The thing is, Fauci is IMO just like all those others so-called ‘adults’ in the administration. If you’re standing behind the President while he is lying to the public, you’re lending your credibility to his lies, no matter how you roll your eyes or facepalm. If you admit that you can’t stop him from lying, that you can’t make him see reason, you admit that the only thing you are accomplishing is to lend credibility to his lies and his decisions. The thing to do when the President lies while you’re standing behind him is to say, out loud, no, sorry, that is not true, and then answer the shouted questions of the press with the truth. Otherwise, Fauci is just being like Kelly or Mattis or all the other Albert Speers to this administration.
The 20200322 WHO situation report shows 0 new cases and 0 new deaths in the US. So uh, I guess our reporting agencies took the day off…
Teiman
6558
Well Fauci can mitigate the worse decisions.
Like if it Trump decide to stop the quarantine after 15 days.
Sure, that’s fair enough; but I don’t think it makes much sense to believe that the consensus medical view didn’t consider questions like what if an infected person touched the food. Surely we ought to believe that they did consider that question, and they still hold the consensus view that you aren’t going to catch coronavirus from eating food.
Yes, that was Speer’s defense, and why I named him. It was also Mattis’ defense, and Kelly’s defense, but is there any actual evidence that they moderated anything of consequence?
Fauci’s job is, in part, to tell the truth to the public, and standing behind the President while he lies to the public is a failure to do his job, no matter how much he mugs while he does it. He should do his job or fuck off IMO.
If we can deplore the behavior of e.g. Republicans in the Senate who remained silent in the face of public lies by the President, and simply sold their shares for gain instead, why can’t we deplore the behavior of a professional like Fauci who makes childish faces and says nothing while letting the President lie at length?
If I was to be uber-charitable to the news below, my reading of this would be:
Given a serological test (where we can see you have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2) is positive, a person has both been infected and been able to fight off the virus. This should confer immunity to reinfection for a moderate length of time (6-12 months, maybe longer) during which that person could re-enter the workforce safely and not be a danger to others.
Problem is we don’t (yet) have this test available, though a few have been published, so it may be just a problem of ramping up a different kind of test.
Uncharitable reading: We’re fucked. You can bet your ass if Trump does some dump shit to release the lockdown I’m gonna lock down harder.
That would seem to be a pretty flawed source or at least one behind the curve, since over the weekend any monitoring at all of state-by-state reporting shows plenty of robust reporting of new cases, deaths, etc.
This is pretty up to date (normally to the hour) and the numbers seem to match up with offical counts when they are published:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
This seems beneath you, sir.
KevinC
6566
Yes, that’s a great site an what I’ve been using for the past week or two. It’s faster than the JHU map, both in terms of loading and updating the data.
And you did the right thing. Jeez.
I’d like to know where they get the serious/non serious numbers from. They are very different than the other statistics that we have - the website says 5% serious/critical, but the numbers we have to date are about 20% serious/critical.
If our initial estimates are 4x off that’s a big reduction in number of deaths. If this website’s estimate is off that’s a ton of false security.
This could also be the statistics capturing that a lot of people are currently infected, but many have not yet progressed from mild->severe symptoms, which can take 7-10 days.
KevinC
6569
Could those numbers just be less available? I often hear reports of cases and deaths but not often of how many are currently serious/critical.
If there’s ascertainment bias, they should at a minimum have a “*” next to it with a link to their methodology. I can’t find anything about how they get the numbers they are posting.
KevinC
6571
I’m not sure the methodology but I’ve been comparing the number of cases and deaths against official statistics and they’ve been accurate thus far. I’ve gone down to the state level and it’s always reflected the correct info for Utah, for example.
They have links with the sources down the page.
Yeah, the death numbers look right, but that’s because that’s an endpoint measurement. I think this is a snapshot of where things are right now, and over the next week or two it’ll go up dramatically as patients progress from mild to severe.
The drill down numbers for the US are…interesting. How do you interpret that >70% of cases with an outcome are dead?
Mr.GRIM
6574
How very admirable of you.
/s
I think a lot of countries don’t update those numbers as readily, so they keep them at the last update. Germany’s serious/critical numbers at some time have been 1/4th of reported deaths for the same day.
For example: Spain does give every day the number of people at ICU, and that’s what you see there. this means for Spain that number is more like just critical than serious/critical.
But cases and deaths have so far been spot on and really fast to update
