Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

jdub27

Members
  • Content Count

    7,759
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    112

Recent Profile Visitors

8,783 profile views
  1. To be clear, he was interpreting the results of the scientific data, not giving a random opinion. France has also moved on from it. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/27/fauci-hydroxychloroquine-not-effective-against-coronavirus-283980
  2. Where did I say it wasn't important? I clearly stated where the perception of the decision on the public and future donors is something that is taken into account. That doens't mean its sole factor for decision making. You didn't answer if you think an organization should be bound in perpetuity even when not required and even when it becomes something that falls well oustide their mission or expertise and no longer financially makes sense.
  3. I do, as does the University (even with the understanding of how things are perceived by the public and future donors), but I'm also not naive enough to ignore that a lot of things change over a nearly 60 year period and especially when there was no perpetuity agreement requirement in the donor agreement that requires UND to be bound to forver run a golf course. And while it was a very generous gift, it should be pointed out that there was 150 acres of farmland in the transaction valued at $45,000. Of that, only $11,250 was actually gifted, with UND paying for the remainder of the land. I mean, UND and every other institution has done plenty of things such as knocked down buildings that have been built with donations or has repurposed funds for more beneficial things. Do you think UND should be permanently locked into understandings that are over a half-century old, even when the agreement doesn't require them to?
  4. I'm local, I golf and I don't think UND has any need to own and operate a golf course. Guessing those places get a little more use than 4-5 months out of theirs, most of which is when the majority of students aren't even in class.
  5. Fauci has openly admitted that his information is from the medical side of the equation only, and it's on a novel virus that the smartest people in the world in that field are still learning a ton about it. He's never claimed to be giving advice on the entire problem (nor advocated for strict/permanent lockdowns as the only solution) and stated his information needs to be weighed with other factors. Politicians have economic experts they are relying on to give the other side of the equation. How they choose to balance that is what they are elected to do. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/i-m-going-keep-pushing-anthony-fauci-tries-make-white-house-listen-facts-pandemic
  6. Have you ever looked into how that number is calculated? If you're going to question Covid-19 numbers and but assume flu numbers are even close to accurate...
  7. Based on sample testing from the end of April, nowhere near what they expected. 7.3% is a far cry from being near hers immunity. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-strategy/swedish-antibody-study-shows-long-road-to-immunity-as-covid-19-toll-mounts-idUSKBN22W2YC
  8. But aren't they also sabotaging themselves when they come up for re-election if they have driven the economy into the ground? Cutting off the noses to spite the face so to speak? On top of that, aren't most of them pointing at the White House guidelines for re-opening and having to meet certani standards. That's where that line of thinking starts to get blurry with me.
  9. So your observation is that around 50 governors are independentally acting with varying levels of irrationality based on indivdiual tragic events? The actual number might vary by a few because I suppose it depends on what someone considers as reasonable guidelines given the circumstances. Not saying I don't diasagree with various decisions mades, I'm frankly only concerned about one state, but I'm just curious what people think the actual motivations and end games are.
  10. Given that comment, what do you think the motivation for someone like Walz to make the decisions he is, knowing that it will continue to hurt the economy of his state? It obviously isn't to push his poll numbers up. Clearly there is something driving these decisions as a politician's job rely on their consitutents approving of their job.
  11. At this point with Connecticuit loosening restrictions today, all states are open in various fashions right now, so what governors are stating they can't reopen until there is a vaccine? I guess I haven't seen that narrative or maybe have just misunderstood the way it is being presented. Or are the stating that things won't be back as they were (or whatever that might be) until there is a vaccine? Edit - Turned on the news this morning and saw what is being discussed in regards to this.
  12. But so is Jared Kushner, though that becomes inconvenient in certain conspiracy theories.
  13. Again, they are doing their job. It's how science works, continue to update what you know with new information to make the models more accurate. This was a novel virus, minimal things were known about it which is why the models had such huge range. Fauci openly admitted to Congress he doesn't know everything about the virus and he won't make predictions, just lay out what the models show. Blame the media for grabbing onto the biggest numbers and pushing that agenda. Blame those making policy decisions for not understanding the numbers and/or risk. Fauci has zero agenda or narrative to push. He presents the facts as he sees them, which is not policy making. That is up to the elected officials. He's been doing it for almost 40 years under Democrat (2x) and Republican (4x) presidents. He didn't decide to get political at the age of 79 just for fun.
×
×
  • Create New...