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

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

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.

Governor Sisolak shut down the bars again in Nevada. That's the common theme everywhere - bars are obviously a high risk area. Masks are mandatory here, so if your business is caught not enforcing guidelines they are being shut down and/or fined.

 

[Belz...]

TA = The Atheist.

Wow, I can't believe I didn't catch that.

 

[JeanTate]

Once more ...

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.

So:

0.985 = 0.900 + (1-0.900)*0.850

Have I got that right?

For “99% totally harmless” (ignoring the 0.005), all the “up to 90%” must be “totally harmless”. And not “up to”, but all.

So where does the “most likely” come from? Shouldn’t it be “must be”?

And why choose “90% must be a/mild symptoms”? Especially as there is now lots of evidence to the contrary?

If one is trying to reverse engineer Trump’s “99% totally harmless”, there are surely more robust ways, right?

 

[Belz...]

Once more ...


So:

0.985 = 0.900 + (1-0.900)*0.850

Have I got that right?

For “99% totally harmless” (ignoring the 0.005), all the “up to 90%” must be “totally harmless”. And not “up to”, but all.

Well as I said I took "totally harmless" to be one of Trump's usuall hyperbole, which could mean anything from "not worth bothering about" to "nah, nothing to see here at all".

So where does the “most likely” come from? Shouldn’t it be “must be”?

That was my most charitable interpretation. Remember I'm starting from the assumption that Trump didn't actually pull this out of his ass but rather took the absolute most convenient interpretation of the most convenient end of whatever estimate he could get his tiny hands on back in March/April.

And why choose “90% must be a/mild symptoms”? Especially as there is now lots of evidence to the contrary?

Because as I said I'm assuming that Trump's information is severely outdated. So the fact that reality turned out different isn't relevant.

 

[Resume]

Trump's favorite governor/lapdog says things.

Florida set a new record for coronavirus deaths Tuesday, one of several metrics that show the state’s coronavirus crisis is still getting worse, even as Gov. Ron DeSantis claimed at a news conference Monday afternoon that the state’s situation had “stabilized.”

Now what definition of stabilized could he mean? Is he being hyperbolic?

 

[Minoosh]

Back to my question: Is anybody relying on Trump for COVID-19 counsel, anyone at all? As far as I can tell, there is a consensus that nothing Trump says on the topic is worth considering. And that's true no matter where one lands on the spectrum of left vs. right.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Some might be, I know a Trumpista who was quick to hop on the hydrochloroquine train, but he also listens to a lot of conspiracy-media stuff.

 

[Resume]

Back to my question: Is anybody relying on Trump for COVID-19 counsel, anyone at all? As far as I can tell, there is a consensus that nothing Trump says on the topic is worth considering. And that's true no matter where one lands on the spectrum of left vs. right.

Do you mean here, or in general? Because if you mean in general, there appear to be a number of folks who take his word on the topic as gospel. Just yesterday at some self-indulgent press thingee or the other, Trump bloviated on how schools must open, and the gathered unmasked idiots applauded and nodded like . . . idiots.

My crazy catholic SiL and her family sure think he's the expert on this pandemic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Remember how we used to hear about Russia and China controlling the information?

Seattle Times: Administration Orders Hospitals to Bypass the CDC With Key Virus Data

The Trump administration has ordered hospitals to bypass the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and, beginning Wednesday, send all coronavirus patient information to a central database in Washington — a move that has alarmed public health experts who fear the data will be distorted for political gain.

The new instructions are contained in a little-noticed document posted this week on the Department of Health and Human Services’ website. From now on, HHS, and not the CDC, will collect daily reports about the patients that each hospital is treating, how many beds and ventilators are available, and other information vital to tracking the pandemic.

We all know he's an idiot, but he has to be really stupid to think he can hide this kind of information like they do in China or Russia.

The news media will simply collect the data from hospitals themselves. And it's required to report certain infectious diseases to the local public health. This idea of Trump's is ignorant on oh so many levels.

Of course they claim it is to improve data collection.

NYT, scroll down to: The administration orders hospitals to bypass the C.D.C. with key virus data, alarming health experts.

The shift grew out of a tense conference call several weeks ago between hospital executives and Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator.

After Dr. Birx complained that hospitals were not adequately reporting their data, she convened a working group of government and hospital officials who devised the new plan, according to Janis Orlowski, chief health care officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, who participated.

 

[Trebuchet]

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.

Trump doesn't use information of any sort. He uses BS from Faux News and OANN.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Because as I said I'm assuming that Trump's information is severely outdated. So the fact that reality turned out different isn't relevant.

Why?

The statement is outrageous on it's face, and knowing Trump's record for dishonesty the chances of it being true are remote. So why assume that it's true? What is your agenda here?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Why?



The statement is outrageous on it's face, and knowing Trump's record for dishonesty the chances of it being true are remote. So why assume that it's true? What is your agenda here?

Triggering libs?

 

[xjx388]

Now hold on. It’s entirely possible that Trump means “didn’t die” when he says “harmless.”

Isn’t 1% on the high end of a true IFR?

 

[Resume]

Now hold on. It’s entirely possible that Trump means “didn’t die” when he says “harmless.”

Isn’t 1% on the high end of a true IFR?

"Totally harmless" is what he said.

1 : free from harm, liability, or loss. 2 : lacking capacity or intent to injure : innocuous a harmless joke.

He meant pay no attention to the COVID-19 pandemic. It's over, we've won. It's going away.

 

[Belz...]

Why?

The statement is outrageous on it's face, and knowing Trump's record for dishonesty the chances of it being true are remote.

His track record of picking and choosing data that suits his purposes is also pretty long. I don't know why it's so controversial that the "99%" might simply come from cherrypicking outdated information rather than just making it up.

So why assume that it's true?

For the sake of argument, as I've already indicated. I just didn't simply jump to a conclusion and stuck to it. I'm considering alternatives. I know it's verboten right now, but bear with me.

What is your agenda here?

Agenda? Why must there be an agenda?

Triggering libs?

Oh, cool. I'm a right-winger today!

 

[Meadmaker]

Back to my question: Is anybody relying on Trump for COVID-19 counsel, anyone at all? As far as I can tell, there is a consensus that nothing Trump says on the topic is worth considering. And that's true no matter where one lands on the spectrum of left vs. right.

I read National Review sometimes, their articles vary between neutral to extremely negative on his handling. I read townhall.com sometimes. They have taken to almost completely ignoring Covid 19.

Needless to say the left ignores him.

I think he is being ignored, completely.


I think the resurgence of the virus in Florida, Texas, and Arizona kind of burst the Trump bubble.

 

[Meadmaker]

Remember how we used to hear about Russia and China controlling the information?

Seattle Times: Administration Orders Hospitals to Bypass the CDC With Key Virus Data
We all know he's an idiot, but he has to be really stupid to think he can hide this kind of information like they do in China or Russia.

The news media will simply collect the data from hospitals themselves. And it's required to report certain infectious diseases to the local public health. This idea of Trump's is ignorant on oh so many levels.

Of course they claim it is to improve data collection.

NYT, scroll down to: The administration orders hospitals to bypass the C.D.C. with key virus data, alarming health experts.

Wow.

This is the kind of thing that if any other president did it, people would see it as a move to improve data collection. But then again, if any other president had been in office, something vaguely like this would have been first out of the gate and functioning by April. In other words, any other president would have said "We need to make sure our data is top notch and accurate," and he would have asked the CDC to supervise development of top notch reporting capability.

As it is, it's Trump, and four months into the crisis, right as the numbers are making him look very bad, suddenly he takes interest. Why would anyone trust him?

Well, of course, there are True Believers, and always will be, but I would hope those are no more than 1/3 of the voters.

I hope.

 

[Belz...]

How do you want to bet that the daily number of new cases in the US will magically and dramatically decrease within a few days?

 

[newyorkguy]

Regarding the 99% nonsense, it might be instructive to review trump's actual comment. he made it during remarks at a White House celebration of Independence Day. From the Guardian:

Trump returned to his now familiar and baseless complaint that America has a high caseload because it performs more tests. “Now we have tested almost 40m people. By so doing, we show cases, 99% of which are totally harmless. Results that no other country can show because no other country has the testing that we have, not in terms of the numbers or in terms of quality.” Guardian

trump was very clearly saying the virus is "totally harmless" to 99% of the people who test positive for Covid-19. Not 99% of some unklnown number of people who have been infected. But 99% of people who have been tested and had a positive result.

 

[Belz...]

Regarding the 99% nonsense, it might be instructive to review trump's actual comment. he made it during remarks at a White House celebration of Independence Day. From the Guardian:


trump was very clearly saying the virus is "totally harmless" to 99% of the people who test positive for Covid-19. Not 99% of some unklnown number of people who have been infected. But 99% of people who have been tested and had a positive result.

Ah, sorry about that, then. I was working from an incomplete and unsourced quote. Trump is clearly wrong there. Even with my very charitable donations of estimates from back in March and April, that couldn't possibly be higher than 85%, and that's if we are also charitable about what "totally harmless" means.

In view of this added information, I retract my previous possible interpretation.

Well, that leaves the ass-pull, then.