Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

Yes, I believe he is.

But, I'll need to see the numbers behind those numbers to get on board.

Perhaps my error is doing my evaluation of the US but trying to lay his comments about the UK on top of it. As I said earlier, if the testing is targeted only to one group - then it could skew my analysis.

Let's look at the UK.

The UK currently has 12.1k deaths and 94k positive tests - that is a 12% case fatality rate. And given that delay between a positive test and death that I talked about before, it is really more like 12.1k deaths vs. 55k cases, or 22%. That suggests to me that the UK may only be testing their hospitalized cases. That is an incredibly high CFR for a country that isn't saturating its medical system. So, IF they only count deaths from CV+ individuals and these are the numbers, I'd say that's a very high rate of death. So high that it makes me think the only people that are getting CV tests are those that are being hospitalized. Surely the odds of dying aren't higher than 1 in 5 when you enter the hospital with CV? I've seen numbers like 30% of ICU admissions end in death. So 22% of hospitalizations would still seem high.

My point is that if their positive cases only reflect the people struggling the most with the disease (likely older and already ill, not just at-risk) and you can only be a CV death with a CV+ test, then it becomes more possible that a large fraction of your deaths would have happened within the year.

So, how at risk of dying would this group have to be? Using 55k cases and 12.1k deaths as the baseline. If 2/3 of those deaths would happen this year anyway and using that same 6 week window over which deaths have been recorded, let's do the math:

12.1k * .667 = 8.1k deaths over the course of this year (we started counting deaths around March 1, so we'll call that 44 weeks left in the year) would be 8,100/44*52 = 9572 deaths on an annual basis. And that is from a sampled population of 55k. So the inherent risk of this population (on a 100,000 population basis which is how these statistics are usually recorded) would be 9572 / 55000 = 17,400 deaths / 100,000 population. So what group has a mortality rate that is that high? The mortality rate of 85+ individuals from all causes is 13,600 in the US. So of they have only tested really old people with other risk factors then maybe I can get there.

Maybe I'm missing something in the way I'm looking at it?

I'm not getting in the numbers like you, just knowing people view him as a respectable source. That is quite the thunderous claim.
 
The complacency and lack of outrage from the right of Trump's complete misunderstanding of the 10th amendment is mind-boggling. It seems to be "eh, it's only Trump, and doesn't matter anyway".

If this were a Dem president it would be plastered everywhere over right wing media and I wouldn't be surprised to see right wing militia's hunkering down locked and loaded.

The National Emergencies Act and Defense Production Act give pretty broad powers to the executive, and some aspects of them likely would invite legal resolution. That is aside from the question of whether congress constitutionally granted those powers.

The economy is very much a question of national security and welfare. If governors close or keep industries closed that can be viewed as injurious to that security, under those acts I think it can be interpreted as presidential dereliction of duty to NOT intercede.

This isn't a black/white question. It is a national emergency situation in which governors and the president must work together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
I'm not getting in the numbers like you, just knowing people view him as a respectable source. That is quite the thunderous claim.

The other way that his claim becomes more sensible is that if they are counting a lot of deaths as CV deaths without a positive test.

Their measured case fatality rate is huge. They are either liberal in counting deaths or stingy with tests.
 
I’m part of the problem too bc I absolutely love it

That he berates journalists for asking legitimate questions? I guess it's easier to just believe he is so unfairly treated that he shouldn't even take questions. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess.
 
It makes it even better when the media think that doubling down on their efforts mean the President will respond differently
It’s the darnedest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s the definition of insanity to continually engage Trump in an attacking manner.

Media has a job to do, but they shouldn’t sacrifice journalism for the sake of agenda and pretend otherwise.
 
I may have missed something, can you tell me what Trump done that's got these people in such a tizzy?
Continued the effing slippery slope that began a while ago. With the lack of people actually doing research on subjects these days we dont need them making opinions on the presidents power based on word clips.

We have accepted a lot as Americans that we shouldnt have.
 
You with straight face claim that it was just an informative video about coronavirus?

giphy.gif

Just as straight as yours saying it was only a campaign video.

iu
 
You with straight face claim that it was just an informative video about coronavirus?


It was an informative video of how media concocts false narratives, which are ideological and harmful to the country. It demonstrates neither media nor medical experts - and certainly not politicians - foresaw in Jan or Feb how virulent the virus was. It demonstrates that far from the meme of the WH leaving states to die and shrivel up, the admin has been responsive throughout to the governors.

When feverish, partisan hack journos stop the false memes, Trump will be out of the video production business.
 
Stew doesnt wants objective reporting. He wants nazi and soviet style news that only reports goo socialist propaganda

Right, because asking POTUS why he thinks he has "absolute authority" isn't worthy of an answer.

And you bring up Nazi and Soviet style... you are a joke
 

VN Store



Back
Top