• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death projections are down from 90k to 80k now to 60k

GhostlyJoe said:
No, not threatened by me! Threatened to face the cracks in your own political foundations.
Click to expand...


:screwy



My foundations are in my signature (links to wiki for the ignorant).
 
prometeus said:
But still a good all around one. Why is it that people who may see certain aspects of political ideology from the GOP perspective, they want to accept what that has to offer from the biggest scumbag that can offer it?
Click to expand...

It's the fact that Trump is such an obvious ass that made me question how anyone could get behind him. I started reading and listening to more and broader voices, looking for a rational understanding of American conservatism. I didn't find that, exactly. But it did forever alter my perspective on politics.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The smart thing being whatever you want them to do. You're not in charge of your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

Then scream at our president to send us back to work.

Are you religious?
 
Slavister said:
Within a week, US death projections from one of the models used widely (incl by White House) changed from 90k down to 80k and now to 60k.
Click to expand...
While your general observation has some merit, you need to be very careful when using the IHME model.

To start with, that model isn't intended as a full projection of COVID-19. It is more specifically designed to help hospitals and health care systems prepare for the likely impact of the virus.

Second, as noted earlier, this only goes through August. It is likely that the US will have multiple waves -- e.g. cases will drop; we'll relax distancing; cases rise again; and we have to slam on the brakes again. The higher projections (e.g. the 100-240k from the White House) most likely includes the entire year.

We should note, by the way, that the White House/CDC has not fully disclosed the models they're using. I'm quite confident they aren't relying exclusively on the IHME model.

We definitely need to keep up the pressure, but we also have to dramatically improve testing and supplies. That's the only way to safely ease up on social distancing.
 
Luther said:
Obviously you haven't hiked in a canyon and along a stream and ended up at a waterfall?
Click to expand...

Sure I have, but I know that in a place like Idaho there are likely 1,000s of trails and only a few attract those kinds of crowds. I live near the Smokies and there are lots of trails, about 10 of them get serious traffic, which leaves us (when the park is open - it's closed now) about 200 rarely hiked options at least. With state parks and city/county parks, maybe 500 options...

The most popular trail in the Smokies is the 5 mile out and back to Abrams Falls. It's flat, wide, level, and suitable for little kids. It's a highway of humanity in the summer. If I was worried about social distancing, I wouldn't consider that trail.... But you can park a half mile away and hike a trail that you'd MAYBE see 10 people on in a 8 mile hike.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
I'm pretty sure they didn't do it intentionally.
Click to expand...
Everything China does is intentional. What is not always clear is the intent.

It hit them pretty hard too.
Click to expand...
For them it is only a hiccup.

I would rather see some international pressure be brought to bear on them to bring some more public health and hygiene standards
Click to expand...
and reparations to the world for the disaster they caused.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
So you think we should lock everyone down sooner and more forcefully? What is the threshold to you? Sounds like a semi-permanent police state to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know the precise number, but potentially 2 million dead seems to clear that bar wherever you set it. And the point is you said you better have more than "assumptions" to take action. Well, if you have data, hard evidence of the spread infecting millions, and then killing a bunch of those and sending more to the hospital and ICU, you're already ****ed as a society. So of course with a pandemic like this the only option is to act early based on "assumptions."

Sure, early on those assumptions will be wrong - of course. But there's no alternative - we do the best we can with the information available at that time.

The predictable result here is we'll have less than a catastrophe, and people will use success of those efforts to argue there was never any real risk. It's as predictable as night following day, and it's wrong.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
It's the fact that Trump is such an obvious ass that made me question how anyone could get behind him.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that there is valid honest answer to that.

I started reading and listening to more and broader voices, looking for a rational understanding of American conservatism.
Click to expand...
If you did that in an honest fashion then you must have realized that Trump embodies none of it.

