Has the Liberal Media Gone too Far Sensationalizing the Coronavirus? (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

No....that's not how it works as you've been told multiple times  

Please see the subheading "Senate". The Senate used a bill the House passed and sent to the Senate as their way of crafting a healthcare reform bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Healthcare_debate,_2008–10

ETA: I am in no way trying to be snarky or gotcha. Reid followed the rules, but check out how many amendments the senate added to a bill originally intended to provide military families tax relief for housing.

Right....that's how this works.  Not sure I understand your point here.  We start in the House, go to the Senate and discrepancies are negotiated, amendments are added (removing or adding other provisions etc).

 

[The Commish]

Sorry. But based upon the partisan talking points that are prevalent in this forum, I hardly ever take anyone's word at face value.

And you can stop pretending to be my dad.  Save your condescending attitude and snark for others. 

Projection in this post is not lost on me...well done.   

 

[Lutherman2112]

Right....that's how this works.  Not sure I understand your point here.  We start in the House, go to the Senate and discrepancies are negotiated, amendments are added (removing or adding other provisions etc).

It shows that the Senate crafted their own bill. They took legislation from the House that didn't have a thing to do with healthcare and attached 400+ amendments to craft their own healthcare bill.

 

[The Commish]

It shows that the Senate crafted their own bill. They took legislation from the House that didn't have a thing to do with healthcare and attached 400+ amendments to craft their own healthcare bill.

What bill did they use here?  Sorry...maybe talking by each other?  Not sure.

 

[Lutherman2112]

What bill did they use here?  Sorry...maybe talking by each other?  Not sure.

From the wikipedia link up-thread:

The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working. The United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House.[150] To formally comply with this requirement, the Senate repurposed H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax changes for service members.[151] It had been passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill became the Senate's vehicle for its healthcare reform proposal, discarding the bill's original content.[152] The bill ultimately incorporated elements of proposals that were reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

The Senate gutted a House bill that modified the tax code for service members, and loaded it with 400+ amendments. Here is the original H.R. 3590:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text/eh

 

[The Commish]

What bill did they use here?  Sorry...maybe talking by each other?  Not sure.

From the wikipedia link up-thread:

The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working. The United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House.[150] To formally comply with this requirement, the Senate repurposed H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax changes for service members.[151] It had been passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill became the Senate's vehicle for its healthcare reform proposal, discarding the bill's original content.[152] The bill ultimately incorporated elements of proposals that were reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

The Senate gutted a House bill that modified the tax code for service members, and loaded it with 400+ amendments. Here is the original H.R. 3590:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text/eh

No...I'm asking about the bill they used here for their coronavirus bill?  What bill did they gut to put their bill forward?

 

[Lutherman2112]

No...I'm asking about the bill they used here for their coronavirus bill?  What bill did they gut to put their bill forward?

yep.....we are talking about two separate things. Sorry, I misunderstood.

I no longer follow federal legislation minute by minute, but boy did I in the past.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The downfall with society is that those that refuse to act, those that obfuscate, those that actively deny and twist can do so without harm to themselves.  Fox news wants to call this a 'hoax' then they should be rounded up and put in an arena with covid-19.  Don't believe in global warming then you can pay for moving people away from sea level rise and pay farmers when their fields are dry...

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I don't think the question this thread is based on is really the right one to ask. The right question is how did we get to a place where  the value of actual serious expertise in science has been so devalued and political tribalism has become so ingrained in our society that the response to a global pandemic has become nothing more than a partisan ping-pong match where the blatherings on opinion pages or rantings of demagogues are given any credence at all?

I don't typically post Twitter content here in the FFA, but this Twitter thread from Dr. Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington should be required reading for EVERYBODY.

Even if you don't "do" Twitter, I strongly suggest clicking the link and spending five minutes reading what he has to say. And a bunch more time actually THINKING about the topic(s) he is addressing.

 

[kface]

I don't think the question this thread is based on is really the right one to ask. The right question is how did we get to a place where  the value of actual serious expertise in science has been so devalued and political tribalism has become so ingrained in our society that the response to a global pandemic has become nothing more than a partisan ping-pong match where the blatherings on opinion pages or rantings of demagogues are given any credence at all?

I don't typically post Twitter content here in the FFA, but this Twitter thread from Dr. Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington should be required reading for EVERYBODY.

