OT: Corona virus

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opin ... ncing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

After recent events, my interest was taken with the decision making at the top levels of US government.

From this, and the recent interaction between Trump and Dr Brix, I am of the opinion that Fauci, Brix (and likely anyone else involved in the process) would say the sky is green if it kept Trump on side.

Trump's comments (well, tweets) on the subject are in the public domain.

If you read those comments as the comments of a leader that takes the situation and the advice seriously, then perhaps get your eyes tested.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States.

It's May 9th, and President Trump still doesn’t have an adequate national testing strategy.

Yes he does. He left it to the states/people as it is their responsibility under the tenth amendment to the US Constitution.

What part (article?) of the constitution outlines the US testing strategy [&:]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Florida is not exactly hitting out of the park as far as nursing home mortality. https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/na ... 21e7b.html
Governor DeSantis seems to think this is funny and in the middle of this crisis calls his state "Gods Waiting Room". funny stuff. Tip of the iceberg as DeSantis has done everything in his power to keep these numbers secret. Luckily, the Miami Herald has been able to pry some of the information loose

Funny, I was having a look through the Florida Department of Public Health website a few days ago.

Mind providing a summary of the article? Us Eurotrash can't access that website because of data protection.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: witpqs



No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opin ... ncing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

I, for one, would be leery of giving that kind of power to any President of the US.

In the US, there were 8 states that didn't issue mandatory stay at home orders. None of those States were in risk of their hospitals being overrun which was the primary, original goal of the lockdown. There always exist more than one way to skin a cat.

There were many other states that had lockdowns of differing severity. In each individual state you see a wide disparity among local counties and their state govts. Some counties are actually in open rebellion. Most state Govnr's don't have the legal authority.

The argument that the lockdown doesn't carry it's own deathtoll has somehow been excluded.

The decision to have a centralized mandate, would carry with it an important factor. Down the road, the economic costs of decision making during the time of the Pandemic would be distributed equally. For example, say my company has production in China that I now desire to bring back to the States. Would I pick New York, with it high tax, high cost, likely future shutdown environment, or someplace like South Dakota or Arkansas. I would only pick New York if the logistics savings or customer engagement was very concentrated there or the state plied me with tons of tax dollars/offsets or the Govt guaranteed I was immune from any future lockdown.

But if Arkansas was forced to shutdown, well then, that removes a very big decision making input.

Cap said earlier that he fears a 4 year or so economic turnaround. I think we are more like at 10 years right now, based on the 2008 economic downturn or even longer. Just to give an idea of the hideous changes that are upon us, Gov Cuomo of New York is openly questioning having brick and mortar schools. Colleges are going to be especially hard hit.

Not only are we living in the greatest medical experiment of all time, we are going to see a huge economic migration across the world. It took almost 3 generations for economic interdependencies to return to their pre WW1 pre Spanish flu levels.

May you live in interesting times.[:)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth



It's May 9th, and President Trump still doesn’t have an adequate national testing strategy.

Yes he does. He left it to the states/people as it is their responsibility under the tenth amendment to the US Constitution.

What part (article?) of the constitution outlines the US testing strategy [&:]

The 10th amendment to the US Constitution.

Tenth Amendment: Principle of Federalism through the provision of powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the individual states.


What is the Tenth Amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The Tenth Amendment Defined:
The Tenth Amendment is fairly similar to an earlier provision outlined in the Articles of Confederation which stated that each individual state shall retain sovereignty, independence, freedom, while possessing every power, right, and jurisdiction that is not expressly delegated to the greater governing body of the United States. Following the ratification of the Constitution, framers wanted a similar amendment to limit the federal government to only powers delegated, meaning the denial of implied powers.
The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.
The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.
Stipulations of the Tenth Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment was instituted in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the federal government would only exercise the powers that were stated as permissible in the Constitution. All other powers that are not directly referred to in the United States Constitution were delivered to the individual states.

https://constitution.laws.com/10th-amendment

There is more to read there as well, not to mention case law that can be looked up.

Since medical care and testing was not included in the specific powers given to the federal government, those powers were retained by the states and the people. [8D]

[JohnDillworth]

Turns out NY State is doing better than most of the country in Covid-19 deaths at long term facilities. New York seems to be in the bottom third at about 20%. Many states are at 50% or above. Whats going on there? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... e=Homepage

[sPzAbt653]

Maryland is preparing for relaxed restrictions!

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Maryland is preparing for relaxed restrictions!

Are you implying that these would not be needed if the restrictions were not to be relaxed?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Turns out NY State is doing better than most of the country in Covid-19 deaths at long term facilities. New York seems to be in the bottom third at about 20%. Many states are at 50% or above. Whats going on there? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... e=Homepage

New York has had more deaths overall among the people not in a nursing home. These were probably the elderly and other high risk patients who stayed at home.

In Minnesota, look at the racism at play for the Covid-19 deaths:

White residents account for 34% of the state’s known cases and 65% of deaths. Black Minnesotans account for 17% of confirmed cases and 6% of deaths.

Race is unknown or missing for 33% of cases and 25% of deaths, according to the Health Department.

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-d ... 570338221/

[RangerJoe]

Should we ban driving because people might get shot?

Woman shot while driving in south Minneapolis dies
Arionna Buckanaga was wounded late Monday on Cedar Avenue. Police suspect her male companion was the shooter's target.

An 18-year-old woman who was gravely wounded in a shooting in south Minneapolis earlier this week died Friday night, police said Saturday.

Arionna Buckanaga was shot late Monday when someone fired into the car she and a male companion were in on Cedar Avenue, causing the car to veer off the road and slam into a tree near 39th Street.

The male companion, whom police suspect was the intended the target of the attack, wasn’t injured.

Buckanaga was taken to HCMC in grave condition. Members of the Police Department’s crisis response team said they were told by Buckanaga’s family that she was on life support and had no brain function in the past days.
.
.
.
On Wednesday, griends and relatives gathered in Minneapolis to pray, chant and share stories of Buckanaga.

A group of men sat in a circle, thumping on a calfskin drum and singing “to help her on her journey,” as one man said. Between songs, they invited people to sprinkle tobacco on the drum as a blessing.

As they played, a little girl walked through the crowd with a bowl of burning incense, as people leaned over and waved the swirling smoke over their bodies. Some wore face masks.

One of Buckanaga’s aunts, Rebecca, spoke at the vigil, thanking the crowd of more than 100 for coming and asking for their continued support of her family.

“This is really hard for them, and they have a long road ahead of them so they really, really need your prayers,” she said, adding the Ojibwe word for thank you: “Miigwetch.”

Another aunt, Jana Williams, said at the vigil that if Buckanaga died, it wouldn’t be in vain, as her relatives had decided to donate her organs.

“We may see her eyes looking back at us,” Williams said. “We may see her heart.”

https://www.startribune.com/woman-shot- ... 570339381/

The sad part of the donating of her organs is that because of the lockdown, her organs may not be used to save other people.

The young woman left a young son. [:(]

[durnedwolf]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opin ... ncing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

I, for one, would be leery of giving that kind of power to any President of the US.

In the US, there were 8 states that didn't issue mandatory stay at home orders. None of those States were in risk of their hospitals being overrun which was the primary, original goal of the lockdown. There always exist more than one way to skin a cat.

There were many other states that had lockdowns of differing severity. In each individual state you see a wide disparity among local counties and their state govts. Some counties are actually in open rebellion. Most state Govnr's don't have the legal authority.

The argument that the lockdown doesn't carry it's own deathtoll has somehow been excluded.

The decision to have a centralized mandate, would carry with it an important factor. Down the road, the economic costs of decision making during the time of the Pandemic would be distributed equally. For example, say my company has production in China that I now desire to bring back to the States. Would I pick New York, with it high tax, high cost, likely future shutdown environment, or someplace like South Dakota or Arkansas. I would only pick New York if the logistics savings or customer engagement was very concentrated there or the state plied me with tons of tax dollars/offsets or the Govt guaranteed I was immune from any future lockdown.

But if Arkansas was forced to shutdown, well then, that removes a very big decision making input.

Cap said earlier that he fears a 4 year or so economic turnaround. I think we are more like at 10 years right now, based on the 2008 economic downturn or even longer. Just to give an idea of the hideous changes that are upon us, Gov Cuomo of New York is openly questioning having brick and mortar schools. Colleges are going to be especially hard hit.

Not only are we living in the greatest medical experiment of all time, we are going to see a huge economic migration across the world. It took almost 3 generations for economic interdependencies to return to their pre WW1 pre Spanish flu levels.

May you live in interesting times.[:)]

I don't know why you'd be leery of giving that kind of power to the Prez... It's OK to authorize a nuclear launch but not OK to issue an emergency order? I think he can run on an emergency order for 90 days and then Congress has to back it or the order ceases.

[sPzAbt653]

I don't know much about Cuomo, but I'd assume any governor is trying to do his best under difficult circumstances.

To give you some background on Cuomo's scruples [before he was Governor] :
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was under investigation for unaccountable billions of dollars missing from the coiffures at HUD during his time in charge of the Dept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_valu ... of_conduct

It's a complex issue, but unless he had a personal revelation once moving into the Governor's office, Andrew Cuomo is the type that will step on the public to get his way [to put it nicely].

[RangerJoe]

Coronavirus takes a toll in Sweden's immigrant community
By DAVID KEYTON Associated Press
May 9, 2020

Inside Sweden's immigrant communities, anecdotal evidence emerged early in the outbreak that suggested that some — particularly those from Somalia and Iraq — were hit harder than others. Last month, data from Sweden’s Public Health Agency confirmed that Somali Swedes made up almost 5 percent of the country's COVID-19 cases, yet represented less than 1 percent of its 10 million people.

Many in these communities are more likely to live in crowded, multigeneration households and are unable to work remotely.

“No one cares for taxi drivers in Sweden,” said Khalaf, who tested positive and was admitted to a hospital when his condition deteriorated. Despite difficulties breathing, the 49-year-old says he was sent home after six hours and told his body was strong enough to “fight it off.”

In Finland, Helsinki authorities warned of a similar over-representation among Somali immigrants in the capital — some 200 cases, or about 14%, of all confirmed infections. In Norway, where immigrants make up nearly 15% of the general population, they represent about 25% of confirmed coronavirus cases.

“I think a pandemic like this one, or any crisis will hit the most vulnerable people in society the most wherever in the world, and we see this in many many countries," said Isabella Lovin, Sweden's deputy prime minister, in an interview with The Associated Press.

Noting that the virus was spreading faster in some crowded Stockholm suburbs, Lovin said said the city is providing short-term accommodation to some people whose relatives are vulnerable.

Sweden, Norway and Finland recognized early failings in community outreach in minority languages and are seeking to fix this. The town of Jarfalla, outside Stockholm, has had high school students hand out leaflets in Somali, Persian, French and other languages, urging people to wash their hands and stay home if sick.

With Sweden's relatively low-key approach to fighting the virus that relies mainly on voluntary social distancing, there are concerns the message has not reached everyone in immigrant neighborhoods.

“It’s important that everyone living here who has a different mother tongue gets the right information,” said Warda Addallah, a 17-year-old Somali Swede.

Anders Wallensten, Sweden’s deputy state epidemiologist, said officials have worked harder on communicating with such groups "to make sure they have the knowledge to protect themselves and avoid spreading the disease to others.”

https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus ... 570333581/

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opin ... ncing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

There are no digs. The personnel stuff is because I'm fed up with the BS you and others throw ardour at anyone who presents something slightly different than your world view, and is met with outrage without any foundation in fact. My default is to look widely for expert advice, objective information and base my posts on the best science has to offer in the moment. There are no politics in that, no agenda, just trying to understand.

This is objective information I'm getting from sources that are verified. How do you explain what Fauci said in this interview?

Have a look. One week to have 60% less deaths in this phase. Two weeks earlier to have 90% less. Even if there is some error margin in those projections, I'd certainly take 40-50% less deaths. Wouldn't you?

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: obvert



I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opin ... ncing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

After recent events, my interest was taken with the decision making at the top levels of US government.

From this, and the recent interaction between Trump and Dr Brix, I am of the opinion that Fauci, Brix (and likely anyone else involved in the process) would say the sky is green if it kept Trump on side.

Trump's comments (well, tweets) on the subject are in the public domain.

If you read those comments as the comments of a leader that takes the situation and the advice seriously, then perhaps get your eyes tested.

Thank you. Of course they're trying to stay influential to save lives, regardless of the backlash they may receive personally. .

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: obvert



I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opin ... ncing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

I, for one, would be leery of giving that kind of power to any President of the US.

In the US, there were 8 states that didn't issue mandatory stay at home orders. None of those States were in risk of their hospitals being overrun which was the primary, original goal of the lockdown. There always exist more than one way to skin a cat.

There were many other states that had lockdowns of differing severity. In each individual state you see a wide disparity among local counties and their state govts. Some counties are actually in open rebellion. Most state Govnr's don't have the legal authority.

The argument that the lockdown doesn't carry it's own deathtoll has somehow been excluded.

The decision to have a centralized mandate, would carry with it an important factor. Down the road, the economic costs of decision making during the time of the Pandemic would be distributed equally. For example, say my company has production in China that I now desire to bring back to the States. Would I pick New York, with it high tax, high cost, likely future shutdown environment, or someplace like South Dakota or Arkansas. I would only pick New York if the logistics savings or customer engagement was very concentrated there or the state plied me with tons of tax dollars/offsets or the Govt guaranteed I was immune from any future lockdown.

But if Arkansas was forced to shutdown, well then, that removes a very big decision making input.

Cap said earlier that he fears a 4 year or so economic turnaround. I think we are more like at 10 years right now, based on the 2008 economic downturn or even longer. Just to give an idea of the hideous changes that are upon us, Gov Cuomo of New York is openly questioning having brick and mortar schools. Colleges are going to be especially hard hit.

Not only are we living in the greatest medical experiment of all time, we are going to see a huge economic migration across the world. It took almost 3 generations for economic interdependencies to return to their pre WW1 pre Spanish flu levels.

May you live in interesting times.[:)]

I don't know why you'd be leery of giving that kind of power to the Prez... It's OK to authorize a nuclear launch but not OK to issue an emergency order? I think he can run on an emergency order for 90 days and then Congress has to back it or the order ceases.

Launch a nuclear device is part of his job as Commander in Chief of the US military. For what reason is there a need for an emergency order and what part of the Constitution allows for that?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

After recent events, my interest was taken with the decision making at the top levels of US government.

From this, and the recent interaction between Trump and Dr Brix, I am of the opinion that Fauci, Brix (and likely anyone else involved in the process) would say the sky is green if it kept Trump on side.

Trump's comments (well, tweets) on the subject are in the public domain.

If you read those comments as the comments of a leader that takes the situation and the advice seriously, then perhaps get your eyes tested.

Thank you. Of course they're trying to stay influential to save lives, regardless of the backlash they may receive personally. .

I do need to get my eyes tested, but that is another story. [8|]

Please show me where Trump did not take their advice. From what I have read, Trump has taken their advice. But remember, Trump does not rule by fiat.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: obvert



I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opin ... ncing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

There are no digs. The personnel stuff is because I'm fed up with the BS you and others throw ardour at anyone who presents something slightly different than your world view, and is met with outrage without any foundation in fact. My default is to look widely for expert advice, objective information and base my posts on the best science has to offer in the moment. There are no politics in that, no agenda, just trying to understand.

This is objective information I'm getting from sources that are verified. How do you explain what Fauci said in this interview?

Have a look. One week to have 60% less deaths in this phase. Two weeks earlier to have 90% less. Even if there is some error margin in those projections, I'd certainly take 40-50% less deaths. Wouldn't you?

