Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Fats:

NYT:

WASHINGTON — Coronavirus patients in areas that had high levels of air pollution before the pandemic are more likely to die from the infection than patients in cleaner parts of the country, according to a new nationwide study that offers the first clear link between long-term exposure to pollution and Covid-19 death rates.

In an analysis of 3,080 counties in the United States, researchers at the Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that higher levels of the tiny, dangerous particles in air known as PM 2.5 were associated with higher death rates from the disease.

Thanks for spreading the word.

Air pollution leads to respiratory disease. Those with lungs weakened from pollution are more likely to die from COVID-19. It's pretty simple and obvious.

Even without the pandemic, 4.6 million people die every year from air pollution.

We can fix that.

So you are saying that even with the best filters, it's really hard to get rid of these particles. Then the only solution is to stop putting the particles into the air.

We can do that. We have the technology to stop putting this stuff into the air. Switch to solar and wind power. Switch to electric cars. For a fraction of what we spent on the pandemic we can make this switch.

P wrote:

Perhaps you would care to explain how the rate of new cases dropping from 30% down to 8% is not a good thing.

While you are at it maybe you want to explain how the rate of deaths dropping from 26% down to 16% is also not a good thing.

Personally, I think that dramatically dropping infection rates and death rates are good. You?

(fixed - sorry for the posting error at top of this page)

I take issue with the phrasing. Infection rates are still rising. Deaths are still rising. They are not dropping.

Things are not getting better. They are getting worse more slowly. Which is better than getting worse more quickly but is not exactly good news.

The echo of the economic impact will last longer than the lock downs.

We will have a new economy coming out this.

And we will be rebuilding from there.

As this pertains to Trump, a lot of people are locked in one way or another.

The middle ground may be bigger than before this.

Will those middle ground voters that will be hurting see Trump as a way to get back or will they seek a new directions?

L L wrote:

The echo of the economic impact will last longer than the lock downs.

We will have a new economy coming out this.

And we will be rebuilding from there.

As this pertains to Trump, a lot of people are locked in one way or another.

The middle ground may be bigger than before this.

Will those middle ground voters that will be hurting see Trump as a way to get back or will they seek a new directions?

It will be interesting to see if the virus shakes loose some people into the purple zone.

I could see it firming up team red and team blue...I have such a low impression of trump voters that I can't see many of them turning away. They love him so much that they will spin everything and everything to increase their ardor.

One thing might be that this will increase black voting rates...a major story of the virus will be how it killed black people disproportionately...if Dems can make black voters believe their lives depend on turning up to vote, it could help.

Hey agip, what did P mean when he referred to the "agip coefficient?" I have not read every post in this thread, but have followed yours and P's with interest lately as I've drifted in and out...

Hey agip, here is a basis for estimating growth rate from the daily proportional change, measured either as doubling period, in days, which some people use, or else % daily change:

https://ibb.co/1fLHXtt

We can look at reported cases and fatalities to see how the 9% daily change (based on a 5-day average in my illustration below) corresponds really well with an observed peak:

https://ibb.co/c35d4SR

Both peaks for cases and fatalities correspond very well with the day that daily change dropped below 9%. We can also look at Canada and US:

https://ibb.co/Ytfbt1X

https://ibb.co/mykKhN6

Both have approximately reached peaks for new cases, but look to be a few days, maybe a week, from peak fatalities. So a few more bad days, then things should start to look progressively better.

Unless I'm an idiot, which is entirely possible...

interested reader wrote:

Hey agip, what did P mean when he referred to the "agip coefficient?" I have not read every post in this thread, but have followed yours and P's with interest lately as I've drifted in and out...

I don't know what the agip coefficient is. Lost in the mists of thousands of posts.

Thanks for your kind words - hope you and yours are safe.

interested reader wrote:

Hey agip, here is a basis for estimating growth rate from the daily proportional change, measured either as doubling period, in days, which some people use, or else % daily change:

https://ibb.co/1fLHXtt

We can look at reported cases and fatalities to see how the 9% daily change (based on a 5-day average in my illustration below) corresponds really well with an observed peak:

https://ibb.co/c35d4SR

Both peaks for cases and fatalities correspond very well with the day that daily change dropped below 9%. We can also look at Canada and US:

https://ibb.co/Ytfbt1Xhttps://ibb.co/mykKhN6

Both have approximately reached peaks for new cases, but look to be a few days, maybe a week, from peak fatalities. So a few more bad days, then things should start to look progressively better.

