DC Council Member Trayon White goes on vacation to Egypt while Ward 8 struggles for vaccination

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had and has good testing, yes, but that only goes so far.

Bowser kept indoor dining and drinking open in the fall despite nearly every scientist screaming that it should be shut down. The piddling three-week holiday closure was too little too late, as cases spiked here as they did everywhere else. She's now deciding to pick petty fights with the feds over data reporting instead of getting shots in arms, because to her perception far outweighs production. Sorry, her performance has been mostly indefensible.

I am not sure what you mean by the bolded, but Bowser has been getting every shot in an arm that is possible while asking for more vaccines. If you are attempting to spread the false story that she turned down a FEMA site, the fact is that FEMA said that DC did not qualify so there was no site to be turned down.

Imagine if the 32 percent of the unused vaccines in DC's stockpile were in arms right now.

You would have to imagine because that is not a correct figure. See this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-vaccine-numbers/2021/03/22/dfbcea46-89e8-11eb-bfdf-4d36dab83a6d_story.html

This is why Bowser is arguing about data. Moreover, while I can't find the tweet right now, I saw that the Health Department Director said there are a bunch of vaccines that have been counting as going to DC that the Federal government can't find.

She's arguing about data because her actual performance is indefensible. She's finally found numbers she can't juice, unlike the city's crime stats and the covid numbers her health department juiced in order to reopen the city before it was wise to do so:

https://dcist.com/story/20/09/12/emails-suggest-dc-removed-covid-data-that-would-have-slowed-reopening/

You are not arguing in good faith which I assume means that you know the facts are not on your side. The article to which you are linking is from September 2020 which is before vaccines were even approved, let alone distributed. You are attempting to support your augment with data that has nothing to do with the discussion. Read the article to which I linked. Bowser's dispute about the numbers is valid.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC had and has good testing, yes, but that only goes so far.

Bowser kept indoor dining and drinking open in the fall despite nearly every scientist screaming that it should be shut down. The piddling three-week holiday closure was too little too late, as cases spiked here as they did everywhere else. She's now deciding to pick petty fights with the feds over data reporting instead of getting shots in arms, because to her perception far outweighs production. Sorry, her performance has been mostly indefensible.

I am not sure what you mean by the bolded, but Bowser has been getting every shot in an arm that is possible while asking for more vaccines. If you are attempting to spread the false story that she turned down a FEMA site, the fact is that FEMA said that DC did not qualify so there was no site to be turned down.

Imagine if the 32 percent of the unused vaccines in DC's stockpile were in arms right now.

You would have to imagine because that is not a correct figure. See this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-vaccine-numbers/2021/03/22/dfbcea46-89e8-11eb-bfdf-4d36dab83a6d_story.html

This is why Bowser is arguing about data. Moreover, while I can't find the tweet right now, I saw that the Health Department Director said there are a bunch of vaccines that have been counting as going to DC that the Federal government can't find.

She's arguing about data because her actual performance is indefensible. She's finally found numbers she can't juice, unlike the city's crime stats and the covid numbers her health department juiced in order to reopen the city before it was wise to do so:

https://dcist.com/story/20/09/12/emails-suggest-dc-removed-covid-data-that-would-have-slowed-reopening/

You are not arguing in good faith which I assume means that you know the facts are not on your side. The article to which you are linking is from September 2020 which is before vaccines were even approved, let alone distributed. You are attempting to support your augment with data that has nothing to do with the discussion. Read the article to which I linked. Bowser's dispute about the numbers is valid.

Proving with evidence that Bowser has not acted in good faith with past covid data is certainly relevant when it comes to current covid data. What's to say she isn't doing the same here?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Proving with evidence that Bowser has not acted in good faith with past covid data is certainly relevant when it comes to current covid data. What's to say she isn't doing the same here?

Here is the quote to which I previously referred:

Shah said CDC leaders showed him their count of how many doses have been sent to the federal agencies in the District (data which the agencies generally do not make public) — and that the tally came to about 40,000 doses fewer than the number the CDC tracker claims have been sent to the city.

“They’re actively working to figure out where those 40,000 doses are. That’s 40,000 doses that could just be sitting in the denominator without a numerator,” Shah said.

If Shah is correct and D.C.’s cumulative total in the tracker dropped to about 422,000, it would improve the city’s percentage of doses used (across local and federal agencies) from 68 percent — currently worse than all but three states — to 74 percent, which would mean leapfrogging over another 10 states in the national rankings, according to Bloomberg data.

Bowser is not involved in this at all. The situation is complex because the Federal government gives Federal agencies vaccines that count towards DC's number, but DC has no control over.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proving with evidence that Bowser has not acted in good faith with past covid data is certainly relevant when it comes to current covid data. What's to say she isn't doing the same here?

Here is the quote to which I previously referred:

Shah said CDC leaders showed him their count of how many doses have been sent to the federal agencies in the District (data which the agencies generally do not make public) — and that the tally came to about 40,000 doses fewer than the number the CDC tracker claims have been sent to the city.

“They’re actively working to figure out where those 40,000 doses are. That’s 40,000 doses that could just be sitting in the denominator without a numerator,” Shah said.

If Shah is correct and D.C.’s cumulative total in the tracker dropped to about 422,000, it would improve the city’s percentage of doses used (across local and federal agencies) from 68 percent — currently worse than all but three states — to 74 percent, which would mean leapfrogging over another 10 states in the national rankings, according to Bloomberg data.

Bowser is not involved in this at all. The situation is complex because the Federal government gives Federal agencies vaccines that count towards DC's number, but DC has no control over.

You honestly believe a DC official appointed by Bowser is speaking out about this with no direction from Bowser? I understand it's complex. I also understand that Bowser, by the past actions of her administration, has not earned the benefit of the doubt here. You're clearly ready to believe whatever DC officials tell you. Cool. Some of us will remain skeptical.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proving with evidence that Bowser has not acted in good faith with past covid data is certainly relevant when it comes to current covid data. What's to say she isn't doing the same here?

Here is the quote to which I previously referred:

Shah said CDC leaders showed him their count of how many doses have been sent to the federal agencies in the District (data which the agencies generally do not make public) — and that the tally came to about 40,000 doses fewer than the number the CDC tracker claims have been sent to the city.

“They’re actively working to figure out where those 40,000 doses are. That’s 40,000 doses that could just be sitting in the denominator without a numerator,” Shah said.

If Shah is correct and D.C.’s cumulative total in the tracker dropped to about 422,000, it would improve the city’s percentage of doses used (across local and federal agencies) from 68 percent — currently worse than all but three states — to 74 percent, which would mean leapfrogging over another 10 states in the national rankings, according to Bloomberg data.

Bowser is not involved in this at all. The situation is complex because the Federal government gives Federal agencies vaccines that count towards DC's number, but DC has no control over.

You honestly believe a DC official appointed by Bowser is speaking out about this with no direction from Bowser? I understand it's complex. I also understand that Bowser, by the past actions of her administration, has not earned the benefit of the doubt here. You're clearly ready to believe whatever DC officials tell you. Cool. Some of us will remain skeptical.

The "DC official" official, who is actually Ankoor Shah, the head of the vaccine program, went on the record to explain the discrepancy in numbers. His explanation makes sense. Moreover, if you bother to read the quote I posted, he went over the discrepancy with CDC officials. If he was lying, they would certainly have said something.

If you want to demonstrate that Bowser is lying you are going to have to do better than a months old article that doesn't deal with vaccines and involves different data and different officials. If you actually care about public health, you should be less concerned with making bad faith arguments and more concerned about why DC is being credited with 40,000 doses for which the Federal government cannot account. If you want shots in the arm, ignoring phantom doses is not a good strategy.

[Anonymous]

Egypt. Now. But why?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proving with evidence that Bowser has not acted in good faith with past covid data is certainly relevant when it comes to current covid data. What's to say she isn't doing the same here?

Here is the quote to which I previously referred:

Shah said CDC leaders showed him their count of how many doses have been sent to the federal agencies in the District (data which the agencies generally do not make public) — and that the tally came to about 40,000 doses fewer than the number the CDC tracker claims have been sent to the city.

“They’re actively working to figure out where those 40,000 doses are. That’s 40,000 doses that could just be sitting in the denominator without a numerator,” Shah said.

If Shah is correct and D.C.’s cumulative total in the tracker dropped to about 422,000, it would improve the city’s percentage of doses used (across local and federal agencies) from 68 percent — currently worse than all but three states — to 74 percent, which would mean leapfrogging over another 10 states in the national rankings, according to Bloomberg data.

Bowser is not involved in this at all. The situation is complex because the Federal government gives Federal agencies vaccines that count towards DC's number, but DC has no control over.

You honestly believe a DC official appointed by Bowser is speaking out about this with no direction from Bowser? I understand it's complex. I also understand that Bowser, by the past actions of her administration, has not earned the benefit of the doubt here. You're clearly ready to believe whatever DC officials tell you. Cool. Some of us will remain skeptical.

The "DC official" official, who is actually Ankoor Shah, the head of the vaccine program, went on the record to explain the discrepancy in numbers. His explanation makes sense. Moreover, if you bother to read the quote I posted, he went over the discrepancy with CDC officials. If he was lying, they would certainly have said something.

