Comments by "betabenja" (@betabenja) on "Reuters" channel.

  1.  @arpeggiatorful  I think he's applauding the civil rights protest rather than the rioting.
    1
  2. ​ @thesure1  what exactly is your point? of your stats, 1.2 milliion are deaths not of their own fault, like covid. covid is nearing 800,000 deaths worldwide in half the time. so, for deaths which are not self-induced idiocy, covid is beating smoking, not 10x less.
    1
  3.  @thesure1  no, you're considering the smoking deaths that the health services cannot do anything about - those where the participants are voluntarily killing themselves. health services cannot do anything about this, it's their choice, are you going to remove their freedoms when only they suffer from their own actions? no. We should be comparing cases where the deaths are from passive smoking, as these victims cannot do anything about it, just like they cannot do anything about covid. In both cases, the government can step in because those that are harmed need protection from others. That is what this thread is about- protection from other's harm. The post about tobacco was "what are we doing about tobacco?". well, if you count only what the government can do, protect against deaths caused by others, you should be choosing the 1.2 million tobacco deaths. this makes covid a far higher priority target for government intervention.
    1
  4.  @manipulativer  labling or no, if you just count deaths, there is a clear spike during the outbreak. whatever caused it, there is a spike. the effect of the virus is undeniable, and far greater than seasonal spikes.
    1
  5.  @manipulativer  even the death rate? I guess you can't trust any stats. what even is the point of the cdc anymore? they do nothing but lie. go out and mingle. have fun. there is a natural stability to reach.
    1
  6.  @manipulativer  regardless of tests. if you count the number of deaths, they spike. significantly more than during the winter over the past years. If it's not covid, something is killing off a lot of people.
    1
  7.  @manipulativer  oh, dear.
    1
  8.  Peterbilt Pilot  just for some information these are official death numbers only (not covid tested, just number of bodies) in NYC including the previous three year's flu seasons for comparison: https://public.tableau.com/shared/8ZZ7849RP?:toolbar=n&:tabs=n&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y&:showVizHome=no
    1
  9.  Peterbilt Pilot  sure. Here is the one from republican Arizona: https://public.tableau.com/shared/TQ6WBN7T7?:toolbar=n&:tabs=n&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y I guess they all must be RINOs, eh? Probably nothing to do with NY having the major travel hub from europe.
    1
  10. Well, Trump endorsed him.
    1
  11. it's a dog whistle to right wingers with guns.
    1
  12. hilarious.
    1
  13. and yet, he's not, and you are. stop it.
    1
  14. @lit sci of... what?
    1
  15. surprise! but I also told you two months before you acted! but surprise! it's my fault! : dr fauci.
    1
  16. Big Pharma have been stopping the drug Forsythia from being used to treat the virus for years. there is a 2011 documentary about it. why is Trump not saying anything about that?
    1
  17. maybe in your country. in scotland it is code for 'crappy rail infrastructure'
    1
  18. perhaps only those that are blackmailable should be removed?
    1
  19. glorifying it won't either
    1
  20.  Divine Truth1  This of course, is against christ. Satan is trying to stop you wearing a mask. You're a satan lover if you do not repent and stop spreading the seed of satan in trying to stop people wearing masks. you will go to hell if you do not stop this murder. cease and repent.
    1
  21.  Jack W  I wasn't saying you were. I was merely saying it was my aim to agree with your sentiment, in reaction to the user "Divine Truth" calling them the "masks of the beast"
    1
  22.  @Kitswain59  rolls eyes The flu does not kill more every year: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm And the version of the bill from 2019 had no mention of covid: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748/text/ih Covid relief was introduced in a set of amendments in march which hijacked that bill to get covid legislation through fast: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748/amendments?searchResultViewType=expanded It is a consequence of the backwards way America does its politics. Bills in the US are introduced and then amended by other politicians to include all sorts of crap that are not in the original bill - it's a way for them to stop bills getting passed by introducing terrible amendments at the last moment to make each other look bad.
    1
  23. is it me, or do they not look to be taking enough care over the excavation?
    1
  24. corruption
    1
  25. additionally to farvision, here are some citations to the contrary of your post: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13494.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/ please provide some studies backing up your assertions.
    1
  26.  @ginganinga1010  I agree, people should scrutinise evidence, I apologise for insinuating you were coming down on one side or the other. However, the study here says it has no evidence one way or the other: From the link above: "Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group" also, "Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts" this suggests that this meta study itself is a study of potentially inaccurate studies, some with little control over the subject's use of masks, nor having large enough sample sizes for a statistical conclusion. Still; it is a significant paper. here is a more recent study from the same source, suggesting "Although evidence is limited for their effectiveness in preventing transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, either for source control or to reduce exposure, the wearing of masks by healthy persons may prevent potential asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission (3). This marginal reduction in transmission may produce substantial results, particularly when it is implemented early." https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1498_article#r2 but again, the methodology is not tightly locked down. That study also references one specifically including the corona virus: "Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 but again, sample sizes seem small, even if the study looks to have have randomised its samples and performed the study in a controlled manner. I guess, it is up to us to evaluate these sources, but at least you are providing some for scrutiny. For that, thanks. we need more like you on the side of the discussion, otherwise it's like shining a torch into a void.
    1
  27.  @ginganinga1010  here is a similar study from 2010 which suggests N95 masks had reduced oxygen levels, but to to an extent where they would produce a burden to the wearer: "CONCLUSIONS: In healthy healthcare workers, FFR did not impose any important physiological burden during 1 hour of use, at realistic clinical work rates, but the FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards, and elevated PCO2 is a possibility." http://www.rcjournal.com/contents/05.10/05.10.0569.pdf again, thanks for supplying some links to studies so that we can evaluate the evidence from both sides.
    1
  28.  @ginganinga1010  hm - for this one, on reading the study, I can't see where the surgeons ever performed their surgeries without a mask for comparison to with a mask. It just says that surgeons get less oxygen in them following doing surgery: " Considering our findings, pulse rates of the surgeon's increase and SpO2 decrease after the first hour. This early change in SpO2 may be either due to the facial mask or the operational stress. " also, "Thus it is hard to believe that these masks serve as a reducer of oxygen uptake, but they may be acting as a psychological restriction over spontaneous breathing of the active surgeon" and "Thus, it is important not to generalize the results of this preliminary study, and further studies involving measurement of gas tensions over time, both from blood and from samples obtained under the mask (in order to show a presumed build-up of CO2 under the mask) have to be carried out to elucidate this issue."
    1
  29.  @JohnSmith-oe5rx  I watched the video, sadly it is not accurate when describing the causes of the post office's monetary issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Accountability_and_Enhancement_Act#cite_note-theweek-10 "Between 2007 and 2016, the USPS lost $62.4 billion; the inspector general of the USPS estimated that $54.8 billion of that was due to prefunding retiree benefits" before the bill was passed, the postal service made a profit. https://youtu.be/IoL8g0W9gAQ
    1
  30. you're posting this on a video in which the GOP are trying to hide something from Nadler? are you stupid or mad?
    1
  31. yeah - check out this fake news: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-biden-more-trusted-on-coronavirus-trump-on-economy
    1
  32. trump's president. all white people will get help.
    1
  33. @Boomer Bob so provide a source. I also like the way you think I'm politically a libtard because I'm asking for evidence and proof to you claims. You, sir, are well gone down the rabbit hole.
    1
  34.  @rockstarofredondo  it does not exist. It's always the same with you guys. extraordinary claims, with no proof; then when asked to produce the proof, you say 'It's on the internet do some research' then 'I'm not going to give you my research' 'you are lasy if you don't provide my proof for you'. You have nothing. you claims are lies you cannot prop up and here you are writhing in poor logic just nt to have to back yourself up. you are lying, and you know it
    1
  35. what is your justification for this potentially damaging comment? source please
    1
  36.  @BobbyDazzler888  I have done my research. I don't come to the same conclusions as you. that is why I'm asking for your extra information. so, source please for your claims.
    1
  37. poor choice of words. worthy of trump, that one
    1
  38.  @benjaminallen105  Oh right? I thought it was that Mitch was getting a $0.5 Tr fund that he could do anything with as it had no oversight, and it was explicitly written into the bill that you could only find out where the money went after the 2020 election. Sounds like corruption to me. They're padding their pockets ready to leave.
    1
  39.  @ce6654  Seems to me like they wanted to make sure Mitch actually spent the money on designated projects, so it could be accountable. Without oversight and details, he can just keep your money, or spend it on the rich. All the time, whining that the Democrats are stopping him helping you, knowing you're blind to his corruption because of your hate for the Dems. He'll use one or two dubious inclusions to excuse himself from helping you, all the time saying it's the Dems. Still, it's your money you are giving to the rich in this time of crisis. It's not my problem.
    1
  40.  @benjaminallen105  Wow, a massive bailout for the banks, just like Obama did, except with the GOP causing the issue twice in a row? How irresponsible. We all know how irresponsible that was from Obama, right? Trump should not be borrowing so much money and cutting taxes causing one of the most fiscally irresponsible meteoric rise in Debt, then, I guess! Or removing regulations for banks holding capital so the banks don't collapse when the market collapses. But HEy! Trump had a great economy! It's all the GOP have ever done. Destabilise the system, steal the money, leave the democrats to pick up the pieces. Pity for Trump it's come just too early. Don't worry, the Dems will dig you out again, like Obama had to. And all the GOP can suck up the money while you're complaining about too much regulation. The cycle continues.
    1
  41. ​ @benjaminallen105  Yes! pass it with no oversight! Then those that are dying will get none of the money because Mitch will take it! Use the Crisis and urgency for bad decisions and corruption! Quick Quick! Besides, it's a democratic Hoax to take the president down - Trump said it himself. It's not real, just nastiness against the President. Just watch Fox. They tell the truth. Also, Trump said, it'll clear up in the warmer weather and it will miraculously go away with out them doing anything. Trust Trump!
    1
  42.  @benjaminallen105  Or, y'know; they could just agree to some oversight. Spend the money on the medical crisis rather than the rich banks. Corruption doesn't like people finding out, even in a crisis. Especially in a crisis.
    1
  43.  @benjaminallen105  no, that's not why it's not getting passed; that's to even up the lobsided republican-heavy money grab going on by the GOP. The GOP would like you to believe that so you support them in the robbery. The real reason the bill isn't being passed is because of lack of oversight. Democrats have even called it a slush fund: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/politics/stimulus-package-for-coronavirus.html "At the heart of the impasse in the Senate has been a $425 billion fund created by the bill that the Federal Reserve could leverage for loans to assist broad groups of distressed companies, and an additional $75 billion it would provide for industry-specific loans. Democrats raised concerns that the plan would not require sufficient transparency or enough guardrails around the funds to make sure companies do not use them to enrich themselves or take government money and lay off workers. They also argued the measure as written by Republicans would give Mr. Mnuchin too much discretion to decide which companies receive aid, calling the proposal a “slush fund” for the administration." Corruption. Pure And Simple. Corruption.
    1
  44. ​ @benjaminallen105  No, of course they're not to be trusted. Do you really think it's the actions of trustworthy people to say 'let us have all this money, but don't look at what we do with it'? Or to take your line and say 'well, you can't have any money then, if I can't do every thing I want'. Get the money. Put some Oversight on it. Spend it on the medical crisis. - Dems. Get the money. Spend it on the Rich. Don't stop us doing anything bad. - GOP
    1
  45. I agree it's sad that you only have to be a drug lord to corrupt the law in Mexico, not the head of the Justice department
    1
  46.  @9神赠礼  I have not commented on the british's faults at all. what double standard are you assuming I have? When have I not said that the british are not at fault? I have only commented on how threats don't make friends. It is you who are projecting onto others. In what way does my comment hold a double standard?
    1
  47.  @jmack619  does it matter? deploying martial law is just the next step to a dictatorship
    1
  48.  @nickogv4468  I agree! they definitely exist and are not a figment of a scared bunch of idiots.
    1
  49. is there no end to how much of a dick this man can be?
    1
  50. you left your caps on there. it makes you sound like a crazed lunatic or something.
    1