Originally posted by dadudemon
I can get checked for COVID-19 (active illness/infection) rather easily at the moment but not get a serological test to see if I have the antibodies.
It'll probably mutate two more times before you get it back.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
damn, you weren't f*ckin around
Yeah, but the BBcoding is bad. I typed it up in WordPad. Spent most of four hours just reading, the response came secondary.
Finally happened.
We finally have some antibody test results:
Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases.Conclusions:
The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
Much lower infection rate than other models predict but much higher than other models predicted. This also indicates we have a mortality rate likely to be closer to .1% which is still lower than my original model.
I'm glad there's some data coming in. Here's also a popular science journalistic article written up about the Santa Clara Results:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0
I hope we can get more data, and that the pattern here holds, or is even more large. If we are talking about a mortality of 0.1 we are in a much better situation, and also much closer to an end of the pandemic. (if immunity holds, fingers crossed)
Of course it is not enough evidence to decide policy yet, we need a lot more data and caution is wise at this point.
Loooong Wall of Text (tm) INC.
To Artol: May have to stall on our discussion on the Ecuador thread man. I only got time for one debate of this scale at a time. stick out tongue
Anyway, back to Stealth Moose:
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
1. This is kind of the point. You've used some wording that implies or argues Trump's evils are lesser or unimportant compared to the WHO/China. You have made an assertion. I countered the assertion with an argument. I provided evidence.This is how debating works. Your argument has a superficial resemblance to a middle ground argument, but your underlying argument is that China and WHO are the real culprits. How do I know this? Because you've made it clear in your language use:
This language is crucial to how you are being perceived. It states that WHO/China are the ones to blame for the severity of the pandemic which Trump is now handling in the US. The use of 'real culprits' implies a level of blame higher than 'mismanaging' or 'slow reaction' or 'obfuscating bullshit'
1. I’m sorry but it looks like you just repeated my points then accused it of being a “middle ground argument” superficially whilst aggresively trying to lecture me on how debating works. My statement did exactly what it did. It called on those that deny Trump’s error to accept/admit to it (because that is true) while asking everyone else to look at those who were really at fault (because that is also true). Or at least those were the facts I currently believe in. I am of course, keeping an open mind.
It’s not a “middle ground argument” because it doesn’t argue a superficially argue that the middle ground is correct (w/c is what a middle ground fallacy is). It is arguing that we look purely to the facts and abandon political biases. BIG diffference there.
And why are you implying that you are the only one providing evidence? I posted a timeline supporting my argument.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
2. Objectivity should be the end goal in a debate. It often isn't, because of bias, but it should be.That being said, the 'better argument' has better evidence or logical form. This is Logic and Reasoning 101. If I say the dog is fat and someone else disagrees, and if I have a picture of that fatass dog, I have the better argument. The dog obesity partisan beliefs are there, but besides the point.
Because you can acknowledge opposing viewpoints and their bias and still examine the evidence if the evidence is sufficient enough or complete enough to justify one side over the other. If you feel the WHO/China are the real culprits (pertaining to the US outbreak or global outbreak), it stands to reason you can provide evidence.
If I were to argue that wrongdoing, on any level, doesn't remove responsibility form President Trump to act better or make him appear any less guilty, I'd be able to pretty easily prove it. Like this.
2. And such is your mistake. We are not judging a debate (or at least that is not what I am doing) so we are not strictly looking at two opposing sides and picking from them. We are trying to figure out who is really at fault here. Proper investigation and analysis does not assume a side nor does it only look at 2 opposing sides and deciding w/c is right (although you DO look at arguments to dig for facts and opinions. I, myself, find debates in KMC to be oftentimes educational so I participate here to delve deeper into the personal opinions I find interesting). The second one picks a “side”, one will naturally tend to contaminate your position with confirmation bias because one would want to prove the position they are emotionally invested in to be correct.
Proper investigation and analysis (to get to the correct answer) looks at the facts in as mucn an unbiased position-less eye as possible and weighs the facts and the facts alone.
