jdub27

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.

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?

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

But so is Jared Kushner, though that becomes inconvenient in certain conspiracy theories.

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.

I'm confused all the animosity towards scientists. Just because people don't like or agree with what they say doesn't make them anymore right or wrong. They present their findings and show their work. Are models and variables continuously changing, resulting in new data? Of course, that's literally how science works. Did the original projections have a huge band of outcomes? Of course, it's novel virus that no one knew much about. But of course the media immediately reports the worst case scenario instead of actual ranges, because it gets clicks. Anyone who thinks Fauci had some axe to grind is not paying attention to what he's actually saying. He's repeatedly stated that he has no opinion on policy or on economic decisions, he is simply relaying his findings the exact same as he has for almost 40 years and through multiple viruses. Him stating what he believes might happen is not him pushing an agenda, it's doing his job. It's up to the elected officials to make the decisions.

Wish the kid well, think he could have had an impact in the offense this year. Best of luck to him. But why does your comment sound familiar..... Oh yeah:

It has, but it is coming from both sides. Pretending there aren't two wrongs is just as bad. You have a group of people who continue to ask idiotic questions and you have someone who does fine until he gets off script and then all bets are off. When he gets asked questions about things he literally just said, he refuses to answer or clarify, even when it is a relevant question. Like I said previous, the left-slanting media plays perfect into Trump's playbook and they continously do it. That doesn't make Trump's actions any better, it just continues to enable him.

I mean, "news" stations doing this pre-dates Trump. While the media/news cycle continues to evolve, I don't recall Bush or Obama reacting to anywhere near that or even trying to escalate the situation.

I don't have an opinion on the liberals who have been looking for things to nitpick on Trump since day 1 other than it is pretty funny that they can't see their stupid and pointless criticisms of him feed into exactly what he needs to cause distractions. I was pointing out the humor and irony that a keyboard virologist citing "Science" about how masks were pointless and telling healthy people to wear them is "absurdly unintelligent" and then just a few days later, Trump did exactly that as these people are tested daily. I'm sure there is a great explanation for it though.

Kind of ironic now that Trump himself made a directive that staffers and visitors to the West Wing must wear masks unless they are sitting at their desks and able to socially distance. Most of these people are tested frequently (daily), so in essence, he's requiring healthy people to wear masks to be at work. Also a bit interesting that the directive does not apply to him personally. Rules for thee but not for me?

Sure. I also think conspiracy theories have the ability to spread inaccurate/dangerous information which can be harmful as well. Their freedom of speech was not suppressed as you stated. Spreading their "opinions" on YouTube or Facebook is not a right and their videos clearly violated the T&C's of the platform, just like many other videos have (from both sides of the politcal spectrum). The government didn't take down their videos and they are free to distribute it on their own. The Bakersfield docs used their profession to present their case in a way that wasn't honest, particularly with the data they used. I'm not saying that some of their points don't have merit and that some of things they said weren't accurate (even the wrost conspiracy theories use factual info to get people to buy in), but by using their standing as doctors and not disclosing their reasoning or being clear about the data they used and instead citing it is "science", they intentionally mislead people under the guise of being medical experts, not business owners concerned for their well-being (which they have every right to be, but went about it the wrong way).

You'll have to excuse my confusion as you qualified them as having "legit credentials". The reasons both of those videos were removed are easily found, with their "facts" challenged (with citations). In the case of the Bakersfield docs, they cited unproven/unreviewed research to push their agenda (their own financial well-being) but tried passing it off as medical advice. A simple Google search of Mikovits will show she's a decade or two past having "legit credentials". Their removal from YouTube is not a suppression of free speech. Their videos violate the terms and conditions of where they were posted. Free speech doesn't allow you to post whatever you want, wherever you want. They are still free to promote their messages on their own platforms.

Just curious if you're referring to the Bakersfield doctors or Judy Mikovits (Plandemic) as those being "suppressed"?

"if the caregiver get sick".......So what happens when caregivers are in the window where they are contagious but not yet showing any symptoms or end up being completely asymptomatic but are still carrying and shedding the virus? Point being, you can't just claim isolating the vulnerable and those who need care will be a simple fix.

Honest question because no one I've asked has a good answer: Where do the caretakers (and their families) who are responsible to take care of the sick/vulnerable population who are quarantined fit in?

I'd disagree with that. It isn't recommendations from epidemiologists that is causing them to open things up right now, it the continuous mounting of collateral damage. I guess that would be the logical conclusion that would show how they ended up an asymptomatic carrier, but it doesn't change the end result or the point: Unless you are going to isolate all caregivers, then isolating the vulnerable doesn't really work for the exact same reason. If it was a true lockdown, than anyone who was exposed to someone who worked at LM would have also been quarantined. Instead, they only required the workers to be quarantined (which was questionably followed by more than a few) and those that lived with them had no restrictions and were able to continue to be exposed to others. I'm not saying what is right or wrong in the scenario, just making the point that claiming the simple solution to just "isolate the vulnerable" is not answer nor is "keep everyone locked down for months at a time". It has to be somewhere in the middle and with the understanding that lives will be lost no matter which direction things go.