performers among countries of considerrable size (it is easier to achieve good testing rates in small countries with good infrastructure), but this is not the whole story.
Because the US has a much higher rate of cases per million, it needs to have also proportionally a much higher testing per million. And this is not happening. Plus, there is the issue of delay in getting the results


It is the first time the prestigious medical journal has taken a stance on a U.S. presidential election since it was founded in 1812.

And from the Editorial itself


And we continue to be way behind the curve in testing. While the absolute numbers of tests have increased substantially, the more useful metric is the number of tests performed per infected person, a rate that puts us far down the international list, below such places as Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia, countries that cannot boast the biomedical infrastructure or the manufacturing capacity that we have.2 Moreover, a lack of emphasis on developing capacity has meant that U.S. test results are often long delayed, rendering the results useless for disease control.

Not every one wants to be tested.
 
Not one brain dead liberal has offered a better plan to save lives.


Not every one wants to be tested.

This is not the reason why the US was initially behind even bankrupt Greece in the rate of tests per million. The Americans proved that DID want to test in high rates when the means became available. Most people DO want to make sure that their family, friends or business does not suffer as a result of an undetected spread of the virus.
 
Uh, That was my point "Your candidate has promised to shut down the entire US economy based solely on Dr. Fauci's say so" To which you said NO NO NO he didn't. Well, yes he did. Fauci says shut it down, Biden is shutting down the economy
1-You misquoted VP Biden in the post I replied to, and you are misquoting him again in this post. Don't use quotation marks unless you can attribute it.
2-Dr. Fauci is A scientist. VP Biden said 'scientists'. Can you tell the difference?
 
Sure. It's an island. With a population of less than Alabama

Are you suggesting there's no large bodies of water between us and China?
 
Sure. It's an island. With a population of less than Alabama

Alabama has 2,805 deaths


New Zealand has 25 deaths



By the way, population density is the important factor and not population size
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting there's no large bodies of water between us and China?
It's an island. It's a bit easier to control travel to an island.
 
Alabama has 2,805 deaths


New Zealand has 25 deaths

Yep. They buttoned up that island tight.
 
Yep. They buttoned up that island tight.

and their economy is better





The headline jobless rate fell to 4.0% from 4.2% in the last quarter, defying the expectations of economists polled by Reuters for a 5.8% increase in the unemployment rate.

A shorter andd moree strict lockdown is better than the fiasco we see in the US...
 
and their economy is better





The headline jobless rate fell to 4.0% from 4.2% in the last quarter, defying the expectations of economists polled by Reuters for a 5.8% increase in the unemployment rate.

A shorter andd moree strict lockdown is better than the fiasco we see in the US...
Seems you have quite a few place you can go live, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, rather than stay in this suckass place.
 
Seems you have quite a few place you can go live. New Zealand, Korea, Japan, rather than stay in this suckass place.

Seems like you cannot address my arguments, so you want to make it personal.
 
Seems like you cannot address my arguments, so you want to make it personal.
Not at all. Your "argument" consists of how wonderful these other countries are and how horrible the US is.
 
I noticed all of that and still see a decline in all your graphs.
that has to be the saddest commentary about this entire era. 800-1,000 American deaths in a day is getting BETTER.
 
Not at all. Your "argument" consists of how wonderful these other countries are and how horrible the US is.

My argument consists of data to support how wonderfully some countries performed compared to the US and arguments negating your claims about the reasons such countries performed that well. The size of population you tried to use was shot down. Now try to use your mind and come up with something smart as a retort instead of making things personal.
 
My argument consists of data to support how wonderfully some countries performed compared to the US and arguments negating your claims about the reasons such countries performed that well. The size of population you tried to use was shot down. Now try to use your mind and come up with something smart as a retort instead of making things personal.
How in God's name can you seriously compare the ability of an island of 4 million people with one government to combat a virus to the United states with 340 million people and 50+ governments?
 
Back
Top Bottom