Vaccine

[Grace T.]

What would be the point of electing the Prez and the VP separately? It changes nothing to be honest. You kind of want the VP to be from the same party as the P.

The one thing it would lead to is shenanigans regarding a president who has committed malfeasance or is undergoing a disability.

Assume it came to light Trump really had colluded with the Russians to engage in fraud in the 2016 elections and Tim Kaine had been elected Veep because Americans like to ticket split. The Kavanaugh Supreme Court appointment is on the line. Would Republicans expeditiously without dragging their feet and uniformly be more or less likely to remove Trump from office?

Assume in 2020 Joe Biden had been elected President but Mike Pence is the Vice President. Wouldn't at the current time Mike Pence be agitating to remove Biden for disability? Would the Ds be more or less likely to remove him if Pence would become the President? Seems like a recipe for "Weekend at Camp David" to me.

If the Veeps are from the same party as the President, the results will act as a separate power base (a shadow cabinet) from which the President can be checked. If the Veeps are from a different party, it will lead to shenanigans where the opposition party will pretextually try to remove the President. In the Soviet Union and in some Latin American countries, it's been enough to form a power base from which a coup can be launched.

 

[espola]

The one thing it would lead to is shenanigans regarding a president who has committed malfeasance or is undergoing a disability.

Assume it came to light Trump really had colluded with the Russians to engage in fraud in the 2016 elections and Tim Kaine had been elected Veep because Americans like to ticket split. The Kavanaugh Supreme Court appointment is on the line. Would Republicans expeditiously without dragging their feet and uniformly be more or less likely to remove Trump from office?

Assume in 2020 Joe Biden had been elected President but Mike Pence is the Vice President. Wouldn't at the current time Mike Pence be agitating to remove Biden for disability? Would the Ds be more or less likely to remove him if Pence would become the President? Seems like a recipe for "Weekend at Camp David" to me.

If the Veeps are from the same party as the President, the results will act as a separate power base (a shadow cabinet) from which the President can be checked. If the Veeps are from a different party, it will lead to shenanigans where the opposition party will pretextually try to remove the President. In the Soviet Union and in some Latin American countries, it's been enough to form a power base from which a coup can be launched.

Many states follow that practice today. California elects Governor and Lt Governor separately and also Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and other principal officers. The Governor still has his Cabinet, but he doesn't have undue influence on the enforcement of laws and the like.

 

[espola]

The one thing it would lead to is shenanigans regarding a president who has committed malfeasance or is undergoing a disability.

Assume it came to light Trump really had colluded with the Russians to engage in fraud in the 2016 elections and Tim Kaine had been elected Veep because Americans like to ticket split. The Kavanaugh Supreme Court appointment is on the line. Would Republicans expeditiously without dragging their feet and uniformly be more or less likely to remove Trump from office?

Assume in 2020 Joe Biden had been elected President but Mike Pence is the Vice President. Wouldn't at the current time Mike Pence be agitating to remove Biden for disability? Would the Ds be more or less likely to remove him if Pence would become the President? Seems like a recipe for "Weekend at Camp David" to me.

If the Veeps are from the same party as the President, the results will act as a separate power base (a shadow cabinet) from which the President can be checked. If the Veeps are from a different party, it will lead to shenanigans where the opposition party will pretextually try to remove the President. In the Soviet Union and in some Latin American countries, it's been enough to form a power base from which a coup can be launched.

Your hypothetical situation with VP Kaine assumes that Republcans would keep a traitor in office rather than yield partisan power. Is that what you meant to propose?

 

[whatithink]

No they put people on court benches because they had a majority in the Senate. That is they way our Republic works.

By the way T would never had gotten in so many judges had the Ds left alone the filibuster rule. But for a short term victory they ditched it. It was obvious to many that once they did that, R's would also ditch it to suit themselves.

That is why it is important to keep norms in place even if by doing so you give up a win you could have.

Publicly funded doesn't remove money from elections. It just means the people in power get to determine how money is distributed.

Proportional rep won't eliminate extremism. It will enhance it. Instead of appealing to a state as a whole, you would would instead preach to your core supporters in any state.

Everyone shouldnt vote. A substantial percentage of people have no interest in voting. If they are not currently interested, it is also fair to assume they are not close to knowledgeable on the topics. Forcing them to vote doesn't make things better in the least.

Term limits for Congress would be great. Unfortunately the ones in there now would be the ones voting to limit their own tenure. They will never do that.

