Posted on 04/19/2020 5:43:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
A Facebook friend likened the President to Bugs Bunny, chomping on his carrot and making fun of his enemies. And this week it certainly seems that way as the page flips from "everybodysan-epidemiology expert" to "we are now all constitutional scholars."
On April 14 Trump said he was the absolute authority on when to relax the shutdown and two days later, based on fact, he noted that the virus seemed to have peaked, circumstances were different in different places of the country, and it was up to the governors of each state to determine mitigation strategies appropriate for their states following some national guidelines.
The new guidelines are aimed at easing restrictions in areas with low transmission of the coronavirus, while holding the line in harder-hit locations. They make clear that the return to normalcy will be a far longer process than Trump initially envisioned, with federal officials warning that some social distancing measures may need to remain in place through the end of the year to prevent a new outbreak. And they largely reinforce plans already in the works by governors, who have primary responsibility for public health in their states.
"Youre going to call your own shots," Trump told the governors Thursday afternoon in a conference call, according to an audio recording obtained by the Associated Press. "Were going to be standing alongside of you."
Places with declining infections and strong testing would begin a three-phase gradual reopening of businesses and schools.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Nice analogy. Bugs was modeled on a cocky and fearless New Yorker.

If you'd like to be on or off the Clarice Feldman ping list, usually issued only on Sunday morning, please click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.
Interesting. Who? (Yep, I did a search.)
My guess would be Huntz Hall from the Dead End Kids.
Seems like an effective way of setting up the D governors for self destruction. And we ALL get to watch NY MI NJ MN .....and the list goes on.
Thanks for posting. Another very good article.
Where Did You Get That Fact?
We are being inundated every day with computational findings, conclusions, and statistics. In op-eds, policy debates, and public discussions numbers are presented with the finality of a slammed door. In fact we need to know how these findings were reached, so we can evaluate their relevance, their credibility, resolve conflicts when they differ and make better decisions. Even figuring out where a number came from is a challenge, let alone trying to understand how it was determined.
The goal of better decision making is behind the current hype surrounding big data, the emergence of evidence-based everythingpolicy,medicine,practice,management, and issues such as climate change, fiscal predictions, health assessment, even what information you are exposed to online. The field of statistics has been addressing the reliability of results derived from data for a long time, with many very successful contributions (for example, confidence intervals, quantifying the distribution of model errors, and the concept of robustness).
The scientific method suggests skepticism when interpreting conclusions, and a responsibility to communicate scientific findings transparently, so others may evaluate and understand the result. We need to bring these notions into our everyday expectations when presented with new computational results. We should be able to dig in and find out where the statistics came from, how they were computed, and why we should believe them. Those concepts receive almost no consideration when findings are publicly communicated.
Victoria Stodden
Associate Professor of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23794
Pearl Harbor American Military killed: More than 2,300 killed!
9/11 fatalities: 2,996!
38,664 Deaths in America from the novel coronavirus in the United States! (Fox News, 19 April 2020)
As a result, she may very likely soon find herself ex-Associate Professor of Information Sciences
‘My guess would be Huntz Hall from the Dead End Kids.’
my guess would be Leo Gorcey; Hall played the goofy one...
Please put me on list.
Thank you.
‘and the list goes on.’
add PA and NC...
You are right.
I suppose this makes Biden Porky Pig?
The scientific method also suggests even stronger skepticism of skeptics rejecting data as flowed because it does not fit their own ill-supported hypothesis, ill-supported because they are too lazy, incompetent or ill-equipped to go get their own data.
And the scientific method kicks to the curb the kinds of frauds we see around here who support their own preferred hypothesis by advancing data that must exist to refute present data and would exist if only the people taking the data weren't so biased against their own - the skeptics - preferred hypothesis.
Skepticism is fine, but hypothesized fraud is, well, fraud.
Satch from the Bowery Boys? I would’ve guessed Slip. He seemed always so cocksure and a bit of an act...
Could you please add the verified deaths to standard flu to that list, and annual deaths by abortion to that list, just for a sense of perspective?
Could you please add the verified deaths to standard flu to that list, and annual deaths by abortion to that list, just for a sense of perspective?
I believe that data from Fox is verified data each day.
If you can find the reliable data you want, I can ping you so you and add it on to my posting.’
Dave
“everybodysan-epidemiology expert” to “we are now all constitutional scholars.”
Indeed turn to any news station the left like.
You mean it’s not “established science?”
Really? Show us where. So far it's Reality 2, Models 0.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.