The great 2020 election thread....

[clearspira]

10% is small number when considering how large is population of entire USA.

Another way of saying 10% is 1 in 10.

1 out of every 10 people you have met since the outbreak began may have said ''fuck it'' to a coronavirus screening because they could not afford it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I personally like .1

honorable mention(s): 1:10

[Darth Wedgius]

When did he say SARS-CoV-2 was a hoax? He underestimated how bad it was going to get, absolutely. So did several other politicians and news sources. In the end, the U.S. is doing pretty much in-line with other western nations in how the per capita cases.

Um... Nope. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Compared to the UK, which has about 1/4th of the population, the US has about 7 times as many cases.

More per capita than the UK, but less than Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, or Ireland. I'd still say that's in line with other western nations.

Um... No. You did not account for the starting point of the infections. The US is decently behind on schedule, compared to pretty much every single country you mentioned. Those have a higher infection per capita-rate, because they are comparatively days and sometimes weeks ahead of the US' development. The US has pretty much the highest relative and absolute growth rate of new infections in the well developed western world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW30jmpvAQo

Hi-jacking a graph from the video:



Let that sink in for a moment.

Wouldn't delaying the starting point be considered part of the overall status? Though by the rate of increase in absolute numbers, the US is certainly ahead (the bad kind of ahead) in the process.

[Riedquat]

Wouldn't delaying the starting point be considered part of the overall status? Though by the rate of increase in absolute numbers, the US is certainly ahead (the bad kind of ahead) in the process.

There'll be a lot of random variation in when the first case arrives, and also probably quite a bit of random variation in the length of time it takes to get established.

[Darth Wedgius]

Wouldn't delaying the starting point be considered part of the overall status? Though by the rate of increase in absolute numbers, the US is certainly ahead (the bad kind of ahead) in the process.

There'll be a lot of random variation in when the first case arrives, and also probably quite a bit of random variation in the length of time it takes to get established.

And a lot of random stuff after that, too. If you're going to disregard some things as random, you could just disregard a lot as random. Which may or may not be fair, but we ought to be consistent.

Two factors I think could be germane:
(*) Trump did cut off travel to China pretty early. That may have helped. or not.
(*) A lot of the CDC test kits were faulty, and it might be that caused some early cases to be missed. Or not.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Indeed, if we had universal health care the situation here would be no worse than the UK's.

The NHS's central problem is that it is old - 1946 to be exact. It was designed for a fraction of the population that it caters for today and it was designed for a population that died a good thirty years younger. What once worked spectacularly well now huffs and puffs as it tries to keep up.

A health system designed for TODAY - which is what a USNHS would be - would not face many of the same institutional challenges.

I'm not throwing shade at the NHS. I'm just pointing out that universal health care would not necessarily have prevented this.

No but the disease might spread a little bit slower if Covid 19 tests were not restricted to the Pro Basketball, A-List Celebrity, and Horrible Goblin Senator class.

Covid 19 tests are not restricted to the pro basketball A-list celebrity, and horrible goblin senator class, are they?

In practice, yes they are, you willfully dense being capable of enlightenment. Hard-hit cities are begging people not to get tested. People who have all the symptoms struggle to get tested, but some congressmen or prominent actor can just get tested with a snap of their fingers after showing 0 symptoms. Unless you recently were on vacation somewhere with cases or have a family member who tested positive, it's as easy to get a test as a mink coat or gold-plated toilet.

Right now, the best and most effective way for a working Joe to find out if they have Corona Virus is to cough in a rich person's face and look up that bastard's test results in the news, you frustrating fellow sapient being who consistently falls short of the moral and intellectual standards I know you are capable of.

There are literally drive-through testing centers. What planet are you on? Can you still receive radio signals from earth?

THere are? Where?

Imma be frank with you, I honestly thought that drive-through testing centers was limited to civilized nations, like South Korea.

Circumstances like this point out where research can come in handy.

Look, I haven't written a five-paragraph essay about this pandemic, but I'm doing a pretty good job of following news on current events from multiple sources and everything I've seen has been talking as if drive-through testing is a thing that happens in South Korea and not the U S of A, so you can either drop a source to back up the assertion and provide useful information to those who might need it or drop the smugness.

[Darth Wedgius]

Indeed, if we had universal health care the situation here would be no worse than the UK's.

The NHS's central problem is that it is old - 1946 to be exact. It was designed for a fraction of the population that it caters for today and it was designed for a population that died a good thirty years younger. What once worked spectacularly well now huffs and puffs as it tries to keep up.

A health system designed for TODAY - which is what a USNHS would be - would not face many of the same institutional challenges.

I'm not throwing shade at the NHS. I'm just pointing out that universal health care would not necessarily have prevented this.

No but the disease might spread a little bit slower if Covid 19 tests were not restricted to the Pro Basketball, A-List Celebrity, and Horrible Goblin Senator class.

Covid 19 tests are not restricted to the pro basketball A-list celebrity, and horrible goblin senator class, are they?

In practice, yes they are, you willfully dense being capable of enlightenment. Hard-hit cities are begging people not to get tested. People who have all the symptoms struggle to get tested, but some congressmen or prominent actor can just get tested with a snap of their fingers after showing 0 symptoms. Unless you recently were on vacation somewhere with cases or have a family member who tested positive, it's as easy to get a test as a mink coat or gold-plated toilet.

Right now, the best and most effective way for a working Joe to find out if they have Corona Virus is to cough in a rich person's face and look up that bastard's test results in the news, you frustrating fellow sapient being who consistently falls short of the moral and intellectual standards I know you are capable of.

There are literally drive-through testing centers. What planet are you on? Can you still receive radio signals from earth?

THere are? Where?

Imma be frank with you, I honestly thought that drive-through testing centers was limited to civilized nations, like South Korea.

Circumstances like this point out where research can come in handy.

Look, I haven't written a five-paragraph essay about this pandemic, but I'm doing a pretty good job of following news on current events from multiple sources and everything I've seen has been talking as if drive-through testing is a thing that happens in South Korea and not the U S of A, so you can either drop a source to back up the assertion and provide useful information to those who might need it or drop the smugness.

That's weird. I googles "us drive through testing" and found results pretty quickly. Did you try that?

Here's one:

https://www.businessinsider.com/drive-through-coronavirus-tests-states-2020-3

However, it's probably better for people to look this data up for themselves as the situation may change day by day.

[Riedquat]

Wouldn't delaying the starting point be considered part of the overall status? Though by the rate of increase in absolute numbers, the US is certainly ahead (the bad kind of ahead) in the process.

There'll be a lot of random variation in when the first case arrives, and also probably quite a bit of random variation in the length of time it takes to get established.

And a lot of random stuff after that, too. If you're going to disregard some things as random, you could just disregard a lot as random. Which may or may not be fair, but we ought to be consistent.

I'll disregard things as random that merit it from having a basic knowledge of statistics. So individual day's results - don't read too much in to them. How long it takes to get established - varies hugely even with otherwise similar circumstances. "Consistency" is all too often used to pretend things are equal when they aren't.

[Darth Wedgius]

Wouldn't delaying the starting point be considered part of the overall status? Though by the rate of increase in absolute numbers, the US is certainly ahead (the bad kind of ahead) in the process.

There'll be a lot of random variation in when the first case arrives, and also probably quite a bit of random variation in the length of time it takes to get established.

And a lot of random stuff after that, too. If you're going to disregard some things as random, you could just disregard a lot as random. Which may or may not be fair, but we ought to be consistent.

I'll disregard things as random that merit it from having a basic knowledge of statistics. So individual day's results - don't read too much in to them. How long it takes to get established - varies hugely even with otherwise similar circumstances. "Consistency" is all too often used to pretend things are equal when they aren't.

Yes, but my point was that spreading involves a lot of random factors as well, does it not?

[Riedquat]

Yes, but my point was that spreading involves a lot of random factors as well, does it not?

It does but once it's established the overall pattern (at least before anything is done about it) is fairly predictable.

Take radioactive decay for example. It's an entirely random process but with so many atoms involved the half life is very predictable, to the point where it can be used as the basis of incredibly accurate clocks. But if you've only got four atoms you won't be able to predict at all accurately when you'll just have two left undecayed.