No need for term limits on the SC. That said there could be a mandatory retirement age.

You reinforce my point on the Senate/Republic.

The filibuster doesn't really make sense and shouldn't exist.

Public funding makes far more sense than the current system, e.g. the sight of various GOP candidates paying homage/tribute, on bended knee, to Sheldon Adelson was bizarre.

The primary system is literally driving extremism as the extremes are far more motivated to vote for their nutter, left or right. Once a candidate has an R or D beside them, they will get votes, irrespective of their merit.

5-10% of the voters decide every election, of the 66% (v. high turnout) eligible to vote. The vast majority of voters will tick a D or R irrespective of the candidate - that's not engaged or knowledgeable, and I'm not going into the massive misinformation that is prevalent these days.

I think term limits make more sense than a retirement age for the SC, but would take either.

 

[Grace T.]

Your hypothetical situation with VP Kaine assumes that Republcans would keep a traitor in office rather than yield partisan power. Is that what you meant to propose?

Yes, just like my situation with the Ds proposes someone who isn't mentally fit remaining in office as well. Feel free to swap up...my estimation of either political party isn't particularly high.

I think it's less of an issue with the states as well because there's less at stake. States and provinces in the world typically don't have coups, for example. But the federal government has become so pervasive in its influence, that control over the levers of power seems existential to some wings of both parties. The states (with certain exceptions like Maryland and Virginia which may wind up tearing each other apart) aren't as tense because of the Great Sorting. I expect we'll see more situations like Maryland, Virginia and Jefferson in the coming years.

 

[Desert Hound]

Public funding makes far more sense than the current system, e.g. the sight of various GOP candidates paying homage/tribute, on bended knee, to Sheldon Adelson was bizarre.

The fact that you state it as such shows a rather partisan basis on your part.

A non partisan way of saying that is that Ds and Rs get funding from a variety of billionaires, each with an agenda.

Filibusters do make sense. They require that chamber to come to a consensus on a matter which means making an appeal to the other side. In other words it has had the affect of moderating policy.

The primary system is literally driving extremism as the extremes are far more motivated to vote for their nutter, left or right. Once a candidate has an R or D beside them, they will get votes, irrespective of their merit.

Your idea of proportionally dividing up the votes is in and of itself a type of primary. Why is that? Because instead of trying to win a state as a whole, you now don't have to appeal to the whole state which usually requires modifying your position.

What you propose on the senate/electoral college is a system where the US would be essentially dominated by NY and CA. Both the Senate and the electoral college balances that out and gives smaller states pull. It also moderates the various candidates. You would get more extreme candidates if they didn't have to worry about the myriad of smaller to mid sized states.

5-10% of the voters decide every election, of the 66% (v. high turnout) eligible to vote. The vast majority of voters will tick a D or R irrespective of the candidate - that's not engaged or knowledgeable, and I'm not going into the massive misinformation that is prevalent these days.

You are correct in the sense that the "independent" is the one that decides the vote in most elections. Forcing people to vote who don't follow politics are don't care doesn't solve any problem.

 

[whatithink]

The fact that you state it as such shows a rather partisan basis on your part.

A non partisan way of saying that is that Ds and Rs get funding from a variety of billionaires, each with an agenda.

Filibusters do make sense. They require that chamber to come to a consensus on a matter which means making an appeal to the other side. In other words it has had the affect of moderating policy.


Your idea of proportionally dividing up the votes is in and of itself a type of primary. Why is that? Because instead of trying to win a state as a whole, you now don't have to appeal to the whole state which usually requires modifying your position.

What you propose on the senate/electoral college is a system where the US would be essentially dominated by NY and CA. Both the Senate and the electoral college balances that out and gives smaller states pull. It also moderates the various candidates. You would get more extreme candidates if they didn't have to worry about the myriad of smaller to mid sized states.

You are correct in the sense that the "independent" is the one that decides the vote in most elections. Forcing people to vote who don't follow politics are don't care doesn't solve any problem.

Advocating for public funding is explicitly non partisan. I used that example, as I genuinely thought it bizarre given how public the spectacle was.

Filibusters don't make sense if the party in power can remove it. It was being abused, because its open to abuse. That's a fatal flaw, and why, imv, it serves no purpose.

