• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • The polls say Biden is far ahead but let’s not forget what the polls said before. You also never know what Trump and the Russians could come up with so... My advice is to prepare yourself for Trump winning. Get out and vote and encourage your friends to do the same. Let’s avoid a depression pandemic added to the current covid one, by preparing ourselves for a possible big disappointment.

    • From what I can tell, Pelosi is going for a future bipartisan committee composed of medical personnel, among others. It's hard to ignore the timing, but it doesn't apply to Trump now because it would take a long time to get agreement on. It would apply equally to Trump or Biden, depending on the election outcome.

      I think the concern on both sides of the isle is whether the drugs Trump is currently on is affecting the things he is saying and doing. Even Mitch McConnell is publicly saying he stays away from the White House because of the lack of Covid protocols there. Who gets infected by Covid, demands discharge from the hospital while still actively shedding the virus, and publicly removes the mask before entering the building, when the virus is sweeping the staff there?

      Or Tweets and posts to Facebook that they had to remove for spreading misinformation. Doctors of every political affiliation are saying his communication about the virus is hard to comprehend and will cost many lives.

    • Decades ago in the course of spending a couple years recruiting physicians for a large hospital chain I spent many hours perusing professional journals. None was more respected than The New England Journal of Medicine. I think it significant that, for the first time in it's history, the Journal has published an editorial, signed by every single editor, endorsing a presidential candidate, Joe Biden. Seems to me that the White House doctor and his fellow enablers are overlooking the first principle of their Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm."

    • Edit: Reading it, clearly it MUST include the the VP. She also clearly stated her work was for future presidents.

      Well I think she got a little ahead of herself. I always thought it required the VP and a majority of the Cabinet. But that’s not what she said. She said it was not about this president. So taking her at her word I wonder of she is setting up Joe to be removed and Kamala to be installed?

      Reading the Constitution it looks like Congress is provided and transmitted to. So not sure if she could initiate anything.

    • These are people that are supposed to rely on data. We do not have accurate data on this virus and likely will not for some time. Sending infected people into nursing homes?

      This data needs to be broken down and include existing conditions that may have lead to their death. While we are still seeing motocycle accidents charted as Covid deaths we have no way of knowing how accurate the data is.

      Absent ALL the facts I’m seeing the article as political.

    • You're right, as far as I know, that it requires the cabinet and VP. That's what should be repaired, because the cabinet and VP are installed by the president and can have dark incentives to invoke it, or, more likely, loyalty to their boss to not invoke it.

      It's a relatively new amendment that came after Kennedy was assassinated and given what was on their minds at that time, the way they set it up made sense. Kennedy could have been badly mentally impaired and the country would have needed a way to transfer power to the VP.

      Now that we have demonstrated that it's possible to have an unhinged president and for tragedy to follow, as it has, this legislation removes the partisanship and political motives.

      Naturally, conspiracy theories will fly like this one:

      But I think all that shows is he didn't read or understand the proposed legislation. Or he's unhinged.

    • Dan, we have a mountain of irrefutable data from countries around the world. I don't know a single reputable scientist or medical doctor in any advanced country that refutes it. I am a scientist who has studied it pretty carefully and the only conclusion I can come to is the numbers are understated.

      Those 34 editors are some of the top medical experts in the world. They are exceptionally data focused and they are on the front lines watching their patients die. We owe them our trust.

      If we can't trust them, how about Scientific American?

    • You're right, the Journal did not endorse Biden; I mis-remembered what I read a couple of days ago. They did their best to remain non-political, but did call for the current leadership to be replaced. And this is the first time they've done that in 208 years. They are scientists and clinicians that have earned near universal respect.

    • Endorsing a candidate with obvious mental issues after 175 years would be suspect to me on it’s face. If Joe would take a mental acuity test it would settle the issue but he will not. Kinda like his position on stacking the court. When asked about taking a test as Trump has he used his narcissistic anger and projected back on the interviewer. Then he bullied, mocked him and gaslighted him. “What are you a junkie?” Until he is tested I’m going with what I see from him. Keep in mind previous to this interview he lied and said he was “constantly tested.” Without a teleprompter he simply cannot carry a thought.

      I love science but how about common sense? I have a good friend that is a coder. She tells me she’s seen a ton of Covid cases. Not one of her cases has died without an extenuating circumstance. Look at Chris Christie. He has asthma and is obese. He’s still in the hospital while Trump is back at work. There were reports that he is on a ventilator the reports were debunked by his staff.

      Until this election is over and while everyone is so fired up I‘m thinking it’s going to take a year to get actual unbiased data.

      I would submit it’s hard to watch this and think the guy has all his marbles.

    • Seems to be common among many magazines and papers. People see the democracy at risk. What people don’t realize is this is a Republican thing and doesn’t end with Trump being removed.

