Cont: The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread pt. 2

[lomiller]

In a free market economy, the market decides. It would seem that companies which make masks don't currently consider it worth their while to expand production because they cannot make money in the short-term or they don't see it as a long-term proposition.

Trump has been meddling in the market for all things COVID related since the beginning, and this includes controlling which States could get PPE and which could not.

 

[varwoche]

Chuck Woolery? Really? Maybe this is a vivid dream nightmare after all. Real life isn't this surreal.

 

[Resume]

The latter part is true but let's go with the lowest estimates:

Up to 90% of infectees are not reported or detected. If that's true, then it is most likely because of absence of symptoms or mild symptons.

We don't know what we we don't know about the long term health effects of this virus. Fauci said yesterday that he didn't know where Trump got his 99% percent "harmless" ********.

A top US infectious disease expert has denied President Donald Trump's claim that 99% of coronavirus cases were "harmless," saying it is "obviously not" the case.

"I'm trying to figure out where the President got that number," Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Financial Times Friday.

"What I think happened is that someone told him that the general mortality is about 1%. And he interpreted, therefore, that 99% is not a problem, when that’s obviously not the case," he explained.

The expert added that he last saw Trump on June 2 and has not personally briefed him in at least two months.

Last week, Trump downplayed a recent spike in virus cases in many US states by falsely claiming 99% of cases are "totally harmless," a claim not backed by evidence

Trump just pulled the BS percentage from his ass.

 

[newyorkguy]

California has decided to reimpose a shutdown because new cases of coronavirus are surging in the Golden State. Case numbers have been increasing since mid-June. Below are quotes from CBS News:

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Monday ordered the closure of indoor businesses across the state, including restaurants, bars, wineries, movie theaters, zoos and museums as coronavirus cases continue to surge...Newsom also imposed more stringent restrictions in 30 counties, including Los Angeles, Napa, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura. In those counties, gyms, places of worship, non-critical offices, personal care services, hair salons, barbershops and malls must close all indoor operations. CBS News

Newsom spoke to the press this afternoon:

"This virus is not going away anytime soon," he said. "I hope all of us recognize that if we were still connected to some notion that somehow when it gets warm it's going to go away or somehow it's going to take summer months or weekends off, this virus has done neither."

In late April someone who lives in California posted an opinion here that the virus wouldn't be so bad in California because of the warm, sunny weather. That's obviously not working.

 

[slyjoe]

California has decided to reimpose a shutdown because new cases of coronavirus are surging in the Golden State. Case numbers have been increasing since mid-June. Below are quotes from CBS News:


Newsom spoke to the press this afternoon:


In late April someone who lives in California posted an opinion here that the virus wouldn't be so bad in California because of the warm, sunny weather. That's obviously not working.

Anybody in Arizona could have told you that wouldn't work. At least California is doing something. AZ is still sticking its fingers in its ears.

 

[The Don]

This is worrying:

Dr Fauci also said he has not seen Mr Trump in person since 2 June and has not briefed him for the last two months.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53392817

 

[Belz...]

We don't know what we we don't know about the long term health effects of this virus.

Well, that's my point, really: we can only reach tentative conclusions about what we do know.

 

[Belz...]

This is worrying:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53392817

Trump doesn't need to be briefed; he knows more than any group of experts!

 

[The Don]

In late April someone who lives in California posted an opinion here that the virus wouldn't be so bad in California because of the warm, sunny weather. That's obviously not working.

As I understand it, the reason why people thought that warm sunny weather would slow down the spread of the virus was that, instead of being huddled together inside to avoid cold weather, people would be outside socially distanced .

There are a couple of flaws in that logic. Firstly, while somewhere like Wales has weather more conducive to being outside in summer, other places are too hot and sunny and people congregate inside in air-conditioned comfort. Secondly, people may be outside but they may not be social distancing. Instead they are meeting in large groups, consuming alcohol and behaving improperly.

 

[The Don]

Trump doesn't need to be briefed; he knows more than any group of experts!

Not only do I think that President Trump believes this to be true, the 40% of the US electorate who continue to approve of his Presidenting also believe this to be true.

This is very worrying indeed.

 

[Belz...]

Not only do I think that President Trump believes this to be true, the 40% of the US electorate who continue to approve of his Presidenting also believe this to be true.

This is very worrying indeed.

Indeed. Seeing some of the responses to his Tweets, even allowing for bots and trolls, shows that the right have become so desperate as to surrender their individuality and cognitive abilities and outsource them to Trump.

 

[Meadmaker]

As I understand it, the reason why people thought that warm sunny weather would slow down the spread of the virus was that, instead of being huddled together inside to avoid cold weather, people would be outside socially distanced .

There are a couple of flaws in that logic. Firstly, while somewhere like Wales has weather more conducive to being outside in summer, other places are too hot and sunny and people congregate inside in air-conditioned comfort. Secondly, people may be outside but they may not be social distancing. Instead they are meeting in large groups, consuming alcohol and behaving improperly.

I think it's simpler than that. They thought it would go down in summer because colds and flu typically goes down in summer, and this disease has some similarity with those.

It was not foolish to be optimistic. It was foolish to base policy around the assumption. As the saying goes, "Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst."

Unfortunately, the leader of the USA doesn't seem capable of preparing for anything. "Hope for the best. Ignore anything you don't like, or blame the Democrats, or whatever it takes as long as it doesn't involve actually taking responsibility."