Proportional (for everything) drives the extremes to the extremes, by ensuring that there are moderate R & D candidates alongside the extreme R & D candidates. My betting is on the moderates hovering up far more votes than the extremes. Sure, there will still be some extremes in Congress, but they would be marginalized and the moderates are far more likely to work together without the fear of being ousted by a motivated extreme minority via a primary challenge. It would also, hopefully precipitate the breakup of the duopoly in US politics. The overwhelming majority of Americans, IMV, are not in either the "Freedom (sic) Caucus" of the GOP or the "Progressive Wing" of the Dems. The sooner those two split into their own parties the better, as neither would have as much electoral success without the R or D after the candidate name, IMO.

The electoral college doesn't moderate candidates. Its a math game. Candidates can just strike off x number of states as they will not win a majority. They focus on a small number of states who suddenly get an undue and unwarranted level of importance. It would make far more sense, if moderating candidates was the goal, to require a split based on votes cast. Now every state is in play, and every vote is important and candidates would have to campaign on a more moderate / appealing platform. Republicans, in their millions, voting for Pres in CA should have some tangible return for that.

And no, CA & NY would not dominate - its proportional, and they only represent 18% of the population.

 

[watfly]

The problem with the cries of 74M voted for T thing is that 81M voted against T. The minority are perfectly happy to pursue their agenda and ignore the majority if they win power, as noted with T and the Senate for 4 years happily packing the judiciary from SCOTUS down despite both T & the Senate representing a minority of the electorate. "You" can't then cry when you lose and those that represent the actual majority want to go a different path. There's plenty of "corruption to go around, neither party has a monopoly on it or is immune to it. My point is that if the system allows for minority "rule", which it does, and that minority consistently legislates against the wishes of the majority, then that's not sustainable.

For the record, I don't have a political affiliation. I vote R or D depending on the candidate. I would happily have voted for Flake for example if he were the candidate in AZ. In fact, the AZ GOP could have two Rs in the Senate still if they had a clue, but they have been taken over by extremists and present candidates that won't will state wide in AZ.

For the record, I'd advocate for a system that is far more inclusive and would be a radical change in the US. It will never happen though, specifically

• Publicly funded elections, i.e. remove the money
• Proportional representation, i.e. negate the influence of the primary nonsense which is empowering the extremes on both sides
• Everyone must vote, such as Australia
• Term limits for Congress and SCOTUS - a blanket 12 years

There is a difference between minority "rule" and minority "influence". I just don't really see any significant cases of minority "rule" (correct me if I'm wrong), and the minority should always have influence. Now the difference between our opinions probably has a lot to do with our home state. I see things through the eyes of a California resident and you see them through the eyes of an Arizona resident. In California the majority runs roughshod over the minority. Fortunately, San Diego County is more evenly split. When I lived in Utah the majority also ran roughshod over the minority, just in a different direction than California.

If we want to talk minority rule then we need to go back to a previous topic, voter ID. The public is overwhelming in favor of some form of ID to vote, however, the media and a small minority pull the race card and call voter ID "Jim Crow". I'm in favor of free, easily obtainable voter ID.

As far as your points go...Publicly funded elections, sounds like a good idea, just skeptical of the logistics of it and how it gets funded. Last thing we need is higher taxes and every time the government gives away money it gets misused. Last thing we need is another government funded institution with no accountability. Proportional representation? Like I said I will stick with the Constitution, it has served our country well. Everyone must vote? That raises fraud concerns for me particularly with the potential for ballot harvesting. It's not any harder to vote than to get a hamburger at Jack in the Box. To force people to vote seems un-American, for a number of reasons, but seems right up Australia's alley lately. Term limits for Congress, hell yes. Term limits for SCOTUS, not so inclined. Life terms promote far greater independence. Both parties have tried to make boogey men/women out of the other parties selections. The worst case scenarios have never come to fruition, even in the short-term. See ACB and the days of grandstanding by Dems on how she was going to overturn Obamacare and leave the sick with no health care. She has only voted to uphold Obamacare.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

 

[whatithink]

There is a difference between minority "rule" and minority "influence". I just don't really see any significant cases of minority "rule" (correct me if I'm wrong), and the minority should always have influence. Now the difference between our opinions probably has a lot to do with our home state. I see things through the eyes of a California resident and you see them through the eyes of an Arizona resident. In California the majority runs roughshod over the minority. Fortunately, San Diego County is more evenly split. When I lived in Utah the majority also ran roughshod over the minority, just in a different direction than California.

If we want to talk minority rule then we need to go back to a previous topic, voter ID. The public is overwhelming in favor of some form of ID to vote, however, the media and a small minority pull the race card and call voter ID "Jim Crow". I'm in favor of free, easily obtainable voter ID.

