Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#33,553
#33,553
Mick said:
I support making all essential items to national security and public health here in the USA but that wasn't the goal of the Republican policies. I guess that just makes me a commie socialist. The stated goal was to bring manufacturing in general back. That didn't happen. What about you?
Click to expand...

Executive Order in 2017 to require DoD to address manufacturing and supply chain issues. All sorts of products, although gloves and masks are not addressed.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.militarytimes.com/assets/eo-13806-report-final.pdf
 
#33,554
#33,554
Septic said:
Should they be using models that try and project the best case scenario or the worst case? Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.
Click to expand...

Models have a range. Actuals arent even coming anywhere close to the bottom side of the range.

Should we just act like they didnt eff this up by magnitudes and those eff ups didnt cause economic destruction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13 and GVF
#33,555
#33,555
NashVol11 said:
I think my post already addressed this. Yes, it seems like we'll avoid the worst, but no in general I don't have a problem with sounding the alarm and preparing for the worst realistic outcome. We can argue about whether the earlier projections were realistic, and that's probably where we agree to disagree
Click to expand...

Seems?

Argue if they were realistic?

Lol, what world are you in?
 
#33,559
#33,559
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#33,562
#33,562
allvol123 said:
Models have a range. Actuals arent even coming anywhere close to the bottom side of the range.

Should we just act like they didnt eff this up by magnitudes and those eff ups didnt cause economic destruction?
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that only one model was used. Many were used, including the White Houses own model which only now shows a reduction, emphasis on now. You're trying to monday morning quarterback, feel free to feign outrage over the modeling being overly cautious, but you'll look like a goof doing so. The models were predicated on incomplete, inaccurate and potentially misleading dataset from other countries on a novel pandemic. If they were wrong on the other direction, you'd be belly aching about that too - if everyone's died due to lack of planning - the economy would not matter much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85, Behr and Purple Tiger
#33,564
#33,564
Mick said:
I guess you're pro big city now.
Click to expand...
Nope. I don't want blanket restrictions. each area is different and should be represented as different. The requirements for NYC dont equal the ones for Houston or Tampa or even LA. For the same reasons I think its appropriate that LA, Chicago, NYC dont solely control who is president
 
#33,566
#33,566
allvol123 said:
No they cant. Their models included social distancing in them.
Click to expand...

I read last night that the administration anticipated 50% compliance with stay at home orders, but in instead we are seeing 90% (I don’t know how those numbers were arrived at). Apparently that has Birx et al., coming off the 100k-200k in the first wave but I’m not sure how widely she’s saying that.

Point being, social distancing isn’t just one number or one assumption. There is a factor of how deeply we social distance AND for how long.

I’m not saying there isn’t error in this model or others - in fact, I posted here multiple times that something was off about it over the last few weeks. But just trying to give it 360 treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#33,568
#33,568
allvol123 said:
Projections are absolutely the culprit. Policy was made on them. Scorched Earth policy, instead of strategic policy.

Yes this pandemic will lead to pain for millions primarily due to the assinine approach we used which was done based on these projections.
Click to expand...

Ignorant take. What were we supposed to do? Keep everything status quo and damn the populace? Social distancing has saved countless lives.
 
#33,569
#33,569
Septic said:
You seem to be under the impression that only one model was used. Many were used, including the White Houses own model which only now shows a reduction, emphasis on now. You're trying to monday morning quarterback, feel free to feign outrage over the modeling being overly cautious, but you'll look like a goof doing so. The models were predicated on incomplete, inaccurate and potentially misleading dataset from other countries on a novel pandemic. If they were wrong on the other direction, you'd be belly aching about that too - if everyone's died due to lack of planning - the economy would not matter much.
Click to expand...

No monday morning qb needed. I said from the beginning we would come under the models. That is common sense. No pol was ever going to throw out a number that was too low.

But you keep looking to govt to be informed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13
#33,570
#33,570
Septic said:
Should they be using models that try and project the best case scenario or the worst case? Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.
Click to expand...
Why not just go with the middle and say so. When we continually only go worse case and it doesn't happen people stop listening.
 
#33,572
#33,572
TennTradition said:
I read last night that the administration anticipated 50% compliance with stay at home orders, but in instead we are seeing 90% (I don’t know how those numbers were arrived at). Apparently that has Birx et al., coming off the 100k-200k in the first wave but I’m not sure how widely she’s saying that.

Point being, social distancing isn’t just one number or one assumption. There is a factor of how deeply we social distance AND for how long.

I’m not saying there isn’t error in this model or others - in fact, I posted here multiple times that something was off about it over the last few weeks. But just trying to give it 360 treatment.
Click to expand...

Yes, something was off. Ya think?
 
#33,573
#33,573
allvol123 said:
Seems?

Argue if they were realistic?

Lol, what world are you in?
Click to expand...

New York City, lol. I'm not celebrating victory yet, and am still a little worried about my hometown of Nashville, but I'm glad we're falling well short of projections.

The fact that projections are way off doesn't necessarily mean they were unrealistic, but sure if there's something irresponsible about the methodology they used, have at them. I just don't think that's the case. They probably started with the worst numbers from Italy and extrapolated to the U.S., which I can understand.

EDIT: Said differently, go after them if their process was bad, but inaccurate results aren't enough by themselves IMO
 
#33,575
#33,575
Purple Tiger said:
Ignorant take. What were we supposed to do? Keep everything status quo and damn the populace? Social distancing has saved countless lives.
Click to expand...
Yes but most could have been saved by targeting the high risk sector and saving the economy.

The list of essential goods being distributed tells me there's a disconnect somewhere
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol, Smokey'sHandler and McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top