CDC Director: Coronavirus Death Toll Will Be ‘Much, Much, Much Lower’ than Projected

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: JinMI

I find reconciling those two figures and the response really difficult.

The 'patriotic' response to 9/11 was to back the action and support the troops.

The 'patriotic' reaction to Covid19 is screw the experts and let people die.

It's a fool's argument to try to claim the specific military response route chosen after 9/11 18+ years after unending quagmires and failed objectives was anything but a colossal waste of lives and resources at best. Poor comparison pick on your part there.

originally posted by: ketsuko
And those models are based on incomplete information and may be horribly wrong.

Being that I am a self-proclaimed expert in government I am going to remove the 'may' from your statement.

I can unequivocally state that the numbers are wrong, that most in control know they are wrong and that those same people cannot now admit they are wrong because of how far over the edge they've taken us.

a reply to: ketsuko

And those models are based on incomplete information and may be horribly wrong.

And if they weren't?

If we had waited even longer to find out what the impacts of an unmitigated outbreak would have been?

Again, easy to say in retrospect, "See, it wasn't so bad." So easy.

a reply to: ketsuko

And those models are based on incomplete information and may be horribly wrong.

WHO to blame?

President Trump suggested Tuesday that he might consider cutting funding for the World Health Organization over its handling of the coronavirus crisis and alleged role in helping China downplay the severity of the outbreak.

originally posted by: Nyiah
It's a fool's argument to try to claim the specific military response route chosen after 9/11 18+ years after unending quagmires and failed objectives was anything but a colossal waste of lives and resources at best. Poor comparison pick on your part there.

I prefer to compare it to Pearl Harbor, that's the new hysteria du jour comparison.

Not sure if it's about the loss of life or some thinly veiled reference to an Asian sneak attack. You make the call.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

That was my next question and the answers are debatable.

I really feel the next two weeks will be telling one way or the other, but I think we can both agree this thing really scared the experts...

In the end outside of the economy hit this could turn out to be a good thing that we finally are taking notice that a virus can really F up the world.... Make this the bird flu that has a 70% lethality rate and put us in the same unprepared situation...

Why don't you hold the gloating until it's over and be thankful if they are wrong.


Most folks here don't have confidence in the officials and I agree they are full of crap.


For example, they were saying for a long time don't wear masks knowing full well masks have helped all over Asia and these western jerk-offs have some kind of stupid agenda.

But again, we should be grateful IF the numbers are low. Let's hope that's the truth.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Nyiah
It's a fool's argument to try to claim the specific military response route chosen after 9/11 18+ years after unending quagmires and failed objectives was anything but a colossal waste of lives and resources at best. Poor comparison pick on your part there.

I prefer to compare it to Pearl Harbor, that's the new hysteria du jour comparison.

Not sure if it's about the loss of life or some thinly veiled reference to an Asian sneak attack. You make the call.

I think it should be called, "Clutching Pearl Harbor".

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I really feel the next two weeks will be telling one way or the other, but I think we can both agree this thing really scared the experts...

I think it scared the media more who after the failed Ebola, Zika, H1N1 and whatever other virus apocalypses didn't occur finally got one to panic the masses like no other.

originally posted by: Phage

If we had waited even longer to find out what the impacts of an unmitigated outbreak would have been?

Again, easy to say in retrospect, "See, it wasn't so bad." So easy.

The model we don't have is just how much self and forced social distancing, self isolation, massive increase in hand washing, massive increase in not touching your face until you washed, use of masks, work from home.... All play into changing a model that scared the hell out of the experts at first.

So we beat it with measures never done before in the history of mankind and people want to Monday morning Quarterback it all now without even giving it two more weeks....

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think it should be called, "Clutching Pearl Harbor".

I'm going with The Farce Awakens.

a reply to: Nyiah

The way I remember it going down.. Was 9/11 happened, and people we emotionally distraught.

People: Cried out for action.
Government: Yeah, lets gittem!
People: Yeah!
Government: Lets get Iraq!
People: Yea.. Wait, what?
Government: They have WMDs!
People: Gittem!

Then we learned, they didnt have WMDs. Then we learned they did have WMDs.

It might be an appropriate comparison, but in a different way. Could be rememering wrong too, and that right there is, imo, intentional. Just muddle the hell out of things that are happening and do whatever in the confusion and extreme emotions.

One difference now is that a lot of folks have become addicted to those extreme reactions & emotions. We have entire platforms dedicated to it.

a reply to: Willtell

I do agree. I like low numbers with these things.

Im just not sure that this virus is the biggest threat we are facing, even if it is as bad as we thought it might be back in November/December.

a reply to: Phage

Where was the testing? The only way to have had any idea how many of us had COVID was to do broad testing all over, not just to test those who showed up at death's door which is largely what the models ended up based off of.

Oh, that's right. It was held up by CDC bureaucracy which is wonderful in times of non-emergency, but absolutely sucks when you need things to move quick.

a reply to: Willtell

I agree, if the death numbers drop that's a very good thing.

I think Ben Shapiro nails it when he discusses why some people are reacting the way they are in regards to these expert's "models."

He makes some good points between 8:22 - 11:00 in his video that came out today.

a reply to: ketsuko

Have a few people that I know who were denied testing because of age and severity of symptoms.

They are still mending.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, testing is dismal (though my state seems to be doing pretty well with it).

But I didn't say anything about testing and I'm not sure how it relates to what I did say.

a reply to: Phage



Everything.

If you don't have a good idea how many people actually have it, both severe and mild and even asymptomatic, then you have no real business coming up with any kind of idea how many people it will kill.

But they can't figure out how many people that is without wide-based testing, and that simply doesn't exist.

They might start to get a clue with antibody testing, but they don't have one figured out either.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: rickymouse
Trump, just like a lot of intelligent people were buffaloed by improper interpretations of evidence submitted by individuals that were supposed to be stating facts not fiction.

I'm going to see how the next 2 weeks play out.. Maybe Trump was right after all in suggesting that by Easter things will get better.

I think that Easter was wishful thinking, I think that going to the end of the month was appropriate.

The news said Trump was reversing himself when he brought it to the end of the month, when our government added time she was extending it. The Media was saying Trump was backtracking but in essence he was extending it, he upped it to easter from the end of march, just like our Democratic governor extended it here.

The media is playing with words to try to make Trump look bad, that should be illegal.