[johnu]

cherdano, on 2020-September-22, 15:25, said:

But the main reason is the system, not the politicians themselves.

The politicians are the ones who decide on and implement the system (within constitutional constraints), so if the system is broken, politicians are responsible.

[Chas_P]

johnu, on 2020-September-22, 15:40, said:

The politicians are the ones who decide on and implement the system (within constitutional constraints), so if the system is broken, politicians are responsible.

So Jenny Durkan is responsible for the unrest in Seattle? I'm just askin'.....

[shyams]

Chas_P, on 2020-September-22, 18:30, said:

So Jenny Durkan is responsible for the unrest in Seattle? I'm just askin'.....

No, not at all. It's just that the State of Washington has had more than usual Chemtrails exposure. Then there's the illuminati who have been rearing their ugly head at such critical times and the NASA wonks who helped fake the moon landing who are up to their shenanigans again. They are the true perpetrators.

Source? Trust me, bro.

[Chas_P]

shyams, on 2020-September-22, 19:13, said:

No, not at all. It's just that the State of Washington has had more than usual Chemtrails exposure. Then there's the illuminati who have been rearing their ugly head at such critical times and the NASA wonks who helped fake the moon landing who are up to their shenanigans again. They are the true perpetrators.

Source? Trust me, bro.

By Jove, I think you have broken the code! Well done bro.

[shyams]

Chas_P, on 2020-September-22, 19:20, said:

By Jove, I think you have broken the code! Well done bro.

In case the HUMONGOUS flaw in your original comment wasn't evident to you (and it is quite likely so) , let me explicitly tell you what you did wrong.

The mini-discussion underway pertained to LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (i.e. making laws). So when cherdano said "system", he was talking about passing laws. Similarly, johnu's response specifically said that if the "system" (i.e. process of making laws) was broken, it is for politicians to fix and consequently they are still responsible.

You may agree or disagree with the merit of those comments w.r.t. legislative process. However, only a fool will take those words and foist them onto the Seattle situation in order to claim moral superiority.

[Zelandakh]

shyams, on 2020-September-22, 19:38, said:

However, only a fool will take those words and foist them onto the Seattle situation in order to claim moral superiority.

The BBF racist could never claim moral superiority on anything, shyams.

[Winstonm]

Welcome to Donald Trump's America:

Quote

Scientists are firing back at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after the federal agency on Monday reversed its identification of the coronavirus as an airborne virus, a conclusion that many experts say scientific evidence has supported for months now.

The CDC's brief recognition of the virus as being airborne on Friday was celebrated as long overdue by concurring scientists, who expressed relief that the agency was finally catching up. Three days later, however, the agency said that new language in its coronavirus guidance had been published in error.

"The CDC is broken. Seriously broken," Matthew Fox, an epidemiology and global health professor at Boston University, tweeted in response.

Scientists and public health experts scoffed at the CDC's flip-flop. Not only was it dangerous to release confusing information during a pandemic, they argued, but the science doesn't support the stance the agency was apparently reverting to.

It seems, at least for now, that Piggy has the conch shell.

[shyams]

What does airborne mean?

Is this about the water droplets in air (the main driver of "social distancing" advice worldwide) OR a generic airborne (i.e. infection remains largely suspended in normal air for extended periods of time)?

AFAIK, health authorities have insisted that the disease is not airborne. It does transmit due to water droplets carrying the virus from infected to non-infected but it does not generally transmit through air. The WHO does warn of specific situations (mainly during medical procedures) where the airborne nature has been observed. Barring those situations, there is no advice about airborne transmissions.

[y66]

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

On Oct. 6, 2017, I said it was very likely that the 2020 elections would produce unified government at the federal level one way or another. So how’s that looking?

Not bad, for a long-range prediction. The Cook Political Report rates 222 House seats as “Leans Democratic” or better for that party, meaning that even if Republicans were able to sweep all 28 toss-up seats they’d need to find five more (while also protecting each of their own). Not only that, but the vast majority of recent rating changes at Cook and similar organizations have moved in the Democrats’ direction. At this point, it’s unlikely that even a significant late surge for President Donald Trump and the Republicans would be enough to get them to 218 House seats.

