JGXdebatePRO said:

the reason trump is demonised is because he is a racist prejudge.

@TKDB

Yes, it now matters not who the Democrat President is. He will get a pass from the biased liberal media. It is very scary when our free press takes political sides.

It's like we are becoming one of these dictator nations where the press is controlled by Government.

@We_are_accountable I'm sorry, I thought this was America where the first amendment allows us to say things like:

"Trump is the worst president we have ever suffered as a nation"

or

"I can't wait for Trump to be out of office so that we can fix all the damage he caused to this country"

or

"Trump caused the worst market crash in US history, this all could have been avoided if he was rightfully impeached"

I must have accidentally wandered into Trumpistan where saying anything against the lord and savior Donald J. Trump is a crime worthy of execution.[/end sarcasm]

 Everyone had their chance to criticize Obama when he was in office. There is no double standard here, just a missed opportunity, and it isn't a missed opportunity anyways because Obama's message didn't cause the stock market to plunge!

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand why that message is just the most terrible thing for a leader to say, you can read the dialogue between me an MayCaesar. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.

This is the reality:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-follow-u-s-markets-lower-11583975524

Stocks Plunge 10% in Dow’s Worst Day Since 1987

Stocks Plunge as Trump announces Travel ban between US and Europe.

TKDB said:

@Happy_Killbot

And Obama wasted the countries time, while he pandered to his followers, or constituents, for 8 years.

That kind of worship, wasn't good for the health of the country as a whole, was it?

But his followers, enjoyed 8 years of handouts that the rest of the country paid for, out of their own pockets, right? 

Happy_Killbot said:

This is the reality:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-follow-u-s-markets-lower-11583975524

Stocks Plunge 10% in Dow’s Worst Day Since 1987

Stocks Plunge as Trump announces Travel ban between US and Europe.

@CYDdharta The worst day was still worse than the best day, sorry but I am still right here, and the markets have only done worse since then.

@Happy_Killbot

Yeh, we should have crucified Trump for all the great things he has done for this nation. If Obama had done half of what Trump has accomplished, the biased media would have crowned him the Messiah! IGNORE

Dee said:

@CYDdharta

Tell us again what was the terrible “affliction “ that helped  the cretin avoid the draft?

in my opinion this is not true for Obama was never in trouble, true, but he also never did anything very wrong, whereas trump is a crook and deserves every bit of blame he is getting eg he said he would build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it and in four years, all he has done is some negotiations of which he has come out of saying that the Americans would pay and that the wall would be built years later 

@MichaelElpers Specifically it was during his speech a week ago where he wrongly claimed that all trade with Europe was going to be shut down. Turns out if businesses can't import stuff they can't sell it.

Maybe you would argue it was coincidence, but immediately after that speech, the dow dropped like a rock, over 1,000 points.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8102959/Donald-Trump-forced-immediately-correct-statement-Europe-trade-ban.html

I would also like to nit-pick your statement "Originally Trump didnt do enough, now hes done too much" Because both of these things can be true if the subject is changing, which in this case is the case.

For example, firing the pandemic response team before the outbreak is both not doing enough and doing to much. This is because he is not doing enough to help, and he is doing to much to hurt. Even if the Dow initially dropping isn't really his fault, which is dubious, he didn't do anything to make it better, in particular say all the nice things that leaders are supposed to say to restore confidence in their people, and that lead to markets sliding further. In other words, we f***ed up hard.

@MichaelElpers Well, Trump is already a , that probably doesn't help much.

Did you watch Obama's Swine flu speech on the first page?

He needs to do that, it's more about the way than the content.

Dee said:

@CYDdharta

Whats Biden got to do me? Did Biden fall to his knees in front of the king of Saudi like the orange one?

@Happy_Killbot. It is a logical reason to keep people from overreacting because we dont overact when flu season hits.

Closing the border prevents the virus from spreading to new areas, and from spreading much quicker.  The same reason they limit crowd size.  It may not necessarily limit number of cases but it prevents a rapid rise.  When you have a rapid rise its a lot harder to deal with a medical care/testing is limited.  Also gives more time for a vaccine or cure to be produced.

It wasnt a double standard because what i was refering to was that trump was providing stats also has provided details on the counter measures they are taking.  Details make me feel better than stay calm we are doing what we can, which generally of crap what are we going to do?

@Happy_Killbot. I agree partly with what you are saying.  What trump was trying to do was put perspective on how damaging the Corona virus is currently in comparison to the flu to give a logical reason not to panic.  Your conclusion on why are we closing the borders would be correct if that was the only information or factor we were basing it on.  However without taking any precautions the virus would be a lot worse than the flu, estimations with the appropriate action will be they it may not be much worse.

In trust its not that im claiming that i believe Obama was straight up lying while all trumps quotes are true.  What im saying is I have better reason to believe when details are given about how things are being delt with rather than just stay calm.  For example, when asked about how bernie would pay for Medicare for all or for how trump would get mexico to pay for it, often little detail is given, that leads me to question what they are saying.  If trump says ive been working not only with governement officials, but private medical entities and weve come up with a vaccine in 8 weeks, that has produced 93% positivity rating, that has detail to make me believe we are on the right track.

@MichaelElpers I kind of feel like you are dodging the question here, If the decision to close the borders is being made for the covid-19 and it is not expected to be any worse or of comparable damage to the seasonal flu, isn't that a strong reason to close the borders and limit trade during the regular flu season, or conversely to not close the borders now?

As for a vaccine in 8 weeks, I wouldn't count on that. If everything goes perfectly, it could still be months before a vaccine is developed, tested, manufactured, and distributed. I am no virologist, but just from what I know about how vaccines work, there are numerous hurdles to developing a cure, including multiple strains, packaged proteins, and likelihood of mutation. Sometimes these things can actually be a benefit, for example if one of the proteins contained within the virus allows for some exploit a cure may be developed based on that.

The next phase is the bureaucracy surrounding the issue, it means nothing if a vaccine is developed that is ineffective or has some unsavory side effects, so while many requirements are already relaxed, it is still important that records be kept and careful attention is made to properly test the vaccine, both in animals and humans, for effectiveness and safety. For example, let's say the effects of the vaccine ware off after a month. First off, this testing takes a month at minimum to test, which just by itself can raise the time significantly. For a virus like covid-19 which has a long incubation period (the time when someone is infected and can infect others prior to showing symptoms)  this matter is further complicated, because it will already take a minimum 2 weeks after the test to ensure that no reinfection has occurred. This  means that if we start animal testing today, at a minimum we will have to wait 2 weeks just to know if the initial vaccine was effective, plus the time we want to wait to see if the vaccine remains effective, plus another two weeks after that just to check for symptoms. Then we have to repeat all of this in humans, doubling the time again. This means that a minimum 8 weeks is required just for bureaucracy if we cut out the wait period to 0, and attempt reinfection after 2 weeks. This is just assuming nothing goes wrong and the scientists don't have to start over.

Then manufacturing can start. We can assume that the facilities will be ready to go as soon as the testing phase is complete, but this just means that manufacture can start and will still be limited by the production capacity of the actual factory. According to the CDC and looking at historical records, it takes about 6 months to produce large quantities of the vaccine for the seasonal flu.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm

Obviously, the vaccine doesn't have to reach 100% of the US population, just those who are most at risk meaning the elderly and those with compromised immunity. So if we just focus on citizens aged 50+, that is just over a third (34%) of the US population. This means we need about 111.25 million vaccines, and we can assume these are distributed in an intelligent way. (those most needing first)  Predicting what the actual capability would be is difficult, but needless to say that getting and distributing this many vaccines is not going to happen in 8 weeks.

All of this is just a long winded way of saying the devil is in the details, and even so trusting Trump isn't a good bet.

@MichaelElpers Most of the time reduced restriction policies are planned out ahead of time, and getting to the relaxed modes of operation are only a signature or declaration away, because that is more formal than going back in and picking which regulations to relax manually, although I don't know the specifics about how the CDC and medicine regulations work, I do know that this is typically how bureaucracies function.

I can find no further information in regards to a "vaccine with a 93% positivity rating"  I don't even know and can not find any information in regards to what a positivity rating even is. Would you care to elaborate a little on this?

@MichaelElpers I think I just found what you are talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZRpSQYh5yg

at 15:30 she says: "...the last report we have seen from the laboratories have a 7 plus percent positive rate still 93 percent or 92 percent are negative..."

If this is what you mean then what is meant is just that 93% of people in high priority areas tested negative for the virus, which means the spread is still limited.