I didn't find that, exactly. But it did forever alter my perspective on politics.
Click to expand...
That is only fair, but then you must seek the best people who contribute to achieving those goals and indisputably Trump is not one of them.
There are countless real conservatives out there who never gave up on their political, economic and social perspectives, yet maintain integrity and would not walk on the same side of the street with Trump.
 
JasperL said:
I don't know the precise number, but potentially 2 million dead seems to clear that bar wherever you set it. And the point is you said you better have more than "assumptions" to take action. Well, if you have data, hard evidence of the spread infecting millions, and then killing a bunch of those and sending more to the hospital and ICU, you're already ****ed as a society. So of course with a pandemic like this the only option is to act early based on "assumptions."

Sure, early on those assumptions will be wrong - of course. But there's no alternative - we do the best we can with the information available at that time.

The predictable result here is we'll have less than a catastrophe, and people will use success of those efforts to argue there was never any real risk. It's as predictable as night following day, and it's wrong.
Click to expand...

One of the big assumptions here is that the executive as the authority to do this at all without an act of congress.
 
Glitch said:
Complete BS. Making bad predictions with little or no information is not "literally saving lives," it is in fact putting more lives at risk. The media ran with these completely bogus claims about how millions of people were going to die....
Click to expand...
:roll:

Or, you just didn't understand what they were saying.

For example, the Imperial College of London's report estimated 2 million deaths in the US -- IF nobody did anything at all. No preparation, no social distancing, no one choosing on their own to take steps. The report made it clear that was not likely to happen, and in fact the only reason to model it was as a benchmark for different mitigation and suppression scenarios.

Screen Shot 2020-03-26 at 10.36.31 PM.jpg

They were not pulling the maximum numbers out of thin air. It's based on years of studying pandemics, including SARS and MERS. It was also published on March 16th, not January... but don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good rant.


Had they treated COVID-19 like the normal annual influenza virus that we know it to be, there would never have been any panic.
Click to expand...
Oh, good grief. COVID-19 is much worse than the seasonal flu. We're how many weeks into this, and you don't get that yet?


Just like during the flu season of 2017-2018 when 61,000 Americans died, 810,000 were hospitalized, and 21,000,000 sought medical attention due to flu related symptoms. Yet there was no panic in 2017-2018 and we certainly didn't shut down the entire nation out of sheer terror.
Click to expand...
:roll:

That's because:
- We already have vaccines and treatments for seasonal flu
- The mortality rate for COVID-19 is 10 times greater than the seasonal flu
- Hospitals have the capacity to handle flu season, even a bad flu season
- You're taking the impact of social distancing for granted

I wonder how many people have to die in your town before you realize that COVID-19 is worse than the flu.
 
JasperL said:
I don't know the precise number, but potentially 2 million dead seems to clear that bar wherever you set it. And the point is you said you better have more than "assumptions" to take action. Well, if you have data, hard evidence of the spread infecting millions, and then killing a bunch of those and sending more to the hospital and ICU, you're already ****ed as a society. So of course with a pandemic like this the only option is to act early based on "assumptions."

Sure, early on those assumptions will be wrong - of course. But there's no alternative - we do the best we can with the information available at that time.

The predictable result here is we'll have less than a catastrophe, and people will use success of those efforts to argue there was never any real risk. It's as predictable as night following day, and it's wrong.
Click to expand...

We will literally see conservatives, christians and Trump republicans arguing that more deaths would be good.
 
prometeus said:
I do not believe that there is valid honest answer to that.

If you did that in an honest fashion then you must have realized that Trump embodies none of it.

That is only fair, but then you must seek the best people who contribute to achieving those goals and indisputably Trump is not one of them.
There are countless real conservatives out there who never gave up on their political, economic and social perspectives, yet maintain integrity and would not walk on the same side of the street with Trump.
Click to expand...

I understand the revulsion. I really do. The thing is, people really like the man. He is a charismatic figure, and American liberals recognize the danger in that.

