Trump's "Hunch" on COVID
-
Link to video
Remember the good old days (like 2004) when the news orgs would retract a story (Dan Rather).
Taibbi writes (behind his paywall, so this is the first paragraph):
Look on the WHO webpage and you’ll see a count of over 769 million confirmed cases of Covid-19, above 6,955,141 (as of this writing) cumulative deaths. This is still a serious mortality rate, but as Matt Orfalea’s damning new video above shows, far short of what the same organization estimated at pandemic’s start. We were told experts estimated a
, which scared the pants off a lot of people, leading to fears of interaction with workers delivering food and all sorts of other behaviors.
As Orf shows above via his inimitable Newspeak-smashing style, the early apocalyptic predictions that so freaked out the population were eventually walked back by the same authorities. However, none of these furious opponents of questioning “experts” went back and corrected their records. This was once an expected convention even on TV media, where episodes like Dan Rather’s “At the time, CBS News and this reporter fully believed the documents were genuine” Bush-era self-mortification broadcast were considered necessary to retain public trust. Because the ostensible target of these early broadcasts was Trump, no one feels a need to correct anything, but people all over the world soon learned to hesitate to criticize health authorities — and for good reason…
-
What a shitty piece. I don’t even know where to begin.
CFR vs IFR? WHO snapshot at a point of time being called “an expectation”, that they seem to think was supposed to be true for all time? Standard of care in March 2020(!) vs 2023? Alpha vs Omicron?
Why isn’t it obvious to everyone here how stupid this piece is?
Am I that much smarter than everyone? (Horace you can field that one).
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
Yeah, fair enough. It's shitty. I think everyone was referring to CFR.
But one point is indisputable, Trump was mocked by pretty much everyone about his "less than 1%" comment. I'd like to know what the timeframes of those comments by the talking heads were. Fauci claimed 1% in February 2020.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
-
What a shitty piece. I don’t even know where to begin.
CFR vs IFR? WHO snapshot at a point of time being called “an expectation”, that they seem to think was supposed to be true for all time? Standard of care in March 2020(!) vs 2023? Alpha vs Omicron?
Why isn’t it obvious to everyone here how stupid this piece is?
Am I that much smarter than everyone? (Horace you can field that one).
@jon-nyc said in Trump's "Hunch" on COVID:
What a shitty piece. I don’t even know where to begin.
CFR vs IFR? WHO snapshot at a point of time being called “an expectation”, that they seem to think was supposed to be true for all time? Standard of care in March 2020(!) vs 2023? Alpha vs Omicron?
Why isn’t it obvious to everyone here how stupid this piece is?
Am I that much smarter than everyone? (Horace you can field that one).
The numbers were always worst case scenario, not least due to dying with covid vs of Covid. You’re giving all authorities a pass for that, because apparently any motivation to find a reason for amping that number up, was pure. To call it objective science is probably optimistic. And reasonable people can disagree about the purity of the motivations for wanting to present high IFRs to the masses.
Education is extremely important.
-
WHO wasn’t predicting anything. It said that 3-4% of reported cases have ended in fatalities. It was entirely backward looking.
Think about what a ‘reported case’ was in March of 2020. Testing was done one at a time in academic labs by actual scientists. You didn’t get tested unless you were already hospitalized and in respiratory distress. I’m sure the number WHO gave was accurate at the time. It wasn’t a prediction and it certainly wasn’t a lie. Taibbi’s headline is though. (Or simply indicative of his own ignorance on these bleedingly obvious points)
-
The with vs of way of building the statistics was always intentionally dishonest. I remember stories about leaked guidelines where doctors were instructed to chalk up all “with” deaths as “of” deaths, just in case they wanted to use common sense instead, for that motorcycle crash fatality.
-
You’re basically taking the position that Dan Rather’s defenders did during his career-ending forged document story when they said “it may not be true but it’s accurate”.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
My recollection of many of Trump's pronouncements during the early days of Covid was that he appeared more concerned with electoral popularity than with providing honest communications.
But that's just me. You chaps don't have TDS like what I have.
I was only joking
-
You’re basically taking the position that Dan Rather’s defenders did during his career-ending forged document story when they said “it may not be true but it’s accurate”.
@jon-nyc said in Trump's "Hunch" on COVID:
You’re basically taking the position that Dan Rather’s defenders did during his career-ending forged document story when they said “it may not be true but it’s accurate”.
what's not true, again? I just explained how the statistics were always built with some dishonesty, due to a motivation to get a higher number. I don't think anything I mentioned is in dispute.
-
My recollection of many of Trump's pronouncements during the early days of Covid was that he appeared more concerned with electoral popularity than with providing honest communications.
But that's just me. You chaps don't have TDS like what I have.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump's "Hunch" on COVID:
My recollection of many of Trump's pronouncements during the early days of Covid was that he appeared more concerned with electoral popularity than with providing honest communications.
But that's just me. You chaps don't have TDS like what I have.
My recollection is that the other side of the conversation wasn't the 'honest communication' you are remembering. Granted, it was probably more honest and based on real data than Trump's, but that doesn't make Trump's hunch wrong about the motivated reasoning used to arrive at the numbers we were presented. I had that same hunch, so did lots of people. My hunch wasn't because I cared about Trump's popularity. I just recognized a social panic when I sniffed one, and I recognized motivated statistcs.
-
What a shitty piece. I don’t even know where to begin.
CFR vs IFR? WHO snapshot at a point of time being called “an expectation”, that they seem to think was supposed to be true for all time? Standard of care in March 2020(!) vs 2023? Alpha vs Omicron?
Why isn’t it obvious to everyone here how stupid this piece is?
Am I that much smarter than everyone? (Horace you can field that one).
@jon-nyc said in Trump's "Hunch" on COVID:
What a shitty piece. I don’t even know where to begin.
CFR vs IFR? WHO snapshot at a point of time being called “an expectation”, that they seem to think was supposed to be true for all time? Standard of care in March 2020(!) vs 2023? Alpha vs Omicron?
Why isn’t it obvious to everyone here how stupid this piece is?
Am I that much smarter than everyone? (Horace you can field that one).
No, you just think you're smarter than anyone else here.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump's "Hunch" on COVID:
What a shitty piece. I don’t even know where to begin.
CFR vs IFR? WHO snapshot at a point of time being called “an expectation”, that they seem to think was supposed to be true for all time? Standard of care in March 2020(!) vs 2023? Alpha vs Omicron?
Why isn’t it obvious to everyone here how stupid this piece is?
Am I that much smarter than everyone? (Horace you can field that one).
The numbers were always worst case scenario, not least due to dying with covid vs of Covid. You’re giving all authorities a pass for that, because apparently any motivation to find a reason for amping that number up, was pure. To call it objective science is probably optimistic. And reasonable people can disagree about the purity of the motivations for wanting to present high IFRs to the masses.
@Horace said in Trump's "Hunch" on COVID:
@jon-nyc said in Trump's "Hunch" on COVID:
What a shitty piece. I don’t even know where to begin.
CFR vs IFR? WHO snapshot at a point of time being called “an expectation”, that they seem to think was supposed to be true for all time? Standard of care in March 2020(!) vs 2023? Alpha vs Omicron?
Why isn’t it obvious to everyone here how stupid this piece is?
Am I that much smarter than everyone? (Horace you can field that one).
The numbers were always worst case scenario, not least due to dying with covid vs of Covid. You’re giving all authorities a pass for that, because apparently any motivation to find a reason for amping that number up, was pure. To call it objective science is probably optimistic. And reasonable people can disagree about the purity of the motivations for wanting to present high IFRs to the masses.
Don't know about other countries. And I don't know for a fact that COVID deaths were pumped.
I do know that some hospitals were using COVID and the Federal dollars that came with that diagnosis, to help their bottom lines. At least in this country.
