Tom Kirkman

Hot mic at White House Covid press briefing. "Everybody here's been vaccinated anyway."

Recommended Posts

(edited)

19 minutes ago, El Nikko said:

The Trump effect ūüėā

To the POTUS or whom it may concern,

You are correct, we do not need the money you spend as if it were yours.

Best of luck in the future - we certainly don't have loyal alumni in powerful positions all over the world....

With disregard,

-Harvard

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Why do we not ask everybody to declare his opinion and then we stop the stupid lockdown.

If it turns out to be "just a flu", we fire all of these Doom-prophets and hire a COVID-sceptic in their place.

If it turns out to be more than a flu, we shoot the COVID-sceptics.

Edited by Ernst Reim
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Is that evidence for or against the social distancing?  Taking action saved lives.

 

Secondly, there is still a lot more of the world yet to be hit; don't total up your death count and say this was overblown when we are still in shutdown.

 

https://twitter.com/2LarryJohnson7/status/1253029416298582018

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COVID has shown us that liquor (and cannabis) stores are more essential than schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ernst Reim said:

Of course, actual deaths are not at the initial projection for the final number of an uncontrolled spread. With infectious diseases you have to look at the epicenters.

NY city has currently 11 000 COVID 19 deaths, that's 0.14% of its population. That would be  450 000 deaths in the US as a whole if you assume that you would end up with a similar infection rate when it spreads unchecked. And it is not over in NY city. Whether the decline is there, because is dying down anyway and the measures are ineffective or whether it will flare up again, since the measures are effective, nobody knows right now.

Of course, it might very well turn out that we overreacted. But... what's your point? That happens when you make decisions based on predictions from a very, very small sample of the population. Of course they might be wrong. One cannot even predict how bad next year's flu season is going to be and there are decades on experience and research on these. The **only** way to be sure is to wait, count the dead and say "yup, we should have done something."

This is like complaining about police brutality because they shot a guy pulling a gun on them when it turns out later that the gun was not loaded.

I don't have any problem with the initial call to isolate.  I agree it had to happen.  But new data is coming out every day, and I will expect our leaders to analyze that data as quickly as possible and reverse isolation as soon as possible as well.  June or beyond is just not acceptable and I for one want them to understand that.  My company, simply used as an example, has reviewed and continues to review how we do business, and how that has to be amended to accommodate social distancing, work from home, and all other aspects of the business and of disease mitigation.  They/we are coming out with common sense solutions every day or few days so that we can get back to work.  I expect the same from our governments: they have to do better than blanket "essential" business lists hastily drawn up with sometimes questionable results; they have to adapt and those lists need to be dynamic, and then the people have to be released to go to work if they so choose (If they so choose within limits, not indefinitely).

As you can see from above, I think there are solutions and so do a lot of my esteemed direct colleagues and industry colleagues.  We are not "thumb your nose" people; we are highly educated successful professionals.  We were before this bug came along and we continue to be, now and into the future.  Governments need to get the message out that they have set up review panels to act within 24-48 hours to allow businesses with good plans to open again.  Any business that develops and presents good plans.  They also have to make realistic calls regarding what people can and cannot do in their leisure time.  No more "stop and frisk", if you will, because a family wants to have a picnic in a park or someone wants to go fishing in a lake.  People do not like condescending attitudes being directed at them; they get it that it's ultimately their responsibility if they get sick in the course of making personal decisions such as these.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, no problems with reevaluations and definitely none with criticism. I am also not advocating to stay closed until fall or "until we get a vaccine". I just wanted to point out that it is expected and desired that we currently do not see the initial worst-case numbers and that at least the NYC data seems to indicate that the initial prognosis was not that far off.

But all these tweets, home-made videos, and opinion pieces of people without any formation in the field, cherry-picking their data and telling us how to manage a pandemic are just not helpful. Or they are at least as helpful as me telling you how you should run your business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ernst Reim said:

But all these tweets, home-made videos, and opinion pieces of people without any formation in the field, cherry-picking their data and telling us how to manage a pandemic are just not helpful.

Questioning those in authority when their solutions seem totally wrong, is always helpful.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Questioning those in authority when their solutions seem totally wrong, is always helpful.

There is nothing wrong with questioning authority.  I and many on this forum have dealt with "authorities" throughout our careers and around the world, and we all know that more times than not the "authorities" aren't that, ahem, shall we say, sharp, but they are almost always rigid and immovable.  This point doesn't need much debate, but go ahead anyone, if you wish.

Further, people are not cherry picking; they are fed up with not know what to believe and having those "authorities" act like fish on the deck.  Hell, even local Sheriffs, the ones with integrity, still tell the reporters that they cannot comment until investigations progress and facts are known.  This intense media and inter-party pressure to say something now is counter-productive at best and lethal at worst.  We all want answers and we want them fast (one of the shortcomings of our 128 character text message world).  But there is a time for intense investigation, delegation, division and separation of responsibilities, and then the release of facts and action plans. 

News as "entertainment" is not ok.  It is my opinion that we need to get back to news licenses that mean something, that are monitored by the FCC for false presentation violations (sensationalist journalism).  Fiines need to be levied and repeated until the news company cleans up its best practices or else licenses are suspended and/or revoked.  Put some integrity back in the news, if there ever was any. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2020 at 4:02 PM, 0R0 said:

That was always the point. Trump gave guidelines, not orders, the governors did what they wanted. They wanted to destroy their economies in order to blame Trump for

does that include Republican governors? What was the point of quarantines in rural states anyways? Why entire states instead of just the major cities? A lot of things didn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Questioning those in authority when their solutions seem totally wrong, is always helpful.

But there is a difference about questioning those in authority and feeding the trolls and snake-oil sellers. It is a very, very grey area, I give you that. But seeing that guy in the video you posted... imagine me walking up to him in whatever his business is, citing some stuff from the web and calling him a cheat and a liar because he tells me that it's not going to work.

We are all living through a change in what are news and how they are communicated. What is less in the spot light is that the same is happening to scientific literature. Studies like the Californian one **were just never intended** for the wide public. It's ok that we have access now. It is not ok, if we behave as if we understood it. Guys in the field can judge the reliability of data and results and just treat data as data. We cannot, not because we are stupid, but because we spend our lives during different stuff. 

And I am really, really, really fed up with guys like the one in that video who know even less than I do about interpreting clinical studies, but spout their truth to the nation from their basement pulpit. Sorry!  Just because they are entitled to do it, does not mean that they should. If a mechanic tells an MD that he knows sh** about repairing cars and should let him do his job, we call the MD an arrogant, entitled *&$. If an MD tells a mechanic that he knows sh** about treating people and medications... we still call the MD an arrogant entitled *&$.

Edited by Ernst Reim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

 It is my opinion that we need to get back to news licenses that mean something,

No. We do not need the government more involved in anything. How long before "news licenses" are required to host a news blog? What happens with the next President makes sure no site he dislikes gets a license? You might not remember when Obama's IRS withheld tax status from conservative organizations in an election year.

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ernst Reim said:

Dan, no problems with reevaluations and definitely none with criticism. I am also not advocating to stay closed until fall or "until we get a vaccine". I just wanted to point out that it is expected and desired that we currently do not see the initial worst-case numbers and that at least the NYC data seems to indicate that the initial prognosis was not that far off.

 

The worse case was over 2 million Americans dying and that was never in a million years going to happen.

The 26 million unemployed? Quite predictable!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

He's got a point.

Perhaps a home run would be in order,Harvard actually has a self perpetuating 40 billion endowment..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, El Nikko said:

The worse case was over 2 million Americans dying and that was never in a million years going to happen.

The 26 million unemployed? Quite predictable!

Sorry, "never in a million years going to happen"? Where do you get this security?

Currently, 0.14% of the New York City population died from COVID-19. If you extrapolate this to the whole of the US, that is **already close** to half a million and NYC is not over yet. Why do you assume that, without any measures, the rest of the US would behave differently than NYC? In rural areas it will spread slower... but it will still spread.

The 2 million dead are assumed on: no vaccine or break-through wonder cure, 1% mortality and 60% of the population infected until the end of the year. None of these four assumptions are currently contradicted by any data we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ernst Reim said:

Sorry, "never in a million years going to happen"? Where do you get this security?

Currently, 0.14% of the New York City population died from COVID-19. If you extrapolate this to the whole of the US, that is **already close** to half a million and NYC is not over yet. Why do you assume that, without any measures, the rest of the US would behave differently than NYC? In rural areas it will spread slower... but it will still spread.

The 2 million dead are assumed on: no vaccine or break-through wonder cure, 1% mortality and 60% of the population infected until the end of the year. None of these four assumptions are currently contradicted by any data we have.

I got that security from stating that weeks if not months ago after looking at what happened in previous 'pandemics'

I was right then and I am right now...it's not going to be that bad

The destruction of the economy, jobs and cancelation of thousands of urgent operations will kill far more than covid ever does, not to mention the increase in suicides etc.

Hope that makes my position absolutely 100% clear

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Can you tell me any pandemic other than the Spanish flu which caused 0.14% of NYC's population to die? If not, why do you assume that it will behave like any other pandemic, when it has not behaved like any other pandemic?

Edited by Ernst Reim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ernst Reim said:

Sorry, "never in a million years going to happen"? Where do you get this security?

Currently, 0.14% of the New York City population died from COVID-19. If you extrapolate this to the whole of the US, that is **already close** to half a million and NYC is not over yet. Why do you assume that, without any measures, the rest of the US would behave differently than NYC? In rural areas it will spread slower... but it will still spread.

The 2 million dead are assumed on: no vaccine or break-through wonder cure, 1% mortality and 60% of the population infected until the end of the year. None of these four assumptions are currently contradicted by any data we have.

To start, the deaths attributed to Covid19 are highly suspect. Any doctor can claim the patient died of it with no proof. No blood test, no nothing. Why would they lie? Well 99.99% of you don't know or understand this, but emergency rooms around the country are not staffed by hospital doctors. They are staffed by independent contractors and corporations. If an indigent patient shows up (which happens every single day), the ER doc treats them out of their own pocket. However if the indigent patients have "Covid19", it's a covered treatment courtesy of the federal govt. Think about that for a minute. 

Second, the number of those Previously infected and clearly recovered is much higher than expected. @0R0was right. 

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a UVC lamp available for purchase for the right price. 

It might make you blind, or give you lung or skin cancer. 

Leaving it on in a room for a bit makes the air stink like ozone - the smell of clean... and cancer.

 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orange man like tanning bed... duh. 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Second, the number of those Previously infected and clearly recovered is much higher than expected. @0R0was right. 

Ignoring the first part, which is a bit too conspiracy-like for me and ignores the fact that there is a whole world outside the US, let's look at the second statement.

The linked news report is about a new NY antibody study. Let's for the moment completely accept it as fact as reported: "positive antibody tests found in New York City at 21.2%." Thus if the predictions hold true that without vaccination and without isolation measures, infection will go up to 60-80% of the population, you look at a worst case scenario of around 30k to 40k death in NYC, equivalent to 0.4-0.6% of the total population. (That's 1.3 -2.0 million for the total US.)

If you take into account sampling bias (from the linked report: "The testing results also may be artificially high because these are people who were out and about shopping"), you are easy in the reach of the 1% mortality rate which is the number everybody is talking about currently.

It will be interesting to see what some of the experts think of the study. As I said, these antibody tests have high false positive rate, there is a strong sampling bias and whether 3000 tests is "a significant data set" might be argued. But as I said: even believing all of these numbers to be unshakeable truth... they do not even provide an argument for "no need to be afraid".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.