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

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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 I was saying that Trump may be using outdated information...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

Originally Posted by Belz...

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Are you joking? The numbers I used!

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

Quote:

Which ones? This is a long thread.

Not going to do your work for you ...

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Resume

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...]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

What does that even mean?

Quote:

Nonsense from an active ISF member is inexcusable.

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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...]

Originally Posted by Resume

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]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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”.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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...]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

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...]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

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).

Quote:

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=...fVUXNVR4ivxA-8

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

https://www.iflscience.com/health-an...odeling-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]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

Originally Posted by trump on July 4

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...]

Originally Posted by carlitos

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]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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]

Originally Posted by Resume

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...]

Originally Posted by Resume

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]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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...]

Originally Posted by carlitos

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.

Originally Posted by Belz...

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=...fVUXNVR4ivxA-8

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

https://www.iflscience.com/health-an...odeling-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 ...

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

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...]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

TA = The Atheist.

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

[JeanTate]

Once more ...

Originally Posted by Belz...

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...]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

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".

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

"Totally harmless" is what he said.

Quote:

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...]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

What is your agenda here?

Agenda? Why must there be an agenda?

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Triggering libs?

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

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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
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:

Quote:

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...]

Originally Posted by 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 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.