COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (10 Viewers)

Previous Next
Status
Not open for further replies.
www.yahoo.com

Trump team failed to follow NSC’s pandemic playbook

The 69-page document, finished in 2016, provided a step by step list of priorities – which were then ignored by the administration.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

I know this is a huge risk of turning this too political, so avoid going that far with it.

However, Looks like the NSC had a playbook and recommendations about Pandemics that, shocker, weren't followed. That being said, they are officially saying that there are two other federal guidance documents they have been following (to what degree??). Either way, I think we can all agree that we've taken a slow response to this, on the Federal level.
 
Oye said:
again, this points to why I did not automatically think Silver was being 'divisive' in his tweet.

We've been talking about this general thing in this thread. More testing will mean: (1) more positive, confirmed, overall cases and (2) a lower percentage of actual infection and confirmed cases.

Correct? I mean, that tended to be the conclusion most people have been drawing - and not just for the US. It's been going on for a while.

So, if we assume that the statistics are going to be equitable - I mean, Booker replied saying this:



I mean, that's exactly the point. Incidence of virus is going to be stable across the general population - eventually, once we reach a critical mass.

And so, if you have a region that is reporting something statistically awry, then that's related - at least in large part - to testing.

And if we have been talking about the importance of testing, this sort of data is important to have.

If we are going to hold Silver's tweet up to the "there's more to the story" scrutiny, that's fine. But we should be applying it to all reported data - that just hasn't been entirely the case. As a result, I felt like the conclusion of testing frequency related to reporting of numbers was material, since we've been doing it.

I didn't think Silver was making the case that the virus knows politics.

Like I said, I didn't see what was offensive about it when I posted it - or I wouldn't have. And I've since taken it down and tried to explain where I'm coming from with how this data breakdown - which was mentioned in the original response I quoted - means something relevant to what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I didn't think it was offensive, or even intentionally political. Doing a regional breakdown makes good sense. That sort of smooths out some of the outliers and will give a better overall picture than state to state, which can have a large degree of variance between them.

I do see the relevance, I think the initial post you had was a couple of tweets and I guess I can see why people might have latched onto the political angle, which is understandable. I just wasn't sure how the info would be useful, but having fleshed it out a bit, it certainly has some relevance.

It's all good. :9:
 
superchuck500 said:
And we’re now #winning

USA #1 worldwide
Click to expand...

3u6rq1.jpg
 
superchuck500 said:
And we’re now #winning

USA #1 worldwide
Click to expand...
We’re going to win. We’re going to win so much. We’re going to win at trade, we’re going to win at the border. We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick"
 
DoubleSaint said:
And they were still catching it off the patients!
Click to expand...

Well, they didn't start doing that kind of protection until well after they figured out exactly what they were dealing with. Unfortunately, we're finding out that that kind of protection may be overkill, but it's also necessary to protect medical workers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom