Covid: USA VS EUROPE

[PapaRoach69]

One of the governors (not sure which one) recommended what he called a 'whooky sack' that proved to be at least 25% more effective than standard measures. Can anyone confirm?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The meaning that I intend to convey is the meaning that I convey. When I state, pretty clearly I think, that two things are happening simultaneously, that is what i have conveyed.

In this case, I have conveyed that the recommended mitigation measures are being widely employed during the time when the worst onset of bad result is being recorded.

No implication mad. Just the statements of pretty obvious fact.

Also, my personal observations of a very narrow sliver of society showing that the employed mitigation measures did not work to stave off infection. Again, nothing implied. Simply writing my observations.

The direction from the government says quite clearly that employing the measures will "slow the spread". I DO question the effectiveness of the mitigation recommendations.

Seeing the actual real world facts in light of the actual real world recommendations would make anyone comparing promises to results question the effectiveness.

The question that I have for you is this: Why are you so committed to believing in the effectiveness of the recommendations from the government given the obvious failure to protect promised in their recommendations?

There is a saying in the south, like so many in the south, that is very wise: "That dog don't hunt". What it means is, simply, what you are being told is proven to be false to at least some degree.

They are telling us that there are specific steps we are mandated to take that will protect us. Well, that dog don't hunt.

There are more people infected and more people dead from the virus that at any point in the national epidemic.

If the mitigation measures are 100% effective, then the recorded statistics must be lies. If the effectiveness of the mitigation measures is pretty weak, then the recorded statistics make sense.

Are you going to continue to deny the science? If so, why so?

Thank you for your wordy, rambling, incoherent, and wildly flailing response that managed to avoid actually picking between

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   and
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

How about you pick one of those three options for your deliberately(?) vaguely worded "response"?

PS - Both the number of cases and the number of deaths are increasing and so is the number of vaccinations. What sort of a "conclusion" do you draw from that - that the vaccinations are useless?

(More charts and graphs at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19)​

 

[bluesmoke]

Thank you for your wordy, rambling, incoherent, and wildly flailing response that managed to avoid actually picking between

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   and
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

How about you pick one of those three options for your deliberately(?) vaguely worded "response"?

PS - Both the number of cases and the number of deaths are increasing and so is the number of vaccinations. What sort of a "conclusion" do you draw from that - that the vaccinations are useless?

View attachment 67311752
View attachment 67311753
(More charts and graphs at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19)​

No. Answer to your question as respects vaccinations would be #1. The correlation is there. It is also fact that most people die of COVID in the hospital. Fewer die at home. So, there's more correlation disputing generally accepted theory. Ex post facto SNARK warning.

 

[code1211]

Thank you for your wordy, rambling, incoherent, and wildly flailing response that managed to avoid actually picking between

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   and
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

How about you pick one of those three options for your deliberately(?) vaguely worded "response"?

PS - Both the number of cases and the number of deaths are increasing and so is the number of vaccinations. What sort of a "conclusion" do you draw from that - that the vaccinations are useless?

View attachment 67311752
View attachment 67311753
(More charts and graphs at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19)​

Regarding vaccinations, I hope they prove to be effective. According to the reported success in the trials, they seem to be. We'll see, won't we.

Regarding your outlandish stupidity, I have no response that can overcome it.

No matter what I post, you seem inclined to create a self deceiving lie. You seem to be beyond rationality.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Regarding vaccinations, I hope they prove to be effective. According to the reported success in the trials, they seem to be. We'll see, won't we.

Regarding your outlandish stupidity, I have no response that can overcome it.

No matter what I post, you seem inclined to create a self deceiving lie. You seem to be beyond rationality.

Thank you for totally ignoring the actual questions that you were actually asked.

How about (for the third time) you take a stab at producing actual answers to

What did you actually mean to convey by your statements regarding the fact that both the number of cases had increased and the amount of compliance with the mitigation efforts had increased. Did you mean:

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   or
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

and​

​

Since both the number of cases and the number of deaths are increasing and so is the number of vaccinations, what sort of a "conclusion" do you draw from that - that the vaccinations are useless?​

 

[bluesmoke]

Thank you for totally ignoring the actual questions that you were actually asked.