It’s also still a good bet that the next president will have at least a slim Senate majority, not least because the vice president would be the tiebreaker if the chamber has a 50-50 split. The Economist’s model gives Democrats a 67% chance of gaining a Senate majority, while FiveThirtyEight gives them 62%. Former Vice President Joe Biden is leading in the polls (and in both prediction models) right now; if he fades, so would Democratic Senate candidates. It’s certainly possible that Biden could win while the Democrats failed to reach 50 seats or that Trump could win despite Republicans losing a net of four or more from their current 53. But I’d be surprised.

(All this assumes that Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results if he loses — which he mused about again on Wednesday — are unsuccessful. Yes, we've reached the point where such disclaimers are necessary. No, that isn’t good news for U.S. democracy.)

Overall, it seems likely that if Biden wins, the Democrats will also have majorities in both chambers of Congress, but if Trump prevails both parties will maintain their current majorities in the split Congress.

Back to the Senate: The biggest change over the course of the last year is that the Democrats are now very likely to make at least some gains, and there’s a realistic (albeit slim) chance that they could reach 54 or more seats. The Economist’s model gives that about a one in five chance, while FiveThirtyEight thinks it’s about one in seven. That mid-50s number is important because getting there would mean the party would have the votes to enact a significant portion of its legislative agenda with a simple majority, but almost no chance to overcome a Republican filibuster. That’s a formula for ending the filibuster — even if there isn’t an urgent specific reason.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

Of course he’s incapable of a “coup” but the Federalist Society is extremely capable of making a series of judicial decisions that lead to the American people’s preferences being overridden in favor of their preferences — they’ve done it before.

Ross Douthat said:

I'm going to stick with the same assessment till the last: Trump is unfit and proves it every day, but he's incapable of an authoritarian coup and in the event of a FL-in-2000 tipping-point-state tie, his toxic rhetoric only makes him more likely to lose the post-election battle.

[kenberg]

shyams, on 2020-September-24, 06:22, said:

What does airborne mean?

Is this about the water droplets in air (the main driver of "social distancing" advice worldwide) OR a generic airborne (i.e. infection remains largely suspended in normal air for extended periods of time)?

AFAIK, health authorities have insisted that the disease is not airborne. It does transmit due to water droplets carrying the virus from infected to non-infected but it does not generally transmit through air. The WHO does warn of specific situations (mainly during medical procedures) where the airborne nature has been observed. Barring those situations, there is no advice about airborne transmissions.

In practical terms, "Is it airborne?" means "Should we get on a plane?". This came up very specifically. I live in Maryland, my granddaughter lives in New York, she and her boyfriend were down in Maryland visiting her parents who live nearby (to me) in Maryland. From NY to Maryland is maybe a four hour drive so no problem. They were all out to see us yesterday (except my son-in-law who was teaching online). The original plan was that my grandson and his girlfriend would be part of this gathering. He lives in LA. They were going to fly but he recently tested positive.. He is asymptomatic and he is young and healthy so we can reasonably hope this will pass without lasting effect. Not certain, but reasonable to hope. But he stayed in LA. To my mind this was wise even just for his own sake but the decision was, I think, mostly driven by social responsibility. The airlines don't check, or so I understand. He decided it was the right thing to do.

Trust in anything being said by government is disappearing. Sure, I was brought up to be skeptical of government pronouncements but we have reached a whole new level. From Winston's post: "Three days later, however, the agency said that new language in its coronavirus guidance had been published in error.".
What? Whether you are R or D or Libertarian or Socialist or a Whig, you start to wonder if these guys have any idea of what they are doing. When we are speaking of a raging disease that has been going on since early this year and killed 200,000 in this country you, if you are the CDC, don't get to publish something in error. And nobody really believes that this is an honest correction of an honest mistake.

We have a problem. We need a new president. We need this very much and we need it now.

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2020-September-24, 06:22, said:

What does airborne mean?

Is this about the water droplets in air (the main driver of "social distancing" advice worldwide) OR a generic airborne (i.e. infection remains largely suspended in normal air for extended periods of time)?

AFAIK, health authorities have insisted that the disease is not airborne. It does transmit due to water droplets carrying the virus from infected to non-infected but it does not generally transmit through air. The WHO does warn of specific situations (mainly during medical procedures) where the airborne nature has been observed. Barring those situations, there is no advice about airborne transmissions.

The reality is that all of it is "airborne" - but big droplets are heavy and gravity pulls them to surfaces within a few feet of the cougher or sneezer so they don't stay airborne long. The issue is the size of contagious droplets. The problem is with aerosols, tiny droplets that can hang around in the air for some time. The fact that there is heightened danger in exposing yourself to indoor environments indicates the possibility of some degree of non-droplet transmission.

Here is CDC information from a super spreader event with a church choir back in March. Short version? Aerosols may have been involved. Thanks CDC, but it's no longer May. It's almost October and you still don't know?

[Zelandakh]

shyams, on 2020-September-24, 06:22, said:

What does airborne mean?

The original advice of the CDC, that has never officially been updated, was that the virus particles are heavy and fall to the ground quickly, thus as long as you are 1.5m away from the next person, you are safe even without masks being used. However, for some time now the evidence has supported the conclusion that the virus acts in an aerosolised form, meaning it can travel much further distances. This makes the usage of masks even more important than would be the case for the old advice. Basically the only possible reason for the CDC not having updated its advice long before now is political influence. Given that it is widely looked to internationally for objective advice, that is extremely worrisome and disappointing. Hopefully things can return to a more reliable basis in a few months.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2020-September-24, 08:07, said:

. And nobody really believes that this is an honest correction of an honest mistake.

We have a problem. We need a new president. We need this very much and we need it now.

It would be bad enough if only this. However, Vanity Fair by way of The Atlantic is signaling a much more dangerous and widespread problem:

Quote

Now the Trump campaign is said to be considering another, even more outrageous approach: In a thorough and deeply disconcerting piece about the constitutional crisis that may await us between November 3 and the inauguration in January, the Atlantic’s Barton Gellman reports that the Trump campaign has been discussing “contingency plans to bypass the election results and appoint local electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.” Citing the president’s baseless claims of fraud, Team Trump could ask GOP-controlled state governments to choose electors, completely ignoring an unfavorable or uncertain popular vote, state and national Republican sources told Gellman.

This could be poo-pooed as sensationalism in The National Inquirer. That it is The Atlantic and Vanity Fair is much more troubling and might explain why Trump is not acting like he is well behind in polls. With a state like Wisconsin, which has a state legislature filled with Matt Gaetz and Ron DeSantis clones, this near-invisible coup attempt cannot be ruled out.

[y66]

Noah Smith said:

Great discussion between @JimPethokoukis and @mattyglesias about the "One Billion Americans" idea. I'm totally on board.

https://www.aei.org/...tthew-yglesias/

Yglesias at his best.

[Chas_P]

This thread now has 16, 275 posts and it just seems to me to be a good time to pause and pay tribute to Ken Berg who, in my view, is one of the (very) few on here who has more common sense than that of a turnip. I love your musings, prof. Keep up the good work. Hip, hip, hooray!

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2020-September-24, 17:56, said:

This thread now has 16, 275 posts and it just seems to me to be a good time to pause and pay tribute to Ken Berg who, in my view, is one of the (very) few on here who has more common sense than that of a turnip. I love your musings, prof. Keep up the good work. Hip, hip, hooray!

Maybe we should put it to a poll: Does Ken have more sense than a turnip or does he not?
I am sure there would be votes on both sides.
Becky approves of the poll idea but has not said how she would vote.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2020-September-24, 18:26, said:

Maybe we should put it to a poll: Does Ken have more sense than a turnip or does he not?
I am sure there would be votes on both sides.
Becky approves of the poll idea but has not said how she would vote.

In today's world common sense seems to be a rare commodity. I'm just glad to see that at least a smattering of it still exists. Please carry on. And tell Becky I'll be your campaign manager.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2020-September-24, 09:11, said:

The original advice of the CDC [...] was that the virus particles are heavy and fall to the ground quickly

As I understand it, "virus particle" should here read "air droplet that carries the virus particle". The weight of the virus particle itself doesn't matter, even the heaviest virus would be plenty light enough to travel if it could travel alone. But it can't.

[hrothgar]

Chas_P, on 2020-September-24, 17:56, said:

This thread now has 16, 275 posts and it just seems to me to be a good time to pause and pay tribute to Ken Berg who, in my view, is one of the (very) few on here who has more common sense than that of a turnip. I love your musings, prof. Keep up the good work. Hip, hip, hooray!

I was so hoping that you were dead.
2020 is truly a horrible year.