Grim statistics about Covid

[fyo]

India's low death rate has nothing to do with leadership.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/seeing-the-invisible/explaining-indias-extraordinarily-low-death-rate-from-covid-19/

That's just the first one I came across, there are many more articles explaining why.

From the article:

Two months have passed. My optimistic projections have come true across the world. In fact, my 30 May estimates were pessimistic. The pandemic has turned out to be more than 100 times less lethal than Spanish flu. It is also largely over in Europe, including in Belgium, Sweden and the UK. It is close to the end in the US, with multiple scientific projections that the final death toll in USA will be around 165-175 thousand.

Yeah, he hit the nail on the head on that one.

As for India's handling, they did lock down the large parts of the country very severely early on (March), which. This lockdown was in place (and even expanded) until May when things started to open up again. That saw a massive spike in infections (and deaths), the vast majority of which occurred after the article you link to was written. Severe regional lockdowns got the infection under control much like the US saw after the early summer spike.

What happens in India the coming months will depend entirely on how they handle restrictions. There are still more restrictions in place than in most US states, despite seeing far fewer new cases and an essentially static situation.

That said, I have more faith in the US healthcare system being able to handle a massive spike in cases than in the Indian.

It's worth noting in the Indian situation that the initial lockdowns were massively skewed both economically and in terms of efficacy. The economic hardship was proportionately borne by the poor, while lockdowns did relatively little to curb the spread in the poorer regions of Mumbai and New Delhi. There is simply no practical way to prevent transmission when people live in the conditions that exist in those areas.

[Tenshot13]

Do you think it's fair to say that it has NOTHING to do with leadership?

I can understanding thinking it's a combination of factors.  But surely, you must recognize that we are doing very, very little to combat this virus and there isn't a consistent narrative about how to work together to do anything about it.  In fact, there is widespread denial, refusal of safety compliance, etc.  That is pretty uniquely a US problem.

Of course it has to do with leadership, but there is plenty of blame to go around to state leaders and shouldn't all be on Trump.  Also comparably, a lot of other European countries (U.K., France have about the same death rate, Italy was worse) are doing roughly the same as the U.S. percentage wise, they have less people though so everyone focuses on "200k".  Could it have been handled better?  Of course, especially by Trump, but I think there are a lot of complicated factors that people choose to ignore because they have an "orange man bad" agenda.

[Dave Gray]

Of course it has to do with leadership, but there is plenty of blame to go around to state leaders and shouldn't all be on Trump. 

Absolutely.

Trump does set the narrative with the bully pulpit.  I don't expect Trump to legislate our way out of that.  All of the legislation part is gonna come from local/state officials.  But he should set the example that the people would then follow.  Trump has been disasterous for this pandemic, there is no consistent message and when there is one, it's of denial of seriousness.

Florida is in terrible shape, too.  Our governor has basically said that we're doing nothing statewide.  Any restrictions are coming at the county level and, if anything, are being fought by the state.

Where I live, it's not so bad.  In general, people do what they're supposed to.  When I go places, sometimes I'll see one person without a mask on indoors and it's a pretty shocking sight because you're just not used to it.  But I do have neighbors that are having parties full of people like there's nothing happening.

[Sunstroke]

Of course it has to do with leadership, but there is plenty of blame to go around to state leaders and shouldn't all be on Trump.

Of course it isn't all on Trump. It also falls on every GOP politician that was so afraid that Trump would twitter-attack them for disagreeing with him that they said nothing at all and let it happen.

[Dolphster]

I think that any chance of anyone having a full understanding of the facts about COVID was lost the minute that the politicians (of either party) got involved. 

[Sunstroke]

I think that any chance of anyone having a full understanding of the facts about COVID was lost the minute that the politicians (of either party) got involved. 

I would have a whole lot easier time accepting the "either party" part of that statement if you could just show me one example of a Dem governor or congressman that referred to the COVID as "a hoax."

Go ahead...I can wait. 

[Dolphster]

I would have a whole lot easier time accepting the "either party" part of that statement if you could just show me one example of a Dem governor or congressman that referred to the COVID as "a hoax."

Go ahead...I can wait. 

Oh I wasn't implying that any Dem governors or congressmen have referred to it as a "hoax".   I just meant that both sides have politicized the entire thing and as soon as any topic becomes politicized, facts take a back seat to "agenda".   Not saying that they throw facts completely out of the conversation, but facts become secondary to political agenda.  Granted I am jaded after spending the last 15 years dealing with politicians on a weekly and sometimes daily basis.  Politicians care about their poll numbers first.  If the good of the country is also involved then that is fine, but facts and what is best for the country are at best secondary and most often tertiary or even worse. 

[Dave Gray]

I hate to just poo-poo the "both sides" thing, but I really gotta.

The left isn't politicizing this, as far as I can tell.  Our understanding of things is changing and thus, our response seems to be changing.  Like, at first the CDC essentially lied about the importance of masks, because they needed them in healthcare providers' hands, we had an over-importance of clean hands/gloves when this seems to be more aerosol-based.  And we're getting better at treatment and tracking.

The middle and left seem to be pretty much on the same page....wear masks in public, distance when possible, avoid gatherings outside of your immediate bubble, shutdown some services as numbers spike.  It's just following the science, not politics.

It's the fringe of the right...and I wouldn't even call it conservatives, but whatever Trumpism/libertarian amalgam that is decrying freedom withering or outright denying the efficacy of masks or the virus itself.  That's the political line.  We know what it takes to combat this.  It's just that the hardcore Trumpers are measurably less-likely to comply with what's needed.


In my neighborhood, there are three houses that pretty regularly have big gatherings...tons of cars, no masks.  All of them fly Trump flags.

[Dolphster]

You could be right, Dave.  I'm admittedly coming into the discussion as being pretty much biased against all politicians just because of my own experiences with them. I have found most of them to be such loathsome and selfish individuals that it makes it hard for me to believe anything that comes out of any of them.   

[CF DolFan]

I hate to just poo-poo the "both sides" thing, but I really gotta.

The left isn't politicizing this, as far as I can tell.  Our understanding of things is changing and thus, our response seems to be changing.  Like, at first the CDC essentially lied about the importance of masks, because they needed them in healthcare providers' hands, we had an over-importance of clean hands/gloves when this seems to be more aerosol-based.  And we're getting better at treatment and tracking.

The middle and left seem to be pretty much on the same page....wear masks in public, distance when possible, avoid gatherings outside of your immediate bubble, shutdown some services as numbers spike.  It's just following the science, not politics.

It's the fringe of the right...and I wouldn't even call it conservatives, but whatever Trumpism/libertarian amalgam that is decrying freedom withering or outright denying the efficacy of masks or the virus itself.  That's the political line.  We know what it takes to combat this.  It's just that the hardcore Trumpers are measurably less-likely to comply with what's needed.


In my neighborhood, there are three houses that pretty regularly have big gatherings...tons of cars, no masks.  All of them fly Trump flags.

I think a lot gets lumped into not believing the science. Many people who refuse to wear them believe the "science" but also think the hype is overgrown by certain media outlets and that less than 1/2 percent doesn't justify ruining millions of peoples lives and shutting down. It's no secret if you reported just on how many people survived covid that many people would have a more positive outlook.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think a lot gets lumped into not believing the science. Many people who refuse to wear them believe the "science" but also think the hype is overgrown by certain media outlets and that less than 1/2 percent doesn't justify ruining millions of peoples lives and shutting down. It's no secret if you reported just on how many people survived covid that many people would have a more positive outlook.

Do you apply that flawed logic to everything? 

Lets get rid of DUI laws, the vast majority of people who drive home from a bar drunk don’t kill anyone.

In my town of 15827 people, yesterday 15826 of them did not need an ambulance and all 15827 of them did not have a house fire.   Should we get of the ambulance and fire trucks. 

Most smokers don’t die of lung cancer, therefore banning 4 year olds from buying cigarettes is stupid. 

Odds are if I don’t look both ways I can still cross the street without being hit.

 

[Tenshot13]

Most smokers don’t die of lung cancer, therefore banning 4 year olds from buying cigarettes is stupid. 

 

I think you're ridiculous but is this one true?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think you're ridiculous but is this one true?

Only 10% to 15% of smokers get lung cancer.

[Dolphster]

Only 10% to 15% of smokers get lung cancer.

But don't forget other smoking-related problems like heart disease, stroke or emphysema

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

But don't forget other smoking-related problems like heart disease, stroke or emphysema

With Covid we only count the people who die of the disease immediately, but not the 20 year old who survived Covid with 20% lung capacity who will die at age 30 from shoveling snow.