jdub27

The president stated his decision to shut down the country down is why the death toll is so far below original projections. Are you saying he's completely wrong and if we didn't shut down the economy we'd still be in the same spot? Not sure how you can say we shouldn't have shut down the country and then say the president has done a stellar job (which I actually agree with giving the informatoin he was working with) when he specifically states, that decision was the correct one. Seems very contradtictory as he stated he was the one that made the call.

Apparently repeating the president's own words is now criticism of him? He has owned it, claimed the decision to shut down the econcomy was absolutely necessary (and his decision) and his delcaration is that it was a rounsing success. Per his own words, 1-2 million would have died if he hadn't taken the steps he did.

Trump stated his actions on shutting down the economy prevented it and saved all those lives. Took experts 10 minutes to convince him it was what needed to be done. Or at least that's what he stated at his press conference Friday morning.

The one where people are using church gatherings as an example of things that are banned despite them being allowed for the last two weeks. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of limitations on church gatherings, it's hardly a Walz/Minnesota issue.

Well there goes that straw man...

Why the mental gymnastics to frame a 10+ million job swing vs expectations (adding 2.5 million jobs instead of losing 8 million) as a bad thing? No one said things are back to where they need to be or we've reached the end goal, but it is a hell of a lot better than what was expected. The president is currently on live TV and there is a concern he is going to throw his shoulder out patting himself on the back about it. So yeah, "unexpected good news" seems to be pretty accurate. He literally just called today the greatest comeback in American history. You probably also aren't going to like what he had to say about the shutdowns, how many lives he claims were saved and how he says it was all worth it but that's a separate point.

And here I was concerned we wouldn't get our weekly jobs update since it was unexpected positive news this week. Thanks for picking up the slack!

How about this one? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 Can we also ask the other side on who has the most to gain if it does prove to be effective?

It was addressed with the student-athlete when it happened. It is only coming up again because the individual involved ended up on a promotional poster and shouldn't have and that was called out by a footall player. The athletic department admitted fault in the decision (regardless of how it was made), including the athletic director taking full responsibility even though he probably wasn't responsible. No one tried to hide the mistake that was made and no excuses were made.

Seems like you don't actually know that "he didn't do anything about it". However using that individual in a marketing ad was a mistake, one that was immediately admitted by UND.

Sub-11 second speed in the 100m dash as a sophomore is some pretty good speed. Great get for the staff.

"Leaving" is an interest way to frame it.

Take-out only at this point.

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

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.