Jump to content

Texas is lifting restrictions


Recommended Posts

Let's just summarize. The guy who negligently allowed the power infrastructure to degrade to the point where several hundred Texans died in a predictable storm is now saying that lifting Covid restrictions is safe. Okay, that sounds believable. I mean, what could go wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nice! said:

Let's just summarize. The guy who negligently allowed the power infrastructure to degrade to the point where numerous Texans died in a predictable storm is now saying that lifting restrictions is safe. Okay, that sounds believable. I mean, what could go wrong?

Are Abbott and DiSantis in a contest to see who is the stupidest? From here, it looks like a tie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Are Abbott and DiSantis in a contest to see who is the stupidest? From here, it looks like a tie.

image.png.ff256a5e39a23d2bf79375a06ec2e8e7.png

I don't see any clear difference in the trend between Florida and the national average despite an elderly population and all without the significant damage to the states economy.  Doesn't look too stupid from here.

 

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Let's just summarize. The guy who negligently allowed the power infrastructure to degrade to the point where several hundred Texans died in a predictable storm is now saying that lifting Covid restrictions is safe. Okay, that sounds believable. I mean, what could go wrong?

To be fair, I don't think you can put the power grid failure at his feet.  There were other people who were supposed to be minding that particular henhouse.  But his policies and the support of anti-regulation certainly didn't help the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas 7 day average - 7000 with new cases rising at 7500.

Florida 7 day average - 5000 with 7000 new cases and rising.

Only 7% of the population is vaccinated.

Here we go again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

image.png.ff256a5e39a23d2bf79375a06ec2e8e7.png

I don't see any clear difference in the trend between Florida and the national average despite an elderly population and all without the significant damage to the states economy.  Doesn't look too stupid from here.

 

image.png

Florida has done well with the second wave of infections - but the reasons behind it are definitely a mixture of factors.  The looser regulations may certainly have helped the Floridian economy, but it is impossible to claim that other states should have followed their lead with restrictions.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/12/03/is-florida-doing-better-on-coronavirus-than-locked-down-states-politifact/

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Welcome to Texas!

texas.png

"Let it Co, let it Co, let it Co!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

To be fair, I don't think you can put the power grid failure at his feet.  There were other people who were supposed to be minding that particular henhouse.  But his policies and the support of anti-regulation certainly didn't help the situation.

That's exactly what TX GOV is trying to distract the focus from....  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are good with letting folks in thru the border with no mandatory restrictions regarding covid regs but you want tax paying citizens of the country to abide by covid regs.  You are just proving that this is mostly political. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TheMayor of Houston is less than happy with Abbott’s lifting of restrictions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

So you are good with letting folks in thru the border with no mandatory restrictions regarding covid regs but you want tax paying citizens of the country to abide by covid regs.  You are just proving that this is mostly political. 

The bullshit factory continues to spew

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

So you are good with letting folks in thru the border with no mandatory restrictions regarding covid regs but you want tax paying citizens of the country to abide by covid regs.  You are just proving that this is mostly political. 

Who said that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

So you are good with letting folks in thru the border with no mandatory restrictions regarding covid regs but you want tax paying citizens of the country to abide by covid regs.  You are just proving that this is mostly political. 

Can't you drink in silence?

Your stupid, drunken assumptions are painful to intelligent people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The bullshit factory continues to spew

Proof that industry drives the nation....:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grrr... said:

Who said that?

Gone Drinking. Probably from the Breitbart feed he hears on his teeth in between commercial breaks for God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Gone Drinking. Probably from the Breitbart feed he hears on his teeth in between commercial breaks for God.

I was kinda assuming that was what happened.  He's acting like he's disagreeing with someone here, but I didn't see anyone saying that.....

I should have just posted something like this:

Your strawman argument is invalid | Bard, Social justice, Argument

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

image.png.ff256a5e39a23d2bf79375a06ec2e8e7.png

I don't see any clear difference in the trend between Florida and the national average despite an elderly population and all without the significant damage to the states economy.  Doesn't look too stupid from here.

 

image.png

Trust me, oh it's fucking stupid....... watch and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the fact that people will get sick and die because of this.  However, when this goes sideways as it inevitably will, this might be the defining moment when people finally wake up and realize that Republican politicians really are scumbag bullshitters who don't give a shit about their constituents.  

I know, dreaming again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Who said that?

RWNM

 

Those damn brown skinned covid carriers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Keith said:

Trust me, oh it's fucking stupid....... watch and see.

lockdown-vs-no-lockdown-730x452.jpg

The only difference I see between lockdown states (in blue) and non-lockdown states (in red) is that the non-lockdown states didn't fuck up their economies.

