Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Abbott to Biden: ‘Neanderthal-Type’ Thinking Is You Releasing COVID-Positive Migrants in Texas

Abbott to Biden: ‘Neanderthal-Type’ Thinking Is You Releasing COVID-Positive Migrants in Texas

Biden said: “The last thing we need is the Neanderthal thinking.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uUkFmPg5bE

Who’s up for more of that sweet Joe Biden brand of unity? President Joe Biden described Texas and Mississippi lifting COVID restrictions as “Neanderthal thinking.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told Biden he has a “Neanderthal-type” approach to COVID because he is okay with releasing COVID positive immigrants in the state.

Biden’s Remarks

Caitlin McFall reports at FOX News:

Biden says Texas and Mississippi guilty of ‘Neanderthal thinking’ over lifting COVID restrictions

President Biden took a swipe at Republican governors in Texas and Mississippi Wednesday, accusing them of “Neanderthal thinking” following their decision to reverse COVID safety policies, including mask mandates.

“We’ve been able to move that all the way up to the end of May to have enough [vaccines] for every American, to get every adult American to get a shot,” Biden told reporters from the White House Wednesday. “The last thing we need is the Neanderthal thinking.”

Despite the warning issued by health officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding a fourth resurgence in coronavirus cases earlier this week, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said all state regulations would be lifted starting Wednesday.

Here’s the video:

Abbott Responds

From Fox News:

GOV. ABBOTT: “The two things, Brian. First, it obviously is not the type of thing that the president should be saying. But, second, he kind of said it on the worst day he could have, because the same day he said that in Texas, the Biden administration was releasing illegal immigrants into our communities who had COVID. The Biden administration was spreading COVID in south Texas yesterday because of their lack of constraint of testing and quarantining people who come across the border illegally. The Biden administration was exposing Texans to COVID. That is a Neanderthal type approach to dealing with the COVID situation.”

..

But, more importantly, with regard to the masks, the change in Texas really wasn’t all that much different from where we were before for a couple of reasons. First, we are still strongly advocating that every Texan follow the best practice. Where we are today is completely different from where we were this time last year when Texans and Americans didn’t know how to deal with this for an entire year. Texans have learned the best practice, and that is to wear a mask. And we still strongly recommend that people do wear a mask.

“When we saw the spikes in cases after Christmas and New Years, we saw that most of those spikes didn’t occur in businesses or in schools or in other locations like that, like retail centers. Most of those transmissions occurred in the home setting where people were not wearing a mask in the first place.

And, so, the mask requirement being eliminated isn’t going to make that big of a change in the state of Texas. Also, people in Texas will continue to wear masks, even though there’s not a state mandate. We are just in a situation now where government mandates are not needed because Texans do know the best practices.”

Reactions

Ted Cruz reacted:

So did Dan Crenshaw:

The Daily Wire speaks for all of us:

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Let’s just call Biden’s policy what it is…domestic terrorism.
Abbott should round them up and ship them to Delaware, Connecticut and Virginia.

    Joe-dallas in reply to scooterjay. | March 5, 2021 at 8:20 am

    Except the migrants probably prefer to stay in Texas since there is a lot more freedom and Jobs.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 5, 2021 at 9:11 am

      Who cares what illegals prefer?

        The law cares. Texas law enforcement has no authority to arrest them, so any order to do so would be illegal and would not be obeyed. Anyone who did obey such an order would himself be arrested and imprisoned.

          texansamurai in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 10:36 am

          no–just no

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 12:26 pm

          “Anyone who did obey such an order would himself be arrested and imprisoned.”

          Well, probably not. They would be told to stop doing it and not do it again.

          But they can detain illegal immigrants and turn them over to ICE. It’s no different than pulling over someone who is wanted on a federal or out of state warrant.

          The problem then is ICE will simply set them free, or refuse to take custody of them, in which case Texas authorities would have to release them.

          What Texas may be able to do is pay for the bus fares for illegals to go to California, New York, or Virginia upon release if ICE refuses to take custody.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | March 6, 2021 at 5:46 am

          Texas law enforcement has the authority to arrest them, that is beyond question.

          They may not be justified if the only cause is illegal crossing of the border, but of course, being an illegal alien does not provide these people with a get-out-of-jail card for murder, drug-related crimes, rape, loitering, and any one of a myriad possible violations of the law.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 6, 2021 at 7:48 pm

          Felix, you know very well that I did not suggest or even hint that they were somehow immune from arrest if they committed a crime against Texas. But the default case is that they have not, and the only grounds for anyone to arrest them is their illegal status; and Texas law enforcement has no authority to do that.

          Sir Robbin, if Abbott were to issue an order to “round them up”, as scooterjay calls for, anyone who attempted to obey that order would be arrested and charged with kidnapping and various civil rights offenses.

Biden could sing the Teapot Song with the same impact as anything scrolling across his teleprompter. For best results, set him free to ad lib, stream his consciousness, share his life stories and speak truth to the breeze.

