Coronavirus Death Toll Estimation USA

Dallas:

Population: 1.3 million

Square miles: 385

Pop/sqmi: 3,376

Los Angeles:

Population: 3.9 million

Square Miles: 503

Pop/sqmi: 7,932

Do I keep going again and again. There's a significant difference in NYC than the rest when speaking in terms of density. Yes those others are big cities, but they're not NYC big but a long shot.

Also doesn't help that NYC is a main entry point into the US. Yes CA has that too, but not to the degree of NYC, so a majority of foreign travel would go through NYC.

It's pretty simple honestly. Triple or more the population density in a major national entry hub and you have more cases. More cases equals more hospitalizations. More hospitalizations equals more overburden healthcare systems, which leads to more death.

I did miss the portion of NYC counting people that died that are not confirmed to have had COVID 19. I'm strictly speaking as to why NYC has a higher amount of cases.

I don't agree with them doing this, but to be fair NYC is taking a point from CDC. If you die of pneumonia during flu season, your death goes into the flu stats, whether you had the flu or not. Pneumonia is not exclusive to influenza and not people with influenza will get pneumonia. It's all about money, pump up the stats, get better funding.

That, I'm pretty sure, is the point with COVID 19 stats right now. Pump up them number and get more gear, personnel, funding, etc, oh and make Trump look bad (worse?). It's all a money and politics game.

You really think they have time for autopsies right now?

Trump’s Next Propaganda War: Who Gets Counted in the Coronavirus Death Toll
Slate

Everyone is accustomed to Chanti's links, go ahead and put that victim card back in the deck.

You think Slate is the epitome of left? Try Wonkette, Mother Jones, or the Seattle Stranger.

That and they were all told that due to their skin color they were immune to coronavirus. Podcasts were done a plenty featuring these and other *** myths told to minorities.

Now, was it intentional or was it just plain hopeful stupidity?

I'm assuming by "our culture" you're speaking of the UK? Or do you just mean white man's culture in general?

Here in the US we have something called a Constitution, and in that are these cool line items detailing what rights are protected from being removed. One of those, the very first one in fact, is the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Under that right, people don't have to integrate into any culture, there's no forcing them to do so, and to suggest this would make a person closer to Stalin.

People immigrate in order to have an opportunity at a better life than the one they may have had in the country they left, or they already got a job offer and decided to stay (John Oliver from Uk to US). There's endless reasons, and in the end, their culture is our culture, our culture is their culture.

Might be different in the UK, I can't speak for your country like you so often try to do for the US.

Assuming you meant me, yes I'm in the Midwest, in Oklahoma.

If you didn't mean me, sorry for the narcissistic moment.

I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems, but sharia law ain't one.

Why Sharia law would last in the US about as long as it takes to get to court:

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Police would not enforce it. No sheriff would sign off on it, no sitting judge would approve it.

It takes an excruciatingly large amount of BS to change the Constitution, so much so that it's laughable by today's political climate, so I'm really not concerned in the least.

As for the rest, *shrug* we've had ghettos for as long as we've had low income wage earners. It's nothing really new to the 21st century, nor is it exclusive to the US and UK, so I'm not sure what point you were going for.

Do you know the full scope of what it takes to change any of the amendments?

2/3 of Congress has to all agree, the President needs to sign off on it, and then 3/4 of all states must ratify it, which means the legislature in each state must also meet their respective agreements and governor to sign off on it.

That's a lot of politicians all agreeing in a political climate where no one agrees on anything.

They can try, and I'm sure at some point in the next 200 years they'll succeed, that is the way of the world, change is inevitable, but, and as selfish as this sounds, I don't care. I won't be alive then, and it won't be my fight. Right now, as it stands, my fight has a lot of ammunition and they don't.

Also, Oklahoma would probably succeed from the Union along with every other state from the US civil war, and then along with Wyoming, Montana, and possibly Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. The US would be completely screwed. *shrug* 200 years away at best.

For now, I'm not worried, there's way too many hurdles for them to overcome.

My bad on the narcissism :)

Sharia law in texas:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-texas/

Only things I can find are Muslims in New York doing community patrol, nothing about actually using Sharia Law as their court of jurisdiction.

Found what I was looking for:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/sep/03/ask-politifact-no-sharia-law-does-not-trump-us-law/

Several states also passed legislation specifically banning Sheria Law from being used at all.

Again, if you got sharia law, sorry your politicians are cucks?

Yeah I'm about tired of the racist card being whipped out every time on everything. It's starting to desensitize people to actual racism. It got real old under Obama, it's gotten even older under Trump, I have no idea the climate in the UK, I take it that it's not any better?