So yes, I'll watch and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dog said:

lockdown-vs-no-lockdown-730x452.jpg

The only difference I see between lockdown states (in blue) and non-lockdown states (in red) is that the non-lockdown states didn't fuck up their economies.

So yes, I'll watch and see.

Does that take into account the federal subsidy the red states get?

If the "non-lockdown states" (what state actually even had a lock down?) have such great economies, then why are they complaining?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dog said:

The only difference I see between lockdown states (in blue) and non-lockdown states (in red) is that the non-lockdown states didn't fuck up their economies.

So yes, I'll watch and see.

That's called confirmation bias.  You already knew what you wanted to see before you got data, so you interpreted it exactly the way you wanted.

There are major differences between most blue (high population density in constricted areas) and red (largely rural) states.  In addition the climates vary substantially resulting in different behaviors and differing social distancing.  But, as usual, you will step forward and claim success when numerous statisticians have already explained there are simply too many confounding variables to draw conclusions.

You're a bullshitter, dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grrr... said:
34 minutes ago, Dog said:

The only difference I see between lockdown states (in blue) and non-lockdown states (in red) is that the non-lockdown states didn't fuck up their economies.

So yes, I'll watch and see.

That's called confirmation bias.  You already knew what you wanted to see before you got data, so you interpreted it exactly the way you wanted.

There are major differences between most blue (high population density in constricted areas) and red (largely rural) states.  In addition the climates vary substantially resulting in different behaviors and differing social distancing.  But, as usual, you will step forward and claim success when numerous statisticians have already explained there are simply too many confounding variables to draw conclusions.

You're a bullshitter, dog.

On top of which, he is using made-up "data" to make his claims both about covid and the economy.

Dog lies. It's sad, but it's not likely to change

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately "states rights" don't apply to handling a global pandemic.  When a locked down (as far as I know, no state is locked down) state can block anyone else from crossing their borders and entering, then maybe you would see a bigger difference in results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

That's called confirmation bias.  You already knew what you wanted to see before you got data, so you interpreted it exactly the way you wanted.

There are major differences between most blue (high population density in constricted areas) and red (largely rural) states.  In addition the climates vary substantially resulting in different behaviors and differing social distancing.  But, as usual, you will step forward and claim success when numerous statisticians have already explained there are simply too many confounding variables to draw conclusions.

You're a bullshitter, dog.

Sure, there are lot's of variables (would you mind explaining that to Gouv?) But lockdown vs no lockdown does not appear to be a significant one. It will be interesting to see what happens in Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sure, there are lot's of variables (would you mind explaining that to Gouv?) But lockdown vs no lockdown does not appear to be a significant one. It will be interesting to see what happens in Texas.

You use the term "lockdown" like you use the term "ban".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

You use the term "lockdown" like you use the term "ban".  

And I used the term "ban" accurately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

And I used the term "ban" accurately.

Restriction is a better term.  Maybe the multisyllabic nature of the word threw you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Restriction is a better term.  Maybe the multisyllabic nature of the word threw you.  

No...people were banned so ban is accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sure, there are lot's of variables (would you mind explaining that to Gouv?) But lockdown vs no lockdown does not appear to be a significant one. It will be interesting to see what happens in Texas.

Here we go again.  You agree there are a lot of variables, then try to restate your same conclusion that the data doesn't support.

Tell ya what.  Do a process flow with all the inputs and processes, then do a regression with all those variables as inputs.  Get me the p values for each.  Then show some statisticians your results and have them double check them.  No?

Then stop pretending to be an expert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Here we go again.  You agree there are a lot of variables, then try to restate your same conclusion that the data doesn't support.

Tell ya what.  Do a process flow with all the inputs and processes, then do a regression with all those variables as inputs.  Get me the p values for each.  Then show some statisticians your results and have them double check them.  No?

Then stop pretending to be an expert.

He is an expert. On bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

No...people were banned so ban is accurate.

People of a certain ethnicity were prohibited to travel to the US, ostensibly to halt a novel virus.  Unfortunately, the virus was not carried by just those of Chinese descent, and the restriction did not apply to the tens of thousands of people who were allowed to travel from the affected area of China.

Ineffectual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

People of a certain ethnicity were prohibited to travel to the US, ostensibly to halt a novel virus.  Unfortunately, the virus was not carried by just those of Chinese descent, and the restriction did not apply to the tens of thousands of people who were allowed to travel from the affected area of China.

Ineffectual.

People of a certain nationality were banned hence the use of the term "ban".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2021 at 11:38 AM, Dog said:

People of a certain nationality were banned hence the use of the term "ban".

Well, if the intention of that "ban" was to reduce the number of people from China entering the US, it may have accomplished the intended purpose.

But, it was intended to stop the entry of a deadly virus.  Since infection by the the virus is not limited to people of Chinese nationality, it did dick.

Tens of thousands of people traveled from the affected area of China under the "ban".  Not effectual.  At all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2021 at 11:40 AM, d'ranger said:

Being Muslim is not a nationality. I apologize for opening that post.

edit: unless someone can point out where Muslimistan is.

 

There was kind of an "Islamistan"..... Is that close? It was Afghanistan, and remains Afghanistan, but it was proposed at one point to rename it "Islamistan".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Well, if the intention of that "ban" was to reduce the number of people from China entering the US, it may have accomplished the intended purpose.

But, it was intended to stop the entry of a deadly virus.  Since infection by the the virus is not limited to people of Chinese nationality, it did dick.

Tens of thousands of people traveled from the affected area of China under the "ban".  Not effectual.  At all.

It's like everything else Trump did... not worth a shit

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
5 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Well, if the intention of that "ban" was to reduce the number of people from China entering the US, it may have accomplished the intended purpose.

But, it was intended to stop the entry of a deadly virus.  Since infection by the the virus is not limited to people of Chinese nationality, it did dick.

Tens of thousands of people traveled from the affected area of China under the "ban".  Not effectual.  At all.

It's like everything else Trump did... not worth a shit

- DSK

But, dagnabbit, Dog wants us to use the word "ban".

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

But, dagnabbit, Dog wants us to use the word "ban".

If he wasn't such a bullshitter, he could have said this, and been accurate and not such a liar:

"Trump implemented something he called a "ban" which was not designed to be effective at slowing the spread of the novel coronavirus, but was designed for and did play well with his base"

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

If he wasn't such a bullshitter, he could have said this, and been accurate and not such a liar:

"Trump implemented something he called a "ban" which was not designed to be effective at slowing the spread of the novel coronavirus, but was designed for and did play well with his base"

"Largely because he didn't give any fucks about a million Americans dying."

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
37 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

But, dagnabbit, Dog wants us to use the word "ban".

If he wasn't such a bullshitter, he could have said this, and been accurate and not such a liar:

"Trump implemented something he called a "ban" which was not designed to be effective at slowing the spread of the novel coronavirus, but was designed for and did play well with his base"

And it worked (for that purpose)! Look at how enthusiastically and vigorously Dog defends it!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

But, dagnabbit, Dog wants us to use the word "ban".

No I don't,  I don't care what words you use, you're the one with a bug up his ass over my accurate use of the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

No I don't,  I don't care what words you use, you're the one with a bug up his ass over my accurate use of the word.

Bullshit.  Everyone else is cool with calling it what it was - Travel Restrictions.

You insist it was a "ban".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Bullshit.  Everyone else is cool with calling it what it was - Travel Restrictions.

You insist it was a "ban".

And it was akin to shutting the barn door after the horse broke out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Bullshit.  Everyone else is cool with calling it what it was - Travel Restrictions.

You insist it was a "ban".

Bullshit...when millions of people are banned, you have a ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bullshit...when millions of people are banned, you have a ban.

Now, you are insisting on word usage.  A few posts back, you pretended that was me.

If you insist on the use of that word, at least be honest and accurate.  Insert the word "Ineffectual" in front of it.

Tens of thousands of travelers from the affected area of China would agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Now, you are insisting on word usage.  A few posts back, you pretended that was me.

If you insist on the use of that word, at least be honest and accurate.  Insert the word "Ineffectual" in front of it.

Tens of thousands of travelers from the affected area of China would agree.

Dog needs to take a refresher/remedial ESL course.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Now, you are insisting on word usage.  A few posts back, you pretended that was me.

If you insist on the use of that word, at least be honest and accurate.  Insert the word "Ineffectual" in front of it.

Tens of thousands of travelers from the affected area of China would agree.

No I'm not, you can call it Fred for all I care. It's still a ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

No I'm not, you can call it Fred for all I care. It's still a ban.

"Fred" is just as apt a description of a "ban" that lets in tens of thousands of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

"Fred" is just as apt a description of a "ban" that lets in tens of thousands of people.

Well then call it Fred. It's still a ban so that's what I call it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...