Stop looking at w/c of the opposing sides to choose from and form your own opinion based on the facts. Or don’t. Your choice.
Your previous argument focused entirely on his words. In times of crises, words are just that. That was my issue with your “evidence”. Provide actual actions and we can actually have a proper discussion. Which you seemed to have done to a point so I am glad to see that (though it still looked like you only searched for the information that can provide proof in favor of your position, which is a little disappointing).
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You know, I've spent two hours pouring over several timelines in regards to this, and found that the wikipedia timeline is the most complete and uses (naturally) the most sources to be verified. There is a lot of information to digest. More than I could do in a single setting. And I've uncovered some things I didn't know at all.Link. It's lengthy.
Having done this, I can offer up the following observations:
1A. Trump did not take the outbreak seriously, even when his medical advisors did, including the CDC. His January travel Ban to China was pretty much at the behest of Fauci and co. His administration was very much pro-China when it came to the outbreak, tweeting and publically thanking Uncle Xi for his role in dealing with the epidemic. This has only recently changed because Trump refuses to take blame or responsibility for anything negative his administration handles, COVID-19 or not.
2A. China's containment measures were a mixed bag. They did some dumb bureaucratic shit. But at the same time, they seemed to be doing the opposite of what they did with SARS, with some transparency. Wuhan's actual lockdown did not go as intended, and some 5 million people got out. But in all fairness, China worked with international researchers, doctors, and officials to get the word out there and enacted some draconian quarantine measures. They retro-actively supported the early 'whistleblowers' via the courts and admitted that their earlier warnings should have been heeded.
3A. The WHO was cautious at first, but by the end of January was pushing for a more serious approach. Unfortunately, it took almost two weeks longer to declare it a PHEIC than was necessary and Tedros' initial stance against hard travel bans looks bad in retrospect. Even if he was against causing undue fear early in the epidemic and didn't have all the information we now have, it was a bad move. That being said, the WHO put money and resources into giving information, helping less prepared smaller nations get started on preparation, and made information widely available. This information was taken up keenly by the right bodies in the USA, but unfortunately the chief executive officer dragged his feet and downplayed the issue until it was undeniable.
1A. “Not taking something seriously” seems like a subjective assesment rather than an objective description. In what way did he not take it seriously? And this is in comparison to what?
The advantage of hindsight is that now we always know better. You have to know that, as President, there is practically no limit to the contradicting opinions of “experts” he hears each day and that his job is to simply select w/c expert to listen to (bear in mind there were, and still are, experts also saying that ncov is just a slightly worse flu). Presidents have their own biases (w/c is sad to say), an “economy-driven” President like Trump will most likely listen to the opinions that favor the economy best and he would have little to no knowledge of the mechanical transmission of viruses (try explaining coding to a 60+ year old corp exec and you’ll know what I mean). Being told by one panel of experts “to take it seriously” while another, bigger, world-accredited panel of experts with better access to information (due to the fact that thy were one of the first few outside experts allowed in by China) is sending mixed messages on how seriously to take the virus (see below), it seems rather natural where one like him would rather want to be, don’t you think?
W/c is Trump’s error. He listened to the wrong assesment of the situation. But one thing he did do, he listened and instituted much needed travel bans. This was clearly not enough, but had this been done earlier and more aggresively (and had the WHO been more serious about their assesment of the virus) this would have managed to contain the virus or at least kept it out long enough for better information to be available. Again, you need to compare his reaction with the rest of the world via the timeline to get a better context of what the perception of the virus was at the time.
2A and 3A. That... that is just a MAJOR downplay on what China and the WHO did.
