Featured Post

The Coup Attempt Continues

Some eight days before Trump's inauguration, and in the midst of the Russia hysteria, I wrote I have never seen such a pile on as the ...

Sunday, August 23, 2020

GOP Convention I would Like to See

Along with many if not most of you, I would like to see an old-style, joyful party convention with large crowds, bands, balloons--lots of balloons--and plenty of red-meat speeches to stir up the crowd. We, however, live in the Time of The Great Fear. We nearly collapsed the world's greatest economy, and now huddle in fear, panicked by a virus, as some wag noted, so deadly you need a test to find out if you have it or have had it. Most people, by the way, who have had it, don't know they did. It has a death rate in the USA of about .02%, and dropping. This means, of course, that 99.98% (and climbing) of those who get it in the USA will survive the "deadly" ChiCom virus--unless confined by blue governor orders to an assisted care facility, AKA, Cuomo's Death Row. 

I wonder what the fatality rate was in the first wave on Omaha Beach? Did those young soldiers have the option to say, "Nah, think I'll stay home, listen to the radio"? Doubt it.

As we know, the so-called "experts" with their media echo chamber and fake "predictive" models stampeded us into corals, where we remain, getting fat, lazy, frustrated, sick, and angry, with some going broke in the bargain. This will go down, I predict, as, oh, probably the third most destructive "scientific" hoax of modern times--you know, just behind "scientific" Marxism and man-made global climate change.

We, therefore, will have no raucous GOP convention. I had hoped the GOP would defy the phony doomsayers and hold a convention perhaps in sane South Dakota or--why not?--Sweden, but . . . that's not in the cards. On the bright side, however, the BLM/Antifa anarcho-communist-fascist terrorist thugs who had planned on disrupting it must feel very disappointed, as well.

All that aside, what would I like to see in a GOP "virtual" convention? 

Please no repeat of that horrid DNC convention! Don't do what the Dems did. We don't need criminals such as the Clintons, or the lying anti-American, anti-democracy Obamas. Above all, the GOP convention should strive for sanity. Yes, sanity, what a concept. Facts, not empty prog talking points. No, for example, blue-haired semi-stoned singers lecturing us about systemic racism. No dwelling on divisive racial, sexual, ethnic identities. Keep repeating, we are all Americans regardless of those secondary identities. Oh, and unlike Joe Biden's speech, no plagiarizing from old Canadian politicians and Ronald Reagan. Yes, indeed.

GOP speakers need to nail down the lies of the Democrats, and remind voters of the various criminal hoaxes the Democrats and the media have pulled, e.g., Russia Collusion, Ukraine quid-pro-quo, the misuse of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, mail-in ballots scam, etc. Call out the Dems on the long-standing violence in Dem-run cities; on the recent violence from their Antifa/BLM supporters; on their war against cops; on how prog policies have devastated the cities, led to middle class flight from them, and proven disastrous precisely for the poor and the "people of color" for whom these policies ostensibly exist. Don't let the fake media get away with its false narratives and slanders. Don't let them get away with their nonsense about our foreign policy being in disarray--quite the contrary. And China, don't forget China, you know, Hunter Biden's employer.

President Trump, however, should strike a strong, optimistic, and above all energetic tone to contrast with Sleepy Joe and his teleprompter. He should lay out his vision for the next four years and contrast it with the sad and destructive vision on offer from the Demcrims.  

Above all make the viewer feel positive about the future in the greatest country on the planet. 

Oh, and balloons, lots of them.



14 comments:

  1. Knowing how brash Trump is. I would not be surprised that he will give his acceptance speech as a press conference, and take questions for an hour. Quipping, "You don't see Sleepy Joe, doing this. Even with fake news throwing softball questions".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where are you getting a 0.02% fatality rate?
    Johns Hopkins claims to be aggregating data here https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
    reporting a USA number of 5.7m confirmed (tested positive) and 175k confirmed deaths, which would be a case-fatality ratio of roughly 3%. This number would definitely not be perfect due to some amount of time-lag and clear limits on collecting that data across states etc, but I wouldn't expect it to be off by an order of magnitude without some sort of malfeasance. A case fatality rate of 0.02% would be more than two orders of magnitude difference.
    Could you provide me a link to a reference?
    It wouldn't be the first time I was hoodwinked into not looking carefully enough... I used to be fairly ambivalent on 'global warming' on account of "it is actually better to use energy more efficiently than less, assuming costs are the same", but that was in the early 1990's before it became 'climate change' and 'kill off 99% of the world population and put the rest back into caves' crap.
    Would appreciate a pointer.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I live in Riverside County, California, which claims to have 50k confirmed cases and 1k deaths, for a lower'ish rate of about 2%. I think riverside county public health is basically a coordination with UC Riverside and seems to post their stats here https://www.rivcoph.org/coronavirus
      Not enormous numbers of deaths considering how long this has been going on, but 2% would still be 10x-20x the case fatality rate of influenza.

      And *none* of this accounts for unreported covid cases. At that point, most of the data appears anecdotal to me... "hey, I got tested because I was sick, didn't have it.. but my buddy said he got tested and had already gotten over it" stuff. I've seen a few attempts for perform baseline measurements on the population, but pretty minimal data. I'm expecting vaccines to show stage-3-trial results in October and, if promising, will be dismissed by democrats and the media.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. You need to look at the IFR. Here for example is one study from a month ago, and the rate has continued to drop: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

      Delete
    3. much appreciated... modeling of 'infected but not tested/confirmed' is certainly tough..

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    4. If the entire population of the US (rounded up to 350,000,000) were infected, a .02% mortality rate would be 70,000 deaths. We have less the 350M people, probably less than half the population is infected, and some 150K deaths.

      Delete
    5. One Brow---What is the average annual mortality rate in the USA? Or even the average annual flu mortality rate? Apples and Oranges, my friend. And how accurate is the COVID count? Our Media is not being honest.

      Delete
    6. Davidg1400,

      Our overall mortality rate is about 0.8%. The mortality rate for those who get the flu is about 0.1%. Flu varies, but seems to be in the 0.01% range of the whole population.

      The COVID count is an undercount. Among other things, we know states like Florida are recording more than twice as many non-covid19-flu deaths as any year over the past 20, when most of the rest of the country had a lower-than-average flu season.

      Delete
    7. I see a publication of sorts on that order of magnitude out of Stanford https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stanford-study-suggests-coronavirus-might-not-be-as-deadly-as-flu.

      It's not a slam dunk study, but nothing really is. I still expect it to come in stronger than the flu, but that is purely anecdotal from the struggles of two families I know who've gone through it with canonically positive verification. No deaths, but not a typical flu.
      Third anecdote is someone I know in for an unrelated surgery found to have it asymptomatically. Those are just anecdotes... the Stanford study isn't terribly strong, but neither are the competition at this point. Wouldn't it be a surprise if lefty activists are removing uncertainties when discussing an extremely uncertain situation? Novel.. who'd'a thunk it.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    8. Folks, the death count is greatly exaggerated. Look at the CDC website https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q#Comorbidities
      where it discusses deaths due to COVID ALONE. Turns out only 6% of the deaths reported involved only COVID. The other deaths OVERWHELMINGLY involved 2-3 comorbidities.

      Delete
  3. Based on what I saw Monday night (I watched about 90 minutes worth) it's off to a good start. Very good call to use that amazing looking backdrop in the Auditorium in DC. It's definitely not the kind of Zoom convention that the Dems had.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey there I am so grateful I found your blog, I really found you by accident, while I was looking on Askjeeve for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thank you for a fantastic post and a all round interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to look over it all at the moment but I have saved it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the superb work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am regular visitor, how are you everybody? This post posted at this site is truly good.

    ReplyDelete