I don't think that's him.
And it was supposed to be a slow dox. Every 5 years or so I'd ask about a different Houston doc, trying to narrow it down.
But seeing as he ignored the first one already, that plan crashed and burned, haha.
And it was supposed to be a slow dox. Every 5 years or so I'd ask about a different Houston doc, trying to narrow it down.
But seeing as he ignored the first one already, that plan crashed and burned, haha.
A fine plan...
huffp.st
Namaste
Top Obama Health Official: U.S. Can 'Virtually Eliminate' COVID-19 When 'We Decide To'
In a now-viral tweet thread, the former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services broke down how the country could beat the coronavirus.
Namaste
Not the hero Republicans want, but the hero Republicans need.
https://mobile.twitter.com/thereidout/status/1288980750935699456
Namaste
https://mobile.twitter.com/thereidout/status/1288980750935699456
Namaste
Because who needs food and hospitals, amirite?A fine plan...
Top Obama Health Official: U.S. Can 'Virtually Eliminate' COVID-19 When 'We Decide To'
In a now-viral tweet thread, the former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services broke down how the country could beat the coronavirus.
Namaste
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Ex
Also prohibiting interstate travel is a really arbitrary limiter if we are just talking science.
would a "50% lockdown" drop cases? If so, would it do it with less harm than a "90% lockdown"?A fine plan...
Top Obama Health Official: U.S. Can 'Virtually Eliminate' COVID-19 When 'We Decide To'
In a now-viral tweet thread, the former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services broke down how the country could beat the coronavirus.
Namaste
Also prohibiting interstate travel is a really arbitrary limiter if we are just talking science.
What a horrible source to use to make any point.....A fine plan...
Top Obama Health Official: U.S. Can 'Virtually Eliminate' COVID-19 When 'We Decide To'
In a now-viral tweet thread, the former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services broke down how the country could beat the coronavirus.
Namaste
Huffington Post (HuffPost) - Bias and Credibility
LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
mediabiasfactcheck.com
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I think grocery and hospital is the 10% he's excluding.
I just wonder about different models. He's demeaning the previous lockdown that was sufficient to drop cases. I'm sure the more severe the lockdown the faster the cases drop...but at what trade off?
The April lock down was not that hard to manage from a policy standpoint and could have been done better with some federal level direction and prep on the entry and exit. If we did the same, I suspect we'd see cases drop.
The free hotel idea is an interesting one as it solves something you and I have talked about with individuals getting their family sick. "quarantining" at home is a great way to get 4-5 others sick and others 4-5 others often don't quarantine with the exposure, making it pretty worthless.
Auntie Sea Biscuit laughs through her bridle at people who say it can't be done.
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/SIF5DHJTM5BRDLBKOSPDFBUAXE.jpg)
I like a lot of what he's saying, but step 6 might be the dumbest idea I've heard yet.
They didn't lockdown healthcare workers. They closed the border early like everyone else should have, but were too afraid of hurting Chi-nah's feelings. They also had the political advantage of getting the virus after seeing what did and didn't work in other countries which armchair quarterbacks like to ignore. They're also likely not nearly as far out of the woods as people like to beleive, but time will tell on that.Auntie Sea Biscuit laughs through her bridle at people who say it can't be done.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
It's actually the 50 to 90% change that is my sticking point as well.
I don't know anything about crops or who all goes into getting us food. But there were already shortages that were self-made going into the last one. If you did it again you need to actually up your supply because people have shown that they will hoard the entire lockdown ...and why wouldn't they if you don't create some level of confidence that there will be supplies.
In healthcare there is a significant amount of stuff we do that can be delayed 90 days. We did that throughout the spring. Before during and after lockdown deferred a lot of stuff. And now I'm busier than I normally am in the summer. Catching up all that stuff that still needs to be done.
I'm not sure which healthcare workers he thought kept working that could have gone home during the last lockdown. We sent a lot of people home that are related to elective procedures and things like that. And unlike the last lockdown that was preventative, this lockdown would require a significant number of healthcare workers because we have a high number of cases. you couldn't drop less healthcare workers than you already did before.
I didn't even actually read what the guy said. I just thought of the Sea Biscuit bridle comment and wanted to use it.
It would have worked better in a gun control thread.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
A small island population with few fixed entry points that had foresight was able to better control the outbreak of a virus than large land connected countries? I can't believe it. It must be socialism.
Well, you see, Doc. This is the kind of person who can stay at home for as long as required. So he doesn't really think about how his suggestions will impact others. He's a pretty prime example of the "If it only saves on life" camp.
A couple weeks ago I was talking to someone whom I told "Yeah, I know some people who haven't worked in months and could be in serious trouble if we don't start to think about firing things back up." at this point this person told me "Well, no one really needs to work." I couldn't believe my ears. For as long as I can remember when gun advocacy groups would say "It's guns today, something else tomorrow." People laughed, but we're seeing it in real time. All the same arguments that prop up gun control being used against people's ability to live normal day-to-day lives.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
To be fair, they didn't have foresight. They had hindsight.
It works in any thread. Here is a picture of a genuine cake made in her likeness to keep things on topic though
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Bull fucking shit. No one could make a cake that accurate.It works in any thread. Here is a picture of a genuine cake made in her likeness to keep things on topic though
I'm going to give this a more serious answer than you were anticipating. It's genuinely hard to know what is Aussie slang that people say seriously and what hipsters just say to be ironic or rich preppy cunts say to pretend they are just one of the peasants, so I don't even know any more.
Generally in my mind fair dinkum alone is far more common a rhetorical question indicating approving surprise - picture the BJ Penn nodding gif - like if somebody says 'I had sex with that Romanian chick from a few pages back, I SWEAR I'M NOT GAY' you would say 'fair dinkum?'
It's better to say 'Fair Fucken Dinkum!' It just sounds better.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Thank you for taking a moment away from developing an awning over the toy shop from all those frosties to tell me the nuances of your people.
Lol thanks for real
Reminds me of the difference between "bollocks" = bad and "dog's bollocks"= good.