Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Have to ask...... wrote:

P.....

You are smart and logical. I enjoy your posts though don't always agree.

I have to ask... why are you responding to or acknowledging someone who is clearly a troll and has been since well for as long as I can remember? He/she is purposely obtuse on a daily basis.

Fair points.

I guess I am thinking that Sally either puts forth his own numbers which will be shown to be absurdly out of touch or he will be shown a bit more clearly to be trolling.

But you're right - Sally is a waste of time.

World Numbers - Daily Percentage increase in totals

Daily case growth (%):

Mar 8: 16.7

Mar 9: 14.9

Mar 10: 14.3

Mar 11: 18.1

Mar 12: 19.3

Mar 13: 20.1

Mar 14: 16.7

Mar 15: 17.3

Mar 16: 14.9

Mar 17: 15.5

Mar 18: 17.7

Mar 19: 18.9

Mar 20: 18.2

Mar 21: 15.4

Mar 22: 13.8

Daily death growth (%):

Mar 8: 43.1

Mar 9: 25.6

Mar 10: 28.2

Mar 11: 27.9

Mar 12: 24.3

Mar 13: 24.3

Mar 14: 17.6

Mar 15: 25.2

Mar 16: 19.2

Mar 17: 20.5

Mar 18: 20.5

Mar 19: 18.9

Mar 20: 19.7

Mar 21: 20.0

Mar 22: 16.5

Fatality Rate (Cumulative deaths/cases)

Mar 8: 2.4%

Mar 9: 2.7%

Mar 10: 3.0%

Mar 11: 3.2%

Mar 12: 3.4%

Mar 13: 3.5%

Mar 14: 3.5%

Mar 15: 3.7%

Mar 16: 3.9%

Mar 17: 4.0%

Mar 18: 4.1%

Mar 19: 4.1%

Mar 20: 4.2%

Mar 21: 4.4%

Mar 22: 4.5%

///

Room for Optimism 1: Daily increase in case numbers have been below 16% for 4 of the last 7 days. This compares to only 2 of the prior 8 days. Progress may seem glacial but it appears to be progress.

Room for Optimism 2: Daily increases in deaths have been at or below 20% for 4 days in a row. This compares to being at or below 20% on only 2 of the previous 11 days.

Note 3ish: Fatality rate continues to climb for the usual reasons. This number is dominated by Spain (6.1%), Iran (7.5%) and Italy (9.3%).

CountChocula wrote:

Forgotten Man wrote:

Yes. The economist (Nobel Laureate) rephrased the Churchill quote.

Guess I lose, but thanks for teaching me something today!

You are welcome. You didn't lose anything. The answer, BTW, is Paul Krugman.

If we had treated the coronavirus the same way we treat the flu, how many Americans would get the coronavirus and how many would die from it?

Sally Vix wrote:

Truth b told2 wrote:

I don't recall the flu overwhelming hospitals because so many became so sick so quickly. And the pandemic is not close to being over.

Am I missing something Sally?

Yes. Why not the hysteria back then? So far to date about 300 deaths or so from the Coronavirus . You had about 25,000 deaths after about 4 month from the flu back then.

This has been pointed out to you, but you are too much of a simple minded, knuckle dragging, ignorant person to figure it out. And I put that as nicely as I can. It is very dangerous to have your view point.

Experts are worried this may grow exponentially and we have a repeat of the Spanish Flu. Its not the 300 deaths that experts are worried about. Its the potential 100s of thousands or millions due to the unknown potential future exponential growth.

Alan

L L wrote:

I think the hysteria on this virus really ramped up when Trump shut down travel from Europe and started having daily press briefings on the virus.

Why is Trump fanning the flames of this hysteria, Sally?

Sally?

US Fatality Rate - A Closer Look

///

From link provided below:

"The case fatality rate (CFR) represents the proportion of cases who eventually die from a disease.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients.

In other words, current deaths belong to a total case figure of the past, not to the current case figure in which the outcome (recovery or death) of a proportion (the most recent cases) hasn't yet been determined.

The correct formula, therefore, would appear to be:

CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-{T}

(where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)

This would constitute a fair attempt to use values for cases and deaths belonging to the same group of patients.

One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak)."

They go on to use "a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death."

///

Now note the current fatality rate for the US, shown below for cumulative cases/deaths on the dates shown:

Mar 7: 4.5%

Mar 8: 3.8%

Mar 9: 3.5%

Mar 10: 3.1%

Mar 11: 3.0%

Mar 12: 2.5%

Mar 13: 2.2%

Mar 14: 2.0%

Mar 15: 1.8%

Mar 16: 1.8%

Mar 17: 1.7%

Mar 18: 1.6%

Mar 19: 1.5%

Mar 20: 1.3%

Mar 21: 1.3%

Mar 22: 1.3%

Note that the fatality rate shown is a) dropping due to the acceleration of the testing regime and b) is lower than the actual fatality rate comparing a stable cohort of cases with their eventual outcomes (due to lag in deaths vs cases as explained above).

Here I provide an adjusted fatality rate based on the methodology discussed above. I use a more conservative value of T = 5. That is, adjusted fatality rate = (cumulative deaths to date/cumulative cases 5 days ago). With that the numbers look like this:

Adjusted US Fatality Rate (T=5)

Mar 13: 6.9%

Mar 14: 6.3%

Mar 15: 5.8%

Mar 16: 6.1%

Mar 17: 6.0%

Mar 18: 6.7%

Mar 19: 7.2%

Mar 20: 6.8%

Mar 21: 6.5%

Mar 22: 6.5%

Note that with this adjustment the fatality rate is relatively stable around 6 - 7 %. This is likely to be a truer representation of the percentage of diagnosed cases which will ultimately prove to be fatal. Of course, as with all such fatality rates, it refers to the percentage of those diagnosed with COVID-19 rather than the percentage of all individuals who have actually contracted COVID-19.

///

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#days

Ok well after a couple bad days we got a good one.

Almost every stat showed improvement. Deaths and cases in Italy.

I like how P's data stream shows long term trends, so we can overlook some of the day to day spikes and valleys.

Italy has always suffered around 40-50% of the world's deaths and it still does. So today's 18% drop in daily deaths helped the world to a negative 4% world death count Sunday over Saturday.

But the growth rates have been so steep, that only gets us back to...Friday or Saturday's numbers.

I'm going to drop Iran from consideration - I think their numbers are too consistent to be real, in light of the volatility of the other nations' data.

The drop today in deaths was the same whether you separate out Italy and Spain or if you consider the whole planet - both subgroups were down around 2-4%.

Normally a one day pause should not mean much, but since health experts think two weeks are needed for quarantines to work, and it's been two weeks in Italy, there is some larger than normal chance that these down numbers will persist. And if the down numbers do not persist, that would be very bad news.

"We expect to see the first effects of the stringent lockdown measures adopted on March 11 after 2-3 weeks, so the coming week will be absolutely crucial in this sense: we expect to finally see a sign of trend reversal," said Franco Locatelli, President of the Health Council [source]

Runningart2004 wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Yes. Why not the hysteria back then? So far to date about 300 deaths or so from the Coronavirus . You had about 25,000 deaths after about 4 month from the flu back then.

This has been pointed out to you, but you are too much of a simple minded, knuckle dragging, ignorant person to figure it out. And I put that as nicely as I can. It is very dangerous to have your view point.

Experts are worried this may grow exponentially and we have a repeat of the Spanish Flu. Its not the 300 deaths that experts are worried about. Its the potential 100s of thousands or millions due to the unknown potential future exponential growth.

Alan

Your post is unreadable. You call me a simple minded (sic), knuckle dragging (sic) ignorant person to figure it out.

Do you know that "simple-minded" and "knuckle-dragging" both have to be hyphenated. You call me stupid when you have never corrected the Army on learning how to do sit-ups correctly? You come on here pretending to know how to lift weights but you only know what you read in books? I was sub-14 and worked out with guys who finished top 10 in Mr. Olympia. I know so much more about running and about lifting weights than you will ever have a chance to know. You are a clown, Alan.

I should make clear that if you look at all the countries in the world but exclude Italy and Spain, you still had a negative death rate of around 2-4% today.

So it wasn't just the Italian down day that nosed the numbers down.

It's not a random odds machine...I wonder if hospitals are learning how to care better for victims, which is lowering the number of deaths. Or if adequate supplies are now getting to medical professionals. Or if auxiliary hospitals are being built and used.

P wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Trump fired the pandemic response team. He tried to cut CDC funding. He attacked the crisis with false hope and happy talk. And every American will know somebody who died from this.

Remember how I've always said, there are four ways an authoritarian like Trump leaves office.

1. Dies in office

2. Thrown in prison

3. Flees to exile

4. Taken out back and shot

I never thought I would say this, but the odds of #4 have gone up significantly.

I do not agree.

Regardless of whether or not I agree I do not think that it is appropriate here or anywhere else to be making predictions about the chances that the POTUS will be "taken out back and shot." I respectfully request that you refrain from such talk here.

As usual, a humour by-pass.

Hell freezes over again. The NY Times blames Pelosi/Dems for killing the coronavirus relief bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/world/coronavirus-updates-world-usa.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage#link-42bc69ff

Ciro wrote:

Good to see Trump has his priorities right.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-coronavirus-hurting-personal-185149789.html

Now do Hyatt hotels.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker is a managing partner of The Pritzker Group which owns Hyatt Hotels.

Democrat logic says his Hyatt Hotels should receive China Virus bailout funds.

KAG2020

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Hell freezes over again. The NY Times blames Pelosi/Dems for killing the coronavirus relief bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/world/coronavirus-updates-world-usa.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage#link-42bc69ff

I think this has been the strangest few weeks of my life so this kind of makes sense.

I appreciate all of your work on this but there’s just too many asymptomatic celebs/politicians testing positive leading me to believe that millions have COVID-19 and are also asymptomatic. The death rate would be very low if that’s the case.

The sheer lack of actual statistical analysis and the data manipulation to "prove" your hypothesis is astounding. smh

Why do you consider T=5 to be more conservative?

T simply is what it is. That is, T is the best estimate we have based on worldwide data so far.

Of course, T will be vary based on the quality of health care. A nation with a rigorous testing regime and wide availability of ventilators will have a larger T value. But in your calculations, it would be prudent to base T on the best data you can find instead of hedging one way or the other.

As a side note, T is the reason I have been much more focused on new cases rather than deaths. We know some percentage of new cases will result in death. The more new cases we have, the more our hospitals get swamped. Testing becomes more limited. Free ventilators becomes more scarce. T goes down and the case fatality rate goes up.