US Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pegasus said:
For those who aren’t bloodthirsty psycho leftists, Rand Paul is doing ok.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1241899783570284545
Click to expand...

Politics is a fascinating game.

I remember when Trump absolutely humiliated Rand Paul


Now they act as if they are best buddies.

(this is a general thought, not just aimed at the TrumpenRand bromance)
You do wonder where politicians lie in this process. Is it like the UK parliament where everyone is pretty much part of the same club but they put on a show for the TV. Or do they lie about being all buddy buddies.
 
Pegasus said:
Some more positive news.

View attachment 806513
Click to expand...

It's not that surprising seeing that he's giving Americans nothing but good news. According to Trump the economy will be back to normal in April and Easter services will be packed. I'd be amped too.

Let's see how his approval does when things start getting bad, when the numbers become overwhelming and people are going back to work and getting infected on his advice, when hospitals can't take in more people and his decision to end the shutdown turns out to have been severely premature, and when his inability to actually administrate and coordinate effectively becomes apparent. I suspect as always that the ones disapproving are the ones who are paying attention.
 
konfab said:
Politics is a fascinating game.

I remember when Trump absolutely humiliated Rand Paul


Now they act as if they are best buddies.

(this is a general thought, not just aimed at the TrumpenRand bromance)
You do wonder where politicians lie in this process. Is it like the UK parliament where everyone is pretty much part of the same club but they put on a show for the TV. Or do they lie about being all buddy buddies.
Click to expand...

It's like lawyers. You can argue both sides of the case.


One reason I think Lindsey Graham is a great politician.
 
konfab said:
How have I incorrectly used statistics here?
Click to expand...

You just compared the risk factors of COVID-19 to dying in a car accident. This is not the same thing, they are even comparable.

The current case mortality rate is actually higher than I quoted - 4.5% of patients with the virus die. Let's take out Italy - since 9.9% of cases there are fatal (I dare you to go to an Italian and ask them why they are worried about COVID-19 if they also drive) then we are at a 3.5% case fatality rate.

3.5% means, that statistically, that for every 30 times you get in a car, you have the likelihood of dying once. So every year, if you drove everyday, you are guaranteed death 12 times. Now put into this perspective, would you stop driving if this was the case? Yes. So you are using statistics incorrectly by comparing two scenarios with wildly risk factors.


Pegasus said:
Where are those stats from?
Click to expand...

The WHO situation reports.
 
Last edited:
rietrot said:
Lol it is childishly funny and true at the same time. How can you not like it, if not purely for the entertainment value.
Click to expand...

I don't find it funny, but I guess that it's targeted at folks like you, not folks like me.
 
boramk said:
You just compared the risk factors of COVID-19 to dying in a car accident. This is not the same thing are even comparable.

The current case mortality rate is actually higher than I quoted - 4.5% of patients with the virus die. Let's take out Italy - since 9.9% of cases there are fatal (I dare you to go to an Italian and ask them why they are worried about COVID-19 if they also drive) then we are at a 3.5% case fatality rate.

3.5% means, that statistically, that for every 30 times you get in a car, you have the likelihood of dying once. So every year, if you drove everyday, you are guaranteed death 12 times. Now put into this perspective, would you stop driving if this was the case? Yes. So you are using statistics incorrectly by comparing two scenarios with wildly risk factors.




The WHO situation reports.
Click to expand...

I saw close to the 4.5% when I went to the WHO myself.

I take it you are using the assumption that everybody has the virus when using those numbers?
Also remember to use the cohorts.
 
boramk said:
You just compared the risk factors of COVID-19 to dying in a car accident. This is not the same thing are even comparable.

The current case mortality rate is actually higher than I quoted - 4.5% of patients with the virus die. Let's take out Italy - since 9.9% of cases there are fatal (I dare you to go to an Italian and ask them why they are worried about COVID-19 if they also drive) then we are at a 3.5% case fatality rate.

3.5% means, that statistically, that for every 30 times you get in a car, you have the likelihood of dying once. So every year, if you drove everyday, you are guaranteed death 12 times. Now put into this perspective, would you stop driving if this was the case? Yes. So you are using statistics incorrectly by comparing two scenarios with wildly risk factors.




The WHO situation reports.
Click to expand...
I didn't state they were comparable. I said that people balance between risk all the time. I then gave an example of smoking which has an even higher risk factor, yet it is still allowed in society.

And I wouldn't trust those figures too much from Italy. They are pretty liberal with how they count the deaths as being caused by C-19.

Here is my post:
Motoring accidents kill lots of people every year. Yet you still drive a car.

Which means that personally, you act as if there is a balance between safety and the economy (as you probably use your car to drive to work).

People take risks every day. Heck smoking is still allowed in most countries and it kills on average 1300 people a day in the US.

If you look at secondhand smoke which is closer to C-19 in that you don't really choose to get it, it kills 41000 people a year. Or 112 people per day in the US alone. C-19 would have to kill twice as many people as it already has just to catch up with the US secondhand smoke figures.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

Yet society considers this pretty normal and not worth panicking over. Implicitly, society in the US has balanced the economic cost (entertainment, cool factor, calming, whatever reason why idiots smoke) of smoking to the health cost to something like 41000 people a year.

It isn't realistic to state that we can aim for 100% safety and 0% risk. If it isn't true for smoking, which is a preventable and somewhat controllable thing, it certainly won't be true for an infectious disease.
Click to expand...
 
Pegasus said:
I saw close to the 4.5% when I went to the WHO myself.

I take it you are using the assumption that everybody has the virus when using those numbers?
Also remember to use the cohorts.
Click to expand...

Looking purely at case fatality rates. We can assume many more have the virus that have not been diagnosed.

Without the shelter in or lock down mandated, we can also assume that hospitalization rates will increase, number of beds decrease and death rates go up. Country by country, by socio-economic and age structure, will have differing rates. I'm sure you would agree South Africa with its immunocompromised and poorer facilities than Europe or Asia, will see much higher fatalities.

That's why arguing against the lockdown is inherently asking for more deaths.
 
The village idiot.


Has Donald Trump had enough of Anthony Fauci?


In the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, Antony Fauci has rapidly become America's security blanket.
The head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci's blunt, fact-based approach to the crisis -- as a member of President Donald Trump's coronavirus task force -- has been a refreshing alternative to the President's tendency to exaggerate and bluster in the now-daily press conferences on the virus and its spread.

5e79726d1378e33de2231572


But there are signs everywhere you look that Fauci's days as a high-profile member of the task force may well be numbered.

Let's start here. We know that Trump doesn't like any star to shine brighter than his. The more TV you do, the more the press writes positive things about you, the more Trump begins to turn on you.

Trust me, Trump is uniquely aware of Fauci's star status. Here's the President on March 17:
"The people behind me are total pros. All over the world, they're respected — Dr. Birx; Anthony, who has become a — where is Anthony? — become a major television star for — for all the right reasons. No, he's just so professional. So good."
 
konfab said:
I didn't state they were comparable. I said that people balance between risk all the time. I then gave an example of smoking which has an even higher risk factor, yet it is still allowed in society.

And I wouldn't trust those figures too much from Italy. They are pretty liberal with how they count the deaths as being caused by C-19.

Here is my post:
Click to expand...

You're still making the same mistake. Why even bring up things that don't factor in or compare to each other? Brain surgery is extremely risky too, yeah so what? You brought up smoking (which kills you over decades vs 2-3 weeks like COVID-19) or driving.

Everything has a risk, me going out my door is risky, an AC unit might fall on me - but what's the point of bringing this up? We know this. It's to downplay the virus as an inherent risk we should all take for the sake of the economy, and that's just where we fundamentally, and respectfully disagree.
 
boramk said:
Looking purely at case fatality rates. We can assume many more have the virus that have not been diagnosed.

Without the shelter in or lock down mandated, we can also assume that hospitalization rates will increase, number of beds decrease and death rates go up. Country by country, by socio-economic and age structure, will have differing rates. I'm sure you would agree South Africa with its immunocompromised and poorer facilities than Europe or Asia, will see much higher fatalities.

That's why arguing against the lockdown is inherently asking for more deaths.
Click to expand...

A full lockdown anyone should argue against.
People need to eat etc...

We can either shut down parts of the country at a time and take the necessary precautions while the "live" sides are working.
Or we would identify the at risk people and ensure they are mothballed. Then give the rest of the people the freedom to choose whether to work or not. With the necessary precautions of course.

A complete shut down for months / years at a time is crazy.
 
www.theverge.com

Relaxing isolation rules won’t help the economy, say economists

Conservative media is pushing for an early end to social distancing rules, but it may only speed infections.
www.theverge.com www.theverge.com

Given the exponential growth of the disease, University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers says it is cheaper to stop the spread today than it will be tomorrow. “The relevant choice is whether to take dramatic actions today when the number of cases is measured in the tens of thousands,” he says, “or whether to take even more dramatic actions in the future when the number of cases is measured in the hundreds of thousands, or in the millions.”

The number of confirmed US cases is rising by roughly 38 percent each day, on pace to reach into the hundreds of thousands by the end of the week, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University. Deaths have been rising at a slower rate, around 23 percent per day, suggesting some of the rise in case count may be the result of accelerated testing. Still, any relaxation of social distancing would likely cause those numbers to spike, with devastating consequences for both public health and economic activity.
 
boramk said:
Looking purely at case fatality rates. We can assume many more have the virus that have not been diagnosed.

Without the shelter in or lock down mandated, we can also assume that hospitalization rates will increase, number of beds decrease and death rates go up. Country by country, by socio-economic and age structure, will have differing rates. I'm sure you would agree South Africa with its immunocompromised and poorer facilities than Europe or Asia, will see much higher fatalities.

That's why arguing against the lockdown is inherently asking for more deaths.
Click to expand...

In cushy middle class countries, I think lock-downs will be pretty painless.
Here in South Africa, they are probably going to kill more people than the virus.

With luck, the infection models have been way off and far more people have actually been infected.
Because testing regimens across the world have varied tremendously, the actual mortality and hospitalization rates of COVID-19 have been hard to pin down. But modeling by researchers at the University of Oxford could provide some welcome good news, even if the initial takeaway doesn’t seem so promising. According to a team from Oxford’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease lab, half of the population of the United Kingdom may have already been infected with the coronavirus. If this modeling is confirmed in follow-up studies, that would mean that fewer than .01 percent of those infected require hospital treatment, with a majority showing very minor symptoms, or none at all.
Click to expand...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/oxford-study-coronavirus-may-have-infected-half-of-u-k.html

This would mean a few things if this is the case.
1) The mortality rate is far less than what is recorded (more like the flu).
2) Lockdowns will be pointless
3) All the resources going towards lockdowns can then be allocated towards patient care.
 
Pegasus said:
A full lockdown anyone should argue against.
People need to eat etc...

We can either shut down parts of the country at a time and take the necessary precautions while the "live" sides are working.
Or we would identify the at risk people and ensure they are mothballed. Then give the rest of the people the freedom to choose whether to work or not. With the necessary precautions of course.

A complete shut down for months / years at a time is crazy.
Click to expand...

Oh man, you sound like me 2+ weeks ago when I still wasn't taking this seriously :ROFL: (I went to a music festival in San Diego and celebrated St Paddy's day at the bars the following weekend).

It took me a couple articles shared on social media and news sites to truly understand what flattening the curve meant - and why what I did was dangerous and why we need to do a shelter in for the entire country. Take a look at this link to understand why what you outlined won't work:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X