ewsieg

Good grief, I read what you wrote. I pointed out that you missed the part in the article that says the Trump administration bough an additional 200 doses of Pfizer and Moderna, which is enough for 100 million more people. Hence the 200 million figure you posted, plus enough for 100 million = the 300 million number I noted.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you truly believe this. Let's try again...same link: https://khn.org/news/article/fact-check-president-joe-biden-criticism-of-trump-administration-vaccine-contracts-and-supply-not-accurate/ And then later: So tell me where my math is wrong Original orders: Pfizer - 100 million doses = 50 million people Moderna - 100 million doses = 50 million people J&J - 100 million doses = 100 million people Additional order on 12/23 200 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna = 100 million people. 50+50+100+100=300

To ensure I'm being understood, in no way do I feel those numbers represent who did better. My point was more about a data point that can be taken out of context. Trump's actions, on withholding his approval on the vaccine just because he felt he wasn't going to get credit for it anymore, is criminal and is the single biggest cause of all deaths since the summer of last year.

I shouldn't let it bother me that you're refusing to look at the article which would show that as of Dec 23rd, 2020, the US would have under contract enough for 300 million people of Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J or you know it and you just choose to not admit it to be an ass. Truthfully though, it does.

You regularly admit that you don't even bother reading posts that you don't agree with. Be better.

Currently I can't find anything on Youtube, but the Bleachers ended up coming into SNL late due to Covid issues. Their first song really reminded me of Springsteen with some dualing Sax's at the end. The second song was similiar to more moden music, let's say the Killers. Overall I was impressed.

CNN is reporting all hostages have been rescued.

And to get out in front of anyone else that thinks i'm trying to say that Trump was a good president, or that i'm saying Trump would have done better, or whatever. All i'm saying here is that the government, Trump, deep state, whatever, was actually doing some things. In no way am I saying that they did everything correct or that Trump gave the correct messaging even if his admin was doing some things right. And even if my belief that the vaccine rate would be better today under Trump, i'm not saying that Trump should be president. I'm still happy with my 'better than the alternative' vote for Biden. All I am saying is under Trump, I do think certain things would be better. Personally i'm willing to sacrifice better in some areas for democracy. The fact that I don't have to worry about the current POTUS thinking he's a monarch and has the right to do whatever he wants, and has brainwashed an entire party to abandon their beliefs allows me to sleep better at night. Still, why do some need to continue to lie about Trump when he has so many legitimate things to void him from being a serious candidate? I don't get that.

Also, since you're a fan of ignoring nuance, explain this: Has Vaccine Total Deaths Biden yes 458k Trump no 392k

Oh man, you crack me up. We should get a beer sometime. I know it's difficult to see everything in an article when you're skimming for only portions that support your narrative. But let me help you. Paragraph 5, not because it has any basis in my argument, but because it's politifact, which you'd site against a GOP'er, but it's against you and you probably don't realize it as the only media you consume is stuff that helps confirm your already held beliefs Then we get to the numbers you posted above. You only selected the three that would eventually be authorized for use, but at the time, it was those plus additional totaling enough for 400 million people, per the article: Then we get to your counterpoint: They were promises because at the time, they weren't approved for use yet. But hey, let's not let nuanced understanding get in the way of a way to delegitimize the opposition. So what's next in the article: So now Pfizer and Moderna are authorized for use as of Dec 18, 2020 I mean, i'm with you, Trump wanted to kill everyone but somehow allowed his administration to authorize it for use. Thank God he's so incompetent! WHAT?!?!?! 200 million additional doses at 2 doses per person = 100 million people 100 million people, plus the original doses which were enough for 200 million people equals... can someone help me with the math, apparently i'm bad at it?

https://www.bridgemi.com/children-families/sister-law-ex-mi-house-speaker-lee-chatfield-sexually-assaulted-me-teen This story reminds me of GOP of old. Sexual deviant, not seditious traitors. Technically this guy isn't a politician right now, but sounds like he still had more aspirations in the political arena. This is quite a story. I just listened to ML Elrick interview one of the writers from Bridge MI and it sounds like more will be coming out on this story. From a political aspect, based on information provided by the husband of the victim (and brother of the (alleged for legal purposes) offender), there will be some investigations into campaign finance issues and other dark money. This kind of smells like a potentially big story for 2022 MI state elections.

Did he have Tom Selleck as his picture?

Dude, you're failing. Based on everything above, if Trump did nothing more, or even Biden did nothing more, come February when J&J was authorized, we would have enough for 300 million people. Considering our population is about 333 million and roughly 23 million are 5 years old and younger, we would have had enough vaccine to get us at 96.7% of the vaccine eligible population as of today. So I still contend that if the GOP had Trump telling them to get the vaccine from the beginning, combined with the fact that I don't think democratic leaders would have been as irresponsible as GOP leaders, I still think the vaccination rate would be better under Trump today, than it currently is with Biden who waited almost a month after becoming POTUS to purchase additional vaccines (time to bring up impeachment charges for gross negligence, amirite?). And re-reading a portion of the khn/politfact article and I noticed the wording on the additional doses Trump purchased on December 23rd and dug into that. https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/23/health/pfizer-vaccine-purchase-100-million-doses/index.html Oh snap, enough for 300 million by the end of 2020 before we could even get it out to folks yet and an option to purchase enough for 200 million more people. So Biden's purchase was actually off of the option Trump setup. I can do this all day, that said, it won't matter. Biden could shoot someone on fifth avenue and you wouldn't care.

lol at complaining that the Trump admin didn’t buy additional doses when they weren’t even approved yet, and then arguing that Trump shouldn’t get credit for purchasing doses that weren’t approved yet. They weren’t necessarily deliverable because again, these were purchased before they were already approved in the hopes they would be approved. As the article states, once some were approved, the Trump admin immediately began purchasing even more of the already approved ones. If you want to argue that my hypothetical is wrong, fine. You don’t even need quantitative evidence, you could simply say Trump always found a way to scare things up and honestly, I wouldn’t be able to do anything but give a nod to that argument. But if you’re going to use quantitative data, uses it correctly.

https://khn.org/news/article/fact-check-president-joe-biden-criticism-of-trump-administration-vaccine-contracts-and-supply-not-accurate/ So by the end of 2020, the Trump admin had purchased 400 million doses (200 million people) that had been approved for use and still had under contract enough for up to 350-400 million people (not doses) if all others were approved.

You do realize the hypothetical I provided says that the GOP wouldn't doubt their cult leader and blindly follow him whereas Democrats are not as whacked and would come around to science and get the vaccine. But if you want to knock down my hypothetical with facts, you only need to link the DNC party platform policies if you really want to own me. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/us/politics/trump-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine.html I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If that's being done, it's incredibly stupid and wasteful. Note, I wasn't trying to defend Rogan or say the sources he was citing were accurate. I heard about the study cited in the story Rogan tweeted after my son already had the vaccine, so I remember looking at it a bit. Note this article doesn't even indicate that you shouldn't stop vaccinating, but that maybe if proven true, different doses/dose schedule should be looked into. Now the one you linked is months later, so i'm happy to hear this with what i'd expect to be updated data.

Noticed this on Twitter. Even Rogan says the clip is cringy. He goes on to post an article which indicates some studies which showed that specific to boys, myocarditis did appear to be increased, and it shows the UK still isn't allowing vaccines under 12. Now, i'm sure most on this forum believes that if the 'science' showed that the vaccine is worse for teenage boys, it wouldn't be approved. But many here talk about the greater good. If specific to pre-teen / teenage boys this does increase the chance of myocarditis, and already knowing the risk from Covid is nearly null, would you give the vaccine to your son? As a whole though, if you thought increasing the risk in teenage boys would result in less Covid for all, would you do it?

I don't think there is any easy answer. But I really do wish communities would push to use land/buildings already available. Even if they subsidize those, it saves from expanding the roads/sewers/electricity/etc to support the new buildings. It doesn't mean that heirs still can't sell their land, but rather they may only get what someone that wants to use the land to farm, hunt, or just has the cash for a big lot is willing to pay for it.

Nothing in there says he's distorting the death numbers, which are the most important numbers. The NYT link provided shows the reported numbers, which shows Michigan worse than Florida in deaths per 100k. What I posted earlier will add roughy 24 deaths per 100k to Michigan, widening that lead even further. The Columbia link says that DeSantis has publicly stated that he doesn't believe the death numbers that are being reported are accurate and that they are too high. They later accuse the state of underreporting the infection rate. Nothing to indicate he's distorting death numbers.

