Coronavirus Outbreak...

[Mountain Man]

White House adviser Dr. Birx presents an optimistic overview of the current situation. Naturally, liberals have turned on her.

On Wednesday, they were upset that President Trump called her "Deborah" after calling her male counterpart "Dr. Fauci." By Thursday, they started turning on her because she decided to use some of her screen time at the daily Coronavirus task force briefing -- which, astoundingly, many of them want partially censored -- to caution against hysteria based on worst-case-scenario modeling and projections.

...

But the knives had already started to get unsheathed, as lefty Twitter decided that because she wasn't engaging in sufficiently alarmist pessimism -- and was politely scolding the media and other doomsayers -- she'd gone in the tank for Trump. This is an extraordinarily ridiculous and insulting accusation, given her profound expertise and long, impressive career spanning administrations of both political parties. "Listen to the experts," they scream, "unless and until one of those experts says something we don't like." When the prevailing orthodoxy is threatened, the smear machine gets revved up. Here's a CNN commentator and Clinton comms alum misspelling her name while peddling a conspiracy about Birx:

Joe Lockhart: "Dr Birk has drunk the Kool Aid"

And here's an Obama comms alum, best known for hurling hyper-partisan rhetorical grenades, telling Birx -- the actual expert -- what she should be saying and how she should be doing her job. I do believe this is what his ilk would refer to as textbook 'mansplaining:'

Dan Pfeiffer: "Instead of lecturing the Governors, nurses, and doctors on the front lines, Dr Birx could use her position and platform to push the President to his power to invoke the DPA to make more ventilators.

"Having too many ventilators would be a high class problem."

"Listen toots, let me tell you a few things about doctorin'...you need to stop 'lecturing' people and start doing your job the way I want you to. Got it?" I'm flabbergasted...

...

Birx's admonitions about models versus observed data and counter-productive sensationalism are fair and reasonable. And this is literally her area of expertise. She's not infallible, and even good-faith experts can get things wrong, but I'm far more inclined to listen to a woman of her stature and experience than the political hyenas slandering her. She and Dr. Fauci are doing exhausting, critical yeoman's work; they deserve to be thanked, not fed through partisan meat-grinders.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...-birx-n2565845

[little_monkey]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...-birx-n2565845[/box]

Your own source pretty much says it by itself: Our model hasn't changed. Your behavior has. It goes on to say:

That’s not what Ferguson is saying, per his clarification. His opinion of the disease’s severity hasn’t changed since the dire Imperial College study. What’s changed is people’s behavior in the U.S. and UK since it was published. The only way to slow down infections and minimize deaths, the study claimed, is to implement strict social distancing measures. The Oxford model’s not going to save us; we’re in this for the long haul. Either tamp down the spread of the virus immediately or pay a supreme price.

Do you read your own stuff???

[Mountain Man]

Your own source pretty much says it by itself: Our model hasn't changed. Your behavior has.

Which means the model is no longer accurate.

Seriously, man, use your brain -- assuming you have one.

[little_monkey]

In many cases the Governors have far more power to order these measures than a President does.

True but there are still things the president can do as recently as he did reviving a Korean-war era measure allowing the US to ramp up production of medical supply. So from - this thing snuck up on us, to, it felt like the pandemic long before it was called a pandemic, Trump has a long way to go to make up for his mistake of downplaying it all the way to early March when there were credible signs this was serious in early January. Let's hope he stops boasting that he's doing a great job to actually doing a decent job.

[little_monkey]

Which means the model is no longer accurate.

Seriously, man, use your brain -- assuming you have one.

Models are hypothetical by nature. They are meant to be used for a better, rational decision. Of course as hypothetical they carry their own assumptions. It's imperative that one compares them adequately, and not mixing apples with oranges. The models referred by Birk were misleading. The Imperial college study did not reference that people had changed their behavior. In my initial post I specifically referred to someone who was unaware of being infected. Nowhere did I imply it was a worse case scenario. But you've erratically jumped to that conclusion. I corrected your misinterpretation on two occasions yet you persist to think that I implied a worst case scenario. I didn't.

[carpedm9587]

Why can't one pay attention to the data with telling people that they should be fearful? Do you have any idea how many people are killed in auto accidents every year, or from falls at home, or die from the common flu on average? Yet nobody is running around whooping and hollering about how "SCARY!" those numbers are. The only reason you guys want to frighten us is because you hope it will reflect negatively on your President. That's pretty messed up thinking, dude.

Actually - pointing out how scary the numbers are is exactly how we got automobile safety reforms in place. Pointing out how scary the numbers are is how we got momentum for action against HIV and cancer. This is a pandemic. A message of complacency is a threat. Making sure people know what is at risk and how to mitigate that risk is critical. Messages like, "we have it all under control" cost lives because people do not then take the threat seriously and take the action needed to protect lives.

And I don't have to do much to reflect negatively on Mr. Trump. He seems to be doing that all by himself.

[carpedm9587]

Is it just age or does it also include poor health? If it is the latter then the US is likely to have just as big a problem as Italy.

Again, your assumption that you'll be significantly less affected is insane.

The numbers I have seen suggest mortality ranging from 0.2% for those below 49 years of age to 14.8% for those above 80. Anyone with compromised lungs, a compromised immune system, or several other health-related issues is at greater risk in any age group.

The predictions of 3-5M dead in the U.S. is an outside worst case that assumes nothing is done, everyone gets infected, 1% remains the average mortality rate, and our healthcare resources are exhausted. Everything we do to mitigate infections cuts into that number. Will it be 20K? Frankly, I doubt it. Based on everything I am reading and seeing is that we will see deaths measured in the (hopefully low) hundreds of thousands, rather than millions. But I will be very surprised if it is measured in the tens of thousands, especially with Trump playing a pivotal role.

There is an interesting political dynamic here. The areas likely to be most hard hit, for obvious reasons, are urban areas. These are dominated by Democrats. Rural areas are likely to be less impacted, and these are predominantly Republican. I have to wonder if that thought has not crossed Mr. Trump's mind.

[carpedm9587]

The right leader at the right time:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...rus-decisions/

I saw that yesterday. I cannot wait to see how his proxies and his base spin this to make it "acceptable." You know he's not going to get push-back from the GOP leadership in Washington. They have already demonstrated their fear of Trump's base and the spirit of retribution that now permeates politics.

[Mountain Man]

Actually - pointing out how scary the numbers are is exactly how we got automobile safety reforms in place.

But nobody ever talked about it that way. It was more like "Based on these numbers, we have an opportunity to improve safety by requiring seatbelts" or whatever. People weren't running around saying, "Don't drive to work because based on this SCARY statistic -- ooooh -- you have an X% chance of dying!" Of course the focus was on actually improving auto safety and not falsely vilifying a duly elected president.

[carpedm9587]

Asian culture is really big on saving face and so it sounds completely plausible they are stopping testing in order to look better to the outside world. This way they can claim they beat the virus instead of having to admit it is out of control.

I have not seen secondary confirmation of this, and the NYP is known to skew to the right, but it originates from a Chinese news source. It raises questions about just how many deaths they have actually had.

[Mountain Man]

Nowhere did I imply it was a worse case scenario.

Regardless of what you intended to imply, you're still talking in terms of worst case scenarios.

[carpedm9587]

You have to admire the President's candor. He's saying what a lot of politicians think but don't have the guts to actually say. His honesty is rather disarming. You also have to admire his wisdom in putting Mike Pence, a more honorable than average politician, in charge of this task force and who the President knows is willing to go against the President's impulses.

Well done.

Absolutely amazing. The holder of the highest office in the land says, "if the leadership doesn't teat me the way I want to be treated, to hell with the Americans living there, we shouldn't reach out, and the response is "well done."

I have to wonder what the response would be if Obama said something like this publicly during a crisis. My guess is it would be jumped all over - and would certainly not get a "well done." But that is speculation. I'm sure if Obama did exactly this, you would be standing and cheering him in exactly this way...

[carpedm9587]

In many cases the Governors have far more power to order these measures than a President does.

Sometimes. However, the president has more power under the National Emergency Declaration than pretty much any governor. A case in point is the governors asking the president to restrict travel or require quarantine from heavily infected areas. This is coming from GOP governors as well as Democratic ones. He won't, so they are trying to do it themselves, but there is significant question if they have the authority to do this given established constitutional freedoms.

[carpedm9587]

True but there are still things the president can do as recently as he did reviving a Korean-war era measure allowing the US to ramp up production of medical supply. So from - this thing snuck up on us, to, it felt like the pandemic long before it was called a pandemic, Trump has a long way to go to make up for his mistake of downplaying it all the way to early March when there were credible signs this was serious in early January. Let's hope he stops boasting that he's doing a great job to actually doing a decent job.

That wasn't his only mistake. He may have invoked the Defense Production Act, but he hasn't acted on it AFAIK. There are significant shortages in many areas, but not a single industry has been told to ramp up production of any of the items in short supply, especially those needed for testing and for treatment of the most severely ill. The results of these missteps (and others) are yet to be fully felt...but the wave is building. His screw-ups are going to cost lives - possibly tens of thousands of them.

[carpedm9587]

Models are hypothetical by nature. They are meant to be used for a better, rational decision. Of course as hypothetical they carry their own assumptions. It's imperative that one compares them adequately, and not mixing apples with oranges. The models referred by Birk were misleading. The Imperial college study did not reference that people had changed their behavior. In my initial post I specifically referred to someone who was unaware of being infected. Nowhere did I imply it was a worse case scenario. But you've erratically jumped to that conclusion. I corrected your misinterpretation on two occasions yet you persist to think that I implied a worst case scenario. I didn't.

Get used to it, LM. There is a cadre here that delights in misrepresenting positions and then clinging stubbornly and unashamedly to their misrepresentations, no matter how much you attempt to clarify. It won't take you long to spot them, if you haven't already. Usually, it's just better to move along and chat with others.