@Ad_Quid_Orator A couple of brief points.1) What the gentleman neglects to note is that Ms. McEnany contextualized her own original answer and that answer was given at an earlier point in time parallelling the time of the headlines that she quotes.2) She ended the press conference when she did because President Trump was about to begin a WH ceremony in the Rose Garden. Rule 1 of press secretaries. You don't talk over the boss.She did not end the press conference because she did not like the questions. She ended it because time ran out before the presidential event.
But she didn't say do the people who gave the opinions on the media outlets want to take their words back, she asked do the media outlets themselves want to take back what they said.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Forgive me sir. I cannot make out what you are trying to say. In any case, she was asked if she wanted to take back her words and she asked if they wanted to take back their's. It was the last question put to her in the WH briefing - she was obviously expecting it. She basically made the point, "If we knew then what we know now." A point that seemed to elude the reporter who asked her the question. A question that, in any case, was not really relevant to Administration policy.
What I'm saying is that what she's trying to imply that the media outlets themselves gave the opinion that it was no big deal but they didn't. They merely reported what the experts said. That it would be no big deal is an opinion she herself had; not one that she cited from an expert. If she pointed out that many experts at the time said it was no big deal then she would be making the point that "If we knew then what we know now." but that's not what happened.
@Ad_Quid_Orator That is mistaken. In fact, I personally saw two of the Post articles she quotes - one was an editorial. I live and work in the DC area.Some of the other headlines, that might be true. Two of them it is definitely not. In any case, the question was not really appropriate and was more snark than real journalism. I have worked in politics for over 30 years and I don't recall a time when the press secretary was asked about what he/she thought rather than asking the views of the Administration as a whole. The job of the press secretary being to represent the White House and not simply herself.It was lousy journalism. The response was brutal.
He's not following protocol, and that is his fault.
From ignoring the Bush and Obama administrations' hard-learned advice from Ebola and flu outbreaks, ignoring the results of their own administration's October 2019 pandemic wargame, misinforming the public, not centralising purchasing, not adopting their own CDC's guidelines for reopening the economy, to not wearing masks in a hospital or mask factory (where everyone else is wearing a mask)...www.politico.com/.../trump-inauguration-warning-scenario-pandemic-132797www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...c-flu-wargame-2019.htmlwww.cbsnews.com/.../apnews.com/7a00d5fba3249e573d2ead4bd323a4d4www.politico.com/.../inside-the-pandemic-playbook-trump-ignored-786402
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Saying there's no evidence that it does transfer from human to human is not the same as saying it doesn't. The CDC's numbers, 47,128 on May 8th, are based on death certificates that take a while to get there:www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm"Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons: Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps involved in completing and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays. States report at different rates. Currently, 63% of all U. S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation among jurisdictions. It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually, which takes an average of 7 days. Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths."
@goaded trust me I've read all that multiple times, especially the part about how U07.1 is the diagnosis code for both confirmed and presumed covid cases, tested and untested. May 8th's update (2 weeks behind as u said) put the death toll from the list of U07.1's at 47K. So even though that number has been inflated (dont say its not, when I just explained to you why it is) the toll is still only comparable to influenza, which killed 80K last year despite having a vaccine deemed 40% affective, and in the past has killed millions in one flex. No rational human being can tell me those numbers warrant all the fallout from these shut downs
Nuh-uh. 2018-19: 34k, (particularly bad) 2017-18: 61k, 2016-17: 38k.This year, four months since the first case, is between your 47k and 80k (May 10th), and still at between 1 and 2 thousand a day, despite the drastic action taken (and that's with far less than two million known cases in the US)."CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza""The overall burden of influenza for the 2017-2018 season was an estimated 45 million influenza illnesses, 21 million influenza-associated medical visits, 810,000 influenza-related hospitalizations, and 61,000 influenza-associated deaths (Table: Estimated Influenza Disease Burden, by Season — United States, 2010-11 through 2017-18 Influenza Seasons).""The overall burden of influenza for the 2016-2017 season was an estimated 29 million influenza illnesses, 14 million influenza-associated medical visits, 500,000 influenza-related hospitalizations, and 38,000 influenza-associated deaths (Table: Estimated Influenza Disease Burden, by Season — United States, 2010-11 through 2017-18 Influenza Seasons)."https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm
@goaded nothing to say about how they're listing extra deaths for covid? And you say our drastic action resulted in less covid deaths, that is an assumption. Most New Yorkers who got it self isolated, and 25% of them got the virus, which means the death rate is going to be majorly adjusted there to reflect a much higher survivability rate. Ruining countless businesses and farms was not worth soothing the fears of those who panicked
I expect the numbers will become clearer over time, but I don't think anyone's intentionally over-counting. Where did you get the 25% of New Yorkers got the virus, or are you just making that up?
@goaded please just try looking it up first and then ask me if you can't find it after searching, I'm about tapped out on directing people when they have the same internet I do
Why not, if you're going to make a claim, be able to back it up?
@goaded i just told you because I've been directing lazy researchers around for weeks about this, it's tiring when I know you have a search bar. How much time do you spend holding the hands of people that don't want to put in research?
Strangely, I did actually search first, and didn't come up with anything, so I think you're just making it up. You make a claim, you back it up.
@goaded i just typed "25% New York Covid" and the first few pages of results are relevant to my search. Maybe stop using google, since they're censoring so much information. newyork.cbslocal.com/.../
See, that wasn't so hard, was it?"14.9% of those tested statewide tested positive...""24.7% positive in New York City"11,000 dead in NYC, with 2 million infected is 0.55% mortality rate, five times worse than flu. In 2018-19, the CDC estimates 10% of Americans got the flu, and 0.1% of them died.This virus affected 25% of the city, even with a lockdown, and you think that's not scary? 0.5% of 25% of 325 million is over 4 million people.www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
"See, that wasn't hard was it?" Apparantly it was for you, and you're not providing that service for dozens of idiots per day either. You're fucking annoying, just stay in your basement and be scared I really can't bring myself to care today
It's probably because you'd searched for or clicked on similar articles before, that's how search engines customise themselves to the user.I put in the same search and got one potential hit out of the first couple of pages, and that was talking about NYC, not NY state, so it might not have been what you meant.The rest were about nursing home deaths, reducing the workforce to 25% (several of those), oil prices down 25%, etc.You realise that, with 25% of the population having antibodies, that means 75% of the population is still vulnerable, which is potentially another 30,000+ deaths? And we still don't know how long people stay immune, if they are at all.One last thing, I'm not scared, I said it's scary, there's a difference.
@goaded it's not any more scary than the flu. Im still not 100% convinced that it's NOT the flu. People dying sucks, I understand, but I guarantee you if they were covering influenza last year like they are covid this year, people would be equally panicked about it. If they start covering pneumonia like they do covid, people will become afraid of that. While they were making everyone afraid of terrorists in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan hardly anyone knew about far worst terrorism taking place in the Congo, but people werent afraid of that and wanting justice for the victims because the media wasn't focused on it! There are lots of things out there that can inspire fear and then be exaggerated by the media, but you'll only hear about it if it supports their narrative. I'm really tired of fighting people on this, people can't just have civil discussions about topics that inspire fear, it always turns into ad hominems, anyone with different beliefs is a complete idiot not worthy of respectful dialogue right? That's exactly how they want it, and everyones playing their part - and anyone who thinks people in power do things to gain more control or money, or wipe out competition is a conspiracy theorist NUTJOB because rich and powerful people don't conspire! If anyone suggests they do, immediately belittle them, throw out the ol' tinfoil hat comment and then block them.
Of course it's scarier than the flu. It infected 25% of a city in a couple of months, killed one in 200 of them, and there is no vaccine so the only defence is avoidance. It's not the flu.Was the terror in the Congo aimed at the western world, or purely domestic? I think that makes a difference to how it's percieved.Of course the rich and powerful conspire, just look at what the whole US political establishment is like! However, I don't think they intentionally release deadly viruses that could kill them as well as anyone else.
@goaded it didn't happen in a couple of months, antibodies present in so many people proves that whatever this is, has made its rounds at least once before we were aware of it. And were the Congolese terrorists attacking Western soil? No, and neither were countless people that got blown up in the Middle East. You might be one of the people that thinks the 911 Commissioner's report was acceptable, but then I must also assume that you haven't looked into what the Rothschild family does to governments that aim for a gold standard. They run a smear campaign, they kill who is in charge, and they install an agent of their own to take over, sometimes under the guise of a seemingly democratically elected official. If the Congo had a bunch of oil, we'd all be rooting for the liberation of those under the oppression of their terrorists, because we'd be seeing graphic images of the methods used to indoctrinate child soldiers, how they are forced to kill their own mothers in brutal ways, how they have slaves being mistreated and worked to death, and our fervor would be intense. We' d want soldiers deployed and more refugees taken in. We'd completely ignore the fact that we're setting up shop there to gain control of the oil because we're emotionally invested in the conflict, and the media hasn't said anything about oil so why would that be the case? I'd be online bitching about how we're only their for War Profiteers and Rothschilds and people like you would be calling me a nutjob, it's all about helping people!
How does it prove that? Where did you get that idea from?