Pics or it didn’t happen.

If those audit numbers are correct, roughly add 24/100,000 to the numbers currently on the link (currently 301/100,000).

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/14/michigan-covid-long-term-care-facilities/6527680001/ Remember the argument that Florida had a 'headstart' so the fact they are even close to Michigan when it comes to deaths per 100k, well, doesn't look like we're even close anymore. Running the numbers, looks like this bumps us up to 5th worse with Louisiana. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ I'm listening to LeDuff right now talk about it. He's saying that this is the exact type of data that put Cuomo in hot water, the major difference was with Cuomo, he knew about it and lied about it. In Michigan, we simply chose not to put the resources in to get this data. For instance, depending on your size you didn't have to report to the state how many folks died of Covid, this report dug into those smaller sites.

Certainly no scientists, but my understanding was that the vaccine helped reduce (or eliminate in some people) the symptoms of the virus. Without sneezing, coughing, runny noses, etc the spread is limited. With the fact that the younger you are, the better the chance you'll have asympomatic Covid, in the grand scheme, how much is it really helping? Note, my response above is something that I think is a legitimate point, but my argument to Rogan would be the fact that the vaccine has proven to be safe and would lower that chance of spread even further, it's worth taking. IMO, for those that listen to Rogan and then see someone freak out and say Rogan is spreading horrible misinformation about Covid and point to that, they already heard Rogan's point and agree it's legitimate, but instead of hearing a rationalized response, they just see Rogan attacked and they dig in next to him. Luckily unlike what you'll see from MSM, Rogan than has folks like Zepps and Gupta on to make that argument. Gupta was specifically asked if he regretted going on the show as it didn't change Rogan's mind and he responded stating he felt Rogan was dug in already, but it gave him an opportunity to talk with his listeners.

Well, i'm sure we'll disagree about how partisan MM is. I just reviewed their points on what he spread about Covid and even some really 'shocking' claims they show he made, I can already envision the conversation and suspect things they jumped on. Just a few: Yup, he has. The evidence does point to the fact that individually, a healthy 21 year old should not be worried about Covid. I still disagree with Rogan as it helps with protection of all, but it's not like if you're 21 and listening to Rogan, he gave you a death sentence. Absolutely wrong as a whole. In a quick read about it, he was making the case that folks were done with shutdowns and that would just encourage gatherings inside. There is an argument about being smart about lockdowns. You can't convince me that California is better off by shutting down their beaches. MM then sources a USA today article that says this claim is partly-false and says it's technically not a microchip, but a different type of device that once injected can give the person information to determine if you have Covid. I'm not saying Ivermectin is a wonder drug, well, it is, but a wonder drug for Covid, but i'm starting to think that in a few years, it'll be known that it does benefit a user if they have Covid. Again, not saying something like the Pfizer treatment pill isn't better, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ivermectin is pretty close, but because no one could really make money on it, Pfizer and the other drug companies helped make it look silly and promoted their new patented drugs. As for it being potentially dangerous, that's the biggest media fallacy out there. I know you can make the argument that it's true, but than take a look at my wife, the Moderna shot (combined with the flu and auto-immune issues already) put her in anaphylaxis shock and hospitalized her for days. Shouldn't the media refer to it as a proven but potentially dangerous treatment for the disease? Ivermectin, when taken as a prescribed medicine, is no more dangerous than most drugs, when taken as a prescribed too. I've seen some articles say Abbott was wrong for saying this was happening. Yet at the time, Mexico was dealing with a surge. We had a surge of illegals flowing into the border and the media was ripping any republican politician they could find a picture of sitting at an outdoor restaurant saying they were the real reason covid was spreading. I'm not saying the summer surge in Texas was only due to illegal aliens, but you'll never convince me that it didn't play a part.

I disagree that he's a terrible host. In fact I think he's a great interviewer. I don't think he's right about a number of things, but that clip above is a quick segment. He'll interject at times, but he gives the host a lot of time to explain themselves too. I did listen to the Sanjay Gupta one and the clips you saw were all about Rogan going after CNN. Even Gupta came out and said that was only a small bit of the overall conversation. I rarely listen now, I just don't have the time, but it's not because he's a terrible host.