    • I love science but how about common sense? I have a good friend that is a coder. She tells me she’s seen a ton of Covid cases. Not one of her cases has died without an extenuating circumstance.

      Well to me an unverified anecdote from a coder is not common sense. I could counter by saying two men in their 40s in good health in our neighborhood have died of complications from Covid, but those are anecdotes too. I don't know their medical histories and the specifics of their deaths.

      Common sense would be to look at the data from doctors and scientists have who specialize in this. They've made it available to us at the click of a mouse and it's super clear via a chart.

      Almost universally they say Covid deaths are underreported in the U.S. How do we know? Because we can compare the number of total deaths for a period of time compared to the same number at the same time of year during previous years. What we see is it's higher. More people dying this year, starting when Covid broke out, of lung, kidney and heart disease — or at home from flu-like symptoms — than can be explained by reported Covid deaths.

    • Endorsing a candidate with obvious mental issues after 175 years would be suspect to me on it’s face. If Joe would take a mental acuity test it would settle the issue but he will not.

      Well I think the most difficult mental acuity test you could give a candidate is a 2-hour town hall, no? They don't have a script or teleprompter and the questions require a lot of recall. Yet it was public for all of us to see.

      I know Bill O'Reilly was confused about how Biden could nail something like that:

      I think you're right to be worried about Joe's mental acuity at 77, or Trump's at 74. But it seems to me the acuity we're looking for is can they remember what they said before, are the answers consistent with simple, known facts, do they slur their words, etc. One of those candidates definitely doesn't pass that test.

      The mental acuity test Trump took is a million times simpler. Judge for yourself. This is the test. Can you answer these questions?

    • Thank you for the link, very interesting.

      Here’s what I mean by common sense. Why are certain governors locking states down harder than others? Michigan is a disaster. Why did Cuomo send infected patients into nursing homes?
      You nor I would have done that. Crazy. How much money is involved putting someone on medicare on a ventilator? 30k? Money and politics are huge motivators for partisans.

      We have an election year and a weak candidate. During the 2 hour town hall Biden said Trump was responsible for 200k deaths. To back up his claim he said “look at the data”

      Biden: And if president had done his job — had done his job from the beginning — all the people would still be alive. All the people — I’m not making this up, just look at the data. Look at the data.

      So I’m trying to balance my political foo, common sense, data, and come up with as you are what’s really happening here.
      It is a fact the virus arrived in Wa State the day the impeachment started and why I say we will not know the complete truth for some time if ever.

      Do I think polititians are playing with peoples lives, yes.

      2017 Total Deaths US: 2,813,503 (234,000/month)
      2018 Total Deaths US: 2,839,205 (237,000/month)
      2019 Total Deaths US: 2,855,000 (238,000/month)
      2020 Total Deaths US (jan - week 9/26): 2,130,000 (236,000/month)
      2,130,000 + (236,000/month x 3) [Oct, Nov, Dec] = 2,838,000 [assumption based on monthly avg]
      2020: 2,838,000 [3-month assumption insert]
      2019: 2,855,000
      2018: 2,839,000
      2017: 2,814,000

    • Yes I can pass that one.

      Isn’t that hump where the Camel stores its water? lol

      Jackson recently made news when he suggested Biden take the same cognitive test Trump took and passed.

      Biden once claimed he’d taken a cognitive test. He even said he was tested “daily.” But in a recent interview, he said he hadn’t, then went on to insult the interviewer.

    • Agreed. Unlike 2016, Democrats are playing to win versus playing to not lose. They’re raising way more money right now and everyone is taking this election and Trump more seriously. I think that will make the difference. At least that is my hope.

    • Research on this came up with an average of ten years knocked off people’s probable life expectancy. Background death rates still suggest covid deaths are underestimated. See another Cake thread for discussion of this.

    • Yes, he did say that around January 21st — twice — and if TikTok is a source of truth about our scientists, as it is for millions of people in the U.S., then those millions will go on to conclude scientists don't know, as they did.

      One thing that TikTok eliminated was what he said right before that: Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security is doing.

      And after:  It’s a very, very low risk to the United States, but it’s something we, as public health officials, need to take very seriously. And it's an evolving situation which could change on a moment's notice.

      Easy for me to say looking back, but I wish he could have acted then (the day after the first case was diagnosed in the U.S.) like the chief scientist in South Korea, Kim Woo-Ju, did right away. But when Fauci did, soon after he made his mid-January statements, the anti-science sentiment that has grown in the U.S. — and now makes us different from places like Vietnam, China, Canada, Taiwan, Germany and New Zealand — Fauci was sidelined and labeled alarmist.

      My personal opinion is it's better to get science from an interview like this than a snippet from TikTok: