US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[PeterAit]

You can't trust experts because they all have differing opinions that change from week to week.

Well for chrissakes, Alan, that's how science is SUPPOSED to work. New evidence leads to new opinions. It's only politicians, economists, and most conservatives who latch onto an opinion and never change regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Craig Lamson]

:/

Is,  “The President of the United States knows he has an active Covid infection and is here anyway without a mask so I gotta be careful...” a conclusion/factor a reasonable person should really be expected to consider?

I don’t think he knew he had an active COVID infection, did he?  At least until sometime very late Thursday.

I think everyone needs to consider where they are and what the surroundings may contain in today’s world.  At least that’s how I roll..

[faberryman]

Well for chrissakes, Alan, that's how science is SUPPOSED to work. New evidence leads to new opinions. It's only politicians, economists, and most conservatives who latch onto an opinion and never change regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I heard they were going to bleed Trump with leeches. Tried and true. Tried and true.

[Craig Lamson]

this reflects a poor understanding of how masks work to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  Your unilateral decision is good but if others are not wearing them, there is still a great societal risk.  The more people who wear masks, the lower the risk becomes.  The key study was done in Germany earlier this year.  Two towns of about 80K apiece adopted universal mask regulations but at four week intervals.  the first town saw infections drop to zero while the second one still had residual infections.  When the second town's regulation kicked in both towns were down to zero cases of transmission.  It's the best study we have as you obviously cannot do a randomized trial where some people don't wear masks and could be subject to infection.  Here is the paper if you are interested:  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.02.20187021v2.full.pdf   It's also one of the reasons why Germany has been successful at controlling COVID-19 and the US has not.

No, it reflects the understanding of the current state of affairs in the USA.  I wish everyone would mask, however I also realize that’s just not happening nor do I expect it to happen here anytime in the future.  As such you make the choices that suit your beliefs and health needs. 

[Chris Kern]

this reflects a poor understanding of how masks work to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  Your unilateral decision is good but if others are not wearing them, there is still a great societal risk.  The more people who wear masks, the lower the risk becomes.

Absent the kind of social contract you are describing, those of us at statistically high risk probably should consider wearing a respirator-style facemask in settings where both adequate ventilation and physical distancing are unlikely.  Masks that comply with the Chinese KN95 standard (or at least that claim to) are now available to non-institutional consumers.  (Those that comply with the similar U.S. N95 and European FFP2 standards still are not, as far as I can determine.)  Respirators don't require bilateral mask-wearing to be effective: they provide a reasonable level of protection even to wearers who are in the presence of others who, for whatever reason ― ideological opposition, discomfort, or just plain ignorance ― don't wear a facemask themselves.

I wouldn't want to have to wear one of these all day long, as medical providers do; when adjusted properly, they provide quite a bit of resistance to breathing and the fit is very tight, so if you have skin that is seven decades old, as mine is, you'll see marks on your face when you remove the mask.  But I can put up with that for a quick trip to our local supermarket, where most other shoppers do wear masks but a significant proportion either don't wear them properly or use home-made cloth masks that appear rather iffy to me: I suspect some of them are less likely to trap larger droplets than to break them into small ones, and thus disperse them over even greater distances.

I don't hold out much hope that we in the States will achieve anything approaching the level of voluntary compliance with common-sense infectious disease regulations that has been achieved in Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea, even if a new federal administration promulgates a comprehensive national policy, and the only other way to achieve the same result presumably would involve the kind of unacceptable draconian measures adopted by the government of China.  So until there is a cure for COVID-19 or an effective vaccine, I'm afraid it's sauve qui peut.

[Robert Roaldi]

You're just telling us everything we knew about Trump when we hired him in 2016.  That he is a businessman with companies around the world.  That's why we elected him.  So he could help with our economy.  He did that.  That's why we need him to continue rather than hiring a guy who's been a politician all his life whose only private work was to use his position and influence as VP to get a job for his son in CHina and Ukraine.

You slay me Alan, you're too much.

We may be overlooking one bright aspect of Trump's infection if recovery takes some time. With some luck, it might mean we won't have any more debates! NOOOObody needs to see one of those again.

[Alan Klein]

"We" didn't hire him. An awkward, unequal, undemocratic electoral college put him in office, after a majority "We" decided to hire Clinton by almost 3,000,000 votes.

Clinton did not have a majority of the popular votes.  She only had 48%. That means more people voted against her than for her.  Trump had a majority of the electoral votes, approximately 57%.

[Alan Klein]

If we can't trust experts, then who should we trust, Alan?

Which expert when they have conflicting opinions?

[Alan Klein]

this reflects a poor understanding of how masks work to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  Your unilateral decision is good but if others are not wearing them, there is still a great societal risk.  The more people who wear masks, the lower the risk becomes.  The key study was done in Germany earlier this year.  Two towns of about 80K apiece adopted universal mask regulations but at four week intervals.  the first town saw infections drop to zero while the second one still had residual infections.  When the second town's regulation kicked in both towns were down to zero cases of transmission.  It's the best study we have as you obviously cannot do a randomized trial where some people don't wear masks and could be subject to infection.  Here is the paper if you are interested:  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.02.20187021v2.full.pdf   It's also one of the reasons why Germany has been successful at controlling COVID-19 and the US has not.

I posted this in the other thread.  It clarifies Germany's differences between East and WEst Germany.

Areas with higher populated centers, more international travelers, and more industry have higher rates.  It's not necessarily a failure of government, medical systems or policy.

Covid-19 Sparks New East-West Divide in Germany—30 Years After Reunification
Eastern Germany has suffered far fewer coronavirus cases than the country’s West, highlighting lingering economic and cultural differences
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-sparks-new-east-west-divide-in-germany30-years-after-reunification-11601717400

[Alan Klein]

Absent the kind of social contract you are describing, those of us at statistically high risk probably should consider wearing a respirator-style facemask in settings where both adequate ventilation and physical distancing are unlikely.  Masks that comply with the Chinese KN95 standard (or at least that claim to) are now available to non-institutional consumers.  (Those that comply with the similar U.S. N95 and European FFP2 standards still are not, as far as I can determine.)  Respirators don't require bilateral mask-wearing to be effective: they provide a reasonable level of protection even to wearers who are in the presence of others who, for whatever reason ― ideological opposition, discomfort, or just plain ignorance ― don't wear a facemask themselves.

I wouldn't want to have to wear one of these all day long, as medical providers do; when adjusted properly, they provide quite a bit of resistance to breathing and the fit is very tight, so if you have skin that is seven decades old, as mine is, you'll see marks on your face when you remove the mask.  But I can put up with that for a quick trip to our local supermarket, where most other shoppers do wear masks but a significant proportion either don't wear them properly or use home-made cloth masks that appear rather iffy to me: I suspect some of them are less likely to trap larger droplets than to break them into small ones, and thus disperse them over even greater distances.

I don't hold out much hope that we in the States will achieve anything approaching the level of voluntary compliance with common-sense infectious disease regulations that has been achieved in Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea, even if a new federal administration promulgates a comprehensive national policy, and the only other way to achieve the same result presumably would involve the kind of unacceptable draconian measures adopted by the government of China.  So until there is a cure for COVID-19 or an effective vaccine, I'm afraid it's sauve qui peut.

Six months ago I ordered 60 KN95 masks directly from China.  They don't fit as tight as N95 masks. But they do seal up much better than those surgical mask that open on the sides.

I tried the N95 masks 10 or 15 years ago in bad construction areas with lots of dust and found them too hard to breathe.  The KN95 breathe OK but still hard for me to wear for too long.  But I wear them when anyone else is around.  Today, my wife and I took a hike.  We had the masks in our pockets. When one guy approached we put them on and took them off again after he passed.  I have some cloth masks that we haven't used yet with built in filters.  But I might re-order some more KN95 Chinese masks as my stock is running out.  Of course, you don't know the efficacy with Chinese products. It seems to be a crap shoot.

[Alan Klein]

That's about the same as saying that not wearing condoms propels the economy and provides financial security for seniors.

It's become a political symbol representing freedom to many people.  That doesn't mean you don't have to wear them to keep safe.  I don't like the government telling me I have to wear seat belts and risk a fine if I don't.  But I still wear my seat belt and pull it tight. 

[Alan Klein]

Same with condoms.

[kers]

Clinton did not have a majority of the popular votes.  She only had 48%. That means more people voted against her than for her.  Trump had a majority of the electoral votes, approximately 57%.

that makes 105%

[Robert Roaldi]

I don't like the government telling me I have to wear seat belts and risk a fine if I don't.

Were you ok with the government sending kids to Vietnam or recommending unproven hydroxychloroquine?

Do you sit at red lights and seethe about your diminished liberty?

Why is it ok for militia to walk around the streets with AR-15s to 'protect their families and guard against tyranny' but when groups you don't agree with do the same thing, then it's a crime?

I believe that you need to rethink your basic assumptions.

[Chris Kern]

that makes 105%

He is deliberately and deceptively referring to votes cast by the states following the election, which are awarded differently than those cast by voters during the election, in an apparent attempt to give the impression that Trump won a majority of something in 2016.  This meaningless formulation was previously debunked here.  Donald Trump became president despite receiving fewer votes than Hillary Clinton because we don't have a national election: we conduct separate elections in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and almost all these jurisdictions choose the "electors" who will subsequently represent them in the selection of the president on a winner-take-all basis.

[RSL]

Ignorance about the electoral college is massive. To top it off, the Democrats seem to think that if they come into power they'll be able to get rid of it. In order for that to happen, 38 of the 50 states would have to vote to give up their influence on a presidential election.  Ain't gonna happen, guys.

[Robert Roaldi]

Ignorance about the electoral college is massive. To top it off, the Democrats seem to think that if they come into power they'll be able to get rid of it. In order for that to happen, 38 of the 50 states would have to vote to give up their influence on a presidential election.  Ain't gonna happen, guys.

You're almost certainly right, but it's risky to say "never".

Would you ever have imagined hearing an incumbent President claim at a nationally televised debate that the upcoming election was a fraud? I mean, if it's not true and he says it anyway, shouldn't be put into an unmarked SUV in handcuffs? And if it is true, then shouldn't he as President be trying to fix what's wrong? At best, it's a huge red flag that the current government is dysfunctional. The fact that 300 million Americans seems to shrug and say, "That's just Trump" is telling all on its own. My main point being, a lot of unprecedented things seem to be happening.

If enough people in the county decide the that electoral college is no longer fulfilling a useful role, there's no telling what will happen in the future when all the current fogeys are dead and buried and someone else has the reins.

[faberryman]

Ignorance about the electoral college is massive.

Ignorance about a lot of things is massive. For example, I was shocked to learn that, except in Lake Wobegon, half of Americans are of below average intelligence. Our best minds are working on it, but it is an intractable problem.

[RSL]

If enough people in the county decide the that electoral college is no longer fulfilling a useful role, there's no telling what will happen in the future when all the current fogeys are dead and buried and someone else has the reins.

Absolutely, Robert, but when you look at the population as a whole you realize that a lot of people become fogeys all the time, meaning they wise up as they get older. But as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Nowadays the reason people cannot learn from history is that it's no longer taught in our schools. There's a lot of repeating coming up.

[faberryman]

Absolutely, Robert, but when you look at the population as a whole you realize that a lot of people become fogeys all the time, meaning they wise up as they get older. But as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Nowadays the reason people cannot learn from history is that it's no longer taught in our schools. There's a lot of repeating coming up.

The real problem is that, for the young folks, there is more history to learn than when we were young. Who can keep up? It is relentless.