Final Day of the Worst Week Ever

Nope. They are guesses made from real data.

And they have been spectacularly wrong.

Open the schools up and allow the young and young-ish to work and develop herd immunity. Lock the nursing homes flat down and throw away the key. Strong recommendation for the elderly and compromised to practice strict social distancing.

A flattened curve is a longer curve.

Instead of locking down we should be looking for the fastest route to herd immunity.
 
I know that, and you know that. But that's what the decisions being made are based on, irrespective of what you or I know.

New decisions must be made as the true nature of the falsity of the projections becomes more apparent.

The model on which the government is relying is simply unreliable.

It is not that social distancing has changed the equation; it is that the equation’s fundamental assumptions are so dead wrong, they cannot remain reasonably stable for just 72 hours.

And mind you, when we observe that the government is relying on the models, we mean reliance for the purpose of making policy, including the policy of completely closing down American businesses and attempting to confine people to their homes because, it is said, no lesser measures will do.

That seems worth stressing in light of this morning’s announcement that unemployment claims spiked another 6.6 million (now well over 16 million in just the past couple of weeks), to say nothing of the fact that, while the nation reels, the Senate has now chosen to go on recess, having failed, thanks to DEMOCRAT obstinacy, to enact legislation to give more relief to our fast-shrinking small-business sector.

The revised April 5 model was grossly wrong even in predicting conditions that would obtain on April 5 itself.

It had predicted that on that day, New York, the epicenter of the crisis, would need about 24,000 hospital beds, including 6,000 ICU beds. In fact, the model was off by a third — New York had 16,479 hospitalized COVID patients, 4,376 that were in ICU.

On April 8, IHME reduced the total number of hospital beds it had predicted would be needed nationally by a remarkable 166,890 — down to 95,202 from the 262,092 it had predicted less than a week earlier (i.e., it was nearly two-thirds off).

The ICU projection over that same week was cut in half: to 19,816 on April 8, down from 39,727 on April 2.

The projected need for ventilators also fell by nearly half, to 16,845 from 31,782.

Because of the way the media report on skepticism about models and a desire to get reliable facts (which used to be the media’s job), I pause to stress that I am not belittling the threat of the virus, particularly to people who are especially vulnerable — the elderly and those with underlying health problems, especially respiratory problems.

The question is one of balance.

American lives are being shattered by the restrictions that have been put in place.

The decision to do that was based on models.

Those models have no credibility.

They now tell us that about 61,000 may die of coronavirus this year — although, if the last few days are any indication, that number could be revised downward soon, perhaps substantially.

To compare, the CDC estimates that 61,200 people died from the flu in the 2017–2018 period.

It has become fashionable to ridicule flu comparisons, but they are surely relevant, even if it is true that coronavirus is more readily transmissible and has a higher fatality rate.

For this year, the CDC projects that flu deaths will range between 24,000 and 63,000, and that hospitalizations could surge as high as 730,000 (out of the 18 to 26 million people who are treated for flu, out of as many as 55 million Americans who experience flu-related illnesses).

We don’t shut the country down for that.
 
And they have been spectacularly wrong.

Open the schools up and allow the young and young-ish to work and develop herd immunity. Lock the nursing homes flat down and throw away the key. Strong recommendation for the elderly and compromised to practice strict social distancing.

A flattened curve is a longer curve.

Instead of locking down we should be looking for the fastest route to herd immunity.

What "data" were these models supposedly based on? Garbage in, garbage out.
 
And they have been spectacularly wrong.

Open the schools up and allow the young and young-ish to work and develop herd immunity. Lock the nursing homes flat down and throw away the key. Strong recommendation for the elderly and compromised to practice strict social distancing.

A flattened curve is a longer curve.

Instead of locking down we should be looking for the fastest route to herd immunity.

You trying to cull some more people?
 
Not if the DEMOCRATS can use the panic to persuade all 50 states to ban in-person voting in November.

That is their hope, and it is becoming more obvious by the day.
That will never happen. By November, this will all be a bad memory.

And will probably mutate and never return like SARS and MERS.
 
New decisions must be made as the true nature of the falsity of the projections becomes more apparent.

The model on which the government is relying is simply unreliable.

It is not that social distancing has changed the equation; it is that the equation’s fundamental assumptions are so dead wrong, they cannot remain reasonably stable for just 72 hours.

And mind you, when we observe that the government is relying on the models, we mean reliance for the purpose of making policy, including the policy of completely closing down American businesses and attempting to confine people to their homes because, it is said, no lesser measures will do.

That seems worth stressing in light of this morning’s announcement that unemployment claims spiked another 6.6 million (now well over 16 million in just the past couple of weeks), to say nothing of the fact that, while the nation reels, the Senate has now chosen to go on recess, having failed, thanks to DEMOCRAT obstinacy, to enact legislation to give more relief to our fast-shrinking small-business sector.

The revised April 5 model was grossly wrong even in predicting conditions that would obtain on April 5 itself.

It had predicted that on that day, New York, the epicenter of the crisis, would need about 24,000 hospital beds, including 6,000 ICU beds. In fact, the model was off by a third — New York had 16,479 hospitalized COVID patients, 4,376 that were in ICU.

On April 8, IHME reduced the total number of hospital beds it had predicted would be needed nationally by a remarkable 166,890 — down to 95,202 from the 262,092 it had predicted less than a week earlier (i.e., it was nearly two-thirds off).

The ICU projection over that same week was cut in half: to 19,816 on April 8, down from 39,727 on April 2.

The projected need for ventilators also fell by nearly half, to 16,845 from 31,782.

Because of the way the media report on skepticism about models and a desire to get reliable facts (which used to be the media’s job), I pause to stress that I am not belittling the threat of the virus, particularly to people who are especially vulnerable — the elderly and those with underlying health problems, especially respiratory problems.

The question is one of balance.

American lives are being shattered by the restrictions that have been put in place.

The decision to do that was based on models.

Those models have no credibility.

They now tell us that about 61,000 may die of coronavirus this year — although, if the last few days are any indication, that number could be revised downward soon, perhaps substantially.

To compare, the CDC estimates that 61,200 people died from the flu in the 2017–2018 period.

It has become fashionable to ridicule flu comparisons, but they are surely relevant, even if it is true that coronavirus is more readily transmissible and has a higher fatality rate.

For this year, the CDC projects that flu deaths will range between 24,000 and 63,000, and that hospitalizations could surge as high as 730,000 (out of the 18 to 26 million people who are treated for flu, out of as many as 55 million Americans who experience flu-related illnesses).

We don’t shut the country down for that.
Applause!
 
Not if Obama has his way, Earl.

Obama is trying to lend some legitimacy to the concept of voting by mail.

Obama tweeted a copy of a Blue York Crimes article entitled, “Does Vote-by-Mail Favor DEMOCRATS? No. It’s a False Argument by Trump.”

Obama’s caption? “Let’s not use the tragedy of a pandemic to compromise our democracy. Check the facts of vote by mail.”

Does Obama have any idea how disingenuous he sounds?

The article says that “leading experts” who have studied voting by mail have told the Crimes that it does not favor Democrats. Oh, well then, if "experts" said it, it must be true.

According to the Crimes: As with false claims by Republicans about vote-by-mail fraud, there is no evidence to back up the argument from the right that all-mail elections favor DEMOCRATS. But Mr. Trump and some of his allies are warning that vote-by-mail poses an existential threat to their party, in hopes of galvanizing Republican opposition to a voting method that is widely seen as safer than in-person voting in the era of the coronavirus.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/11/816026/
Absentee ballots have been around forever but as I understand it, the cheating Democrats want the Nov. election to be all absentee ballot voting.
The Supreme Court just upheld the rejection of extension of in person voting beyond voting day. Voting laws concerning the mandating of all voting by absentee ballots will not pass Supreme Court muster either. Obey existing voting laws, cheating Democrats!
 
That will never happen.

Oh, no?

Five states currently conduct all elections entirely by mail: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah.

At least 21 other states have laws that allow certain elections to be conducted by mail.

States that permit counties to opt into conducting all elections by mail:

California: Any county may conduct any election as an all-mail election following statutory guidelines. (Cal. Elec. Cde §§4005-4008).
Nebraska: Any county of less than 10,000 inhabitants may apply to the secretary of state to mail ballots for all elections in lieu of establishing polling places (Neb. Rev. Stat. §32-960).
North Dakota: Counties may conduct any election by mail. (North Dakota does not require voter registration ahead of the election) (ND Cent. Code §16.1-11.1-01 et seq.)


States that permit some elections to be conducted by mail:

Alaska: Elections that are not held on the same day as a general, party primary or municipal election (Alaska Stat.§15.20.800)
Arizona: A city, town, school district or special district may conduct elections by mail (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16-409, §16-558)
Florida: Referendum elections at the county, city, school district or special district level (Fla. Stat. §101.6102)
Kansas: Nonpartisan elections at which no candidate is elected, retained or recalled and which is not held on the same date as another election (Kan. Stat. Ann. §25-432)
Maryland: Special elections not held concurrently with a regularly scheduled primary or general election (Md. Election Code §9-501)
Missouri: Nonpartisan issue elections at which no candidate is elected, retained or recalled and in which all qualified voters of one political subdivision are the only voters eligible to vote (Mo. Rev. Stat. §115.652 et seq.)
Montana: Any election other than a regularly scheduled federal, state, or county election; a special federal or state election, unless authorized by the legislature; (MCA 13-19-101 et seq.)
Wyoming: Counties may decide to conduct special elections not held in conjunction with a primary, general or statewide special election entirely by mail (Wyo. Stat. 22-29-115)

States that permit certain jurisdictions or portions of a jurisdiction to be designated as all-mail based on population:

Idaho: A precinct which contains no more than 140 registered electors at the last general election may be designated by the board of county commissioners a mail ballot precinct no later than April 1 in an even-numbered year (Idaho Code §34-308)
Minnesota: Elections conducted by a municipality having fewer than 400 registered voters on June 1 of an election year and not located in a metropolitan county (Minn. Stat. §204B.45)
Nevada: Whenever there were not more than 20 voters registered in a precinct for the last preceding general election (Nev. Rev. Stat. §293.213)
New Jersey: A municipality with a population of 500 or fewer persons, according to the latest federal decennial census, may conduct all elections by mail (NJRS §19.62-1)
New Mexico: A county may designate a precinct as a mail ballot election precinct if it has fewer than 100 voters and the nearest polling place is more than 20 miles from the precinct boundary in question (N. M. Stat. Ann. § 1-6-22.1)


https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/all-mail-elections.aspx
 
Absentee ballots have been around forever but as I understand it, the cheating Democrats want the Nov. election to be all absentee ballot voting.
The Supreme Court just upheld the rejection of extension of in person voting beyond voting day. Voting laws concerning the mandating of all voting by absentee ballots will not pass Supreme Court muster either. Obey existing voting laws, cheating Democrats!

DEMOCRATS’ calls for voting by mail have grown louder. Although we are still seven months out from November, DEMOCRATS are using the coronavirus as their ostensible reason why the 2020 election must be conducted by mail.

Pelosi told CNN this week she planned to include a vote-by-mail provision in the next stimulus bill.

President Trump recently said, if all-mail voting passed, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

Count on it.


https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/11/816026/
 
Applause!

Hold the applause.

Their plan is working.

The goal of the politically-motivated pandemic panic propagandists is twofold:


1. Destroy the economy to take away the advantage that President Trump had as the incumbent


2. Use fear to persuade all 50 states to ban in-person voting to make election cheating a snap
 
Hold the applause.

Their plan is working.

The goal of the politically-motivated pandemic panic propagandists is twofold:


1. Destroy the economy to take away the advantage that President Trump had as the incumbent


2. Use fear to persuade all 50 states to ban in-person voting to make election cheating a snap
Did you see the market reaction to even minimal good news?

When this thing ends -- and it will end-- we will eventually get back to normal. That is probably going to begin in May. The Chinese virus death and new case numbers are going down probably in part to the season change as well. By November, this will be like a bad dream.
 
They did not include a variable , how many would stay at home. It was an unknown that appears to have taken hold better than expected.

You can’t judge the effectiveness of social distancing based on how they relate to failed/failing models.

You need a control group for that. It’s a very real possibility this has all been pointless. The sooner we find out, the better.

And we won’t know until there is random testing for serum COVID antibodies.
 
Back
Top