- Joined
- Jun 6, 2012
- Messages
- 19,502
- Reaction score
- 21,611
Um, Trump did not tell anyone to take chlorequine without medical supervision. That's just dishonest.
Get used to it. This thread is the new PoFo.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Um, Trump did not tell anyone to take chlorequine without medical supervision. That's just dishonest.
State statutes, constitutions, and common law.What gives any governor the right to decide which businesses are essential?
If we listen and the crisis turns around I will give credit to the medical experts, doctors and nurses. The only credit politicians can get is for listening to the people who actually know what they are talking about.
If (when) it gets worse because he cuts back on social distancing policies will you come and criticize him for such an egregious mistake?
Wut?
Snipped or edited- what does that have to do with the fact that Biden is absolutely not fit to become POTUS.
And lordy... that shirt just won't go away!
Well buddy, perhaps you have not paid attention to anything Trump has said over the past two days. Ya know? Indicating that he'll roll back social distancing policies and hope for churches to be "packed on Easter".Then you must be supportive of Trump for choosing his medical experts over his pols in the original travel ban.
Yeah, sure you are.
Do you think it bothers me that a few folks from the People's Republic of Massachusetts criticize me? As another poster said, you guys are from one of the most anti-trump states in the union. Dems outnumber Reps in Mass 3:1.
I have been there 3 times but many many years ago...approx 4 days every trip...
The good old days...
Well buddy, perhaps you have not paid attention to anything Trump has said over the past two days. Ya know? Indicating that he'll roll back social distancing policies and hope for churches to be "packed on Easter".
Did you miss that? Do you think that is an appropriate comment considering the entire ****ing world, even totalitarian countries are taking this seriously? Do you think it is appropriate given that new cases and deaths are spiking in this country? Appropriate given we are at risk of becoming the epicenter of the pandemic?
He is flagrantly ignoring medical experts now. And if any of his medical experts on staff are echoing what he is saying it's because they are under pressure to. Every medical expert in the world that is worth a damn would say that two weeks is not enough to loosen social distancing restrictions. It is a disaster waiting to happen because this idiot is only focused on reelection and not the biggest crisis to face this country in many decades, at least.
Honestly, it would take a lot for me to vote democrat. But, if Trump actually relaxes the mitigative measures when we don't have this thing even slightly under control, then let's just say I'll be very interested in who Biden's VP running mate ends up being.We're going to have a binary choice in November - and I sure as hell ain't voting for Trump.
Biden is fit enough - stop with that crap. I've watched him for years. Saw him in the debate and with two interviews today. He wasn't my first, second, or third choice in the D primary, but they're out and it is what it is, and he'd be 1000x better than Trump.
For as much as we disagree I’m glad that we are on the same page on this. I hope other Trump supporters can realize the utter insanity of that comment.I’m a Trump fan. Always have been. On this, he hasn’t lost me just yet. He is however dangerously close to f-ing us all over. That church comment was....man that was beyond irresponsible. This is why you need a leader who will listen to those around him that are experts. This sounds like a desire and not something rooted in reality.
What gives any governor the right to decide which businesses are essential?
Then you must be supportive of Trump for choosing his medical experts over his pols in the original travel ban.
Yeah, sure you are.
It was a good move, I think we also needed to expand our travel bans more rapidly as the infection created more hotspots. Testing would have been needed to supplement at scale.Then you must be supportive of Trump for choosing his medical experts over his pols in the original travel ban.
Yeah, sure you are.
We do not know what the story is in Wuhan. The number of cases is really low for a major epidemic in a city of 11 million. And their epidemic was developing there over weeks. The numbers could be low due to lots of very mild disease not found (meaning the mortality rate is very low), some degree of inate immunity in the community (helpful if present, but likely not that great), a result of quarantining (meaning it could flare now that the Chinese are lifting the lockdown - less than 6 weeks after the peak), or the numbers are fabrications.Hi, been thinking about the numbers we've been seeing, various places, and the exponential spread.
I've previously posted the fivefold per week number, which would have us going from last Sunday's 300 deaths to 1,500 by this Sunday. It's Tuesday night, 3/24 (3/25 in Greenwich, UK, this site's timestamp convention.) We've got 775 dead. Earlier tonight we'd barely gone over 600. Stuff is going nuts. Sunday morning to Tuesday night.... I believe there were actually 320 deaths in the a.m. on Sunday, call it 450 deaths since then (from that base of 320 or so).
Like I say, the fivefold rule would have us at 1,500 by this Sunday. 7,500 the following Sunday. Then the moment of truth - if, God forbid, it still holds, 37,500 by the following Sunday, dead. 187,500 the Sunday after.
I've asked people for ANY evidence that this course will change. Nobody has any. So here are some numerical good things and bad things.
Good Thing: There seems to be a leveling off effect in other places.
Bad Thing: The effect only exists thus far in countries that have taken much more stringent social distancing measures than we have (and the measures we have taken are presently too stringent for our leadership's tastes.)
So China, which has had this since last winter, has a total of 3,281 deaths.
China Coronavirus: 81,218 Cases and 3,281 Deaths - Worldometer
On 2/12 they had this huge spike in new cases, then they turned a corner in total cases and in new cases. Note also that it looks like they got their arms around the overwhelming of the hospitals, and the death rate went WAY down. There might be other explanations, e.g. grouping of when deaths were reported?
Now that said, in terms of Coronavirus numbers, "China" is really Wuhan, a city of 11 million, about 3 million more than New York, and the rest of Hubei province (60 m total). 3160 out of 3281 deaths were in Wuhan and Hubei province. They are about to lift some travel restrictions. They've been on lockdown since 1/23.
China to lift lockdown on Wuhan, ground zero of coronavirus pandemic - CNN
So we're instituting lockdowns, sorta. Nothing like a Chinese version, I am sure.
So a few questions. If Hubei and Wuhan could produce about 3,200 deaths with super tight restrictions...
1) What's the potential for the number of U.S. clusters? Is it a half-dozen hot spots? A dozen? 20? or just a thousand or more deaths for any city with a population of a million or more?
- Answer unknown; Maybe just NYC and Seattle, then scattered cases, once it's all over. I doubt it.
2) We have to assume that denser areas are more amenable to really outrageous spread. So the big jump in deaths in Louisiana - how much of that is NO, for example?
3) Where does it level off without aggressive measures to control the spread/flatten the curve? I.e., if we do the Spring Break thing Trump has promised us on Easter Sunday?
4) We are not prepared for what's coming at our hospitals. They are becoming overwhelmed already. This is a feature of the Italian experience as well. Cuomo briefings are good watching for talking logistics: How many masks, vents, gowns needed, etc. We're going to start losing our medical people, of course. I am not sure how to factor that in.
Italy has had 6,820 deaths. There were 742 deaths - about our total - on Tuesday (today). Compared with us, they're virtually under house arrest. That's us in what, 2 weeks? Except we haven't instituted nearly as draconian crackdowns on movement. Then again we didn't all go out and hug a Chinese person, for our xenophobes who believe the virus is mandarin-speaking.
I guess my questions boil down to this: If you can manage about 3,200 deaths in basically one city and the surrounding burbs and towns... what are we looking at? The eventual toll in another such city, not as densely packed, and a smaller one (Seattle), with their burbs?
Or (this really seems more likely) many cities, burbs, and towns, only beginning with New York and Seattle?
If we go past that 1,500 number as a country by Sunday, and I don't know of anything that would suggest we don't, the next milestone is Sunday, 4/5. By the current 5fold increase curve, we would go to 7,500, or twice China's eventual death toll (to date).
I actually think the total deaths in China (if honestly recorded) reflect what to expect with a total affected population of 60 million. They quarantined TF out of that province, and now where we're at is everybody who was gonna get it, got it.
Do we get the same results, x6, for the larger U.S. population, leaving aside the rest of China?
Hell, where does it end in New York? The present contribution of NY state to the total death toll is 271 on 26,348 total cases. Just north of 1% of known cases. They think that their known cases will hit 160,000 at their peak. 20% of that makes 32,000 severe cases 3-4 weeks from now. Okay. Let's say that the fact that hospitals are overwhelmed will not increase the death toll (it will). Let's hold everything but the ratio and rate constant - 1% of 160,000 is 1,600 deaths in New York alone.
But do we really think that with the hospitals reduced to just counting the dead, that 1% number will be real?
I guess that's the 2nd question, after the question of how many NYs we will have.
Eh well just some chipper thoughts before bed.
We have a box of masks. They sure aint the good ones but I gotta find 'em to wear one next time I get the mail.