atoq

This is literally not true for the majority of South American countries. You mentioned Brasil, which is an outlier in their COVID response strategies, and the effectiveness of their strategies is demonstrated in their COVID case count number, the number of people who have died there, and how Brasilians have spread COVID into border regions of neighboring countries. Please look into how COVID is impacting communities in developing countries. Health facilities have been close to collapse for months in many countries. Indigenous communities in South America have been devastated by the virus, not because they are selfish and fat, but because they have genetic deposition to diabetes. Look, I agree with your anger about indifference for people dying from other diseases in the past. We don't fix that as a society with continued indifference to people dying from diseases. How does the COVID case count and # of deaths in continental Europe compare to the US? Is it more or less than the US? (Keeping in mind they have double the US population, of course) What did they do differently than the US between February and August? This is exactly right. Tenet didn't bomb because theaters were closed, it bombed because people were afraid to go to the theater because of the virus. Now those theaters lost money opening the doors and paying staff for only few people to show up. A long lingering virus will prevent people from wanting to go to bars, restaurants, etc. If those institutions are trying to open, paying staff, etc and no one is going, its an even worse scenario. Something like a short term rent-relief program on top of the minimal economic packages that were passed could have helped businesses deal with a strict lockdown for a matter of months so that we would be better positioned to reopen the economy for the coming year, like many other nations have done. Now we're stuck in limbo. The long-term economic devastation argument is valid for sure, unfortunately the same crowd was making this argument in March and April, likely in-part related to the politicization of the virus, which prevented the US from ever getting control of the virus in the first place. If the US had done that, it would be easier to reopen like other places are now. It's almost like some level of coordination above the states was needed to mitigate the inconsistent implementation of known-effective policies that have led to some areas being much safer than others. Also want to add, besides possible death from COVID, the long-term health implications of the virus are not fully understood, with indications it can have affect someone's heart, brain and lungs. Another reason for caution.

You ask people to read 60+ articles and roll your eyes at 5 paragraphs. I did misquote, having originally intended to quote more and respond point by point, but instead responding more generally to the series of posts the followed. Oh well, nobody is perfect, I made careless mistakes in my post and you look for medical advice on a political sub-forum of a NFL message board. We're all doing our best. 3 minutes later. Nice try. I think we can all get behind more quality science being made available to the public. However, in this case there was curation and interpretation of those studies, as well as misleading design elements on the page itself. I think 100% agree that it's a good thing that people read more science papers, but its also fair to say that trained experts are much more equipped to review, interpret and make decisions on this type of work. Let's be honest, neither you nor are I nearly as informed as we like to claim we are in internet message board arguments. Please show me anywhere where I accused you of touting not social distancing, ignoring proper hygiene. As I had discussed in the previous paragraph, there is an undeniable segment of the population whose perspective on HCQ is influenced by the idea that the severity of the virus has been exaggerated, lock downs were/are unnecessary (and politically motivated), and that known medicines that work are being suppressed. People with these views are more likely to not wear masks and ignore social distancing protocols. Those viewpoints are widely expressed where you found the link, just one step away from this message board. I intentionally tried not to reference you specifically in this group (and certainly not shrader) to give you the benefit of the doubt that although you frequent those site and often share their content, you don't buy into the conspiracy theories. Let's look at a case study of a public figure, Herman Cain, who touted HCQ treatment from March-June, later attended a large public event in late June against recommended social distancing protocols while also not wearing a mask (even though he touted mask wearing on his site), to later catch and die from COVID. He obviously understood the importance of masks and social distancing yet irrationally disregarded all of that advice. Obviously we can't say for certain if he took those risks because he thought he could rely on HCQ, but HCQ was certainly in the equation given how outspoken Cain was on the topic. So then you agree that high profile government officials promoting the use of an unproven treatment is irresponsible? Especially given that it led to people taking a non-FDA approved medicine shown to potentially have side-effects, as well as causing a rush for those drugs thus limiting availability for those who may need the medicines for other conditions? This isn't what I was saying, and I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. The pandemic response is as much as a social experiment as one of policy. We need both common-sense public policy that researches potential treatment and vaccines while at the same time enacting communication strategies that promote social behaviors that will keep the virus from spreading. I think we need both carrot-and-stick aspects to policy, in which certain standards are established with regards to use of masks, social distancing, testing and contact-tracing (stick) but perhaps even more more importantly, that these policies are bound together by cohesive public messaging that encourages mutually respectful behaviors that help slow the virus from spreading (carrot). I think it would be difficult to argue that either of these has happened in a country with the highest COVID case count and number of deaths in the world. I refer to HCQ as a distraction because policy and cohesive communications efforts have obviously proven insufficient so far, yet there has been a tremendous public focus on HCQ due to certain individuals, which has only created unnecessary debate, division and confusion. Is there a good reason for publicly promoting unproven HCQ as a solution while publicly downplaying proven solutions like extensive testing and contact tracing (and even masks up until the past weeks)? Is this dichotomy due to concern for public health outcomes, or because there hasn't been enough tests available but lots of HCQ available? Do you think it is a coincidence that many of the countries most badly affected by COVID (US, Brazil, Mexico, India, Venezuela) are all promoting unproven medications? Shrader very well may be right that a certain segment of the population would ignore masks and social distancing recommendations anyway, for the reasons he listed. I see the HCQ conversation as just a small part of a larger discourse that attempts to minimize the severity of the virus, further emboldening those people to ignore public health advice. I assume the scientists are continually doing their jobs looking for treatment and cures, the main failure I see has been with communication and community building strategies to foster the public cohesion needed to stop a pandemic. Undue and premature focus on HCQ has only worsened this. Is waiting for FDA approval considered a controversial stance in the US these days?

To the bold: Yes there was. The website selectively chooses studies, ignores the quality of the evidence, misrepresents the conclusions of studies, and fails to consider how studies compare to each other in terms of cases studies. The graphic at the top of the page is also complete BS and entirely misleading for reasons mentioned earlier, mainly leaving out Brazil, but also in it's general design and inclusion of debatable labels that reveal the agenda behind the site instead of letting the data speak for itself. Design is important, especially on the internet, and the misleading graph and tagline in bold are clearly given center stage at the top of the site. The graph has been widely shared on social media as this website has been disseminated (more on that later). That is the primary messaging of this website. I agree with you that in an ideal world everyone would do their homework and read through the studies (or at least summaries) to draw their own informed conclusions. However that doesn't change the fundamentally flawed nature of this website. This website clearly makes it's argument at the top of the page, and it is asking a lot of people to click through hundreds of links and to read scientific articles about something that the creators of the website essentially presented as fact. That's expecting an awful lot from the general public, especially when you yourself have seemingly put little critical thought into the validity of the website as an independent data aggregation source. I should have explained better my comment about how this website has been disseminated, which I think also ties into @Taro T's point about stereotypes about people hopeful about HCQ. Looking at reddit and twitter, this site is most popular in conspiracy theory communities, where the underlying narrative is that HCQ is being suppressed by the [CENSORED] to implement shut-downs to intentionally damage the economy and prevent [REDACTED] from being [CENSORED]. @Taro T and I have discussed information sources in other threads, so I went to his favorite news source: Two Bills Drive, Politics, Polls and Pundits, and sure enough c19study.com was posted there the day before Taro shared it here. On TBD the site was posted alongside many of the previously mentioned conspiracy theories and the misleading graph was also highlighted. I wonder: how many of those readers took the prerogative to read the actual studies? This HCQ website was initially shared on TBD via The Gateway Pundit, a website that is rated by multiple media review sites as having extreme bias with poor sourcing of credible information and prone to promoting conspiracy theories. So, if we follow the chain, c19study.com is being promoted on unreliable political news sources, picked up and disseminated in online communities where political conspiracy theories flourish (TBD, reddit conspiracy theory) and now being presented as an independent scientific data aggregation resource in a supposedly apolitical thread focused on the public health. When the flaws of the website were pointed out, the OP chided others for not doing their investigative homework in reading through the studies. Look, I think we are all hopeful that existing and affordable medicines will prove effective at treating COVID. These are difficult times and we are all looking for answers. I didn't meant to stereotype those with interest in HCQ treatments, but given the brief review above it's undeniable that there is a segment of the population have latched onto HCQ for reasons beyond public health concerns, and that for those people, it is often a question of HCQ treatment vs wearing masks, quarantine and social distancing protocols. While I can understand if someone would want to take HCQ in consultation with their doctor, I would also hope that others could understand that others might opt against it, especially in pre-exposure or post-exposure stages, given the general side effects, possible complications, and lack of conclusive scientific evidence of the benefits in relation to COVID outcomes. For this reason and others, it's important that sufficient public health strategies are developed to not have to overly rely on unproven medications until they can be tested and approved by the FDA. Some people are justifiably worried that strategies to protect people's health (or at least public messaging on those strategies) have been overly-focused on unproven medications like HCQ at the expense of planning for solutions that have worked in other countries and in the US in previous months. Thank you to @Taro T and @shrader for pointing out mine and other's imprecise usage of the word 'miracle cure'. I think my use of the word cure was a bit sarcastic and less in reference to how HCQ treats the virus and more in reference to the socioeconomic context, where many people seem to believe that we can continue on with business-as-usual and deal with letting the virus run rampant by treating it with HCQ or other existing medicines. Given that these treatments are still unproven, the seemingly prudent thing to do would be to try to prevent the virus from running rampant until more testing has been done. Premature celebration and promotion of unproven drugs, alongside the general downplaying of the severity of the virus, has undermined social distancing efforts and lead to more community spread. For this reason, in my opinion, until more evidence exists that COVID can be safely treated with HCQ, this debate is only a distraction from necessary and difficult conversations we need to have as a country on what can be done to protect public health while also protecting American individuals and businesses from impending economic disaster, as well as a distraction from developing realistic education strategies instead of trying to reopen schools, etc given how widespread the virus is in the US. Edit: I've seen access to scientific papers mentioned in this thread. I think this topic is so vitally important because quality scientific information is so often hidden behind a paywall while misinformation is freely disseminated and promoted. For anyone looking to access academic papers try googling sci hub.

Interesting post, not because of the data presented---this website is fundamentally flawed---but because we can see how misinformation spreads during the pandemic. This website is at best scientifically flawed, at worst straight propaganda. The site cherry-picks certain HCQ Covid studies while leaving others out. For a more comprehensive review of studies done look here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=hydroxychloroquine+covid+meta+analysis&hl=en&scisbd=1&as_sdt=0,5 The site also misrepresents the studies they do show. For example, the Bouware study is listed as a 'Positive' result here when the literal conclusion of the study is: "After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.It also doesnt chart." The focus of the site seems to be on the number of studies, and not the number of cases studied within those studies, which is much more important. Worst of all, Brazil is not at all included at all in this analysis. Brazil has one of the highest COVID-19 case counts in the world and patients there have been given/taken HCQ with disastrous results. If only we could discuss the social context that led to this... Looking at how this website has been distributed on Reddit and Twitter, it only flourishes in conspiracy theory based communities. Online communities with active scientists and doctors immediately point out the flaws of this analysis (of which I've only listed a few). The HCQ debate is fascinating. A question to the people still hanging onto the idea of HCQ as miracle cure: In the past have you supported and promoted taking unprescribed, untested medication with severe side effects? If a random person on the street without any medical training was yelling about taking unproven, physically-difficult medication not recommended by the scientific community, would you take it? Would you argue for that medication online for months at a time, even after its been shown not to have positive side-effects and possibly negative effects? If not, what is different in this case? Also, has anyone still talking about HCQ as a cure ever taken this medication? I live and work in the tropics and we almost always take our chances with the possibility of catching malaria instead of taking preventative anti-malarial drugs, due to the severe side effects.

Actually, Claude brought up the topic of internet literacy when he dismissed Doohickie's (correct) point about the wealth of empirical evidence on the benefits of masks, contact tracing etc. Claude wrote off that point as Doohickie using google to get the response he was looking for. Then again its probably below (most) board management to participate in a game of "you started it!".

Taro, care to share what you've read that says this may have been deserved? I ask because the last time you posted about a deep state conspiracy in regards to the origins of the Russia investigation, you pointed towards posts by Deranged Rhino on the PPP board at TBD. Every legal analysis I've read asserts that this dismissal is entirely unusual, from the arguments laid out by Barr, contradictions with the recent IG report on the origins of the investigation, the resignation of the prosecutor in protest, even down to the very unusual process in which the order was signed by an interim attorney.

If only humankind could invent some way for cars to park above and below each other on the same footprint. Perhaps different levels could be connected by large, sloped inclines, similar to a sort of ramp. Maybe someday... Also nice try with the Google maps definition of downtown buffalo. I suppose you don't consider commuters at blue Cross blue shield of the casino (for example) to be relevant to this discussion because they fall a block outside of that definition? Good luck riding this argument all the way down.

Worried about the continued use of grey in this. Hopefully it's just a reference to previous eras and won't be a part of a future logos and color schemes. I'd rank removing the grey trim around the logo almost as high a priority for future designs as reverting to Royal blue. The grey looks alright on official sweaters but awful when the logo is smaller (especially on hats).

Do you think Papadopoulos, who told an Australian diplomat in May 2016 that Russia had the hacked emails, also didn't tell his boss about the emails? Seems hard to believe, especially since Trump had been openly attempting to curry favor in Russia since the 1990's. Drnk's point about Trump's megalomania is a good one, as well as his long documented history of micro management. Do you consider sharing polling data with Russia (via Manafort), and sharing/promoting Russian troll's social media posts (via JR and others), "not in concert"? Sure seems like a collaborative effort to me, especially since the the campaign obviously knew about the hacked emails in advance. The campaign knew about the hacked emails, provided advice to Russia on what regions to target, and openly shared the Russian troll's posts, all while rewriting the GOP policy on Russia and secretly negotiating a huge real estate deal in russia while lying to the American people about it. Nothing about this seems suspicious to you? If that doesn't look bad enough, don't forget the Mueller report also noted that extensive evidence was destroyed and multiple campaign members got caught lying to the FBI, which hindered the investigation (eg. Mifsud was able to avoid questioning because of Papadopoulos' lies, setting back the investigation (as per Papadopoulos' sentencing memo)). I think the missing element here, which I'm surprised wasn't included in the Mueller report, is the role of Cambridge analytica. It would be interesting to see the correspondence of how social media posts were targeted between Russian troll's farms and the campaign's communications firm. Sabre, I share your concern about people getting their news from paid Facebook ads, but that is unfortunately the world we seem to live in at the moment.

What questions of yours did I not respond to? I looked back on your post and I believe I responded to all occurrences of question marks, which were located in the second paragraph. I found that punctuation quite helpful to identify questions posed. Please do indicate which of your statements were intended as questions and I'll be happy to discuss. I didn't mean to call you a lier, but I do think you presented incorrect information. I think the difference between the two is in the intent to mislead. You underrepresented the amount of the report that was redacted (where did you get your numbers?) and in my opinion (as this is less clear), underplayed how much of the GJ material can legally be released. These are important details, and there is a lot of misinformation spreading about both online, which is why I felt it was important to clarify. Sabres0311, thanks for the rundown on classification and redactions. Saying 'full transparency' was a mistake, and I should have used more precise language to indicate that I meant all information that can be released, is released. I was thinking of some GJ and privacy-related redactions, and understand some information will remain confidential. I was also thinking of the very misleading rollout of the report (as per Mueller's opinion) which was an attempt at undermining transparency. My apologies on the poor phrasing while posting in a hurry. In defense of my hardball comment: I do think such a strategy is necessary for this administration because of their constant resistance to oversight. Also, like it or not (I don't), a lot of this is and will be played out in the media. Impeachment proceedings are largely a political process, which is why the administration sought to distort the narrative on the report in the media as much as possible with Barr's deeply misleading initial summary (again, last part is per Mueller's opinion). I'm curious how some posters here would respond to the following questions: What do you think of this administration resisting congressional oversight at almost every turn? Do you think there is sufficient evidence of conflicts of interest to make this oversight important? Do you think Trump's constant denial of Russia's role in the 2016 election, thereby going against the US intelligence community, has helped or hurt secure America's electoral process for the 2020 election and beyond?

Actually, I think the Democrats were pretty clear that they refused Barr's offer because the report contents would have been restricted to a few select congressional members and they would have been forbidden to discuss with their colleagues. It seems the Democrats are trying to promote full transparency of the report's contents, and I think playing hardball is fair given the deeply misleading rollout of the report and subsequent media coverage (as per Mueller's opinion). I'm not sure how any American could argue against full transparency in this case. A 'perjury trap' only seems to be a real threat to people that are lying or hiding the truth. Barr doesn't seem to need a trap anyways, as he was already skirting perjury after obviously misleading statements about Mueller's team reaction to the initial summary report released. To avoid lying under oath, he can also just say he can't remember, like Donald did 37 times on his take home test from Mueller (with help from his lawyers). That's with one of the great memories of all time!

Your numbers of 2% of the report being redacted and 98% public seem incorrect. Looking at the report, clearly much more ilthan 2% is redacted, and I've seen other analyses putting that percentage closer to 7%. 5% difference may seem small, but it's hard to have much faith in the rest of this post after leading with a blatant mistruth. If Barr really cared about transparency, he could definitely release more of the GJ materials. It isn't illegal as has been claimed. These here are multiple exemptions to rule 6e, and following the historical precedent set by the Watergate and Starr investigations would see this information released (although the legal framework has changed some since then). How do law-and-order Republicans feel about Barr and Trump Jr. refusing to comply with subpoenas?

Can someone please summarize how the Pegula's have invested in Buffalo outside of the sports franchises? This is an honest question because its been mentioned in this thread a few times and not an attempt at snark or a reflection of my views on the OP. I am familiar with the Harbor Center and Fairmont Creamery Building, but have been living out of the area for awhile and am not sure if there are additional projects in development.

Pretty nice, but I much prefer the thick blue stripe as the middle stripe around the waist on the white jerseys. It's reversed in the current iteration and in this artwork and the color balance seems off. Not enough blue on the lower part of the jersey.

I haven't heard the audio but I usually love Louis ck's comedy. A question for people that have heard it: did they pick out a few lines or are you able to hear the full bit? A lot of the time Louis' set ups make the more offensive stuff more palatable and his absurdist style make more sense and satirical. I'm thinking of his bits about r.ape and the saddest handjob, as a few examples off the top of my head. If you heard only the last lines of those bits, they would sound terrible as well, when the jokes aren't at all in support of the offensive content presented. It's also worth pointing out that comedians test and develop bits in clubs like this. This was likely a work in progress. Screw the guy that recorded this. This is why recording comedy isn't allowed.

That conspiracy theory post on TBD is nonsense. I'm totally against unlimited and unsupervised government surveillance, by whichever party is in power, but the jump from that to politically motivated spying and an elaborate deep state conspiracy doesn't seem to have any evidence. Timelines aren't evidence, and it's easy to show a very incriminating timeline about Trump's collusion, but supported by a wealth of evidence and indictments. The fundamental flaw of this conspiracy theory is: why, after going through all of this trouble to monitor campaign communications, hire intelligence consultants and set up elaborate schemes to 'entrap' Trump campaign officials, why wasn't information released publicly to sway the election? The Steele dossier was finished at the end of October and wasn't released until after the election. If they wanted to improperly affect the election, this information certainly would have been leaked. Meanwhile, Republicans, through the threat of leaks out of the NY FBI office and NYPD, managed to put enough pressure on Comey to announce the reopening of the investigation into Hillary's emails, which completely changed the complexion of the election (I hope they release private texts from that office like they did with strzok's). The FBI was investigating both campaigns but only publicly announced one of those investigations. Now people are trying to claim there is a conspiracy against the one campaign the FBI didn't publicly damage? That's a ludicrous idea. Question to republicans including the 'deep state' believers here: if Mueller's report directly states that Trump colluded with Russia, will you accept those results? If that is the conclusion, what would be the ideal next steps for the good of the country. I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics and head burying on the right to avoid the fairly obvious conclusion about what happened, and is still happening. Seemingly intelligent people are buying into wacky conspiracy theories because they are so invested in their ideological side. To respond to another post above: if you say obstruction of Justice isn't obvious, you haven't been paying attention. Trump admitted to it on national television when he explained why he fired Comey, among countless other examples.

I can't believe that first goal counted against Finland. What a joke.

I like this thought. The use of that slow, sappy song during that playoff run was a prime example of the more general problem of buffalo sports fans taking things too damn seriously, and the franchises supporting it. I would think most teams would choose an up-tempo, get-people-fired-up-song to play before playoff games, not a depressing song that insinuates that things have sucked, but could be getting better (in this context, with a Stanley cup win). This terrible song was more apt for covering a natural disaster than an exciting playoff hockey run. And people wonder why the arena can be quiet. At least something positive has come out of losing a home game this year: buffalo has been spared from another generic goo goo dolls performance. I'm all on board the Natalie merchant train. She and 10,000 maniacs had some great songs.

Briere - Hecht - Dumont

I heard he's been hired by the Rangers to help manage Henrik's workload by distributing starts to the backup.

I'm not a fan of the numbers on the front. Those were the product of the same Larry Quinn focus group sessions that gave us the slug, and they still remind me of that era. It seems like it was an attempt to promote fans/TV viewers associating players with their number by sticking the number right next to their face. However, the number on the front of the jersey became completely unnecessary once they added numbers on the helmets in ~2011. They seem redundant now and clutter up an otherwise clean design. I'm surprised to see the support for the numbers here, given the prevalent desire to go back to a more traditional jersey design. Would you all be alright with them going to old jersey designs and throwing the front numbers on there? I'm disappointed they decided to maintain the status quo with the jerseys (especially the striping on the whites), besides the obvious move to get rid of the pit stains and piping. I agree that they are likely waiting for the 50 year anniversary to do a more thorough overhaul of the jerseys. I wonder if part of the decision is waiting for the team to be better, so that they can launch new jerseys when people are more excited about the team, and so that people associate new jerseys with a better product. It would be interesting to hear the decision making process that goes into the timing of team aesthetics, with considerations for branding, etc. I'll jump on the bandwagon that the WC whites are some of the best.

Reheating pizza in a covered pan is the best way to go. Try it.

Bob_sauve with the post...and it's a big one! I agree Ray is just awful to listen to and needs his role in the broadcast to be significantly reduced. He no talk good and offers very little insight into the play. The linguistic ticks he repeats over and over are excruciating. I realize we're never going to get anyone as good as Lorentz again, or even with a similar style, which is such a shame. As someone that didn't play junior hockey, I learned a lot about hockey from watching sabres games. Ray imparts no such knowledge and is instead perpetuating the caveman macho perspective others in this thread have commented on. An improved broadcast and play by play guy would help build the collective hockey IQ of the fan base. Honestly, I think it borders on cruelty to have the guy get punched in the head for the sake of the organization for so many years, only to later give him a job that requires agile use of his damaged brain. I believe everyone who says he is a truly nice guy and I agree it's great to have him involved in the organization, but for the love of God, please put him in a role that he can succeed in. Also, this thread needs a Rob Ray hotdog gif.

One of PA's last posts was about the closing of a popular thread, and he questioned the boards moderation. Maybe he was frustrated after being temporarily banned for a post in a thread we were told would not be moderated, when others had certainly said worse, before and after. He was also suspended for posting something 'bigoted' by a mod who often posts things that many would perceive as being bigoted. If I'm not mistaken, he has also been accused of driving away other posters. I wouldn't blame him if he left, but the board is worse off without his humor and contrarian points of view.

Putmayo department of southern Colombia, near the border with Ecuador. Argh, feed cut out for that goal. Sabres are going to win this game!