Politics & Stuff

[NikkiCFC 8,337]

4 hours ago, chippy said:

From everything I've heard, Sanders is the American version of Corbyn. So there's your answer.

They don't do extreme Left anymore than we do!

 

 

 

 

[Vesper 30,226]

4 hours ago, chippy said:

If America is so nasty, racist and "fucked up" why do so many millions of people from all across the world go and live there or would like to like to live there? 

More people from different backgrounds get to the top of their chosen profession  than any other country I can think of. 

Sure, there are racists there (including very anti white and anti jewish black racists) but no more so than most other countries.

Also, the demonising of people like Trump and Boris really isn't working. In fact, results shows the more the Left demonises them the more they push away their moderate, centre Left supporters. I come from a traditional Labour supporting family and not one of us would dream of voting for them these days and there are millions and millions more like us who've been pushed away.

 

 

Of all the OECD countries, the only nation with LOWER upward social mobility than the US is the UK. In other words, the odds are vastly stacked against the average American when it comes to moving from the lowest quintile (the lowest 20%) to the highest quintile (the highest 20%).

It is so ironic to hear a Trump fan reference immigrant vigour as a form of strength for the nation (which I do agree with) when the entire foundational modus operandi of the Trumpian (and much of the Little Englander mindset that was so crucial to Leave passing) is literally the full-throated projection of raw xenophobia and the scapegoating of those very same immigrants. Make no mistake, Trump and his ilk no long traffic in dog whistles, they use a clarion call to exacerbate and stoke fear and hatred of the other, just like any other timpot racist and white nationalist crank has done before. The main difference is that Trump has the world's largest bully pulpit with which to amplify his ghastly projections of division, hatred, and fear.

You also make a huge assumption, one that happens to be fundamental wrong, that I am in some way advocating for a Corbyn or bust style of Labour leadership. I think he is just as flawed at taproot level as the Blairites were, just coming from a vastly different paradigm of ineffectual leadership.

I complete dismiss your version of the so-called left/right paradigm itself. I also SERIOUSLY call into question your positing that you are any sort of actual Labour supporter as you are attempting to defend two creatures (Trump and BoJo) who are LITERALLY THE ANTITHESIS of what Labour has stood for over the entire breadth and span of its history, the days of Blairite domination included. Those two (and their systemic controllers) are the textbook definition of oligarchic rule, they enable and lead on the utter stripping away of protective rights for all but a few at the very top, the smashing of collective bargaining and protections for the unions and the labour movement in general, and the never-ending grinding down and diminution (with its extinction being the end goal) of any meaningful social welfare state and safety net.

[11Drogba 2,000]

 

[Vesper 30,226]

1 minute ago, 11Drogba said:

 

That assclown needs the yank Feds called in on his arse. That is a blatant threat of  a member and ex-member of Congress, and that semi-auto assault rifle is illegal in the District of Columbia.

[Atomiswave 6,118]

17 hours ago, manpe said:

 

How anybody can support this guy over Bernie is beyond me.

Biden is just another corrupt sleezy motherfcuker, a pedophile. All your fucking past leaders and future ones are all scum, they are chosen and not elected.

[MoroccanBlue 5,385]

18 hours ago, manpe said:

 

How anybody can support this guy over Bernie is beyond me.

It’s pretty easy actually. But neither two will beat Trump. 

 

 

[Vesper 30,226]

this is what actual American white supremacy looks like

so fucking sick of people trying to mitigate if by tossing out whataboutism bullshit like blacks who hate jews, or racist Asians,blah blah blah

those fuckers never remotely had dominant controlling power to institute an entire system of hundreds of years of completely dehumanisation and chattel enslavement, not to mention a Transatlantic slave trade that killed  millions and systemically enslaved the rest for life

now

Senator James Eastland wa s brutal segregationist American power broker in the US Senate for ages

Joe Biden worked with him on multiple bills to stop desegregation via busing, and thsi of course has turned into a major controversy with Biden running for the US Presidency now, as last year Biden was still given folksy stories about Eeastland and other segregationist Senators to show that he could 'get along' with anybody

the Biden apologists stoop so low as to drag the now dead Massachusetts uber liberal Senator Ted Kennedy, JFK's little brother

and try  to show how even he was on a friendly (or semi friendly) basis with Eastland

 

I just saw this story

When Ted Kennedy met James Eastland

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/dailyledes/2015/09/30/ted-kennedy-big-jim-eastland-drinking-scotch/73114062/

Kennedy had just been assigned to the Judiciary Committee, which was chaired by fellow Democrat and the senior senator from Mississippi. Eastland called the 30-year-old Kennedy to his office to discuss subcommittee assignments.

