Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

StatsPlease

Subscribe to StatsPlease's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Friday, September 04, 2020

As we've studied the virus more, we've learned that the protein it uses to latch on to cells is present in a lot of different tissues in the body, suggesting that a wide variety of different effects could be the direct product of infections of the cells there. This week, the effect that seems to be grabbing attention is heart problems, spurred by a Scientific American article that (among other things) considers the stories of professional and college athletes who have been infected. read more


Tuesday, July 14, 2020

Almost 90 percent still have at least one symptom long after the virus has gone. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues unabated in many countries, an ever-growing group of people is being shifted from the "infected" to the "recovered" category. But are they truly recovered? read more


Friday, July 03, 2020

[A] team of researchers largely based in Italy is looking more carefully at the pandemic's spread there as well as the impact of control measures. The researchers have gotten most of the population of a small town to agree to testing before and after Italy's lockdown, providing a window into the behavior of the virus and how things changed during the lockdown. read more


Comments

#32 | Posted by eberly

Sorta like Charles Kinsley? Just saying.

To refresh your memory - Wiki

In other words you can still do everything right and end up shot. There are other cases but this one is well known and just popped to mind.

Oh and there is this one... Shooting of Justine Damond I mean that isn't as absurd as Charles Kinsey but close...

#49 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-09-28 06:40 PM | Reply

Everyone seems to have forgotten about Levar Edward Jones as well. To refresh everyone's memory, he was shot 4 times for complying with the policeman's orders. Fortunately he survived and the police officer actually spent time in jail. I'm sure you can find videos of it as well. Point being, complying isn't some magical shield that will guarantee your protection.

And for more of the "don't resist crowd", there's this video. One officer is talking to a man and two more come up behind him, one putting him in a bear hug. While completely immobilized in this bear hug, he's told to put his hands behind his back, which he can't do because he's immobilized in a bear hug. So, for his lack of compliance, he is slammed on the ground, breaking his wrist. In the end, it was all for nothing, because he wasn't even the guy they were supposedly after, he was just a witness. Do you think they would have written this up as "resisting arrest" or "disobeying a lawful order" if it weren't for the body cam footage?

Could be because PA has now stated that signatures on the ballots no longer need to match those on the registration rolls - does anyone here find that discerning?

I wonder how many counties in PA as well as other states will show more voters than the number registered.

#4 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-09-25 01:29 PM | Reply

This is also false. See this story from The Hill (via MSN)

From the article:

"The state now has a uniform process for verifying signatures instead of leaving it to the discretion of local officials. "

"As a result of this case, Pennsylvania voters can cast their vote without fear that their ballot could be rejected solely because an election official - who isn't trained in handwriting analysis - thinks their signatures don't match. Voting should not be a penmanship test," Mark Gaber, director of trial litigation at the CLC, said in a statement."

So, there is still a matching process, but there is a means for someone to challenge the ruling that the signatures don't match. Do you think someone committing fraud is going to go through that extra step? How does the signature check result in more voters than registered? As far as I know, they keep a record of who's voted by mail and in person and won't mail multiple ballots to the same person or to someone not registered, so I don't see how this could possibly lead to more voters than the number registered, either.

Care to explain how your scenario works? How does even your incorrect reading of the court judgement lead to more votes than registered voters?

These aparently are not all, but just a few minutes on Google, yet the left pretends that it does not and will not happen -- anyone here remember Broward County FL?

#5 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-09-25 01:55 PM | Reply

Did you actually read those stories? I'm not sure what you are saying the "left pretends that it does not and will not happen".

Two of your links were broken - the one from Twitter and the other from AP News.

One story was about "indictments involv[ing] the ballots or applications for ballots of about 38 voters", and it's unclear if they were ever actually cast or counted.

The FactCheck story was noting that the claims of voter fraud or thousands of fraudulent ballots being cast were simply untrue.

The NY Times story from NJ was about a bunch of absentee ballots being thrown out mostly because they weren't filled out properly. 3 were tossed because they either were suspected to have been cast for someone who was dead and one because the person tried to vote twice. From that Times story:

About 1,200 votes were disqualified because voters' signatures did not match those on file, according to the Passaic County Board of Elections.

In New Jersey, voters can designate someone to submit ballots on their behalf, but no one is allowed to drop off more than three during an election. As a result, an additional 1,000 votes were disqualified because a section on the ballot to list the name of the person sending them in had been left blank.

Only three ballots were thrown out because they had been cast in the names of people who were dead, and another was rejected because of suspicions that someone might have attempted to vote twice.


The Wisconsin story was noting how the Post Office was having trouble dealing with the number of mail-in ballots and the Republicans refusing to allow additional time to deal with the unprecedented circumstances regarding the pandemic.

What did you think these stories were proving, exactly?

The daily deaths in the Netherlands have been in the single digits since June, but the daily new cases are at their highest and growing. I don't understand how the deaths can be so low with the cases so high. Nonetheless, the Netherlands isn't doing great:

www.worldometers.info

#28 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2020-09-17 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's also pretty clear looking at the data from March and April they had a lot more cases than they knew about early on. The deaths peaked about the same time, or a little before, the case count did. As Lamplighter says, it's a 3-8 week delay, generally, from detection to death. That may have been shorter early on when the testing may have only been performed on severely symptomatic people, but it still wouldn't have been instantaneous.

It also looks like the number of new cases really didn't grow that rapidly until mid-August, which would indicate we should start to see the uptick in deaths starting around now. Even assuming a 5% case fatality rate, we'd only be seeing about 30 new deaths/day from the spike in August, rising up to less than 100 in the next few weeks. Not great, but still very manageable as long as they don't let the infection rate continue to grow.

The daily deaths in the Netherlands have been in the single digits since June, but the daily new cases are at their highest and growing. I don't understand how the deaths can be so low with the cases so high. Nonetheless, the Netherlands isn't doing great:

www.worldometers.info

#28 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2020-09-17 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's also pretty clear looking at the data from March and April they had a lot more cases than they knew about early on. The deaths peaked about the same time, or a little before, the case count did. As Lamplighter says, it's a 3-8 week delay, generally, from detection to death. That may have been shorter early on when the testing may have only been performed on severely symptomatic people, but it still wouldn't have been instantaneous.

It also looks like the number of new cases really didn't grow that rapidly until mid-August, which would indicate we should start to see the uptick in deaths starting around now. Even assuming a 5% case fatality rate, we'd only be seeing about 30 new deaths/day from the spike in August, rising up to less than 100 in the next few weeks. Not great, but still very manageable as long as they don't let the infection rate continue to grow.

This is also why the oft-quoted statistics about Blacks committing more crimes are not useful. It's also part of the reason why the police-involved shooting statistics are suspect - especially the self-reporting of the shooting victim being armed. I can't find the cases now, but I do remember discussion of several cases where police were either caught or confessed to planting "burner" guns on people they had shot. The Rampart Division scandal is an obvious one. I know there have been others that aren't coming immediately to mind, and there is no way to know how common this sort of thing is.

Obviously, in the example of the Baltimore officer planting drugs his fellow officers weren't going to report it, so we can't trust that most occurrences would be reported by fellow officers. That would indicate that the known cases are probably a small fraction of the actual cases where this happens. How many times did that officer do the same thing before there were body cameras? We do know in cases like the Rampart Division the corruption was massive. The officers had a pattern of misbehavior that had continued unabated for years, tainting hundreds of cases.

#3 | Posted by gtjr at 2020-09-07 02:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Hmm - let's look at this a little: Both Clinton and Bush II gave the military larger raises than anything done under Trump. In fact, as far as I can determine, every president since at least the 1900s has had at least one larger pay raise as a percentage than any that have happened under Trump. (See this Navy chart) Trump's (and most of Obama's and Bush II's for that matter) pay raises have been essentially the statutory formula. So it's not like he was doing something special for the raises. In fact (from this PolitiFact article):

while the 2.4 percent increase for 2018 was the largest in eight years, Trump actually requested 2.1 percent, "an amount below the automatic adjustment (of 2.4 percent) for 2018." Congress ultimately overrode the administration's proposal.

For 2019, the CRS reported that Trump requested 2.6 percent, which is a raise equal to the ECI, and one that the president's 2019 budget called "modest."


Also, during Clinton's presidency, there were huge improvements for quality-of-life for military members, like the reform of the way the housing allowance was calculated to make it actually in line with the actual costs of housing in an area. There were similar initiatives under Bush II. Both worked to improve base housing, for example.

As for the VA scandal: Obama worked with John McCain and Bernie Sanders to pass the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014. So, maybe not "nothing".

Also, here's an interesting tidbit to go with your claim about Obama not visiting Arlington on Memorial day: "Bill Clinton was the only U.S. President in the last 30+ years to have attended Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington every year throughout his term of office." And the "in years" qualifier is nice, but the previous President skipped going to Arlington on Memorial Day in 2002. So, yes, it was years, but "first President since the last one" would be more accurate.

Maybe you could give some examples of these "wonderful things" Trump has done for the military. I've been out of uniform for a while, so maybe I missed them. Sources for your claims would be nice, too, since you seem to be quoting incorrect information frequently.

Anyone stupid enough to actually double vote would know it's illegal and will get what they deserve.

#59 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

You obviously weren't paying attention during the previous election. Trump inspired several people to commit voter fraud then, too. For example, this woman was so worried by Trump's claims of fraud, she voted twice. Her reasoning? "[S]he cast her first ballot for Donald Trump but feared it would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton. 'I wasn't planning on doing it twice - it was spur-of-the-moment,' Rote told the radio station. 'The polls are rigged.'"

The most charitable reading you can give is that Trump is being completely reckless here. Others would say he's hoping that either it will throw a bunch of doubt on any outcome or that the fraud will actually work.

Either way, he committed a felony and shouldn't be excused for his crime. He spoke will wilful disregard for the effects of those words. There is a documented history of his statements inspiring his followers to act. While he might be able to lawyer his way out of a charge here, you shouldn't be so quick to excuse yet another, at best, negligent act of lawlessness.

If he actually cared about fraud, he'd have been working with both parties to pass the election security measures that were debated months ago. That's what an actual leader who actually cared about election fraud would do. Instead, he did nothing and the bill was never even debated in the Senate.

"Typhoid" Mary was "immune" to typhus. She still killed at least 3 people and infected at least 53. Some estimates place the number she killed at 50. She was forcibly quarantined twice by the New York State Department of Health, the second time lasted 23 years until she died.

She never did show any symptoms.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable