It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight...

“Overall, although the number of detected cases is higher in blue states, the number is increasing at a more rapid rate in red states. Moreover, blue states have conducted more tests per capita than red states, so — given that the large majority of coronavirus cases remain undetected — the lower rate of cases in red states may partially be an artifact of less testing.

Nine of the 10 states that have seen the most rapid increase in coronavirus from Monday to Thursday are states that voted for Trump in 2016, led by Texas, where the number of reported cases increased by 297 percent.“

State lines are pretty meaningless in tracking this. Plenty of red states with blue urban areas and plenty of blue states with red suburban and rural areas.

Places with no public transportation, and the largely urban population that rely on it, have less of a problem with social distancing. However we do generally have to drive further to get to things like the grocery store. There is no doubt that people fleeing the cities for their second homes in rural areas are probably going to carry the infection with them, just like the people fleeing Wuhan did.

A social distancing metric has already been generated and is being tracked here:

https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard

The map pretty much speaks for itself.

There does appear to be a real divide between blue and red states.

https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard

Oh yea. This was the one that used cell phone tracking data.

They were tracking something but it wasn’t social distancing. Since cell phone tracking data isn’t accurate enough to tell you if the phones are six feet apart.

Yeah, that travel score board is interesting at first. But then you drill down and look at the county level scoring and a familiar pattern emerges. It's a population heat map. Yes there is a red state/blue state divide it shows. Just how rural or urban the state is.

https://xkcd.com/1138/

As for corona becoming political, nah. It was political from day one.

Isab and Ben,

I realize the available data doesn't conform to the picture you would *like* to be true... but reality does not care about your feelings.

Ben,

I'd also like to point out that if your hypothesis that the data only represents a "population heat map" how exactly you can account for Alaska doing so well and Hawaii doing so poorly?

Alaska has roughly half the population of Hawaii in a land area ~600 times larger.

Let's face it, you took one look at the data... didn't like the results... and generated some excuse to dismiss it in less than 15 minutes without so much as thinking critically about it at all.

“I'd also like to point out that if your hypothesis that the data only represents a "population heat map" how exactly you can account for Alaska doing so well and Hawaii doing so poorly?”

Seriously? You are asking why people in Hawaii are traveling more than people in Alaska in March?

Here’s your sign: average temperature in Fairbanks in March: 11 degrees Fahrenheit.

Isab Says:

"Seriously? You are asking why people in Hawaii are traveling more than people in Alaska in March?"

Don't be daft Isab… the metric is measuring a reduction in relative travel.

It isn't comparing absolute quantities of travel.

Clearly you do not understand what is being measured here.

Don't be daft Isab… the metric is measuring a reduction in relative travel.

How are they determining that? You don’t know do you?

Also we now know you have never been to Alaska. Major industry: Military bases, which are virtually shut down right now. Everyone who lives on them is staying there, and everyone who traveled on to them for their jobs, is staying home. Alaska has such a low population, this would make them look very good.

Isab Says:

"How are they determining that? You don’t know do you?"

Good grief Isab… actually study the information for a while. You are just tilting at windmills here because you haven't done your homework.

Let me walk you though this to help you:

1 - Open the webpage
2 - Click on Alaska to generate the state specific data plots
3 - Scroll down slightly to see the plot of relative distance traveled as compared to the February baseline

If you do all of this you will note a relative decrease in travel starting on ~March 17th.

As of today the relative travel is about 40% lower than it was in February.

That isn't because of how cold it is in Alaska in March... it isn't exactly warm in Alaska in February.

The point here is that Ben's hypothesis that this metric represents a population heat map is false.

This metric captures relative travel over time in different regions of the united states.

That is so happens that blue states are generally seeing an overall decrease in travel while in general red states are not *is* the point here.

I am sorry this does not conform with what you want to be true... but that is the data and reality doesn't care about your wants or desires.

First of all, a respect for social distancing is not the same as having an overall less-worried opinion about the overall risk and effects of the pandemic. From what I've seen in the news, facebook, and my two email neighborhood NextDoor groups, the big flouters of social distancing do not seem to belong in a "right wing" or Republican grouping. Maybe a mixed bag but definitely not identifiable as on the Right. Lots of correlation to youth, with younger people doing the Spring break thing, getting together in groups to exercise. Our son was going to the gym in NYC before they closed them!! People in distressed neighborhoods continuing to gather. Neighbors in Rehoboth Beach (NOT a conservative-rich area) complaining about continuing group barbeques and house parties. The idiot who accidentally killed her husband with the fish tank cleaner has a social media and political history that make it clear she is a Dem and anti-Trump.
I do think that those on the right are more optimistic and may be less inclined to take it seriously for themselves. That doesn't mean that they are more inclined to ignore the rules. That's probably a mixed bag too.
A lot of flyover states are less impacted by the virus at this point so that may explain some of the less-concerned attitudes being measured.
What I have definitely noticed from my two NextDoor groups is that the people most likely to want illogical harsh clampdowns on merely being able to responsibly go outdoors for walks or exercise are to the Left. I know this because they can't make one post without throwing in lots of Trump hatred and sometimes even imply that the people who are most likely not to be following the rules are on the right.

Isab,

I just thought I would also point out that the military populations of both Alaska and Hawaii are comparable.

That is part of what makes these states such interesting counter examples to Ben's objection.

As you correctly note, the population density of Alaska is very low... much lower than that of Hawaii. If you scroll up in this threat you will easily see that was my point to Ben.

So we originally have Ben asserting that the metric on that webpage is just a heat map of population density. What he means by that is dense population zones are going to do better than sparsely populated areas.

Then I used Alaska and Hawaii as counter examples to directly refute his hypothesis.

And your response was to essentially say well of course Alaska does well... it has low population density.

You and Ben are literally making opposite arguments here.

Ben asserted dense population regions would do well and you are asserting Alaska does well because of its low population density.

Needless to say, you two should argue amongst yourselves to figure out how you can stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes from data that you do not like.

“I do think that those on the right are more optimistic...”

It’s one thing if that optimism only risks harming yourself, as in the case of a family remaining in their house even though a tornado is ferociously ripping its way toward their town. If the tornado blasts their house and kills them, it’s not going to generate 2.4 more tornadoes which will then go on to wreak destruction and death on other families.

It’s quite another thing if that optimism — or, as others might call it, denial — risks harming others. A virus is not a tornado.

If this virus is as easily transmitted as we think it is, then we're all going to get it eventually. The point of distancing, then, is not to prevent catching it, but just to delay doing so in the hope that by the time we each get sick (if we do), the hospitals will be uncrowded enough to handle us.

Naturally, this means that after some point, most people will be back to life as we knew it -- either because they've already been infected, or they just aren't worried anymore. The ones who will try to stay uninfected the longest are the old and at-risk groups.

So instead of trying to nanny everyone into social distancing that some don't want to do, we should be teaching the young to leave space around the old. And to wear masks once enough are available. In other words, individuals should get to choose the risks they will take. Not those they impose.

I also deeply resent the way the President, the CDC, and others were unprepared for this pandemic.

So. You have suggestions? be specific.

One of mine is that we claw back a significant portion of our pharmaceutical supply chain to in-country facilities. That's a national security issue, and must be treated as such.

Hero of the right, Rush Limbaugh: “Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus … I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks."

Thanks to Rush, and other brave “truth-tellers” on the right like him, “dead right” is going to take on a literal meaning.

Throughout the conservative media, calls to reopen the economy--even if it means sacrificing the sick and elderly--are gaining traction.

Expressing concern about the effect quarantining and social distancing will have on the economy is not "sacrificing the sick and elderly." Nor is expressing hope the economy can be opened soon.

Ordinary Americans who are not marked "essential" have lost their jobs and livelihoods - their means of paying for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc. They'd like to know when they can go back to work.

Under quarantine rules, hair and nail salons are closed, realtors cannot show properties, and other small businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Non-grocery retail employees are furloughed.

All these unemployed people put a strain on government relief efforts. The long-term effects of prolonged mass unemployment will be staggering.

As for Jerry Falwell, Jr., he's a bigger idiot than his father was. His argument for opening Liberty U. was that there were students who had nowhere to go and the university stayed open to offer them a place to stay. That would make sense, but he went beyond that and re-opened the entire university to all students, many of whom are now sick.

--------------------------------------------------

They were tracking something but it wasn’t social distancing. Since cell phone tracking data isn’t accurate enough to tell you if the phones are six feet apart. ~ Isab at March 31, 2020 5:57 AM

This article contains some information about how Unacast created the map and what the map actually tells us: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/26/21192653/coronavirus-privacy-social-distancing-data-collection-unacast

The Unacast map is a good start, but should not be taken as gospel. "According to the Washington Post, Unacast’s scores haven’t been vetted by public health officials or epidemiologists, so it’s hard to say how reliable they are or what they’ll be able to tell us."

There is a link in the article to the CEO's explanation of how his company created the map. It's worth reading too.

The map uses average distance traveled as a baseline. "Our team quickly realized that there was a second underlying challenge: as the country's behavior changed, so did the underlying data. The models, which we had built and optimized towards a non-COVID-19 world, now need revisiting. For example, our previous model for detecting place of residents [sic] was geared towards high confidence that an assigned home is actually a device's home. However, with many people moving to be in another area (e.g. parents' houses, getaway cabins, etc.), the original home assignment model might no longer work well."

The CEO acknowledges the complexity involved, "Travel distance is one aspect, but of course people can travel far without meeting a soul or travel 50 feet and end up in a crowd — so we know that the real world picture can be quite complex."

The map's utility is limited by its data sources. As Isab points out and the CEO acknowledges, it can only measure travel, not social distance.

”In other words, individuals should get to choose the risks they will take.”

I agree with you when it comes to risks that only affect the individual, like skydiving, riding a bike without a helmet, and smoking cigarettes/cigars. If Rush Limbaugh wants to smoke cigars and risk getting lung cancer — what? he has lung cancer? (to borrow from Supreme Leader DJT on Mitt Romney, “Gee, that’s too bad”) — his choice only affects him.

Not so with viruses.

In the NYT...

“But there was another set of numbers that also helped persuade Mr. Trump to shift gears on Sunday and abandon his goal of restoring normal life by Easter. Political advisers described for him polling that showed that voters overwhelmingly preferred to keep containment measures in place over sending people back to work prematurely.“

In other words, individuals should get to choose the risks they will take.”

I agree with you when it comes to risks that only affect the individual, like skydiving, riding a bike without a helmet, and smoking cigarettes/cigars. If Rush Limbaugh wants to smoke cigars and risk getting lung cancer — what? he has lung cancer? (to borrow from Supreme Leader DJT on Mitt Romney, “Gee, that’s too bad”) — his choice only affects him.

Not so with viruses.

JD at March 31, 2020 8:49 AM

This has never been true, since hospitalization costs and medical insurance costs fall on all of us.

There are no risks that only affect the individual, but there are reasonable risks and unreasonable risks. Deaths also occur because of people losing their jobs and their livelihoods.

The question is, how much does government have a right to do, and for how long?

We all calculate that differently.

In this case, it is mostly governors making the decisions, and they are doing so on very little information. Not sure I would not do the same if I were in their position.

But there are trade offs and unintended consequences. Not a talking about them, doesn’t make them cease to exist.

However, we have zero chance of actually eradicating or even containing this virus. We are going to have to learn to live with it, and try and control the rate of infection.

Conan Says:

"The Unacast map is a good start, but should not be taken as gospel."

No one here has asserted that it should be taken as gospel.

It is the only data we presently have that can shed light on this issue and the data thus far does suggest a difference in social distancing behavior between red and blue states.

"The CEO acknowledges the complexity involved, "Travel distance is one aspect, but of course people can travel far without meeting a soul or travel 50 feet and end up in a crowd — so we know that the real world picture can be quite complex.""

Of course it is complex... but your attempt to down play the information is very telling.

"Not gospel"

"Complex"

"utility is limited"

None of this refutes my original contention that:

"There does appear to be a real divide between blue and red states."

Isab is arguing against the "appearance" of a divide based on the data. Her refutations include the temperature in Alaska in March as if that has anything to do with the relative travel... and the fact that Alaska has a substantial military population as if that acts as some great differentiator between Alaska and Hawaii which *also* has a large military population.

What you are engaging in isn't real or legitimate criticism.

I am happy to highlight the fact that the data we are looking at here is not gospel so long as people can acknowledge that this is the only data we have here and it paints a picture that is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a difference in behavior based on political affiliation.

Is that a guarantee that this hypothesis is correct... no... but that is how we start to understand issues. We look at the data we have and draw tentative conclusions from it.

Denying what those tentative conclusions are isn't helpful or honest.

Not so with viruses. ~ JD at March 31, 2020 8:49 AM

I'd agree with JD on that one. You don't get to knowingly play games with other peoples' lives. That's why I find the anti-vaccination arguments ugly.

If you want to understand what those recurring diseases that we now vaccinate against did to society, this book is a pretty good start. Early on in the book, the author talks about the effect Polio had on society and why the search for a vaccine was a national quest.

COVID-19 may turn into another Polio - recurring and deadly to vulnerable demographics, requiring a dramatic adjustment in social and economic conduct during outbreaks, and capturing national attention in an effort to find a vaccine or cure.

1) There is a race to see who can be most righteous about staying home. You're a killer if you leave your house, even if you just stay by yourself.

2) I see people still take Rush literally when it suits them. Gotta maintain that outrage.

3) The probability that a virus will evolve that mutates rapidly enough to cause extinction is not zero. The behavior of a virus is INDEPENDENT of the identity of any person talking about it.

4) Fear! Buy fear. Buy more of it! HOARD fear - but there is a point at which you are going to HAVE to leave your house, HAVE to interact with others, HAVE to face facts,even the ones your favorite celebrity has not shared with you.

"This has never been true, since hospitalization costs and medical insurance costs fall on all of us. There are no risks that only affect the individual..."

Directly affect is what I should have said.

We all may end up helping to pick up the tab for Rush's choice to smoke cigars and get lung cancer, but his choice does not directly give anyone else lung cancer.

This is quite different from a virus, which is directly transmitted to others.

Radwaste,

You aren't a killer if you leave your home.

Just try and limit your trips as much as you can.

What people expect is mindfulness of the situation and an understanding that your actions have impacts on other people.

If you need food feel free to go to the supermarket.

Just refrain from buying supplies for a barbecue that you plan on inviting all of your friends and family to.

"That's why I find the anti-vaccination arguments ugly."

And I agree with you on that, Conan.

I see people still take Rush literally when it suits them...

One does not need to believe that this new coronavirus is exactly the same thing as a cold in order to understand, that by comparing it to a cold, Limbaugh was downplaying how serious it is.

If it was only his loyal listeners who got infected after believing him, I wouldn't care all that much. But, as we've discussed above, when it comes to a virus -- to borrow from John Donne -- no man is an island.

If it was only his loyal listeners who got infected after believing him, I wouldn't care all that much. But, as we've discussed above, when it comes to a virus -- to borrow from John Donne -- no man is an island.

JD at March 31, 2020 10:13 AM

Yea. I bet all those college students on spring break are loyal Rush Limbaugh listeners.

There is a race to see who can be most righteous about staying home. You're a killer if you leave your house, even if you just stay by yourself.

I think "stay-at-orders" in some other countries mean that you are not allowed to go outside unless you can prove it's absolutely necessary. One of my nieces went to Madrid last September to teach English until June. I spoke with my younger sister yesterday she said that my niece and her two roommates are not allowed to go outside their apt building.

Are there any orders anywhere in the U.S. that prevent people from going outside their house or apt/condo building? Perhaps there are, but I'm not aware of any.

As for other people thinking that "you're a killer if you leave your house", I think that's a straw man. Yes, there may be a very small minority of people who hold that kind of harsh view, but I think the vast majority are reasonable people who understand you can go outside as long as you maintain a safe distance from others.

The behavior of a virus is INDEPENDENT of the identity of any person talking about it.

If the person's identity is an evangelical Christian, God will not let a virus harm them!

As evangelical pastor Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne said, "God will protect our people. And if you die to be with Jesus, so what’s the problem?”

I bet all those college students on spring break are loyal Rush Limbaugh listeners.

You don't need to be a loyal Limbaugh listener in order to have little-to-no concern for the well-being of others.

After 20 minutes, [Robert] Jeffress, pastor of the evangelical First Baptist Church in Dallas, reassured his viewers, “The coronavirus is not one of the plagues in [the book of] Revelation.” Still, he cautioned, “All natural disasters can ultimately be traced to sin.”

With all those tornadoes ripping through the Bible Belt every year, there must be an awful lot of sinning going on there.

He explained that the reason the coronavirus wasn’t a specific instance of God’s wrath was because the Antichrist hasn’t appeared yet. In the Evangelical Christian narrative, the appearance of the Antichrist, the figure who will appear to attempt to replace Christ with an evil presence, must arrive before the throng of natural disasters that herald the end times.

The figure who will appear to attempt to replace Christ with an evil presence hasn't appeared yet? Actually, it's quite plausible that he was born in Queens in 1946.

...but your attempt to down play the information is very telling.

Nobody's attempting to downplay anything, Artie. You didn't read the articles, did you? You just made an assumption about my point of view based on a snippet and ran with it, like you always do. Read the articles. Read a book. Get outside your little bubble for once.

The Unacast information is very good - and arguably the only way we have right now to measure social-distancing. It's a decent proxy for a social distancing measurement, but Isab is correct, it does not measure social distancing, a claim you made for it at 5:43 AM with, "A social distancing metric has already been generated...." and your repeated defenses of the claim that the data proving your conclusion; all part of your continuing attempt to politicize COVID-19 responses.

Artie, I've worked with and presented GIS and GIS data before. I've seen people ascribe 100% accuracy to what is, at best, a proxy measurement. I've had to dial back people's conclusions about GIS data to prevent them from making generalized claims that cannot be backed up - like you did at 5:43 AM. The data told a story that you liked, so you didn't bother to include any caveats in your presentation of it, when caveats should have been included. That was dishonest, like so many of your arguments.

And Artie, we're still waiting on those names. Or was that a lie, too?

Conan Says:

"Nobody's attempting to downplay anything, Artie. You didn't read the articles, did you? You just made an assumption about my point of view based on a snippet and ran with it, like you always do. Read the articles. Read a book. Get outside your little bubble for once."

I'm the one who originally posted the data here. I am very familiar with how the data was generated and what hypothesis it is consistent with and which ones it is not.

You opted to use very specific language not contained in the article you linked to.

No one in this conversation even suggested that we should take the data as "gospel"... or that the data analysis was simple thus requiring an emphasis on how "complex" this is to look at... furthermore, the article you link to doesn't talk about anything being "limited".

These are all word choices you made that act to downplay or provide excuses to dismiss what is a valid data set that supports the hypothesis that there is a difference in behavior between red and blue states.

I would be happy to hold a nuanced conversation about this with you.

That being said you need to be able to have a dispassionate conversation about the data that eliminates all of this spin that you seem to enjoy injecting into conversations of this type.

"The Unacast information is very good - and arguably the only way we have right now to measure social-distancing. It's a decent proxy for a social distancing measurement, but Isab is correct, it does not measure social distancing, a claim you made for it at 5:43 AM with, "A social distancing metric has already been generated...." and your repeated defenses of the claim that the data proving your conclusion; all part of your continuing attempt to politicize COVID-19 responses."

I didn't make that claim Conan... I was simply reiterating what the website was called:

It is called the Social Distancing Scoreboard. If you have a semantic dispute with that name you can take it up with Unacast.

Furthermore, social distancing isn't just about staying 6 feet apart. It is also about staying home more and limiting travel.

You are playing games with words here to try and win cheap points.

If you have an issue with the name of the website so be it. Semantic arguments aren't worth serious consideration in this situation.

I've also never stated that the data "proved" any conclusions.

I have only stated that the data is consistent with a particular hypothesis and as a result it remains valid as a tentative conclusion.

Conan Says:

"I've had to dial back people's conclusions about GIS data to prevent them from making generalized claims that cannot be backed up - like you did at 5:43 AM."

Good grief Conan... let's try to read this time for comprehension. Here is what I said at 5:34 AM in terms of claims:

"There does appear to be a real divide between blue and red states."

Did you happen to note the word "appear" in there?

That is a very important word because it denotes that we are talking about appearances here.

Further study/analysis would be required to turn that statement into "There is a real divide between red and blue states".

Nothing about what I said needed to be dialed back or required caveats because we are talking about what the data suggests... what the data appears to show.

This is how professional scientists talk.

You live in a world of proof and definitive statements. I live in a world of tentative conclusions and where data suggests certain conclusions subject to revision as new data comes in.

Please stop assuming I take hard line stances on things when I have clearly softened the language on purpose.

Chinese… Under-socialized… Mom & Dad's place…

These are all just stereotypes, right? And yet....

Most of the people I've observed breaking the "stay home" orders are college-aged or 20-something. Forgive me for assuming they lean left.
Of course, I live close to Austin and San Antonio. So, yeah, it's a red-ish state, but we're talking about the I35 "blue spine" area.
Out here in the Hill Country, where we are under less-stringent orders, I see lots of old people out and about. I had to pick up some things from the feed store a few days ago and saw a 70-plus year old couple, both ON OXYGEN, casually shopping. The grocery store is also full of bluehairs. I'm far more afraid of spreading the virus than suffering serious consequences from catching it. I've mostly stayed home for the last two weeks. My kids haven't been out in public or seen their friends in over two weeks. It's disheartening to see that the people most at risk from this are still out boppin' around, since most of these precautions are for their sake.
So, I guess the economy will be ruined, but at least the burden on Medicare and Social Security will be lighter in the long run.

> a 70-plus year old couple, both
> ON OXYGEN, casually shopping.

That's every bit as decadent as the Spring Breakers.

Boomers return to contention for the championship!

@Crid: I suspect they were older than Boomers.
* * *
My kid's 4H group is making masks from home as a service project. Yet another sign that at least some rural folk are taking this seriously.

“Most of the people I've observed breaking the "stay home" orders are college-aged or 20-something. Forgive me for assuming they lean left.”

I’m curious...why that assumption?

@JD: Because they're in Austin, San Marcos (TX), and San Antonio, and I'm familiar with the voting records of these areas and demographic groups for the past several years. (I work in government affairs, and I research historical voting patterns as a matter of personal interest.) If we were talking about Liberty University or Abilene Christian or TCU I would not make that assumption.
***
Gov. Abbott just ordered schools closed until at least May 4. At least liquor stores are still open.
***
Also of interest:
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Cell-phone-data-reveals-which-San-Antonio-area-15168686.php
Travis County=Austin
Bexar County=San Antonio
Hays County= South of Austin
Comal County=North of SA

"“I do think that those on the right are more optimistic...”

It’s one thing if that optimism only risks harming yourself}}}}

Sure. And yet it's completely possible to be both educated, careful, responsible, and also optimistic. I am optimistic that the current shut-down will result in a death rate from 'Rona that is below 100K. I approach problems with a can-do attitude. Complying with the current shut-down is part and parcel of a can-do attitude.

Thanks, ahw.

Your assumption may very well be true, but the following may also be true.

Let's just take Austin, and let's say that 70% of the college-aged or 20-something population there leans left.

It could be that those college-aged or 20-somethings who are breaking the "stay home" orders are actually primarily right-leaning since they are -- or may be -- the ones who are more likely to not take the virus seriously and/or reject government telling them what to do.

It could be that only 25% of the left-leaning 20-somethings are breaking the "stay home" orders while 75% of the right-leaning 20-somethings are breaking those orders.

So if we say that the number of 20-somethings in Austin is 150,000 and the percentages I used are fairly accurate, it would mean that that the number of left-leaning 20-somethings breaking the orders is 26,250 whereas the number of right-leaning 20-somethings breaking the order is actually greater: 33,750.

Regardless of the actual percentages, would you agree or not agree with my premise that right-leaning 20-somethings are -- or may be -- more likely than left-leaning 20-somethings to not take the virus seriously and/or reject government telling them what to do.

The map pretty much speaks for itself. ~ Artemis at March 31, 2020 5:43 AM

No, it doesn't.

If you understood the data, as you claim, you could have helped people to understand it better, but left alone, it said what you wanted it to say, so you presented it as is.

Artie, you don't post to educate people or to express disagreement, you post to berate people, to tear other people down in an effort to elevate yourself.

By the way, we're still waiting on those names, Artie.

--------------------------------------------------

Actually, it's quite plausible that he was born in Queens in 1946. ~ JD at March 31, 2020 10:50 AM

I highly doubt DJT is the Antichrist, even if I believed in such things.

--------------------------------------------------

If it was only his loyal listeners who got infected after believing him, I wouldn't care all that much. ~ JD at March 31, 2020 10:13 AM

Are you really indifferent to the suffering of those who do not agree with you politically?

I highly doubt DJT is the Antichrist,

I agree. I think the Antichrist would be far more articulate.

Are you really indifferent to the suffering of those who do not agree with you politically?

Let's say we have a group of lefties and a group of righties. The lefties are led by Michael Moore and the righties by Rush Limbaugh. And we're in one of those churches where they handle poisonous snakes.

I'm there as an observer.

Moore tells the lefties: "I would strongly advise that you NOT handle the snakes. Their venom is very powerful and if you get bitten, you will become extremely ill and may very well die."

Limbaugh tells his group: "Don't listen to what Moore is saying. He's just a big pussy, typical for a leftie. Real men and women like us aren't afraid of poisonous snakes. Besides, they probably aren't even poisonous. It's likely just the lefties trying to scare you."

So the lefties avoid the snakes while many -- although not all -- of the righties start handling them. And, lo and behold, a couple of the righties get bit so Rush frantically calls 911 for emergency medical assistance.

Now, am I going to cheer or be overjoyed at the suffering of the righties who were bit and are now suffering the effects of the venom? No.

But am I going to feel that they were incredibly stupid to listen to Limbaugh and ignore Moore's warnings to his people? Yes.

But am I going to feel that they were incredibly stupid to listen to Limbaugh and ignore Moore's warnings to his people? Yes. ~ JD at March 31, 2020 2:52 PM

Your assumption is that Moore would issue sound advice. His Web site and movies are full of partisan lies, distortions, and exaggerations.

I'm not saying Limbaugh is a paragon of truth, but neither is Moore. Diogenes would pass both men by.

As I understand it, there are approximately six coronaviruses to which humans are susceptible, four of which cause mild-to-serious cold- or flu-like symptoms and from which humans of all ages recover relatively quickly. COVID-19, the newest, joins SARS in the deadly category, possibly exceeding it.

Your assumption is that Moore would issue sound advice.

My scenario wasn't quite right. I should have said that, in addition to Moore and Limbaugh there were also medical professionals in the room, warning everyone that the snakes were venomous, and that Moore reminded the lefties of what the medical professionals said, while Limbaugh told the righties, "Now, I want to tell you the truth about these snakes … I’m dead right on this. These snakes are just ordinary common snakes, folks."

There. Fixed it.

Conan Says:

"No, it doesn't.
If you understood the data, as you claim, you could have helped people to understand it better, but left alone, it said what you wanted it to say, so you presented it as is."

So me saying the equivalent of a picture says a thousand words is what has you all in a huff?

Look, no one here including yourself every bothers to understand the nuance behind scientific data as presented.

I have gone to great lengths in the past to describe in detail what is going on in charts and plots only to be told that I was too wordy.

Now you are pissed off because I took a minimalist approach?

If you have questions I am happy to answer... but everyone here purports to be an expert. If you have expertise then the data speaks for itself.

Now if you and others want to actually admit you are unable to parse the details of charts, reports, plots, and other data I am happy to explain.

As a matter of fact, when it was abundantly clear as usual that Isab didn't understand what was going on I took the time to explain to her step by step how to read and understand the data. Please look at time stamp 7:17 AM for reference.

The problem with your approach here is you are bound and determined to lock me in a rhetorical box.

You often tell me that my explanations mark me as arrogant... now you are saying when I don't provide detailed explanations I have failed to take into account the inability of folks here to understand what they are looking at.

Pick a lane.

Conan Says:

"Artie, you don't post to educate people or to express disagreement, you post to berate people, to tear other people down in an effort to elevate yourself."

What are you talking about?

I posted the data without so much as mentioning anyone.

The post you keep harping about didn't express disagreement or berate anyone... I just posted a link to some data and explained that the data was consistent with the idea that there is a blue state red state differential.

All of the stuff you are talking about is your own baggage.

I am not responsible for your or anyone else's insecurities.

You're close, Conan. I believe there are seven, with MERS being the other deadly one, along with SARS and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 being the name of the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.)

What I wonder is: just how many more of these coronaviruses -- the deadly ones -- are lurking out there in bats? Hundreds? Thousands?

Also, for quite some time, healthcare officials have feared an extremely deadly "Disease X", and I've read that many don't think this virus is it, that "Disease X" is going to hit us sometime in the future.

JD,

Corona viruses are an extremely large and general classification of viruses that have receptors decorated on the outside of a shell with proteins that look for susceptible receptors on mammalian and avian cells.

The reason they are called corona viruses is because of how they appear within an SEM (scanning electron microscope). Those proteins sticking out of the shell look like a "crown".

As for bats acting as a reservoir species for various viruses, this is a well known issue. Bats are unique amongst mammals due to their flight which some hypothesize changes their immune systems in such a way as to make them more tolerant of harboring infections. In addition they live in enormous colonies that makes transmission relatively easy.

What really needs to happen is we need to close down the wet markets and get tighter control over our food supply. Healthy food means greatly diminished risk of animal to human transfer.

Someone in one of the NYT comment sections linked to this recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and I found it to be very intriguing: Experts know the new coronavirus is not a bioweapon. They disagree on whether it could have leaked from a research lab

As for bats acting as a reservoir species for various viruses, this is a well known issue. Bats are unique amongst mammals due to their flight which some hypothesize changes their immune systems in such a way as to make them more tolerant of harboring infections.

I knew that bats harbored a lot of viruses but never knew why they weren't bothered by them. And I recently just learned what you said, about the speculation regarding flight and how it affects their immune system.

I also learned a few other interesting things about bats:

. They are the second most populous mammals after rodents.

. There are about 1,200 species of bats.

. Those 1,200 species make up about one-quarter of all species of mammals.

Back in 2004, I went to Austin with two friends for the Austin City Limits music festival. I hadn't know about the bats flying out from the South Congress St bridge but someone I met there told me "you've GOT to see that!" So the three of us went. It was a spectacular sight.

You're close, Conan. I believe there are seven, with MERS being the other deadly one, along with SARS and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 being the name of the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.) ~ JD at March 31, 2020 3:41 PM

That makes sense. I was operating off memory and left out MERS as a coronavirus. I knew SARS and COVID-19 were related coronaviruses, having read that earlier.

And yes, there are probably thousands of viruses lurking out there, corona or otherwise. We've gotten complacent, having defeated the viruses that plagued our parents and grandparents.

Modern humans have little to no memory of Polio outbreaks, pandemics, and the other dangers that regularly visited civilization before the advent of modern medicine. We tend to look upon plagues as medieval or Third World, problems, as things that can be easily contained geographically, or as something that can be ended with a quickly whipped up anti-virus.

I watched the CBS news broadcast tonight and they showed a makeshift morgue with bodies in white body bags being forklifted into trucks. Can mass graves be far behind?

If you want to take a deep bio-dive, there's a link in that Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article to this piece in Nature Medicine:
The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2

It mentions the seven known coronaviruses:

SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans; SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 can cause severe disease, whereas HKU1, NL63, OC43 and 229E are associated with mild symptoms

We've gotten complacent,

Well maybe...and maybe not. Maybe we tried to prepare for this but it was undercut.

I don't know exactly what happened but here's what Ron Klain, who was Obama's “Ebola czar”, has to say (and I'm sure you'll disagree with him, or have a different take on it.)

Let’s look at what happened before this all happened, and then what’s happened since. Not to relitigate the past, but in 2018 President Trump abolished the White House office on pandemic preparedness, so there was a whole bunch of people who were supposed to be getting ready for this event, and we got rid of them. That didn’t help. The president has cut the Centers for Disease Control, the people who were supposed to find these diseases around the world. He cut three-quarters of those offices. So we were less prepared to deal with this the day it arrived than we were three years earlier. We un-prepared for the preceding three years.

Actually, I do disagree, but only somewhat.

Trump tried to cut funding for the CDC, but Congress actually increased funding. Same for the NIH.

As for the NSC Office of Global Health Security and Biodefense, FactCheck.org provides the following timeline:

The Washington Post reported that former National Security Adviser John Bolton dissolved the NSC’s Office of Global Health Security and Biodefense in May 2018 in a reorganization effort. That’s when Rear Adm. R. Timothy Ziemer, who was senior director of the office, left his post. He was not replaced.

In addition, 'Tom Bossert, a former White House homeland security adviser who helped develop the administration’s biodefense strategy and was the designated lead for coordinating the American response to a biological crisis, was also reportedly pushed out when Bolton took over. Bossert resigned in April 2018, a day after Bolton started as national security adviser. Three anonymous sources told the Washington Post that Bolton requested his resignation.

Contrary to some recent news reports, Bossert was replaced with a series of people, but the job of coordinating a pandemic response does not appear to have followed. When Trump announced his coronavirus task force on Jan. 29, he did not name current homeland security adviser Julia Nesheiwat in any capacity.

Just because Ziemer’s position was discontinued does not mean everyone who was part of the team was fired or that all of the functions of the directorate ceased. According to reporting by the Atlantic and the Washington Post, some team members were shifted to other groups, and others took over some of Ziemer’s duties. An NSC spokesman at the time said that the administration "remains committed to global health, global health security and biodefense, and will continue to address these issues with the same resolve under the new structure."

But the lack of someone in the White House to coordinate the response to a widespread disease outbreak in the U.S. is something numerous experts and groups at the time had cautioned against.

Trump, as the chief executive, certainly holds the responsibility for his administration's response to a crisis and Trump administration's decapitation of his response team caused it to stumble at the beginning. Restoring the eliminated positions after Bolton's exit would have been a good idea. Trump's revolving door of personnel exits did not leave him a stable administration for advanced planning.

However, it's not certain that the old structure would have performed better under the same circumstances. Remember, this disease broke out of China in the middle of the impeachment hearings, when both Congress and the president were distracted and highly antagonistic toward each other. Cooperation on matters like funding a response, imposing a state of emergency, etc. would have been difficult to come by under such circumstances.

The animosity continues as some Democrats continue to blame Trump for every problem, not all of which are not his fault, and some Republicans downplay the virus even now, when it's obvious to all that it is, in fact, a serious public health issue.

The deaths of idiots who drink fish tank cleaner cannot be blamed on anyone but the idiots themselves. Accusations of blame being thrown around about that help no one.

Conan,

If a potential pandemic was really something Trump considered a possibility don't you think he would have brought it up during the impeachment as a political tool?

The reality is that it wasn't on his radar as anything serious.

The impeachment hearings ended on February 5th.

On January 22nd he is quoted as saying the following:

"We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine."

He continued to bang that drum of it being a complete non issue for weeks and weeks after this as well. For example on February 10th he said the following:

“Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”

Then on February 28th he said this:

“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

The impeachment excuse doesn't hold water here.

The problem was that our chief executive failed to have the vision and administrative ability to recognize a crisis in advance and act on it.

If he had been pushing for action and congressional Democrats beat on him for it... they would be the ones that are responsible.

That isn't what happened though. He completely dropped the ball because he doesn't know how to handle a crisis situation without someone swooping in to bail him out.

"The deaths of idiots who drink fish tank cleaner cannot be blamed on anyone but the idiots themselves. Accusations of blame being thrown around about that help no one."

Let's approach this from a different direction.

In your view, is it responsible for the president of the united states to tweet the following:

"HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."

He has no medical or scientific expertise and was touting a very specific set of chemical compounds for off label medical use.

Are you really okay with the president making recommendations for untested or off label medical use of controlled substances?

The statements that you cite [‘it will disappear’ etc) were each the prevailing outlook when he uttered them. Since no cases were seen in the Southern Hemisphere at first, scientists began to think that the virus did not survive well in heat. Since cases occurred in Australia, we now know that is not true. This is a new virus, the CDC and Trump’s advisors were relaying the information as it came in. In a situation like this, the status changes daily, sometimes hourly. I think it’s petty to say “But he said x on 2/27” and portray him as a liar in such a fast-changing situation.

The task force was created by Obama in response to the Ebola crisis. It started out as 80-100 people (accounts differ), but had ballooned to 400 by the time Trump took office. That’s too big for a group that has to make decisions in real time in tandem with the CDC, and a ridiculous expense. 400 government level salaries!

Here’s a link about what happened to the task force-

https://archive.is/9LJ9O

“ It has been alleged by multiple officials of the Obama administration, including in The Post, that the president and his then-national security adviser, John Bolton, “dissolved the office” at the White House in charge of pandemic preparedness. Because I led the very directorate assigned that mission, the counterproliferation and biodefense office, for a year and then handed it off to another official who still holds the post, I know the charge is specious.

When I joined the National Security Council staff in 2018, I inherited a strong and skilled staff in the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate. This team of national experts together drafted the National Biodefense Strategy of 2018 and an accompanying national security presidential memorandum to implement it; an executive order to modernize influenza vaccines; and coordinated the United States’ response to the Ebola epidemic in Congo, which was ultimately defeated in 2020.“

It’s a rather long article, so I just put up a couple of main points.

“ He has no medical or scientific expertise and was touting a very specific set of chemical compounds for off label medical use.”

He talked about two prescription drugs that might be helpful. You can’t get them unless you see a doctor for them. He heard about them in a briefing, he didn’t pull them out of thin air. Is it wrong to give people hope? This week the government is shipping millions of doses of these drugs are to hospitals across the US. He did not tell people to take chloroquine phosphate they had hanging around to treat their tropical fish for parasites. In fact he did not say to take anything. You reproduced the Tweet, it says that the drugs could be game-changers. It didn’t make me want to drink fish parasite treatment...

“ Novartis and Bayer are contributing millions of doses of the drugs to the federal government, which will distribute them via the Strategic National Stockpile. The extraordinary action came at the request of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The FDA earlier this month approved a plan to distribute hundreds of thousands of doses of the drugs to hospitals in New York, which has emerged as the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/30/coronavirus-drugs-hydroxychloroquin-chloroquine/

Conan: COVID-19, the newest, joins SARS in the deadly category, possibly exceeding it.

I don't know where that came from - I suppose a journalist with a political point of view who paraphrased an expert and reported what he thought would be best for the public to hear. There's sometimes a difference in what a journalist reports the experts have said and what the experts say when they speak for themselves.

From an article by Dr. Anthony Fauci and colleagues published a few days ago in the New England Journal of Medicine:

"On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%.4 In another article in the Journal, Guan et al.5 report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2"

At the White House press briefing Tuesday morning, after reluctantly attempting to answer a loaded question from Jim Acosta, Fauci said, "The only trouble with that is that whenever you come out and say something like that, it always becomes almost a soundbite that gets taken out of context.”

That's pretty much been the character of reporting on COVID-19 since it became a bigger political issue than Russian collusion and impeachment.

Some good news that might not be important enough to get a lot of mainstream media attention in the battle against COVID-19 to defeat Trump in November:

In Washington State, an early epicenter in the COVID-19 epidemic and the location of the first case diagnosed in the US, the number of hospital admissions for COVID-19 declined by 20% this past week compared to the week before. It's the first decline since February.

Since no one has any idea how many people have been infected; and the number of positive tests depends on the number of people tested and the inconsistent and changing criteria for testing; and the three week average time from infection until death is too long to tell us where were at now - following the number of hospital admissions from day to day could be a useful way to estimate where and how fast the virus is spreading. The number of hospital admissions wouldn't tell anything about the total number of people infected, but the number of admissions isn't affected by changes in the number of people tested; and the proportion of people infected who are hospitalized is probably fairly consistent.

Washington public health and hospital officials say there are still enough masks, PPE and hand sanitizer for now, and they still have capacity to admit and treat more COVID-19 patients; but they will remain wary that the numbers could surge, next week or next month, and they will stay prepared. Field hospitals staffed by Army people have been set up and are ready.

Obama's “Ebola czar”: Let’s look at what happened before this all happened... in 2018 President Trump abolished the White House office on pandemic preparedness... so there was a whole bunch of people who were supposed to be getting ready for this event, and we got rid of them.

Not exactly true. Here's some more information about that in the Washington Post by Tim Morrison, former senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense on the National Security Council:

No, the White House didn’t ‘dissolve’ its pandemic response office

https://archive.is/9LJ9O

JD: Obama's “Ebola czar”: The president has cut the Centers for Disease Control, the people who were supposed to find these diseases around the world. He cut three-quarters of those offices.

Not really. CDC's Global Health Security program, which addresses infectious diseases and outbreaks in foreign countries, received one-time funding in 2014 that was set to run out in September, 2019. At Trump's request that funding was continued and increased each year from 2017-2019, and increased again for 2020. Trump has requested even more for 2021. Senators Chuck Schumer and Chris Murphy claimed that because of Trump the CDC's work was cut from 47 countries to 10. But the CDC says its work was increased from 47 countries to 60.

False Claim About CDC’s Global Anti-Pandemic Work

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/false-claim-about-cdcs-global-anti-pandemic-work/

HHS officials have said that they'd like for the CDC to focus on its core mission of preventing and controlling infectious diseases. Trump and HHS officials have suggested cutting funding for CDC activities that are not related to infectious diseases, and using the money to increase activities that are related to infectious diseases and for funding grants to the states.

Here's a link the the recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Fauci et al. that I quoted in one of my posts above:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

Trump quoted by Artemis: "HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."

That was true when he said it and it's true now. There's nothing wrong with saying that. It's a good thing for people to know.

Artemis: He has no medical or scientific expertise and was touting a very specific set of chemical compounds for off label medical use.

Off-label use of FDA approved drugs is very common. Some drugs are prescribed off label more often than they're prescribed for their FDA approved indication. It's a common practice. There's nothing wrong with it.

What there is something wrong with is a governor, a politician who "has no medical or scientific expertise", deciding that doctors will not be allowed to prescribe a medication that they and their patients believe is the best treatment for a potentially deadly disease.

Let's approach this from a different direction. ~ Artemis at March 31, 2020 7:22 PM

Yes, let's. Let's approach it from the direction of a rational person and not an anti-Trump fanatic.

You're so anxious to blame Trump for everything, but this is a new low, even for you. If you consume fish tank cleaner, you are an idiot. Not the president, you.

As for Trump, what, if anything, of his tweet was false? Nothing. The two medications together do, in fact, show great promise. That's what the president tweeted, not "go home and munch on fish tank cleaner."

In their anti-Trump fervor, two Democrat governors, so far, have banned doctors from prescribing the medication for any non-malaria purposes. Those two governors are practicing medicine without a license, not the president.

One of them even went so far as to require doctors to report to the police any colleagues prescribing the medication for off-label purposes. Somewhere, Erich Honecker is smiling.

The story gets better, however. It turns out that the wife, the survivor of the couple in question, was a fervent Never-Trumper who had donated thousands to Democratic causes and candidates. Yet, we're to believe she rushed home to consume fish tank cleaner because a president she loathed touted one of the ingredients as a potential medicine for coronavirus? Something's fishy here.

And, Artie, impeachment cannot be solely blamed for the government's mis-steps in the early days of the coronavirus outbreak, but it undeniably played a part.

Crella Says:

"The statements that you cite [‘it will disappear’ etc) were each the prevailing outlook when he uttered them."

No, it wasn't the prevailing outlook amongst scientists and experts.

It was just Trump trying to spin and downplay something he needed to take action on.

Furthermore, Conan said that Trump was distracted by impeachment which is why he didn't act earlier.

Noe you are saying he didn't act because no one thought there was reason to act.

These are mutually exclusive excuses.

Conan Says:

"You're so anxious to blame Trump for everything, but this is a new low, even for you."

Um... weren't you just saying this a moment ago?

"Artie, you don't post to educate people or to express disagreement, you post to berate people, to tear other people down in an effort to elevate yourself."

This is why you are such a dishonest loathsome piece of human garbage.

You cry and you whine that I am being mean to you... despite the fact that you are always the aggressor.

You are just a thin skinned asshole who can dish it out but cannot take it.

If you want to play nice I am happy to play nice... but you want to constantly take pot shots and then cry uncontrollably if I so much as refuse to stroke your ego.

Get over yourself.

Conan Says:

"As for Trump, what, if anything, of his tweet was false? Nothing. The two medications together do, in fact, show great promise."

Isn't it amazing how your standards for communication for the president of the united states are so much lower than your standards for me... a complete stranger on the internet.

This was what you said earlier with regard to my original post:

"I've had to dial back people's conclusions about GIS data to prevent them from making generalized claims that cannot be backed up - like you did at 5:43 AM."

In other words... when I said the following:

"There does appear to be a real divide between blue and red states."

And linked to the relevant data for everyone to look at you accused me of making a claim that was too generalized and that needed to be "dialed back".

Yet the president tweets that a combinations of medications untested for a particular medical use "have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."

And for you there is nothing false there... nothing that needs to be dialed back... nothing over the top about it at all.

It would sure be nice if you held the president of the united states to the same exacting and ridiculous standards you happen to have for me.

Or maybe... just maybe... you are a dishonest partisan hack.

Yoo Hoo Artemis. Orange Man Bad is going to be re-elected. Most likely in a landslide.

Sincerely, U.S. gun toting red neck deplorables from fly over states.

These are mutually exclusive excuses. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 7:58 AM

No, they're not. Being distracted enough to fail to understand the long-term implications of a situation happening in a foreign country is not the concurrence of two mutually exclusive events.

And, Artie, I said impeachment played a part, but could not be blamed for all of the government's early mis-steps - both parties blew it.

You cry and you whine that I am being mean to you... despite the fact that you are always the aggressor.

Artie, you think I give a crap what you say or think about me? You are quite full of yourself.

Saying that you want to blame Trump and that you post things to berate other people are not mutually-exclusive claims.

Always the aggressor? Um, not true. Artie, I tried to switch gears and "play nice" with you about five years ago, arguing your posts without malice, but you turned around and insulted me at every turn. So yes, now I'm "mean" to you. Waaah!

You're a narcissist, and a malignant one at that. You lie, pout, whine and lash out when people don't feed your ego.

The thing is, you do have a useful body of knowledge and could be an asset to this forum, but you chose not to be. You chose to be an asshole, so we treat you like one.

As for your alleged non-partisanship, Artie, we're still waiting on those names.

Isab,

Once again you have lost the plot.

You are entirely focused on Trumps reelection campaign.

Human beings with empathy are concerned about the current pandemic and the associated loss of human life.

Conan,

They are mutually exclusive excuses.

Either information was being presented to Trump indicating there was potential for a real problem to contend with and he was "distracted" by impeachment... OR... the prevailing expert consensus was that there was no issue to deal with at all and Trump didn't do anything because there was no compelling reason to take action.

Both of these excuses are flawed for their own independent reasons, but they are in fact mutually exclusive.

Why didn't you get your home work done... well it's because my dog ate it... and um... also because you never assigned it to me in the first place.

See how those both cannot both be true at the same time?

"Artie, you think I give a crap what you say or think about me?"

No... you don't... but I do like to point out your rampant hypocrisy when it shows itself. This isn't about you Conan. Most things in life aren't about you.

"Always the aggressor? Um, not true. Artie, I tried to switch gears and "play nice" with you about five years ago, arguing your posts without malice, but you turned around and insulted me at every turn."

That is a lie Conan.

If you ever opted to truly behave like a considerate human being you would always be treated in kind by me.

Those are the rules I play by. Live by the sword die by the sword.

If you act like a pleasant correspondent I would always return the favor.

The ball has always been in your court so far as that is concerned.

That is a lie Conan. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 9:12 AM

No, Artie, it's not.

You chose to this enmity, not I.

This kid's a cartoon.

> Those are the rules I play by.
> Live by the sword die by the
> sword.

Have you ever touched a sword in your life? Who owned it?

Coney 'the DLPHG' Grammarian is wordy; it has zero flow.

I've used a sword (just because it came up). Unfortunately I've got small wrists. Anything more than a foil I really can't use. I figure in the dark ages nobility I'd be destined for the priesthood. Just not worth much as a knight.

I've used a sword (just because it came up). Unfortunately I've got small wrists. Anything more than a foil I really can't use. I figure in the dark ages nobility I'd be destined for the priesthood. Just not worth much as a knight.

Ben at April 1, 2020 12:34 PM

Higher status than the guys who were swinging the sword, was the armorer who knew how to work steel.

The priesthood was for worthless second and third sons of the nobility. In modern terms, kind of like working for the BLM.

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm not qualified for that either. Small wrists make a difference in smithing too. So I'd be the third son who gets stuck in a monastery copying books all day. Yay, quills!

Conan,

You are really working on some revisionist history here.

It is no different than when you try to rewrite the political history of the last few months to suit what you would *like* to be true.

This is the reason why you keep getting called out by complete strangers for your aberrant and obnoxious behavior.

The fundamental issue is that some folks here on the very conservative side of the spectrum cannot tolerate rational criticism without becoming incredibly toxic.

Just as an FYI, here is what experts think about Trump's irresponsible comments:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/insane-many-scientists-lament-trump-s-embrace-risky-malaria-drugs-coronavirus

It is amazing how quickly folks lose all semblance of skepticism when Trump talks. Suddenly a 42 person trial with inconsistent testing of virus levels is now worthy of front page news.

This is what actual professionals have to say on the subject:

"To Dahly and others, only much larger, better studies such as one WHO has just started can show whether any optimism about the compounds is warranted. “The best way to know whether a medication for COVID-19 is effective is through a high-quality clinical trial,” says Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health and a former principal deputy Food and Drug Administration commissioner. “Efforts to widely distribute unproven treatments are misguided at best and dangerous at worst.”"

Conan,

Just as a further note... when I asked you about the tweet being irresponsible that wasn't a gotcha.

That was a softball question where you could have easily acknowledged that this was not an appropriate thing for the president to do given the fact that proper research hadn't yet been done to justify such a statement.

Yet you couldn't even do that.

This should have been an easy place to find common ground.

Instead you resorted to insults and an unjustified defense of something that no reasonable person should be defending.

You can choose to behave in a cordial manner any time you like... as I have told you, the ball is in your court.

If you comport yourself like a reasonable adult I promise to treat you like one... which includes amongst other things kindness.

If you choose to continue to act as you have been we'll be stuck here. It is up to you.

"To Dahly and others, only much larger, better studies such as one WHO has just started can show whether any optimism about the compounds is warranted. “The best way to know whether a medication for COVID-19 is effective is through a high-quality clinical trial,” says Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health and a former principal deputy Food and Drug Administration commissioner. “Efforts to widely distribute unproven treatments are misguided at best and dangerous at worst.”"

Artemis at April 1, 2020 1:32 PM

I suspect you are starting to make a lot of people here hope that you catch this thing, and get really really sick.

( I don’t wish premature death on anyone. I’ve seen it, and it sucks)

And if that happens, with your last gasp before they put you on the respirator, you demand a *high quality clinical trial* of six months to a year, before they try any off label drug treatments on you. In fact, you can volunteer for the control group.

The always-delightful religious right...

In Nebraska, televangelist and pastor Hank Kunneman told his congregation at the charismatic Lord of Hosts Church last month that God will spare the United States the worst of the virus’s impact because of the Trump administration’s policies on Israel and abortion, among other policies.

Isab Says:

"I suspect you are starting to make a lot of people here hope that you catch this thing, and get really really sick."

Stay classy!

Isab,

Since you are now such a staunch fan of one-off studies, I am sure you'll love this one:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12647

"However, while significance gain due to an imagined or actual electoral success was related to more benevolent intentions among Clinton supporters (Study 1B), it was related to more hostile intentions among Trump supporters (Studies 1B, 2, and 3)."

In other words... people like you who have real or imagined victories at the polls tend to start having hostile intentions toward those who disagree with you politically.

Were you a part of this study by any chance?

This kid's a cartoon ~ Crid at April 1, 2020 12:05 PM

Galvanized badass. He lives by rules and you'd better follow them, or else he'll insult you. Oooh.

Coney 'the DLPHG' Grammarian is wordy; it has zero flow. ~ Crid at April 1, 2020 12:05 PM

Well, dem's the rules he lives by, so.... And something metaphorical about a sword. /sarcasm

...where you could have easily acknowledged that this was not an appropriate thing for the president to do given the fact that proper research hadn't yet been done to justify such a statement. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 1:41 PM

No, Artie. It was a truthful tweet (strange for him, I know). He talked about two drugs that, when taken together, could very well change the game against coronavirus. He didn't in any way encourage people to go home and self-medicate or consume fish tank cleaner.

"HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." [emphasis mine]

He didn't promise a cure. And, Artie, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin, taken together do have a real chance to be a game changer.

Artie, all the signs point to you being a collectivist; you tend to think of the government as all-powerful and mere suggestions from those in high office having the authority of power. I'm an individualist, so I hold that if you consume fish tank cleaner because someone in high office said one of the ingredients, when combined with another chemical, might one day prove to be a cure, you're an idiot.

You can choose to behave in a cordial manner any time you like... as I have told you, the ball is in your court. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 1:41 PM

Not in my court, Artie.

About five years go, I tempered my comments in reply to yours and tried to reduce the animosity between us. In response to that change in tone, you doubled down on the arrogance and insulted me repeatedly. I finally gave up, even mentioning to you in my next post that, since you'd decided on hostility, that's the way it would be.

You want civil conversation from anyone here, you need to provide it. You're a very poorly socialized person, and you don't even realize it.

Amy once told you that you argue dishonestly and called you an asshole (something I've never seen her call any poster on this forum - even Assholio, who with that monicker, was practically begging for it). Patrick claims to have an Artie filter that allows him to ignore you (how can the rest of us get one of those?). Crid, Ben, Isab, et al mock you mercilessly. NicoleK's only comment about you is to wonder at your gender. No one takes you seriously.

You're the least liked and least respected poster on this forum. But the animosity between us is my fault? Yeah, right.

"The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~ Annie (Bull Durham)

Artie, the world is made for you.

I think it would be quite clear to any independent observer who the people are on this blog who belittle, berate and insult those they disagree with.

All I can say, JD, is that, despite our disagreements, I've never called Artie a "dishonest loathsome piece of human garbage."

Conan,

That is true, you have never called me that very specific set of adjectives.

You've used different insults.

If at any moment you decided to communicate like a respectful and kind human being you would be treated the same way.

Until then you should learn how to take it if you are going to dish it out.

On a more somber note... some of you may recall that about a week ago I predicted that we would hit 5,000 corona virus deaths in the US by April 1st based on the available data.

Well it is now April 1st... and we just topped 5,000 corona virus deaths.

Unfortunately it is only going to get worse from here for a while.

If at any moment you decided to communicate like a respectful and kind human being you would be treated the same way. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 4:31 PM

Not by you. I tried engaging you in a civil manner five years ago and you spit it back in my face. You're rude, arrogant, and obnoxious.

Good bye Artie.

On a more somber note... some of you may recall that about a week ago I predicted that we would hit 5,000 corona virus deaths in the US by April 1st based on the available data. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 4:38 PM

Yes, we remember. You offered that figure as a bet to anyone who would take your wager. But Artie, your wager was we'd reach roughly 5,000 deaths "by" April 1st. That deadline was last night at midnight. You'd have lost that bet as offered.

As of this morning, Worldometers was reporting that the US had 3,600+ deaths. As of April 02, 2020, 00:24 GMT, the site is reporting the US has 5,100 deaths.

No matter, it's a tragic figure. We now have almost a quarter of a million infected people. That's what we should be thinking about, not betting on the death toll.

Conan Says:

"Not by you. I tried engaging you in a civil manner five years ago and you spit it back in my face. You're rude, arrogant, and obnoxious."

That isn't at all what occurred.

You spent years being belligerent and insulting and 5 years ago decided to tone it back to condescending and patronizing.

When I wasn't overly fond of you being condescending and patronizing you simply returned to being belligerent and insulting.

When you are ready to treat others with kindness and respect please let me know.

Until then quite crying that you aren't being treated as nicely as you would like.

Conan,

Again context matters.

In the conversation Isab accused me of having no clue how to analyze data... so I made my prediction as a point to bury her nonsense once and for all.

The fact that I could predict the death toll about a week in advance should give you a moments pause that maybe, just maybe I see things in data that you do not see.

The reality is I have been trying to help you and others here to actually understand what is going on here.

It is your stubborn resistance to facts that do not conform to what is politically expedient for you that we should be avoiding.

It is time to open yourself up to the idea that the information you are being fed from certain politicians is completely bogus.

The data last week suggested that we would have 5,000 deaths today.

The GPS tracking data suggests that there is indeed a difference between how democrats and republicans are responding to this pandemic.

The data is ignored at peoples own risk.

Conan Says:

"But Artie, your wager was we'd reach roughly 5,000 deaths "by" April 1st. That deadline was last night at midnight. You'd have lost that bet as offered."

That isn't what I actually said Conan... but you cannot help but lie and distort.

Here is my exact quote:

"I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st."

The reality is I have been trying to help you and others here to actually understand what is going on here. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 6:11 PM

First, we don't need your help to understand what is going on here. We're intelligent adults here.

There's the arrogance that I was talking about - that we need you to teach us.

Second, you did offer a bet on the death toll by a certain date.

The fact that I could predict the death toll about a week in advance should give you a moments pause that maybe, just maybe I see things in data that you do not see. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 6:11 PM

You don't see anything I didn't see, Artie. I could see ≈5,000 deaths by early April. I can do math, Artie. And I've spent my life analyzing data, so I've gotten pretty good at it. Not a moments pause have you given me.

Again with the arrogance that you see what others cannot.

That isn't what I actually said Conan... but you cannot help but lie and distort.

Here is my exact quote: "I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st."

~ Artemis at April 1, 2020 6:14 PM

I'll go back and check, but I'm pretty sure it was by April 1st.

Okay, I checked and your exact quote was, "This implies we should hit ~5,000 deaths by April." on March 26, 2020 5:54 PM

You repeated it later with "Continue to look for the death count to top 5,000 by April as I told you the other day." on March 28, 2020 3:03 PM

And you repeated it again on March 28, 2020 4:35 PM with "As I told you, expect to see ~5,000 deaths in the US by April."

It was only on March 28, 2020 at 9:21 PM that you qualified it with "I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st."

But it was on March 28, 2020 4:44 PM that you offered the bet to Isab, "I am happy to make it interesting with a friendly wager though." That was before you qualified your prediction with "the end of April 1st." It was "by April" until after you offered the wager.

Looks like I didn't "lie and distort" after all.

Conan Says:

"First, we don't need your help to understand what is going on here. We're intelligent adults here.

There's the arrogance that I was talking about - that we need you to teach us."

And here is the dishonesty I was talking about.

You just said this earlier:

"Artie, you don't post to educate people or to express disagreement, you post to berate people, to tear other people down in an effort to elevate yourself."

This is why you are fundamentally a dishonest person.

You accused me in this very thread of not posting to educate people and that my original post in this thread didn't have enough details for people to understand.

Yet your constant criticism is that I come across as trying to teach you and from your perspective that is arrogant.

You honestly cannot see how you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth here?

If I treat you as intelligent adults capable of understanding the data on your own I am failing to educate... and if I explain the data in detail I am arrogant for presuming you need to be taught.

Can you please cut the crap already Conan.

Are JD and Orion the same person?

I'll never remember the Tom Clancy novel in which it was found, and it's metaphysically certain that I'll never read it again, but in one passage he described the forging of blades for some modern weapon or vehicle, and from materials which probably didn't exist in WWII or even 'Nam. The strength of the product was determined by how evenly it was allowed to cool. Not how slowly, how evenly.

That was fascinating… And with even (and in my case, only) a high-schooler's appreciation of chemistry, it makes intuitive sense.

Are JD and Orion the same person?

Crid at April 1, 2020 7:31 PM

IMHO, no. JD confesses to being from Minnesota, and actually having been outside of the house a time or two.

(Hey JD My DH is from Prior Lake! )

He lacks the pedantic oblivious earnest certainty that number manipulation and a textbook yields all answers to every life question we see from Orion,

> collectivist; you tend to think
> of the government as all-powerful

Chinese, right?

> NicoleK's only comment about you
> is to wonder at your gender.

Hey! I've wondered that too, and for many years.

Can I once again suggest the essay from American Wesley Yang? Worth a login or a $1.98 download from the 'Zon.

This is what Asian cultures, Chinese most brutally, do to their sons. Yang explicates.

Are Andrea Bocelli, Gal Godot, Boris Johnson, LeBron James, Dua Lipa and Yvon Chouinard the same person?

Conan,

Also... with regard to the specifics of the accuracy of my prediction you are lying and distorting... but what else is new.

Here is some relevant context for you to chew on:

1 - I didn't originally seek to establish some kind of challenge with Isab… she sought to challenge me on it here:

"The fact that you seem to be panicking is the best indicator I know of, that the rest of us shouldn’t be.
But, happy you are so concerned on my behalf. Let’s wait six months and revisit this. See who was right." Isab at March 15, 2020 10:38 AM

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2020/03/the-trump-stoog.html#comments

That was March 15th where I was warning Isab of what was going to happen and she completely dismissed my warnings and told me we would have to see who was correct six months from now.

The problem here is that failure to act only would make things worse.

Also bare in mind that 2 weeks ago I expressed concern for Isab's wellbeing and within this very thread she expressed her sincere desire that I suffer in a hospital with the illness 2 weeks ago she essentially said wasn't a big deal.

2 - Despite your repeated contention that somehow I initiate fights with you or anyone else... it is folks such as Isab (and yourself on occasion) that feel a desperate need to toss insults my way even when I am not present in the thread:

"The prodigious level of Aspergery word vomit and pedantic goal post moving along with the claimed doctorate in STEM, makes that bet unlikely."Isab at March 23, 2020 9:57 PM

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2020/03/linkpoo.html#comments

It kind of undermines your contention that I am picking fights with you or Isab or anyone else when you are busy insulting me when I'm not even there.

3 - You seem to have snipped my quote on March 26, 2020 5:54 PM... surely it must be an honest error on your part because you would never purposefully lie or distory, right?... let's add in some context here:

"FYI... current death toll associated with Corona in the US is ~1,300.
The doubling rate is about every 3 days given the current trend.
This implies we should hit ~5,000 deaths by April."

That is the original statement upon which everything else is based.

Since I very clearly am talking about the doubling rate of 3 days and the starting point is ~6 PM on the this means we would expect ~2,600 deaths by ~6 PM on the 29th (which is 3 days later)… and ~5,200 deals by 6 PM on April 1st.

That is very clearly what I am talking about here Conan despite your desire to rewrite history.

4 - Knowing the kind of people I am dealing with I decided to get litigiously specific with my post on Artemis at March 28, 2020 9:21 PM. Here is the full context:

"I'll even get more specific for you since you do not seem to understand how predictable exponential trending happens to be.
I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st."

The only reason I felt it was necessary to pin down an exact time was because I know how you are.

And here you are proving my point. If you had actually done the math you would know I had to be talking about April 1st... I outlined the calculation for you.

You are choosing to interpret "by April" in a manner that is fundamentally dishonest from what I was clearly talking about based on the original statement with the full calculation spelled out.

“(Hey JD My DH is from Prior Lake! )”

I remember sometime after I started posting here (in 2010), you mentioning that you had some connection to Minnesota but I’d forgotten what it was.

I know where Prior Lake is but I’ve never been there (I moved to Seattle when I was 24.) I grew up a stone’s throw from the State Fair (I’m sure your husband has been there) in the Midway neighborhood of St. Paul (so-named because it’s midway between downtown St. Paul & downtown Minneapolis.)

Where did you guys meet?

Incidentally the tally of deaths in the US was as follows:

March 26th = 1295
March 29th = 2583
April 1st = 5102

That is roughly doubling every 3 days, which was my original point.

For additional context here when I was explaining this to Isab I said the following:

"“These aren't some lucky guesses on my part by the way... it is just that I know how to read and understand data and you sit around going with your gut.”"

To which she responded:

"You don’t have the tools to understand when you are interpreting incomplete, massaged and *made up* data. Nor do you seem to be able to distinguish between a report on what someone said about the data, written by a journalist and the actual *data*. There are very few facts at this point, only probabilities."

It kind of matters that what I explained would happen based on the data happened exactly as I said it would when the person I am talking with keeps asserting that the data is made up and I don't know what I am looking at.

None of these extrapolations are luck... some people know how to understand and analyze data to make useful predictions about the future and others think it is just a bunch of made up numbers from journalists.

Are Jeff Koons, Jacinda Ardern, James Lileks, José Andrés and the cute brunette who’s a barista at the Renton Starbucks the same person?

I totally have a dear friend in Prior Lake.

> Dua Lipa and Yvon Chouinard
> the same person?

The last two, maybe. Who are they?

Pop singer, industrialist. Probably not.

Most of Amy's readers don't earn a complete one-sheet bio in a mental file cabinet anymore. It's easier just to ask someone else about them when something comes up… Online acquaintances have occasionally clued me in to broad patterns in commenter identity that I've missed, but I've had judgments about personalities verified in subtle ways years after an impression had formed. It was bloggy fun, but when twitter is such a colorful distraction, it's rarely worth a deep investment of reflection.

Jacinda Ardern - Kiwi politiian.

José Andrés - chef.

Should have said Amy's commenters, not her readers.

Her readers are thoughtful, discerning judges of decency and good citizenship, and we're grateful that she has their attention!

Some of the commenters can be a little goofy.

Is Mitch McConnell Chinese?

Is Mike Pence a robot?

Is Rand Paul a pangolin?

Thomas Edsall in The NY Times...

Trump’s job approval ratings have risen in recent weeks, but Gary Langer, who conducts polling for ABC News, warned that the results of an ABC/Washington Post survey released on March 27 show that there are substantial risks to the president:

“Trump’s overall approval rating drops among people who are more worried about catching the coronavirus, report severe local economic impacts, say their lives have been especially disrupted or know someone who’s caught the virus. He also has lower approval in states with higher per capita infection rates.”

Where did you guys meet?

JD at April 1, 2020 8:12 PM

Field Artillery Officers Basic Course. Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, when asked during an interview on March 24 if he would prescribe chloroquine to treat a patient with COVID-19:

Yeah, of course, particularly if people have no other option. You want to give them hope. In fact, for physicians in this country, these drugs are approved drugs for other reasons. They’re antimalaria drugs and they’re drugs against certain autoimmune diseases, like lupus. Physicians throughout the country can prescribe that in an off-label way. Which means they can write it for something it was not originally approved for. People do that all the time, and it really is an individual choice between the physician and his or her patient as to whether or not they want to do that.

The above quote is at about 51:30 in the interview.

https://omny.fm/shows/philadelphia-s-morning-answer-with-chris-stigall/philadelphias-morning-answer-with-chris-stigall-79?in_playlist=philadelphia-s-morning-answer-with-chris-stigall!podcast

Ken R,

There is a fundamental difference between a physician prescribing an off label use of an FDA approved drug on a terminal patient as Fauci is suggesting... and touting the use of these compounds as being "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine".

Here is what actual scientists are concerned about regarding the scant amount of actual data supporting this as a treatment:

"Many scientists have criticized the French trial as riddled with enough methodological flaws to render its findings unreliable or misleading. Biostatisticians from the United Kingdom and Ireland cited a basic failure: Investigators didn’t randomize the groups—essential to ensuring dependable comparisons. They also noted that six of the treated patients were lost to the study, five of whom fared badly—one died, three entered intensive care, and one stopped treatment because of nausea. Yet they were dropped from the analysis, potentially skewing the outcome."

Physicians who offer this medication for off-label use are opening themselves up for mal-practice if they just opt to use it first thing without using conventional approaches. Even in the case of treatment of terminal patients I would be shocked if they didn't get some sort of waiver or consent form signed to protect them from legal liability.

These drugs have associated risks and side effects and there isn't really any well-established evidence that it is effective.

Ken R,

Here is a relevant research article if you are interested:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944120303907?via%3Dihub

Here is the take away message:

"There is sufficient pre-clinical rationale and evidence regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 as well as evidence of safety from long-time use in clinical practice for other indications [3] to justify clinical research on the topic. The current circumstances justify prioritization of ethical review of study proposals above other, less pressing, research topics (i.e. fast track institutional ethical review). Although the use of chloroquine may be supported by expert opinion, clinical use of this drug in patients with COVID-19 should adhere to the MEURI framework or after ethical approval as a trial as stated by the WHO. Data from high-quality, coordinated, clinical trials coming from different locations worldwide are urgently needed."

What the MEURI framework means is that it should generally be restricted to so-called "compassionate use" situations where it seems like the patient is going to die.

The same kind of thing happens with experimental treatments for terminal cancer patients.

That doesn't mean efficacy has been established... it means the doctors don't know what else to try so they just cross their fingers, administer the experimental treatment, and hope for the best.

Well, it's morning and let's hope tempers have calmed a bit.

Artie, you'd have lost that bet as you offered it. Everything else you're arguing, while pertinent to you, is irrelevant to that. Whatever you were trying to prove to Isab would have been lost because the bet you offered her would have been lost.

Your math was good. I was tempted to take your bet, but like you, I thought that, at the then-current rate, we'd be at least close to 5,000, if not over by 11:59:59pm on March 31. We weren't. We hit 3,600+ on the morning of April 1 (according to Worldometers).

So, saying I distorted things because my specific claim about the bet itself (and only the bet) didn't take into account your original argument with Isab loses the point. You would have lost the specific bet you offered. Whether you were right about everything else doesn't matter in that, it's irrelevant to the bet itself.

If you wanna keep your money, never take a bar bet, kiddo.

"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider." ~ Sky Masterson (Guys and Dolls)

Conan, thank you for mentioning FactCheck in an earlier post. I'd heard of it but never visited the site.

It's wonderful; a cornucopia of smackdowns of Trump's lies, misinformation, claims and exaggerations.

Amy, you'd deeply resent the President no matter what he did. He's damned if he does, damned if doesn't on this blog. Your disapproval has, therefore, lost currency.

It's wonderful; a cornucopia of smackdowns of Trump's lies, misinformation, claims and exaggerations. ~ JD at April 2, 2020 10:03 AM

It also lets you know when Democrats lie or Trump tells the truth, one of which is considerably rarer than the other.

The thing you have to learn about Trump is you can't take what he says or tweets literally; it'll drive you nuts if you do.

> Your disapproval has, therefore,
> lost currency.

Amy will be sorry to hear that. She's a clear thinker and takes pride in her ability to consider different perspectives.

Nonetheless— I find that the featureless, twitchingly-defensive adoration of Trump afforded by many of his blog-comment enthusiasts continues to describe their relative capacity to comprehend, and perhaps engage, the world beyond their fingertips.

Conan Says:

"Artie, you'd have lost that bet as you offered it. Everything else you're arguing, while pertinent to you, is irrelevant to that. Whatever you were trying to prove to Isab would have been lost because the bet you offered her would have been lost."

No Conan and for a so-called "grammarian" I am disappointed in your understanding of English usage.

If the only thing you have to hang your hat on is the word "by"... I unfortunately have to explain to you that this means "before or on"... it is inclusive of the time mentioned.

english.stackexchange.com/questions/56335/does-notified-by-date-include-the-end-date

english.stackexchange.com/questions/74450/i-will-do-it-by-monday-does-it-mean-before-the-beginning-or-before-the-end-of

english.stackexchange.com/questions/106167/before-date-versus-by-date

Furthermore, you should know this because this is how it works for mortgage payments, credit card payments, taxes, etc...

The "due by" data is *always* inclusive of the date mentioned.

Here is an example from American Express:

online.americanexpress.com/myca/shared/summary/lendingoncharge/ccsg/payovertime/pdf/online-statement.pdf

"If you pay the new balance *by* the payment due date each month, you will not incur interest charges on charges added to a Pay Over Time balance automatically." - Emphasis added to "by"

And the following explanation:

"We must receive at least your minimum payment due on or before the payment due date."

Regardless of all of this and the standard English usage of the word... I also accurate predicted in advance that you would try and abuse misunderstandings of usage, which is why I specifically clarified what my prediction was in gory detail here:

"I'll even get more specific for you since you do not seem to understand how predictable exponential trending happens to be.
I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st."

So not only did I accurately extrapolate the trend, I accurately predicted your response to try and manipulate an otherwise well understood usage of the English language.

Conan,

Just to make things nice and sweet.

When someone informs you that taxes are traditionally due by April 15th... that doesn't mean post marked by the 14th.

It includes the 15th as well.

When someone informs you that taxes are traditionally due by April 15th... that doesn't mean post marked by the 14th.

It includes the 15th as well.

Artemis at April 2, 2020 12:14 PM

This is why no one is interested in any kind of bet with you Artie. We all know you will quibble your way out of it.

Isab,

I wasn't the one quibbling...

That is what the words mean.

By *always* means "on or before".

Conan and now you apparently are the ones trying to reengineer the English language to somehow someway demonstrate that my prediction was off when I was actually accurate to the day.

No one who actually understands the English language would say taxes are traditionally due by April 16th because they don't include the day mentioned.

American Express doesn't agree with you either.

Investopedia doesn't agree either:

https://www.investopedia.com/irs-tax-payments-delayed-until-july-15-2020-4800123

"Under normal circumstances, you must pay any taxes due by April 15 or you will incur penalties and interest."

There are only three options to explain what is going on here:

1 - You aren't familiar enough with the English language to understand usage.

2 - You do understand usage and are just being dishonest.

3 - You have made an honest error and will acknowledge that you've gotten things wrong.

Take your pick.

When someone informs you that taxes are traditionally due by April 15th... that doesn't mean post marked by the 14th. ~ Artemis at April 2, 2020 12:14 PM

People can say "by April 15th" all they want, but Artie, taxes are officially due "on or before April 15," not "by April 15th."

"By" means if not completed when that deadline arrives, you're late. When a parent says "be home by 11:00" it means before or at the advent of 11:00, not at some moment in the hour following 11:00.

As Business Insider reports, "Income taxes are no longer due on April 15 in any US state." [emphasis mine] Notice the article says "on" not "by."

Let's see how the IRS puts it: "This relief also includes estimated tax payments for tax year 2020 that are due on April 15, 2020." Hmm, "on April 15."

Furthermore, you should know this because this is how it works for mortgage payments, credit card payments, taxes, etc... ~ Artemis at April 2, 2020 12:14 PM

I worked in mortgages, banking, and financial services for more than 10 years, Artie. So I love hearing people's misconceptions about how consumer finance works.

Your payment is due on or before the due date - just like that American Express disclaimer that you quoted says, "We must receive at least your minimum payment due on or before the payment due date."

The "due by" date is *always* inclusive of the date mentioned.~ Artemis at April 2, 2020 12:11 PM

Only if the statement is written incorrectly. Your payment is due on or before the due date.

You're reaching here, Artie, trying to prove something that cannot be proven. The foundation of your argument is built on quicksand.

I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st.

That was said after you proposed the bet that it would happened "by April."

By your logic if we hit 5,00 deaths on April 30th you would have claimed victory - that's "by" April.

And, Artie, you don't want to get into a grammar battle with me. Your written English is riddled with mistakes. You frequently forget apostrophes and commas. You often leave proper nouns uncapitalized. I could go on, but why bother?

Conan,

If someone means before they say before.

You don't get to suddenly declare that by and before mean the same thing when they demonstrably do not.

No one uses English in the way you describe.

I am not sure why this is so confusing for you.

If you want something done before a certain time you say before... if you want it done on a specified date you say on... if you are okay with before or on you say by.

If you made a medical appointment you would say it is on a certain day at a certain time. If you promise to get something to someone at work by Monday... that includes Monday. It doesn't mean you are promising to send it out over the weekend.

"By your logic if we hit 5,00 deaths on April 30th you would have claimed victory - that's "by" April."

Technically that is true, which I didn't believe would be fair as that is a trivial prediction.

Hence why I specified an actual date that made things completely unambiguous.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Yes, Trump is certainly not the only politician keeping the FactCheck folks busy. But I think he’s pretty much like a lawyer in that joke about lawyers and their lips.

Conan Says:

"Only if the statement is written incorrectly. Your payment is due on or before the due date.
You're reaching here, Artie, trying to prove something that cannot be proven. The foundation of your argument is built on quicksand."

And yet every single reference I can identify for the usage of the word by in this contexts agrees that it is inclusive:

english.stackexchange.com/questions/106167/before-date-versus-by-date

"In other words, using by is inclusive, it means do this on any day up to and including the day specified. Using before is non inclusive, it means that I expect it to be done when I arrive on Tuesday morning."

"If you want to be precise and want it done literally before a certain time, then "before" is the the word to use. If you want it done on or before the specified day or time, the "by" is the right word."

"Although, by definition, “before Tuesday” actually means “by Monday at the latest”, many people still confuse “by” (up to AND including) and “before” (up to BUT excluding).
So, in reply to the initial question, it is NOT incorrect to say "Please do this before Tuesday"... but if you mean it can still be done on Tuesday, you should definitely rephrase it as "Please do this BY Tuesday"."

You can beat this drum all day that in your opinion "by" and "before" mean exactly the same thing... but I can find no reference that backs this up.

If you promise to get something to someone at work by Monday... that includes Monday.

If you're going to get it to them on Monday, you say "on" Monday, not "by" Monday. Now, if they need it Monday morning, you might say "by" Monday and get it to them over the weekend. I've done both.

Hence why I specified an actual date that made things completely unambiguous. ~ Artemis at April 2, 2020 1:09 PM

You specified only that after you offered the bet that it would happen "by" April - i.e., before the advent of April.

Artie, I've had bosses say "I want it 'by' Monday." And that means before the advent of Monday and that I'll be working over the weekend. If they want it on or before Monday, they say "by end-of-day Monday" or "on Monday."

No one took your bet, so it really doesn't matter. One of the reasons I avoided taking it is because you offered "~5,000" as the winning metric - an ambiguous amount that would have allowed you to claim victory at anything over 4,500 and, knowing your propensity to change terms or insist on alternate meanings afterward, probably anything over 4,000. You tend to insist on specificity for others and reserve the benefit of the doubt for any ambiguity for yourself only.

Artie, I'm wiling to give you the benefit of the doubt that you really did mean on or before April 1st. Just for the record, however, that's not what you said.

Conan,

I hate to break it to you, but the usage you are insisting on is not in anyway shape or form standard English.

This is apparently your own made up preference.

Based upon every bit of reference material I can identify the use of the word "by" is equivalent to "on or before".

Before has its own independent meaning.

You have presented no independent credible information suggesting otherwise.

"Artie, I've had bosses say "I want it 'by' Monday." And that means before the advent of Monday and that I'll be working over the weekend. If they want it on or before Monday, they say "by end-of-day Monday" or "on Monday.""

I've had bosses that say "I want it 'by' Monday." and that means before a certain meeting on Monday.

This is your problem in this case Conan... your anecdotal experience doesn't help you because in conversations often the context of the request is already clear.

The reality is that using the word "by" means "on or before" unless further context or clarification is available.

American Express isn't mistaken or confused when they use "on or before" and "by" to reference the exact same thing.

Conan,

Here is another reference as well:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/on-or-before/

"On or Before is a phrase usually found in a contract or promissory note. It signifies that the performance or payment should be done by a particular date. It can also be done prior to that date."

Artie, StackExchange is a public question-and-answer Web site, not all answers to questions are provided by folks with any real expertise.

Quora, another public question-and-answer site says, "'Due by' means no later than that date. You can submit on any day before that date. But you should submit before the due date. 'Due on' means you have to submit on the given date." [emphasis mine]

There is a certain amount of ambiguity and error in common English usage, but common usage is not by default proper usage. For example, "impact" is not a verb. "Gift" is also not a verb. "Between you and I" is improper. "If you have any questions, call John or myself" is clunky, and wrong. All of these are now in common usage.

We could argue whether "by" means "before" or "on" until the cows come home and get nowhere. Neither of us will bend. Now, I've already conceded that you probably did intend "by April" to mean sometime in April when you offered your bet.

For someone who's usually so persnickety about what others say, and how, I find your ambiguous usage in that situation deliberate. You left yourself room to move the goal posts if you needed to later.

You gave yourself thirty days to reach 5,000 (or "~5,000" as you put it) leaving things pretty vague - until only 3 days before the deadline when it was pretty obvious we'd reach "~5,000" sometime in early April and that no one was taking up your offer of a wager - so you could say you were right all along whatever the outcome.

Artie, I know you consider yourself to be a great analyst, but to be honest, I haven't seen it so far. You are decent at interpreting obvious trends and leave yourself plenty of wiggle room in your forecasts; wiggle room that allows you to claim to have been right whatever the outcome.

Let's just say that you are at least a decent analyst, that you saw a trend in the death toll, and that you meant "in April" when you said "by April" and close out this thread. It's gone on far too long. Debating this topic has gotten tedious (probably for all the forum denizens) and going further with it seems pointless. Feel free to chime in one last time if you want, but let's meet again on another topic.

No! No! Don’t Stop!! Beat Me! Beat Me! It feels soooo good. :)

Conan Says:

"There is a certain amount of ambiguity and error in common English usage, but common usage is not by default proper usage."

Then why even insist on going with what you would classify as an ambiguous statement when I clarified in a completely unambiguous way?

The reality is that I completely agree with you that ~5,000 was too ambiguous and left too much wiggle room for exactly what I was getting at.

The fact that I generated a completely unambiguous claim consistent with everything I had said prior should mean something if we are having an honest good faith discussion about the facts.

"Now, I've already conceded that you probably did intend "by April" to mean sometime in April when you offered your bet."

I appreciate this. However I will clarify further than I didn't just mean any time in April either... April 10th for example was beyond the scope of what I was driving at.

April 1st is the date consistent with the exponential trend.

"You gave yourself thirty days to reach 5,000 (or "~5,000" as you put it) leaving things pretty vague - until only 3 days before the deadline when it was pretty obvious we'd reach "~5,000" sometime in early April and that no one was taking up your offer of a wager - so you could say you were right all along whatever the outcome."

Except that wasn't actually my purpose Conan.

It doesn't do me any good to make trivial predictions 30 days out.

I'm not interested in predicting that it will be warmer in summer than in winter.

The reality is that I don't go out of my way here to get into the nitty gritty until I can obtain agreement on the general ideas.

My focus was trying to get Isab to really understand that this is a growing problem and it was going to hit sooner than she thought. Please bare in mind that just 2 weeks ago she was declaring this to be nothing much worse than a bad flu she would like to avoid.

The standard flu doesn't kill at the rate this is killing at least in part due to the fact that it isn't as contagious.

Impart on me whatever nefarious motivations you like... but at the end of the day I am trying to convince very information resistant folks to take something seriously that could be a danger to themselves, their family, and their friends.

I don't care about winning any wagers or impressing anyone here with my ability to identify exponential growth in a set of numbers.

None of that requires detailed analysis or data mining because it is staring me righting the face.

This is why I pinned things down in a completely unambiguous way. I am trying to get folks here to understand that things are going to get much worse before they get better... and that just because it hasn't hit your home state or municipality yet doesn't imply that everything is going to run smoothly in the near future.

"You are decent at interpreting obvious trends and leave yourself plenty of wiggle room in your forecasts; wiggle room that allows you to claim to have been right whatever the outcome."

I'm glad you are calling it obvious after the fact.

It sure would have been nice if you asserted you thought I would be correct 7 days ago.

You are Monday morning quarterbacking here Conan.

There wasn't any wiggle room on the basis of the calculation I outlined. I'm not looking to wiggle, I made my prediction and I stood by it.

"Debating this topic has gotten tedious (probably for all the forum denizens) and going further with it seems pointless. Feel free to chime in one last time if you want, but let's meet again on another topic."

That is fine by me Conan.

Regardless of anything else I do hope you and those you care about are fine through everything.

Internet arguments can be a fun way to pass the time, but I don't wish anyone ill in their real life.

I also maintain that the ball is in your court, if you can maintain a respectful and cordial level of correspondence then I will always reciprocate.

Artemis: There is a fundamental difference between a physician prescribing an off label use of an FDA approved drug on a terminal patient as Fauci is suggesting...

The off-label use of drugs isn't restricted, by rules, custom or in practice, to terminal patients. It's very common. About 20% of prescriptions are for an off-label use.

The literature is full of dire warnings from "experts" against the off-label use of just about every drug used off-label, and against off-label use in general, usually for the reason that there's no scientific proof to support the effectiveness of an off-label use. And that's true. There haven't been any of the rigorous, large scale, randomized, controlled, very expensive studies that constitute scientific proof. Just lots of anecdotal evidence with lots of uncontrolled variables, and a few informal, hastily constructed "studies" like the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin one in France. The criticism and warnings should be considered by doctors who prescribe drugs off-label, which includes almost all doctors, including the ones who give the dire warnings.

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin aren't investigational drugs like remdesivir, favipiravir, T-1105 and T-1106 (investigational antiviral drugs) Their use in clinical studies is experimental; their use in medical practice is off-label. Both have been in wide use for decades, so their safety is well established. Both are commonly used off-label - for example, hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Sjögren’s syndrome and inflammatory osteoarthritis; azithromycin for COPD, bronchiectasis and other conditions that cause inflammation in the lungs. Any medication prescribed for Raynaud Syndrome is off-label. About 85% of prescriptions for gabapentin are off-label. The common use of prazosin, an antihypertensive, to treat nightmares and flashbacks from PTSD is off-label, as are the common uses of clonidine for opiate withdrawal, propranolol for anxiety, anti-epileptic drugs for mood instability, spironolactone for male-to-female gender transition, sex hormones for gender transition, and Viagra for Female Sexual Arousal Disorder.

With some exceptions (for example hormones for gender transition) the frequency of side effects in off-label uses is about the same as for approved uses.

There is a theoretical basis for using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, as noted in the article you linked to. And now there's rapidly growing anecdotal evidence that they work. Any doctor treating COVID-19 patients should be able to decide, on a patient by patient basis, whether the benefits outweigh the risks, and prescribe hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, or any other drug they and their patient believe will be effective.

Since their safety is well established, instead of restricting the use of hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin to patients who are dying in the hospital, they should also be tried in patients with moderate symptoms or who have high risk for serious symptoms to prevent them from having to be hospitalized.

Well, it's obvious who's rigorously following stay-at-home rules and therefore has way too much time on their hands. Artemis, Conan, you really need to get out more.

> Artemis, Conan, you really
> need to get out more.

What possible virtue comes to the conversation from this remark? Rex, if you don't want to read blog comments, then don't. Did you spend the time others have invested here doing something great we need to know about?

Indeed, Orion is pathologically prolix; his terrified disregard for the contents of other people's minds is perversely twinned with certainty that his own mundane & uninformed presumptions should enchant others, as if we're memorizing every phrase.

So I gave up reading him word-for-word after his calamitously clumsy debut, "The Drunk on the Airliner." But I literally just looked at the end of this thread tonight to see if Orion had [A.] made a point that someone found interesting or [B.] taken a point —any point— made by someone else.

Well, of course he didn't! I feel silly for checking. He's approaching the blog's all-time championship for delusional closed-mindedness.

Here's the thing: As Hitchens pointed out, the discussion is always useful, because no one makes precisely the same argument twice. Word choices evolve, emphasis drifts. By practicing his already-sturdy rhetoric with the robotically unresponsive Orion, Conan is learning new things about persuasion… Specifically, Conan better understands which arguments are wasted on a profoundly obtuse counterpart. That's useful information, because Orion won't be the last asshole we encounter in life… So why NOT use him as a punching bag?

Rex, if you don't want to participate, don't. But you are in no position to tell others that their communication isn't worthwhile. You should read Annie Duke for when bitching & moaning about outcomes is and is not appropriate.



But in rereading his tone of The Drunk on the Airliner, I'm struck anew by Orion's blind and devout trust in government authority as the final arbiter of righteous outcomes.

This kid has got to be Chinese.

> The off-label use of drugs isn't
> restricted, by rules, custom or
> in practice, to terminal patients.
> It's very common. About 20% of
> prescriptions are for an
> off-label use.

I think Fauci made precisely that point on Thursday.

As so much of our culture is subsumed to witless regulation, I found his blunt acknowledgement reassuring.

Ken R Says:

"The off-label use of drugs isn't restricted, by rules, custom or in practice, to terminal patients. It's very common. About 20% of prescriptions are for an off-label use."

Please familiarize yourself with the MEURI framework as it pertains to compassionate use situations.

The fundamental issue with chloroquine is that overdose can be fatal and that the therapeutic dose and an overdose are not very far apart.

As a result it isn't reasonable to toss out generalized statistics.

Most of those compounds you are talking about don't have the same risks of improper use associated with them.

"The literature is full of dire warnings from "experts" against the off-label use of just about every drug used off-label, and against off-label use in general, usually for the reason that there's no scientific proof to support the effectiveness of an off-label use. And that's true."

There is no reason for the scare quotes... they are experts... not "experts".

Ignore their concerns and warnings at your own risk.

Crid,

What you will never really appreciate is that when you actually understand the world around you it isn't necessary to just "trust" in government authority or anything else.

Furthermore, wouldn't trusting government authority in this case have been believing Trump's statements 2 months ago that corona virus was completely contained and would be gone in a few weeks?

I knew better then and I know better now.

I don't need to "trust" elected officials on this because I can look at the numbers myself and see where things are going.

The people parroting evidence-free political talking points are the folks blindly following government authority.

This reality doesn't fit your narrative though... so you will ignore it.

Ken R,

FYI, here is an article detailing popular off label prescriptions:

https://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor/timothy-o-shea/2016/01/10-surprising-off-label-uses-for-prescription-medications

"Off-label prescribing has been under scrutiny since a recent study found that medications prescribed for non-FDA-approved uses are associated with a significantly higher rate of negative side effects."

Please peruse the list yourself and identify any medication with similar potential risk of lethality to chloroquine:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/006002s045lbl.pdf

So just to be clear... recommending chloroquine as a treatment for corona virus isn't some risk-free proposition.

Everything here is a cost/benefit analysis.

What the experts are concerned about is that we haven't actually demonstrated a clear cut benefit for chloroquine as it comes to corona virus... as a result if it is administered there may be no benefit, but the risk can be substantial.

What this boils down to is the wisdom of avoiding high-risk low-reward activities.

Compassionate use situations avoid this dynamic because the risk calculation itself changes.

So… Chinese? 2nd gen, maybe?

Crid,

Your bigotry is showing and it is ugly.

What is sad is that I really think you fancy yourself to be a deep and consequential thinker.

What have you created Crid?... what deep insight have you offered to society that will transcend your existence?

Is this your great contribution to the world?... 10th rate troll comments on the internet as a 60 something?

Nailed it, right?

Crid,

I'm not convinced you've ever nailed anything.

Dude, sister, whatever— Personal insults are not going to move this forward for you. For seven years, you've been too terrified to affirm even that you're a boy goofball or a girl goofball, let alone describe your place on the planet in any other context, anything that would give your rantings credence… Interests, studies, experiences, anything. You can't admit to as much as eating breakfast… It would leave too many clues! People might see the truth about you, and then where would you be?

Chinese heritage: If offshore of the States, probably still in China, so WGAF what's in your head anyway. If onshore, first or second generation, and still shackled —almost certainly by domineering, frostbitten parents— to a culture left thousands of miles behind for something infinitely better; ironically, something which you're too socially inept to seize, even though it's all around you. That's gotta hurt.

Crid Says:

"Personal insults are not going to move this forward for you."

You aren't particularly self-aware or bright are you?

When you can behave like a respectful and reasonable person maybe I'll tell you what I had for breakfast... until then you are just going to have to learn to cope with the unknown.

If you can't provide a reason to trust your comments, the forum will thrive ("cope") as it always has. We're good to go!

Crid,

Your prejudice is showing again.

What exactly does someone's gender have to do with whether or not you trust what they have to say?

Only a sexist would believe something so stupid.

Trust a comment based on its logic and factual accuracy, not based on whether the commenter has a penis or a vagina.

It's the demonstrable experience of the world ("logic and factual accuracy") which puts the wind behind a voice. You quite apparently don't have any.

Meanwhile, a mouse rears up on his hiney haunches and spreads his forepaws to howl… But merely farts, and meekly.

Note to the casual comment reader:
Do not Google "Chinese mice," as
the result is too  disgusting even
for a blog-comment slamdown.

Crid,

You have an overinflated sense of your own myopic opinion.

I've seen no demonstration from you that you actually understand anything of utility let alone anything I can independently verify.

You are little more than the stupid teenage kid who brags about how he definitely has a girl friend... you just can't meet her because she lives in Canada... but she is totally real.

That moron is insecure and takes it out on folks who see no need to discuss who they have or have not kissed.

Your own lack of competence and confidence is not something I can remedy for you.

Achieve something of value and merit and maybe you will feel better about yourself.

Blog comments are not a substitute for real life accomplishments. Unfortunately this seems to be something you are only coming to realize late in life.

Again— Have you ever described a single event in your personal experience, let alone an "achievement"?

Crid,

Sure I have, on numerous occasions when I deemed it to be relevant. By your own admission:

"I gave up reading him word-for-word"

Only an idiot doesn't read and then claims expertise on the subject matter.

Your own ignorance here is your own responsibility.

As I said, you haven't once demonstrated that you actually understand anything.

Your behavior is positively Trumpian... don't read the reports and then declare expertise and knowledge you didn't bother to earn... then blame others for your own failure and laziness.

Pay attention and you might learn something.

Chinese, right? You're afraid to say so, and not from fear for your well-being.

Artemis, I found the perfect item for the person who has the crush on you.

Crid,

I am genuinely curious at this point because as JD points out you seem obsessed with my gender and ethnicity.

You keep using excuses like "trust" to try and justify your obsession.

So let's get to the point. From your perspective which is the trustworthy gender and which is the one you don't trust?

Furthermore, what about Chinese folks do you find untrustworthy?

If in your opinion there is nothing untrustworthy about any of these groups then what exactly is your issue here?

Personally I think you are only interested in demographic details because it really bothers you that you cannot tailor your trolling to stereotypes. To this I say... get over it.