Kennedy told the story to his interviewer, calling himself “an amusement to Eastland.”

Eastland said, “I want you to come over, boy. We’ll talk about your subcommittees.” I said, “That’s fine. When do you want me to come?” “You come by tomorrow morning at ten, and we’ll talk about your subcommittees.” I said, “Okay, I’ll come over.” We had been working all day and night, what committees I want and what committees I don’t want and why. I had all my staff around, and I finally had my little list. “You sit down here, boy.” It’s 10:00. “What do you drink, bourbon or scotch?” I said, “Well, I—” “Bourbon or scotch!?” “Scotch,” I said finally.

(snip)

So he came over and put another towel down, puts some soda down. “Well,” he said,“ I think you have a lot of Italians up there in Massachusetts, don’t you?” I said yes. He said, “You have a lot of those groups come over there, a lot of immigrants come over there.” And I said, “That’s right.”

He said, “You drink that down, and you’re on the Immigration Committee.” I said, “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.” So I drank that down, gurgle, gurgle, gurgle, gurgle. It’s now about 10:15. He said, “Kennedys always care about the Constitution. Your brother Jack’s always talking about the Constitution. Do you want to get on the Constitution subcommittee?”

I thought, How the hell did he know I wanted to get…? He said, “Drink that drink, and you’re on that Constitution Committee.” Gurgle, gurgle, gurgle, gurgle. He said, “You know, we have another subcommittee on civil rights. Kennedys are always worrying about civil rights, is that right?” I said yes. How the hell did he know those are the three subcommittees I want?

snip

 

WELL

bourbon or scotch for Ted or Joe, but for black or part black folk like me

the Eastland family wasn't quite so nice over the past 150, 200 years

Woods Caperton Eastland was the good Senator's daddy

 

.https://thewitnessbcc.com/a-reminder-of-why-you-should-never-make-light-of-lynching-warning-graphic-content/

February, 1904

Jim Crow “justice” was quick and certain for any black man who killed a white man. Fearing for their lives, Luther and Mary Holbert went on the run. Led by Eastland’s brother, Woods Caperton Eastland, the alleged crime ignited the white population and hundreds of white men who pursued the Holberts with bloodhounds guiding them. Despite Mary disguising herself as a man and taking to the swamps, the Holberts were captured three days later. What happened next is a horror of inhumanity.

The lynching didn’t happen immediately. It was planned for the next day, a Sunday afternoon after church so a large crowd could gather. The murderers strategically chose a location for maximum intimidation. It took place on the property of a black church in Doddsville, MS. The black church has historically been the locus of religious and communal life for black people. Performing a lynching on church grounds sent a message to all black people in the area that no place was safe from white supremacy.

More than a thousand people showed up to gawk at the lynching of Luther and Mary Holbert. The lynchers tied up the Holberts and commenced with “the most fiendish tortures.” First, the white murderers cut off each of the fingers and toes of their victims and gave them out as souvenirs. 

Then they beat them so mercilessly that one of Luther Holbert’s eyes hung only by a shred from its socket. Then came the most fiendish abuse. 

The Vicksburg Evening Post reported, “The most excruciating form of punishment consisted in the use of a large corkscrew in the hands of some of the mob. This instrument was bored into the flesh of the man and woman, in the arms, legs, and body, and then pulled out, the spirals tearing out big pieces of raw quivering flesh every time it was withdrawn.”

Finally, the Holberts, who were still alive, were taken to a pyre. The white men cruelly forced two black men under threat of death to drag the Holberts to the fires. They burned Mary first so Luther could see his beloved killed. Then they burned him.

The tragic and infuriating lynching of the Holberts is just one of literally thousands of similar examples. Although the details vary, the broad contours remain the same. Lynchings usually took place because of some perceived slight. Anti-lynching crusader, Ida B. Wells, found that lynchings were often over economic disputes. But imagined sexual predation on the part of black men was frequently an excuse.

Almost no white people who participated in the lynching of black citizens ever faced a legal consequence. Woods Eastland, who led the mob, actually faced charges in the murder. But his acquittal was a foregone conclusion. After the all-white jury found him innocent, Eastland hosted a party on his plantation to celebrate.

snip

probably served bourbon or scotch

 

[manpe 10,861]

21 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

It’s pretty easy actually. But neither two will beat Trump. 

 

 

What's pretty easy?

On 07/03/2020 at 11:38 AM, chippy said:

From everything I've heard, Sanders is the American version of Corbyn. So there's your answer.

They don't do extreme Left anymore than we do!

 

 

 

Don't know shit about Corbyn, so this doesn't tell me anything.

 

Everything I have heard from Bernie is reasonable. If I was American, I would be a lot more at ease with Bernie being president than a guy who says shit like "poor kids are just as talented and bright as white kids".

[MoroccanBlue 5,385]

34 minutes ago, manpe said:

What's pretty easy?

Don't know shit about Corbyn, so this doesn't tell me anything.

 

Everything I have heard from Bernie is reasonable. If I was American, I would be a lot more at ease with Bernie being president than a guy who says shit like "poor kids are just as talented and bright as white kids".

I said maybe a year or two back, don't know if it was this or another forum, that Trump will win on the basis that there are no good Democratic candidates. The key to beating Trump is to appeal to the American centrists/moderates. Biden is the closest thing to that, even though he shows genuine signs of dementia. 

Sanders is far too radical to appeal to this group. And I disagree, I don't find Bernie's policies reasonable. Eliminating private health care and implementing policies that would cost more than the entire federal budget, whilst at the same time saying the middle class won't be taxed without providing how it will be funded, is a bit concerning. Especially when the other democrats questioned him. 

 

[manpe 10,861]

22 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Eliminating private health care and implementing policies that would cost more than the entire federal budget, whilst at the same time saying the middle class won't be taxed without providing how it will be funded, is a bit concerning.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

[MoroccanBlue 5,385]

2 hours ago, manpe said:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

Biden, Harris, Tulsi, Buttigieg and others have all argued against those projections and the actual validity of it. Majority of American economists agree. 

[Vesper 30,226]

4 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

I said maybe a year or two back, don't know if it was this or another forum, that Trump will win on the basis that there are no good Democratic candidates. The key to beating Trump is to appeal to the American centrists/moderates. Biden is the closest thing to that, even though he shows genuine signs of dementia. 

Sanders is far too radical to appeal to this group. And I disagree, I don't find Bernie's policies reasonable. Eliminating private health care and implementing policies that would cost more than the entire federal budget, whilst at the same time saying the middle class won't be taxed without providing how it will be funded, is a bit concerning. Especially when the other democrats questioned him. 

 

Sanders is unelectable in reactionary America

but

here is the thing about the American healthcare system and why it simply cannot stay as it is

Sanders does a horrible job at explaining this as well

under the CURRENT FOR PROFIT SYSTEM (and this number will go even higher if, as I suspect they will, the RW (5-4 atm) US Supreme Court strikes down the ACA aka Obamacare this summer) the US will be spending 6 TRILLION USD per year (and rising) on healthcare by 2027 or 2028

around 55 TRILLION USD or so from 2021 to 2030

The cost for a single payer based system for that timeframe is (depending on what studies you look at) again covering all healthcare (the parts not covered are included in thsi, like plastic surgery etc) 40 to 45 trillion

so it is 10 to 15 trillion cheaper over just that ten year time frame

yes, the federal budget will explode, but so will taxes, BUT the total tax paid by a middle class family of four, for ALL healthcare will be 12,000 to 14,000 a year. Right now, that same family is spending over 20,000 USD per year for all healthcare, it is just taken from them via private, for profit insurance, crazy expensive drug prices, and outrageous hospital and doctors charges, Also, that family's employers are spending EVEN more than they do. 90% of Americans have no clue that if they are paying, say a premium of 600 usd a months for insurance through their job, that the employer is paying DOUBLE that or more to the insurance firms each month.

I know many who pay ZERO in premiums through their job, but what they do not realise is that their employer is paying over 2000,, sometimes over 3000 USD a month instead. Imagine if they got all or most of that 2000 USD a month BACK in terms of a 20,000  to 30,000 usd or so per year raise!!

a single payer system (like we have in Sweden (technically our healthcare is provided at kommun (county) level via a nationwide mandate, but it works the exact same moneywise) has massive built-in money savings, as it eliminates a HUGE amount of overhead (The US spends hundreds of billions USD per year just on billing through all the hyper complicated private providers), as well as other cost containment via caps on drugs costs, caps on hospital costs, and caps on doctors' costs.

It is necessary to also go to a free or ultra low cost university tuition system, so the cost of becoming a doctor is not in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases (that is an excuse physicians use in the US to justify their insane fees, sometimes they make well over 1 million, even 2 million USD per year)

The biggest buyer of pharma drugs in the world is the US government, BUT the biggest part of that, the main part of Medicare, is PROHIBITED BY LAW (a 2003 law that Joe Biden was a huge player in getting passed) from negotiating drug prices with the giant pharmaceutical firms!!!

Over the next 20 years, under the current system (and it will get worse if Obamacare is overturned) the total US healthcare outlays will be well over 130 TRILLION USD. Thats is UNSUSTAINABLE.

The votes in the US Congress are not even there to do the public option (ie have a government single payer programme that people can CHOOSE to join) let alone a MFA complete take.over. Because of this crazy captivity to the for profit model, it is going to take a complete systemic collapse of the system before anything is done, and that systemic collapse IS COMING.

The entire US healthcare system (and the US spends more than double the average of the top 50 nations in the world per person, and yet has only around the 35th or so best quality of care) is ONE GIANT WEALTH EXTRACTION SCHEME.

It will break down at the current rates of increase. The MONEY IS SPENT NOW, and the biggest lie is that simply transferring the money spent by people in terms of WHO it is paid to is somehow a bad thing. It makes ZERO sense for anyone to think that they are getting somehow fucked if they have 12K USD in taxes taken, as if they do not, then the private, for-profit system will take over 20K from them. per year. That 20K is just an average, it is SO SO EASY now, under the US system, to get very ill and go into so much debt in a few months to a year (in many cases over 1 million usd if the illness is bad enough and lasts long enough) that you have to go bankrupt.

It is simple maths, which most people seem, unfortunately, incapable of doing.

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,385]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

 

It is simple maths, which most people seem, unfortunately, incapable of doing.

 

So if it's so simple why do 90% of the Democratic candidates and a vast majority of PhD economists refute those projections?

Another note, most centrists still want to have private health care. 

[Vesper 30,226]

3 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

So if it's so simple why do 90% of the Democratic candidates and a vast majority of PhD economists refute those projections?

Another note, most centrists still want to have private health care. 

lol, those cost projections are from the US Office of Management and Budget, also from one of the principal architects of Obamacare, and a shedload of other Universities and Medical think tanks.

if you think the US for profit-based healthcare system can keep operating in perpetuity as it does now, given the rates of cost increase, I have a bridge in London to sell you.

Try doing some research before you start up with the tosh, you don't even specify what is 'refuted'

What part exactly are you disputing, because assure you I will shut you down like a dodgy curry takeaway.

Centrists, lololol

A US centrist Democrat is similar a typical 1980's, 1990's moderate Republican now. They are neoliberals and centre-right pols who happen to be slightly progressive on some social issues.

The US is completely off its axis politically. The so-called 'centre' has been slid so far to the right that a big part of the Dummicrat Party would be too far right for a typical European centre right classical liberal Party or on the most rightward edge of them.

How pathetic is it that the best a nation of 330 million can put up for POTUS are 3 septuagenarian (2 of them soon octogenarians) fossils, one a pathological liar and a clinical sociopathic narcissist (Trump), the next a rapidly (in mental cognitive ability) declining corporate hack (Biden), and a washed up crank who is so thick that he thinks he can falsely self-label as a democratic socialist (when he is just a bog standard social democrat) and somehow get elected in uber reactionary America.

SAD!!!

 

 

[11Drogba 2,000]

--double post--

[11Drogba 2,000]

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,385]

8 hours ago, Vesper said:

lol, those cost projections are from the US Office of Management and Budget, also from one of the principal architects of Obamacare, and a shedload of other Universities and Medical think tanks.

if you think the US for profit-based healthcare system can keep operating in perpetuity as it does now, given the rates of cost increase, I have a bridge in London to sell you.

Try doing some research before you start up with the tosh, you don't even specify what is 'refuted'

What part exactly are you disputing, because assure you I will shut you down like a dodgy curry takeaway.

Centrists, lololol

A US centrist Democrat is similar a typical 1980's, 1990's moderate Republican now. They are neoliberals and centre-right pols who happen to be slightly progressive on some social issues.

The US is completely off its axis politically. The so-called 'centre' has been slid so far to the right that a big part of the Dummicrat Party would be too far right for a typical European centre right classical liberal Party or on the most rightward edge of them.

How pathetic is it that the best a nation of 330 million can put up for POTUS are 3 septuagenarian (2 of them soon octogenarians) fossils, one a pathological liar and a clinical sociopathic narcissist (Trump), the next a rapidly (in mental cognitive ability) declining corporate hack (Biden), and a washed up crank who is so thick that he thinks he can falsely self-label as a democratic socialist (when he is just a bog standard social democrat) and somehow get elected in uber reactionary America.

SAD!!!

 

 

Relax. Take it easy. This is a healthy debate. 

 

Bernie plans on spending 70-90 trillion within the next ten years which is double the size of the federal budget. The biggest concern with that, for not only the republican party but the majority of the democratic party, are that the projected numbers he's proposed are not realistic. 

No offence, but I will believe Economists with PhD's who refute those numbers, especially when a vast majority of them are democrats. Simply put, to make all of his policies work he would need even more revenue than he is proposing to fully offset those costs. It isn't realistic to believe you can get all those revenues from the top 1, 5, or 10 percent. It either has to go on the deficit or the tax payers.

During the debate, he failed to even counter the other candidates arguments on his spending plan. You bring up that research, I can refute that there are several unbiased statistical data that not only show the hidden costs of his medicare for all plan, but for virtually every one of his policies. Republican's refuting his policies is bad enough, but when there is a sheer divide within the Democratic party on Bernie's projections, that is when there should be a cause for concern. 

And again, I'll reiterate, I think the bigger reason for the separation is that a large portion of Democrats still want to have Private Health Insurance along with Free healthcare, not rid it completely. 

 

 

 

[Fernando 6,585]

2 hours ago, 11Drogba said:

 

I been hearing you can get some cheap flights. 

If you like traveling and don't care much about this Virus then it's worth taking a shot. 

Next month I'm traveling to Colombia, but it's not hit bad over there like other places so prices are normal for over there so far. But some places, yes flights can be very cheap! 

[Vesper 30,226]

3 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Relax. Take it easy. This is a healthy debate. 

 

Bernie plans on spending 70-90 trillion within the next ten years which is double the size of the federal budget. The biggest concern with that, for not only the republican party but the majority of the democratic party, are that the projected numbers he's proposed are not realistic. 

No offence, but I will believe Economists with PhD's who refute those numbers, especially when a vast majority of them are democrats. Simply put, to make all of his policies work he would need even more revenue than he is proposing to fully offset those costs. It isn't realistic to believe you can get all those revenues from the top 1, 5, or 10 percent. It either has to go on the deficit or the tax payers.

During the debate, he failed to even counter the other candidates arguments on his spending plan. You bring up that research, I can refute that there are several unbiased statistical data that not only show the hidden costs of his medicare for all plan, but for virtually every one of his policies. Republican's refuting his policies is bad enough, but when there is a sheer divide within the Democratic party on Bernie's projections, that is when there should be a cause for concern. 

And again, I'll reiterate, I think the bigger reason for the separation is that a large portion of Democrats still want to have Private Health Insurance along with Free healthcare, not rid it completely. 

 

 

 

I will keep this short and simple

there is zero chance that MFA would cost 70 to 90 trillion USD over the next ten years

that is literally DOUBLE what even hostile studies have shown

you got fed 100% BOGUS info, pure and simple

the current  for-profit system will cost at least 55 Trillion (and perhaps far more) over the next 10 years

if Sanders was going to literally inject 15 to 35 trillion usd MORE into the entire system, do you really think the greedy cunts would be whinging on?

hell no, they hate it because they no longer will be able to skim off tens of trillions in excess profits over that same 10 year period

 

also, just because the monies are paid into the government and the government runs healthcare does not mean people would end up netting a higher cost out of pocket at all

yes, their taxes go up, BUT they no longer have to pay premiums, deductibles, crazy high fees, crazy high drug costs, fees, etc etc etc,

the average family of 4 would pay around 10,000 USD LESS on total outlays per annum and never again have to worry about a medical expense-induced bankruptcy

a single payer system uses brute force scales of economy pricing structures and expense controls to LOWER overall costs, just like every other advanced nation (whether they utilise single payer or some other universal healthcare model) does

again, it is simple maths

 

cheers

 

[Vesper 30,226]

 Did Trump fire the US Pandemic team?

You're damn right he did.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/

 

Did Trump Fire the US Pandemic Response Team?

As a new coronavirus spread in 2020, so did concerns about the United States' preparedness for a potential pandemic.

 

Amid warnings from public health officials that a 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus could soon become a pandemic involving the U.S., alarmed readers asked Snopes to verify a rumor that U.S. President Donald Trump had “fired the entire pandemic response team two years ago and then didn’t replace them.”

The claim came from a series of tweets posted by Judd Legum, who runs Popular Information, a newsletter he describes as being about “politics and power.” Legum’s commentary was representative of sharp criticism from Democratic legislators (and some Republicans) that the Trump administration had ill-prepared the country for a pandemic even as one was looming on the horizon.

Legum outlined a series of cost-cutting decisions made by the Trump administration in preceding years that had gutted the nation’s infectious disease defense infrastructure. The “pandemic response team” firing claim referred to news accounts from Spring 2018 reporting that White House officials tasked with directing a national response to a pandemic had been ousted.

Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer abruptly departed from his post leading the global health security team on the National Security Council in May 2018 amid a reorganization of the council by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Ziemer’s team was disbanded. Tom Bossert, whom the Washington Post reported “had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks,” had been fired one month prior.

It’s thus true that the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it, eliminating Ziemer’s position and reassigning others, although Bolton was the executive at the top of the National Security Council chain of command at the time.

Legum stated in a follow-up tweet that “Trump also cut funding for the CDC, forcing the CDC to cancel its efforts to help countries prevent infectious-disease threats from becoming epidemics in 39 of 49 countries in 2018. Among the countries abandoned? China.” That was partly true, according to 2018 news reports stating that funding for the CDC’s global disease outbreak prevention efforts had been reduced by 80%, including funding for the agency’s efforts in China. But that was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding, not a direct cut by the Trump administration.

On Feb. 24, 2020, the Trump administration requested $2.5 billion to address the coronavirus outbreak, an outlay critics asserted might not have been necessary if the previous program cuts had not taken place. Fortune reported of the issue that:

The cuts could be especially problematic as COVID-19 continues to spread. Health officials are now warning the U.S. is unlikely to be spared, even though cases are minimal here so far.

“It’s not so much of a question of if this will happen in this country any more but a question of when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press call [on Feb. 25].

The coronavirus was first detected in Wuhan, China, in the winter of 2019, and cases spread around the globe. The U.S. had 57 confirmed cases as of this writing, while globally, roughly 80,000 patients had been sickened with the virus and 3,000 had died. As of yet, no vaccine or pharmaceutical treatment for the new coronavirus. Data from China suggests the coronavirus has a higher fatality rate than the seasonal flu, although outcomes depend on factors such as the age and underlying health of the patient.

Readers can find the latest coronavirus information from the CDC here.