I would like to make some observations about the Supreme Court vacancy. First, I see nothing wrong with the President nominating someone for the position and using that as part of his campaign. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with Senators or Senate candidates using that nomination as part of their campaigns.
Second, I think any attempt to force a confirmation vote before the election or in a lame-duck session would lead some Democrats to bring the Senate to a halt by objecting to all unanimous consent requests. The Senate (due to Lyndon Johnson when he was Majority Leader) operates largely through unanimous consent requests. If the norm of unanimous consent for routine matters is not observed, then the Senate grinds to a halt. This tactic is far more realistic than the more exotic ideas that are being bandied about (such as Court-packing or threatening to end cloture in the future).
This brings up a larger point. For most of our history, Senate filibusters meant delaying legislation or nominations at the end of a Congress to kill them. This kind of filibuster is impossible or impractical except at the tail end of a Congress because there are too many other priorities and too much time. This would not be the case, though, in November or December 2020, if you assume that a new President or a Senate controlled by the other party would take control in January 2021.
Regarding exotic ideas that are being bandied about (such as Court-packing or threatening to end cloture in the future):
ReplyDeleteJosh Marshall, at Talking Points Memo, writes that the threat of precisely these measures, to enforce accountability for the contemplated SC appointment, is necessary to persuade Republican senators threatened with dismissal by their voters.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/actions-not-words
I note a NY Times timeline regarding SC vacancies in an election year, at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/19/us/politics/supreme-court-vacancies-election-year.html . Only CJ Roger Taney died closer to the election, and Lincoln nominated his successor well after the election. The nearest pre-election vacancy with a pre-election nomination occurred when the vacancy was 3× as far from election day as the present one.
I hope your tactic is adopted and successful. We have only a few tools to use during this Administration and Senate regime of unparalleled corruption and failed governance.
Web Development Services
ReplyDeleteEcommerce Website Design
" bring the Senate to a halt by objecting to all unanimous consent requests."
ReplyDeleteSo, filling RBG's seat would be a win-win situation? The only reason they're so reliant on unanimous consent is because they're routinely conducting business without a quorum, in defiance of the Constitution. I'd love to see that stop.
Isn't the Senate going to recess soon anyway for the election? If so, then refusing unanimous consent would only be effective after the election. And that's putting aside some other issues arising from any recess.
ReplyDelete(1) The GOP obviously had a plan in place for a Ginsberg death. Both McConnell and Graham immediately announced full speed ahead. Cruz is giving McConnell cover for his hypocrisy by demanding a full court to deal with the Dems’ promised election disputes.
ReplyDelete(2) Judicial appointments are a BIG issue for the GOP base. Preventing Clinton from appointing judges was why I voted for Trump in 2016 and Trump’s excellent appointments are my main reason for voting for him again. Well, that and Biden’s dementia.
Right. They pretty much have to go forward with filling the vacancy, or a significant fraction of their voting base will say, "You had one job, one job, and you refused to do it!" and stay home on November 3rd.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't vote them into office to avoid pissing off Democrats, even assuming that's actually possible at this point. We voted them into office to prevent the Democrats from turning the Court into a 5 man constitutional convention.
"We voted them into office to prevent the Democrats from turning the Court into a 5 man constitutional convention."
ReplyDeleteHow is the conservative 5 doing that more than the liberals? Come on with that silliness. Be honest. They are there to advance certain conservative leaning legal positions. Not judicial restraint.
Yes, Trump is there to "piss off Democrats" or school the libs. That's honest. That is a major reason the base likes Trump. He has the right enemies.
As to unanimous consent, there are a slew of things to do. Since the start, if one cares about originalism and all that (few consistently do -- Brett, e.g., thinks positions of people like John Marshall and James Madison are wrong; this has been cited for years now here), everything isn't put to a vote.
If one doesn't care about originalism, it's just basically sound procedural process. It isn't some plot. But, those who are plot hungry might see it that way. The practice isn't going to completely end permanently, I believe. Since it simply is not possible to actually practice parliamentary action without it to some degree. So, if that is your desire, you probably will be disappointed.
As to if the thing argued in the OP will work, I don't know. There are some things that basically have to be passed. Now, for instance, there is COVID related legislation. But, since Mitch McConnell bottles so much legislation anyway, I guess a few more months might be possible.
Anyway, the idea is not simply Trump saying "I will nominate Amy Comey Barrett and if I win, she will be confirmed by the Senate." It is that even if he loses, in fact even if the Senate is lost by the Republicans, someone might be confirmed. We shall see if a few Republicans who claim this they are against this will hold firm.
Well, that and Biden’s dementia.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:14 PM
Lol
Trump might be deeper into dementia than you. And I wouldn’t trust you to be the local trash collector.
It seems just the other day that Brett was upset about what he termed "hypocrisy" by those of us arguing that voting by as many people as were eligible was a public good.
ReplyDeleteYet today he's approving massive hypocrisy by not mere bloggers, but the Republican contingent in the Senate.
So next time he rails against hypocrisy, just ignore him. It's nothing but projection.
We shall see if a few Republicans who claim this they are against this will hold firm.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Joe : 8:09 PM
Lol
Narrator: They won’t.
This will end with Dems taking back the 2 Supreme Court positions that were stolen.
What two Supreme Court seats were stolen? The only one during the past four years is Garland's. Kavanaugh was appointed after Kennedy retired during the Trump administration. But Roberts and Alito are occupying in seats that Al Gore would have filled if the Republicans on the Supreme Court had not stolen the presidency from him.
ReplyDeleteSo you think 4 have been stolen? I’m fine with that. The Dems should add 4 more.
ReplyDeleteWhich seat was stolen besides the one from Obama (Garland) and the two from Gore (Roberts and Alito)?
ReplyDelete"It's nothing but projection."
ReplyDeleteIt's never anything else.
"Roberts and Alito are occupying in seats that Al Gore would have filled if the Republicans on the Supreme Court had not stolen the presidency from him."
That's a more complicated argument. Bush actually won the election in 2004 and it was during that second term that he appointed Roberts and Alito. Maybe Gore would have won re-election, but maybe not. The Grand Theft President in 2000 can't be proved to be causal.
Which seat was stolen besides the one from Obama (Garland) and the two from Gore (Roberts and Alito)?
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Henry : 9:01 PM
Seriously? Watch what happens in the next few weeks.
Good point. I'd forgotten that Roberts and Alito were appointed during Bush's second term. A case has been made that the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio, but I will not address that.
ReplyDeleteTrump and McConnell have a constitutional right to replace Ginsburg. Not a moral right, in light of Garland, but it wouldn't be theft.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Moscow Mitch, it’s theft.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem here is the Electoral College. Rethuglikkkans keep losing elections and still get their choices for the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteBartbuster: "And I wouldn’t trust you [Bart] to be the local trash collector." There are still a lot of small municipal waste operations, but as with other services like buses, it's moving into the hands of large specialist corporations. Considrr the technical complexity of recycling, even limited to glass, paper, aluminium, steel and PET bottles. Wikipedia: "In Germany alone, waste management has evolved into a large economic sector. There are more than 270,000 people working in some 11,000 companies with an annual turnover of around 70 billion euros."
ReplyDeleteLaw won't escape this trend. Online law firms plus AI are coming for hedge lawyers like Bart.
Instant run-off voting could have helped clarify things too.
ReplyDeleteSince it is sometimes exaggerated, using what some minority says as a whole, let it be noted that Garland received specific concern as a stolen seat ("stolen seat," if you wish) above all else. The other examples to me is weaker.
Someone once even tossed in Thomas. No. He was confirmed in the usual messy way, everything factored in based on the judgment calls of the day. He very well might have lied, but not sure where that will take you. Various nominees lied.
Then, there is Roberts and Alito. I agree with Mark basically that the 2004 win wasn't somehow the fruit of the poisonous tree. A few doubt the Ohio results, but the victory there was too much to be negated by surely clear problems with the voting procedures. It worked at well that no one was confirmed during Bush's first term.
Some people don't like to use the word "stolen" or "theft" for Garland, but the terms don't just mean some sort of statutory taking of property. The same would apply if the rules change again this time. Whatever word used, as a matter of political structural balancing, filling the seat before the election or after if Trump loses (esp. if the Senate changes hands) is serious business.
The Constitution is set up in such a way that the various branches are ever shifting, responding to imbalances in various ways. Constitutional norms factor that in. The raw power to do something, much like in day to day life, is not all that should matter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are, by the way, "constitutional norms" that develop over time.
ReplyDeleteLike in day to day life, they work off the rules in place (such as specific constitutional provisions regarding the confirmation process) and from them develop procedures and practices. Just using raw power to do things long term is not a very workable system here.
The messy work of providing and upholding a reasonably smooth running of such norms is often a matter of partisan political battle. A quite important one for the health of the system as a whole.
We have gone off the rails of late here and the 2020 elections are quite important.
C2H5OH: Yet today he's approving massive hypocrisy by not mere bloggers, but the Republican contingent in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to the Democrat hypocrisy? The parties both switched their 2016 positions when Obama was POTUS in a New York nanosecond. Surprise, surprise.
Why don't we let the Notorious RBG settle this. When Obama appointed Garland, Ginsberg got on the air twice to demand the Senate take up the nomination before the election.
“That’s their job,” RBG said in 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”...“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees”
That settles it. Unless, of course, you believe that Ginsberg was a Democrat political hack in robes who routinely supported the party position at every turn.
Do you really believe that we are all so stupid as to be unable to see through your specious citation of RBG's 2016 remark? Obviously, if another justice had died and she were still here, she might not, in light of the theft of Garland's seat, have said the same thing that she said in 2016. If she didn't say what she said in 2016, it wouldn't mean that she'd changed her principle; it would mean merely that she believed that the Democrats are entitled, this one time, to the return of the stolen seat. If they got it, then she could return to her 2016 principle for the next vacancy. On this point, see https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/rbg-vacant-seat-merrick-garland-mcconnell-principles.html?via=recirc_recent
ReplyDeleteBart, "whataboutism" doesn't impress me. Sure, a couple of Democrats may have said something, or some statement of RBG's could be taken out of context and misused by a person addicted to bias confirmation.
ReplyDeleteBut that does not reduce or deflect from the massive hypocrisy of the Republican leadership and the large majority of the Republican contingent.
And your support of it does not redound to your credit. But then, that's par for the course for you.
Let me explain why I trust nothing you say. You are the person who, in late March, when it was obvious to everyone else what was coming, said:
"Next, death rate should be measured as a percentage of population, not infections. So, yes, the far more prevalent annual flu causing roughly 30,000 deaths this season is more dangerous that COVID 19 has proven to be."
Now that the number of excess deaths during the pandemic (which is a more accurate estimate of the actual cost than "confirmed cases") is about 300,000 thousand, you even a couple of days ago called COVID-19 a "severe cold".
You should never be trusted on any subject, ever, because, for you, facts and the truth itself have no meaning.
Now I'll just bow out and let you display more of your pathology.
Brett: We voted them into office to prevent the Democrats from turning the Court into a 5 man constitutional convention.
ReplyDeleteJoe: How is the conservative 5 doing that more than the liberals? Come on with that silliness. Be honest. They are there to advance certain conservative leaning legal positions. Not judicial restraint.
I believe Brett is speaking of enforcing the Constitution as written.
Democrats appoint rubber stamps who can be relied upon to erase and rewrite the Constitution to affirm progressive policy enacted by Congress and the POTUS or create new progressive "constitutional rights." You never hear about Democrat appointments "evolving" into "moderates" or "swing votes" who join the conservatives to reverse progressive policy. Never.
So, yes, many of us vote to keep the "Democrats from turning the Court into a 5 man constitutional convention."
I agree that Republican appointments are hardly angels in this regard. Because the legal guild is a overwhelmingly progressive institution, "conservative" justices often succumb to institutional and personal pressure to "evolve" into "moderates" or "swing votes" to join progressives in erasing and rewriting the Constitution. However, you rarely see conservative justices affirmatively imposing their policy by rewriting the Constitution. For example, pro-life justices argue for reversing the fictional progressive "right to abortion," not for rewriting the Constitution to create a " right to life" prohibiting abortion.
Henry: Do you really believe that we are all so stupid as to be unable to see through your specious citation of RBG's 2016 remark? Obviously, if another justice had died and she were still here, she might not, in light of the theft of Garland's seat, have said the same thing that she said in 2016.
ReplyDeleteI posted here on Garland. My position was the GOP Senate had the power to refuse to consider Garland and McConnell should have been honest about the reason: Garland had a long history as a Democrat rubber stamp, especially for bureaucratic decrees, and was therefore unqualified for the position.
Trump straight forwardly campaigned on appointing Scalia's replacement with one of a list of disclosed judges. You can make the argument this made enough of a difference to win election. Kept me from voting Libertarian.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteC2H5OH: Let me explain why I trust nothing you say. You are the person who, in late March, when it was obvious to everyone else what was coming, said: "Next, death rate should be measured as a percentage of population, not infections. So, yes, the far more prevalent annual flu causing roughly 30,000 deaths this season is more dangerous that COVID 19 has proven to be."
ReplyDelete100% true.
However, I do admit further data proved I was mistaken. As of August 30, CDC has admitted only a bit over 9,000 people have died from COVID alone. In all the rest of the "estimated COVID deaths," the deceased were an average age the late 70s and suffered from two or more co-morbidities which could have killed them, including such things as trauma and poisoning. In sum, the vast majority of "COVID deaths" are counting very old people already dying and completely unrelated causes like car accidents.
Check my Facebook timeline for the data links and screen shots. I would not be surprised if CDC has scrubbed these admissions by now.
Believing that a nominee is unqualified is not a legitimate reason not to consider the nominee. If the Republicans believed that Garland was unqualified, they could have made the case at his confirmation hearings.
ReplyDeleteSomehow, this reminds me of the Republicans' refusal to hear witnesses at Trump's impeachment "trial."
(Of course, no Republican nominee could ever be accused of being a Republican rubber stamp. (sarcasm).)
""You had one job, one job, and you refused to do it!" and stay home on November 3rd."
ReplyDeleteI think Bircher Brett is correct about this as an empirical comment on GOP base thinking, and I think it speaks volumes about the GOP base. The GOP base doesn't care about principles like honor, fair play or consistency, they care about certain goals they have, period, and so politicians like Trump or the Senators who are so flip flopping face no political fall out from that base in fact they would face significant fall out only if they put principle over partisan goals (this is why they call any Republican who makes decisions on honor, fair play or consistency 'RINO's' they are not real Republicans because real Republicans put goals in front of principle, fair play and consistency. They know this and concede it, albeit unconsciously. Expressions of principles, to people like this, are just rhetorical tools of the moment,to the extremist paranoid politics must be fought 'dirty' and with getting away with whatever you can because it's an existential threat akin to a war. Another sign of this is when Bircher Bart tortures yet another English word (the principles even of grammar and definition also suffer when people put ideology over principle, hence Bircher Bart's made up definitional uses of words like 'totalitarian,' 'absolute,' 'persons,' etc.,) in calling Garland 'unqualified.' The normal, actual use of 'qualified' has to to do with non-partisan qualities like record of accomplishment, experience, education, adherence to professional norms, these are either not recognized or held in disdain by Birchers. Note when they talk of 'draining the swamp' to them the 'swamp' are career civil servants who got where they are by adherence to neutral principles of civil service and their professions, what they see as 'draining' is the nepotism, favoritism and patronage hires. It's an actual 'upside down' universe where up is down and down is up, but it's natural for people who have lost all sense of principle-whether they be moral, democratic, intellectual, professional, linguistic, it doesn't matter-because they are focused on partisan goals. In this way (and in their bigotry) they are just like the followers of Jackson who put partisanship and patronage over principles of professionalism and good government. This is why they hate 'progressivism.' Progressivism, to a historian, is not what modern day liberals call themselves, it was the actual bi-partisan movement that advocated for doing away with Jacksonian and Tammany Hall patronage and disdain of professionalism for a system as apolitical as possible based on norms of civil service, non-partisan expertise, and professional norms. It was what gave us non-partisan appointed contract bound city managers and police chiefs hired on objective credentials instead of all powerful mayors and sherrifs who rigged the system to entrench themselves and their friends with only partisan goals professed (the most easily grifted person is the uber-partisan, look at the current situation with Steve Bannon's project or the NRA for examples) as principles. Of course Birchers, our modern-day Jacksonians, despise this.
Henry: Believing that a nominee is unqualified is not a legitimate reason not to consider the nominee.
ReplyDeleteI must have missed the constitutional provision guaranteeing POTUS nominees a Senate hearing.
STOP whining. The GOP was simply fortunate in the timing of various Supreme deaths and retirements, including RBG’s refusal to retire when Obama could have replaced her.
You want to vent, vent at RBG.
I didn't say that denying Garland a hearing violated a provision of the Constitution. Refusing to hold hearings on any of Obama's nominees, throughout his eight years in office, would not have violated a specific constitutional provision. If Biden is elected and the Senate remains Republican, it will not surprise me if the Senate denies hearings to all Biden's nominees for his entire four or eight years in office. That is because Republicans do not play by the rules, as I define in the next paragraph.
ReplyDeleteArticle II, section 2, gives the president the power to nominate judges "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," but doesn't spell out that the Senate must consider nominees. But one can nevertheless say that believing a nominee to be unqualified is not a legitimate reason not to consider the nominee. Legitimacy doesn't derive solely from constitutional language. It derives from long-established practices to implement the Constitution and the good faith of government officials to continue such practices absent a legitimate reason not to. That's what I mean by playing by the rules.
" in fact they would face significant fall out only if they put principle over partisan goals (this is why they call any Republican who makes decisions on honor, fair play or consistency 'RINO's' they are not real Republicans because real Republicans put goals in front of principle, fair play and consistency."
ReplyDeleteHere's the problem, really: If your principles conflict with Republican partisan goals, this suggests that you have the wrong set of principles to be a Republican. Thus, "Republican In Name Only", RINO; It refers to nominal "Republicans" who have the wrong set of principles.
Ideally, I want a politician to have principles that will lead them to the policies MY principles dictate. That's the perfect situation, which you hardly ever get. I supported Rand Paul in the primaries, but he wasn't successful.
"Good enough" would be a politician who merely lacks principles that would lead them to oppose the policies my principles dictate, but who will advance my policies for pragmatic reasons. That's Trump, a lot of the time.
The worst case scenario is a politician who is principled, but whose principles will motivate them to actively OPPOSE the policies MY principles dictate. Such a politician may, in a sense, be personally admirable. But, pragmatically, I want them to be personally admirable somewhere other than a position of power.
You're basically demanding that I prefer hostile principle to friendly non-principle. Nope, a guy on the other side of the fight may be personally admirable, but they're still on the OTHER side of a fight, and the fight is important to win.
"If your principles conflict with Republican partisan goals, this suggests that you have the wrong set of principles to be a Republican."
ReplyDeleteAs I said, for Birchers principles other than partisan goals just don't exist. What matters, only what matters, are achieving certain partisan substantive goals by any means that can be gotten away with. Any politician who is troubled by the means and breaks for them, in other words at times puts democratic, professional or civil service norms above a partisan substantive goal isn't really a Republican for them. They weight those norms as nil and partisan substantive goals as everything.
breaks from them I meant to type, meaning criticizing or blocking an attempt at a partisan substantive goal on the grounds that the process involved in obtaining it is contrary to norms of professionalism, civil service, democracy, fair play, etc.,
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHenry: But one can nevertheless say that believing a nominee to be unqualified is not a legitimate reason not to consider the nominee. Legitimacy doesn't derive solely from constitutional language. It derives from long-established practices to implement the Constitution and the good faith of government officials to continue such practices absent a legitimate reason not to. That's what I mean by playing by the rules.
ReplyDeleteIs there a more legitimate reason to decline to consider a nominee than the fact they are unqualified?
Progressive Democrats have zero use for traditions unless one becomes expedient to achieve a partisan or ideological goal. See, e.g., bypassing our representative democratic institutions to rewrite the millennium-long definition of marriage to include homosexual unions.
Spare me the self-righteous hypocrisy!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. W: Another sign of this is when Bircher Bart tortures yet another English word (the principles even of grammar and definition also suffer when people put ideology over principle, hence Bircher Bart's made up definitional uses of words like 'totalitarian,' 'absolute,' 'persons,' etc.,) in calling Garland 'unqualified.' The normal, actual use of 'qualified' has to to do with non-partisan qualities like record of accomplishment, experience, education, adherence to professional norms, these are either not recognized or held in disdain by Birchers.
ReplyDeleteA judge's job is to neutrally apply the law as written to a set of facts. None of the rest of what you mentioned is relevant in determining a person's qualifications for the position except in accomplishing that job. Garland was and remains a progressive rubber stamp.
Note when they talk of 'draining the swamp' to them the 'swamp' are career civil servants who got where they are by adherence to neutral principles of civil service and their professions...
Neutral principles? Bureaucracies are the foremost example of the herd mentality in humans. Every progressive bureaucracy is reliably progressive.
...what they see as 'draining' is the nepotism, favoritism and patronage hires."
Mythology. Actually, draining the swamp is removing the corrupt from a progressive government choosing winners and losers, where the political establishment gets wealthy through rent seeking and big business captures the unaccountable bureaucracies to destroy their business competition.
As of August 30, CDC has admitted only a bit over 9,000 people have died from COVID alone. In all the rest of the "estimated COVID deaths," the deceased were an average age the late 70s and suffered from two or more co-morbidities which could have killed them, including such things as trauma and poisoning. In sum, the vast majority of "COVID deaths" are counting very old people already dying and completely unrelated causes like car accidents.
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous, false, and innumerate.
First, if a diabetic is killed in a car accident, it appears that Bart would disagree with characterizing the death as a traffic fatality.
Second, per this report the number of Covid deaths of individuals under 75 - which is to say not in their late 70's - as recorded by the CDC was about 77,000, not 9,000.
Third, if you want to compare to the flu you should do an honest comparison. The bulk of flu deaths also occur in older people. In fact, if we look at the 2018-2019 flu season we find that 74.8% of flu deaths recorded were in people 65 or older - separate data are not provided for age 75 and older. For comparison, 79% of Covid deaths were in this group. Not a huge difference, and no doubt there were plenty of co-morbidities among the flu victims as well.
Note, by the way, that the CDC's figures are lower than those reported elsewhere because, as they explain, there is sometimes significant lag between the death and its reporting to the agency.
BD: As of August 30, CDC has admitted only a bit over 9,000 people have died from COVID alone. In all the rest of the "estimated COVID deaths," the deceased were an average age the late 70s and suffered from two or more co-morbidities which could have killed them, including such things as trauma and poisoning. In sum, the vast majority of "COVID deaths" are counting very old people already dying and completely unrelated causes like car accidents.
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous, false, and innumerate. First, if a diabetic is killed in a car accident, it appears that Bart would disagree with characterizing the death as a traffic fatality.
Just the opposite. My point was counting traffic fatalities as “COVID deaths” is fraud.
Second, per this report the number of Covid deaths of individuals under 75 - which is to say not in their late 70's - as recorded by the CDC was about 77,000, not 9,000.
Read for content: “ a bit over 9,000 people have died from COVID alone.”
Third, if you want to compare to the flu you should do an honest comparison. The bulk of flu deaths also occur in older people.
Agreed. Mote evidence for my analogy.
byomtov, it is useless to point out anything logical or mathematical to Bart. He is incapable of understanding mathematics, and his use of logic is idiosyncratic.
ReplyDeleteLogic can be a valuable tool, allowing a person to cut to heart of an issue. But Bart uses logic like a sculptor uses a cheese-grater, to carefully scrape away everything that disagrees with his predetermined image of what reality should be.
I've taken to scrolling right to the bottom and reading the comments backward. That allows me to skip over a lot of the idiocy, not to mention the (relatively) valuable comments about getting penile enhancements...
C2H5OH:
ReplyDeleteThe best way to tell if your logic and evidence is effective is when your opponent no longer contests the proposition (COVID deaths) and instead engages in logical fallacies (like name calling).
The defense rests.
"Good enough" would be a politician who merely lacks principles that would lead them to oppose the policies my principles dictate, but who will advance my policies for pragmatic reasons. That's Trump, a lot of the time.
ReplyDeleteI'm dubious of this. From years of reading him, it isn't just that Trump "pragmatically" advances policies that appeals, but the specific tone of his approach. This appeals to his supporters, including those here. Some might find him a bit much, but there is a basic core they like.
It is who he is on a basic level. The fact Trump "schools" the Dems is only partially pragmatic. (1) Basic policy stuff is basically his own. Not the Two Corinthians stuff, let's say, but the Muslim ban etc. (2) His style -- except maybe some "blue skying" stuff (to quote BB) -- appeals to his supporters. This includes basically an anti-government approach that sneers at not only professional government but professionals as a whole. Recall too BB's being impressed at Trump marrying a beautiful woman as if this was some major accomplishment for someone with his money and power.
So in a matter of speaking, Trump has "principles" plus policy goals that are not merely pragmatic decisions of someone who doesn't believe in them [check out, e.g., a post at Lawyers Drugs & Money Blog how it can be useful to support the Federalist Society in law school even if you don't believe in it]. At least to his supporters.
