Covid-19

[jlw1980]

Re: Covid-19

https://twitter.com/yasminv/status/1...108356608?s=21

Bill Barr, two days after saying he wouldn’t quarantine, now is.

Makes me wonder if there is a reason

I'll bet he has it.

[sweet_lou_14]

Re: Covid-19

I'll bet he has it.

Without speculating on the status of any individual, I think it's fair to assume that the White House will attempt to hide as much information as possible from the public at all times. As many positive tests as they can keep secret, they will.

Much more important to our national security, of course, is what they're hiding about the president's current condition as well as the timeline of exactly when he knew he'd been exposed, when he first tested positive, and when he first displayed symptoms. Seems quite possible that during the debate he had already tested positive -- and highly likely that at a minimum he already knew he'd been exposed based on Hope Hicks' symptoms / results.

[Mr Coffee]

Re: Covid-19

Aren't there laws about knowingly exposing people to contagions?

[jlw1980]

Re: Covid-19

Aren't there laws about knowingly exposing people to contagions?

Yes. You think laws apply to Drumpf?

[YankeePride1967]

Re: Covid-19

Without speculating on the status of any individual, I think it's fair to assume that the White House will attempt to hide as much information as possible from the public at all times. As many positive tests as they can keep secret, they will.

Much more important to our national security, of course, is what they're hiding about the president's current condition as well as the timeline of exactly when he knew he'd been exposed, when he first tested positive, and when he first displayed symptoms. Seems quite possible that during the debate he had already tested positive -- and highly likely that at a minimum he already knew he'd been exposed based on Hope Hicks' symptoms / results.

If not for that reporter from Bloomberg I doubt we know if any of this

[Yankees1962]

Re: Covid-19

Without speculating on the status of any individual, I think it's fair to assume that the White House will attempt to hide as much information as possible from the public at all times. As many positive tests as they can keep secret, they will.

Much more important to our national security, of course, is what they're hiding about the president's current condition as well as the timeline of exactly when he knew he'd been exposed, when he first tested positive, and when he first displayed symptoms. Seems quite possible that during the debate he had already tested positive -- and highly likely that at a minimum he already knew he'd been exposed based on Hope Hicks' symptoms / results.

The coverup continues as I bet he has it too.

[YankeePride1967]

Re: Covid-19

From this administration anything ranging from John’s response to a full case is possible

[YankeePride1967]

Re: Covid-19

Kayleigh Mcenany tests positive. No symptoms

[RhodyYanksFan]

Re: Covid-19

Perfect encapsulation of our broken democracy. We are going to spend more on Covid this year than on the entire Afghanistan war with only 20% going to help individuals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...lout-spending/

‘Doomed to fail’: Why a $4
trillion bailout couldn’t revive
the American economy
An avalanche of U.S. grants and loans helped the wealthy and companies
that laid off workers. Individuals received about one-fifth of the aid.

The four spending bills that Congress passed earlier this year to address the coronavirus crisis amounted to one of the costliest relief efforts in U.S. history, and the undertaking soon won praise across the political spectrum for its size and speed.

The $4 trillion total of government grants and loans exceeded the cost of 18 years of war in Afghanistan.

“We’re going to win this battle in the very near future,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) after the Senate approved the Cares Act, the largest of the four measures.

Six months later, however, the nation’s coronavirus battle is far from won, and if the prodigious relief spending was supposed to target the neediest and move the country beyond the pandemic, much of the money missed the mark.The legislation bestowed billions in benefits on companies and wealthy individuals largely unscathed by the pandemic, according to a Washington Post analysis, while at the same time allowing special aid for unemployed workers to expire over the summer and leaving some local public health efforts struggling for money to conduct testing and other prevention efforts.

The relief packages amounted to a massive economic Band-Aid for what is fundamentally a health crisis, and much of the relief consisted of economic measures similar to those that have worked in previous recessions. But by failing to focus on containing the virus and the particular harms of the pandemic, the relief packages distributed money to those with little need for it while allowing the illness,

which is now more widespread than when the bills passed, to outstrip the aid.

[GordonGecko]

Re: Covid-19

Perfect encapsulation of our broken democracy. We are going to spend more on Covid this year than on the entire Afghanistan war with only 20% going to help individuals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...lout-spending/

which is now more widespread than when the bills passed, to outstrip the aid.

How can you take a single word the Washington Post writes seriously? They are the epitome of a garbage publication they have 0% objectivity

[philleotardo]

How can you take a single word the Washington Post writes seriously? They are the epitome of a garbage publication they have 0% objectivity

Why? Because it’s not what you want to hear? Their reporting lines up pretty well with other agencies, including international ones.

[JL25and3]

How can you take a single word the Washington Post writes seriously? They are the epitome of a garbage publication they have 0% objectivity

That’s a useful analysis.

[GordonGecko]

Re: Covid-19

Why? Because it’s not what you want to hear? Their reporting lines up pretty well with other agencies, including international ones.

No, because they're no longer objective and lost their journalistic standards a few years ago when they were losing too many subscribers and decided to go the way of the National Enquirer. Good strategy for staying in business, extremely poor for maintaining their status as a reliable source. The Washington Post is complete trash.The New York Times is down a similar path but at least they occasionally try to be objective

[philleotardo]

No, because they're not objective and have lost their journalistic standards a long time ago when they were losing too many subscribers and decided to go the way of the National Enquirer. Good strategy for staying in business, extremely poor for maintaining their status as a reliable source

How are they not objective?

[YankeePride1967]

Re: Covid-19

How can you take a single word the Washington Post writes seriously? They are the epitome of a garbage publication they have 0% objectivity

Because I like such filth like NY Post, Fox News and breitbart they print proven factual news. Not just nonsense to fit the Trump supporters narrative.

Or you can use a little energy and look it up and you will see this article is very much accurate