header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: In other news ...

 (Read 1010814 times)

NorthernOhioBuckeye

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1101
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4368 on: April 05, 2021, 12:33:55 PM »
I feel like this somewhat proves CD's point...

Trump has spent plenty of time claiming that there's no way we'd have a vaccine within 5 years without him. Says it over, and over, and over.

China and Russia both had vaccines months before us... Granted, I don't trust either of them to have completed adequate testing, so let's look at Western nations... The UK and Canada both approved the Pfizer vaccine for use before the US did. Last time I checked, Trump has never been president of either.

Trump is claiming credit for something that literally ANYONE in the White House would have done at the time. It's literally a no-brainer.

Yet his supporters parrot the claim that if it weren't for Trump it'd be 5 years before we'd see a vaccine.
What was the shortest period of time that a vaccine or even a drug came to market prior to the Covid vaccine? And I'm not talking about in foreign nations, but here in the United States? 

Look, I don't think Trump did anything that others couldn't have, all he did was help to clear roadblocks. If you believe differently, so be it. But until someone can show me where it has been done in a shorter period of time, and I don't mean something in the 1700 - 1800's prior to the regulatory state, I will contend that Trump did what something that prior admins had failed to do. 

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10173
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4369 on: April 05, 2021, 12:36:01 PM »
Swine flu was nowhere near as deadly. If it was, the response would have been different.
bull spit.  it just wasn't politically advantageous to ride into the stupidity we find ourselves surrounded by now.  it was better to ignore it, largely and from a political posture, and that is precisely what 'they' did.   procedures were followed as identified by the national pandemic response plan and measures were taken that were effective.  with COVID19, instead, FEAR was sewn purposely and it caught on like wildfire- for political leverage.  

NorthernOhioBuckeye

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1101
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4370 on: April 05, 2021, 12:36:33 PM »
Hmm, all of your description centers on economics.  Weird.
Your first post implied economics. 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71626
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4371 on: April 05, 2021, 12:38:53 PM »
Usually, when asked "what base were you born on?", it means economics, in my experience.

If you were born on second base, it meant your family was reasonably well to do.

I'm not sure how else to interpret it.

NorthernOhioBuckeye

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1101
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4372 on: April 05, 2021, 12:40:24 PM »
It goes a step farther than claiming credit where none was due... "Without me, you wouldn't have had this for 5 years." That's the second half.

Which is what NOB echoes:



Trump repeated that line so many times, without any evidence. But any rational observer would realize that given this pandemic, any President would have fast-tracked a vaccine and cleared any administrative hurdles in its path to get the country through it.

Even Jimmy Carter and the potted plant would do the same. How to handle that portion of the response to COVID is obvious. 
I probably did not phrase that correctly. Without intervention of the regulatory process, the vaccine would still be a ways off. Trump took the lead to intervene in that process. I'm not saying any other president would not have, but the left had been accusing Trump of not taking Covid seriously all the while waiting on a vaccine that he and his administration were removing hurdles for. 

There are 2 houses of Congress that could have also gotten involved from their end to pass legislation to speed up the process, but they were too busy attacking Trump for having 2 scoops of ice cream. 

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4373 on: April 05, 2021, 12:45:27 PM »
I can't agree with this statement.  I believe that any president would have TRIED, but any other president would have faced a different set of political pressures and obstacles to push it through, even if the bureaucratic hurdles remained constant.

So, we can speculate all we want, but all we can KNOW is that the actual president at the time, pushed it through.  Anyone else would likely have tried, but we have no way to know whether or not he would have been successful.

If nothing else, we know that our previous president was fairly effective at bulldozing over opposition.  I don't believe we can assume that ANY other president would have been able to do the same.
I can agree here. I do believe any president would have tried.

We can't run the simulation 1000 times with 1000 different Presidents in this country. The best we can do is look at what happened across the world:

https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/trials-vaccines-by-country/

This is all I could find with a quick google search, and obviously it's updated as of early April, so I can't easily back-date it to early December when our vaccine was approved.

But we see that we are NOT the only country which was running vaccine trials. So it's not like America was going it alone, or that all the vaccine trials were under Trump's jurisdiction. 

We also know (based on my previous post) that both the UK and Canada beat us to approval of the vaccine. I'm sure both countries have political pressures and obstacles, and they got it done. I believe I read that by the end of December, 8 countries had approved vaccines for use. So that's 5 more beyond UK/USA/Canada all in a very short window.

So I stick to my original point--literally any President would have done the same thing. At most, a President more effective than Trump might have gotten us there very slightly earlier, and a President less effective than Trump might have gotten us there a few weeks later. 

NOB stated this morning that if Trump hadn't done what he did, the vaccine wouldn't be ready to go by NOW... 

I would ask if anyone on this board truly believes that? 

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4374 on: April 05, 2021, 01:10:36 PM »
What was the shortest period of time that a vaccine or even a drug came to market prior to the Covid vaccine? And I'm not talking about in foreign nations, but here in the United States?

