Make America 1929 Again

[Aho Old Guy]

my ... my

Look at the douche and his *US Chinese Virus deaths*

[BDKJMU]

Says the newest board candidate for the Mt Rushmore of Retard.

[Chizzang]

Says the newest board candidate for the Mt Rushmore of Retard.

the universe demands an equal but opposite force...
you two are a perfect match



Newtons third law FA = −FB

[JohnStOnge]

Yes. I did say that. Actually worse than that. Early on I said I thought influenza was probably more contagious person to person and that it was not clear (based on looking at the CDC site) that what we now call COVID-19 was spreading person to person. But I don't have a bunch of staff working for me who had inside information and who were already familiar with previous assessments and could advise me. After the shit hit the fan I went ahead and looked into how people who study this stuff say to handle the situation. And they clearly said, well prior to this incident, that travel restrictions ain't it. Also, it's clear that recognizing and addressing the situation early on was possible because South Korea did it.

BTW, Canada never did implement a travel ban restriction against China specifically. That country did implement a general travel restriction on travel from ALL countries about a month and a half after Trump did his partial travel ban with respect to China.

And where are we now? Is there some indication in the case data that Canada suffered by taking so long to do travel restrictions? As I type Canada has 680 cases per million population while the United States has 1,771. Canada has 21 deaths per million population while the United States has 71. That's in spite of the fact that Canada has more TESTS per million population...11,591 as compared to 8,873.

People really, really need to realize that Trump acting like he really did something by virtue of doing a partial travel restriction is a non starter. I'll quote from the article at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... backed-by/:



Nothing about the case data associated with the current situation contradicts that point of view.

Trump merely followed the advice of recognized experts

You know.... those people you revere and the Trumpies revile?

Eventually you’re just going to have to attack the Faucis of the world if you want to hang Trump from this particular yardarm

At least we know that it take a tsunami of factual evidence to admit you are wrong. Good to know where the threshold is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think you are correct about Trump following the recommendations of his experts. I think we are just starting to see reporting on that but I think we will see more. I have already wondered some about Faucci. Like for instance I saw him, during an interview, create the impression that the 100,000 to 240,000 deaths estimate referenced during the March 31 press briefing came from the same place as the 60,000 estimate reported last week when everybody started saying the deaths estimate came way down. There are two problems with that. One is that the model referenced last week as predicting 60,000 never predicted 100,000 through 240,000 deaths. As of March 31 it predicted 41,320 through 177,625 deaths. So something like 60,000 would not be outside of the range it was predicting.

The other problem is that he compared a range that came from a model or models I have never seen specifically referenced to a point estimate of a different model that is readily available on line. Whether he intended to or not, he exaggerated the magnitude of the decline in the estimate deaths total. And substantially so.

As I said in an earlier post: I hope he just got confused.

But I know he is in a difficult position. He does not suck up as much as all of the others on that task force do. I don't recall seeing him do the "Dear Leader" thing where everyone appears to have been told to make sure they praise the President with stuff like "Under the President's leadership" this was done or "Thank you Mr. President" for that.

Notice also that Faucci has been kind of artful on responding to questions about the travel restriction. All he's said is that it bought us time. That is consistent with the previous assessments. They did say it would buy SOME time. But to the extent that that's important it's only so if that time is used to implement the OTHER strategies that are considered more important.

I think the assessment at https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92 ... 135590/en/ represents the thinking on the matter. It's about influenza but I think the principles apply to any highly contagious disease. Here is a statement from it with respect to the effect of international travel restrictions:

Have minimal impact on the magnitude of pandemics, typically reducing attack rates by less than 0.02%

Another thing from that report. It has to do with how contagious a disease is. Here it is:

The results of our systematic review indicate that overall travel restrictions have only limited effectiveness in the prevention of influenza spread, particularly in those high transmissibility scenarios in which R0 is at least 1.9.

The RO of COVID-19 is high. There is one estimate of it at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32097725. A quote from the abstract:

The median with 95% CI of R0 of COVID-19 was about 2.28 (2.06-2.52) during the early stage experienced on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

Look. Trump fucked up by thinking a travel restriction would do the trick. And it's obvious that there was plenty of pre-existing information to indicate that, if his advisors did NOT tell him he should've not considered a travel restriction to be sufficient, they should have.

I think they probably did. I think the problem is that we have an idiot in the President's position.

[CID1990]

Trump merely followed the advice of recognized experts

You know.... those people you revere and the Trumpies revile?

Eventually you’re just going to have to attack the Faucis of the world if you want to hang Trump from this particular yardarm

At least we know that it take a tsunami of factual evidence to admit you are wrong. Good to know where the threshold is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think you are correct about Trump following the recommendations of his experts. I think we are just starting to see reporting on that but I think we will see more. I have already wondered some about Faucci. Like for instance I saw him, during an interview, create the impression that the 100,000 to 240,000 deaths estimate referenced during the March 31 press briefing came from the same place as the 60,000 estimate reported last week when everybody started saying the deaths estimate came way down. There are two problems with that. One is that the model referenced last week as predicting 60,000 never predicted 100,000 through 240,000 deaths. As of March 31 it predicted 41,320 through 177,625 deaths. So something like 60,000 would not be outside of the range it was predicting.

The other problem is that he compared a range that came from a model or models I have never seen specifically referenced to a point estimate of a different model that is readily available on line. Whether he intended to or not, he exaggerated the magnitude of the decline in the estimate deaths total. And substantially so.

As I said in an earlier post: I hope he just got confused.

