He defunded the WHO in the middle of a Pandemic!?!

[thelawlorfaithful]

2 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

From the data I have now perhaps.  The WHO has had other instances of failure.   If you could show me they ignored data from doctors in China prior to getting boots on the ground, I would agree for sure.  But, I have honestly not seen that data.    

Setting emotion aside what data do we have?  An accusatory letter from Taiwan that provides no proof of human to human transmission is a pretty thin reed.

now let me ask you a question... Do you agree the fact we had intelligence data and did not provide it to the WHO makes us at least as culpable?   Who are we firing?  

What intelligence data did we have? Have you seen it? Considering Taiwan was absolutely correct, and we know exactly what they said, I don’t think the reed was that thin. Again, the WHO would still be complimentary a month later when they officially said this was an emergency, and it would be another month yet before they declared a pandemic. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

Nice try. From your own link which I actually read....

Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease. However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.

Nope, all we had was multiple medical experts telling the WHO what they knew to be fact....

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

What intelligence data did we have? Have you seen it? Considering Taiwan was absolutely correct, and we know exactly what they said, I don’t think the reed was that thin. Again, the WHO would still be complimentary a month later when they officially said this was an emergency, and it would be another month yet before they declared a pandemic. 

Save your breath.  Sactown is so driven on Orange man bad he is determined to make a case (a stupid one) that the bad orange man is just as responsible as China.  He will die on that hill.

[thelawlorfaithful]

@Headbutt you need to type even slower this time. Tell them nothing has actually been defunded. An organization that has not only failed, but actively exacerbated the one thing they were supposed to defend against has been put on notice.

[TheSanDiegan]

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Save your breath.  Sactown is so driven on Orange man bad he is determined to make a case (a stupid one) that the bad orange man is just as responsible as China.  He will die on that hill.

1. China is not responsible for safeguarding our national security; orange man is.

2. Orange man ignored his own intelligence apparatus dating back to November.

3. Orange man disbanded the NSC's working group responsible for planning for pandemics.

4. Orange man is responsible for the wholly inadequate, half-assed, and delayed roll out of a coordinated federal response, inclusive of the delay in ramping up testing, thus allowing the pathogen to spread and root across the country.

5. Ergo, while China is responsible for unleashing the virus, orange man is responsible for the fact that while we only have 5% of the global population, we have more deaths than any other country on the planet and more than 30% of all confirmed cases.

 

Partisanship does not produce this conclusion; an objective and cursory inspection of the facts does.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 minute ago, TheSanDiegan said:

1. China is not responsible for safeguarding our national security; orange man is.

2. Orange man ignored his own intelligence apparatus dating back to November.

3. Orange man disbanded the NSC's working group responsible for planning for pandemics.

4. Orange man is responsible for the wholly inadequate, half-assed, and delayed roll out of a coordinated federal response, inclusive of the delay in ramping up testing, thus allowing the pathogen to spread and root across the country.

5. Ergo, while China is responsible for unleashing the virus, orange man is responsible for the fact that while we only have 5% of the global population, we have more deaths than any other country on the planet and more than 30% of all confirmed cases.

 

Partisanship does not produce this conclusion; an objective and cursory inspection of the facts does.

 

And I agree with all this aside from Orange man being responsible for us having 30% of all confirmed cases.  Let me know if you want to go down that path and we can debate it.

[BSUTOP25]

21 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

And I agree with all this aside from Orange man being responsible for us having 30% of all confirmed cases.  Let me know if you want to go down that path and we can debate it.

Something to do with the fact the US has tested more than 3x the number two country on the list?

[halfmanhalfbronco]

2 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Something to do with the fact the US has tested more than 3X the number two country on the list?

 

I mean I did not want to thrash @TheSanDiegan on the point, but if you insist.  

[BSUTOP25]

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

I mean I did not want to thrash @TheSanDiegan on the point, but if you insist.  

It was a just question out of curiosity. I don't have a dog in this debate.  

[halfmanhalfbronco]

4 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

It was a just question out of curiosity. I don't have a dog in this debate.  

Well that and the populations of India and China, India especially, if you think we have 30% of the COVID cases in the world you are just retarded.  

[toonkee]

"Orange man bad" is used so much there days we really don't fully digest what that really means.

He's fricking orange. That's crazy.

[sactowndog]

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

WTF are you talking about?  The lie is well documented.

Fine post it along with the posted medical proof in early January that it was human to human transmission. 
 

I get you have been following Trump for so long you no longer recognize a lie but do your best.  

[TheSanDiegan]

53 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I mean I did not want to thrash @TheSanDiegan on the point, but if you insist.  

Oh, of course case count is a function of testing. And I even think our per capita testing is, while not optimal by any stretch, nominally acceptable (and getting better each day):

But what I might suggest to both you and @BSUTOP25 is to ask yourselves, what is the expected value for the number of positive cases we have?