Look, I don't think Trump did anything that others couldn't have, all he did was help to clear roadblocks. If you believe differently, so be it. But until someone can show me where it has been done in a shorter period of time, and I don't mean something in the 1700 - 1800's prior to the regulatory state, I will contend that Trump did what something that prior admins had failed to do.
I probably did not phrase that correctly. Without intervention of the regulatory process, the vaccine would still be a ways off. Trump took the lead to intervene in that process. I'm not saying any other president would not have, but the left had been accusing Trump of not taking Covid seriously all the while waiting on a vaccine that he and his administration were removing hurdles for.

There are 2 houses of Congress that could have also gotten involved from their end to pass legislation to speed up the process, but they were too busy attacking Trump for having 2 scoops of ice cream.
I understand we can't always look to "foreign nations", because the situation is different in every country. However, that's why I relied on the UK and Canada as examples, which are advanced OECD nations. And with that link of vaccine trials, you can see that most advanced nations were running trials and getting vaccines approved more quickly than ever in history. 

Because the situation, and its response, were obvious. 

And BTW the FDA is an executive branch agency. While Congress could possibly have done something, this is actually one of the few places where it was fully within the administration's purview to set priorities and do this. 

Oh, and BTW I found this...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/25/fact-check-double-standard-covid-19-h-1-n-1-inaccurate/5780274002/

H1N1 was first detected in California on April 15, 2009, and quickly spread globally, according to the CDC. The first infections of the novel virus were reported to the World Health Organization on April 18, three days after the first human infection.

A vaccine for the swine flu became available about five months after the first confirmed U.S. case, according to USA TODAY.
 according to USA TODAY. Access to the vaccine opened to the general public in late December 2009. The WHO announced 
announced the end of the pandemic Aug. 11, 2010, 14 months after the first U.S. case. The national death toll reached 12,469.


So we had a vaccine for the swine flu faster than we did for COVID. Which makes sense, of course, as we already knew how to make vaccines for influenza. But you can't claim that this is the fastest vaccine ever produced...

bull spit.  it just wasn't politically advantageous to ride into the stupidity we find ourselves surrounded by now.  it was better to ignore it, largely and from a political posture, and that is precisely what 'they' did.  procedures were followed as identified by the national pandemic response plan and measures were taken that were effective.  with COVID19, instead, FEAR was sewn purposely and it caught on like wildfire- for political leverage. 
Worldwide, what changed politically between 2009 and 2020 to cause a different response? 

Because it's easy to claim that this was spun politicallly to damage Trump. But in 2009, NO countries locked down for swine flu, while in 2020 nearly EVERY country locked down for COVID.

We are not alone in this. We were not the first to lock down. Obviously China locked down Wuhan, but again I don't like using autocratic nations as examples. But Italy, well before the US, locked down. Then the rest of the world followed suit.

I would argue that H1N1, which was a pretty benign virus, merits a different response than COVID-19 because of its mortality rate. You are saying it's due to political advantage. Well if that's true, I would argue that you have to postulate what has changed in the past 11 years worldwide to create a political advantage to lockdowns.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17718
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4375 on: April 05, 2021, 01:11:33 PM »
I can agree here. I do believe any president would have tried.

We can't run the simulation 1000 times with 1000 different Presidents in this country. The best we can do is look at what happened across the world:

https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/trials-vaccines-by-country/

This is all I could find with a quick google search, and obviously it's updated as of early April, so I can't easily back-date it to early December when our vaccine was approved.

But we see that we are NOT the only country which was running vaccine trials. So it's not like America was going it alone, or that all the vaccine trials were under Trump's jurisdiction.

We also know (based on my previous post) that both the UK and Canada beat us to approval of the vaccine. I'm sure both countries have political pressures and obstacles, and they got it done. I believe I read that by the end of December, 8 countries had approved vaccines for use. So that's 5 more beyond UK/USA/Canada all in a very short window.

So I stick to my original point--literally any President would have done the same thing. At most, a President more effective than Trump might have gotten us there very slightly earlier, and a President less effective than Trump might have gotten us there a few weeks later.

NOB stated this morning that if Trump hadn't done what he did, the vaccine wouldn't be ready to go by NOW...

I would ask if anyone on this board truly believes that?

Europe's rollout of the Astrozeneca vaccine has been severely hindered, due to issues with the process of bringing the vaccine to market.  Among other things, it wasn't adequately vetted and socialized to make the public comfortable with it.  While not a complete failure, it's obvious their rollout has not been as successful as the USA.

As I said probably 11 months ago, "I have no doubt that China and Russia will quickly have SOME liquid to jab into people's arms."  I have been proven correct on that.  But there's no way to know if their vaccine efforts have actually been successful, and given their egregious lying about the pandemic status in their countries to date, I can't accept either of them as an example of a vaccine rollout that preceded the USA's.