If you want to demonstrate that Bowser is lying you are going to have to do better than a months old article that doesn't deal with vaccines and involves different data and different officials. If you actually care about public health, you should be less concerned with making bad faith arguments and more concerned about why DC is being credited with 40,000 doses for which the Federal government cannot account. If you want shots in the arm, ignoring phantom doses is not a good strategy.

So you disagree that the Bowser administration has played fast and loose with covid data in the past, and saying that they're suddenly faithfully reporting the numbers as they stand now? Why is Bowser suddenly deciding to pick this fight with a federal administration that ostensibly has her back, as opposed to the last four years. That's a leap I'm not ready to make.

But you're right: I can't prove they're lying, but you can't really prove they're telling the truth either. I'm going on Bowser's undeniably shaky track record with the truth. You're taking her at her word. We'll see who's right. I will bet a lot of money that it's me.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So you disagree that the Bowser administration has played fast and loose with covid data in the past, and saying that they're suddenly faithfully reporting the numbers as they stand now? Why is Bowser suddenly deciding to pick this fight with a federal administration that ostensibly has her back, as opposed to the last four years. That's a leap I'm not ready to make.

But you're right: I can't prove they're lying, but you can't really prove they're telling the truth either. I'm going on Bowser's undeniably shaky track record with the truth. You're taking her at her word. We'll see who's right. I will bet a lot of money that it's me.

Again, you are not arguing in good faith. Why didn't she argue about vaccine distribution during the Trump administration? Because the Trump Administration was not distributing vaccines. Let's be clear about the past "fast and loose" behavior. As far as I can tell, there was one incident of one day's community spread data not being publicly posted. What we are discussing now involves different data and different officials. You seem to believe that the DC government consists of nothing but toadies who will willingly risk their professions and reputations at Bowser's behest. I seriously doubt that Ankoor Shah is going to go on the record about something that the CDC can easily disprove. So, please clarify what you mean by "a lot of money" cause that's a bet I'll take.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you disagree that the Bowser administration has played fast and loose with covid data in the past, and saying that they're suddenly faithfully reporting the numbers as they stand now? Why is Bowser suddenly deciding to pick this fight with a federal administration that ostensibly has her back, as opposed to the last four years. That's a leap I'm not ready to make.

But you're right: I can't prove they're lying, but you can't really prove they're telling the truth either. I'm going on Bowser's undeniably shaky track record with the truth. You're taking her at her word. We'll see who's right. I will bet a lot of money that it's me.

Again, you are not arguing in good faith. Why didn't she argue about vaccine distribution during the Trump administration? Because the Trump Administration was not distributing vaccines. Let's be clear about the past "fast and loose" behavior. As far as I can tell, there was one incident of one day's community spread data not being publicly posted. What we are discussing now involves different data and different officials. You seem to believe that the DC government consists of nothing but toadies who will willingly risk their professions and reputations at Bowser's behest. I seriously doubt that Ankoor Shah is going to go on the record about something that the CDC can easily disprove. So, please clarify what you mean by "a lot of money" cause that's a bet I'll take.

Yep, I believe that the people selected by Bowser and paid by Bowser are going to parrot to the press what Bowser tells them. She's the boss. Good luck with your true belief in Bowser's alleged good faith here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Trayon White is a fool (he’s said anti-vax comments in the past) and I don’t believe that he should have flown internationally during the pandemic. But really weird flex you are trying to make bringing up Ted Cruz. Why do conservatives persist with this what-aboutism? It’s bizarre. Have an argument that doesn’t need to be about a different situation.

I campaigned for Janeese, so not a conservative. Just someone who asks for leadership and basic competence instead of whatever it is trayon is delivering.

Then wtf are you talking about Ted Cruz? Why can’t you criticize him on the merits without bringing in another unrelated issue? Bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Is this the guy who talked about the jewish weather machine ? If so he goes to egypt? Wow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Trayon White is a fool (he’s said anti-vax comments in the past) and I don’t believe that he should have flown internationally during the pandemic. But really weird flex you are trying to make bringing up Ted Cruz. Why do conservatives persist with this what-aboutism? It’s bizarre. Have an argument that doesn’t need to be about a different situation.

I campaigned for Janeese, so not a conservative. Just someone who asks for leadership and basic competence instead of whatever it is trayon is delivering.

Then wtf are you talking about Ted Cruz? Why can’t you criticize him on the merits without bringing in another unrelated issue? Bizarre.

He left on vacation when his constituents were suffering. The comparison is apt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this the guy who talked about the jewish weather machine ? If so he goes to egypt? Wow

Yes

[Anonymous]

How was Trayon's vacation. Did he see the pyramids? Hopefully he's quarantining now if he's back.

[Anonymous]

The OP is delusional if she thinks these comparisons are the same.