To do this, we begin with our current fatality count of 31,590. On average, fatalities occur somewhere between days 24-30. If we use the lower end of that range, we can assume that the last of those fatalities were infected about 24 days ago. 

Now, using our own realized CFR, we can assume that the number of positive confirmed cases (approx. 641,000) was the actual number from 3 1/2 weeks ago.

Lastly, using estimated case doubling rates, we can estimate an expected value for the number of positive cases in the US. We have to estimate this for the same reason you two cite above - that the number of confirmed cases is in no small part a function of testing. So, if we were to assume our case doubling rate is once a week, then we can estimate there are, at present, approx. 5 million people infected with the virus at present.

Now, if we were to apply this on a global level, we can similarly (roughly) estimate there were approx. 2.1 million positive cases 24 days ago, and that given the same doubling rate, that would mean there are (roughly) approx. 20 million positive cases worldwide as of today.

Thus, extrapolating as a function of the number of deaths - which is not a function of testing - shows us we still account for approx. 25% of the infections worldwide.

Another method of validating an estimated expected value for case count is to look at the ratio of overall tests to + tests. It is believed a ratio of 10:1 - given adequate gross numbers of tests - indicates the testing within a given population is representative of the number of expected cases. As seen below, our ration is only 5.3:1, which indicates we are not testing adequately nor do we have adequate visibility into the spread of the pathogen, thus indicating we have far more cases than we have identified:

 

 

[TheSanDiegan]

44 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Well that and the populations of India and China, India especially, if you think we have 30% of the COVID cases in the world you are just retarded.  

See my explanation above.

By the same method explained in that post (which I typed slowly so you could follow along ), India has approx. 100000 cases - barely a fraction of the number in the US.

Because math.

You see, India did a far better job than we did early on in isolating infected populations to break transmission chains.

[sactowndog]

1 hour ago, sean327 said:I’ve said it before, we failed big time. We have screwed this up from day one. The President is just as culpable as the Chinese and the WHO are. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the failures began with the Chinese and the WHO. 

Well none were perfect that is clear.   

No one is as culpable as the CCP and it’s not even close.   
 

After that whether the US or the WHO is more culpable depends on what information they had.   We know the US Intelligence was providing briefings in November.   We know Taiwan sent a letter in late Dec.   Who had proof the disease came from Human to Human contact before the Jan. 20th WHO text stating H2H contact is unclear.  If you have real data I would love to see it.   

[sactowndog]

6 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Oh, of course case count is a function of testing. And I even think our per capita testing is, while not optimal by any stretch, nominally acceptable (and getting better each day):

But what I might suggest to both you and @BSUTOP25 is to ask yourselves, what is the expected value for the number of positive cases we have?

To do this, we begin with our current fatality count of 31,590. On average, fatalities occur somewhere between days 24-30. If we use the lower end of that range, we can assume that the last of those fatalities were infected about 24 days ago. 

Now, using our own realized CFR, we can assume that the number of positive confirmed cases (approx. 641,000) was the actual number from 3 1/2 weeks ago.

Lastly, using estimated case doubling rates, we can estimate an expected value for the number of positive cases in the US. We have to estimate this for the same reason you two cite above - that the number of confirmed cases is in no small part a function of testing. So, if we were to assume our case doubling rate is once a week, then we can estimate there are, at present, approx. 5 million people infected with the virus at present.

Now, if we were to apply this on a global level, we can similarly (roughly) estimate there were approx. 2.1 million positive cases 24 days ago, and that given the same doubling rate, that would mean there are (roughly) approx. 20 million positive cases worldwide as of today.

Thus, extrapolating as a function of the number of deaths - which is not a function of testing - shows us we still account for approx. 25% of the infections worldwide.

Another method of validating an estimated expected value for case count is to look at the ratio of overall tests to + tests. It is believed a ratio of 10:1 - given adequate gross numbers of tests - indicates the testing within a given population is representative of the number of expected cases. As seen below, our ration is only 5.3:1, which indicates we are not testing adequately nor do we have adequate visibility into the spread of the pathogen, thus indicating we have far more cases than we have identified:

 

Your estimate assumes China has reported all their deaths.  I don’t think this data point is accurate. 

[TheSanDiegan]

3 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Your estimate assumes China has reported all their deaths.  I don’t think this data point is accurate. 

You are correct. I would however make the case for the additional deaths in China moving the needle negligibly at best.

Given China's Full-stop authoritarian lockdown, and given the measured impact of curve-bending realized by social distancing measures, it may be safely assumed that Wuhan accounted for an overwhelming number of the cases in China.

So what is an accurate death count to estimate for Wuhan?

@mugtang posted a link (on Twitter?) sometime back that referenced an article in which the number of cremations in Wuhan was used to estimate the true death count, and that during the time of the lockdown, there were an estimated 42K-47K cremations that had taken place. When adjusting for the normal mortality rate in China, this reduced to aprox. 15,000 additional cremations over that time frame.

That would increase the number of fatalities from 140K to 155K, and reduce the percentage that have died in the US to approx. 20% - still statistically disproportionate on a per capita basis.

FWIW, in line with your point, we really have no clue what the actual death count is in Iran either (or a host of other closed-door regimes, tho IMO China and Iran are the only to have a fatality count to move the needle).

 

[CV147]

2 hours ago, sactowndog said:

From the data I have now perhaps.  The WHO has had other instances of failure.   If you could show me they ignored data from doctors in China prior to getting boots on the ground, I would agree for sure.  But, I have honestly not seen that data.    

Setting emotion aside what data do we have?  An accusatory letter from Taiwan that provides no proof of human to human transmission is a pretty thin reed.

now let me ask you a question... Do you agree the fact we had intelligence data and did not provide it to the WHO makes us at least as culpable?   Who are we firing?  

Quote

On Dec 30, 2019, Li Wenliang sent a message to a group of fellow doctors warning them about a possible outbreak of an illness that resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, where he worked. Meant to be a private message, he encouraged them to protect themselves from infection. Days later, he was summoned to the Public Security Bureau in Wuhan and made to sign a statement in which he was accused of making false statements that disturbed the public order.

In fact, Li was one of the first people to recognise the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Wuhan that has now spread to 25 countries, killing 1669 people and infecting more than 51 800 people as of Feb 16, 2020. Li returned to work after signing the statement and contracted severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), apparently from a patient. His death sparked outrage in China, where citizens took to message boards to voice their gratitude for Li's dedicated front-line service and to criticise the initial response of Wuhan's security and medical officials to his warning. In the days before his death, Li said “If the officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier I think it would have been a lot better”, in an interview with The New York Times. “There should be more openness and transparency”, he said.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30382-2/fulltext

Here's the WHO timeline:

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/08-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19

Interestingly in their first communication they end with this:

Quote

WHO advice

Based on information provided by national authorities, WHO’s recommendations on public health measures and surveillance of influenza and severe acute respiratory infections still apply.

WHO does not recommend any specific measures for travellers. In case of symptoms suggestive of respiratory illness either during or after travel, travellers are encouraged to seek medical attention and share travel history with their healthcare provider.

WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the current information available on this event.

 

[BSUTOP25]

27 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Oh, of course case count is a function of testing. And I even think our per capita testing is, while not optimal by any stretch, nominally acceptable (and getting better each day):

But what I might suggest to both you and @BSUTOP25 is to ask yourselves, what is the expected value for the number of positive cases we have?

To do this, we begin with our current fatality count of 31,590. On average, fatalities occur somewhere between days 24-30. If we use the lower end of that range, we can assume that the last of those fatalities were infected about 24 days ago. 

Now, using our own realized CFR, we can assume that the number of positive confirmed cases (approx. 641,000) was the actual number from 3 1/2 weeks ago.

Lastly, using estimated case doubling rates, we can estimate an expected value for the number of positive cases in the US. We have to estimate this for the same reason you two cite above - that the number of confirmed cases is in no small part a function of testing. So, if we were to assume our case doubling rate is once a week, then we can estimate there are, at present, approx. 5 million people infected with the virus at present.

Now, if we were to apply this on a global level, we can similarly (roughly) estimate there were approx. 2.1 million positive cases 24 days ago, and that given the same doubling rate, that would mean there are (roughly) approx. 20 million positive cases worldwide as of today.

Thus, extrapolating as a function of the number of deaths - which is not a function of testing - shows us we still account for approx. 25% of the infections worldwide.

Another method of validating an estimated expected value for case count is to look at the ratio of overall tests to + tests. It is believed a ratio of 10:1 - given adequate gross numbers of tests - indicates the testing within a given population is representative of the number of expected cases. As seen below, our ration is only 5.3:1, which indicates we are not testing adequately nor do we have adequate visibility into the spread of the pathogen, thus indicating we have far more cases than we have identified:

 

 

You make some valid points but in addition we must also keep in mind that the reporting structure isn’t apples to apples across all variables when comparing countries. WSJ has an article out from a few days ago that it’s highly likely that European numbers are vastly underreported, both confirmed cases and deaths:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-death-toll-in-europe-likely-far-higher-than-first-reported-11586896486

[Akkula]

2 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Partisanship does not produce this conclusion; an objective and cursory inspection of the facts does.

Ding ding ding.....incompetence nor the disease have anything to do with partisanship.  

This WHO thing and this whole need to do faux protesting of the 1st amendment are just meant to distract from the orange one's failures.  It is a smokescreen distraction and that is why these activities are being taken on by right wingers on this board and across the nation.  The quarantine is not a partisan issue but the MUST make it one so they can save the dear leader.  It really is sick.