But I know he is in a difficult position. He does not suck up as much as all of the others on that task force do. I don't recall seeing him do the "Dear Leader" thing where everyone appears to have been told to make sure they praise the President with stuff like "Under the President's leadership" this was done or "Thank you Mr. President" for that.

Notice also that Faucci has been kind of artful on responding to questions about the travel restriction. All he's said is that it bought us time. That is consistent with the previous assessments. They did say it would buy SOME time. But to the extent that that's important it's only so if that time is used to implement the OTHER strategies that are considered more important.

I think the assessment at https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92 ... 135590/en/ represents the thinking on the matter. It's about influenza but I think the principles apply to any highly contagious disease. Here is a statement from it with respect to the effect of international travel restrictions:

Have minimal impact on the magnitude of pandemics, typically reducing attack rates by less than 0.02%

Another thing from that report. It has to do with how contagious a disease is. Here it is:

The results of our systematic review indicate that overall travel restrictions have only limited effectiveness in the prevention of influenza spread, particularly in those high transmissibility scenarios in which R0 is at least 1.9.

The RO of COVID-19 is high. There is one estimate of it at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32097725. A quote from the abstract:

The median with 95% CI of R0 of COVID-19 was about 2.28 (2.06-2.52) during the early stage experienced on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

Look. Trump fucked up by thinking a travel restriction would do the trick. And it's obvious that there was plenty of pre-existing information to indicate that, if his advisors did NOT tell him he should've not considered a travel restriction to be sufficient, they should have.

I think they probably did. I think the problem is that we have an idiot in the President's position.

I stopped reading past “I don’t think”


That’s sort of what you said about the virus itself

You have zero credibility


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Yes. I did say that. Actually worse than that. Early on I said I thought influenza was probably more contagious person to person and that it was not clear (based on looking at the CDC site) that what we now call COVID-19 was spreading person to person. But I don't have a bunch of staff working for me who had inside information and who were already familiar with previous assessments and could advise me. After the shit hit the fan I went ahead and looked into how people who study this stuff say to handle the situation. And they clearly said, well prior to this incident, that travel restrictions ain't it. Also, it's clear that recognizing and addressing the situation early on was possible because South Korea did it.

BTW, Canada never did implement a travel ban restriction against China specifically. That country did implement a general travel restriction on travel from ALL countries about a month and a half after Trump did his partial travel ban with respect to China.

And where are we now? Is there some indication in the case data that Canada suffered by taking so long to do travel restrictions? As I type Canada has 680 cases per million population while the United States has 1,771. Canada has 21 deaths per million population while the United States has 71. That's in spite of the fact that Canada has more TESTS per million population...11,591 as compared to 8,873.

People really, really need to realize that Trump acting like he really did something by virtue of doing a partial travel restriction is a non starter. I'll quote from the article at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... backed-by/:



Nothing about the case data associated with the current situation contradicts that point of view.

US: 87 people per sq mile.
Canada: 10.2 people per sq mile

Canada has nothing close to NYC metro, which is close to half the US deaths. Canada is also only about 3.5% black (wiki) to the US's 14%. Blacks have been reported to be 42% of the US Chinese Virus deaths (I linked that earlier this week on the Coronavirus thread).

A comparison of similarly population dense US states (the 7 least dense), and much closer in whiteness, to Canada:
Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, N Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska: Avg about 10.4 people per sq mile.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ ... on_density

Those 7 states about 7.6 million total population above link with 2013 Census est. If you click on each individual state get 2017 est of about 8 million. Either way, 94 Chinese Virus deaths, around 12 per 1 million.
Canada: 780 Chinese Virus deaths, 21 per million.

When taking population density and deaths per million into account, the US is doing much better than Canada.

Irrelevant - blacks in Canada have healthcare. Apples/oranges

[Aho Old Guy]

Republicans are running out the clock, again

It means, AZ, that if you have any spare change between your sofa cushions, in your car, and even your penny jars -- the Federal Reserve will lend you money against it.

It means the Trump tax cuts in December, 2017, were bowsers (woof! woof!)

It means that LIBOR jumped 140 points a few weeks ago to its highest level since September, 2008.

It means that the Fed will take a wide range of FWMD-CLOs (Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction - Collateralized Loan Obligations) in exchange for US Treasury paper.

It also means that the Fed is back-stopping a dozen global banks with US Treasuries in an effort to stop a World Depression, and that ...

all this happened before Covid-19 hit.

MA29A!

March 23, 2020

Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement





You were warned.

MA29A
(Thanks, Republicans)

And what, do you believe, this means?

[Aho Old Guy]

MA29A!

[Ibanez]

Hey old man, how are the Mensa meetings? You guys figure out how to average a set of numbers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Republicans are running out the clock, again

It means, AZ, that if you have any spare change between your sofa cushions, in your car, and even your penny jars -- the Federal Reserve will lend you money against it.

It means the Trump tax cuts in December, 2017, were bowsers (woof! woof!)

It means that LIBOR jumped 140 points a few weeks ago to its highest level since September, 2008.

It means that the Fed will take a wide range of FWMD-CLOs (Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction - Collateralized Loan Obligations) in exchange for US Treasury paper.

It also means that the Fed is back-stopping a dozen global banks with US Treasuries in an effort to stop a World Depression, and that ...

all this happened before Covid-19 hit.

MA29A!

And what, do you believe, this means?

You’re referencing a FOMC statement from March 23rd and then claiming the announcement came BEFORE COVID 19 hit?

[AZGrizFan]

MA29A!

Question: Did you have an issue when the Fed under Obama did literally these exact same things?