Unless I'm an idiot, which is entirely possible...

Thanks for this. In my stats class we are trying to piece together the impact of local measures on the spread. What should scare people is what will happen when the measures are inevitably relaxed - what will the rate of spread look like then? The point of the measures is to flatten the curve and thus prolong and break up the massive impact on the health system. The measures will be relaxed at different times in different places depending on the slowdown of cases and deaths. My overall assumption is that in highly populated areas there will be several flare-ups and waves of measures... COVID is not going away quickly.

agip wrote:

interested reader wrote:

Hey agip, what did P mean when he referred to the "agip coefficient?" I have not read every post in this thread, but have followed yours and P's with interest lately as I've drifted in and out...

I don't know what the agip coefficient is. Lost in the mists of thousands of posts.

Thanks for your kind words - hope you and yours are safe.

If I remember correctly, which could be a stretch, I think it had something to do with there being more people out there who had the virus but were not being counted... in other words, many more who had been infected so we'd get to herd immunity faster... at least I think that's what it refers to.

Trump continues scapegoating as usual but this response on voting by mail is completely corrupt, anti-american and plainly insane.

Here he says the law is wrong and forget the Constitution:

"No, mail ballots, they cheat," said Trump. "OK, people cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country because they are cheaters."

Here he's saying COVID is messing up our voter suppression and we should be very scared:

"Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to state wide mail-in voting. Democrats are clamoring for it. Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn't work out well for Republicans."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/donald-trump-vote-by-mail-absentee/index.html

Have to ask................... wrote:

agip wrote:

I don't know what the agip coefficient is. Lost in the mists of thousands of posts.

Thanks for your kind words - hope you and yours are safe.

If I remember correctly, which could be a stretch, I think it had something to do with there being more people out there who had the virus but were not being counted... in other words, many more who had been infected so we'd get to herd immunity faster... at least I think that's what it refers to.

When you look at the number of known infections vs broader population there is reason to remain very concerned. Herd immunity is a great strategy hypothetically... but the reality is letting the virus run its course naturally would result in at least 5 million deaths in a very short period of time, based on a 2% death rate. We are VERY far away from full exposure.

Trollminator wrote:

Here he says the law is wrong and forget the Constitution:

"No, mail ballots, they cheat," said Trump. "OK, people cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country because they are cheaters."

Trump voted by mail last month. He was in D.C. and voted in Florida. He defended his voting by mail by screeching: he did that because he was allowed to.

Trollminator wrote:

Have to ask................... wrote:

If I remember correctly, which could be a stretch, I think it had something to do with there being more people out there who had the virus but were not being counted... in other words, many more who had been infected so we'd get to herd immunity faster... at least I think that's what it refers to.

When you look at the number of known infections vs broader population there is reason to remain very concerned. Herd immunity is a great strategy hypothetically... but the reality is letting the virus run its course naturally would result in at least 5 million deaths in a very short period of time, based on a 2% death rate. We are VERY far away from full exposure.

I didn't say we weren't, I was simply answering a question.

Your opinion could very well be correct. Of course, you could be completely wrong too.

I will readily admit I have no idea which direction anything is going. I do have my opinions though.

It amazes me how many people here have to be 'right'.

Have to ask................... wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

When you look at the number of known infections vs broader population there is reason to remain very concerned. Herd immunity is a great strategy hypothetically... but the reality is letting the virus run its course naturally would result in at least 5 million deaths in a very short period of time, based on a 2% death rate. We are VERY far away from full exposure.

I didn't say we weren't, I was simply answering a question.

Your opinion could very well be correct. Of course, you could be completely wrong too.

I will readily admit I have no idea which direction anything is going. I do have my opinions though.

It amazes me how many people here have to be 'right'.

Of course no one knows which direction this is going and what the world will look like in 1 or 2 months. I am not optimistic, but I hope I am wrong.

In other news, Bernie is finally out.

Total cluster...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/fema-governor-response/index.html