Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

Michigan will allow 10% or some ridiculously absurd #.

[iam416]

#TrustGretch

[Jeff Buchanan]

By the end of August if PH officials continue to advocate for or message about the need to limit the size of outside congregate gatherings, I'll be both shocked and disgusted. Given current COVID trends there will be no reason to not allow full attendance in any CFB stadium. None. But never underestimate the potential for state and local governments to continue to follow the lead of the morons within the CDC who have not been at all transparent about the metrics they are using that are behind their PH policies and recommendations.

[Tom W]

Shocked? No.
Disgusted? Yes.

[iam416]

Correct.

[lineygoblue]

Michigan Stadium will be at full allowed capacity on the Saturday following Thanksgiving, but the inhabitants will all be wearing red.

[Jeff Buchanan]

But never underestimate the potential for state and local governments to continue to follow the lead of the morons within the CDC who have not been at all transparent about the metrics they are using that are behind their PH policies and recommendations.

NEWS FLASH .........CDC's fabrication of data unmasked. A report this morning's NYTs details an investigative undertaking to determine the basis of the CDC claim that 10% of SARS2 transmission occurs outside. This figure was used to justify recommendations on masking in certain circumstances, e.g., youth summer camps, large outdoor gatherings, mixed outdoor gatherings of any size involving vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

The NYT's investigation revealed that the data that formed the basis of the 10% SARS2 cases came from outdoor transmission were based on "a review of the data" from a single construction sie in Singapore. Even then, the authors of the report did not specify if their data was outside or inside at the construction site. Just WOW. Virologists interviewed during the investigation were quoted as saying the 10% figure is wildly inaccurate. Outdoor transmission in most settings is rare ..... something less than 1%, more likely a 10th of that.

Hanni will no doubt read this and be completely unsurprised.

[iam416]

Back to policy issues that Chairman Joe is pushing -- this time the infrastructure bill. As noted, Progressives seem to think daycare is infrastructure but the system that provides energy to the US is not. Kevin Williamson has a lot of fund with Chairman Joe's idiocy and almost absurdly stupid policy if eliminating cheap energy before there is any sort of replacement -- at all, expensive or otherwise: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-t...nfrastructure/

[lineygoblue]

I don't have a problem with real infrastructure issues being addressed and funded. The power grid, other utilities, roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, etc., all need to be modernized. But "fighting racism" and babysitting is not infrastructure. Chairman Joe is spending money like the old joke, "I can't be overdrawn on my checking account .. I still have checks".

And just for fun, on "GMA" this morning, a transgender was gushing about Broadway being reopened soon, and how happy he/she/it was that 10-11-12 year old children were coming up to "it" and "opening up on how they want to be transgender".

When I was that age, my biggest daily concern was deciding where I wanted to ride my bike that day.

Is this what Walt Disney had in mind for his future companies? ABC/Disney/ESPN as the arbiters of sexuality.

[iam416]

Chairman Joe isn't particularly concerned about real infrastructure. He's nixed real energy infrastructure out of the gate and his "infrastructure" bill is less than half real infrastructure. He could probably easily pass a real infrastructure bill that was actually targeted.

[Mike]

I plan on using the phrase “imaginary unicorn juice” as much as possible.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If Honest Joe's infrastructure bill contains $1 towards "real infrastructure" that will be more than any Infrastructure Bill the Republican Party passed in 2017-2018, when they had total control of govt. They were too busy giving big corporations like Disney and Amazon enormous tax cuts to concern themselves with an infrastructure bill, despite announcing that one was 'imminent" approximately 35 times. That worked out well. Thanks, Don and Paul Ryan!!!

Good morning everybody, it's another great day in Cheesesteak Joe's America!! Even for the haters and the losers!!!! Avert your eyes if the future seems too bright!!! U! S! A!

[Tom W]

The NYT's investigation revealed that the data that formed the basis of the 10% SARS2 cases came from outdoor transmission were based on "a review of the data" from a single construction sie in Singapore. Even then, the authors of the report did not specify if their data was outside or inside at the construction site. Just WOW. Virologists interviewed during the investigation were quoted as saying the 10% figure is wildly inaccurate. Outdoor transmission in most settings is rare ..... something less than 1%, more likely a 10th of that.

The CDC might very well be a bunch of morons, but it still takes no small amount of effort to find obscure data and then drive it into some sort of "Recommendation". In other words, there's a reason WHY they keep serving up garbage (or shall I say "bullshit"). But, of course, the NYT never bothers to go that extra step and question the CDC's motives.

[Da Geezer]

I wonder if the coastal Woke Overlords are secretly happy that gasoline is unavailable in the East. Never let a crisis go to waste.

[iam416]

The CDC might very well be a bunch of morons, but it still takes no small amount of effort to find obscure data and then drive it into some sort of "Recommendation". In other words, there's a reason WHY they keep serving up garbage (or shall I say "bullshit"). But, of course, the NYT never bothers to go that extra step and question the CDC's motives.

The NRO excoriates the CDC's "less than 10%" bullshit: https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...an-10-percent/

It's probably closer to 0.1% which, technically, is less than 10%. But, to paraphrase from the article, that's a little like saying your chances of dying in a car wreck are less than 25%. Technically true. Grossly misleading.