Covid-19

[theDurk]

Re: Covid-19

Nor anywhere else.

It's relative. Plenty of countries did a better job in enforcing widespread mask wearing, social distancing, and group assemblies. The numbers don't lie. We have performed about as badly as anywhere on Earth. Yes, other countries are experiencing the starts of winter spikes. However, the baselines are much lower, and the significance of that in lives saved is enormous.

[Maynerd]

Re: Covid-19

It's relative. Plenty of countries did a better job in enforcing widespread mask wearing, social distancing, and group assemblies.

Absolutely true. But my ,"nor anywhere else" was addressing development of "a coordinated strategy for combatting the virus." Masks, distancing, and minimizing large gatherings are means of flattening the curve, but they are hardly a coordinated strategy to combat the virus.

Trump's handling of the virus was terrible, and it remains terrible. Somehow, actually contracting the disease has made it worse. "I've been cured." "Now, I'm immune." "I feel like Superman." Good grief.

But, Trump's poor performance doesn't lead to "part two has never happened in the US," when part two hasn't happened anywhere.

Yes, we could have responded better. In fact, I'm honestly not certain we could have responded much worse. But, with a much earlier, and more forceful, response, we'd still be waiting for a coordinated strategy to combat the virus, and a great many of the 200,000 would still have perished.

[Yankee Tripper]

Re: Covid-19

Nor anywhere else.

Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand, Astralia and Canada beg to differ. And Germany, Iceland, Greece, the UAE, and Argentina have done pretty good too.



https://time.com/5851633/best-global...nses-covid-19/

[JL25and3]

Absolutely true. But my ,"nor anywhere else" was addressing development of "a coordinated strategy for combatting the virus." Masks, distancing, and minimizing large gatherings are means of flattening the curve, but they are hardly a coordinated strategy to combat the virus.

When combined with isolation, quarantine, and contact tracing, they absolutely are.

[Yankee Tripper]

Re: Covid-19

Yes, we could have responded better. In fact, I'm honestly not certain we could have responded much worse. But, with a much earlier, and more forceful, response, we'd still be waiting for a coordinated strategy to combat the virus, and a great many of the 200,000 would still have perished.

This is demonstrably a false statement and you should be ashamed of having made as it shows great ignorance of how other countries have handled it.

[Maynerd]

Re: Covid-19

This is demonstrably a false statement and you should be ashamed of having made as it shows great ignorance of how other countries have handled it.

Most industrialized nations have Covid Deaths Per Million on the 250-650 range. Worldwide, the high is Peru, at 1044.69.

The United States sits at 657.43. The United Kingdom is a massive 12 Deaths per Million behind us.

Had Donald Trump, back in February said "This thing is dangerous; Wear a mask; Don't assemble more than 8 people; Stay home, unless you absolutely have to go out," we would certainly have lowered that Death per Million figure, but not to zero. In fact, not CLOSE to zero. So no, my statement is NOT demonstrably false. Deaths happen, at a frightening rate, regardless of leadership's response to it. Could we have done better? Absolutely. Had we done so, would those 200,000 people still be alive? A few. Some. But probably not most of them, and certainly not all of them.

And, for what it's worth, if Donald Trump said it was raining, most people here wouldn't put up an umbrella. If back in February he said "it's really important to wear a mask and socially distance," people wouldn't have done it. Because....Trump.

[YFIB]

Re: Covid-19

Most industrialized nations have Covid Deaths Per Million on the 250-650 range. Worldwide, the high is Peru, at 1044.69.

The United States sits at 657.43. The United Kingdom is a massive 12 Deaths per Million behind us.

Had Donald Trump, back in February said "This thing is dangerous; Wear a mask; Don't assemble more than 8 people; Stay home, unless you absolutely have to go out," we would certainly have lowered that Death per Million figure, but not to zero. In fact, not CLOSE to zero. So no, my statement is NOT demonstrably false. Deaths happen, at a frightening rate, regardless of leadership's response to it. Could we have done better? Absolutely. Had we done so, would those 200,000 people still be alive? A few. Some. But probably not most of them, and certainly not all of them.

