nick wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 4:57 pm
Anything can be compromised...
agree
But the main argument against it is that there is "loss of custody" problems with mail in ballots. At least with in person voting the custody of the ballot is maintained throughout the process.
I've read that there a few states that already do 100% mail in elections and they don't see any significant amount of fraud so I dunno. I think it all boils down to mail in voting will increase turnout which is not a good thing when it comes to Republicans winning elections.
nick wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 4:57 pm
Anything can be compromised...
agree
But the main argument against it is that there is "loss of custody" problems with mail in ballots. At least with in person voting the custody of the ballot is maintained throughout the process.
I've read that there a few states that already do 100% mail in elections and they don't see any significant amount of fraud so I dunno. I think it all boils down to mail in voting will increase turnout which is not a good thing when it comes to Republicans winning elections.
I guess I don't understand the 100% mail in elections entirely, which states do not have polling stations if it is 100%. Colorado is one of these supposed states, but they have polling places so is it 100% mail in?
I have done the mail in voting for a while now, in Colorado and in Nebraska. I think it boils down for the opposition of it is how are they registered? If that is mail in then I would disagree with that process.
nick wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 4:57 pm
Anything can be compromised...
agree
But the main argument against it is that there is "loss of custody" problems with mail in ballots. At least with in person voting the custody of the ballot is maintained throughout the process.
I've read that there a few states that already do 100% mail in elections and they don't see any significant amount of fraud so I dunno. I think it all boils down to mail in voting will increase turnout which is not a good thing when it comes to Republicans winning elections.
I guess I don't understand the 100% mail in elections entirely, which states do not have polling stations if it is 100%. Colorado is one of these supposed states, but they have polling places so is it 100% mail in?
I have done the mail in voting for a while now, in Colorado and in Nebraska. I think it boils down for the opposition of it is how are they registered? If that is mail in then I would disagree with that process.
Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah.
From what I read those states do 100% by mail elections. Now do they not have polling places open on election day I dunno? The way it read was they don't but maybe it's just everyone has the option to mail it in regardless if they have a reason or not.
Crowes wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 6:50 pm
Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah.
From what I read those states do 100% by mail elections. Now do they not have polling places open on election day I dunno? The way it read was they don't but maybe it's just everyone has the option to mail it in regardless if they have a reason or not.
So it must be they have the option then. Because you can go to a polling station in Colorado. The other states, I don't know as I didn't live there (except Hawaii for 7 years from 95-01).
To be honest I had same thoughts when I first heard him make that quote then I thought about it I found it to be actually pretty logical.
Tests give negatives and we feel a sense of security as if we’re good but we can catch it at any time so unless you’re being tested every day it’s nearly impossible to get any usefulness from the previous negative test in a forward looking sense
Now I don’t know if he meant it that way but I don’t think it’s as dumb of a comment as it comes across as
the lady yesterday in Toronto said (Iunno if shes Ontario Health Minister or Canada) that theyre finding out that asymptomatic people are not spreading it as much as they thought.. which explains nursing homes getting fucked up with recycled air and limited movement/nurses working on multiple patients and spreading it.
Unfortunately Latin America has not paid attention and while the US/Canada and Europe gets better they might be going through the issue we thought could happen if people didnt take it seriously.
COVID-19: Hydroxychloroquine linked to an increased rate of mortality, new study finds
A new study of nearly 15,000 COVID-19 patients published on Friday in the medical journal The Lancet found those being treated with the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are at a higher risk of death and irregular heart rhythms than those not receiving it. Read this and more:
nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 12:19 pm
COVID-19: Hydroxychloroquine linked to an increased rate of mortality, new study finds
A new study of nearly 15,000 COVID-19 patients published on Friday in the medical journal The Lancet found those being treated with the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are at a higher risk of death and irregular heart rhythms than those not receiving it. Read this and more:
good thing your Prez is taking it..
The President taking it is not relevant to that study. This drug is used for other illnesses like Lupus, the drug itself is fine in that regard, it's been tested and around for a looong time. Those Lupus patients aren't at a higher risk of death and irregular heart rhythms because they take it.
The study you're referencing was done on hospitalized with COVID, that is the population at a higher risk of death per the study. Trump is not hospitalized with COVID, so he does not have a higher risk of death and irregular heart rhythms than those not receiving it.
nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 12:19 pm
COVID-19: Hydroxychloroquine linked to an increased rate of mortality, new study finds
A new study of nearly 15,000 COVID-19 patients published on Friday in the medical journal The Lancet found those being treated with the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are at a higher risk of death and irregular heart rhythms than those not receiving it. Read this and more:
good thing your Prez is taking it..
The President taking it is not relevant to that study. This drug is used for other illnesses like Lupus, the drug itself is fine in that regard, it's been tested and around for a looong time. Those Lupus patients aren't at a higher risk of death and irregular heart rhythms because they take it.
The study you're referencing was done on hospitalized with COVID, that is the population at a higher risk of death per the study. Trump is not hospitalized with COVID, so he does not have a higher risk of death and irregular heart rhythms than those not receiving it.
Yea I know it's for Lupus. People with Lupus are experiencing a shortage because of the retards who started taking it cause of the Prez. Now theyre finding through a large sample size study that it doesnt work for covid and actually makes it easier to die. All its doing is fucking over people who actually need it.
nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 12:33 pm
Yea I know it's for Lupus. People with Lupus are experiencing a shortage because of the retards who started taking it cause of the Prez. Now theyre finding through a large sample size study that it doesnt work for covid and actually makes it easier to die. All its doing is fucking over people who actually need it.
nick wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 12:33 pm
Yea I know it's for Lupus. People with Lupus are experiencing a shortage because of the retards who started taking it cause of the Prez. Now theyre finding through a large sample size study that it doesnt work for covid and actually makes it easier to die. All its doing is fucking over people who actually need it.
