Impressed by the Trump administration part II

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Well, since they will have to handle the welfare of several million people instead of us, you can do the math as to who is paying for the wall. 

That's BS politi-speak. It's not what he talked of in his position papers either. 

Most illegal immigrants are not allowed to access government benefits. Also, we receive billions in taxes from the majority who come here and work.  We're paying billions from the US Treasury for a wall that may not have it's promised affect. The US taxpayer will never be reimbursed directly or indirectly for that cost.  

BIG government spending at its finest. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

That's BS politi-speak. It's not what he talked of in his position papers either. 

 

Most illegal immigrants are not allowed to access government benefits. Also, we receive billions in taxes from the majority who come here and work.  We're paying billions from the US Treasury for a wall that may not have it's promised affect. The US taxpayer will never be reimbursed directly or indirectly for that cost.  

 

BIG government spending at its finest. 

THat is BS also, we pay in many ways.....they work for cash and send the money back to Mexico (not paying taxes), they take school funding, they use our medical system, welfare......

Billions, if not hundreds of Billions

posted by Spock

THat is BS also, we pay in many ways.....they work for cash and send the money back to Mexico (not paying taxes), they take school funding, they use our medical system, welfare......

 

Billions, if not hundreds of Billions

Just saying "hundreds of billions" doesn't make is so.  The majority of these people are not eligible or able to access any government benefits.  Most of them work and of those, most have payroll taxes deducted.  Under the table work not the majority of their jobs.  Plus they spend money here for themselves and their families before sending back whatever they send back.  If this sounds familiar, its because it is how almost all European immigrants behaved when they came to to the country.  Of course they came here "legally" when the requirement for legal entry was showing up on the dock. 

But the point is we're now footing the bill for a wall that may not even d what it's intended to do.  The US taxpayer won't be made whole on that unless you argue that they benefit "indirectly".  But you can make that argument about practically everything.  The fact is, Trump made a huge deal about Mexico paying for the wall.  In fact he even suggested that we'd leverage them to make them pay a lump sum up front.  The implication is that the US taxpayer would not pay.  That's what got the crowd's cheering.  Now here we are less than a term later paying for it entirely out of the US treasury.  

posted by Spock

money well spent....or at least money spent to prevent more spending later

Spoken like a Democrat.  They say the same thing with regard to UBI and single-payer system healthcare.
 

posted by QuakerOats

National defense; the nation’s one and only true priority.

Best.

There's no significant threat to national security.  Good luck fitting that square peg in the round hole you're trying.

Am I the only one who feels like this "battle" to re-open the country is kind of imaginary?  I believe every state has loosened restrictions, some are being excessively cautious perhaps but does 2 more weeks really matter?

It's not confined to the US, either.  Globally people are basically telling BIG GUBMT they're done with the lockdown.  The data is coming in, and if you're not in a nursing home you're risk is not that different from the flu (which also kills mostly the elderly).

posted by gut

Am I the only one who feels like this "battle" to re-open the country is kind of imaginary?  I believe every state has loosened restrictions, some are being excessively cautious perhaps but does 2 more weeks really matter?

It's not confined to the US, either.  Globally people are basically telling BIG GUBMT they're done with the lockdown.  The data is coming in, and if you're not in a nursing home you're risk is not that different from the flu (which also kills mostly the elderly).

I think you're right.  The only thing I hear about in Alabama is "why did that go on as long as it did?" and "why the hell did school get cancelled like that?"  Both relevant questions.  This state didn't have the militancy Ohio did and our numbers are no worse.  That tells me the lockdown, while an understandable initial reaction to a huge unknown, was way overused and has had no beneficial effects.  

posted by gut

Am I the only one who feels like this "battle" to re-open the country is kind of imaginary?  I believe every state has loosened restrictions, some are being excessively cautious perhaps but does 2 more weeks really matter?

It's not confined to the US, either.  Globally people are basically telling BIG GUBMT they're done with the lockdown.  The data is coming in, and if you're not in a nursing home you're risk is not that different from the flu (which also kills mostly the elderly).

Eh, even if we restrict it to the US, where the numbers are better than the global average (about double), you're still looking at 301K confirmed recoveries and about 94K confirmed deaths.  You can complain about the numbers (ex. "Well, they were overweight/diabetic/old/etc."), but most of the cases weren't considered terminal for any of the accompanying conditions they had prior to contracting it.

And even if you could explain away a decent percentage of the deaths as improperly labeled, I doubt it would be to the degree that it would be rendered as inconsequential as the flu, which is even less serious if you use the same litmus test (other health factors).

Obviously, the numbers aren't actually 94/301 in terms of mortality rate.  There are untold numbers of those who haven't been recorded and have recovered.  Of course, there are almost certainly some who have died from it without it being tracked as well, but probably not at the same rate.  Still, I doubt it's going to turn out to be as trivial as the flu.  Though they're in the minority, it has indeed killed perfectly healthy people with no other life-threatening conditions.

As for the lockdown, it was an unwarranted use of force, and some of it was absolutely overkill, or at the very least, counterproductive overall.

posted by O-Trap

And even if you could explain away a decent percentage of the deaths as improperly labeled, I doubt it would be to the degree that it would be rendered as inconsequential as the flu, which is even less serious if you use the same litmus test (other health factors).

In some states half the deaths are nursing homes.  Most of the rest of the deaths the average age is around 80 with multiple comorbities.  For the rest of the population, the risk is indeed on par with the flu.

I think the worst you could say is this is like the flu with no vaccine (which often is only about 50% effective, but still helps if you get infected).

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Just saying "hundreds of billions" doesn't make is so.  The majority of these people are not eligible or able to access any government benefits.  Most of them work and of those, most have payroll taxes deducted.  Under the table work not the majority of their jobs.  Plus they spend money here for themselves and their families before sending back whatever they send back.  If this sounds familiar, its because it is how almost all European immigrants behaved when they came to to the country.  Of course they came here "legally" when the requirement for legal entry was showing up on the dock. 

But the point is we're now footing the bill for a wall that may not even d what it's intended to do.  The US taxpayer won't be made whole on that unless you argue that they benefit "indirectly".  But you can make that argument about practically everything.  The fact is, Trump made a huge deal about Mexico paying for the wall.  In fact he even suggested that we'd leverage them to make them pay a lump sum up front.  The implication is that the US taxpayer would not pay.  That's what got the crowd's cheering.  Now here we are less than a term later paying for it entirely out of the US treasury.  

You keep using the word majority.....what does that mean?  Where is your statistic?  is it 51-49?  I dont care if its 90-10, that still means millions of them are gaming our system. 

As for access of benefits......you ever been to California?  Chicago?  Charlotte?  They get instant access to healthcare, free education, WIC etc...... not to mention the amount of $ we spend on law enforcement and incarcerations.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

That tells me the lockdown, while an understandable initial reaction to a huge unknown, was way overused and has had no beneficial effects.  

The biggest argument against the lockdown is we couldn't even protect our nursing homes.

posted by gut

The biggest argument against the lockdown is we couldn't even protect our nursing homes.

I would say the biggest argument against a lockdown is that this thing isnt as serious as we thought.  

posted by gut

In some states half the deaths are nursing homes.  Most of the rest of the deaths the average age is around 80 with multiple comorbities.  For the rest of the population, the risk is indeed on par with the flu.

I think the worst you could say is this is like the flu with no vaccine (which often is only about 50% effective, but still helps if you get infected).

The nursing home thing, which seems to be getting an uptick in coverage in the last few days, really doesn't surprise me.  The age is probably a factor, of course, as there is a correlation between age and the likelihood of a compromised immune system.  Just as well, though, you're likely forced into contact with health workers who, best efforts or not, are interacting with a number of people over the course of the day.

In effect, I think the nursing home example actually demonstrates why a person having a healthy immune system and no comorbidities is only half the matter, as not everyone you would likely interact with over the normal course of a day has an equally healthy immune system without any comorbidities.  Sort of a 'Typhoid Mary' element to the whole thing.

Also, if we use age and other conditions with regard to this virus, we'd have to do the same with the flu to make an adequate parallel.  The mortality rate for the flu is already small, without taking those elements into account.  For an apples-to-apples comparison between the two, if you give weight to the effect of age and additional health factors in the case of COVID-19, you'd have to do the same with the flu.

Per April's metrics, in NYC (to use as a microcosm, since it's obviously the biggest US hotspot at present), about 50% of the ones who died from it were over 75, so of course, that will obviously account for the average age being weighted that way.  But if we take the number of recovered cases against the total number of finalized cases, and we completely remove that age range entirely, it's still significantly more dangerous than the flu.  Again, even if you're healthy and young, the possibility for a Typhoid Mary situation would cause problems in the normal course of events.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that the ratio we have now will be the final one, of course.  The time it takes to get over the illness is probably longer than is useful for an illness for which we were fairly late out of the gate with testing.

Still, this past flu season had, per the CDC, a mortality rate between about 0.04% and 0.16% (24K to 62K deaths against 39M to 56M cases).  Those are finalized numbers, given the short lifespan of the flu virus (per my doctor in January, a normal flu virus lasts about ten to fourteen days).  The current finalized numbers of COVID-19 in the US are just over 94,000 deaths against about 397,000 finalizes cases (recovered + died).  That rate is, at present, 23.7%.

I'm not arguing that it will stay there.  I'm merely saying that even if we don't factor in any age or health-related elements to the flu (like we are with COVID-19), using the current number of total cases, we'd need the mortality rate of finalized cases to drop from 23.7% to between absolute zero (since we've already had too many deaths compared to total cases to put it on the low end of the flu mortality rate spectrum) and 0.12% from here on out to match flu numbers.

Nearly every single relevant voice seems to suggest that it will drop, even significantly, but I'm skeptical we'll see the remaining cases end with a mortality rate that is about 0.5% of what it's been thus far seems naively optimistic.  Obviously, I hope that's not true, but I have yet to see someone explain how that's likely.

posted by O-Trap

Nearly every single relevant voice seems to suggest that it will drop, even significantly, but I'm skeptical we'll see the remaining cases end with a mortality rate that is about 0.5% of what it's been thus far seems naively optimistic. 

0.5% will probably end-up on the high side, about 3X higher than a bad flu season.  But because of vaccines, the mortality rate for the vulnerable is much higher than the flu.  I think you'll find that's where the numbers skew.  For the vast majority of people, even 3-5X deadlier than the flu is still a negligible number.  Otherwise healthy individuals dying from this are mainly due to overreactive immune systems, same as with the flu.

And data from Sweden recently estimates overall mortality at 0.2%.  Antibody tests suggest spread of 10-20X or more of actual diagnosed cases.  If you're trying to divide deaths by recovered to estimate the risk, you're off by a factor well over 10 as tens of millions of people have already had this and recovered from it.

posted by gut

0.5% will probably end-up on the high side, about 3X higher than a bad flu season.  But because of vaccines, the mortality rate for the vulnerable is much higher than the flu.  I think you'll find that's where the numbers skew.  For the vast majority of people, even 3-5X deadlier than the flu is still a negligible number.  Otherwise healthy individuals dying from this are mainly due to overreactive immune systems, same as with the flu.

And data from Sweden recently estimates overall mortality at 0.2%.  Antibody tests suggest spread of 10-20X or more of actual diagnosed cases.  If you're trying to divide deaths by recovered to estimate the risk, you're off by a factor well over 10 as tens of millions of people have already had this and recovered from it.

I'm merely dividing deaths by the sum total of recovered cases and deaths combined because it's more honest with the numbers than just dividing deaths by total cases when trying to evaluate the actual mortality rate of the virus itself, the majority of which don't have a final result yet.  Putting a pending result into either category would be akin to evaluating the final grades of a classroom of students at the midterms.  Sure, you'll have an idea, based on the data so far, but you wouldn't estimate a 20x shift from that data thus far.

As for the info out of Sweden, if that's true, that's certainly encouraging, and I would hope that turns out to be the case.  I read about that study a few days ago, and it was actually showing a pretty low rate of the presence of antibodies, even the highest age demographic being under 10% of a fairly small test sample, with anyone over the age of 65 being something under maybe 3%?  I suppose that means people in that demographic have been self-quarantining, and I'd actually argue that it's a testament to what might be accomplished without legal restrictions, since Sweden really didn't enforce anything.

Still, last I saw, that study was still pretty early.  Maybe 1,000 people tested?  I'm not sure I'm ready to extrapolate that out to tens of millions yet.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I think you're right.  The only thing I hear about in Alabama is "why did that go on as long as it did?" and "why the hell did school get cancelled like that?"  Both relevant questions.  This state didn't have the militancy Ohio did and our numbers are no worse.  That tells me the lockdown, while an understandable initial reaction to a huge unknown, was way overused and has had no beneficial effects.  

Agreed.

You’re batting .500 today.

posted by Spock

I would say the biggest argument against a lockdown is that this thing isnt as serious as we thought.  

Eh, I'd say that the biggest one is that it's a violation of natural rights, which I don't think are justified even if some person or group arbitrarily decides that a problem is "serious" enough.

posted by O-Trap

Eh, I'd say that the biggest one is that it's a violation of natural rights, which I don't think are justified even if some person or group arbitrarily decides that a problem is "serious" enough.

Plus it wasn't a real "lockdown".  Stores that sell groceries or other essential items, got to stay open.  That meant that they could also sell anything else in the store.  So the guy down the street that owns a running shoe store had to close because that's all he sells.  Yet I could go into Target anytime and buy a pair of running shoes since Target, with its groceries, was "essential".

posted by O-Trap

Sure, you'll have an idea, based on the data so far, but you wouldn't estimate a 20x shift from that data thus far.

Yes, I would.  Study after study has been showing 20-30X or more people have had this than were diagnosed.  NYC did random testing and determined 25% of people have been infected.  That's 2M+ in NYC, vs. 200k reported cases and 15.4k deaths.  If I use your math, I get like a 12% mortality rate.  If I use the likely numbers of, say, 20k deaths vs. 2M cases that is 1%, but half of those are nursing homes.   And that's part of what is driving higher mortality in NYC. 

As I said, most estimates taking into account what the denominator likely and truly is are < 0.5%.  Early estimates were 1.0% before this virus was understood to be much more contagious and much higher % of asymptomatic cases.  In other words, they estimated 1.0% before it was known that the denominator was at least double what they thought.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/covid-19/data/demographics.cfm

First chart, Cases & Deaths by age group in a St. Louis sampling.

Everyone under 50's mortality rate rounds to 0.  50-59 is approx. 3.4%, but again we can assume that number of reported cases is at least 10-20X.  Not until over 70 does the rate climb appreciably.  About 90% of the deaths are over 70.

Here's NY,,, 75% of the deaths had underlying conditions.  1% did not.  25% unknown, but I think I saw 96% of hospitalization had underlying conditions and that's not inconsistent with this data.  So, again, less than 70 with no underlying conditions and your risk is negligble.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/