As Mr. W. notes, the lack of concern for basic civic qualities, one might say, is troubling. One can share your goals by belief or action & that apparently is all that matters. It is seen as just silly if someone does this while lacking any concern for basic civic values as Mr. W. cites. It is helped that any problem isn't even seen so Trump is really seen as just a normal politician. When it suits. At other times, Trump is seen as an ideal, someone above everyone else. If criticized, as a cover, he suddenly might be seen as a politician, but like anyone else.
This like the COVID conversation might seem a bit off topic but the overall mentality does affect the current controversy.
(Late in the comment, it should note that it is silly to CARE if someone like Trump acts without basic ability to act like someone in the office should act. So, evangelicals handwave that if they get what they want. Since it's hard to merely do that on a human level, they also find ways to explain way what Trump did, at worse [though this only as a last resort] basically saying he acts like any other politician.)
ReplyDeleteCritical components of democracy are procedural: voting rights, rule by majority, freedom of speech, etc. The R focus solely on substantive outcome, as we see here quite blatantly, reveals their authoritarian mindset and their fundamental contempt for democracy.
ReplyDeleteConservatives on the Supreme Court on some level appeal to freedom of speech, but that term can be used in various ways. Net, their usage has issues.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans also at times appeal to rule by majority -- so such and such is said to be against majoritarian rule (down to finding what a majority in the Senate does regarding judicial nominees problematic) -- but it is does selectively. So, e.g., Republican leadership don't actually put things to a vote since that can cause problems. Or, have hearings in certain cases. We saw that with Garland.
Voting rights? Well, the importance of that is basically shown by them denying when deemed necessary they are actually threatening voting rights. But, they do that worst than the other things. Their disdain coming out pretty clear.
Just the opposite. My point was counting traffic fatalities as “COVID deaths” is fraud
ReplyDeleteGee. Are you incapable of understanding a simple analogy? You argue, in effect, that a diabetic who dies of Covid shouldn't be counted as a Covid death. I'm poiting out that by the same "logic" a diabetic killed in a car crash wouldn't count as a traffic fatality. And the idea that a death shouldn't be attributed to Covid if the victim had cardiac disease is absurd.
Read for content:
Why don't you write what you intend?
a bit over 9,000 people have died from COVID alone. In all the rest of the "estimated COVID deaths," the deceased were an average age the late 70s and suffered from two or more co-morbidities which could have killed them, including such things as trauma and poisoning.
Do you know what the word "and" means?
Third, if you want to compare to the flu you should do an honest comparison. The bulk of flu deaths also occur in older people.
Agreed. Mote evidence for my analogy.
No. Evidence that your analogy makes no sense. You weigh "the far more prevalent annual flu causing roughly 30,000 deaths" against the 9000 Covid deaths you concede, after excluding all those in their late 70's or, which you apparently meant with co-morbidities. But you have to take out of that 30,000 as well those who are old or have co-morbidities beforemaking that comparison.
The 30,000 number will shrink dramatically.
And of course your exclusions are nonsense. Everyone dies. Covid, or the flu, or car accidents, merely hasten the process. The issue is how many years of life are lost. By any reasonable calculation Covid costs a lot - multiples of what flu costs, and that's without counting the apparent long-term health effects on survivors.
Further flaws:
Some of the "co-morbidities" are actually symptoms of Covid. So if the virus causes respiratory failure, and both are listed on the death certificate it is still clear that the virus was the cause. See here for an explanation.
The same article mentions that we have about 200,000 excess deaths in the US so far this year. This is the best measure of deaths due to the virus. To talk about 9,000 is foolish, ignorant, (inclusive or) plain dishonest.
You are peddling nonsense, Bart.
BD: Just the opposite. My point was counting traffic fatalities as “COVID deaths” is fraud
ReplyDeletebyomtov: You argue, in effect, that a diabetic who dies of Covid shouldn't be counted as a Covid death.
Let me correct your bald faced misrepresentation of my posts: If the deceased presents as possibly having COVID and 2-3 additional co-morbidities, and the ME is not conducting an autopsy or at least testing for COVID (the general situation according to CDC), then the deceased should NOT be counted as a "COVID death."
CDC and the states NEVER do this to maintain a death count with any other illness. The only reasons this is done with COVID are (1) justification of unprecedented government shutdowns and detentions, and/or (2) to politically weaponize a severe cold against the incumbent POTUS during an election.
Some of the "co-morbidities" are actually symptoms of Covid.
The leading co-morbidities are heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, age and morbid obesity (which may instead be a causal factor of the first three) - none of which are caused by COVID.
The same article mentions that we have about 200,000 excess deaths in the US so far this year.
As I have noted before, the NYT "estimated excess deaths" is nonsense because you have multiple variables - COVID, all other diseases, overdose and suicide (which always rise will mass unemployment), and all the other causes of death.
Given the official CDC "estimated COVID deaths" is inflated nonsense for the reasons I noted and the NYT noted another 60,000 deaths in excess of that inflated nonsense, other variables are obviously at work.
i can do this all day. This subject is a target rich environment of error.
The leading co-morbidities are heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, age and morbid obesity (which may instead be a causal factor of the first three) - none of which are caused by COVID.
ReplyDeleteAnd if Covid hastens death from any of these you want to argue that the death shouldn't be counted as a Covid death, when it obviously should be.
"Severe cold." What a joke.
"the NYT estimated excess deaths" is nonsense
Well, it's not the NYT's, and it's not nonsense either. Given the complications you describe it is in fact the best measure of Covid deaths. That you can't understand this doesn't make it wrong.
i can do this all day. This subject is a target rich environment of error.
I'm sure you can do this all day. Making things up and misrepresentation is pretty easy. The only "target rich environment of error" here is your comments.
OP is correct. Unless McConnell has the votes to rush procedure (which I doubt), he will have a lot of difficulty confirming a nominee.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I have to say something about this:
Josh Marshall, at Talking Points Memo, writes that the threat of precisely these measures, to enforce accountability for the contemplated SC appointment, is necessary to persuade Republican senators threatened with dismissal by their voters.
Marshall's mind has been really warped by partisanship. He used to be pretty journalistic in his approach, but this is bat**** insane.
His mistake is very simple. In order to achieve whatever goals Dems have in the future, whether Biden or Trump is elected, they need the Senate. They are doing a great job in current polling.
Want to know how to lose the Senate? Well one easy way would be to endorse a policy that is famously one of the most unpopular political positions in the history of the US. That's what court packing is. It was so unpopular that FDR, AT THE HEIGHT OF HIS POPULARITY AND WITH HUGE MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, AND AT A TIME WHEN HE WAS PASSING SOME OF THE MOST AMBITIOUS LEGISLATION OF ALL TIME, could not get it through.