Even if you don't "do" Twitter, I strongly suggest clicking the link and spending five minutes reading what he has to say. And a bunch more time actually THINKING about the topic(s) he is addressing.

To be fair, i don't think it's ping-pong, as per usual it's science vs. trump supporters

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

To be fair, i don't think it's ping-pong, as per usual it's science vs. trump supporters

I don't disagree, but read the Twitter thread.

 

[kface]

I don't disagree, but read the Twitter thread.

I believe the twitter thread states the same mostly...

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I believe the twitter thread states the same mostly...

No spoilers please. He summarizes the situation so much better than you or I could, I don't want to dissuade people who need to read it from spending the time with pithy summaries.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

"The Trump campaign just released a cease and desist letter demanding that TV stations immediately pull this ad "

 

[jonessed]

USA now tracking a mortality rate of 5%...yea it's just the flu.  

Every single news outlet in the world is treating as the serious issue it is - minus fox 'news'.  So the answer is no

We have no idea what the mortality rate is.  Most people are never tested.

 

[kface]

We have no idea what the mortality rate is.  Most people are never tested.

sorry of the people tested...over 5% are dying

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

We have no idea what the mortality rate is.  Most people are never tested.

Are there still people playing this "it's not THAT deadly" pedantic game? 

I guess there are.

 

[jonessed]

Are there still people playing this "it's not THAT deadly" pedantic game? 

I guess there are.

Maybe.  It’s obviously not 5% though.  South Korea and Germany are doing the most testing and they are sub 1%.  1% would still be pretty deadly.

I don’t find the pursuit of accuracy to be pedantic.  Not everybody does though.  Don’t let me hold you back.  Flail about freely.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Maybe.  It’s obviously not 5% though.  South Korea and Germany are doing the most testing and they are sub 1%.  1% would still be pretty deadly.

I don’t find the pursuit of accuracy to be pedantic.  Not everybody does though.  Don’t let me hold you back.  Flail about freely.

If you were serious about being accurate you wouldn't even be talking about the experience of Germany and South Korea. Because comparing apples and tomatoes is never accurate.

 

[jon_mx]

If you were serious about being accurate you wouldn't even be talking about the experience of Germany and South Korea. Because comparing apples and tomatoes is never accurate.

You guys want to act like you are on the high road and have science on your side but you throw around false information like a 5 percent mortality rate.  We know that number is BS.  It is an apples to tomatoes comparison because the numbers from Germany and Korea are much closer to reality, but let's not get in the way of the endless scare-mongering from the left. 

 

[rcam]

You guys want to act like you are on the high road and have science on your side but you throw around false information like a 5 percent mortality rate.  We know that number is BS.  It is an apples to tomatoes comparison because the numbers from Germany and Korea are much closer to reality, but let's not get in the way of the endless scare-mongering from the left. 

While you throw around numbers that make no sense right and left? The truth is, we don't know the mortality rate. However, unlike what you seem to keep saying in multiple threads - this is a big deal and things aren't getting better. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

You guys want to act like you are on the high road and have science on your side but you throw around false information like a 5 percent mortality rate.  We know that number is BS.  It is an apples to tomatoes comparison because the numbers from Germany and Korea are much closer to reality, but let's not get in the way of the endless scare-mongering from the left. 

You have literally no idea what you are talking about, per usual.

i didn’t say 5% was the right number for actual mortality. We may never know that number. 
 

The fact is that the mortality rate is going to be path dependent. It isn’t a constant. And there are several reasons to expect the rate in the US to be on the high side.

Wherever it ends up being Germany and Korea are especially terrible comparisons.

 

[jon_mx]

You have literally no idea what you are talking about, per usual.

i didn’t say 5% was the right number for actual mortality. We may never know that number. 
 

The fact is that the mortality rate is going to be path dependent. It isn’t a constant. And there are several reasons to expect the rate in the US to be on the high side.

Wherever it ends up being Germany and Korea are especially terrible comparisons.

Why must you make it personal with your condescending non-sense?  It is really dumb especially when you are wrong.on many things and it takes the discussion into a sewer hole.  Nobody here is perfect including yourself so just drop it with the superiority attitude.

 Certainly there are factors which impact the chances of survival of an individual such as age and the amount of care available.  But that does not make the mortality rate a variable.  The word has meaning and that is the number of people who it kills divided by the number of people infected.  That is a fixed number.

It may be different for subgroups, but when you use it without a qualifier, it means what it means and it is a fixed number.

 We know the number is well below 5 percent because we know we are vastly undercounting those infected.  We know the majority of younger folks show little or no signs of infections and are not tested.  In areas where there is extensive testing the numbers drop substantially. Eventually we will have better numbers as we test random samples of entire populations for the antibodies. 

I guarantee you it ain:t going to be anywhere close to 5 friggin percent especially in places which have access to good care like the US.  It will be sub 1 percent.  To suggest 5 percent is nothing but fear-mongering non:sense.  Take your condescending attitude elsewhere dude.  That kind of stuff has no place here in an adult conversatiom.

 

[Snorkelson]

Why must you make it personal with your condescending non-sense?  It is really dumb especially when you are wrong.on many things and it takes the discussion into a sewer hole.  Nobody here is perfect including yourself so just drop it with the superiority attitude.

 Certainly there are factors which impact the chances of survival of an individual such as age and the amount of care available.  But that does not make the mortality rate a variable.  The word has meaning and that is the number of people who it kills divided by the number of people infected.  That is a fixed number.

It may be different for subgroups, but when you use it without a qualifier, it means what it means and it is a fixed number.

 We know the number is well below 5 percent because we know we are vastly undercounting those infected.  We know the majority of younger folks show little or no signs of infections and are not tested.  In areas where there is extensive testing the numbers drop substantially. Eventually we will have better numbers as we test random samples of entire populations for the antibodies. 

I guarantee you it ain:t going to be anywhere close to 5 friggin percent especially in places which have access to good care like the US.  It will be sub 1 percent.  To suggest 5 percent is nothing but fear-mongering non:sense.  Take your condescending attitude elsewhere dude.  That kind of stuff has no place here in an adult conversatiom.

Ok, it’s sitting at about 1.5% in the US right now. Lots of people can’t get tested, and other deaths likely being attributed to other symptoms and not getting a corona test. There isn’t a good count “because we know we are vastly undercounting those infected.” 
You can’t say “it’s not this we don’t have an accurate count” and then say “it’s going to be sub 1%.” We don’t have an accurate count of anything, and the CDC isn’t really being transparent with their information.

I think his point about mortality being variable is valid in the sense that right now there are ventilators for sick people, 2 weeks from now there may not be, and the mortality rate will go up because of that. It could also go way down as we test more people and those tests come back positive- which will also help those people not get other people sick, further helping mortality rate, etc. 

 

[Rich Conway]

The fact is that the mortality rate is going to be path dependent. It isn’t a constant. And there are several reasons to expect the rate in the US to be on the high side.

This couldn't be more right.  Actions a state/country/locality takes impact the mortality rate.

 Certainly there are factors which impact the chances of survival of an individual such as age and the amount of care available.  But that does not make the mortality rate a variable. 

The bolded here contradicts the italicized.  The mortality rate will be variable across localities, based on the actions those localities takes.  That should be self evident.  A fictitious island nation stuck in the 1500s would experience a much higher mortality rate than present-day US.  A nation with no available health care will experience a much higher mortality rate than a nation with an abundance of available ICU beds, doctors, etc.  And finally, a nation that successfully flattens the curve will experience a lower mortality rate than one that doesn't bother to try or does so unsuccessfully.

None of the above should be particularly controversial or political.

 

[jon_mx]

This couldn't be more right.  Actions a state/country/locality takes impact the mortality rate.

The bolded here contradicts the italicized.  The mortality rate will be variable across localities, based on the actions those localities takes.  That should be self evident.  A fictitious island nation stuck in the 1500s would experience a much higher mortality rate than present-day US.  A nation with no available health care will experience a much higher mortality rate than a nation with an abundance of available ICU beds, doctors, etc.  And finally, a nation that successfully flattens the curve will experience a lower mortality rate than one that doesn't bother to try or does so unsuccessfully.

None of the above should be particularly controversial or political.

The morality rate across a population is a fixed number with respect to time.  Period.  It is not a 'path dependant' variable.  He seems to be confusing survivability of an individual with mortality rate.   That may be path dependant but not mortality rate.  Also the current figures people are putting out are at least 10x exaggerated and probably much more since upwards of 80 percent of people will show little or no symptoms and have no reason to tested.  There will never be a mortality rate equation with a variable in it for path.  It is not what mortality rate measures.  

 

[Rich Conway]

The morality rate across a population is a fixed number with respect to time.  Period.  It is not a 'path dependant' variable.  He seems to be confusing survivability of an individual with mortality rate.   That may be path dependant but not mortality rate.  Also the current figures people are putting out are at least 10x exaggerated and probably much more since upwards of 80 percent of people will show little or no symptoms and have no reason to tested.  There will never be a mortality rate equation with a variable in it for path.  It is not what mortality rate measures.  

You're playing semantic games and you know it.

Mortality rate in the past is fixed (although not necessarily accurately measured or reported).  Mortality rate in the future is wildly path-dependent and can be affected by our actions now.

 

[jon_mx]

You're playing semantic games and you know it.

Mortality rate in the past is fixed (although not necessarily accurately measured or reported).  Mortality rate in the future is wildly path-dependent and can be affected by our actions now.

Semantics are important because people misuse them.  When you throw out numbers like a 5 percent mortality rate and we expect 70 percent of people to become infected, you are grossly misleading people.  People see you are implying over 10 million Americans will die.  That is a ridiculous exaggeration and is nothing but fear-mongering.  That is why it is important to use terms correctly and not confuse people with bastardized usages.  

 

[The Commish]

nevermind...not getting in this gymnastics event.

 

[Rich Conway]

Semantics are important because people misuse them.  When you throw out numbers like a 5 percent mortality rate and we expect 70 percent of people to become infected, you are grossly misleading people.  People see you are implying over 10 million Americans will die.  That is a ridiculous exaggeration and is nothing but fear-mongering.  That is why it is important to use terms correctly and not confuse people with bastardized usages.  

When someone says "the mortality rate will be (or "could be" or "might be") N%", it's self-evident that they mean the future mortality rate, not the past mortality rate.  You're using semantics to downplay the severity of this.  Frankly, that's far worse than what you call "fear-mongering".

Edit to add: By the way, you're clearly smart enough to know better, which is the only reason I bother trying to reason with you.  It is frustrating, though, that you consistently ignore the substance of posts and instead go for semantic word games.

 

[jon_mx]

If the media is throwing out numbers like 10,000,000 might die, but the real number ends up closer to 100,000 even with Trump as President scrwwing everything up, can't we agree that there was some sensationalism involved.  Or are we okay with being off 100-fold in order to scare the public senseless?  

 

[Rich Conway]

If the media is throwing out numbers like 10,000,000 might die, but the real number ends up closer to 100,000 even with Trump as President scrwwing everything up, can't we agree that there was some sensationalism involved.  Or are we okay with being off 100-fold in order to scare the public senseless?  

I am, yes.  Most of the public is too stupid or distracted to understand nuance.  If presented with more than a tweet-sized bite of information like "unless we do X, millions will die", most of the public will ignore it.

Do you agree that gross underreaction will cause more deaths and other health issues than gross overreaction?

 

[jon_mx]

When someone says "the mortality rate will be (or "could be" or "might be") N%", it's self-evident that they mean the future mortality rate, not the past mortality rate.  You're using semantics to downplay the severity of this.  Frankly, that's far worse than what you call "fear-mongering".

5 percent is an absurd number to throw out for mortality rates.  It is irresponsible when we know the testing is missing the vast majority of people who show little or no symptoms.  

 

[jon_mx]

I am, yes.

Do you agree that gross underreaction will cause more deaths and other health issues than gross overreaction?

I realize that most people in this forum are ok with that.  But it is sensationalism, the majority of people in here just don't care.  IMHO, it leads to poor decisions.  

If people were generally grossly underestimating numbers that would be a problem.  But that is not happening.  

 

[Rich Conway]

I am, yes.

Do you agree that gross underreaction will cause more deaths and other health issues than gross overreaction?

I realize that most people in this forum are ok with that.  But it is sensationalism, the majority of people in here just don't care.  IMHO, it leads to poor decisions.  

Edit to add: By the way, you're clearly smart enough to know better, which is the only reason I bother trying to reason with you.  It is frustrating, though, that you consistently ignore the substance of posts and instead go for semantic word games.

By the way, the first two quoted posts above are a perfect example of the third quoted post.  You completely ignored the question I posed to you in order to attempt to score rhetorical points.

 

[jon_mx]

By the way, the first two quoted posts above are a perfect example of the third quoted post.  You completely ignored the question I posed to you in order to attempt to score rhetorical points.

I answered in my edit, I just wanted to make the point wbich wasn't rhetoric, but it was about this title of this topic concerning sensationalism.

These threads would be a lot better if there were  no responses like: 

"You have literally no idea what you are talking about, per usual"

That is the stuff that you should be criticizing.  

 

[Rich Conway]

I answered in my edit, I just wanted to make the point wbich wasn't rhetoric, but it was about this title of this topic concerning sensationalism.

These threads would be a lot better if there were  no responses like: 

"You have literally no idea what you are talking about, per usual"

That is the stuff that you should be criticizing.  

Per the forum rules, no one is supposed to criticize such posts directly.   But yes, those type of posts aren't helpful.

My answer is that I really don't think the media is sensationalizing the overall topic at all.  There is no doubt in my mind that this is already the most significant worldwide event of my lifetime, and it's only just starting.  By the way, I'm old enough to have vague memories of the gas lines and odd/even license plate restrictions in the '70s.

 

[lazyike]

You guys want to act like you are on the high road and have science on your side but you throw around false information like a 5 percent mortality rate.  We know that number is BS.  It is an apples to tomatoes comparison because the numbers from Germany and Korea are much closer to reality, but let's not get in the way of the endless scare-mongering from the left. 

One family from New Jersey has lost 4 family members. How many died from one nursing home in Washington state?. Whatever the correct mortality rate is, it is deadly, very deadly. We have the flu every year, but we don’t run out of hospital beds, medical equipment etc. we don’t need hospital ships or other buildings set up as temporary hospitals to deal with it.

 

[FBG Moderator]

Why must you make it personal with your condescending non-sense?  It is really dumb especially when you are wrong.on many things and it takes the discussion into a sewer hole.  Nobody here is perfect including yourself so just drop it with the superiority attitude.

 Certainly there are factors which impact the chances of survival of an individual such as age and the amount of care available.  But that does not make the mortality rate a variable.  The word has meaning and that is the number of people who it kills divided by the number of people infected.  That is a fixed number.

It may be different for subgroups, but when you use it without a qualifier, it means what it means and it is a fixed number.

 We know the number is well below 5 percent because we know we are vastly undercounting those infected.  We know the majority of younger folks show little or no signs of infections and are not tested.  In areas where there is extensive testing the numbers drop substantially. Eventually we will have better numbers as we test random samples of entire populations for the antibodies. 

I guarantee you it ain:t going to be anywhere close to 5 friggin percent especially in places which have access to good care like the US.  It will be sub 1 percent.  To suggest 5 percent is nothing but fear-mongering non:sense.  Take your condescending attitude elsewhere dude.  That kind of stuff has no place here in an adult conversatiom.

Both of you drop the back and forth like this if you want to keep posting here. 

No patience today. 

 

[jon_mx]

Per the forum rules, no one is supposed to criticize such posts directly.   But yes, those type of posts aren't helpful.

My answer is that I really don't think the media is sensationalizing the overall topic at all.  There is no doubt in my mind that this is already the most significant worldwide event of my lifetime, and it's only just starting.  By the way, I'm old enough to have vague memories of the gas lines and odd/even license plate restrictions in the '70s.

It probably cracks the top 5, but come on how can you forget OJ, Tanya and Bobbit?  J/k

But it can be one of the most important stories of our lifetimes and still be sensationalized. 

 

[Skoo]

I realize that most people in this forum are ok with that.  But it is sensationalism, the majority of people in here just don't care.  IMHO, it leads to poor decisions.  

If people were generally grossly underestimating numbers that would be a problem.  But that is not happening.  

President Trump is making poor decisions BECAUSE he’s grossly underestimating the numbers.

Is this even up for debate at this point?

 

[Amused to Death]

President Trump is making poor decisions BECAUSE he’s grossly underestimating the numbers.

Is this even up for debate at this point?

I would say "downplaying" instead of "underestimating". He's got advisers telling him exactly what the situation is. He just needs it be better than the reality.

"Everything's fine! Everything's fine! (psst, did you sell it off yet?) Everything's fine I say!"*

*not a real quote. At least not one that's been heard in public

 

[jon_mx]

President Trump is making poor decisions BECAUSE he’s grossly underestimating the numbers.

Is this even up for debate at this point?

He has made some bad decisions and he has said lots of dumb things.  But I still see this country coming together and mostly doing the right stuff.  I don't see a country not taking this seriously.  A large number of people are going to be killed by the virus.  I am not convinced it was stoppable.  Our biggest failure was not being prepared, but that would have been true regardless of who was in the oval office.  

 

[sho nuff]

He has made some bad decisions and he has said lots of dumb things.  But I still see this country coming together and mostly doing the right stuff.  I don't see a country not taking this seriously.  A large number of people are going to be killed by the virus.  I am not convinced it was stoppable.  Our biggest failure was not being prepared, but that would have been true regardless of who was in the oval office.  

Stopable?  No, and I don't think anyone has come close to saying it was.

Could we have been doing these things earlier though?  If given more information?  If the government, from Trump down, didn't downplay this (while some of them sold off stock) instituted some of the things it is now...but did a week or 2 or 3 earlier?  

Would fewer have been infected?  Fewer dead?  More confidence in the market and jobs?

Was it not you that posted a link showing we were one of the most prepared out there?  The Johns Hopkins link?  There is a report that there was a basic "playbook" left by the Obama administration.  Which included the transition exercise...and much of that was ignored by the Trump administration.  Were "we" unprepared because the administration ignored things and left us that way?

 I think all of those are valid concerns for people to express and its valid to question how this administration responded to all of this.  And I don't think it paints a very good picture of Trump and his administration.  And it also doesn't show the media has gone too far.

 

[The Commish]

I can't answer the OP specifically...I don't watch our media sans breaking live events.  What I do see around here a crap ton more than it should, is a gross mischaracterization of "preparing for the worst and hoping for the best".  It is absolutely imperative that we prepare for the worst.  To do that we have to acknowledge what that worst can be potentially and plan accordingly.  I would expect it to become "sensationalized" at the point where the worst case scenario was presented as an inevitable.  At that point, I'd agree that the sensationalization was over the top.  If that's happening, that needs to stop.  If what is going on is stating the current state of stats, that's not sensationalizing.  That's stating a fact.  

ETA:  So stating that we have passed China in the number of confirmed cases like they were standing still is not sensationalizing.  It's stating the reality of where we're at.  Adding the context that we've accomplished that despite still being in the "we don't know what we don't know" phase because of the lack of testing, that's giving context, not sensationalizing.

 

[parasaurolophus]

As a whole? I dont think I would say that. I mean it kind if sensationalizes itself. People are dying. 

They are not free of criticism though. There is a serious lack of fact checking going on from them. National stories sourced from facebook posts about a pandemic should never happen. Ever. 

 

[Skoo]

He has made some bad decisions and he has said lots of dumb things.  But I still see this country coming together and mostly doing the right stuff.  I don't see a country not taking this seriously.  A large number of people are going to be killed by the virus.  I am not convinced it was stoppable.  Our biggest failure was not being prepared, but that would have been true regardless of who was in the oval office.  

The President is talking about packed churches on Easter Sunday.

Not only is that idea sure to get people killed, it’s a signal to his followers, once again, that everything will be fine, “like a miracle”.

Which of course makes those people much less likely to take it seriously.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I watched some CNN last night -- often considered the kingpin of liberal media.  Anderson Cooper and Sanjay Gupta interviewed several people including Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates.  Sanjay Gupta even did a video showing the proper way to wash hands. The country would be better off if lots of people watched that.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

The morality rate across a population is a fixed number with respect to time.  Period.  It is not a 'path dependant' variable.  He seems to be confusing survivability of an individual with mortality rate.   That may be path dependant but not mortality rate.  Also the current figures people are putting out are at least 10x exaggerated and probably much more since upwards of 80 percent of people will show little or no symptoms and have no reason to tested.  There will never be a mortality rate equation with a variable in it for path.  It is not what mortality rate measures.  

This particular brand of hyper specificity and arguing over pedantic points is especially useless. I mean even for you, it’s impressively pointless.

 

[Sammy3469]

This particular brand of hyper specificity and arguing over pedantic points is especially useless. I mean even for you, it’s impressively pointless.

Plus it’s not even true, the whole point of social distancing is that the ultimate outcome is path dependent.   There isn’t a set number of people that are going to die.