FYI, China did not "worked with international researchers, doctors and officials to get the word out" until it became clear that the situation has become uncontainable, China (parotted by the WHO) constantly downplayed the virus to rest of the world (look at the timelime I posted from Dec 6-30), claiming that there was no evidence of human-to-human tranmission, no evidence that medical staff were being infected and that they “were now capable of killing it at the early stages” even tho it was clear from evidence gathered (and they knew about it) that those were clearly not true (statements were after the whistleblower warnings and where cases were already being identified). They ordered test samples from genomic companies to be destroyed and ordered institutions to not publish information relating to the virus. And despite knowing how dangerous and contagious the virus was, Wuhan authorities allowed 40,000 families to gather for a Lunar New Year celebration. Bear in mind this was the small and crucial window where the virus could have been contained. And did I just hear your right? Did you just downplay and excused China’s silencing of whistleblowers (https://rsf.org/en/news/coronavirus-information-heroes-china-silenced) because they did it AFTER it was already too big to hide? One of them posthumously?
WHO dragged their feet in classifying the disease as a pandemic and recommended strongly against travel bans (huge IMO). Until it was too late and the disease has already spread throughout the world. You want a metric on how badly they did their job? Look at the timeline on the REST of the world’s response.
The difference between Trump’s failure in assesment and China’s obfuscation is the difference between “We can do this” vs “We have done it/are doing it and you, guy who knows the truth, shut up or else”. One is hopeful but wrong, the other is a complete and utterly destructive lie.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your tone makes it sound like China and the WHO’s actions are just “well it was bad in retrospect” but then do not give Trump the same benefit? Can you imagine how the media would react if someone from the Trump administration tried to silence a whistleblower by detaining and grilling them to keep silent about it? Then that whistleblower (a doctor) then dies? Can you imagine the hysteria?
That is the problem with biases, man, you see one side’s molehill (troll-y tweets and stupid press conferences) as a mountain and make a molehill out of China’s and the WHO’s volcanoes (actual obfuscation). Step back here, bro. Step back and look with clear unbiased eyes.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
3. Check the Wiki timeline. China's actions are a lot to pour over. If you're saying they did nothing, that's clearly wrong. If you're saying they did bad things, that's also wrong, because they did a lot of things, some good, some bad, and some ineffective. You might want to be more specific if you intend to lay blame here.More to the point, if you insist China is part of the 'real culprit' diode, an articulated argument would go miles.
3. Check the timeline I posted as well. And I’m not saying they did nothing (see above). They did a lot of stuff. But to simplify, they tried to hide it til it got too big to hide. By then it was too late for the rest of the world. They made great strides (due to their political power and will) to wipe the virus out once it got too big to hide but the fact that they were more concerned at hiding it during the most critical part (the part where it could have been contained) was what screwed over the rest of the world.
That is what makes them the real culprit here.
As for the WHO. I was watching the press briefing where the WHO still did not acknowledge the virus as a pandemic (or pandemic risk). And they strongly recommended against travel restrictions. And they recommended against the use of masks (unless you are sick). They already knew that the virus can have an incubation of up to 2 weeks and that you could be contagious well before symptoms can start to show. They recommended strong hygeine (handwashing), cough ettiquete, strict monitoring at airports (w/c the US was already doing) for potentially sick travelers as well as quarantine and testing for those that are found to be symptomatic. They also acknowledged that the virus is still contained mostly in Wuhan but cases are already starting to show outside the city.
Do you know what I was thinking at the time?
IF the virus has up to a 14 day incubation period anmd can be transmitted by asymptomatic people then how can monitoring at the airports contain the virus? IF the virus highly contagious but is still mostly contained in Wuhan then why not recommend travel bans to make sure it stays contained? IF wearing a mask can prevent the sick from spreading it, but you can spread it even if you don’t know you’re sick, why not recommend everyone wear masks (especially in tight spaces) because we don’t know if we’re sick or not? These are questions that were in my head as he was making the press conference.
Their recommendations were appalling to me. Almost idiotic. Their recommendation is essentially: “hey, it’s serious so keep a serious eye out but don’t do anything serious about containing or stopping it just yet”.
On top of that, they refused to acknowledge Taiwan’s efforts (and refuses its inclusion into the discussion) even though Taiwan has had one of the best successes in containing the virus. Taiwan, btw, is claiming that they warned the WHO (https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3904054) about how dangeroues the virus was but were mostly ignored.
Again, the basic metric should always be how the rest of the world reacted and base your judgement on Trump’s actions/opinions on that context. Until then hindsight is 20/20. Who knows? In a year hindsight might just prove DDM right and that the hysteria of the virus was just that. I hope, if that happens (and I really want to believe he is right) you would understand the value of hindsight and why it is silly to judge a person’s opinion based on what you know now.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
4. Are you talking about cat transmission, or what? The idea that the virus had jumped from bats was, as far as I've read, believed early on.What is the relevance here?
4. Sorry brain fart. I meant human-to-human (the hell was I thinking when I typed this?).
We don’t know where the virus really came from but many point out that it may have originated in a Wuhan wet market and that this may well be due to the trade and consumption of exotic wildlife. They know this and they should have learned from SARS and the Bird Flu (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16940861) and they knew they had a ticking viral pandemic timebomb. But they have dragged their feet with regards to banning exotic wildlife trade and heavily regulating the sanitary conditions of their wet markets.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
5. Well, Trump doesn't have quite the mechanisms in place to order all the things you've stated China has done, because he's not (as he sadly realizes from time to time) emperor for life. Trump's actions are limited in scope to his personal views on the outbreak, how he handles the very real and proactive responses from his advisors, and how he handles his limited executive power. He has several times used his force of personality to influence his followers, and almost religiously followed in turn the conservative agenda of Fox News and OAN. I suppose it's a step up from Info Wars and Breitbart, but not much.Now, the link I've provided above is enough reading for the rest of my lockdown, and as is I've spent over two hours now reading it, reviewing it, and trying to answer your argument here. It's actually shown me how China and other countries have reacted to this in a detail and nuance I didn't fully realize, and it's a clear case of why critical thinking is more important than regurgitating whatever the news says.
That being said, I'll ask: 5A. How are China and the WHO, collectively or separately, the 'real culprits'?
5. This is a bit of a contradiction here. You acknowledge that Trump had very little he could do at such short amount of time because of how the mechanism of government works but criticize him based on his inability to act? Then you hate on him for having a wrong opinion?
I get the impact his opinions would have due to his influence. I get it. But comparing it to what China and the WHO did?
I get influence plays a major role and ppl do dumb things because they listen to the wrong people. But government is the one who is supposed to prevent dumb people from doing dumb things and the experts are the one who are supposed to give the correct recommendations because beuroacrats are only good at being being beuroacrats.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
6. Blame for what precisely? Maybe the issue here is you haven't substantiated what is required for blame to belong.Real culprit perhaps needs some clarification.
culprit noun
cul· prit | \ 'k?l-pr?t , -?prit \
Definition of culprit
1: one accused of or charged with a crime
The culprit pleaded "not guilty."
2: one guilty of a crime or a fault
The culprit expressed remorse at his sentencing.
3: the source or cause of a problem
Lack of exercise and poor diet are the main culprits in heart disease.
So one of three possibilities exists. The first one is unproven; the WHO and China have not been charged with a crime, nor is there a crime that I'm aware of for what they supposedly have done. The second one is more vague; they could be argued to have guilt in fault for handling the crisis. This ignores details with simple blame, and is valueless without evidence. I would argue that their actions have been misrepresented here by others, since evidence of them attempting to help the situation clearly exists. The last one is so vague as to be worthless; by simply being the epicenter, China is the source of the problem, and the WHO cannot be argued to be either the source or cause, so it's irrelevant.
6. You misunderstood my point so your reply is mostly wasted. My point is to assign blame (if that is what you want to do) for what was done based exactly on what one did.
Blame Trump for having the wrong opinion, tweeting and saying dumb things and believing the wrong experts. Blame China for obfuscating and lying about the virus until it was too late to stop it (and all the other stuff I posted above) and blame WHO for mishandling the response for the reasons I have already posted above.
One can only be blamed for what another did. The results of one’s actions can then be weighed but we need to be very ABC about the direct causality if you have to reach to get to a conclusion, chances are the conclusion is bunk.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
7. It's not even a solid point. It's conservative verbal diarrhea. It's two pints of Right Wing Lager away from claiming this is all a Chinese flu, designed to hurt the 2020 election.
7. Which is why I didn’t make that point. It was an exaggerated parody of what your deflection argument looks to me. I thought I was clear but I guess sarcasm doesn’t translate well in forums.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
8. Whataboutism doesn't absolve blame but detracts from it. You've again noted Trump's handling of the issue in a general way, so as it can be dismissed, and decided that CHINAWHO is the real enemy, without really providing strong evidence why. I might argue that going out of the way to blame the WHO is the least productive thing under the circumstances. You could argue China's obvious villainry in most situations, and I'd actually agree. But when it comes to the outbreak, most evidence points to them trying to do the right thing, even if they're failing it because of their goverrnmental structure, bad leadership, and mixed reaction to the early outbreak.
8. And I said distract (synonym: detract. Source: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/distract) not absolve. Why are you repeating what I literally just said about whattaboutism’s definition?
You accuse me of “general way” speaking about Trump’s actions “so it can be dismissed” while literally downplaying things China has done and using “general” terms like “mixed reaction to the early outbreak” and "It's just China" with regards to its obfuscation. Going so far as to minimize the impact of silencing whistleblowers (by saying that they admitted to their mistake long after the fact and long after it was too late) and clamping down on information that would have definitely saved countless lives.
My point was to deliniate and distinguish between words and actions. Words are dangerous, that is true. And I am willing to look into the impact of Trump’s words when you start creating a proper timeline and causality link to your arguments (because I agree, his did underestimate the virus). But basing it entirely on his presscons and tweets and stopping there proves nothing.
I provided strong evidence in my timelines. You did not rebut anything from the timeline so I don’t know why you say the evidence “isn’t strong”.
No. They did the right thing only when it was too late and they had no choice. When people were and dying and helping and stopping the spread of the outbreak was the only recourse left to them (as hiding it has become impossible). Their polical power and ability to basically trample on due process and individual rights allowed them to take major and much needed strides (practically impossible for countries like the US) to contain the virus and one can applaud their system of government for giving them the power to do so. But it is still like congratulating a thief for returning your wallet that was clearly in their possession after they were already tackled and cuffed by the police (after a 10 minute car chase that ran over ppl and 5 minute brawl to get away).
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
9. Done. No point in throwing all my resources into retyping up an expansive list of every party's reactions and actions when I've linked a comprehensive article covering every minute detail.If that's too much reading to verify the truth of the matter, here's two smaller ones:
WHO Timeline.
PolitiFact Trump timeline.
Addressed.
9. I’m having problems loading the who.int website. It just stays stuck for up to 10 minutes and that is as long as I’m willing to wait for a loading screen. Can you cut/paste some important items so I can address them?
I went through the Politifact site tho... and that.. did not do what I asked. My request was a timeline that compares the rest of the world’s reaction and compare it to Trump’s in order to get a clear context on how Coronavirus was percieved at the time. Because that is how we can gauge how wrong Trump was and how the world took the WHO messaging about the virus. Politifact is only looking at the WHO and the US (and if you look at the timeline, the US was responding pretty much around the same time as information from the WHO was being providing). And I don’t see any actions here that could be classified as slow or impeding on the coronavirus efforts (I see a lot of dumb tweets and presscons tho). The only thing we can really condemn him for in the poltifact timeline is him holding a campaign rally at Iowa. But then, it looks to be around the same time the WHO was still recommending against travel bans and strict quarantine/lockdown measures so I don’t know what you wanted him to do?
Can you clarify what parts you find condemning here?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
10. I've provided my own sources above. Also, your source is a bit suspect:National Review was founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley Jr. as a magazine of conservative opinion. The magazine has since defined the modern conservative movement and enjoys the broadest allegiance among American conservatives.
This is clearly a limited, partisan source for your argument. If you believe this to be the truth entirely, with all nuance, it might explain your viewpoints.
10. Ad hominem. Attack their points/evidence/argument, not the ones making the argument/point. They clearly link the sources to their stories, if you believe they made several false statements then the burden is on you now is to go thru their evidence and prove those false. Until then, bad form there, buddy.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
11. It's evident, given the evidence, that he ignored them and downplayed the threat until mid-March. See above timeline, and quotes
11. I went thru the site you sent. IF you base your argument entirely on solely his words, I agree. He did downplay the virus. I wouldn’t say ignore as his actions as early as Jan 30’s travel ban would prove you wrong. But actions are what matters in the end. And him saying dumb and wrong things is something I’ve alrady acknowledged many times in our discussion.
In the end, to prove your statement of his “inaction”, you need to answer the ff. questions:
A) What WHO recommendation did he ignore in terms of actions? And please no “he was told to take this seriously”. That is a subjective non-action statement. Recommendations on what actions to take and him ignoring it would be what I want to find out.
B) Compare his actions to the rest of the free world, were the implementatin of measures slower relative to the rest of the world?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
12. No, being from the Phillipines, Trump isn't your concern. That's evident.If I shift focus on this discussion to your country and why it's valid to blame the WHO, I'd note that the WHO have stated very clearly travel bans need to be reassessed constantly, and that the situation develops rapidly and changes rapidly. They haven't seen "Keep it all open, lol".
The WHO issued their statement about travel bans here:
Feb. 4 - At a WHO briefing, Tedros urged that there be no travel bans. "We reiterate our call to all countries not to impose restrictions that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade. Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit. ... Where such measures have been implemented, we urge that they are short in duration, proportionate to the public health risks and are reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves."
At the time of this briefing, your country had less than three confirmed cases, and had only gotten testing underway after some delay. Your own government started banning affected area Chinese travel on January 30th. They issued a five day ban on Taiwan effective February 10th. Despite this, a partial lockdown of Manila wasn't issued until March 15th and the virus continued to spread unabated. A lack of early testing means we don't know how bad it was until it was too late. For some reason, there's no data on new infections in the Phillipines from February 6th to March 4th. That's a month's worth of absent data in a crucial period in your country's outbreak window, just gone.
But hey, at least your leader's getting more powers out of this. That's good news, right?
12. So translate. What does “reasses constantly” mean in a period where there is no travel ban yet (to countries who haven't implemented the ban I mean)? It means “let’s think about travel bans for now but not do it yet”. Is that wrong?
Dude. I was here during the press releases in my country. I was here watching on local news when they did the implementation of the travel ban. No need to explain it to me.
I don’t know where you’re getting your information but I actually have timelines as early as Jan. 15 (via our national papers and announcements by LGU’s in social media) and we have been updated almost weekly since then. Similar to this:
However, admittedly, testing was practically nonexistent (we haven’t gotten our testing kits until late January if IIRC). It took up to a week to get results. That is why the earlier cases were “under investigation” meaning the testing wasn’t done yet. Poor country competing with the rest of the world for limited PCR equipment/testing kits. My cousin who actually distributes said testing kits mentioned that PCR labs needed to be put up and was the primary bottleneck (and we had very few labs that can do the testing) and antibody testing was still nonexistent at the time.
And what’s your point about having “only” 3 confirmed cases? Don’t you think confirmed cases in the country getting exposed to what may well be an extremely dangerous and contagious virus WOULD warrant a travel ban?
Here is the WHO briefing recommending against travel bans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIgiLN43M_Q
A week later the first case of ncov was confirmed. The travel ban (to Hubei province only) was announced soon after.
https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/1/30/Philippines-coronavirus-case.html
Bear in mind there were already local calls for a full travel ban as early as mid January.
But a serious travel ban was not done, often citing that the rest of the world (w/c tend to follow WHO recommendation) has not, themselves, initiated a travel ban.
https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/1/29/duterte-on-china-travel-ban.html
It was a 7-10 day window where the WHO was recommending against travel bans, my country dragging its feet and only eventually responding once it was already clear that the recommendations of the WHO of monitoring, scanning, hygeine and contact tracing and taking the virus "seriously" was not exactly working and that the virus was far worse than they say it was. Connect it with the timeline I posted above with human-to-human transmission already happening and the fact that China (being parotted by the WHO) were well aware of the dangers of the virus and decided to downplay it.
You question the generality of my previous comments with regards to Trump and then fail to notice that I applied the same standards of generality with how I assessed the WHO and China (probably why you feel that I wasn't all that too specific with them or that I lacked "evidence" even tho I provided it and you didn't really refute my evidence). I started off unspecific on both cases because I wasn't trying to present new information that people didn't already know. I assumed ppl were aware and called on ppl to "get real" by throwing away our biases and need to snipe/troll each and other and simply looking at the all the evidence objectively with no biases. Because well, this virus is serious no matter how you look at it or who you blame. I was just saying maybe there are things we can agree on (w/c you sadly seem to disagree with?).
But let's break down what has been happening shall we?
You point to Trump dragging his feet but seem to not be critical of the WHO on its feet dragging on important measures (such as travel restrictions, mask wearing and including Taiwan in the discussion so that we can learn from their early success although to be fair, I had mentioned Taiwan until now so it might be new info to you).
You point to Trump downplaying the virus but seem to excuse China's obvious lie on human-to-human transmission and the seriousness of the virus (that they were aware of) and the WHO's weak recommendations despite their calls to "take the virus seriously".
You point to Trump being constantly wrong in his tweets and presscons but seem to excuse China's obfuscation, suppression of facts/whistleblowers and destruction of samples and evidence.
Perhaps, before moving forward, you can take a step back and check if you are indeed applying equal standards across the board here? If you find that I am applying double standards as well (oftentimes we ourselves cannot see when we are doing it), please point it out where I have applied it (a list like I provided above would work). I do understand that I have not provided any timeline against Trump himself, but that is because I am assuming that since you are of that side of the argument, is that you can provide the information yourself in order to support your arguments.
Trigger warning, Tim Pool video:
Experts SHRED CNN Over Pushing Literal Chinese Communist Propaganda, TDS Is Going Critical
Lol if this is okay then it simply can't be wrong for Russians to post propaganda on Facebook. Sorry, you cannot say one is okay but the other is not and the first person to respond to this and say "free press" is not very bright(as is anyone who deflects to trump)
🙂
Originally posted by Surtur
Trigger warning, Tim Pool video:Experts SHRED CNN Over Pushing Literal Chinese Communist Propaganda, TDS Is Going Critical
Lol if this is okay then it simply can't be wrong for Russians to post propaganda on Facebook. Sorry, you cannot say one is okay but the other is not and the first person to respond to this and say "free press" is not very bright(as is anyone who deflects to trump)
🙂
Oh, but there will be some who do. We all know that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Finally happened.We finally have some antibody test results:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
Much lower infection rate than other models predict but much higher than other models predicted. This also indicates we have a mortality rate likely to be closer to .1% which is still lower than my original model.
Still a bit early, imo. We need millions tested and across varied populations. Good news about the mortality rate though. Still sucks the death count is going up and up.
Also points to that social distancing and the lockdowns did help stop the spread of infection if the 2-4% infection rate is true.
Originally posted by Robtard
Still a bit early, imo. We need millions tested and across varied populations. Good news about the mortality rate though. Still sucks the death count is going up and up.
The boffins are theorizing that COVID-19 deaths have just completely supplanted the flu deaths as flu deaths have reportedly and uncharacteristically dropped to 0.
But you're right. This is the first study that was truly controlled and normalized to be population representative but Santa Clara just may not have had too many infections compared to most other large population centers.
I'm wondering how OKC did. I want a damn antibody test.
Originally posted by Robtard
Also points to that social distancing and the lockdowns did help stop the spread of infection if the 2-4% infection rate is true.
Based on the infection spike and deaths spikes 7-14 days after each area instituted lockdowns, the opposite conclusion should be reached. Research has been published (and I cited it) from Standard University the points to lockdowns being the opposite solution to what is intended.
And if the R0 is not 5.5 but closer to 1.5 as was originally assumed, the infection rate is still higher than models originally predicted.