How about (for the third time) you take a stab at producing actual answers to

​

What did you actually mean to convey by your statements regarding the fact that both the number of cases had increased and the amount of compliance with the mitigation efforts had increased. Did you mean:​

​

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   or
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

and​

​

Since both the number of cases and the number of deaths are increasing and so is the number of vaccinations, what sort of a "conclusion" do you draw from that - that the vaccinations are useless?​

Ah. A stopping point in the maze. At which point, as before, so many exits. Dumbfounded by stupidity.

 

[code1211]

Thank you for totally ignoring the actual questions that you were actually asked.

How about (for the third time) you take a stab at producing actual answers to

​

What did you actually mean to convey by your statements regarding the fact that both the number of cases had increased and the amount of compliance with the mitigation efforts had increased. Did you mean:​

​

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   or
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

and​

​

Since both the number of cases and the number of deaths are increasing and so is the number of vaccinations, what sort of a "conclusion" do you draw from that - that the vaccinations are useless?​

I actually meant what I actually posted.

How stupid do you need to be to not understand that?

What you conclude in your own mind AFTER you read what I post is on you, not me.

I posted facts. You arrived at conclusions. Then YOU blame me because YOU don't like the conclusions that YOU made.

Do you CONCLUDE that anything in this is outlandishly stupid?

I do.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I actually meant what I actually posted.

What you posted could be interpreted in the three different manners that I listed.

Which ONE of those three interpretations did you intend as you actual message?

How stupid do you need to be to not understand that?

I prefer to write statements that are NOT deliberately ambiguous. Obviously your preferences differ.

What you conclude in your own mind AFTER you read what I post is on you, not me.

You will note that I did NOT "conclude" anything. What I did do was ask you what you actually meant by a statement that was capable of three different interpretations. I have, however, concluded - from your consistent refusal to clarify what you meant - that you either are too embarrassed to admit to what you actually meant, or do not know what you actually meant, or didn't actually mean anything at all. That, conclusion, however, is tentative and is easily rebutted by you simply telling everyone which of

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   or
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

you actually meant by your original statement.

I posted facts.

Yes, it is true that both the number of cases/deaths and the degree to which people are complying with the mitigation measures are increasing.

Your posts implied that that meant that the increase in compliance with the mitigation measures was worthless (as were the mitigation measures themselves).

You arrived at conclusions.

Indeed I did. I concluded that your words were susceptible of more than one interpretation. At that point I listed the three possible interpretations and asked you which of them was the one that you had meant by your post.

Your response has been to refuse to say what you actually meant.

Then YOU blame me because YOU don't like the conclusions that YOU made.

No, I only am disappointed that you don't have the moral rectitude to actually take a position and state it clearly.

Do you CONCLUDE that anything in this is outlandishly stupid?

I do.

And so do I. I conclude that your refusal to clarify your position when asked to do so indicates a total lack of spine and your whining about being asked to clarify your position indicates a deficiency in reasoning power.​

 

[bluesmoke]

What you posted could be interpreted in the three different manners that I listed.

Which ONE of those three interpretations did you intend as you actual message?



I prefer to write statements that are NOT deliberately ambiguous. Obviously your preferences differ.



You will note that I did NOT "conclude" anything. What I did do was ask you what you actually meant by a statement that was capable of three different interpretations. I have, however, concluded - from your consistent refusal to clarify what you meant - that you either are too embarrassed to admit to what you actually meant, or do not know what you actually meant, or didn't actually mean anything at all. That, conclusion, however, is tentative and is easily rebutted by you simply telling everyone which of

​

​

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   or
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

you actually meant by your original statement.​

​

​

​

Yes, it is true that both the number of cases/deaths and the degree to which people are complying with the mitigation measures are increasing.​

​

Your posts implied that that meant that the increase in compliance with the mitigation measures was worthless (as were the mitigation measures themselves).​

​

​

​

Indeed I did. I concluded that your words were susceptible of more than one interpretation. At that point I listed the three possible interpretations and asked you which of them was the one that you had meant by your post.​

​

Your response has been to refuse to say what you actually meant.​

​

​

​

No, I only am disappointed that you don't have the moral rectitude to actually take a position and state it clearly.​

​

​

​

And so do I. I conclude that your refusal to clarify your position when asked to do so indicates a total lack of spine and your whining about being asked to clarify your position indicates a deficiency in reasoning power.​

"moral rectitude". I hear Beavis and Butthead laughing.

 

[code1211]

What you posted could be interpreted in the three different manners that I listed.

Which ONE of those three interpretations did you intend as you actual message?



I prefer to write statements that are NOT deliberately ambiguous. Obviously your preferences differ.



You will note that I did NOT "conclude" anything. What I did do was ask you what you actually meant by a statement that was capable of three different interpretations. I have, however, concluded - from your consistent refusal to clarify what you meant - that you either are too embarrassed to admit to what you actually meant, or do not know what you actually meant, or didn't actually mean anything at all. That, conclusion, however, is tentative and is easily rebutted by you simply telling everyone which of

​

​

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   or
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

you actually meant by your original statement.​

​

​

​

Yes, it is true that both the number of cases/deaths and the degree to which people are complying with the mitigation measures are increasing.​

​

Your posts implied that that meant that the increase in compliance with the mitigation measures was worthless (as were the mitigation measures themselves).​

​

​

​

Indeed I did. I concluded that your words were susceptible of more than one interpretation. At that point I listed the three possible interpretations and asked you which of them was the one that you had meant by your post.​

​

Your response has been to refuse to say what you actually meant.​

​

​

​

No, I only am disappointed that you don't have the moral rectitude to actually take a position and state it clearly.​

​

​

​

And so do I. I conclude that your refusal to clarify your position when asked to do so indicates a total lack of spine and your whining about being asked to clarify your position indicates a deficiency in reasoning power.​

How many times do I need to post the same thing?

The recommended steps to mitigate the spread of the virus have been employed by more people more frequently than in the previous months.

During this period, both US cases and US deaths have risen.

Examining this concurrence of FACTS seems to be rational. Are the mitigating recommendations REALLY effective? It seems rational to question the effectiveness of the recommendations.

WHY do you feel that questioning the effectiveness of steps that have not proven to be effective is not rational?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How many times do I need to post the same thing?

It isn't what you do repeatedly that is the problem, it is what you do NOT do repeatedly that is the problem.

The recommended steps to mitigate the spread of the virus have been employed by more people more frequently than in the previous months.

True. So?

During this period, both US cases and US deaths have risen.

True. So?

Examining this concurrence of FACTS seems to be rational.

True, and when examining something it seems to be rational to come to some conclusion. I asked you which of these three

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   or
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

was the conclusion that you came to. So far you haven't picked one. Is that because I gave you too many options? Or is that because you cannot come to a conclusion? Or is it because you know that everyone will laugh at you if you tell anyone what conclusion you came to? Or what?

Are the mitigating recommendations REALLY effective? It seems rational to question the effectiveness of the recommendations.

It also seems rational to actually look at the data and to come to some sort of conclusion (however tentative). You say that you have looked at the data, so what sort of conclusion have you come to? To simplify the above three options, they can also be expressed as

1. the mitigation efforts have made the situation worse;
   
   
2. the mitigation efforts have had no effect on the situation;
   
   or
   
   
3. the mitigation efforts have made the situation better;

and there really isn't any "Option 4", is there?

WHY do you feel that questioning the effectiveness of steps that have not proven to be effective is not rational?

Where did you ever see me say that "questioning" was not rational?

What I want to know is what your conclusions are. So far all you have done is dodge, weave, whine, whinge, and avoid telling me what your conclusions are. Is that because you know that I am likely to ask you to explain WHY you came to those conclusions or is that because you are unable to form any conclusions at all?

 

[code1211]

It isn't what you do repeatedly that is the problem, it is what you do NOT do repeatedly that is the problem.



True. So?



True. So?



True, and when examining something it seems to be rational to come to some conclusion. I asked you which of these three

1. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are actually making things worse (read as "worse than useless").
   
   
2. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are of no use (read as "useless").
   
   or
   
   
3. The mitigation efforts have increased and so have the adverse impacts, so that means that the mitigation efforts are possibly keeping the adverse impacts from being even worse than they would have been if the mitigation efforts had not been increased.

was the conclusion that you came to. So far you haven't picked one. Is that because I gave you too many options? Or is that because you cannot come to a conclusion? Or is it because you know that everyone will laugh at you if you tell anyone what conclusion you came to? Or what?



It also seems rational to actually look at the data and to come to some sort of conclusion (however tentative). You say that you have looked at the data, so what sort of conclusion have you come to? To simplify the above three options, they can also be expressed as

1. the mitigation efforts have made the situation worse;
   
   
2. the mitigation efforts have had no effect on the situation;
   
   or
   
   
3. the mitigation efforts have made the situation better;

and there really isn't any "Option 4", is there?



Where did you ever see me say that "questioning" was not rational?

What I want to know is what your conclusions are. So far all you have done is dodge, weave, whine, whinge, and avoid telling me what your conclusions are. Is that because you know that I am likely to ask you to explain WHY you came to those conclusions or is that because you are unable to form any conclusions at all?

You are asking me to make a conclusion about which I don't possess sufficient information to have a conclusion. Not having a conclusion does not preclude having questions. the questions is what I have posed.

In ANOTHER bit of evidence for the exceptionally high level of interest and concern by the public, Indiana initiated use of a web site to help schedule vaccinations in the currently approved group, those age 80 and up.

The site seems to crash under the weight of the inquiries when each group is announced. It's back up and running again now. I haven't seen anything that shows a more relaxed response to the virus by the general public.

I do see plenty that shows a less successful results in controlling the spread. That's what gives rise to my QUESTIONS.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You are asking me to make a conclusion about which I don't possess sufficient information to have a conclusion. Not having a conclusion does not preclude having questions. the questions is what I have posed.

Thank you for finally admitting that you have absolutely no idea what to think about the fact that the levels of BOTH ameliorative measures and infections/deaths have increased. I would advise you to eschew any career path that includes a requirement to make decisions on less than 100% perfect and complete information.

In ANOTHER bit of evidence for the exceptionally high level of interest and concern by the public, Indiana initiated use of a web site to help schedule vaccinations in the currently approved group, those age 80 and up.

OK, so that is "evidence". Now what is it "evidence" of?

The site seems to crash under the weight of the inquiries when each group is announced. It's back up and running again now. I haven't seen anything that shows a more relaxed response to the virus by the general public.

And do you draw any conclusions from the fact that YOU haven't seen anything that shows a more relaxed response to the virus by the general public?

I do see plenty that shows a less successful results in controlling the spread. That's what gives rise to my QUESTIONS.

Did you know that "Both the level of ameliorative measures and the level of infections/deaths are rising." is NOT a "QUESTION"? (It is an "observation".)

 

[snakestretcher]

Were the mitigation steps you recommend or desire still ignored in the lead up to the third wave hitting or were they already being employed by the great majority of folks that you saw around you?

Around here, the mitigation steps were being widely employed, but the third wave occurred in spite of the widely employed measures.

As I posted here before, the mitigation recommendations are used by most, but the third wave happened in any event.

Thank God, and Trump, for recognizing the actual threat(s) posed by the virus. Without an effective vaccine rising from the implementation Operation Warp Speed programs, we'd ALL be well and truly screwed.

Now, we have the soon to be calculated effectiveness of the vaccine to measure. With luck, it will be more effective than the masks.

Cold and Flu Season is only now just starting. The effectiveness or lack of effectiveness should be easy to note.

Trump had no influence whatsoever over the speed, 'warp' or otherwise, with which vaccines were developed. In particular the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine which was developed in Germany and funded in Germany, and was the first to be made available. Thank Pfizer, not Trump-who is always anxious to claim the credit for someone else's achievement.

Trump wrongly takes full credit for Covid vaccine

President Donald Trump is wrongly taking full credit for Pfizer's announcement that its COVID-19 vaccine was robustly successful

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Torus34]

I suspect that one of the take-aways in comparing the response and it's efficacy in the United States of America to other countries is that a republic form of government is less efficient in quickly establishing cohesive plans of action for a country as a whole.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I suspect that one of the take-aways in comparing the response and it's efficacy in the United States of America to other countries is that a republic form of government is less efficient in quickly establishing cohesive plans of action for a country as a whole.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.