As far as your points go...Publicly funded elections, sounds like a good idea, just skeptical of the logistics of it and how it gets funded. Last thing we need is higher taxes and every time the government gives away money it gets misused. Last thing we need is another government funded institution with no accountability. Proportional representation? Like I said I will stick with the Constitution, it has served our country well. Everyone must vote? That raises fraud concerns for me particularly with the potential for ballot harvesting. It's not any harder to vote than to get a hamburger at Jack in the Box. To force people to vote seems un-American, for a number of reasons, but seems right up Australia's alley lately. Term limits for Congress, hell yes. Term limits for SCOTUS, not so inclined. Life terms promote far greater independence. Both parties have tried to make boogey men/women out of the other parties selections. The worst case scenarios have never come to fruition, even in the short-term. See ACB and the days of grandstanding by Dems on how she was going to overturn Obamacare and leave the sick with no health care. She has only voted to uphold Obamacare.

Voter IDs are good, and just like you say, make them free and easy to obtain.

Public funding would be rounding error in the federal budget. It doesn't take billions to "fund" an election. It does currently to win elections. There are plenty of countries that do this to learn from.

SCOTUS is not independent. The judges are not put there to be independent. If you want a lifetime appointment, then mandate 80% yes votes in the Senate, so that we get a SCOTUS that no politician really wants (a plus) but that 80% hate least, so likely a solid judge with a solid judicial (not political) record.

Most Australians are not up in arms with their government handling of the pandemic. That doesn't mean they are happy, but the small numbers of protestors don't seem to represent the general sentiment. A lot has also been driven at a state level, with different restrictions or little restrictions in those states. They are now getting close to 90% vaccination rates 16+ and are very unlikely to shut down again, or so my Australian friends tell me. Its not my cup of coffee, but I don't live there.

 

[Grace T.]

SCOTUS is not independent. The judges are not put there to be independent. If you want a lifetime appointment, then mandate 80% yes votes in the Senate, so that we get a SCOTUS that no politician really wants (a plus) but that 80% hate least, so likely a solid judge with a solid judicial (not political) record.

With an 80% vote necessary to get confirmed, you just have the seats go vacant. The gulf in legal philosophies is wide. The left basically believes in the living Constitution...the Constitution needs to adapt through judicial rulings that recognize we need a modern and expansive federal government, and also to recognize fundamental human rights, even if they are not enumerated in the Constitution itself. The right is more divided in its legal philosophy but generally favors a stricter reading of the Constitution and a government limited by the enumerated rights and responsibilities set out in the Constitution.

Note this is different than the question of whether they are "independent". "independent" means they don't answer to any other branch of government or to the public at large.

SCOTUS as a political arbitrator works in a system where the ideologies aren't too far divided. But what we have now is a fundamental difference of opinion over what the Constitution is intended to actually do...which is why it's no longer working. So SCOTUS has become a political football because whoever controls it gets their interpretation of what the Constitution actually does. There isn't a whole lot of middle ground here either, thanks to the scope of what the government has expanded into it...you either believe one or the other.

 

[watfly]

Voter IDs are good, and just like you say, make them free and easy to obtain.

Public funding would be rounding error in the federal budget. It doesn't take billions to "fund" an election. It does currently to win elections. There are plenty of countries that do this to learn from.

SCOTUS is not independent. The judges are not put there to be independent. If you want a lifetime appointment, then mandate 80% yes votes in the Senate, so that we get a SCOTUS that no politician really wants (a plus) but that 80% hate least, so likely a solid judge with a solid judicial (not political) record.

Most Australians are not up in arms with their government handling of the pandemic. That doesn't mean they are happy, but the small numbers of protestors don't seem to represent the general sentiment. A lot has also been driven at a state level, with different restrictions or little restrictions in those states. They are now getting close to 90% vaccination rates 16+ and are very unlikely to shut down again, or so my Australian friends tell me. Its not my cup of coffee, but I don't live there.

Maybe independent is too strong but the division and partisanship in SCOTUS is greatly exaggerated by the media and politicians. I don't think you could find a more diverse group of 9 that are more agreeable than SCOTUS. According to WAPO:

The court values consensus, and justices agree far more often than they disagree. The ratio is staggering. According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases.

And the court’s commitment to consensus does not appear to be slowing. In the 2016-17 term, 57 percent of decisions were unanimous, and judgments with slim majorities (5 to 3 or 5 to 4) accounted for 14 percent. This term shows a similar trend. Surprisingly firm majorities issued some of the most anticipated decisions. In Masterpiece Cakeshop — the case concerning a baker’s refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple — the court issued a rather narrow ruling on the substance, but it drew seven of the nine justices’ votes. In Gill v. Whitford, the court unanimously agreed that a group of Wisconsin voters did not have standing to challenge their state’s legislative map, and seven justices concurred that the voters could take their case back to district court and try again.

I think the parties just get pissed when they don't get to pick their SCOTUS candidates, so they go worst case scenario about the other parties candidate. There is always a lot of dirty pool played around the nominations, Garland vs ACB for example. Since Roe v Wade (1973), Republicans have had 12 justices confirmed and democrats have had 4 confirmed. Despite abortion seemingly being a litmus test for both parties, Roe v Wade has remained effectively unchanged. Again from WAPO:

Since the 1970s, studies show a generally moderate to center-right court. In fact, in contemporary times, the court has issued more liberal rulings in its most high-profile cases than conservative rulings, such as decisions to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage and restrictions on the death penalty.

Again it sounds like a good idea to have term limits, or an age limit, for SCOTUS, but personally I prefer the surprise factor for nominations. If we know exactly who will be up for replacement during the upcoming term the presidential elections will become all about potential supreme court nominees. I like the mystery and arbitrariness of not knowing who will be able to replace a judge.

 

[whatithink]

With an 80% vote necessary to get confirmed, you just have the seats go vacant. The gulf in legal philosophies is wide. The left basically believes in the living Constitution...the Constitution needs to adapt through judicial rulings that recognize we need a modern and expansive federal government, and also to recognize fundamental human rights, even if they are not enumerated in the Constitution itself. The right is more divided in its legal philosophy but generally favors a stricter reading of the Constitution and a government limited by the enumerated rights and responsibilities set out in the Constitution.

Note this is different than the question of whether they are "independent". "independent" means they don't answer to any other branch of government or to the public at large.

SCOTUS as a political arbitrator works in a system where the ideologies aren't too far divided. But what we have now is a fundamental difference of opinion over what the Constitution is intended to actually do...which is why it's no longer working. So SCOTUS has become a political football because whoever controls it gets their interpretation of what the Constitution actually does. There isn't a whole lot of middle ground here either, thanks to the scope of what the government has expanded into it...you either believe one or the other.

I was purposely setting the bar inordinately high on the basis that a lifetime appointment should have an inordinately high bar.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

"The cult wants to anoint scientists as 21st century scientist-priests who receive divine truth and convey it to the masses. To question the priests is to question the divine and thus out oneself as a heretic (i.e. a science-denier). I fear that precious few scientists will be able to resist the lure of celebrity and adulation that followers of the cult are offering them. They may not realize until it’s too late that it’s a devil’s bargain. In exchange for becoming the scientist-priests of the science-cult mob, these former scientists find that they are as much the captives of the mob as they are its leaders. True science is driven by evidence and almost always leads in surprising and unpredictable directions (because the universe is far more complicated than we can imagine). The cult-of-science is nothing more than scientism married to confirmation bias. Thus, the conclusions of the new scientist-priests are actually dictated to them by the mob. In return for status and celebrity (and even some money), the scientist-priests then furnish the mob with a sciency-sounding justification for their predetermined conclusions. Thus, “follow the science” really means to follow the crowd, with some science jargon judiciously applied, like lipstick to a pig. The whole thing is gross to watch."

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Modern science is indeed a remarkable and wonderful human achievement. Yet it loses all claim to objectivity and to the noble name “science” the moment any of its conclusions are regarded as incontestable justifications for using state power to engineer society. “Science” so used is a synonym for “god.” And the politicians, bureaucrats, and “experts” who today seek to rule according to such “science” differ in no intellectual or ethical way from the chieftains, monarchs, and apparatchiks in the past who coercively lorded over others in the name of fulfilling the will of god or of achieving what is ordained by “History.”-- Donny Boudreaux

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Even “at the height of my Marxism, I read William F. Buckley and Edmund Burke, because I’d gotten in school, particularly in a ninth-grade science class, the idea of evidence, the importance of evidence and the need to test evidence.”--Sowell

 

[lafalafa]

Don't know who the so-called experts are but this from Yahoo is interesting

Arizona's pandemic outlook worries experts as mask and vaccine mandate battles rage

Arizona has caught up to New York when it comes to reported deaths per capita - even though the latter was ravaged by the coronavirus early in the pandemic before treatments or vaccines were developed. Some health experts worry Arizona could be headed for a deepening crisis as winter approaches...

news.yahoo.com

"Now, Ducey - who is vaccinated and has urged others to get vaccinated but argues it should be a - is engaged in a battle against the federal government on several fronts in an effort to prevent mask mandates in schools and vaccine mandates in workplaces in his state."

How does "personal choice" turn into or is portrayed to be a battle vs the Feds? Without getting into party affiliation or opinions about that governor.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

“Intellectuals have romanticized cultures that have left people mired in poverty, ignorance, violence, disease and chaos, while trashing cultures that have led the world in prosperity, education, medical advances and law and order. Intellectuals give people who have the handicap of poverty the further handicap of a sense of victimhood.”

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Slaves of The Master State

No matter which euphemism governments employ for their permission slips, they are nothing less than slave passes. Coercive medical procedures to regain a scintilla of joy in your life is not freedom. Paternalistic privileges, granted temporarily in return for compliance, is not freedom. If you need the permission of powerful people to enter a cinema, pub or restaurant, you do not live in a free society. If a Health Secretary tells you that you must roll up your sleeve and get jabbed ‘to keep your freedoms’, you have none. If said Health Secretary holds your liberty like a pawn ticket, redeemable only by slavish obedience, your liberty is lost.
…..
Likewise in the Antebellum South passes (also known as tickets or permits) allowed slaves to leave the plantation for a specific purpose and a designated timeframe, and had to be shown to any white person on demand.

It is highly unlikely that any slaves considered themselves to be free whilst in the possession of such a document. Indeed the pass was tangible proof of one’s bondage. If your freedom depends on the whims of another human being, you are not free. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, freedom ‘is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature’. Yet today we are witnessing the mass acceptance of politicians’ right to bestow and remove freedoms at will. Indeed there is celebration at being granted a morsel of ‘freedom’ demonstrated by the viral video of a Sydney woman overcome with emotion at being allowed to enjoy a drink in a pub. Despite this joy, it is hardly freedom day in New South Wales when mandatory masking still remains in place, residents cannot leave the state, numbers remain capped for weddings and funerals and at neither type of event may food or drink be consumed whilst standing.

For those in the state of Victoria, who believed they were close to being free again, the odious Premier Dan Andrews has moved the goalposts once more. Boosters are now the only route to liberty. Andrews nonchalantly warned Victorians that he will be keeping reins on their freedom probably until well into 2022: ‘It won’t be your first and second dose, it will be, “have you had your third?”’ Still feel like celebrating that freedom your government has so generously granted?

 

[Desert Hound]

Don't know who the so-called experts are but this from Yahoo is interesting

Arizona's pandemic outlook worries experts as mask and vaccine mandate battles rage

Arizona has caught up to New York when it comes to reported deaths per capita - even though the latter was ravaged by the coronavirus early in the pandemic before treatments or vaccines were developed. Some health experts worry Arizona could be headed for a deepening crisis as winter approaches...

news.yahoo.com

"Now, Ducey - who is vaccinated and has urged others to get vaccinated but argues it should be a - is engaged in a battle against the federal government on several fronts in an effort to prevent mask mandates in schools and vaccine mandates in workplaces in his state."

How does "personal choice" turn into or is portrayed to be a battle vs the Feds? Without getting into party affiliation or opinions about that governor.

Lets look at deaths shall we? What are we seeing? A trend down like most of the states in the US.

The sky is not falling.


Now for some agenda driven reporting that creates the wrong impression.

Arizona on Saturday reported 3,145 cases of the coronavirus and 30 deaths from covid-19 - twice as many daily cases as the state was reporting three months ago. The governor's office did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

Lets look at the case chart. So 3 months ago what was happening? Oh...that was right before the delta wave came in. As you look at the chart, the one we are coming off of.

So for those not paying attention to the data they are trying to create a sense of panic. We are coming off the delta wave. Cases are decreasing. It is misleading to say the least when they say cases are higher now vs 3 months ago without reporting about the wave, the crest and the fact that cases and deaths are now dropping off.

This is why people don't trust the press. They are driving an agenda vs giving correct info.

 

[crush]

Pooch: "Get your hands off me now before I bite your nose off you POD!!!

D