🇳🇱
I know I talk alot of shit about trump, and I really dont like him much. But I must admit, he has done an amazing job handling the coronavirus so far.
Here are some of the things he has done that I am fairly pleased with:
1) Every year he has been in office he signed into law year-after-year budget increases for the CDC
2) He quickly barred incoming flights from both china and europe once cases became significant
3) he quickly issued a state of emergency and orderer the deployment of a US navy quarantine ship to help
4) His administration approved covering all costs for mandatory medical testing and quarinting for COVID-19 patients...
5) He issued a 1,000$ UBI to all american citizens to help alleviate financial problems.
He definitely did a better job than the last few presidents did when handling H1N1 and SARS.
@freemo
4 and 5 are claims he's made, not anything we have any evidence of.
@sda Evidence? He made a public statement and the CDC made a public statement that they would do both #4 and #5.. the outbreak is very new and these decisions were made within the last week. What "evidence" could you want? It takes time to go from an executive decision of that magnitude to actually having money in the bank.
So thats a rather moot point. But I will agree that until he actually executes and follows through it is a promise that is "pending".. obviously if he fails to follow through then we have every right to be upset. But considering the public way he announced these things and commited to them it would really be hurtful to his chances as president not to follow through.
@sda I dont think he is some great guy. I have no doubt he will say a lot of nonsense before the final figure is even picked.. we will see.. I dont think it would be any worse if it were based on income honestly, if it is generous...
Either way even if you drop point #5 his actual response to covid has been exemplary. He still talks like a horses ass though.
@sda The fact that I thought he was the worst president ever is also why I'm kinda surprised just how exemplary he seems to be responding to this.
@freemo
All I can guess is that you're not seeing the same things over there that we are here. Exemplary is the last word I'd use.
@sda Well to some extent that is true.. I specifically avoid the propaganda that the USA media spouts constantly... So I am probably in a much better position to have an impartial opinion of how he is handling it since I havent been indoctrinated with a constant stream of propaganda causing me to make up my mind on visceral influences.
@freemo
I'm not talking about propaganda. I'm talking about his daily press conferences. From the horses mouth comes only horse shit.
@sda I've watched them all, or at least, the vast majority.
He usually sounds like an idiot, he clearly doesnt have a very high intelligence when it comes to public speaking.
But I am judging his response far more on what he DOES than the dumb shit he says.
@sda If nothing else just look at the numbers. Americas infection rate per capita is much much lower than any country in europe...
Spin it however you like but the proof is in the pudding
@freemo
Yes "low infection rates" correlate very nicely with practically non-existent testing.
@sda How many tests total has the USA issued, how many total has europe issued? How do the numbers compare? Do you even know or are you just spitting?
@freemo
Since it's your assertion he;s doing so well, let's have those numbers.
@sda 103,945 tests total by the USA as of friday.
@freemo
So, the number of tests all by itself means... what?
@sda I asked you if you knew the numbers, to show if you actually bothered to do any research or if you were just repeating propaganda, I never said, by itself, it proved anything. I have the full data set here and have analyzed it a million different ways, I've also read a ton of other sources that go into the specific numbers in various ways.
It demonstrates your opinion isnt coming from actual data.
@freemo
The numbers change every minute. Your data is outdated. As is mine. If only 100,000 tests have been conducted, we have no idea of the scope of infections because 330 million people have not been tested.
@sda yes numbers change, i have a time series data of the numbers over time...
Your original assertion was the reason we showed fewer infected than other countries was because we arent testing.. yet we have tested more people than virtually every country in europe.. Despite having tested VASTLY more people, our numbers are still much lower than europe.
Your assertion seems to not only be born from a lack of information, but also to be the complete opposite of the truth.
@sda Next question.. do you think we conducted more or less tests than european countries? Do you know? How about tests per capita? Or tests per suspected infected?
Do you have any hard numbers of any kind?
@freemo
I have no idea how many tests Netherlands have conducted.
@sda I can look for you if you want, its very small.
@sda Jsut checked, the Netherlands conducted a total of only 6,000 tests as of friday.
@freemo
Ok, I give up. That proves that Trump is handling the situation well.
@sda The point wasnt to prove trump was handling the situation well. It is to prove your parroting propaganda without knowing hte actual facts. Its to show your opinion of how trump is handling the virus is not objective or honest.
@freemo
You initially said:
"...his actual response to covid has been exemplary..."
Then down the road you say, "The point wasnt to prove trump was handling the situation well. "
If the point was first to say he's exemplary, then the point wasn't to prove Trump is handling it well, then I'm just completly lost in this thread. To me they both mean the same thing.
@sda yes.. because we had discussed a side point, specifically why the USA had so few cases and if the usa was testing effectively, we were addressing that side point.
You tried to debunk my point with a counter point, which i then debunked...
Not sure why we are having this meta discussion you were there, did you really have that much trouble following along. Seems straight forward to me why it was stated.
@freemo
Apparently your definition of "debunked" is different than mine, but you may recall I've already conceded.
...
"Ok, I give up. That proves that Trump is handling the situation well."
...
Beat the dead horse if you wish.
@sda That sounded sarcastic, glad to hear it isnt. But I still dont think you have the proper information to decide either way based on our earlier statements.
I'm fine dropping the convo though.
So then we just have to know the criteria for testing. The propaganda last night showed a drive-through testing site opened in NJ which had lines of cars down the highway.
Clearly in the US, self-selection of people healthy enough to drive is a factor not present in the NL.
Well considering the netherlands is barely testing at all I wish we had walk up or drive through tests here honestly.
It makes no sense to calculate it per capita for a few reasons..
1) the intent isnt to test everyone in the nation, that is impractical. The point is to test people suspected of being sick. So per capita makes no sense
2) the context is very important here. This was brought up specifically because sda claimed that the only reason the USA shows significantly fewer cases than other countries is due to the fact that the USA is testing less. Yet we are testing 20x more than the netherlands and many times more than most countries and yet still show much much lower numbers. Which directly contradicts the assertion.
Context is everything when it comes to statistics.
@freemo @sda Of course it makes sense to look at testing relative to the population... How could the Netherlands ever test 100k people? You want to get a number per GDP perhaps (NL 6 vs US 5.8)?
> brought up specifically because sda claimed that the only reason the USA shows significantly fewer cases
These cases should subsequently also be seen relative to the population, of course. In which case NL will obviously have far more cases as well (> 3x more).
It might make sense to look at tests relative to the population in a different context. not in the context we were discussing.
No you are completely wrong. If we are trying to show a populace has a lower infection rate we care about incidence rate, so the ratio of infected vs tests issues, population doesnt factor into these calculations.
I'm not making this up as I go this is standard data science in a epidemic situation. Its the ratio of tested to infected that matters if we are talking about what country has a greater infection rate.
> If we are trying to show a populace has a lower infection rate we care about incidence rate, so the ratio of infected vs tests issued
That metric just as is does not make sense at all. Most countries have different policies regarding testing. That metric should be
> the ratio of infected vs random tests issued
Most countries have limited testing capacity. So they test people with symptoms. Or people with infected relatives. Those policies totally screw up your statistic.
yup in which case we would have to fall back to looking at other numbers, such as number of patients actually being treated for it in a hospital (we call those suspected cases) .. we dont look at any one metric. In this case ssuspected cases int eh usa is much lower.
When looking at suspected cases you DO however use per capita, for the reasons you mentioned earlier. the per capita suspect cases int he USA is extremely low compared to other countries as well.
Again demonstrating the excellent handling of the situation so far in america.
Though my main concern is that the administration can only reall y have a strong ifluence at stopping it at the borders. Once int he wild it mostly relies on how strongly the citizenry obeys the social distancing. I dont have high hopes on americans in that regard.
@freemo @sda Again, comparing such a metric doesn't make sense across countries with different policies. In Portugal, people are only suspect if they (1) have symptoms and (2) they have been in contact with someone that (2a) has symptoms and (2b) they have been in contact with someone that is confirmed/tested.
Belgium has yet other conditions.
Let's leave the metrics to the statistici, won't we? Instead of spraying the internet with apples vs pears comparisons that have no value.
Let me try to break it down.. You would be right if the goal was to try to test the whole of the USA. Then of course if that is the metric then you absolutely would look at tests per capita..
However that is not the goal of any country, obviously, and thus not the measure of interest.
What was being discussed is "does the USA have a lower incident rate than other countries" in other words, are we ahead of the curve at slowing down the spread.
For that we would look at numbers infected, or to get an incident rate the percentage of people infected out of the number of people tested.. which for the USA is very very low.
This indicates that compared to europe that the total infection is rather low
@freemo @sda The only reason this is very low is because the US is one of the few countries that is doing randomized tests. Portugal, Italy and Belgium (countries I follow) don't. They only test if there is a reason to believe they might be infected because they very much lack testing capacity.
Portugal doesn't even test those. My gf works on the national medical phone line and many cases that are actually suspect are not suspect enough to be tested according to policy.
In the end the fact is no matter what standard metric we use to evaluate how bad it is in the USA compared to europe they all show the same thing.. that USA is well ahead of the game.
No surprise europe is crying about how bad Trump is.. they have to blame someone for their own screwup I guess and who better than Trump.
@freemo
Wow. From "worst president ever" to "But I must admit, he has done an amazing job handling the coronavirus so far."
You're giving him credit for already having completed enumerated points.
I might give you #4, because it seems his administration has approved, even though they haven't yet followed through.
#5, I have to say, WTF???
He has issued no such checks, and when/if he does, I've seen statements indicating it'll be based upon income which is definitely not "universal."
Also he has said, "It'll be more than that. Much more."
Then I see rumors of $1200.
To me 20% isn't the "much more" hinted at by his vocal vehemence, particularly when the senate rumors just before that were for $1000 per month for two months.
I've been particularly unimpressed by his handling of COVID-19. He's on network teevee every single day, each day walking back what he said the previous day.