The American republic has had 315 days (since 01 MAR 20) to establish cohesive plans of action for a country as a whole.

The ACTUAL difference between a "republican form of representative democracy" and a "constitutional monarchy form of representative democracy" is next to nil as far as
response time is concerned.

Claiming that the whole problem is attributable to the fact that the US has a "republican form of representative democracy" is simply bullshit.

The problem is that the US currently has no effective national leadership whatsoever (and hasn't had for the past four years).

Of course all that can change during the next 1,344 days of "The American Presidential Election and/or Attempt to Overturn the Results of the 2023 Election" campaign.

Remember what is REALLY important is who gets to control the government and the country and the economy for the benefit of a small number of very rich people (most of whom you wouldn't recognize if they walked into a 7-11 after you) REGARDLESS of the effect of achieving that control has on the general population of the country. If "Our Guys" form the government and destroy the country in the process of gaining control, then that means that "We" win. However, if "Their Guys" form the government and promote a flourishing of the economy, culture, and prestige of the country, then that means that "We " lose. After all the Constitution of the United States of America DOES say

We, the People ..​

and DOES NOT say

We, the People (including those who don't vote for our political party) ...​

 

[Torus34]

The American republic has had 315 days (since 01 MAR 20) to establish cohesive plans of action for a country as a whole.

The ACTUAL difference between a "republican form of representative democracy" and a "constitutional monarchy form of representative democracy" is next to nil as far as
response time is concerned.

Claiming that the whole problem is attributable to the fact that the US has a "republican form of representative democracy" is simply bullshit.

The problem is that the US currently has no effective national leadership whatsoever (and hasn't had for the past four years).

Of course all that can change during the next 1,344 days of "The American Presidential Election and/or Attempt to Overturn the Results of the 2023 Election" campaign.

Remember what is REALLY important is who gets to control the government and the country and the economy for the benefit of a small number of very rich people (most of whom you wouldn't recognize if they walked into a 7-11 after you) REGARDLESS of the effect of achieving that control has on the general population of the country. If "Our Guys" form the government and destroy the country in the process of gaining control, then that means that "We" win. However, if "Their Guys" form the government and promote a flourishing of the economy, culture, and prestige of the country, then that means that "We " lose. After all the Constitution of the United States of America DOES say

We, the People ..​

and DOES NOT say

We, the People (including those who don't vote for our political party) ...​

Hi!

Though I would use somewhat gentler language in critiquing my post, I do agree with you that we in the US have not had, how shall I say, leadership at the federal level by the best and brightest.

That, though, is arguing from a specific, and perhaps unique case against a theoretical conjecture.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.

 

[Luther]

Readers! Caution! Cherry-picking alert!

France + Spain + UK + Italy + Germany are no more Europe than New York, Texas, California and Illinois are 'the United States'.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Go ahead and use ALL of Europe as an example if you will like?

You're even adding more cases(LOL)

In other words , you're NOT helping yourself

 

[code1211]

Thank you for finally admitting that you have absolutely no idea what to think about the fact that the levels of BOTH ameliorative measures and infections/deaths have increased. I would advise you to eschew any career path that includes a requirement to make decisions on less than 100% perfect and complete information.



OK, so that is "evidence". Now what is it "evidence" of?



And do you draw any conclusions from the fact that YOU haven't seen anything that shows a more relaxed response to the virus by the general public?



Did you know that "Both the level of ameliorative measures and the level of infections/deaths are rising." is NOT a "QUESTION"? (It is an "observation".)

I think I understand now. Your disagreement seems to be resting on your lack of understanding of plain English words.

You are under the mistaken impression that a premise is a conclusion.

This might help:

conclusion
SEE DEFINITION OF conclusion

• nounend
• nounjudgment, decision

OTHER WORDS FOR conclusion

• closure
• completion
• consequence
• denouement
• development
• ending
• outcome
• result
• cease
• cessation
• close
• culmination
• eventuality
• finale
• finish
• issue
• payoff
• period
• stop
• termination
• upshot
• windup
• wrap
• desistance
• end of the line

TRY conclusion IN A SENTENCE BELOW
MOST RELEVANT

premise
SEE DEFINITION OF premise

• nounhypothesis, argument
• verbhypothesize

OTHER WORDS FOR premise

• assertion
• assumption
• basis
• ground
• presumption
• proposition
• thesis
• evidence
• posit
• postulate
• postulation
• presupposition
• proof
• supposition
• apriorism

TRY premise IN A SENTENCE BELOW
MOST RELEVANT

 

[code1211]

Trump had no influence whatsoever over the speed, 'warp' or otherwise, with which vaccines were developed. In particular the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine which was developed in Germany and funded in Germany, and was the first to be made available. Thank Pfizer, not Trump-who is always anxious to claim the credit for someone else's achievement.

Trump wrongly takes full credit for Covid vaccine

President Donald Trump is wrongly taking full credit for Pfizer's announcement that its COVID-19 vaccine was robustly successful

www.independent.co.uk

The US under the exhortations of Trump promised to pay about $2 Billion to Pfizer and also swatted away the issues that would slow down approvals for the vaccine in the US.

Do you EVER get sick of being wrong?

U.S. agrees to pay Pfizer and BioNTech $2 billion for 100 million doses of coronavirus vaccine

Under the agreement, the U.S. will get 100 million doses of the vaccine, if it works, and can acquire 500 million additional doses if needed.

www.cnbc.com

 

[snakestretcher]

The US under the exhortations of Trump promised to pay about $2 Billion to Pfizer and also swatted away the issues that would slow down approvals for the vaccine in the US.

Do you EVER get sick of being wrong?

U.S. agrees to pay Pfizer and BioNTech $2 billion for 100 million doses of coronavirus vaccine

Under the agreement, the U.S. will get 100 million doses of the vaccine, if it works, and can acquire 500 million additional doses if needed.

www.cnbc.com

And what does that have to do with a vaccine developed in Germany and funded by Pfizer, in Germany? Trump had nothing whatsoever to do with it, nor the speed with which it was developed. Your link was from July.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Hi!

Though I would use somewhat gentler language in critiquing my post, I do agree with you that we in the US have not had, how shall I say, leadership at the federal level by the best and brightest.

That, though, is arguing from a specific, and perhaps unique case against a theoretical conjecture.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.

And remember the "Claque Trump Big 3" [1] Trump, [2] Guns/Beer/Bourbon/God, and [3] World Championship All Star NASCAR Dancing with Apprentice Survivors of the Great American Monster Truck and Tractor Demolition Derby BBQ and Beer Celebration parties.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Go ahead and use ALL of Europe as an example if you will like?

You're even adding more cases(LOL)

In other words , you're NOT helping yourself

OK - here's some data using all of Europe

​

You might note that 35,088.96 is roughly 50.33% of 69,714.17. You might also note that 796.81 is roughly 68.65% of 1,160.66

and here's some more data including all of Europe

​

And, while this doesn't cover all of Europe (the data isn't yet available for all of the European countries [and some of them are having trouble securing vaccine since they were outbid by richer countries)

​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I think I understand now. Your disagreement seems to be resting on your lack of understanding of plain English words.

You are under the mistaken impression that a premise is a conclusion.

Not in the least. You mad a statement - "Both ameliorative measures and infection/death rates have increased.".

I asked you what conclusion you drew from that statement.

So far, you have NOT told anyone what conclusion you have drawn from that statement although there are only three possible alternatives:

1. The increase in ameliorative measures has made the infection/death rates worse;
   
   
2. The increase in ameliorative measures has had no effect on the infection/death rates;
   
   
   or
   
   
3. The increase in ameliorative measures has resulted in lower infection/death rates than would otherwise have occurred BUT that decrease has been off-set by other factors.

Please feel free to pick one of those options.

 

[Torus34]

And remember the "Claque Trump Big 3" [1] Trump, [2] Guns/Beer/Bourbon/God, and [3] World Championship All Star NASCAR Dancing with Apprentice Survivors of the Great American Monster Truck and Tractor Demolition Derby BBQ and Beer Celebration parties.

Hi!

Thanks for the grin. It helps when I wake up each morning to a dystopian America.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.