4 ms·

I was responding to this statement: > No one handled this as badly as we did, objectively. Now if you want to change the goalposts and talk about "close to wo

I was responding to this statement: > No one handled this as badly as we did, objectively. Now if you want to change the goalposts and talk about "close to worst", fine, but let's agree you are changing the goalposts. And of course everyone ignores the fact that we have no idea what the real numbers were in China. > Give us a month at the current death rate and we'll have passed everyone but Belgium. What does this even mean? It can only mean that you are trying to count total deaths, I think, which is a meaningless statistic unless you scale it to the population size. Within the US, the numbers are terribly skewed due to deaths in nursing homes and assisted living facilities in and around NYC. If you consider our national numbers when those outliers are removed things look vastly different. But if you do that you would have to start being a bit critical of some decisions made by people with (D) after their name on TV and of course we all know that is to be avoided at all costs. Much easier to pretend that President Trump failed in some way.

newacct583 6y ago
> if you want to change the goalposts and talk about "close to worst", fine I didn't say deaths though, I said "handled", so if there's any goalpost motion it seems to be on your part. Some cities just had bad initial outbreaks. Madrid didn't make better policy decisions than Berlin in February/March, they were just unlucky. But in April/May, we knew how this virus worked, mostly. And, mostly, nations around the industrialized world made policy decisions designed to contain it. And it worked. With one very notable exception. I'll say it again, and stand by it: No one handled this as badly as we did, objectively. > It can only mean that you are trying to count total deaths, I think, which is a meaningless statistic unless you scale it to the population size. Clearly I was talking per capita and extrapolating the current curve out. Here, check for yourself: https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=United%20States&show=25&y=both&scale=linear&data=deaths&data-source=jhu&xaxis=left#countries-normalized https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countr... See how the total deaths per capita are quite flat now across all industrialized nations? See also how the USA is... not?

newacct583 6y ago

> if you want to change the goalposts and talk about "close to worst", fine I didn't say deaths though, I said "handled", so if there's any goalpost motion it seems to be on your part. Some cities just had bad initial outbreaks. Madrid didn't make better policy decisions than Berlin in February/March, they were just unlucky. But in April/May, we knew how this virus worked, mostly. And, mostly, nations around the industrialized world made policy decisions designed to contain it. And it worked. With one very notable exception. I'll say it again, and stand by it: No one handled this as badly as we did, objectively. > It can only mean that you are trying to count total deaths, I think, which is a meaningless statistic unless you scale it to the population size. Clearly I was talking per capita and extrapolating the current curve out. Here, check for yourself: https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=United%20States&show=25&y=both&scale=linear&data=deaths&data-source=jhu&xaxis=left#countries-normalized https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countr... See how the total deaths per capita are quite flat now across all industrialized nations? See also how the USA is... not?