Jump to content
Null

Trump’s latest depraved display could lead to more deaths


homersapien
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe this will help:

A graph showing that 90% reductions in daily contacts help flatten the curve to a level hospitals can accommodate.

https://news.utexas.edu/2020/03/26/a-new-texas-covid-19-pandemic-toolkit-shows-the-importance-of-social-distancing/

 

The "No Social distancing" model accurately reflects what will happen with no social distancing.

The other models reflect what happens with varying degrees of response.

It is not logical to accuse the "No distancing" model of being "wrong" after given populations (states) are effective in following strict social distancing.  The social distancing changes the predictive model.

Nor is it logical or rational to suggest the resulting lower curve or model that was achieved by practicing social distancing proves the social distancing was not called for or was an over-reaction that "ruined" the economy.

Had no social distancing been followed and the first curve came to be, the economy would also have been ruined, only there would have been a LOT more deaths to go with it.

Even Trump - as scientifically ignorant as he is - finally came to accept that, when he laughably suggested started spinning the definition of his personal success by comparing numbers like 100,000 deaths against the "worst case" models of millions of potential deaths.

(BTW as the linked article explains, the blue shaded area represents hospital capacity, which underlies just how important strict social distancing is.  Even reductions of 50 to 75% in contacts are insufficient to avoid outstripping hospital capacity.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You have about the same degree of understanding epidemiology as Iron head 70.

:no:

And you can’t understand pure panic when you see it. But, I can see some leaders going all in with the models and then walking back their hysteria.

  • Like 2
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Homer, I guess you’re saying that your vaunted leader Cuomo was all in on the worst case scenario and called for 30,000 ventilators while not trusting his constituents to do the right thing.  And only when the actual numbers, not models, showed relieve did he change his rhetoric.  As opposed to Trump, who actually believed that the mitigation put in place would have some success and didn’t believe Cuomo needed 30,000 ventilators. I got it.

The good thing is the Trump administration is building up the inventory of ventilators that was needed for several administrations. Another Trump win.  I guess Trump and his team was ahead of the curve, so to speak.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So Homer, I guess you’re saying that your vaunted leader Cuomo was all in on the worst case scenario and called for 30,000 ventilators while not trusting his constituents to do the right thing.  And only when the actual numbers, not models, showed relieve did he change his rhetoric.  As opposed to Trump, who actually believed that the mitigation put in place would have some success and didn’t believe Cuomo needed 30,000 ventilators. I got it.

The good thing is the Trump administration is building up the inventory of ventilators that was needed for several administrations. Another Trump win.  I guess Trump and his team was ahead of the curve, so to speak.

Huh, Dear Leader is speaking at this very moment!

Don't miss it.

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And you can’t understand pure panic when you see it. But, I can see some leaders going all in with the models and then walking back their hysteria.

As opposed to ignoring the models only to experience the worst case scenario?

That sounds more like appropriate leadership than "hysteria" or "panic".

(Don't forget to attend church this Sunday.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

If it's such a silly question, it should be pretty easy for you to answer, which you still seem to have trouble doing. Unless you're proposing that the weatherman guide our policy on pandemics?

Dr Fauci has failed. I know you find that hard to accept unless your standards are so low it doesn't matter to you.

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Oh dear. You really don't understand how any of this works. You've spent so much time thinking about it, evidently, and yet have absolutely no understanding of any of it. 

We have been successful in limiting the deaths to relatively low numbers because of the measures that have been instituted. Do you really not understand that a virus that is comparable to a bad flu season even with the extreme measures we've put in place but no vaccine would be exponentially worse if the measures were not put in place? Christ, this is so simple. What is not sinking in with you? What's the difficult part to understand? 

In reality I understand how 'this' works all too well. Is your italics an opinion based on a study ? Sure we want to keep separation from any virus infection but in this case we have shut the economy down. You don't estimate 2.5 million deaths, push to shut everything down, cause a severe overreaction, quickly lower the estimates before anything can take effect and then say oh well. It doesn't work that way.

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Yes, that's why I quit watching them. You are referring to POTUS, yes? I mean, you do realize that we had boots on the ground in China until he pulled them out, yes? And that we might have had a much earlier warning on this if he hadn't? Well, a warning in addition to the ones from the intelligence agencies that he ignored in November? And that if he had taken testing seriously early on that we wouldn't need these extreme measures on such a broad scale? The last part isn't really a matter of opinion. Being able to test is the key to beating this. He whiffed badly on that. That part's not really up for debate.

Maybe if you hadn't quit watching you would have learned more. China refused to accept CDC people. The DNI has denied your claims on the intel agency false report. You do know that the first case of COVIS-19 in the USA was on 1/14 and that POTUS put the travel ban on China on 1/30 when we had 5 cases ? Do you know that Dr Fauci, Dr Birx, the chair of WHO didn't want to do that. Dem leaders even called him racist for doing that and wanted to keep the borders open. Your post on testing has a lot of opinion in it so apparently it is up for debate. POTUS took testing so serious that when the CDC wanted to stand on decades old protocol, do all the testing in house, then couldn't handle it, POTUS stepped in, took it away from them and brought in private labs to run with the ball. It worked.   

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

What do you propose? Jail time? Also, why do you think he was chosen for that position? Do you think that he lobbied for the job? Do you think he somehow coerced Trump into appointing him? And, once again- I'll hope against hope that you'll eventually answer this- who should it be instead?

Dr Fauci should be fired. He failed. But since you made the suggestion jail time would work too. Put a practicing research scientist from one of the infectious disease research facilities from Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic such as a Dr. Razonable. Fauci is the administrative head of NIH and been embedded in the govt. for decades. Similar to the head of the CDC that thought they should stand on old protocols.

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

There it is. Man. Imagine having a guy tell you that anyone who says something bad about him is wrong and believing him. Scary times with so many folks like you buying into this farce. 

It is scary times. Maybe you will answer my question this time. WaPo accused POTUS of being a Russian spy for 2 years. Do you believe that ? The WaPo said Steele's dossier was true for 2 years. Do you believe that ? This is your source. They are a joke. I could go on and on about those guys along with the NYT now promoting Chinese propaganda on COVID.

 

Finally, keep this in mind as I conclude. The "CDC estimates that so far this season there have been at least 39 million flu illnesses, 410,000 hospitalizations and 24,000 deaths from flu."  See key points section:  https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm#ILIActivityMap

We never shut down for that or anything else. My focus in the thread has been about the overreaction that has occurred to COVID and those that caused it. Because of that we are now faced with a 20% unemployment rate at a minimum and that is a very serious situation. I will end by asking a question. What would you do about that ?

Edited by IronMan70
  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

These models are not simple predictions of what will happen regardless of what we do

 

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You'll need to restate that, I have no idea what you mean.

I can understand that since those were your words. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

That's not the Fauci/Blix study, nice try.

Actually, it was an obviously futile attempt to help you understand epidemic modeling in principle.  

Please provide a link to the "study" you are referring to.

(And it's Birx, not Blix)

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

 

 

I can understand that since those were your words. 

I said those three words, but you obviously misunderstood the context or intended meaning of the sentence I used them in.  

Models don't predict without the context of responses.  You cannot criticize a earlier model for being "wrong" when it's the response that has changed.

That was the whole point of the picture I provided you.

You are hopeless.

Edited by homersapien
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Actually, it was an obviously futile attempt to help you understand epidemic modeling in principle.  

 

I have spent the last 30 days all over the CDC site and others. I know your agenda.

Edited by IronMan70
  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

I have spent the last 30 days all over the CDC site and others. I know your agenda.

Well, good for you.  Maybe you got some good advice.

But it's done nothing to help you to understand the purpose of epidemic modeling.

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

As opposed to ignoring the models only to experience the worst case scenario?

That sounds more like appropriate leadership than "hysteria" or "panic".

(Don't forget to attend church this Sunday.)

We haven’t come close to experiencing the worst case, where have you been?  Trump listened to and initiated the mitigation that his staff recommended and is keeping us well below the worst case and now he is going to brag that he saved the U.S.  I know you’re going to hate it, but it is what it is.

His restocking of the ventilators is *better late than never* which is better than the previous administration’s *better never than late*. 

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, good for you.  Maybe you got some good advice.

But it's done nothing to help you to understand the purpose of epidemic modeling.

This is an act right ? You can't be this dense. CDC, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, go there, read and try to understand them. Do that instead of linking opinion pieces all day. You're all over the place.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

This is an act right ? You can't be this dense. CDC, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, go there, read and try to understand them. Do that instead of linking opinion pieces all day. You're all over the place.  

LOL! My last link was to a scientific publication from the University of Texas. (See top of this page)

As if you are linking medical or scientific articles to support your idiotic statements.  :rolleyes: 

All you've got is MAGA nonsense.  You have clearly demonstrated you know nothing about the science.

Edited by homersapien
  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2020 at 3:44 PM, IronMan70 said:

These experts with their modeling have been universally wrong as have been the opinions written about their flawed models. So the "experts" change their model, worthless opinions are written about the new model and the process starts all over again. These opinion pieces, mostly negative, are a waste of time. 

Hey Ironhead, how about providing some references that support this allegation? 

Be sure to include some technical or academic ones - maybe from the CDC,  John Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic?   :laugh::laugh:

Alternatively, just come out and admit you are relying on Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham for your understanding.

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2020 at 11:07 AM, homersapien said:

Hey Ironhead, how about providing some references that support this allegation? 

Be sure to include some technical or academic ones - maybe from the CDC,  John Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic?   :laugh::laugh:

Alternatively, just come out and admit you are relying on Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham for your understanding.

It's tough to trust models when places like NYC consider adding most in home deaths to the virus death toll regardless if they're linked or not. I don't get the issue with Carlson when back in January when this virus was a non issue to most he was covering it. Anyway, so unemployed Americans are supposed to sit back and trust the government to decide what's best for them based off models?

I'm blessed to still be able to work but I feel for the people who've been told to go home we're closed until further notice. A good friend of mine is one of these people, luckily he's getting 2 weeks of PTO but that's it and the bills are still coming in the mail. Alot of people have been forced into unemployment from actions made off these models. They've already caused hysteria judging by toilet paper and bread aisles.

Then you have a WH reporter asking the president whether or not he's considering closing grocery stores. Really? What a jackass question. Then again everyone has a degree in public health and epidemiology these days while they forget and ignore the people forced out of work. If these experts want more social distancing and stricter stay at home orders from state and local government then the government should order the utility and loan companies to waive payments. Instead of rounds of stimulus checks to anyone making under 100k a year give the utility companies grants to keep families lights and water running and expedite the unemployment process.

I don't believe in big government but we've already been told who can or can't work and where we can or can't go so what the hell let's give them control over how long our lights are on and maybe they'll give it back once we've flattened the curve on the models..... what's sickening is the politicizing of the virus and anyone with common sense knew it was only a matter of time, Alinsky would be proud

Edited by CAReeves2010
  • Like 3
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2020 at 12:30 PM, bigbird said:

That'd be like relying on vox, salon, and slate...

I will readily admit they are in my "rotation" of sites to check (unlike Carlson and Ingraham).  The Washington Post is the only "paper of record" for which I have a subscription. My primary site to rely on actual news, facts and analysis is PBS. 

I certainly don't "rely" on Vox, Salon and Slate for that,  but I will occasionally print even an article from Fox if I think it is well-reasoned and makes sense.  I am more author and content-oriented than I am publisher or source loyal. 

Carlson and Ingraham and Hannity are obviously committed to parroting propaganda points such as their latest effort to suggest the pandemic threat was overblown for the purpose of attacking Trump's reelection. (You'll be hearing more of that - and blaming - in the next few months.)  They appeal to political emotion (partisanship) far more than they do to fact or reason.

This exchange in this thread regarding epidemic modeling being driven for nefarious political purposes in a prime example.

 

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2020 at 5:59 PM, I_M4_AU said:

We haven’t come close to experiencing the worst case, where have you been?  Trump listened to and initiated the mitigation that his staff recommended and is keeping us well below the worst case and now he is going to brag that he saved the U.S.  I know you’re going to hate it, but it is what it is.

His restocking of the ventilators is *better late than never* which is better than the previous administration’s *better never than late*. 

"Where have I been"?  :rolleyes:

You completely missed my point. 

The "pessimistic" models - which for the most part were heeded, eventually even by Trump - are the reason we didn't experience the "worst case".  But such models existed while Trump was still making light of the threat.

The argument in this thread is whether or not those models were erroneous or they were accurate and simply did what they were supposed to do.  I maintain the latter.  But his sychophantic supporters - including Ironhead are now attacking those models because of the unavoidable economic pain that comes with them. 

And of course, Trump is going to brag that anything positive - including the country's successful response to the models was solely due to him. That's what he does.  He's going to take credit for the country's positive reaction to those worst case models (when most of that credit goes to governors and mayors). He will be trying to re-write history until the election.  And the MAGAs (like you) will be lapping it up.  Even to the extent you are trying to shift "blame" for the economic pain to the experts who recommended social separation in the first place.

Trump is also going to avoid responsibility for mistakes made on his watch and blame others for whatever he can because that is also what he does.  As long as everything bad is someone else's fault, it can't be his.  The buck does not stop with Trump and never will.  It's his political enemies, often represented by the government himself (the "deep state").  And as we see almost daily, the MAGAs on the forum lap that up hook, line and sinker also. (Looking at you Mikey.)

As for Obama, the experience and contributions he provided to the present were pretty much disregarded or thrown out by Trump.  Going back to blame him comes across as pretty desperate, but again that won't stop Trump. It's is M.O.  And he won't refrain from blaming governors either, as we have witnessed.

But I am convinced we have 10-15 months of this to go.  The record is still being written and mistakes and shortfalls are still prevalent.

For example, I have yet to see Trump to enunciate a strategy for establishing and/or addressing the conditions to start easing the restrictions and re-opening the economy coming from Trump.  We are still woefully behind the curve on testing and tracking.  All Trump can say is how many tests we are conducting as if the total number - instead of per capita - meant anything.  But if we do sort those issues out in the next few months, Trump will take credit.  If we don't, it will be someone else's fault. 

Trump has a real opportunity here to step out and take ownership for these plans before the fact instead of continuing with the optimistic happy talk he obviously prefers.  He's great at creating commissions and filling them with sychophantic loyalists, but I will be gobsmacked if he starts leveling with us over difficult facts the experts are telling us. 

Trump is like a child in the scope of his thinking and intellect.  Every option available has to compete with his short term interest in getting re-elected. The real irony is that it's the short term thinking and avoidance of responsibility that dooms that wish.

Edited by homersapien
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, CAReeves2010 said:

It's tough to trust models when places like NYC consider adding most in home deaths to the virus death toll regardless if they're linked or not. I don't get the issue with Carlson when back in January when this virus was a non issue to most he was covering it. Anyway, so unemployed Americans are supposed to sit back and trust the government to decide what's best for them based off models? I'm blessed to still be able to work but I feel for the people who've been told to go home we're closed until further notice. A good friend of mine is one of these people, luckily he's getting 2 weeks of PTO but that's it and the bills are still coming in the mail. Alot of people have been forced into unemployment from actions made off these models. They've already caused hysteria judging by toilet paper and bread aisles. Then you have a WH reporter asking the president whether or not he's considering closing grocery stores. Really? What a jackass question. Then again everyone has a degree in public health and epidemiology these days while they forget and ignore the people forced out of work. If these experts want more social distancing and stricter stay at home orders from state and local government then the government should order the utility and loan companies to waive payments. Instead of rounds of stimulus checks to anyone making under 100k a year give the utility companies grants to keep families lights and water running and expedite the unemployment process. I don't believe in big government but we've already been told who can or can't work and where we can or can't go so what the hell let's give them control over how long our lights are on and maybe they'll give it back once we've flattened the curve on the models..... what's sickening is the politicizing of the virus and anyone with common sense knew it was only a matter of time, Alinsky would be proud

The politicization of a pandemic that threatens the health of thousands and devastates the economy is inevitable, so I don't really agree that it's "unfortunate it's become politicized".  That's natural and expected, or at least it should be in a democracy.  (You won't see it politicized in China or N. Korea!)

To look at another way, this pandemic is a supreme test for our government - which is determined by our democratic constitutional structure and the politics it entails. 

Otherwise, you made some very good points.  (But paragraphs would help a lot.)

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...