“I’m a Little Teapot”Lyrics

I’m a little teapot
Short and stout
Here is my handle
(one hand on hip)
Here is my spout
(other arm out straight)

When I get all steamed up
Hear me shout
“Tip me over
and pour me out!”
(lean over toward spout)

I’m a clever teapot,
Yes it’s true
Here let me show you
What I can do
I can change my handle
And my spout
(switch arm positions)
Just tip me over and pour me out!
(lean over toward spout)

    WestRock in reply to NotKennedy. | March 5, 2021 at 8:09 am

    Do not, I repeat Do Not put cues like (lean over toward spout) on Celtic’s TelePrompter. The POTUS will read them.

    Once again, Do Not put cues on Celtic’s TelePrompter as he will read them.

    – WH C.o.S.

Most of California’s more recent COVID cases came from across the border. That’s how the ethnic mix in San Diego County went from an even cross-section of the community to half hispanic.

Biden is facilitating a new wave of infection in Texas and California. The is unconscionable.

Lucifer Morningstar | March 5, 2021 at 8:16 am

Biden is facilitating a new wave of infection in Texas and California.

Which will then spread across the country to other states thus mandating continued triple masking, mandated lockdowns, school closings, restrictions on gatherings and on and on . . .

Now that they have the illegitimate authority the PTB will never let it end.

(And if you don’t believe me I just read an article about “post covid-19 syndrome”. I kid you not. It will never end.)

Antifundamentalist | March 5, 2021 at 8:38 am

How else is Biden supposed to get his predicted 4th resurgence without importing new COVID cases?

texansamurai | March 5, 2021 at 9:25 am

abbot should close the southern border of texas on his own–just do it–believe he would have a great deal of support from all over the country

    gonzotx in reply to texansamurai. | March 5, 2021 at 9:56 am

    Exactly! I have called his office, where you can NEVER speak to an individual, and left messages to this^

    Put the Texas National Guard down there!

    Enough!

    Milhouse in reply to texansamurai. | March 5, 2021 at 10:29 am

    He can’t. He has no authority to do so. If he gave such an order it would not be obeyed, because the people who got the order would know that if they obeyed it they would be arrested.

      texansamurai in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 10:37 am

      no, again

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 12:38 pm

      Actually, he does have such authority. National Guard under state control can enforce the state laws. Texas just has to pay for it.

      So, when they see someone breaking a federal law, they can act, arrest, and detain. Again, if the federal authorities decline to take custody, they will need to release the detained individuals. But during that process, information about the detained individuals can be collected that could be useful later.

      Also, again, when they released the detained illegal alien because of federal disinterest, they could offer the illegal a paid bus fare and some food money to someplace like California or ew York, a sort of “Welcome to Texas – now leave” gesture.

      I believe all that would be possible.

        Joe-dallas in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | March 5, 2021 at 5:39 pm

        Actually neither Abbott or any state government has authority. There is at least one, maybe two that held that immigration policy and enforcement is belongs to the federal government and state governments have no authority.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 5, 2021 at 7:08 pm

          No, they cannot “enforce” immigration law. This is true, but they can detain and refer the matter to the federal authorities. This is not enforcement. Like I said, if the feds decline to enforce and place a hold or take custody of the detainees, Texas authorities would have to release.

          Enforcement is arrest, trial, sanction.

          Local authorities can hold someone suspected of being in the country illegally for 48 hours on a detention request after a reasonable time given to investigate in the person has committed a suspected crime. Though this is not really defined, most jurisdictions adhere to a 72 hour rule.

          I am sure the Biden administration would sue to block this process, but the claim would be that states cannot support federal law enforcement, that is, when state authorities notice a violation of federal law, they are to nothing about it.

          OK, let’s go there. If the federal government passes some stupid infringement on the 2nd amendment, state and local officials can simply ignore it and refuse cooperate. Let them enforce strict federalism. “Sorry, that’s a federal matter. We can’t help.” It will work to our advantage.

          Milhouse in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 6, 2021 at 7:57 pm

          If the federal government passes some stupid infringement on the 2nd amendment, state and local officials can simply ignore it and refuse cooperate. Let them enforce strict federalism. “Sorry, that’s a federal matter. We can’t help.”

          Of course. But not just an infringement. An infringement isn’t even a law, so of course state and local officials not only don’t have to cooperate, it’s their duty not to.

          But suppose congress passes some non-infringing law, or the government makes some non-infringing regulation. Suppose it’s been all the way to the supreme court, which says 9-0 that yes, the feds get to do this. The tenth amendment says state and local authorities still don’t have to cooperate in enforcing it, and states can make laws banning such cooperation by local authorities.

          That’s why the sheriffs who refused to do the background checks under the original Brady Bill won their case; the supreme court said it was unconstitutional to compel them. And it’s why “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” are legal and Trump was unable to do anything about them. And it goes all the way back to free states resisting federal slave catchers. The courts at the time said they couldn’t arrest the slave catchers, but they could forbid policemen in their states from cooperating with them.

        Milhouse in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | March 6, 2021 at 8:05 pm

        So, when they see someone breaking a federal law, they can act, arrest, and detain.

        Not when the feds have told them not to.

This whataboutism type argument is really disingenuous. Abbot attacking a different policy isn’t a defence of his policy. If he is standing by his policy that’s fine but at least defend it not attacking something else entirely.

    TrickyRicky in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 9:41 am

    Abbot’s policy needs no defending to rational people.
    Biden’s policy is indefensible.

      mark311 in reply to TrickyRicky. | March 5, 2021 at 10:13 am

      Tricky Ricky:
      Abbots Policy: Its rational to prevent the transmission of a virus we still know is present in population at scale. It is irrational to pretend that the crisis is somehow over.

      Bidens Policy: Agreed

        Milhouse in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 10:39 am

        It is irrational to believe that masks do anything. That goes for Abbott too.

          Milhouse: It is irrational to believe that masks do anything.

          Which is why doctors never wear masks.

          drednicolson in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 11:09 am

          Disingenuous. Medical-grade masks, in a sterile field, keep anything the doctors’ may have from spreading to open incisions during surgery. The same masks in open everyday air offer dubious protection at best.

          Non-medical grade masks are right out useless either way.

          drednicolson: Medical-grade masks, in a sterile field, keep anything the doctors’ may have from spreading to open incisions during surgery.

          Masks only offer partial protections. The latest data is that a single mask provides 60% protection. A cloth mask over a medical mask provides 95% protection. That assumes everyone wears a mask. Otherwise, the protection drops even for those who wear a mask. There’s no perfect protection, especially when the population is swimming in contagion.

          The purpose of mask-wearing and social distancing is not just for immediate protection, but to drive the reproduction number below one, at which point the virus will recede.
          https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/mask-fit-and-filtration.html

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 12:00 pm

          Zach, I understand that duct tape provides 100% protection.
          Show us all how to be the change you want to see in the world.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 12:59 pm

          “Masks only offer partial protections. The latest data is that a single mask provides 60% protection. A cloth mask over a medical mask provides 95% protection.”

          Masks, surgical or otherwise, do not protect anyone against aerosolized viral dispersion. They do not wear masks in a BLS-4 laboratory because this would be useless and dangerous. They wear containment suites that are completely impermeable to liquid and air and have external air supply.

          Data now very strongly suggests COVID is spread through prolonged aerosolized exposure, not droplets. The masks are therefore completely useless, even if correctly worn, since if you can breathe through them, viral transmission is possible. So, people sitting around wearing masks thinking they are safe are in fact wrong, and giving that advice helps continue rather than hinder the spread.

          Lastly, there has been a growing body of evidence that mask wearing in surgical settings is also rather pointless. Surgeons have been migrating to the use of clear face shields and N-95 masks. Both are impermeable and stop all droplets. The N-95 works via a valve while the mask material is more or less impermeable, so droplets cannot pass through. But both schemes allow free flow of air, and therefore, aerosolized particles that spread the aerosolized virus, and are useless to that end. Again, note what is worn in BLS-4 labs.

          Lastly and finally, if masks worked, why is everyone catching COVID. The observation is so obvious. It’s why the idiots are now calling for “double masking” since single masking is so very obviously ineffective.

          Follow the science, which means learn from experience and do not hold on to theory and dogma in the face of contradicting, and in this case, overwhelmingly contradicting, evidence.

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 6:41 pm

          @ n.n

          Those are interesting links, you do need to be careful how you use them though.

          Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study:

          This is an old study from 1991 with limited detail on the study. It doesn’t give any details of the type of mask or the potential hazards.

          Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers.

          I quote from it “Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.”

          Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses:

          I quote “There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.”

          That meta analysis latest study was from April 2020, we have more studies since then. Given that the efficy of masks is a topic of very high importance.

          These articles discusses the issues very well including a large number of references:

          https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

          https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | March 6, 2021 at 2:00 am

          “The studies show a modest increase in protection when using masks.”

          The studies do not show that. The Danish study you sited posited the possibility that mask wearing could be either beneficial or harmful, but whichever it was could not be determined. This was a very large study that could not find statistical significance to the hypothesis or null hypothesis. The bottom line is mask wearing could not be shown to be helpful, and may possibly be harmful. Not at all a ringing endorsement.

          Many of the studies often cited simply look at the ability of various mask configurations to block spittle. If the virus spreads, as is likely, via aerosolized dispersal, the mask could be 100% effective at blocking spittle and do nothing at all to block or restrict the spread of the virus. Let’s say I design a helmet that gives 100% protection from being hit in the head with a baseball bat. It will do little good if the threat is being shot with firearms. Same concept. The mask is likely protecting against a non-existent or very insignificant threat.

          Even if it were spread by spittle to some degree, a reduction in spittle does not necessarily equate to reduction in viral spread and infection. Let’s say I design a bullet proof vest that stops 95% of all bullets fired at you, but you get hit with 100 bullets a minute. How long will you last? So those studies are fundamentally flawed. A reduction in spittle does not necessary equate to any much less proportional rate of reduction in infection.

          Places with no mask mandate and poor mask compliance and lock downs actually have a lower rate of infection and death. And I will be glad to rip apart any study that attempts to claim otherwise. And I will state once again, if masks worked, why is everyone catching COVID, and why are some “authorities” recommending double masking?

          The answer is quite obvious, because masking does not work and they are doubling down on failure. No, let’s not try and think through the problem and do something different, let’s just more of what does not work. But if they did abandon the mask mantra, they would have to admit they are ignoramuses who tossed away hundreds of years or sound medical practice and possibly get blamed for 100’s of thousands of deaths, and even look like fools, which does not seem to impede Anthony Fauci, however.

          And yes, wearing “PPE” that can protect you from viral infection is, indeed, completely impractical, and anything less than airtight biocontainment suits is completely useless, and pointless if not in a BSL-4 lab.

          There are simple means to protect people against viral spread, and that is being outside or in well ventilated spaces. Open the windows, and open the doors, and get some fans running.

          Fresh air and sunshine is considered healthful because it is. And if you live in a place with poor ventilation, which is more common in modern construction for HVAC efficiency, you need to spend MORE TIME AWAY FROM HOME and not locked-down with other people. You are not going to catch this in a Walmart with 20 foot ceilings and total air replacement every 15 minutes. (I would avoid 45 minutes on a packed subway, however).

          You want to visit grandma in a nursing home? Fine. No problem. Visit out doors, no masks, or place a fan directing air out a window and sit between her and the fan. And if you are still concerned about spittle, don’t where a mask, or two, or three, wear a clear face shield that in completely 100% impermeable and will allow her to see your face. And yes, also get checked for fever, and wash and sanitize before your visit. That’s always a good thing to do when visiting old, sick, frail people who will be killed by just about anything they catch like the common cold that will quickly result in pneumonia, for instance.

          Or you can follow the “science” and pretend you will both be safe as long as you wear a mask. It’s completely irresponsible and history will not look kindly on these buffoons.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | March 6, 2021 at 6:16 am

          @BraveSirRobbin

          Data now very strongly suggests COVID is spread through prolonged aerosolized exposure, not droplets. The masks are therefore completely useless, even if correctly worn, since if you can breathe through them, viral transmission is possible.

          Is it possible that wearing a mask could prolong exposure instead of preventing it? Masks may prevent maybe a droplet here and there, but it seems unlikely they are 100% effective.
          In fact, if the masks supposedly protect you from the outside and the outside from you, the mask prevents a certain portion of viral load from penetrating it in either direction, I would assume.

          Let’s say a mask is 90% effective at preventing viral load from crossing. Would that not mean that a mask traps 1% of the viral load from the outside inside the map and prolong exposure to that 1%? Is it possible that this effectively negates any positive effect or even results in an increase of infection?

          Are there any studies that address this question?

          Brave Sir Robin: Follow the science

          We cited an article from the CDC, which cited numerous scientific studies. Masks do not provide perfect protection, but when universally worn are effective at limiting the spread of COVID-19.

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | March 6, 2021 at 3:19 pm

          @Brave Sir Robbin

          1) I didn’t cite a Danish study n.n did and that study was very limited and early on the pandemic in its conclusion it states that masks could reduce Covid transmission between 46% to plus 23% that’s a huge range of results and that’s states within the study . The science has moved on since then.

          If you actually read the link from nature and CDC you’ll note that they cite a number of studies. You seem to have ignored the fact I’ve already cited an article which states that there is a 4x difference between cases where masks were used. So feel free to give me your rebuttal.

          No one is saying that masks would make you completely safe that’s just BS, it’s part of a package of measures.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 6, 2021 at 8:32 pm

          What Brave Sir Robbin said.

          Medical staff wear masks during surgery not to stop viruses they may be exhaling, but in case they cough or sneeze they don’t want it getting into an open incision.

          Sailors in the middle of the ocean have got the virus, more than 14 days after leaving land. Clearly it traveled to them as an aerosol, covering hundreds or thousands of miles.

        Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 11:46 am

        It is irrational to do more damage to people trying to prevent a disease that 99.98% of people survive than the disease would cause in the first place.

          Ironclaw: It is irrational to do more damage to people trying to prevent a disease that 99.98% of people survive than the disease would cause in the first place.

          You are off on the fatality rate of COVID-19 by about a factor of 20.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Ironclaw. | March 5, 2021 at 1:09 pm

          “You are off on the fatality rate of COVID-19 by about a factor of 20.”

          So you mean 99.96%? Actually, it is in between the two of you for the population writ large. It is very much lower for you people in good health, but very much higher for older people, including the very old and frail, and people with certain health problems.

          To make that very larger low at risk population do things that prove to be ineffective, and perhaps counterproductive at disease control such as mask wearing and lock downs is the height of insanity. Resources for mitigation and control should be focused on the at risk sectors of the population, and those actually sick. We have been doing this for hundreds of years, and suddenly we decide to throw all experience and SCIENCE out the window to copy some authoritarian regime’s draconian approach to disease control.

          Oh, and by the way, why did they take this incredible response to lock down entire cities and regions, because they knew it came out of the Wuhan laboratory and a bioweapons program. There is no other reason for them to have reacted in that way.

          mark311 in reply to Ironclaw. | March 5, 2021 at 3:17 pm

          Even if you were right about the death rate (Which you aren’t) you are misrepresenting the figures. We know that the death rate scales with age. So the older you are the likely hood of death increases. I’m led to understand it isn’t a linear relationship either but more akin to an exponential scaling.

          mark311 in reply to Ironclaw. | March 5, 2021 at 3:31 pm

          @Brave Sir Robbin

          I’ve sent you numerous links to science articles and studies that categorically disprove your position on masks and lockdowns. The science doesn’t support your position at all.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Ironclaw. | March 5, 2021 at 7:11 pm

          Mark:

          They simply do not. And I know what I am talking about.

          But feel free to go into a BLS-4 lab wearing nothing more than a mask. Hell, wear two, three, even four.

          Please make me a beneficiary on you life insurance policy. Please.

          mark311 in reply to Ironclaw. | March 5, 2021 at 8:18 pm

          With respect Brave Sir Robbin the science does not support your position at all. The studies show a modest increase in protection when using masks. Your analogy with a lab doesn’t really apply because we are talking about a general situation with social distancing being included within the protective measures. We aren’t talking about preventing every case of covid within the general population we are talking about restricting the spread so that the r number gets to below 1. That’s the basic principle. No one is expecting everyone to wear a full set of PPE because that wouldn’t be feasible instead a range of measures are instituted which we know cause a decrease in covid transmission.

          “preprint study4 posted in early August (and not yet peer reviewed), found that weekly increases in per-capita mortality were four times lower in places where masks were the norm or recommended by the government, compared with other regions.”

          https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

          Brave Sir Robbin: So you mean 99.96%?

          The sentence wasn’t clear, but the use of the word “survive” suggests the infection fatality rate, which is about about 0.4% not 0.02%. Indeed, the population fatality rate is already 0.16% and still growing.

        mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 8:04 am

        @Brave sure Robbin and Milhouse

        Neither of you have cited a single source supporting your position so with respect to the science why should I care what you say?

        Further to your comments about surgeons masks they are used for multiple reasons including the one you state but also to prevent bodily fluids transmitting from patient to surgeon or other medical staff. It’s a practical point as well as offering some modest protection to virus load

    The Biden* administration’s decision to deliberately release COVID-19 positive illegals into the country is reckless and dangerous. Whining about “whataboutism” won’t change that fact.

      If you are going to create a coherent argument addressing the question at hand is preferable to distracting from it. Whataboutism is a distraction, in other words its not a defence. Its not relevant.

    Milhouse in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 10:37 am

    “Whataboutism” is a false fallacy (i.e. it is not in fact a fallacy, it’s made up by disingenuous people to deflect legitimate criticism).

    It is not at all a fallacy to point out that if Biden were really concerned about spreading the Wuhan virus he wouldn’t be deliberately spreading it himself by releasing into the community hundreds of illegal immigrants who have tested positive, not to mention encouraging tens of thousands who have not been tested and are likely carriers to cross the border.

    In Abbott’s judgment, which is far sounder and more informed than Biden’s, there is simply no need in Texas for a mask mandate. There is no science behind it. Insisting on it is indeed “Neanderthal thinking” or worse. But closing the border at such a time is common sense, and yet Biden has deliberately opened it. Calling this “Whataboutism” only discredits you.

      Milhouse: “Whataboutism” is a false fallacy

      Whataboutism is a fallacy of diversion.

      Milhouse: It is not at all a fallacy to point out that if Biden were really concerned about spreading the Wuhan virus he wouldn’t be deliberately spreading it himself by releasing into the community hundreds of illegal immigrants who have tested positive

      That wouldn’t necessarily be a fallacy, as it would tend to impeach the actor. However, people applying for refugee status must test negative before crossing the border, so it would not be deliberate.
      https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/fact-check-are-migrants-with-covid-19-being-released-into-texas/

      You could argue it is an unnecessary risk.

      Milhouse: There is no science behind it.

      Abbott is belatedly advocating mask wearing, just not mandating it.

      mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2021 at 3:21 pm

      I’m surprised you don’t know the fallacy. I’m sure you’ve pointed this issue out in other posts before? And for reference the question is defined by the nature of the article which is based entirely on that fallacy and then repeated by others. Abbott is defending his policy with a fallacy that’s just a fact and an inescapable one.

        FOAF in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 4:31 pm

        There is no “fallacy” from Abbott, he is correctly stating that Biden’s open border policy is allowing covid-infected illegals to enter the country. The fallacies are in your trolling comments here.

          mark311 in reply to FOAF. | March 5, 2021 at 5:15 pm

          You’ve missed the point entirely. A criticism of Bidens immigration policy is totally separate from Abbots lack of mask mandate. Abbot saying Bidens policy is shit doesn’t tell us anything about whether using masks is justified at all. It doesn’t tell us if death rates have gone up or down or infection rates or indeed anything. It’s not relevant at all.

          And further to your comment about Bidens immigration policy I haven’t defended that. And again still not relevant.

          It would be like saying that if person A gets taken to court and then that persons defence is that Person B has a parking ticket. No one cares because it’s unrelated.

        Milhouse in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 8:44 pm

        I certainly “know” the “fallacy”. And I’m telling you that it is not a fallacy. Calling it one is itself a fallacy.

        The two policies are completely related, because they’re both about the Wuhan virus. Biden claims that not forcing people to wear useless face diapers is “neanderthal thinking”, but at the same time he is inviting thousands of disease carriers to infiltrate our borders, and welcoming them with open arms when they do, allowing them to blend into the community. That disqualifies him from criticizing anyone for going against his mask fetish.