But -- and this is where I'm probably going to lose you, but that's OK -- Trump is not an authoritarian. He has declined to wield offered power on multiple occasions, now.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
That is undeniably true. The problem is we won't know how big of a killer it is until it's out the bag. We need to focus on preparedness. There will be a next virus, but social distancing is not a viable long-term strategy, unless we're willing to submit to this 2 or 3 times a decade. Not to mention the centralized authority required to implement that.
Click to expand...
I agree completely.

We resorted to social-distancing because we completely lost the handle on mitigation & containment. Now we get a second chance (we hope), and we need to get it right or we can end-up in repeated infection cycles. We do not want to go back to blanket national social-isolation if it all possible. Not at all.

Yes, we need to get our preventative/responsive act together. Absolutely. I suspect after all this, we will.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
One of the big assumptions here is that the executive as the authority to do this at all without an act of congress.
Click to expand...

OK, let's abandon the goal posts we were kicking to and erect new ones!

There's not one "executive" making decisions here. In my area, the lockdowns etc. were ordered by the city mayor, then the county mayor, then the governor, under state and local laws. Trump never issued an order closing any business that I know of, or requiring anyone to stay at home. So no one knows what "this" is that must be run by the U.S. Congress before it can be done.

In general, the government can act in extraordinary ways in state or local or national emergencies, and this qualifies as one, obviously and clearly. You can play slippery slope if you want, but it's not applicable to THIS case.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
How many people in third-world countries are you willing to starve to prevent climate change?
Click to expand...
:roll:

Spare us the false dilemmas. If we do nothing about climate change, it's people in developing nations who will be hit the hardest. They're more likely to live in vulnerable areas; they will be hit harder by extreme weather events; they'll be less able to afford food as it gets more expensive; they're the most likely to become climate migrants....


How many inner-city youths are you willing to lock up -- how many inner-city families are you willing to destroy -- to get more gun control?
Click to expand...
:roll:

Another false choice -- and we know that for a fact. "Stop & frisk" did not work at all, found almost no guns, was awful for many citizens, and stopping it did not result in an explosion of crimes.

It should also be obvious that "going after inner city residents" is not the only option for gun control. But hey, don't let a pesky thing like facts or reason get in the way of an irrational rant.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

Or, you just didn't understand what they were saying.

For example, the Imperial College of London's report estimated 2 million deaths in the US -- IF nobody did anything at all. No preparation, no social distancing, no one choosing on their own to take steps. The report made it clear that was not likely to happen, and in fact the only reason to model it was as a benchmark for different mitigation and suppression scenarios.
Click to expand...
I did understand exactly what they were saying, and the 2.2 million US deaths they predicted was based upon extremely little or no information. The exact kind of information the leftist media loves to sensationalize and exploit, which they did with gusto.

Visbek said:
They were not pulling the maximum numbers out of thin air. It's based on years of studying pandemics, including SARS and MERS. It was also published on March 16th, not January... but don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good rant.
Click to expand...
They were, and did, pull numbers out of thin air, knowing that they would be wrong. But they published them anyway. They knew with absolute certainty that with fewer than 3 weeks worth of data they could not even remotely hope to accurately predict the mortality rate of the virus, but they did anyway.

Visbek said:
Oh, good grief. COVID-19 is much worse than the seasonal flu. We're how many weeks into this, and you don't get that yet?
Click to expand...
No, it is not. COVID-19 is actually milder than prior cases of influenza, as the CDC clearly indicates.

Flu Deaths 2010-2019.jpg

Visbek said:
That's because:
- We already have vaccines and treatments for seasonal flu
Click to expand...
Only available the year after the virus hits. Next year there will be a COVID-19 vaccination available.
Visbek said:
- The mortality rate for COVID-19 is 10 times greater than the seasonal flu
Click to expand...
That is a deliberate lie by the leftist media for the sole purpose to incite panic and terror.
Visbek said:
- Hospitals have the capacity to handle flu season, even a bad flu season
Click to expand...
And they are just as capable of handling COVID-19, since it is no different and even milder than influenza epidemics of the past.
Visbek said:
- You're taking the impact of social distancing for granted
Click to expand...
"Social distancing" is admitting you are panicked and in sheer terror over a leftist media lie. If that works for you, go for it.

