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

[Resume]

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 I was saying that Trump may be using outdated information...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.

He isn't using information, he is pulling numbers out of his rectum, like "The U.S. has the lowest death rate from the Jina virus . . . " or "We're doing more testing than anybody . . . " or that "we're in a great place."

He's full of ****, so much so that he spouts it at every convenience. Even if a person only suffers mildly from contracting the virus, that person still suffered. It's not ******* harmless.

 

[JeanTate]

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



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.

A death due to Covid is still a death, whether it’s reported (as due to Covid) or not.

IIRC, there was a lot of criticism of the numbers of Covid deaths in Wuhan for this reason. Recently, NJ’s Covid death numbers (per the COVID Tracking Project) had a huge spike ~10% one day increase, IIRC); apparently someone finally had time to do a review, and added ~1500 “probables”.

Early on, almost everywhere, testing capabilities were so strained that lots of people with obvious Covid symptoms were not tested. So not recorded.

So, the logic flaw is to assume that if a case is not reported (as Covid), it is (most likely) due to mild (at worst) symptoms. Go outside. Open a horse’s mouth. Count the teeth.

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.

Trump’s BS is what it is.

Nonsense from an active ISF member is inexcusable.

Are you joking? The numbers I used!

Which, for all I know, you got from the same sort of source as Trump’s “99%”.

Which ones? This is a long thread.

Not going to do your work for you ...

 

[Belz...]

He isn't using information, he is pulling numbers out of his rectum, like "The U.S. has the lowest death rate from the Jina virus . . . " or "We're doing more testing than anybody . . . " or that "we're in a great place."

He's full of ****, so much so that he spouts it at every convenience. Even if a person only suffers mildly from contracting the virus, that person still suffered. It's not ******* harmless.

Look, I get that you hate Trump; so do I. But that doesn't mean that everything he says is automatically 100% wrong.

...only about 70%, apparently.

 

[Belz...]

A death due to Covid is still a death, whether it’s reported (as due to Covid) or not.

I said cases, not deaths. Do you have any reason to believe that the number of deaths is underreported?

So, the logic flaw is to assume that if a case is not reported (as Covid), it is (most likely) due to mild (at worst) symptoms.

An assumption is not a flaw in logic, even if it turns out to be false. Do you have any reason to believe my assumption is unreasonable?

Go outside. Open a horse’s mouth. Count the teeth.

What does that even mean?

Nonsense from an active ISF member is inexcusable.

Why? I think you'll find that EVERY forum member, yourself included, has posted nonsense.

Not going to do your work for you ...

Do you seriously expect me to rummage through two threads, and 89 pages, to try to find something that might or might not exist?

It's YOUR work. If you have something to present as evidence or argument, do so. Don't expect me to look up your own supporting arguments for you. You'd not expect others to do that to you.

 

[Resume]

Look, I get that you hate Trump; so do I. But that doesn't mean that everything he says is automatically 100% wrong.

...only about 70%, apparently.

It's got nothing to do with hating Trump and everything to do with his pulled from the ass "99% harmless" unevidenced assertion. It is reckless and irresponsible and again to quote Fauci, "not the case."

 

[Belz...]

It's got nothing to do with hating Trump and everything to do with his pulled from the ass "99% harmless" unevidenced assertion. It is reckless and irresponsible and again to quote Fauci, "not the case."

And here's my point: Some early estimates said that up to 90% of cases went unreported, right? So if we charitably interpret that to mean that those cases are therefore mild or asymptomatic (which may not be true, but that's irrelevant), and if the other early estimate (which I believe came from Chinese authorities, take that as you will) that reported cases were mild 85% of the time, that's 99%. Now, you can argue that this is way outdated, or flatly untrue, but someone who says that may not be pulling it out of his ass. I know it's Trump, so that kind of changes the probabilities, but the early numbers were available nonetheless.

 

[JeanTate]

I said cases, not deaths. Do you have any reason to believe that the number of deaths is underreported?

I already gave you one.

Something similar happened earlier in NY, when someone got around to investigation of some the “deaths at home”.

An assumption is not a flaw in logic, even if it turns out to be false. Do you have any reason to believe my assumption is unreasonable?



What does that even mean?



Why? I think you'll find that EVERY forum member, yourself included, has posted nonsense.



Do you seriously expect me to rummage through two threads, and 89 pages, to try to find something that might or might not exist?

It's YOUR work. If you have something to present as evidence or argument, do so. Don't expect me to look up your own supporting arguments for you. You'd not expect others to do that to you.

At least TA cited two sources. Turns out, they both blew his equivalent of your “90% not reported” up. Still waiting for your source(s) ...

In the meantime, check out this post, the one before it, and also #167 (it’s about Vò).

 

[Resume]

And here's my point: Some early estimates said that up to 90% of cases went unreported, right? So if we charitably interpret that to mean that those cases are therefore mild or asymptomatic (which may not be true, but that's irrelevant), and if the other early estimate (which I believe came from Chinese authorities, take that as you will) that reported cases were mild 85% of the time, that's 99%. Now, you can argue that this is way outdated, or flatly untrue, but someone who says that may not be pulling it out of his ass. I know it's Trump, so that kind of changes the probabilities, but the early numbers were available nonetheless.

Trump's 99% harmless assertion is pulled 100% from his rectum. As has been observed, he barely reads briefing data and as Fauci noted, he is probably confusing mortality percentages with . . . whatever synaptic misfires occurred that day. Remember, this is a man who bragged about "acing" a cognitive exam that required him to identify a camel, draw a 3D cube, and recall five words.

His irresponsible downplaying of COVID-19 harm is purely driven by political desires and has nothing to do with his interpretation of data, or more accurately, his limited understand of data that had been interpreted, and typed out for him in a brief.

No, as Fauci stated, 99% harmless is "not the case." In fact, it can be successfully argued that in many ways, Covid-19 has harmed all of us.

 

[JeanTate]

And here's my point: Some early estimates said that up to 90% of cases went unreported, right?

<snip>

So you say (change in what the estimate actually is noted).

Yet you have yet to cite any source. Strange, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Belz...]

I already gave you one.

Something similar happened earlier in NY, when someone got around to investigation of some the “deaths at home”.


At least TA cited two sources. Turns out, they both blew his equivalent of your “90% not reported” up. Still waiting for your source(s) ...

In the meantime, check out this post, the one before it, and also #167 (it’s about Vò).

As I said, the early data could be way off the mark, but that's not my point.

(What's "TA", by the way?)

 

[Belz...]

So you say (change in what the estimate actually is noted).

What change? I said 90% from the beginning. And that's the high end number. The real one is probably lower, especially now that testing has increased (and by now, I mean in the last three months).

Yet you have yet to cite any source. Strange, wouldn’t you say?

You know, I always took you to be a rather level-headed and reasonable person. I don't understand why this simple disagreement feels like it carries so much resentment.

I presumed you had read some articles and news about this topic before. I'm surprised you didn't come across this information back in spring. And as I said it doesn't matter if it turned out wrong; only that this information might have come to the orange terror's attention and that he, as usual, never updated his knowledge base, such as it is.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjA9J2Ro83qAhWohHIEHbKTCcEQFjAMegQIMBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2077-0383%2F9%2F5%2F1350%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw0xhWbVJFfVUXNVR4ivxA-8

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239078/

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/how-many-covid19-cases-may-be-going-unreported-according-to-new-modeling-study/

Bear in mind that those are several months old, as I originally stated. The point is that it is at least possible that Trump actually used data, albeit outdated and, to be sure, interpreted in the most charitable way he could manage.

 

[carlitos]

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.

The President said "totally harmless." That would mean that the other 99% of Covid-19 patients escaped with ZERO harm. Totally unharmed.

Trump pulled this number out of his ass, and I cannot understand where your numbers or estimates or whatever are coming from.

Maybe write out your numbers in a table so we can follow your logic? I see you seem to be multiplying 90% and 85%, which gets me to a number quite a bit less than 99%, but I can't tell what you are saying - asymptomatic, just kinda sick, what?

Remember, the President said this idiotic thing, so the bar for you to clear if you want it to be accurate is:

100% of Coronavirus cases =

99% "totally harmless" (I'll count sick for a couple of days like a cold here, since everyone gets colds)
+1% dead / seriously ill / hospitalized / sick for weeks / lifelong health effects

We have tested over 40 million people. By so doing, we show cases, 99% of which are totally harmless.

ETA - Belz... Spamming links, including apparently a link to a google result, is just lazy and bad form. If those links show your 99% number to be accurate, then quote or summarize the relevant text please.

 

[Belz...]

The President said "totally harmless."

His use of ridiculous superlatives is well known. He's also a total idiot. I don't think, even if he weren't such a big fat liar, we could take him literally.

 

[Resume]

His use of ridiculous superlatives is well known. He's also a total idiot. I don't think, even if he weren't such a big fat liar, we could take him literally.

He used 99% harmless to downplay the virus politically, in the same way he lies about mortality rate and testing percentages. He is reckless, and dangerous, as is evidenced by horrendous spike in states that pandered to his nonsense by opening too soon. Again, totally political, not based in science, but in pretend.

It's not going away.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He used 99% harmless to downplay the virus politically, in the same way he lies about mortality rate and testing percentages. He is reckless, and dangerous, as is evidenced by horrendous spike in states that pandered to his nonsense by opening too soon. Again, totally political, not based in science, but in pretend.

It's not going away.

Look the republican logic is clear, if we simply never tested anyone we wouldn't have any cases and so there would be no epidemic.

 

[Belz...]

He used 99% harmless to downplay the virus politically, in the same way he lies about mortality rate and testing percentages. He is reckless, and dangerous, as is evidenced by horrendous spike in states that pandered to his nonsense by opening too soon. Again, totally political, not based in science, but in pretend.

It's not going away.

All true, but that's not mutually exclusive with what I said.

 

[Minoosh]

It seems to me there is a crescendo of criticism aimed at Trump over his various unevidenced or anti-scientific COVID-19 statements and his style of threatening, denial or throwing a tantrum if he's not getting his own way. Like a broad cross-section of people are ignoring him on this topic. Like Republicans thinking a convention in August makes little sense. Or supporters who are probably still not wearing a mask in public if they can avoid it. Let alone school districts trying to determine the best way to start the school year.

I generally don't read a lot of news stories about Trump. I hear about some of his most outrageous statements because people post them here. Today I called up a CNN alert and pushed a few "related" buttons. So maybe it's just that my sampling technique has changed.

What do other people think?

 

[carlitos]

All true, but that's not mutually exclusive with what I said.

Here, I'm going to write this. You just print it out and sign it, then scan and post it on the forum thread.



I was wrong.



Sincerely,

______________
Belz...

 

[Belz...]

Here, I'm going to write this. You just print it out and sign it, then scan and post it on the forum thread.

I was wrong.

Sincerely,
______________
Belz...

You're asking me to lie.

Seriously, it's like you can't even conceive that Trump might be using incorrect or outdated information and spinning it to his advantage. No, he HAS to have completely made it up. No other possibility, ever.

Fine, have fun with that.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

What change? I said 90% from the beginning. And that's the high end number. The real one is probably lower, especially now that testing has increased (and by now, I mean in the last three months).



You know, I always took you to be a rather level-headed and reasonable person. I don't understand why this simple disagreement feels like it carries so much resentment.

I presumed you had read some articles and news about this topic before. I'm surprised you didn't come across this information back in spring. And as I said it doesn't matter if it turned out wrong; only that this information might have come to the orange terror's attention and that he, as usual, never updated his knowledge base, such as it is.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjA9J2Ro83qAhWohHIEHbKTCcEQFjAMegQIMBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2077-0383%2F9%2F5%2F1350%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw0xhWbVJFfVUXNVR4ivxA-8

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239078/

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/how-many-covid19-cases-may-be-going-unreported-according-to-new-modeling-study/

Bear in mind that those are several months old, as I originally stated. The point is that it is at least possible that Trump actually used data, albeit outdated and, to be sure, interpreted in the most charitable way he could manage.

Not sure if they are directly relevant to your “90%”, or your 98.5% (or both, or neither) ...

TA = The Atheist.

Gonna take another look at your original post ...