At least it was for me.

What amazes me, and has amazed me for quite some time, is that no level of corruption, no amount of lying, will get anyone of the left on the wrong side of virtually the entire media. And this was particularly true about the “neutral” “moderator” who did everything he could to stop the question and protect Biden. This business with Hunter Biden and Burisma has for some reason been used as the basis of criticism of The President. But at least there is still this: ‘China ate your lunch, Joe’: Trump rips Hunter Biden, alleged $3.5M payout from Moscow.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Tuesday repeatedly denied at the first presidential debate that his son Hunter Biden got $3.5 million from the wife of Moscow’s former mayor.

Biden, the former vice president, broadly defended Hunter’s controversial business relationships in China, Russia and Ukraine — while specifically denying the large alleged payment, first disclosed last week.

“China ate your lunch, Joe, and no wonder — your son goes in and he takes out, he takes out billions of dollars, takes out billions of dollars to manage. He makes millions of dollars,” Trump said, referring to a business deal reached after Hunter flew to China in 2013 aboard Air Force Two.

“Simply not true,” Biden said.

“And also while we’re at it: Why is it, just out of curiosity, the mayor of Moscow, his wife, gave your son $3.5 million?” Trump said, referring to a bombshell allegation in a 87-page report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, allegedly made the transfer in 2014.

“What did he do to deserve it?” Trump pressed Biden. “What did he do with Burisma to deserve $183,000?” he added, referring to the Ukraine energy firm that employed Biden’s son while he led the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.

And if th3 $3.5m isn’t enough of an issue, there is always this that might be worth a look:

As for the debate in general, the moderator never allowed the President to press his points with the above just an example of a general rule. A no stage was Trump allowed to directly engage in a probing conversation with Biden. Nevertheless, it will be those moments that may yet have saved the day for Trump since he did in the end press enough from Biden that may yet convince enough voters to vote Republican in sufficient numbers to exceed the level of electoral fraud. Those people who believe Trump should have been more polite are merely wishing for the return of Mitt Romney.

That’s the debate in full above. Biden was completely vacuous and where he was asked for substance, such as over packing the Supreme Court, he out and out refused to answer. There are many scraps for both sides to pick over. For myself, Trump has more to take away but Biden remained lucid right to the end, even if he kept saying the same things Democrats always say. The only post-debate poll I’ve seen shows that among Hispanics, Trump was seen to win 66-34. Still, after all is said and done, the election will determined by the extent to which the Dems can get away with fraud. Biden survived the debate only because of the protection offered by the “moderator”.

20 million tests with 423,000 positive results unadjusted for the 2.3% false positive estimate apparently means, to a professor of statistics, that virtually no one may actually be covid-positive given the accuracy of the tests we now have available.

The notion that a proper understanding of risk lies behind the support for lockdowns and all of the other measures taken is without foundation. The chap in the video thinks that because in some abstruse approach to dealing with a set of numbers, that the entire British public will rise up and demand that the entire lockdown and protective apparatus be dismantled and that the health authorities and even the government will be held accountable for some sort of fraud.

What a joke! The real point is that virtually no one cares about the situation at large and in general, but only about themselves. And no one cares that their personal risk is, objectively measured, virtually zero, but only if their personal risk is more than zero. If it is, then lock it all down and throw away the key until you can come back with a vaccine that will with certainty protect ME from death.

To paraphrase Stalin, my death is a tragedy, that virtually no one else is dying is an irrelevancy.

Does anyone really get influenced by any of this: Survival rates for COVID-19?

The CDC last week posted its new estimate of the survival rates for COVID-19, broken up by age.

This link put those number in clear terms:

0-19 years: 99.997%
20-49 years: 99.98%
50-69 years: 99.5%
70+ years: 94.6%

That is, your chance of dying, by age, is as follows:

0-19 years: 0.003%%
20-49 years: 0.002%
50-69 years: 000.5%
70+ years: 0.054%

That may seem like a negligible number to you, but too all to many individuals it is a finite possibility. So far as all this is being conceived, even if someone is under 50 years of age, one chance in 50,000 is much too large, they think,if that one person is ME.

The politics of Covid is understood best by the hysterics and madmen political leaders amongst us. Any perceived risk greater than zero is unacceptable to a very large proportion of the VOTING public. Say this proportion is five percent, and it is likely much larger than that, no government will remain in place if it alienates so many. That’s where this comes from.

https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1310208435581902848?

That, I promise you, is poll-driven.