Trust in the Dem's to make you do what the Dem's have decided is best for you.
Blue states so much better. Right. It’s all falling in on them.
I have COVID. Like 99.98% of everybody else who has had it, I have had minor symptoms.
The plandemic was designed for two things- drive Trump from office, and punish those of us who voted for him.
So does Nick Saban’s False Positive fall into the “rise’ in cases?
Or does FauXI The Compost The Humuo’s et al count the five Negatives as just one test?
The “stats’ are so subject to questioning . .
The messengers have succeeded in changing lanes from deaths to cases. Likely tens of millions have contacted the virus and shrugged it off. As with all viruses it is now a part of our genetic fabric and we move on despite our losses.
“many Republican governors are resisting new measures to stop the spread. Some are even loosening rules already on the books.”
Who do these Republican governors think they are, leaving it up to the citizens to act responsibly? They could end up like Sweden.
Why don’t the governors tell us the total number of people being tested along with solid numbers of negative and positive instead of saying “5%” tested positive. Also, how about the number of false positives.
OK, here are the facts: Strict lockdowns (like in France, what was done here was a joke) do reduce virus circulation to near zero, as long as they are carried out.
When strict lockdowns are relaxed, even a little, explosive transmission follows.
Strict lockdowns harm businesses, harm individuals, and harm children. The cost of strict lockdowns is very high.
In a political system where voting is allowed, strict lockdowns are not feasible for prolonged periods. France could only tolerate theirs for nine weeks. The US never locked down in the European sense.
BOTTOM LINE: Whether or not the cost of prolonged strict lockdowns is proportionate to the harms caused by widespread virus circulation is a political, not a scientific, question.
Search works!
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=coronavirus%20governors
The purpose of reducing restrictions is economic.
This makes the entire case for “Red States”
August values, I am eager to see the September ones, which should be out soon.
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Sample -
Texas 6.8%
California 11.4%
“Personal responsibility” in quotation marks
“Racism’ “Sexism” “Social ‘justice’” NEVER in quotes (except here)
The facts support the Republicans. The Democrats are preaching fear.
What? Are the democrats against personal responsibility?
Here’s a great idea to stop or slow the spread of sickness.
Sick people need to stay home.
It would take care of over 90% of the problem I’m sure.
My sister works for a woman who is adamant about people staying home while they are sick. They can work from home if need be, but she simply does not want a sick person in the office spreading the germs and compromising everyone else.
Then the entire office ends up sick and productivity is way down.
The sick person is not going to be terribly productive in the office anyways, so working from home is no loss that way, and IMO, is actually likely to be more productive as they can take breaks and rest as needed.
Rise? How much rise? Red states didn’t have that much to begin with.