Fox/Trump Immoral Handling of covid19

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 182
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@dustryder
Doesn't the timeline suggest that it is not more contagious?

I agree with the having a computer in your pocket, which gets you information fast, and updates via text, but if they did 24 hour news reporting on the Swine Flu like they are now, everyone would have acted the same.  The Governors would have closed everything just like they have done this time around.  I'm in MD where they have shut pretty much everything down by law.  The market didn't tank like it is doing right now.... in other words, we did not kill people in retirement financially by trying to protect them.  In fact we did nothing of the sort because they were the only ones immune to it back in 2009.  

I remember hearing/watching the news back then, there was no talk of social distancing unless you were in an area that had been compromised, locally.  This is way beyond what they were speaking about.  

This is plain and simply biased media freaking everyone the "F" out.  Someone should say the above statistics to calm us down a bit.  Most people don't understand how big the country really is.  
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@DBlaze
The timeline certainly suggests so. But ultimately the time between the first case and cases in all states probably isn't the best indicator for how contagious a disease is, given the vast variety of factors that can differ between diseases.

I would more trust whatever methods virologists are using to determine how contagious a disease is.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@ebuc
I ask the question because I would like to know how you reached that conclusion.

Joe McCarthy jailed communists. Communist espionage was a very big threat back then, so his efforts weren’t misguided. Yes, unfortunately, some innocent people were jailed.

Goldwater was decent.

Watergate really wasn’t that big of a thing. Some rogue agents wire tapped the Democrat building, even though Nixon was set to win in a landslide regardless. Didn’t really change history or much at all for that matter. I would say the JFK wiretapping MLK’s phones was just as bad if not a worse offense.

Iran–Contra was selling guns and supporting anti-socialist rebels. Not too bad.

I’d say Trump treats women better than Billy boy Clinton. ;)
I’d also say that we treat unborn, defenseless children, especially unborn children of color, a lot better than you guys.

I am very young to answer your list of why I believe Republicans are better. I could also come up with a list of bad things Democrats have done. How far can I go back? Genocidal Andrew Jackson? Jim-Crowe? Japanese internment?
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@dustryder
I agree with you, but the statistics are so hard to find, and it is still a good indication of how quickly the diseases spread in comparison.  The way the media is asking questions is putting words in the experts mouths they are interviewing.  Did you watch the interviews with Dr. F on Sunday?  The administration's top Dr. on infectious diseases, he went on like 5 different networks on the same day.  They are all asking questions that or more like statements for him to agree with.  Chuck Todd was the worst of the bunch, unfortunately, he was probably tuned into more than anyone else? 

Do you think we should close everything indefinitely?  Do you think we should all be ready to hunker down for an unknown amount of time?  If we all did that, how long do you think it would be?

Over and over and over again he asked the same statement/question in a different way.  
These are all questions leading to a specific answer that can not be answered without being argumentative.  I don't think the Dr. realized that, so overall, he ended up agreeing with him, even though you could see on his face that Chuck put words in his mouth.

This lead to the stock market plummeting again even further on Monday. The media wants this to happen, for many reasons that benefit them, not only their agenda, but their ratings.  Even Fox News had to get in on the action, for the ratings. 

 



skittlez09
skittlez09's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,014
3
3
9
skittlez09's avatar
skittlez09
3
3
9
-->
@ebuc
Im not a fan of trump or anything but his response to the coronavirus seems pretty solid

whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@DBlaze
@Vader
@bmdrocks21
If we're speaking on how things are being handled right now, I think they're generally good, though I'd say most of the responsibility for those effective efforts have been on the state and county levels. It took quite a while for the federal government to provide much in the way of guidance, and even then, I haven't seen them working very closely with states to deal with more specific problems each state is managing. That being said, while the current federal response is laudable in many ways, I don't think there is any reasonable defense for how Trump handled the early stages of this outbreak. His attitude was largely dismissive and minimizing. He claimed several times that it would simply disappear like a miracle and seemed most concerned with how well he appeared rather than actual issues of spread. Frankly, the continued lack of access in many locations to basic tests for COVID-19 still stands as a massive failure to me - detection is key to prevention, and yet we're still falling flat on our faces in this regard. Is anyone going to seriously argue that Trump's disbanding of the NSC directorate for global health and security and biodefense was a good choice at this point? 

@bmdrocks21

I'm honestly not sure how a wall has or would have any meaningful effects on the spread of COVID-19 for multiple reasons. First, what we have of a wall didn't stop them and, I would argue, wouldn't have stopped them from coming in. Illegal immigrants can and have circumvented physical barriers to entry. Second, these people were caught crossing the border, which means that their entry into the US was stopped. If anything, this kind of entry makes it simpler to ensure that we take appropriate precautions for everyone crossing over who could be infected. Third, COVID-19 is already here, in every state. Having a few immigrants cross the border doesn't suddenly increase our disease burden by any appreciable amount, and the notion that because they're Chinese they somehow present more of a threat is problematic in and of itself. 

@SupaDudz

A couple of inaccuracies in your post. The virus is deadly to more than just senior citizens - it's because they're largely immunocompromised that it causes a lot more problems in the elderly, but the same is true of anyone who has a weakened immune system. The notion that there are false positives may be accurate, but it's extremely unlikely that flu cases are testing positive in the same fashion. They're extremely different viruses. Other coronaviruses may yield false positives, but I don't think the flu would. 

@DBlaze

So, we're just not going to believe the experts at the CDC, WHO, NIH and pretty much every infectious disease agency worldwide that have put out their own press releases about COVID-19, simply because we think there is bias in the reporting? I can understand if you're frustrated with the media response, but the notion that the media is somehow exacerbating the response seems more than a little flawed to me. There is a lot of epidemiologic data for both that particular strain of the H1N1 flu virus and COVID-19, and if you want comparisons based on the data, I could dig it up for you. But attributing every worry about COVID-19 to media sensationalism is just absurd. The numbers speak for themselves.
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@whiteflame
Well most of the people with weakened immune systems are either elderly or have another form of a deadly disease, in fact, only 2.1% of people under the age of 60 have died from coronavirus according to world metrics. While maybe it isn't exclusively old people, it is certainly the overwhelming majority where it could be considered the only populaton group affects. 50 and under have only reported 1% of deaths. 
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Vader
Point taken. That being said, it's the young who are spreading the disease, specifically because the effects are often so light on them. So it does matter that younger people also get the disease, and are subsequently spreading it to those people who have the least ability to fight it off. As such, fears of spread to younger populations are still valid, albeit largely because of the larger epidemiologic picture.
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@whiteflame
I do admit that this true, especially with many cases of young people being asymptomatic. I would be more cautious going out if I believe all elders were doing there best to try to not contract the disease. Sadly this isn't the case. Many elder sin my area (which is a state that has 160 cases, the 5th most) are going out to malls and shops and hanging out with other elders. If they do not want to head the precautions and accept the sacrifices the youth is making, especially from a youth who DESPISES baby boomers, they feel no need to stay inside. 

I will admit, I have not been truly social distancing. I have been training with my team, hanging out with friends, but being extra precautions. I take showers before and after I go out, bring a hand sanitizer with me, and do not go out to public places. But I believe in limited social distancing. If you are sick, stay home. Exposed, stay home. Vulnerable, stay home. If you are healthy, limited hanging out. Hang maybe once or twice a week 
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@whiteflame
They were caught crossing the border, yes, but to insinuate that they were the only ones who attempted would be quite optimistic, but I don’t believe you think that is the case. Better physical barriers make it easier to block illegal immigrants from entering the country. If you cannot control who comes into your country, it is very difficult to have a successful quarantine. These immigrants know that our hospitals won’t refuse them care, so that creates a huge incentive for individuals, especially sick ones, to attempt to enter the country to receive treatment.

These illegal immigrants don’t know our quarantine procedures, so they pose a large health risk for either spreading it themselves or contracting it from citizens. So, I would argue that they could have an appreciable effect on spreading the virus. I think we certainly should have set up travel restrictions much sooner, as well. If you can prevent sick people from entering the country, you can pretty effectively combat a pandemic. We probably should have begun disease testing much sooner as well.

That all being said, this virus doesn’t appear to be very serious to me. The death rate, except for the very old with preexisting health conditions, is incredibly low. Really, only those individuals and those working in close proximity with them should be quarantined. Unless something is being hidden from us, this is just media-induced, irrational panic.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
If you [sic] clueless on why republicans are more immoral,
Clueless. perhaps, to your definition of morality. Do that, and the answer may be forthcoming, and not what you think. I can show you clueless as regards Progressives, but if our definitions differ, can you just agree to disagree and stop making your argument? Your argument is only that someone else is insane, and that is not argument. It merely demonstrates your assumed superiority, but there;'s always someone who trumps yours.
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Vader
I get that not everyone's taking the precautions they should, and honestly, limited social interaction seems fine to me as long as you're taking precautions while doing so. That being said, I think there are a lot of people who just aren't taking this seriously at all, and whether that's the elderly or the young, they're both increasing the harms that will be caused by the disease and lengthening the duration of the pandemic by doing so.

For me, I've largely cut off interpersonal contact that isn't through a phone or computer screen. Any visits with friends are going to be with maybe 1 or 2 people at most. My wife is one of those immunocompromised, vulnerable people, so I feel very acutely how much this matters within my own life. My birthday is coming up, as is Passover, and I unfortunately plan to spend those in social isolation. It's frustrating, but I feel it's necessary. 

whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
"Better physical barriers make it easier to block illegal immigrants from entering the country."
I still haven't been convinced that this is true. The number of illegal immigrants coming into the country was declining when no walls were going up, and it has largely continued to decline. If you have evidence that physical barriers have worked/will work, I'd like to see it.

"If you cannot control who comes into your country, it is very difficult to have a successful quarantine."
Again, I disagree. I don't think a trickle of other people into the country actually does much to disrupt a quarantine because reduced social interactions are still reduced with, say, a couple hundred other people in the mix (though, to be clear, we don't have a quarantine in most parts of the country - shelter in place rules basically allow people to go out anyway, so I don't see how having a few others in the mix who may also have the virus suddenly escalates the problem). Whether they know our quarantine procedures or not seems largely irrelevant to me - they aren't likely to pass it to other people because other people are staying out of public spaces where they could do that. If they're not engaging in social distancing right now, then they're already putting themselves at risk. How does this pose a substantially increased threat to those, or for that matter, any other people?

"These immigrants know that our hospitals won’t refuse them care, so that creates a huge incentive for individuals, especially sick ones, to attempt to enter the country to receive treatment."
This seems largely non-unique to me. Plenty of people are already flooding emergency rooms with all manner of respiratory diseases. I fail to see how a small trickle of people from other countries coming in does any substantial harm above what already exists.

"I think we certainly should have set up travel restrictions much sooner, as well. If you can prevent sick people from entering the country, you can pretty effectively combat a pandemic."
Maybe. I'm not so sure that travel restrictions do much to actually manage disease spread, largely because it is already here and spreading. There are simply far more cases here now than are coming in from other countries. Hence, I disagree with the latter statement. The pandemic is here, and it's likely already spread far wider than we know.

"We probably should have begun disease testing much sooner as well."
Completely agree.

"That all being said, this virus doesn’t appear to be very serious to me. The death rate, except for the very old with preexisting health conditions, is incredibly low. Really, only those individuals and those working in close proximity with them should be quarantined. Unless something is being hidden from us, this is just media-induced, irrational panic."
I pretty thoroughly disagree with this. It's pretty serious, and for those with weakened immune systems, getting it is very nearly a death sentence. That's a big problem for a lot of people, and while working in close proximity is one way to get the virus, literally any interaction can pass the virus from one person to the next. And much as you're correct that complications from the disease are minimal in those under 65, that is precisely the problem. Younger people still get and spread the virus, even without showing any symptoms whatsoever. It's much more deadly than any pandemic we've seen since SARS, and SARS didn't spread nearly so rapidly as this. You might argue that that shouldn't have yielded this strong of a response, but the numbers of infected will soar in the coming weeks. We will see that the disease burden is far larger than we know right now. In a manner of speaking, this is hidden from us, but only insofar as the testing has been too minimal to detect it. Speaking as someone who knows something about disease spread (note: I am neither an epidemiologist nor an expert in human viruses, though I am a microbiologist and am more than a little familiar with the scientific literature in these areas), this is serious, and I think any effort to minimize the impact of the disease does more harm than good because it encourages more people to interact more often, which will spread the disease. It may not be a huge impact to you, personally, but to others this disease is devastating. And it's not going away anytime soon.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@whiteflame
”. If you have evidence that physical barriers have worked/will work, I'd like to see it.“
They cut terrorism and illegal immigration enormously.

I am packing up to head home tomorrow, so I will get to the others when I get the time. That was just a quick one for me to answer
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
A) The comparison to another country does not do you any favors. Israel has many factors that affect the success of its border wall, including (but not limited to):
- They have compulsory military service, ensuring that they can effectively guard much of that wall. From your source:

"The success of barriers such as a wall or fence depend on their scale and how heavily guarded they are, said Reece Jones, a political geography professor at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa and who has written about money spent on border security projects and their consequences.
On a small scale and with many guards, walls can effectively stop movement, Jones said."

- They have a much shorter border to guard, ensuring that they can effectively upkeep the wall. From your source:

"The Israel-Egypt border fence is about 150 miles.
The U.S.-Mexico border is nearly 2,000 miles."

- The terrain on which these walls have been/are being built is very different. From your source:

"'Most of the Israeli fence goes through open, arid terrain. Easy to access, easy to build, easy to monitor with agents,' Jones said.
The U.S.-Mexico border, on the other hand, includes very remote, mountainous terrain and spans the length of four states with cities closely intertwined with Mexico. Trump has said that border has 1 million legal border crossings daily, which experts have told us include people traveling back and forth for school, work and shopping."

- The legal response has been different, and it has been much better correlated with Israel's success. From your source:

"The number of illegal border crossings decreased drastically "in an extremely short time" after the implementation of an "Anti-Infiltration Law" in mid 2012, Jakubowicz said. Under the law, individuals caught illegally entering Israel could be detained for up to three years, Jakubowicz said. The number of people illegally crossing Israel’s southern border decreased after the law came into effect, even though the fence was not fully completed, he said."

B) Stating that simply having the border wall would be enough is problematic in its own right. The very article you cite talks about what border security measures are actually the most effective, many of which we use right now:

"Investment in high-tech features such as drones, robots and sensors is also crucial for border security, not just fences, added Elisabeth Vallet, who leads a research team on border walls and is Raoul-Dandurand Chair at the University of Quebec at Montreal. Without those features, people may still go undetected or go around through another border. If illegal entries surge at another border point, then the effectiveness of the fence at one border comes into question, Vallet said. 'While the numbers show a dramatic decrease in the number of entries, the amount of credit attributed to the fence is an issue of serious debate in Israel.'
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@whiteflame
I'm not saying the experts are wrong,  what I am saying is how it is being conveyed to the people, and how much the news influences not only the country but the Government when people get scared.  The 2009 H1N1 Pandemic looks exactly like this, the only difference is kids were getting it, and people under the age of 54 were dying.  But it was a controlled response, done not to create hysteria, probably at the request of the government, and I think they adhered to that request. 

A whole high school got it in the beginning, did you hear about it?  Do you remember it? The media did not want to cause a panic and followed those rules.  This time around, a panic is exactly what they want, and that is what they got.  You cannot deny that. NBA, NCAA, NHL, all sports shut down, some schools not only closed now, but for the rest of the year.  Restaurants and businesses, laws have been made to restrict congregations, nation-wide.

We will all surely remember this pandemic, but you wouldn't have if it was treated the same as H1N1, which was a pandemic....  The guidelines from the CDC were the same, social distancing, stay away from the vulnerable, if you are sick, stay home.. Just the circumstances in reporting it is different.  The media sees a chance for people to be glued to their TV's and they are taking it, mostly to kill Trump Presidency, boosting ratings is just a plus.

I remember the swine flu faintly, and I don't remember Obama or Biden ever getting criticized for the way they handled anything, even though testing kits were not really readily available until a month later, no one really complained, people probably did, but it just wasn't reported.  This is the same exact situation.  If they did not create a panic, most of the country wouldn't even care about this.  But this time around, it is worse right?  We need them to care.  Please prove to me that Corona Virus is worse than the H1N1 virus, and I will waive the white flag.

Here is a good report from the CDC on the H1N1 and how it unfolded, first two people to get it were 5 year old kids, 130 miles apart https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/cdcresponse.htm

You can believe though, when Trump and Biden (if he can make it that far) face off, this will be a major talking point about the differences between what Trump/Pence did and what Biden/Obama did with H1N1. By then the US will be back on pace for another record breaking economic upturn.
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@DBlaze
The notion that this is "what the media wants" is you speaking from bias and frustration over media outlets that you already believed to be problematic. I'm not going to engage with that because, frankly, you have no support for that bringing about these safety measures, nor have you provided any reason why this is something media companies want. Yes, it's sensationalist, but, and you might not have noticed this, they're not exactly doing well in this situation. It's your assumption that this is somehow benefiting them.

"We will all surely remember this pandemic, but you wouldn't have if it was treated the same as H1N1, which was a pandemic....  The guidelines from the CDC were the same, social distancing, stay away from the vulnerable, if you are sick, stay home.. Just the circumstances in reporting it is different.  The media sees a chance for people to be glued to their TV's and they are taking it, mostly to kill Trump Presidency, boosting ratings is just a plus."

Seriously, this is insane because your argument was that the experts are correct, but that we should be treating this the same as H1N1. The experts didn't call for this level of social distancing with that disease for a number of reasons, which we can get into if you really want to engage with it, though it sounds like you're engaging in the same kind of rhetoric that Trump did at the start of this pandemic - that this is somehow aimed squarely at him, and that it's a hoax aimed at taking him down rather than addressing a problematic disease. Sometimes, it is just a disease that has people scared. Maybe you think the media shouldn't be pushing this too much, but the reality is that the efforts used to prevent social contact, which are far greater than those used with H1N1, can successfully slow the rate of spread and reduce the subsequent death toll. Sorry, but that's bigger than Trump.

"I remember the swine flu faintly, and I don't remember Obama or Biden ever getting criticized for the way they handled anything, even though testing kits were not really readily available until a month later, no one really complained, people probably did, but it just wasn't reported."

That's probably because the response to the H1N1 outbreak was far faster, actually declaring it an emergency six weeks before it was declared a pandemic (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/facebook-posts/president-obama-declared-h1n1-public-health-emerge/), unlike Trump who waited until two days after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. There was no point where Obama or Biden declared that it was going to go away like a miracle. It also doesn't help Trump's case that Obama put in place measures to prevent this, that were disbanded when Trump got into office. 

"Please prove to me that Corona Virus is worse than the H1N1 virus, and I will waive the white flag."

Seriously, this is a ridiculous request. Saying that one disease is worse than another is a subjective question because there are a lot of factors to consider - e.g. rate of spread, complications, death toll - and depending on how much weight you give to each, you could answer this question differently. There were a lot more cases of H1N1, though it also had more time to run its course. It also had an established 0.2% death toll, which is pretty similar to other flu viruses. Mortality rates for COVID-19 have been registered between 2 and 4%, depending on the country, so it's death toll is at least 10 times higher. They both spread at about the same level, and the complications caused by each are similar. It's your choice if you believe that that makes it "worse than the H1N1 virus", but it has yielded this response from public health officials. If you believe them, then you should accept this response as valid, because they're the ones suggesting it.

You really seem more concerned with perception than how this is actually playing out. This puts you in really good company with Trump, so I guess I can understand how defensive you are of him. I'd like to see you defend what he had to say about the virus before he declared an emergency, as well as his decision to nix the NSC directorate for global health and security and biodefense. If you feel that that was the correct choice, I'd love to hear why. And, by the way, I hope you're right with your last line. I hope the US will be in much better shape by November. My guess, though, is that this is going to have some severe and lasting effects on the economy. I'd rather that weren't true, but it probably is.
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@whiteflame
It will have some lasting effects on the economy.... Which will kill the old people anyway.   The death toll is at 2 to 4% because they are only testing people that are sick or very sick, they are not getting to the general population, you can't trust the Chinese stats, and Italy has mostly old people, and it is universal Healthcare in most of the countries that have the highest death toll.  They are even testing people after they are already dead.  The big difference is H1N1 started here as opposed to China, so it was much easier to get a better idea on the death toll.  I do remember Obama being in front of the country talking about the virus, and he was saying that we needed to be vigilant, but they have it under control.  Obama was a tremendous speaker, and I know he was very good at keeping people calm, that is a gift that he has, which Trump is lacking.  Obama made it a National Emergency in October, 6 months later (which is what Trump was talking about, Politico spreading their fake news) if you really want to get into different types of announcements.  And yes he called it a public health emergency, which does have some clout, but not nearly as much as a National Emergency.  They are much more common, there was 6 of those just last year.    No one knows what they were, but we know what this is.

I don't think that Trump has changed his mind at all, I think he is just doing what he has to do to appease people that are going nuts because of the media.  You have less of a chance of something biting you in the ass if you overdue it, and it is hard to prove that something was overdone when looking back.      
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@DBlaze
Lots of assumptions in here.

Yes, damage to the economy will affect a lot of peoples' livelihoods, which may result in some loss of life. That doesn't justify any increased spread of this virus to older populations.

That death toll statistic actually includes worldwide numbers (mostly coming from the CDC and WHO), not just Chinese. If we're looking at a broad spectrum of who's been infected and when, then the numbers range from 0.63% to 14.8% depending on the population, hence the 2-4% number is an estimate that generally takes all those into account (https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/calculating-the-coronavirus-mortality-rate-its-complicated). It might be a little lower, but even if we assume that it is, the mortality rate is still significantly higher than H1N1. 

Yes, Obama declared it a national emergency 6 months later (the article actually says that, so no, not fake news). He declared the public health emergency - i.e. put tremendous resources towards prevention and treatment - 6 weeks before it was declared a pandemic. That's not just "some clout", that's huge. I don't see evidence of Trump having done that before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. As for why declaring it a national emergency instead is so important, please, explain that to me. What was Obama's response lacking from declaring it a public health emergency first? And, more importantly, was declaring it a public health emergency effective? We're not just talking about what response was used, but also its effectiveness.

I'll do you one better on that last line: it's impossible to know if the responses you're taking are overdoing it. You can't know because the degree to which spread is prevented is impossible to measure. You can only see the results, and hope that they're what you were aiming for. But if Trump is doing this to appease people, then he's got the wrong mindset. A president should be aiming to preserve public health, not protect his image. Apparently, Trump is more concerned with the latter.

DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@whiteflame
I predict the mortality rate, when all said and done, judging by what has happened, how many tests have been available, who has been tested, who has caught it and who has recovered, what countries have been hit the worst and why (this would be healthcare, culture, and hygiene), that it ends up being in the .3 to .5 range, which is 3 to 5 times the rate of the flu.  Once this is certain, we will know that we overreacted, but hey, at least we saved a couple of lives... right?  Unfortunately California has shut the whole state down.  People are out buying an unbelievable amount of guns to prepare for the worst, that is never what we want.  Anytime that happens, it means the Government or the media did not do a good job of comforting the people.  That is part of the job.  

Trump by the way declared a Public Health Emergency on January 31st.  Does your article mention that?  It doesn't matter what the article says, it is the title, which is all people care about, and you know this.  Stop trying to defend misleading fake news.  You defended it and then posted an example of that exact thing in your post.  

We'll wait and see what happens.  I'm not in Trumps shoes, but for him to do a 180 like that in one day, I think someone suggested a better way that he go about this.  There are other things to weigh in this situation, yes it sucks to have people die, but 2.3 billion people die in the world every year.  Right now we are at 300, and it has been a couple of months since it hit.  

Can you find me a timeline of deaths for the H1N1?  I can't find anything like that.  Like how many died in April, May, June, July?  All I can find is the total deaths for the first year.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's see what Trump has done recently, well he's told the FDA to remove restrictions that were not needed and to allow more leeway for providers to use medications off label, like the malaria medicine.  What I find interesting is the push to use medicines that have been around for a long time and are inexpensive.  There doesn't seem to be any real political or personal benefit to do that.  Companies developing new medicines would probably give plenty of kick backs and "donations" to a politician promoting them.  This doesn't appear to be the case.  It's almost like he's doing what is right instead of what is best for self or party interest.
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
Sorry, I don't know why I said that number of deaths each year.  That is incorrect, I got numbers mixed up and came up.  I should have put that upwards of 650,000 die in the world every year from the flu.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DBlaze
1} So now some senators and those in stock market  ---behind-the-scenes-know----, sold off most or all of their stock cause they may have had inside news. No morals and then lie about it Sick

2} China got the spread of covid19 under control by isolating whole cities,
...isolate, isolate, isolate.....

3} every state, city and county need to qurantine ---just as Iran should have done, Itally has done---   except for those workers who can deliver the essential neccessities to people at home, or in case of  gas, there is very little human interaction so no contagion occurs,

4} this a global pandemic that Trump pooh poohed from the get go, ---those in denial are boot lickers to lies, corruption etc---   and only got most peoples true attention when he announced a 'national emergency', ----about friggin time--- i.e. 2 months behind the 8-ball---

5} Cumo and governor of Lousiana say USA is on the same track as Italy was for number of infections,

6} Emergency room workers are on front lines of this pandemic and they have run out or running out soon of protective masks etc ,

7} Spanish Flu vs Covid19,  LINK ,

..."If we do so, we find that a reasonable estimate for the global case fatality rate of the Spanish flu is 6 to 8 percent. To be clear, this means that 6 to 8 percent of those who were infected died."....

....Even a fatality rate between 0.5 and 1 percent is extremely alarming in a world as populous and interconnected as ours. Another crucial consideration is the virus’s potential to induce severe illness that may not be fatal but lasts for weeks, straining hospital resources and potentially leaving some people with lifelong health issues. If the multiplying outbreaks around the world are not curtailed, we could see staggering numbers of illnesses and deaths, especially among the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions.

...Recently, some infectious disease experts have suggested that Covid-19 could reach the scale of the 1957 avian influenza pandemic, which killed an estimated 1 million to 4 million people worldwide. But that is only one possible trajectory.







whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@DBlaze
Agreed, the government has done a really poor job of comforting people in this crisis. That includes several states (I think Newsom’s statement that this could encompass 56% of the population was a poor choice), and the president himself. Media has been diverse enough that I think saying that they’ve done a poor job is only true of part of it, though more importantly, it’s not their job to placate people. 

I also spent some time explaining how Obama’s having declared a public health emergency played out. You yourself pointed to his ability to speak to the public and ensure that people did not overreact to the problem. That’s a major difference. Obama also made sure to pursue increased testing for that strain of the flu and bolstered those efforts by working with the CDC and international health groups. Remind me: when did Trump do any of this in response to COVID-19? Was it back in February?

You’re very dismissive of the death toll from the virus, and I think that shows your lack of knowledge regarding how bad this could get. You look at the numbers now and don’t care, but the spread of the virus is still rather limited. It also doesn’t help that testing has been extremely limited, meaning we don’t know the scope of cases currently. Its spread is likely far wider than we know, and it’s going to keep spreading. It might be a blip on your radar, but many are justifiably terrified of getting this.

I’ll need to do a deeper dive to find that info, don’t have time just this second. I will say that the reality that there are other diseases like the flu that also cause huge death tolls doesn’t mitigate these harms, nor does it invalidate concerns about this virus spreading further and causing a greater death toll. It’s because the flu is consistently spread worldwide that it has such huge numbers killed by complications, though even that is a very small minority of overall cases, far less than the mortality rate of COVID-19. Again, just because it hasn’t spread far enough to cause the same damage as other viruses doesn’t make it any less of a threat.
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@whiteflame
i would really appreciate it if you could find that, I have been everywhere looking for that information to compare.... that would really be game changing information, at least for me. 

I'm using celebrities, the rich, and professional athletes as a pretty legit sample size on this as well.  

If they were not Celebrities, they would not have been tested at all, and I don't think that any of them have been hospitalized or have severe symptoms and there are quite a few people. I have been researching this as well, but don't have much information or updates on their well being, and I'm not about to check out each ones twitter account.  I'm also not sure of the outreach in how the CDC tested people in the beginning regarding contact, if they still only tested people with symptoms or if they actually tested people because they were in contact with someone that had the virus, and if they added these people to the stats, but we are way beyond that point now, only the rich are not beyond that point.  Testing kits are now going out to keep confirming where the epicenter is, which we all know is now NY, and how quickly it is spreading outward.   

The other thing is no one in the medical industry has said that it has mutated yet, with the amount of people being infected, I would think that there would already be several mutations out there, or if it even has the potential to mutate making it harder to keep up with... but a mutation could also make it less lethal.  For instance, why did so many die at that one nursing home in Washington State? I can believe that they all had probably the same underlying health issues, and were elderly, but could it be that the earlier strain is more deadly than what people are contracting now? 

These are all questions that seem to be what I would ask if I were a journalist.  Not all the worse case scenario questions because all of that is self explanatory, and just being asked to scare people.  But hey, maybe the government knows more than they are letting out, and the goal is to scare people because it is actually a lot worse than is being reported, that is always a possibility as well. 

We will see.  

whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@DBlaze
I'll look into it, though like I said, it'll take me a bit to handle - I've got a remote interview today that is drawing most of my attention.

Celebrities are usually getting a great deal of care and attention to prevent complications, so I don't know if they make for an effective sample to draw from, especially as they represent a small minority of overall cases. They are certainly the most obvious because they're in the public eye, but I don't think that means that using them to demonstrate your point does anything more than skew your data.

I'm not so sure about the epicenter of this disease (Washington certainly has enough cases to place itself in that position), though we may not know that for quite some time. The point of making disease testing more broadly available is to ensure that we know where the disease is spreading and who should keep themselves absolutely quarantined. That would help, but not a solution in and of itself.

There may be several mutations. Honestly, we haven't tested enough patients to determine if we've found all possible forms of the virus. There have been 2 that have been separated genetically in a lab, but that is not meant to be representative of every case. I'll do you one better on what a mutation could do: it is actually much more likely to reduce the effectiveness of a disease. Random mutations are more likely to knock something out than improve something that exists. The problem, however, is that a virus produces a lot of progeny. If there are a thousand mutations in that progeny, and one is beneficial, that one is probably going to reign supreme in the next patient. Selection is the problem, and there's little reason to believe that less deadly forms of the virus are being selected for. It's possible that earlier strains were more deadly, as you suggest, though that seems unlikely given how viral selection strategies work.

In the end, I don't pretend to know a lot more on this than you or anyone else does. As you say, there may be a lot going on that we do not yet know about at all, but I'm also not an epidemiologist, nor am I an expert in human viruses. That being said, I trust that our public health officials are doing what they feel is necessary by suggesting or mandating shelter in place strategies. They are those experts, and in this situation where all of us know too little, I default to the people who know the most.

Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@whiteflame
I am really going outside for 2-3 reasons

1. Conditioning/Training. I go to work out and do some form of cardio. I've actually lost quite a few pounds by just doing hill workouts and other forms of cardio. I usually do this for about 30 minutes or so before I go home and shower. I shower before I go out. I also need to train for sports. I throw shot put and play baseball, and I need to stay in top shape to compete. Shot put is easy just because I don't need more than 1 person, but for baseball, I usually bring my friend to catch or to pitch for me. It is essential to be healthy.

I HAVE AVOIDED PLAYING PICK UP BASKETBALL GAMES. Those are the main reasons why the NBA is so Corona infected at the moment. You are rubbing your weakened, sweaty bodies among each other while touching the same object. A 3pt contest won't harm too much, but I have voided long games since more people in the NBA tested positive 

Many people underestimate the need to work out. I always try to do intervals per day (skip Tuesday, work out Wednesday). If you can work out from home, do it. Many people don't have the equipment needed, and that is why they go out to gyms and such or go out in general. I encourage that, but wit precautions. Shower before and after, bring hand sanitizer, hydrate, etc.

2. Limited Hangouts. ABSOLUTELY NO PARTIES OR SUCH! While hanging out is risky, with one or two and even three people, it generally is safer. I wouldn't push 3, just cause, but hanging with one or two trusted people is not dangerous with proper precautions. Washing your hands, showering, hand sanitizer, etc. It helps you improve your mental stability and keeps your mind sharp. I have been doing some schoolwork as well to keep myself occupied with stuff during the day. IF YOU ARE SICK, ISOLATE YOURSELF FOR YOUR OWN GOOD/SOCIETIES! IF YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED, QUARANTINE YOURSELF!

3. Vital Essentials. This includes things such as grocery store, pharmacy.
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Vader
I didn't mean to call you out for going outside - sorry if it came off that way. We all have to get out at least a little, and I know I've been getting my exercise in where I can and going to the grocery store when needed (by the by, pharmacies are now waiving fees for sending medications by mail). It sounds like you're doing your best in this situation, and I appreciate those efforts. Just hope you stay safe.
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,430
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@whiteflame
Hahahaha no I didn't take it that way, I was just explain some precautions in general for going outside. Certainly wasn't a direct call to you, but just in general lol. I was pretty much just explaining what I do on a typical day where I go out.
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,006
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Vader
It's all good, dude. Thanks for providing this, good advice for anyone planning to go out these days.