And, for what it's worth, if Donald Trump said it was raining, most people here wouldn't put up an umbrella. If back in February he said "it's really important to wear a mask and socially distance," people wouldn't have done it. Because....Trump.

I'm living in France. We are hard into a second wave, and had one of the worst first waves in Europe. In between, we were locked down nationally, and have been wearing masks at all times outside recently.

When I look at the Johns Hopkins numbers, the difference between France and the U.S. is about 170 deaths per million, or about 56,000 people on a 330 million sample. Germany, which has fared much better, would have roughly 160,000 less deaths on the sample.

Those aren't trivial numbers.

[Maynerd]

Re: Covid-19

Those aren't trivial numbers.

No, they're not. I'm by no means defending the President's response to the virus. It was horrific. Nor am I defending the actions of the American People who won't wear a mask, or routinely wear them incorrectly. I'm definitely not defending the people saying "well, if you're afraid, go ahead and wear a mask, but don't tell me what I have to do." I'm just saying that laying all of those 200,000 lives on the doorstep of Trump is wrong.

As for "In between, we were locked down nationally...," I question whether this is even possible in the United States. The President doesn't have this authority. Nor does Congress. Leadership can strongly encourage certain behavior, but they can't mandate it.

[Tyler Durden]

Re: Covid-19

As for "In between, we were locked down nationally...," I question whether this is even possible in the United States. The President doesn't have this authority. Nor does Congress. Leadership can strongly encourage certain behavior, but they can't mandate it.

Even if it were legally possible, the time to do it would have been early on in the first wave, when everyone was terrified and before the virus became political.

Now everybody is picking and choosing their own facts to believe so there's zero chance we're magically going to unite and pull in the same direction on lockdowns/masks now.

[YFIB]

Re: Covid-19

No, they're not. I'm by no means defending the President's response to the virus. It was horrific. Nor am I defending the actions of the American People who won't wear a mask, or routinely wear them incorrectly. I'm definitely not defending the people saying "well, if you're afraid, go ahead and wear a mask, but don't tell me what I have to do." I'm just saying that laying all of those 200,000 lives on the doorstep of Trump is wrong.

As for "In between, we were locked down nationally...," I question whether this is even possible in the United States. The President doesn't have this authority. Nor does Congress. Leadership can strongly encourage certain behavior, but they can't mandate it.

Whether he has the constitutional power or not, I have no doubt Trump could have had an impact on a large number of Republican governors who followed his lead on the virus, particularly in places like Florida, Arizona and Texas. It's truly a tragedy that he took a different path.

[Texsahara]

And, for what it's worth, if Donald Trump said it was raining, most people here wouldn't put up an umbrella. If back in February he said "it's really important to wear a mask and socially distance," people wouldn't have done it. Because....Trump.

if Trump said it? Maybe not. If Fauci, the CDC, etc said it? I'd bet money on it. The anti-Trump people are not anti-science. Not by a long shot.

[Mr Coffee]

Re: Covid-19

if Trump said it? Maybe not. If Fauci, the CDC, etc said it? I'd bet money on it. The anti-Trump people are not anti-science. Not by a long shot.

Until April, the CDC, the surgeon general and the WHO all said that masks were not necessary unless you actually were sick.

[Tyler Durden]

Re: Covid-19

Whether he has the constitutional power or not, I have no doubt Trump could have had an impact on a large number of Republican governors who followed his lead on the virus, particularly in places like Florida, Arizona and Texas. It's truly a tragedy that he took a different path.

Trump's ability to be confronted with one life-changing event after another and learn the exact wrong lesson each time is unlike anything I've ever seen, outside of cartoons.

[Texsahara]

Until April, the CDC, the surgeon general and the WHO all said that masks were not necessary unless you actually were sick.

That's true. I didn't think that Maynard meant the Trump would be giving the recommendation on his own authority and not with the advice of medical experts. That would be a dumb hypothetical.

[Maynerd]

Re: Covid-19

Until April, the CDC, the surgeon general and the WHO all said that masks were not necessary unless you actually were sick.

They even recommended against them, as I recall. Believe the Science!