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | March 7, 2021 at 8:15 am

          And yet you don’t seem to understand that they are separate and distinct questions. If Abbott was addressing the question which was his policy then he should defend his policy not critique a different policy. As I’ve said before saying Bidens policy is bad doesn’t tell us anything about Abbots policy. Hence being a fallacy.

    drednicolson in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 10:57 am

    Complaining about whataboutism is the new whataboutism.

      mark311 in reply to drednicolson. | March 5, 2021 at 3:09 pm

      No it’s called pointing out the flaw in your logic. Or out another way pointing out a fallacy in the reasoning. In context I’m not interested in an argument about Bidens policy on immigration when the discussion at hand is Abbots policy. That is as relevant as stating that unicorns are responsible for aids. Not fucking relevent.

        FOAF in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 4:32 pm

        “not fucking relevant”

        I like the subtlety of your argument. However it is 100% relevant when Biden’s open border policies are more responsible for the spread of covid than anything Abbott is doing.

          mark311 in reply to FOAF. | March 5, 2021 at 5:16 pm

          That’s a separate question, I happen to agree that’s it’s dumb to open the borders in the current crisis. Never the less it’s still a different question.

          Milhouse in reply to FOAF. | March 6, 2021 at 8:49 pm

          No, it’s the same question. It means Biden doesn’t give a **** about spreading the Wuhan virus and therefore has no business criticizing Abbott’s policies, let alone calling them “neanderthal thinking”.

          Mark, have a read of What About Whataboutism, and the long article linked from there.

          mark311 in reply to FOAF. | March 9, 2021 at 6:09 pm

          @Milhouse

          With due respect it really isn’t. The whole point of the fallacy is that by asserting that by citing Bidens immigration policy as being a hypocritical action that it somehow justifies Abbots policy which it clearly doesn’t.

          The article you link too doesn’t actually understand why the fallacy is a fallacy. Its because the hypocritical action is being used as a justification for the original action that makes it a fallacy. In this instance the policy is no mask mandate which increases the risk of covid transmission saying some other action or policy increases covid transmission doesn’t provide any for of justification for the no mask mandate.

          Its well understood from a argumentation perspective that its a fallacy its technical name is Tuo Quoque. Answering criticism with criticism is a fallacy.

    henrybowman in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 11:59 am

    It’s not whataboutism when Biden accuses Abbot of killing Neanderthal grannies with a mask policy, and Abbot responds that Biden’s immigration policy is the one much more likely to kill Neanderthal grannies. It’s the exact same relevant accusation.

    Damn dog-faced Neanderthal ponies, I want to meet them behind the barn and beat them up!

      mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | March 5, 2021 at 3:29 pm

      What’s immigration policy got to do with a mask mandate

        henrybowman in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 5:39 pm

        THEY BOTH (PURPORTEDLY) AFFECT THE SPREAD OF COVID.
        That’s the WHOLE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT.
        Sorry for the caps, but I suspect you’re “hard of reading.”
        It is hypocrisy to ding an opponent for “spreading COVID” when you are actively spreading more COVID than he is.

          mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | March 5, 2021 at 6:45 pm

          You still missing the point, pointing out another instance of a bad policy doesn’t defend the first policy. Its the equivalent of saying my policy is bad but so is yours. Still not a defence.

    FOAF in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 4:29 pm

    Except the policy he is attacking has far more negative impact than the policy Biden attacked. Once again mark proves himself to be a propagandizing troll.

    felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 5:23 pm

    Mark, Governor Abbott is not guilty of “whataboutism” in this instance. Watch the entire segment.

    The question was about Biden’s “unifying” invective calling Republican governors Neanderthals (and no, Psaki’s excuse that Biden was just talking about actions instead of actors is absurd on its face and deliberately misconstrues the setting – it is not an academic paper but a public statement) and not about Abbot’s policies.

    Governor Abbot nevertheless went ahead and explained what Texas’ policy is and expressly stated, for deliberately obtuse people like Biden and his minions, that not mandating masks is not the same as prohibiting masks. In Texas citizens are trusted to act responsibly even without government coercion.
    Data supports this approach, as it is by now obvious that mask mandates cannot be shown to work. In any case, the increase in liberty more than compensates for any foreseeable increase of risk.

      mark311 in reply to felixrigidus. | March 7, 2021 at 10:50 pm

      Hi Felix,

      I’ll take your word that the segment goes on and discusses a proper rebuttal on the question at hand. Thank you for that – teach me to read a summary ha.

      I have to admit I’m not convinced by the idea of personal responsibility vs mask mandate. Its not very logical, most people take personal responsibility not to steal and beat people up that doesn’t mean having a law against it is a bad thing. In this scenario a temporary mask mandate makes sense.

      I’m not really convinced the data does show your position to be correct. There is persistent data on the efficy of masks and that efficy increases the more masks are adopted. If you do have a data source id be happy to take a look.

        felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | March 10, 2021 at 5:27 am

        Mark, sorry for the delay.
        First of all, you can look at the (reported) infection rates in different states and countries. There is no clear pattern that suggests that mask mandates lead to “better” results.
        How would it work? I can only imagine the theory would be that the government mandating mask-wearing increases mask-wearing and thereby reduces the effective spread of the virus. Mandates are not the only way to influence behavior. Propaganda works as well. So if you can scare people into wearing masks you might have higher compliance rates than with a simple mandate. People might also be convinced that it is in their own best interest to wear masks in certain circumstances.
        As for masks and their benefits, that would depend on the mask used, proper usage, if there is a reason to wear the mask in the first place, and many, many more factors. For instance, wearing a mask in the middle of nowhere or in a sterile environment when you are alone will have precisely zero effect on your chance to catch the virus then and there.
        Put these together and look at the data (however difficult it is to compare due to different reporting standards) of different countries in the world or of the different states of the United States. The differences don’t allow the conclusion that “because of a mask mandate” state X has a lower infection rate than state Y that did not mandate masks. And remember that one argument of pro-mask mandate folks was/is that the lack of catastrophic exponential infections in countries without mask mandates is due to the fact that the people adapted their behavior to the perceived threat and took precautions even though they were not forced to do so by the government?

        Finally, the burden of proof rests with those wanting to infringe on the freedom of others. It may be enough to give a rational theory on why and how your action is likely to produce a certain result, but with changing data these rationales need to be revisited. The fact that Dr. Fauci changed his mind on masks does not necessarily mean he is a fraud, but his newfound love for “double—really it is only common sense—masking seems to show that the mandate to wear one mask is outdated.

          felixrigidus: There is no clear pattern that suggests that mask mandates lead to “better” results.

          “Mandating masks was associated with a decrease in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.”
          https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | March 10, 2021 at 12:08 pm

          Zachriel, your link makes my point.
          Let me quote from it:

          Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period. During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties. Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.

          The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, although models controlled for mask mandates, restaurant and bar closures, stay-at-home orders, and gathering bans, the models did not control for other policies that might affect case and death rates, including other types of business closures, physical distancing recommendations, policies issued by localities, and variances granted by states to certain counties if variances were not made publicly available. Second, compliance with and enforcement of policies were not measured. Finally, the analysis did not differentiate between indoor and outdoor dining, adequacy of ventilation, and adherence to physical distancing and occupancy requirements.

          felixrigidus: your link makes my point.

          Your point was “There is no clear pattern that suggests that mask mandates lead to ‘better’ results.”

          While there are limitations to the study, just as there are in every study, there is a clear pattern supported by the evidence — contrary to your claim. This may not prove causation due to the said limitations, but it is certainly a “pattern that suggests that mask mandates lead to ‘better’ results.”

          Perhaps, a well-organized society with effective leadership could possibly have gotten the same result without a mandate, but that wasn’t the United States in 2020.

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | March 10, 2021 at 8:16 pm

          You are quite wrong. The study you claim shows a worldwide clear pattern that “mask mandates work” looks at data from the United States exclusively, states explicitly that this data does not show any impact of mask mandates with statistical significance, and points out various possibly confounding factors.
          So, no, that early release of one study in March 2021 does not provide the pattern. You obviously wish it does. But it does not. Sorry.

          felixrigidus: The study you claim shows a worldwide clear pattern that “mask mandates work” looks at data from the United States exclusively, states explicitly that this data does not show any impact of mask mandates with statistical significance

          From the study: “Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation.”

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | March 11, 2021 at 7:48 am

          Zachriel, in our exchange, you failed to address pertinent points and claim that one study that is a few days old somehow provides justification for lockdown mandates half a year ago.

          Let me remind you of what you haven’t addressed:

          The claim you purport to refute was
          look at the (reported) infection rates in different states and countries. There is no clear pattern that suggests that mask mandates lead to “better” results.
          Why is this important? Because leaving out the first part of the claim allows you to pretend that
          There is no clear pattern that suggests that mask mandates lead to “better” results.
          is the claim that
          Nowhere in the world has any data been found that could be interpreted as suggesting that under certain conditions mask mandates can have any positive effect
          which is wildly different from what the actual claim is.
          For example, the study you cite looks not at countries or states but counties. We are not talking about local mandates but statewide mandates. It is highly doubtful that there is any direct applicability, especially given the fact that the researchers themselves seem to think that there is a difference between the county and state level that justifies using the more local data.

          A search of the document reveals three instances of “not statistically significant(1x(/different(2x)” while “statistically significant” is found five times, namely in the sentence you quoted, three times in the definitions of statistical significance, and once in the negative. If you are keeping track that is a 3:1 ratio. Given that it is in direct conflict with the data part of the study it might be an editing mistake or a conclusion from the studies they cite to a bit later.

          Even this study is not at all clear evidence for the efficacy of mask mandates and does not even come close to claiming so. Note that the authors carefully avoid suggesting anything but at best “association” not even “correlation”, let alone “causation” and expressly note the limited scope of this study.

          I’ll just mention that your approach would also invert the burden of proof, and therefore is not convincing.

          felixrigidus: Let me remind you of what you haven’t addressed:

          What we did address was your claim that the study “states explicitly that this data does not show any impact of mask mandates with statistical significance”. That was false.

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | March 11, 2021 at 12:50 pm

          I have been debating whether you are arguing in good faith or not. This last comment shows you are not.

          (1) You purposely ignore that the subject is statewide or nationwide mask mandates, not mask mandates on a local level. The study you cite deals with local data and therefore cannot support your position.
          (2) You will not explain how the study supports the claim of statistical significant impact of mask mandates when the data on that question that the study actually provides is “not statistically significant” or “not statistically different”.

          Until you address the actual point a continuation would be futile, so I anticipate that this will be my last comment on this issue here.

          felixrigidus: I have been debating whether you are arguing in good faith or not.

          That’s the difference between us. We assume you are arguing in good faith, but, like many people, develop a blindspot when the evidence contradicts your position.

          (1) You ignore that you said the paper did not find a statistically significant correlation when the paper specifically said otherwise:

          Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation.

          felixrigidus: the study actually provides is “not statistically significant” or “not statistically different”.

          You should read the entire sections involved. Taking just the first, it refers to lifting restaurant restrictions, not mask mandates. The correlation doesn’t occur in the first 40 days, but does after 40 days.

          Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted. Allowing on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with 0.9 (p = 0.02), 1.2 (p<0.01), and 1.1 (p = 0.04) percentage point increases in the case growth rate 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after restrictions were lifted

          Now, you might argue the study is in error, or that causation is not shown due to confounding factors, but that wasn’t what you said. You misrepresented the paper, and then took particular phrases out of context in your latest comment.

The Biden administration was spreading COVID in south Texas yesterday because of their lack of constraint of testing and quarantining people who come across the border illegally.

Actually, the people involved are crossing the border legally and applying for asylum at the border. They were tested before entering the United States. After being released, some tested positive.
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/fact-check-are-migrants-with-covid-19-being-released-into-texas/

Right, all the criminals were tested and got covid in the US

You are nuts!

Mexico has one of the highest covid rates in the world as does Central America

But they got their covid here lol

    gonzotx: all the criminals were tested and got covid in the US

    The immigrants involved didn’t cross the border illegally, but have been waiting in Mexico to apply for legal refugee status. They all tested negative before entry. The tests are not completely accurate, so there will be some who test negative then positive without having recently acquired the disease.

    mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | March 5, 2021 at 3:27 pm

    Compared to the state’s Mexico has a far lower case rate of covid

    https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&country=USA~MEX&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&hideControls=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=total_cases&pickerSort=desc

    So stating that they got Covid in the States whilst not confirmed is entirely plausible especially in light of a negative Covid test at the border.

      henrybowman in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 6:04 pm

      First off, do you even know the difference between a “rate” and a “number?” The USA has a heck of a lot more people than Mexico. You can’t post a URL for an absolute number and then talk about “rates.”

      Second, if you examine some of the other measurements, you’ll quickly come to the conclusion that Mexican case rates are low because COVID is highly under-diagnosed in Mexico.

      The US test rate is slightly more than 100 tests per 100 people. The Mexican test rate is under 4 per 100 people. Yet, the total death rate from COVID is roughly comparable in the two countries, and the current (“new”) death rate is now higher in Mexico.

      Realize that a “case” is a positive test result, whether or not it results in mere symptoms, serious illness, death, or nothing at all. If you don’t do tests, the only “cases” you count are in hospitals and morgues. In the USA, there are lots of tests, therefore lots of “cases,” many of which are non-serious.

      Bottom line: US numbers reflect quite accurately the population of “carriers.” Mexican numbers don’t.

        mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | March 5, 2021 at 6:50 pm

        Firstly the rate is expressed as x per million taking into account population differences

        Secondly you make a good point about under reporting how significant that figure is would be difficult to know but point taken.

      txvet2 in reply to mark311. | March 5, 2021 at 8:09 pm

      Most of the illegals aren’t Mexican.

        mark311 in reply to txvet2. | March 5, 2021 at 8:21 pm

        That makes the question more complicated but it doesn’t negate the fact that the US has amongst the worst case rates in the world.

          txvet2 in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 12:14 am

          No, that makes your comment bullshit.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 3:24 pm

          @txvet

          No doesn’t it makes it harder to analyse, its a fair point to say the data set is poor but it’s not a fair point to say that the US couldn’t be a transmission vector given what we know about the number of cases.

          If you are going to call BS on an argument just because you don’t like it that doesn’t reflect well on you.

texansamurai | March 5, 2021 at 1:34 pm

zach–don’t you know who owns/operates kxan ?

they’ve been spinning/broadcasting bs for decades–in any case, why limit immigrants to only ” legal ” ones, as you’ve referenced–they represent a very small minority of “immigrants” that cross the border 24/7–why should ANY who test positive be released into the general population? ANY?

Gropey Joe is so slow, Greg Abbott could run circles around him.

They must be nervous about this one, they have two paid trolls commenting here today.

Your right about that Mark, you state opinions, not facts

    mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | March 5, 2021 at 6:51 pm

    With reference to what , i’ve made a number of different comments so you are going to have to be specific

“Neanderthal” means Biden accepts the notion that a being without a human soul can be the cause of a being with one; that a lower being can be the cause of a higher being. That cause and effect don’t apply to everything. That induction and deduction don’t apply to cognition and reasoning. That thought is not immaterial. Rrrrrring! Wake up Joe!

felixrigidus | March 6, 2021 at 5:38 am

Why is Xiden wearing a mask? His incoherent mumbling is bad enough without it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend