DC's absurd coronavirus restrictions

[Anonymous]

Alabama's population density if 95 people per square mile. DC's is 11,696 -- 123 times higher. Obviously DC is going to have a higher rate of community spread. You can't compare the two jurisdictions.

You're all idiots.

Also, it's funny how conservatives don't want DC to be a state, except when they do . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alabama's population density if 95 people per square mile. DC's is 11,696 -- 123 times higher. Obviously DC is going to have a higher rate of community spread. You can't compare the two jurisdictions.

You're all idiots.

Also, it's funny how conservatives don't want DC to be a state, except when they do . . .

Uh, well, you could just look at coronavirus statistics by county. Sticking with Alabama (if we must), look at Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham (and which includes 660,000 people versus DC's roughly 690,000). Their numbers are better in most respects than DC. So what is it we've gotten exactly, in exchange for the city's hamfisted coronavirus rules? What have we gotten for banning children from going to school for a year? The point here is that DC's coronavirus rules do little to slow the spread of the disease and do a lot to ruin children's lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alabama's population density if 95 people per square mile. DC's is 11,696 -- 123 times higher. Obviously DC is going to have a higher rate of community spread. You can't compare the two jurisdictions.

You're all idiots.

Also, it's funny how conservatives don't want DC to be a state, except when they do . . .

Uh, well, you could just look at coronavirus statistics by county. Sticking with Alabama (if we must), look at Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham (and which includes 660,000 people versus DC's roughly 690,000). Their numbers are better in most respects than DC. So what is it we've gotten exactly, in exchange for the city's hamfisted coronavirus rules? What have we gotten for banning children from going to school for a year? The point here is that DC's coronavirus rules do little to slow the spread of the disease and do a lot to ruin children's lives.

The weird thing for me is that it is the woke liberals who are most supportive of DC schools not being open. Do they not understand that it’s the underprivileged, neglected, and abused kids who are most hurt by lack of real school? Those are the kids who are being irreparably harmed. I thought woke liberals were the ones who supposedly really cared about those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alabama's population density if 95 people per square mile. DC's is 11,696 -- 123 times higher. Obviously DC is going to have a higher rate of community spread. You can't compare the two jurisdictions.

You're all idiots.

Also, it's funny how conservatives don't want DC to be a state, except when they do . . .

Uh, well, you could just look at coronavirus statistics by county. Sticking with Alabama (if we must), look at Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham (and which includes 660,000 people versus DC's roughly 690,000). Their numbers are better in most respects than DC. So what is it we've gotten exactly, in exchange for the city's hamfisted coronavirus rules? What have we gotten for banning children from going to school for a year? The point here is that DC's coronavirus rules do little to slow the spread of the disease and do a lot to ruin children's lives.

The weird thing for me is that it is the woke liberals who are most supportive of DC schools not being open. Do they not understand that it’s the underprivileged, neglected, and abused kids who are most hurt by lack of real school? Those are the kids who are being irreparably harmed. I thought woke liberals were the ones who supposedly really cared about those kids.

Please. Progressives care about one thing, and that’s obtaining power over others. Including children, obviously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You must have a really charmed life if you think the minor restrictions during a health pandemic are wrong.

1) these aren’t minor restrictions
2) there is no more pandemic

Sorry to disappoint you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alabama's population density if 95 people per square mile. DC's is 11,696 -- 123 times higher. Obviously DC is going to have a higher rate of community spread. You can't compare the two jurisdictions.

You're all idiots.

Also, it's funny how conservatives don't want DC to be a state, except when they do . . .

Uh, well, you could just look at coronavirus statistics by county. Sticking with Alabama (if we must), look at Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham (and which includes 660,000 people versus DC's roughly 690,000). Their numbers are better in most respects than DC. So what is it we've gotten exactly, in exchange for the city's hamfisted coronavirus rules? What have we gotten for banning children from going to school for a year? The point here is that DC's coronavirus rules do little to slow the spread of the disease and do a lot to ruin children's lives.

You just don't get it.

Birmingham and DC may have roughly the same population, but DC is much smaller in size and its density is TEN TIMES that of Birmingham. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Clearly you are not a statistician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You must have a really charmed life if you think the minor restrictions during a health pandemic are wrong.

1) these aren’t minor restrictions
2) there is no more pandemic

Sorry to disappoint you

FYI. It is not over, though things are obviously looking better. But I note the contrast between your presumably pro life attitudes and the 500 Americans that are dying every day. More Americans will have died in the last year than died in WW1 and WW2, and likely will surpass the number of Americans who died in the Civil War. Those wars lasted longer than 15 months. The Small Man and his supporters will bear that burden until their own deaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You must have a really charmed life if you think the minor restrictions during a health pandemic are wrong.

1) these aren’t minor restrictions
2) there is no more pandemic

Sorry to disappoint you

FYI. It is not over, though things are obviously looking better. But I note the contrast between your presumably pro life attitudes and the 500 Americans that are dying every day. More Americans will have died in the last year than died in WW1 and WW2, and likely will surpass the number of Americans who died in the Civil War. Those wars lasted longer than 15 months. The Small Man and his supporters will bear that burden until their own deaths.

Cuomo really did botch it we know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You must have a really charmed life if you think the minor restrictions during a health pandemic are wrong.

1) these aren’t minor restrictions
2) there is no more pandemic

Sorry to disappoint you

FYI. It is not over, though things are obviously looking better. But I note the contrast between your presumably pro life attitudes and the 500 Americans that are dying every day. More Americans will have died in the last year than died in WW1 and WW2, and likely will surpass the number of Americans who died in the Civil War. Those wars lasted longer than 15 months. The Small Man and his supporters will bear that burden until their own deaths.

How many people died yesterday of cancer? Heart attacks? Drug overdoses? Shootings? Committed suicide?

While your one assumption about my pro-life stance is correct, your argument is full of holes.

And yes, in the US, the pandemic is basically over. Yay for science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alabama's population density if 95 people per square mile. DC's is 11,696 -- 123 times higher. Obviously DC is going to have a higher rate of community spread. You can't compare the two jurisdictions.

You're all idiots.

Also, it's funny how conservatives don't want DC to be a state, except when they do . . .

Uh, well, you could just look at coronavirus statistics by county. Sticking with Alabama (if we must), look at Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham (and which includes 660,000 people versus DC's roughly 690,000). Their numbers are better in most respects than DC. So what is it we've gotten exactly, in exchange for the city's hamfisted coronavirus rules? What have we gotten for banning children from going to school for a year? The point here is that DC's coronavirus rules do little to slow the spread of the disease and do a lot to ruin children's lives.

You just don't get it.

Birmingham and DC may have roughly the same population, but DC is much smaller in size and its density is TEN TIMES that of Birmingham. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Clearly you are not a statistician.

If density directly leads to coronavirus spread, should we be discussing de-densification of cities then? It seems like a public health issue at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most schools in this country are now back to normal, five-day schedules. Not in DC though. You'll get two days of school per week and like it!

https://info.burbio.com/school-tracker-update-may-03/

As if schools are the problem..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alabama's population density if 95 people per square mile. DC's is 11,696 -- 123 times higher. Obviously DC is going to have a higher rate of community spread. You can't compare the two jurisdictions.

You're all idiots.

Also, it's funny how conservatives don't want DC to be a state, except when they do . . .

Uh, well, you could just look at coronavirus statistics by county. Sticking with Alabama (if we must), look at Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham (and which includes 660,000 people versus DC's roughly 690,000). Their numbers are better in most respects than DC. So what is it we've gotten exactly, in exchange for the city's hamfisted coronavirus rules? What have we gotten for banning children from going to school for a year? The point here is that DC's coronavirus rules do little to slow the spread of the disease and do a lot to ruin children's lives.

You just don't get it.

Birmingham and DC may have roughly the same population, but DC is much smaller in size and its density is TEN TIMES that of Birmingham. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Clearly you are not a statistician.

What does a city's density have to do with banning kids from going to school? Or putting people in solitary confinement for a year? Or banning standing up at weddings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You must have a really charmed life if you think the minor restrictions during a health pandemic are wrong.

1) these aren’t minor restrictions
2) there is no more pandemic

Sorry to disappoint you

FYI. It is not over, though things are obviously looking better. But I note the contrast between your presumably pro life attitudes and the 500 Americans that are dying every day. More Americans will have died in the last year than died in WW1 and WW2, and likely will surpass the number of Americans who died in the Civil War. Those wars lasted longer than 15 months. The Small Man and his supporters will bear that burden until their own deaths.

How many people died yesterday of cancer? Heart attacks? Drug overdoses? Shootings? Committed suicide?

While your one assumption about my pro-life stance is correct, your argument is full of holes.

And yes, in the US, the pandemic is basically over. Yay for science.

If you voted for the Little Man, you bear the burden of voting for someone whose utter incompetence directly led to the death of thousands and thousands of Americans. And, no, the Little Man is not responsible for those who died of heart attacks, overdoses, shootings (except by right wing bigots), and suicide (except for 2 Capitol Police Officers). And, yes, Cuomo made some mistakes, but he at least tried to help the situation, and he faced it long before most anyone else had to face it. And, no, the pandemic is not over. We wear masks when appropriate (inside in particular), because no vaccine is 100% effective, because COVID vaccines are better at preventing death and serious illness than actually getting it, because you can still transmit COVID. The initial trials were focused on preventing death and severe illness, not simply getting COVID. The 90% plus figures for the vaccines relate to severe illness and death. The science today is less clear on transmission, etc. And no single study will provide a clear answer. And Fox will simplify what is a complicated and nuanced subject. And, of course, what happens in India will not stay in India, so variants are of concern. The goal is to stamp it out, and we are not there. So, with due respect, your pro-life stance is somewhat absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How many people died yesterday of cancer? Heart attacks? Drug overdoses? Shootings? Committed suicide?

While your one assumption about my pro-life stance is correct, your argument is full of holes.

And yes, in the US, the pandemic is basically over. Yay for science.

I remember people making similar statements in February and March of 2020...

Can we remove restrictions? Yes. Is the pandemic over? No. The pandemic is a global pandemic, and it won't be over in the US until it's over globally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alabama's population density if 95 people per square mile. DC's is 11,696 -- 123 times higher. Obviously DC is going to have a higher rate of community spread. You can't compare the two jurisdictions.

You're all idiots.

Also, it's funny how conservatives don't want DC to be a state, except when they do . . .

You're silly to bring conservative vs liberal into this. In many stats, the fact that DC is urban makes comparing it to the other states apples-to-oranges and both political sides cherry pick the ones they cite based on their agenda.