J.C.MacSwell

Generally speaking, but we can't do everything outdoors. What we can do is try to improve indoors to reduce the difference.

A good percentage of the time yes, it means you would have survived where you otherwise would have perished. On topic, good ventilation design for Covid risk reduction should reduce risk of Covid spread and subsequent deaths. Eventually of course we'll all be dead, but as long as we are happy it would seem reasonable to delay it as long as possible.

Why wear a seatbelt when you can still be killed while wearing one? Risk reduction.

On a more serious note, anyone else been impressed by how Biden has handled himself as President elect so far?

But will they stand by while the next administration insists on total defunding of every law enforcement agency in America? 😜

At-any-cost is a little strong, but that's a very valid point.

Not what I meant but +1

I'm not against Trump contesting the election in a legal manner. It won't get him anywhere. He can point to anecdotal evidence of illegal voting, but it won't be significant enough to cast doubt on the election for most Americans IMO. At the same time do you see rioting in the streets? Compare with what it would have undoubtedly been like if Trump had won. Both can be true. Hilary can be disliked and Biden can be liked while still have misgivings about Democrat politics. Didn't Biden outperform down-ticket Democrats? That's democracy. They voted. They didn't tell us why. When you think of a better system let us all know.

LOL. That's pretty cynical! Trump of course will be the first to agree though, and the Dems will deny any help toward it from his administration, even if it was a routine one.😷

They participated in the democratic process though, didn't they? ...and for many their vote may have been intended as cast as a vote against the alternative, rather than intended as support for Trump.

Here Biden seems to making an effort in that direction: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/09/joe-biden-coronavirus-task-force-nr-vpx.cnn Hopefully it makes a difference.

Not in California: https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/11/04/california-voters-reject-affirmative-action-measure-despite-summer-of-activism-9424555

Agree with that. Also IMO they lost an opportunity to regain the Senate for venturing as far to the left as they did. I think a reasonably progressive agenda may still be alive and well, just not the AOC version. The battle for the Senate, however, is far from over: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/andrew-yang-moving-atlanta-help-democrats-win-senate-runoffs/BTGI65ATNZHTJMJWFXRLAZV4HU/ Two more Senate seats and the Dems control the Senate, given Kamala Harris has the VP tie breaking vote. (I was quite happy to see Susan Collins win in Maine though)

...and after January 20... plus they have to get him out of there:

I'm suggesting, or at least hoping, that as President elect Biden can have a more positive influence on the pandemic effort, and as a lame duck POTUS Trump might lose some influence on it. That thought did occur to me when I mentioned that, but surely not?? It is on topic though, given the potential for spreading the infection further.

Okay. Then why do you feel the need to say essentially the same thing?

I followed that up with this: Still confused?

I think I've made it pretty clear of the context I intended, at least to anyone reading in good faith. Never did I say there could not be other uses of the word, but if it helps I meant a more formal definition than the broader sense it could be used. Is that clear?

Everything I posted, at least with regard to the current "misunderstanding" is on topic or to support it. Clarifications on semantics included.

What are you talking about dim?

You seem to be struggling with the definition of "context". Is this disingenuously or honestly? Yes. I can use the word policy in the way I described. I can even clarify my usage. But I can't force your understanding.

Policy, in the context I'm using is not something that can be inferred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy Note it mentions "Presidential Executive Orders". Read my posts assuming that's the context and maybe we can dispense with questions like this.

Not by the context I'm using. If you are sure he had a policy to "spin the death toll" then supply a link. I've read anecdotes that the "left" "spun the death toll". I take them with more than a grain of salt, but I don't automatically believe every claim against Trump either. They were generally not correct. Whose were, in hindsight? (and at this point hindsight is far from 20/20). But they certainly weren't as bad as Trump's personal actions, IMO. That said, his idiocy almost certainly exacerbated the situation, but the "went to hell" is not on him alone, by any means.

Clearly we aren't using the same definition of "policy" or "policies". His recklessness and at times outright stupidity with regard to Covid 19 are not policy (my definition). Along the lines of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy

His policies with regard to Covid was the only context intended. (the rest would be off topic) I'm not advocating for Trump's Covid policies but there is some merit in allowing the States to make decisions for there own set of circumstances. If in fact 700 died due to exposure at one of his rallies, or other poor decisions on his part, that is in line with what I said. His Covid policies didn't compel him to do that. That's simply poor judgement, poor leadership, poor safety at his rallies, and setting a poor example. His policies are not as bad as that. He could have had much better outcomes within them. (Biden did)