Visbek said:
I wonder how many people have to die in your town before you realize that COVID-19 is worse than the flu.
Click to expand...
According to the actual numbers - as opposed to those you just make up - COVID-19 is doing less harm, killing fewer people, than prior influenza epidemics. Don't look now, but your panic and hysterics are beginning to show.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

Spare us the false dilemmas. If we do nothing about climate change, it's people in developing nations who will be hit the hardest. They're more likely to live in vulnerable areas; they will be hit harder by extreme weather events; they'll be less able to afford food as it gets more expensive; they're the most likely to become climate migrants....



:roll:

Another false choice -- and we know that for a fact. "Stop & frisk" did not work at all, found almost no guns, was awful for many citizens, and stopping it did not result in an explosion of crimes.

It should also be obvious that "going after inner city residents" is not the only option for gun control. But hey, don't let a pesky thing like facts or reason get in the way of an irrational rant.
Click to expand...

When you can't address the topic being discussed, a good back up strategy is to abandon that topic and erect new goal posts!
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

Spare us the false dilemmas. If we do nothing about climate change, it's people in developing nations who will be hit the hardest. They're more likely to live in vulnerable areas; they will be hit harder by extreme weather events; they'll be less able to afford food as it gets more expensive; they're the most likely to become climate migrants....



:roll:

Another false choice -- and we know that for a fact. "Stop & frisk" did not work at all, found almost no guns, was awful for many citizens, and stopping it did not result in an explosion of crimes.

It should also be obvious that "going after inner city residents" is not the only option for gun control. But hey, don't let a pesky thing like facts or reason get in the way of an irrational rant.
Click to expand...

I can support my statements well, but this isn't the thread to debate that. In context, those were rhetorical points to counter another posters' question.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
That is undeniably true. The problem is we won't know how big of a killer it is until it's out the bag. We need to focus on preparedness. There will be a next virus, but social distancing is not a viable long-term strategy, unless we're willing to submit to this 2 or 3 times a decade. Not to mention the centralized authority required to implement that.
Click to expand...

At this point I think (hope?) most people will have the basics for preparedness (masks and hand sanitizer) on hand for the next one, and nobody will take China's word for anything again.
 
ataraxia said:
I'm pretty sure they didn't do it intentionally. It hit them pretty hard too.

I would rather see some international pressure be brought to bear on them to bring some more public health and hygiene standards to bear on their "wet markets". I'm pretty sure that would help with the regular flu season as well.
Click to expand...
And transparency. We need China to be transparent and sharing in the event of the next SARs-like Chinese outbreak (there will be one).
 
Chomsky said:
Uh, uh, uh. Your predicted numbers take into account the current mitigation in effect. The numbers you're looking for would be the unmitigated predictions, including correcting for the higher mortality rate reflecting an over-run healthcare system.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem we have absolutely no ****ing clue who is right or wrong. Or even in the ballpark. We just dont have the data. As far as I know we dont have the material to do wide range testing. Correct me if I am wrong on that bit of info. No testing no knowledge. We are blind right now and have been from the get go. All the models in the world dont mean jack if you dont have data to put into them. All we have to work with is confirmed cases. We dont have the large scale ongoing sampling necessary to produce more accurate models. Until that happens all the models we have are ****. Basically the numbers coming out are being pulled out of peoples asses by making lots of assumptions. Apparently not very accurate assumptions either, which brings to mind the saying about them. We cannot rely on any of these predictions. Thats the bottom line. People are getting a lesson in how inaccurate scientific modeling can be, especially when one doesn't have the correct data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom