Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Admiral Yi]

That would have been quite impossible seeing how he pounced on it.

Come on mate.

Come on yourself.  Trump took notice of Covid 19 fairly late in the game.

[Valmy]

That would have been quite impossible seeing how he pounced on it.

Come on mate.

Come on yourself.  Trump took notice of Covid 19 fairly late in the game.

Yeah once it started impacting the stock market.

But it was a political issue the moment the first case was discovered in China.

[grumbler]

If that really was posted at a doctor's office - and a I doubt it - somebody should have their license reviewed.

First the cure rate is zero.  There is no cure.  People recover which is not the same thing.  One would think a doctor would know that.

The R0 of SARS peaked at around 2.7 not 4.  That is also around where corona seems to be now, which also happens to be the high estimate for Spanish Flu epidemic of 1919.

I don't know what is meant by corona virus spread "leveling off"  - it is clearly spreading very fast.

The SARS outbreak happened in 2003, which was probably an election year somewhere, but not the US.  Maybe Hong Kong municipal elections?
I'm not sure why Avian flu is assigned to 2008 - there was a minor outbreak in 2005-06.  There are cases every years, 2008 was not unusually high.
The swine flu pandemic was 2009 not 2010
I think that's enough effort on this bizarre conspiracy theory.

Be careful:  pointing out reasons to suspect that something is fake will be savagely attacked on this forum.  If you don't then concede that your suspicions were utterly unjustified, you'll be accused of never admitting that you were wrong.   

[Grey Fox]

It's only Political in the USA, where everything is political.

[Admiral Yi]

Joan, you're a smelly douchebag and I hate you.

[dps]

The narrative that diseases are being created because of elections is just bizarre. This is the only time we have had a disease of any significance in an election year and it is way too early to know if it will even impact anything.

I don't think the narrative is that diseases are being created because of elections, but rather that there are outbreaks of new or previously obscure diseases almost all the time. but they only become big stories in election years.  In other words, it's a "blame the media" narrative.

And I think that narrative actually has some merit, not because of media bias, but because the media always needs a big story.  It's only some merit, though, because, well, if a whole province in China gets essentially put in lockdown, it is a big story, no media exaggeration or overblown hysteria needed.

[Malthus]

The narrative that diseases are being created because of elections is just bizarre.

Hey, it actually happened ... once! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack

[Razgovory]

That would have been quite impossible seeing how he pounced on it.

Come on mate.

Come on yourself.  Trump took notice of Covid 19 fairly late in the game.

I don't know what Trump notices or doesn't notice, but his administration took notice of it early on.  They regarded it as beneficial.

[DGuller]

If that really was posted at a doctor's office - and a I doubt it - somebody should have their license reviewed.

First the cure rate is zero.  There is no cure.  People recover which is not the same thing.  One would think a doctor would know that.

The R0 of SARS peaked at around 2.7 not 4.  That is also around where corona seems to be now, which also happens to be the high estimate for Spanish Flu epidemic of 1919.

I don't know what is meant by corona virus spread "leveling off"  - it is clearly spreading very fast.

The SARS outbreak happened in 2003, which was probably an election year somewhere, but not the US.  Maybe Hong Kong municipal elections?
I'm not sure why Avian flu is assigned to 2008 - there was a minor outbreak in 2005-06.  There are cases every years, 2008 was not unusually high.
The swine flu pandemic was 2009 not 2010
I think that's enough effort on this bizarre conspiracy theory.

Be careful:  pointing out reasons to suspect that something is fake will be savagely attacked on this forum.  If you don't then concede that your suspicions were utterly unjustified, you'll be accused of never admitting that you were wrong.

He's not presenting his suspicions as facts, and calling people who believe otherwise gullible.  I think he's safe.

[grumbler]

He's not presenting his suspicions as facts, and calling people who believe otherwise gullible.  I think he's safe.

I didn't present my suspicions as facts, either.  It didn't help me.  The dogpile was still a dogpile.

[Eddie Teach]

Whining about it afterward doesn't help any. 

[Zoupa]

He's not presenting his suspicions as facts, and calling people who believe otherwise gullible.  I think he's safe.

I didn't present my suspicions as facts, either.  It didn't help me.  The dogpile was still a dogpile.

Poor widdle grumbler.

[Maximus]

Whining about it afterward doesn't help any. 

Especially if you still can't admit you are wrong.

[DGuller]

He's not presenting his suspicions as facts, and calling people who believe otherwise gullible.  I think he's safe.

I didn't present my suspicions as facts, either.  It didn't help me.  The dogpile was still a dogpile.

There is no reason for admitting you were wrong when reasonable suspicions turn out to be unfounded.  It happens, or else suspicions would automatically be born as facts.

What would be a good idea to admit being wrong about is implying that those who didn't see it the same way you did were not sufficiently discerning.  When you imply that people who don't share your suspicions are gullible, you kind of paint yourself into a corner.  At that point you are betting your face on your suspicions being correct.

You lost that bet that time, and now you're trying to re-litigate that after a couple of days, and in another thread.

[Eddie Teach]

"DGullible" does have a certain ring to it, though.