You appear to be only looking at the deaths from Covid-19. How about the other deaths caused by the lockdowns? How about other lives ruined or not made better? That death of the young lady that I posted is tragic, the worse tragedy is that the family donates her organs and they are not used because of the lockdowns.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I don't know much about Cuomo, but I'd assume any governor is trying to do his best under difficult circumstances.

To give you some background on Cuomo's scruples [before he was Governor] :
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was under investigation for unaccountable billions of dollars missing from the coiffures at HUD during his time in charge of the Dept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_valu ... of_conduct

It's a complex issue, but unless he had a personal revelation once moving into the Governor's office, Andrew Cuomo is the type that will step on the public to get his way [to put it nicely].

Coumo also wanted control of the Federal ventilator supply so he could dole them out to those places that needed them if New York state did not. "See how I helped you during the Covid-19 pandemic? As governor of the state of New York, I had ventilators sent to your state while the Federal government did not send any to your state. So vote for me."

I can imagine that some people in certain positions want the situation to remain so their party will be able to benefit from it. No crisis is too good to waste.

[obvert]

Firstly, thanks for the reasoned response.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I, for one, would be leery of giving that kind of power to any President of the US.

All we're talking about is the information that was actually given out as a recommendation in mid March. The federal guidelines for social distancing on March 16.

If that was done one or two weeks earlier, it saves lives.

In the US, there were 8 states that didn't issue mandatory stay at home orders. None of those States were in risk of their hospitals being overrun which was the primary, original goal of the lockdown. There always exist more than one way to skin a cat.

Because of the Federal guidelines many did so anyway, many businesses closed, and many people distanced as in other places. That helps. That is why the Federal level guidelines were important. This also doesn't mean this was he reason those states didn't (yet) have a severe outbreak. The US is large, some states are definitely more rural and people are naturally less likely to have come in close contact with many others regularly.

There were many other states that had lockdowns of differing severity. In each individual state you see a wide disparity among local counties and their state govts. Some counties are actually in open rebellion. Most state Govnr's don't have the legal authority.

More reasons why Federal level guidelines are important. Again, the US is large, diverse, strange and wonderful. People do sometimes need to reign in their freedoms for the good of all though. It's happened before and didn't result in a loss of those freedoms.

The argument that the lockdown doesn't carry it's own deathtoll has somehow been excluded.

Many who are arguing against lockdowns use this as an argument, but also use mortality figures from a period when the social distancing and lockdowns were in place. If left to run both the Covid mortality goes up and the excess deaths from other conditions go up if hospitals are overwhelmed.

The decision to have a centralized mandate, would carry with it an important factor. Down the road, the economic costs of decision making during the time of the Pandemic would be distributed equally. For example, say my company has production in China that I now desire to bring back to the States. Would I pick New York, with it high tax, high cost, likely future shutdown environment, or someplace like South Dakota or Arkansas. I would only pick New York if the logistics savings or customer engagement was very concentrated there or the state plied me with tons of tax dollars/offsets or the Govt guaranteed I was immune from any future lockdown.

But if Arkansas was forced to shutdown, well then, that removes a very big decision making input.

If social distancing guidelines came a week or two earlier it would not change anything about this issue.

Cap said earlier that he fears a 4 year or so economic turnaround. I think we are more like at 10 years right now, based on the 2008 economic downturn or even longer. Just to give an idea of the hideous changes that are upon us, Gov Cuomo of New York is openly questioning having brick and mortar schools. Colleges are going to be especially hard hit.

Not only are we living in the greatest medical experiment of all time, we are going to see a huge economic migration across the world. It took almost 3 generations for economic interdependencies to return to their pre WW1 pre Spanish flu levels.

May you live in interesting times.[:)]

I think it'll all recover much more quickly. Travel will be tough, but I have a friend at a high level in that industry, and even he thinks there will be some positive upturns through the summer domestically and gradually through next year.

The US has sent a lot of people out of jobs, but those jobs will come back. Opening is happening, for better or worse, right now. Businesses will need people to resume.

The US is the largest economy in the world in spite of all of this. It will adapt. There are a lot of people out there who still want to make a lot of money. I fear for the poor, not the economy, in the long term.