Now, obviously, if someone like Bernie Sanders in a safe seat wants to endorse court packing, he can. It won't pass, of course, because you need guys like Joe Manchin to endorse it, and they won't. But he can do it.
But you absolutely do not want to be sending the message in close Senate races that if you vote for X for Senate, he or she is going to march in and pack the Supreme Court. And if Dems and their friends in the press like Marshall keep talking about this, it's going to make it an issue where candidates get peppered by media inquiries as to where they stand.
Leaving aside the fact that court packing is a terrible idea, which would completely screw up the legal system, and basically supported almost exclusively by political hacks who have no respect for it, even if it were a good idea, you would NOT want to talk about it publicly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBD: The leading co-morbidities are heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, age and morbid obesity (which may instead be a causal factor of the first three) - none of which are caused by COVID.
ReplyDeletebyomtov: And if Covid hastens death from any of these you want to argue that the death shouldn't be counted as a Covid death, when it obviously should be.
And the evidence for this oft repeated assumption is what? Seriously, how many tests and autopsies were performed to verify the presence of COVID and then provide actual physical evidence of the mechanism by which COVID allegedly hastens death from other morbidities? I have seen some speculation concerning blood clots, but no comprehensive scientific studies.
BD: the NYT" estimated excess deaths" is nonsense
byomtov: Well, it's not the NYT's...
I followed your links to what the NYT claims is their "analysis" of CDC "estimates."
byomtov: ...and it's not nonsense either. Given the complications you describe it is in fact the best measure of Covid deaths.
I will accept your concession the "estimated COVID deaths" are groundless, er... complicated. This does not change the further fact that there are too many variables in the "estimate of excess deaths" to use this as any sort of measure of "COVID deaths." When CDC used this methodology to estimate annual pre-COVID influenza deaths, the agency provided a large range of possible deaths because of uncertainly caused by other variables. Now that COVID and increasing suicide and overdose are added to the mix, the uncertainly concerning any one variable is off the charts.
i can do this all day. This subject is a target rich environment of error.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:13 PM
No one here doubts that you can promote dishonest bullshit all day. It’s what you do. It’s all you ever do.
But here in the real world, the ultimate Covid death count will be determined by deaths above expected. You can post bullshit about this until your hands cramp from carpal tunnel, but no one who matters is going to care what you have to say.
A comment about statistics: when there is a relatively small deviation from the average, the uncertainty as to how much of the deviation is significant is large. So (for example) when the average number of deaths in a year is about 2.8 million, and there is an excess of 30 thousand, yes, there's an uncertainty as to how much of that 30 thousand is actually significant.
ReplyDeleteThus, if the average number of deaths per 100,000 is about 731.4 in a given year, and the number of deaths is 732.2, it is reasonable to say that nothing significant is going on.
The death rate in 2020 looks to be somewhere around 800 and some or higher. It is statistically insane to discount this as not caused by some agency.
It is tragically crippling innumeracy to be unable to understand this, but that's the way some people are: intellectually lacking. It's only when that innumeracy is the result of deliberate ignorance that they should be sneered at.
We note that the economic downturn that we are undergoing is due to the virus. Therefore, although the virus may not have directly caused any suicides, it is still responsible for any deaths due to suicide. And although it may be argued that those suicides would not have occurred if the closures had not been made, the fact is that then the virus would have killed even more people, so that is a dishonest and wishful-thinking argument.
so that is a dishonest and wishful-thinking argument.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger C2H5OH : 6:29 PM
Master of the dishonest and wishful thinking argument.
These words should be engraved on Sniffles’ gravestone. Hopefully after he dies from Covid.
Just a general comment about coronavirus:
ReplyDeleteI am not a scientist, but it's exceedingly clear we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. We are going to be dealing with economic after-effects and psychological impacts and everything else for decades even after a vaccine or effective cure is developed.
Downplaying this is just ignorant.
"We note that the economic downturn that we are undergoing is due to the virus. Therefore, although the virus may not have directly caused any suicides, it is still responsible for any deaths due to suicide."
ReplyDeleteNow wait one minute. The virus is certainly killing some people, and making others sick. But it's doing neither of these at a sufficient rate to cause an economic downturn, especially given the advanced age of most of the people dying.
The economic downturn isn't due to the virus, which, while worse than your average flu, is not remotely bad enough to directly impact the economy. It's due to our reaction to the virus.
To some extent it's due to government orders, and to some extend due to panicked reactions inspired by PR coming out of the government. But a much more focused effort to protect vulnerable populations, (Instead of forcing nursing homes to accept carriers.) without a general lockdown, could easily have been more successful at much less economic cost.
could easily have been more successful at much less economic cost.
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Brett : 8:12 PM
Lol. You morons won’t even wear masks.
The economic downturn isn't due to the virus, which, while worse than your average flu, is not remotely bad enough to directly impact the economy. It's due to our reaction to the virus.
ReplyDeleteThis is like saying that if a city is evacuated because an invading army is advancing, the economic collapse of the city is not due to the invading army, but the reaction to the invading army.
Sure Brett, we could have not had any lockdowns and killed 2 million people. It's rather obvious why we didn't.
Yeah, Brett, if only we'd had competent national leadership, which wouldn't have had pre-announced travel shutdowns, which created mass influxes of infected people to create a spike when there was no testing, maybe it wouldn't have been a panic when the virus became widespread in the USA, and no massive shutdown would have been needed.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, if someone had lit their hair on fire in trying to get the tests developed in a hurry and created a tracking and trace mechanism, ...
And then if a national, uniform shutdown had been undertaken right away when community spread was taking place, instead of a rolling, state-by-state piecemeal circle-jerk, we'd have been able to actually reopen ...
And, of course, if some incompetent ass and his conservative lackeys hadn't reopened too early, ...
Isn't the game of hindsight-enabled what-if fun?
"This is like saying that if a city is evacuated because an invading army is advancing, the economic collapse of the city is not due to the invading army, but the reaction to the invading army."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's right. If five geriatric guys with a bb gun marched on a city, and it evacuated in fear of the invading army, the economic collapse would be due to the reaction, not the army.
The key point being: If the 'invading army' isn't nasty enough to shut down your economy itself if you let them arrive without evacuating, you ruined your economy yourself, it wasn't them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteC2H5OH: Thus, if the average number of deaths per 100,000 is about 731.4 in a given year, and the number of deaths is 732.2, it is reasonable to say that nothing significant is going on. The death rate in 2020 looks to be somewhere around 800 and some or higher. It is statistically insane to discount this as not caused by some agency.
ReplyDeleteOr far more likely, agencies plural.
This average annual number of US deaths you are offering: How many years are being averaged? Are they being normalized for population growth? Once normalized, how much do deaths normally vary from year to year?
If this average is over the past generation, it likely does not account for the recent pre-covid rise in overdoses and suicide; and the additional post-shutdown, mass unemployment increase in both, the increase in deaths from natural causes because normal treatment was denied or forgone out of fear of COVID, and the recent surge in homicide in blue cities burning.
Then, there is the variability in flu deaths.
We note that the economic downturn that we are undergoing is due to the virus.
There is zero evidence COVID symptoms shuttered one business or unemployed one person. Government COVID fear mongering and shutdowns caused the current recession, and the attendant deaths from suicide, overdoses and forgone/denied medical care.
What makes this worse is there is also zero evidence government COVID fear mongering and shutdowns "flattened the curve" in any state or nation, saving a single person from dying from COVID.
Yes, that's right. If five geriatric guys with a bb gun marched on a city, and it evacuated in fear of the invading army, the economic collapse would be due to the reaction, not the army.
ReplyDeleteThis is a virus that has killed a million people worldwide. It's not 5 guys with a bb gun.
Bart, since your question is something that others may wonder about, I'm going to respond this once. But in general, you should learn to do your own research -- and maybe try to do a little development of critical thinking skills, too...
ReplyDeleteThe number of deaths in the US (given in per-100,000 numbers for brevity, as is the norm)
2015: 733.1
2016: 728.8
2017: 731.9
2018: 723.6.
(2017 was a bad flu season.)
You can find as many as you like if you wish to create a statistical table and calculate the variance. But it's pretty obvious that isn't necessary in this case: The deaths due to COVID-19 thus far are about 600 per 100,000.
Many, many companies went to "work from home" and forced furloughs before there was any emergency declared by governors. So it's a blatant falsehood to say that government was the cause.
And as for your idiocy on shutdowns not having "flattened the curve" -- you apparently ignored all the places like South Korea and New Zealand that did just that. When you say there is zero evidence, apparently that requires careful picking of data sets in order to reach the conclusion you wanted.
Don't expect a reply or further discussion. But remember: having others stop correcting you does not imply they think you are right. It just means they've figured out that you aren't worth the effort.
Arguments should not be judged by whether one side stops talking. The true test is whether anybody is convinced. Since you are never going to be convinced, and since your idiocy is not going to convince anybody with half a brain, simply letting you parade your pathologies is the way to go.
BD: This average annual number of US deaths you are offering: How many years are being averaged? Are they being normalized for population growth? Once normalized, how much do deaths normally vary from year to year?
ReplyDeleteC2H5OH: Bart, since your question is something that others may wonder about, I'm going to respond this once. But in general, you should learn to do your own research...
Excess deaths is your proposition. I have better things to do on a Sunday evening than check your claims.
C2H5OH: The number of deaths in the US (given in per-100,000 numbers for brevity, as is the norm)
2015: 733.1
2016: 728.8
2017: 731.9
2018: 723.6.
(2017 was a bad flu season.)
You averaged four years to arrive at your claimed "normal year" of deaths? In any case, this does not answer the above questions.
C2H5OH: The deaths due to COVID-19 thus far are about 600 per 100,000.
Based on what? "Estimated COVID deaths?" Your "excess deaths?"
BD: Government COVID fear mongering and shutdowns caused the current recession.
C2H5OH: Many, many companies went to "work from home" and forced furloughs before there was any emergency declared by governors. So it's a blatant falsehood to say that government was the cause.
See fear mongering. The government should have shut the hell up until they had solid facts. Instead, they echoed baseless, apocalyptic models.
C2H5OH: And as for your idiocy on shutdowns not having "flattened the curve" -- you apparently ignored all the places like South Korea and New Zealand that did just that.
Because of their relative isolation, South Korea and New Zealand did not suffer as many deaths as other nations, but neither nation's COVID death curves are remotely flat - both bounced in March/April.
C2H5OH: But remember: having others stop correcting you does not imply they think you are right. It just means they've figured out that you aren't worth the effort.
Naysang and name calling is not correction. You have not even supported your own propositions.
And as for your idiocy on shutdowns not having "flattened the curve" -- you apparently ignored all the places like South Korea and New Zealand that did just that.
ReplyDeleteI hate to defend Bart, but on this point you go way, way, way too far and make a transparently bad argument.
South Korea and New Zealand are both very special cases. South Korea had a whole bunch of infrastructure that had been built and implemented during previous pandemics (where they DID suffer huge death numbers), and both South Korea and New Zealand are pretty far off the beaten path- South Korea has only one land border, and nobody crosses it anyway, and New Zealand has zero. South Korea is at best a minor international airline hub; New Zealand's international travel numbers are a rounding error.
So surprise surprise, they were able to achieve numbers that NO country comparable to the US achieved. Not Spain. Not France. Not Italy. Not the UK. Not Mexico. Not Sweden.
And not even Germany and Canada, the two countries which were at least something like the US, who faced a significant exposure to the virus and probably performed best.
You can compare us to Germany and Canada if you want to. Germany did not really successfully flatten the curve, and indeed they are having a resurgence (plus US-style anti-mask protests) right now. But what they did do is manage to have a lot less people killed.
But New Zealand? That's a completely fatuous comparison. And an obviously fatuous one.
Welcome the best Escorts Service Pakistan .pleases visit our website for Pakistan VIP Escorts
ReplyDeleteescorts in Pakistan
escorts Pakistan
Pakistan escorts
escorts services in Pakistan
call girls in Pakistan
call girls Pakistan
escorts in Lahore
escorts Lahore
Lahore escorts
escorts services in Lahore
call girls in Lahore
call girls Lahore
Dilan, in the interests of brevity, and merely to point out a couple of cases, I limited my answers. If you want a treatise, go elsewhere. For example, the Brookings Institution has looked at African countries which have implemented testing and have done much better than the USA. I only gave examples which destroy the idea that lockdowns and other measures do not "flatten the curve."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with comparing countries is that every country is rather unique. Sure, New Zealand is a special case, and South Korea, with its northern border sealed has advantages, while the USA has porous northern and southern borders. (Borders which did not bring in community spread -- the spread was brought in by a surge of travelers, largely from Europe, who feared a travel ban.)
I would urge anyone really interested to do an actual bit of research. If the intentionally brief information you can get from a random short-chain molecule on this blog is insufficient to alleviate your concern, the CDC has all the information on death rates. They don't necessarily make it easy to find in a multi-year format, but you can get it.
You’re certainly a great writer. Your post provided me with many helpful pieces of information. Top Legal Firm.
ReplyDeleteC2:
ReplyDeleteThe point is, you have dozens of examples of countries more like the US, and they all had significant death numbers. Some of them did much better than we did.
And then you have a couple of places that see very little travel and which are clearly special cases. If it was so easy to be New Zealand, how come Merkel didn't do as well?
It is just perfectly obvious that SK and NZ are not the proper comparisons.
C2H5OH: I only gave examples which destroy the idea that lockdowns and other measures do not "flatten the curve."
ReplyDeleteSouth Korea never imposed a lockdown and experienced a normal COVID death curve in March/April. Google "covid deaths South Korea"
New Zealand imposed a lockdown in mid-March and experienced a similar COVID death curve in March/April. Google "covid deaths New Zealand"
As a point of comparison, this is what governments around the world were pitching as "flattening the curve" to justify their shutdowns and detentions.
We have known for months government shutdowns and detentions DO NOT "flatten the curve."
There is zero correlation between shutdown policies and COVID outcomes. Zero.
To some extent it's due to government orders, and to some extend due to panicked reactions inspired by PR coming out of the government. But a much more focused effort to protect vulnerable populations,
ReplyDeleteBrett,
I will agree with you to the extent of saying that a more intelligent government response would have saved lives.
But we have government headed by an incompetent, crooked, narcissist, who cares only about how things look. It is patently clear that he destroyed preparations for a pandemic, ignored warnings, and tried only to obscure the bad news, in the interest of keeping the stock market high.
It is clear that he wants as little serious advice as possible - Scott Atlas? - just yesmen and sycophants.
So yes. The government bears great blame. But hey, it's run by a guy you worship, so what is your complaint?
Dilan, *again* -- the point was not to "compare" any country with any country, but to demolish the idea that lockdowns and other such measures do no good against the virus, which was Bart's assertion, based on a piece of bias-confirmation BS that he has linked to, and which carefully cherry-picked its dataset.
ReplyDeleteIf we wish to discuss why lockdowns did not work in this country, we could have that discussion. I might point out that piecemeal, rolling lockdowns are obviously not a very effective way to deal with a national problem. Or I might point out that having a national loudmouth constantly denigrating the severity of the virus isn't helpful. But those are a different issue.
The bottom line is that, given basic science and and understanding of the spread of viruses, lockdowns, social distancing, and the like are certain to work if properly done. To imply that they will not, as Bart wishes to do, is to proclaim that the science is false. And you know what they say about claims that accepted science is wrong: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteAgainst my better judgment, let me try one more time.
You minimize Covid deaths by arguing that all but 9,000 should be ignored because those victims were in their late 70's or had other health problems. (For the record, this is remarkably stupid, but let it go.)
You then argue that this is many fewer than the 30,000 or so annual flu deaths. But by your standard a huge majority of those flu deaths should be excluded from the count as well, so your comparison is ridiculous.
Oh, and as to a "bad cold." I know someone who survived Covid. Unless you think a bad cold involves weeks of misery in the hospital, there is no comparison.
C2H5OH: The bottom line is that, given basic science and and understanding of the spread of viruses, lockdowns, social distancing, and the like are certain to work if properly done.
ReplyDeleteSure, socialism failed every time it was tried because it was never properly done.
C2H5OH: To imply that they will not, as Bart wishes to do, is to proclaim that the science is false.
Seriously, show us the scientific studies testing the efficacy of these decrees: Shuttering only the "unnecessary" fifth of the economy will stop or even significantly slow the transmission of aerosolized viruses. Aerosolized viruses can only travel six feet. Cloth masks block transmission of aerosolized viruses. Aerosolized viruses will not travel during BLM demonstrations, but will rampage through Trump rallies.
In fact, what little science we have finds the opposite.
Masks are a good example. There were good reasons why CDC declined to recommend wearing masks for weeks.
BD: "In fact, what little science we have finds the opposite."
ReplyDeleteWhich is why Bart hangs around in senior care facilities and ICU's, so that he can avoid catching the virus.
Seriously, people, this is a deranged, delusional soul, who can produce falsehoods and idiocy in any desired amount.
byomtov: Against my better judgment, let me try one more time. You minimize Covid deaths by arguing that all but 9,000 should be ignored because those victims were in their late 70's or had other health problems. (For the record, this is remarkably stupid, but let it go.)
ReplyDeleteOne more time, indeed.
Deaths CDC is and other agencies are attributing to COVID have an average age in the late 70s and all but 9,000 have two or more co-morbidities. This suggests the primary population here are very old people already dying from other causes. No, we should not be attributing deaths to COVID under these conditions.
We can hypothesize COVID is accelerating these deaths and then test that hypothesis with autopsies, but we should not be assuming this hypothesis as fact to justify shuttering the economy, impoverishing millions and deny fundamental liberties.
This is basic scientific method and SOP under a government tasked with protecting, not abridging, our liberties.
As expected, Bart ignores the point of my comment, and blunders further.
ReplyDeleteWe can hypothesize COVID is accelerating these deaths and then test that hypothesis with autopsies, but we should not be assuming this hypothesis as fact to justify shuttering the economy, impoverishing millions and deny fundamental liberties.
We do not assume the hypothesis as fact. It is quite clear, and unsurprising, that you have no comprehension of the statistical argument presented by C2H5OH, and myself, or else choose to ignore that also.
I guess you want to see al the autopsies before concluding that cigarette smoking leads to early death as well.
byomtov: We do not assume the hypothesis as fact. It is quite clear, and unsurprising, that you have no comprehension of the statistical argument presented by C2H5OH, and myself, or else choose to ignore that also.
DeleteI presume you have heard the phrase “lying with statistics.” For the reasons I noted and linked above, the data underlying your statistical arguments and the arguments themselves are fundamentally flawed.
I think the fact that a lot of countries we consider to not be misruled- e.g., Macron in France?- should give us a bit more pause on grand pronouncements.
ReplyDeleteIt's not easy to flatten the curve.
Having said that, I think it is reasonable to infer that a quicker, more decisive, and less fractured US response would have saved some/many lives.