 

[JeanTate]

The latter part is true but let's go with the lowest estimates:

Up to 90% of infectees are not reported or detected. If that's true, then it is most likely because of absence of symptoms or mild symptons. Of those known to be infected, up to 85%, from one source, have no symptoms or mild symptoms still. That's 98.5%, which rounds up nicely to 99%. I know Trump uses hyperbole, superlatives and shorthand for a lot of stuff, but, assuming those numbers are correct (they probably aren't), his estimate isn't off the mark.

Look I hate the ****** too, but he's not _always_ wrong. Close, but not always.

This is just as much nonsense as when AT posted it, in the SMM&T thread on Covid-19. And yes, we also have no idea how the “99%” was derived.

For example:

“if that’s true” ... well it’s not

“it is most likely because” .. really bad logic, and wildly inconsistent with what is well-established

IIRC, the results from detailed studies - e.g. Vò, Gangelt - clearly show just how nonsensical your imputed logic chain is. In the sense that opening a horse’s mouth and counting its teeth is more reliable than armchair pontificating.

 

[Belz...]

This is just as much nonsense as when AT posted it, in the SMM&T thread on Covid-19. And yes, we also have no idea how the “99%” was derived.

For example:

“if that’s true” ... well it’s not

“it is most likely because” .. really bad logic, and wildly inconsistent with what is well-established

IIRC, the results from detailed studies - e.g. Vò, Gangelt - clearly show just how nonsensical your imputed logic chain is. In the sense that opening a horse’s mouth and counting its teeth is more reliable than armchair pontificating.

Sorry, who pissed in your cereals this morning?

The numbers I've quoted are estimates. Are you saying that the estimates are wrong? If so, could you provide updated ones? Otherwise what's the source of your ire?

 

[JeanTate]

Sorry, who pissed in your cereals this morning?

The numbers I've quoted are estimates.

a) source(s)?
b) you linked numbers with flawed logic.

And as Resume already noted, you have no evidence that Trump used any such estimates, or logic.

Are you saying that the estimates are wrong?

What estimates?

If so, could you provide updated ones? Otherwise what's the source of your ire?

Already did (go check the studies I mentioned).

Perhaps you may be referring to comments by the CDC head, at a recent press conference? If so, please re-read the official transcript ... (there are links, and more analyses, in the SMM&T thread).

Yeah, this is not the SMM&T board, but it’s still the ISF. Nonsense still needs to be called out for what it is.

 

[Belz...]

a) source(s)?

Gee, I'd have to dig them up but they might be dated. I've already mentioned that.

b) you linked numbers with flawed logic.

How so? Assume the numbers are correct for the sake of argument, ok? If 90% of cases aren't even reported, and 85% of the rest have mild symptoms, assuming no further complications, that's very close to 99%. The logic is sound. The only question is whether the numbers are.

And as Resume already noted, you have no evidence that Trump used any such estimates, or logic.

No, I'd sooner think that Trump doesn't use evidence or logic. But that's irrelevant to what I said about his 99% being possibly accurate.

What estimates?

Are you joking? The numbers I used!

Already did (go check the studies I mentioned).

Which ones? This is a long thread.

 

[Resume]

Well, that's my point, really: we can only reach tentative conclusions about what we do know.

Yes, and what we do know is that Trump's claim that the COVID-19 virus is 99% harmless is pulled from his ass. As Fauci noted, that statement is "obviously not the case."

We do know that sometimes mildly symptomatic patients have health issues ranging from lung scarring to neurological issues, and even the asymptomatic can have lung problems akin to walking pneumonia. Some of these folks are walking around oblivious to these issues until they present and are confrirmed by health professionals. How many are there? We don't know, won't know for quite some time. We do know that these issues are not harmless as Trump claims, but resultant from contracting the virus, seemingly mildly or not at all. At first.

Trump's 99% "harmless" claim is wildly irresponsible, unevidenced, and in Fauci's words, "not the case."

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and what we do know is that Trump's claim that the COVID-19 virus is 99% harmless is pulled from his ass. As Fauci noted, that statement is "obviously not the case."

We do know that sometimes mildly symptomatic patients have health issues ranging from lung scarring to neurological issues, and even the asymptomatic can have lung problems akin to walking pneumonia. Some of these folks are walking around oblivious to these issues until they present and are confrirmed by health professionals. How many are there? We don't know, won't know for quite some time. We do know that these issues are not harmless as Trump claims, but resultant from contracting the virus, seemingly mildly or not at all. At first.

Trump's 99% "harmless" claim is wildly irresponsible, unevidenced, and in Fauci's words, "not the case."

If we take 'harmless' to be literal, sure. But if we include mild symptoms and lack of complicstions as included in 'harmless', I'm not so sure.

 

[Resume]

If we take 'harmless' to be literal, sure. But if we include mild symptoms and lack of complicstions as included in 'harmless', I'm not so sure.

There are folks wandering around who had "mild" symptoms, recovered without doctors care, and have no idea they have collateral tissue and organ damage that have not presented, and won't know until they have a comprehensive check up.

 

[Belz...]

There are folks wandering around who had "mild" symptoms, recovered without doctors care, and have no idea they have collateral tissue and organ damage that have not presented, and won't know until they have a comprehensive check up.

Well that's what I mean. As we learn more about the impacts of this virus the older estimates and facts are going to change. I was saying that Trump may be using outdated information... assuming he's using information to begin with.