So knocking out most of Europe, and China, and Russia, how many countries actually brought their vaccine to the public quicker than the USA?  I'm asking because I don't know.  You've mentioned Canada, anyone else?

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4376 on: April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM »
Well, I was mostly talking about approval. Rollout is a completely different issue. 

Not only that, rollout is a logistical issue that mostly occurred post-Trump. So even if he was REALLY good at it, it was mostly out of his hands by the time it actually started happening. As I remember it, he was focusing on litigating the election results most of that time... In fact, while high-profile members of the public were trying to show that they believed in the vaccine by getting publicly jabbed, he did so in secret in the White House in January. 




Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10173
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4377 on: April 05, 2021, 02:22:43 PM »
Worldwide, what changed politically between 2009 and 2020 to cause a different response?

Because it's easy to claim that this was spun politicallly to damage Trump. But in 2009, NO countries locked down for swine flu, while in 2020 nearly EVERY country locked down for COVID.

We are not alone in this. We were not the first to lock down. Obviously China locked down Wuhan, but again I don't like using autocratic nations as examples. But Italy, well before the US, locked down. Then the rest of the world followed suit.

I would argue that H1N1, which was a pretty benign virus, merits a different response than COVID-19 because of its mortality rate. You are saying it's due to political advantage. Well if that's true, I would argue that you have to postulate what has changed in the past 11 years worldwide to create a political advantage to lockdowns.
worldwide- they were freaking out.  Just because our media didn't cover it extensively doesn't mean it didn't happen.  H1N1 and MERS are a huge concern and though MERS wasn't pandemic but more epidemic doesn't mean it wasn't a huge concern to WHO.  Here, we quietly tracked H1N1 cases using a system implemented as part of the NIMS (national incident management system) and ICS (Incident command structure) procedures to harvest data from emergency responders and hospitals 'live' databases and tracking systems, identifying and isolating as much as possible and while focusing the weight of resources and efforts at locations where it was concentrated and/or there was potential/threat of massive spread....

in short... the administration at the lowest levels handled it based on identified procedures captured during cross-decked communication including the CDC, WHO, down to the local health departments and mayors and without intervention from freaking the house and senate in an election year and with one of the most popular (and a populist) President in office.. They followed procedure.  We (average joe's) hardly noticed- but that doesn't mean there wasn't full out execution of response plans. It just means the media didn't want to impact the sitting president/messiah they so approved of.  It was actually handled correctly. 

then... after that 'success', it's followed along with a bunch of charlatans sewing fear and panic (but only after leading parades through China Town in various cities for a photo op) and the image (and image alone) that a sitting President was doing nothing.  which is bull shit.  but, 'they' painted him in a corner to where he took to the podium every single day- to the point the media began to ignore him- and he got involved, bringing deep state operatives such as fauci and scarf lady who were in stations neither of them should have been in (they were tools of the state and not of their appointed stations).  NOT ONE TIME has anyone asked Fauci "why was there no plan?"- instead, they got out in front and pretended there is no means to "know what to do when we don't know enough about it"- and that demonstrates 40 years of incompetence and begs the question "why were they getting paid?"- as it IS THEIR JOB to spitball- in the better sounding activity of 'think tank' possibilities and contingencies based on possibilities- to catalog them and store them in databases which can be referenced by interjecting queries specific to the conditions, and suitable responses immediately made available.  but... no.... they made a circus over it and for the gain of one political party- and at a moment when we damn well should have been united... 

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18896
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4378 on: April 05, 2021, 02:57:00 PM »
Usually, when asked "what base were you born on?", it means economics, in my experience.

If you were born on second base, it meant your family was reasonably well to do.

I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
It means everything....your whole situation.  Basically all of the things out of your control at your birth.  
I believe you when you say you're not sure how else to interpret it.  And that's too bad.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

longhorn320

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 9342
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4379 on: April 05, 2021, 03:02:32 PM »
It means everything....your whole situation.  Basically all of the things out of your control at your birth. 
I believe you when you say you're not sure how else to interpret it.  And that's too bad.
youre not playing the race card again are ya

Sounds like it
They won't let me give blood anymore. The burnt orange color scares the hell out of the doctors.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25280
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4380 on: April 05, 2021, 03:09:41 PM »
I chose to take control of the situation handed to me. Wanted to be better, made it happen, and never begged for school money from anyone, let alone the government.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71626
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #4381 on: April 05, 2021, 03:20:57 PM »
What does the term 'born on third base and thought he hit a triple' mean? - Quora
What does the term 'born on third base and thought he hit a triple' mean? - Quora

Looks like a lot of folks think it means what I think it means.  The quote is not original with BS apparently.

"Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." -Barry Switzer

Urban Dictionary: born on third base

born on third base

term coined by the great Barry Switzer to describe someone who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth but has an arrogance and thinks their standing in life is because of their own doing.


 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.