Donald Trump and the Coronavirus

[carpedm9587]

Bigger is largely irrelevant to the points being made. Population density is relevant. As noted, they have roughly the same population distribution as the U.S., with a higher overall population density. Indeed, if we factored in size, the widespread areas in the U.S. with a significantly lower population density SHOULD be resulting in our numbers being significantly better than that of other countries because they lack those kind of wide-open areas that mitigate spread. If anything, you are making my case - not refuting it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Bigger is largely irrelevant to the points being made. Population density is relevant. As noted, they have roughly the same population distribution as the U.S., with a higher overall population density. Indeed, if we factored in size, the widespread areas in the U.S. with a significantly lower population density SHOULD be resulting in our numbers being significantly better than that of other countries because they lack those kind of wide-open areas that mitigate spread. If anything, you are making my case - not refuting it.

[carpedm9587]

As noted previously, take NY and NJ out of the formula and the rest of the country still has 17% of the world's infections and 13% of the world's deaths but 3.9% of the world's population, and the rest of the country is still on a growth path that is superior to NY and NJ, both of which have started flattening out. Two weeks ago, NY by itself had half of all U.S. infections. Now it is one third. A similar pattern is happening with deaths.

And, last I checked, NY and NJ were still part of the U.S. - so just deleting them because their numbers are inconvenient doesn't fly.

[lilpixieofterror]

As noted previously, take NY and NJ out of the formula and the rest of the country still has 17% of the world's infections and 13% of the world's deaths but 3.9% of the world's population, and the rest of the country is still on a growth path that is superior to NY and NJ, both of which have started flattening out. Two weeks ago, NY by itself had half of all U.S. infections. Now it is one third. A similar pattern is happening with deaths.

And, last I checked, NY and NJ were still part of the U.S. - so just deleting them because their numbers are inconvenient doesn't fly.

[carpedm9587]

Again...you are guessing about tropical situations since there is no data so support the claim that warmer climates have a measurable effect. As for testing, again, the data is not there to support your claim. The U.S. is 40th on the list of countries for testing per capita. The countries that you folks keep jumping on as "worse than the U.S." actually are testing close to at par with the U.S.

You are cherry picking data to make a case, Pix. It's just not very compelling.

[Mountain Man]

Yep. Comparing the US as a whole to small, European countries doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to compare individual states to European countries, or compare all of Europe to the US.

[lilpixieofterror]

Again...you are guessing about tropical situations since there is no data so support the claim that warmer climates have a measurable effect.

Than why are more tropical countries, experiencing it less?

1. Poor testing is keeping their numbers low.
2. Their climate is helping.
3. A little of both.

Pick your poison.

As for testing, again, the data is not there to support your claim. The U.S. is 40th on the list of countries for testing per capita. The countries that you folks keep jumping on as "worse than the U.S." actually are testing close to at par with the U.S.

And where is the majority of the world population located? In countries with high or low per capita testing?

You are cherry picking data to make a case, Pix. It's just not very compelling.

Mr Cherry picker whining about others when he wants to ignore that high population dense areas, with high social interaction, means more infections. Your lack of self awareness, shines again.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yep. Comparing the US as a whole to small, European countries doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to compare individual states to European countries, or compare all of Europe to the US.

[carpedm9587]

Than why are more tropical countries, experiencing it less?

1. Poor testing is keeping their numbers low.
2. Their climate is helping.
3. A little of both.

Pick your poison.

First, there is no data I am aware of to support the claim that "tropical countries are experiencing it less." The data shows the growth curve in tropical countries to be pretty much the same as most other countries. All countries have different initial infection dates, so the total number is more or less depending on when that initial infection occurred. How countries differ has to do with how quickly the country makes the curve "bend."

And where is the majority of the world population located? In countries with high or low per capita testing?

There is no consistent answer to this question that I can find. Some high-population countries have low testing numbers, some high-population countries have high testing numbers, some low population countries have high testing numbers, and some low population countries have low testing numbers.

Mr Cherry picker whining about others when he wants to ignore that high population dense areas, with high social interaction, means more infections. Your lack of self awareness, shines again.

At no point have I ignored the fact that high-population areas tend to have have more infections. I have explicitly stated it numerous times, so this statement is false.

[Cow Poke]

Actually... I do hate Christians...

This is about me, isn't it?

[carpedm9587]

This is about me, isn't it?

Never!









(BTW, for the casual reader...I actually marked the original post as a joke...)

[Cow Poke]

Never!









(BTW, for the casual reader...I actually marked the original post as a joke...)

Yes, he most certainly did!

[lilpixieofterror]

First, there is no data I am aware of to support the claim that "tropical countries are experiencing it less." The data shows the growth curve in tropical countries to be pretty much the same as most other countries. All countries have different initial infection dates, so the total number is more or less depending on when that initial infection occurred. How countries differ has to do with how quickly the country makes the curve "bend."

There is no consistent answer to this question that I can find. Some high-population countries have low testing numbers, some high-population countries have high testing numbers, some low population countries have high testing numbers, and some low population countries have low testing numbers.

At no point have I ignored the fact that high-population areas tend to have have more infections. I have explicitly stated it numerous times, so this statement is false.

[carpedm9587]

Are you under the impression that repeating a failed argument makes it better? The total incidents may be lower, but the incident RATE is not. I know of no countries that have avoided the exponential infection rates. They are just in different places on the curve due to the differing initial dates of infection. Countries with a great deal of in/out traffic tend t ohave earlier initial-infection dates than countries with low in-out traffic. You are speculating here with no supporting data.

And that captures the essence of the difference between our approaches. I do not take a glance at a data set and claim I know causality. I examine the data critically to determine what it can and what it cannot tell us.

At no point have I attempted to downplay it. Indeed, I have explicitly noted it as part of my arguments. What I HAVE done is point out that you are using the fact that high density arras are more prone to higher infection rates to support arguments that this fact does not support. I will continue to do that whenever you make that error.

[lilpixieofterror]

Are you under the impression that repeating a failed argument makes it better? The total incidents may be lower, but the incident RATE is not. I know of no countries that have avoided the exponential infection rates. They are just in different places on the curve due to the differing initial dates of infection. Countries with a great deal of in/out traffic tend t ohave earlier initial-infection dates than countries with low in-out traffic. You are speculating here with no supporting data.

And that captures the essence of the difference between our approaches. I do not take a glance at a data set and claim I know causality. I examine the data critically to determine what it can and what it cannot tell us.

At no point have I attempted to downplay it. Indeed, I have explicitly noted it as part of my arguments. What I HAVE done is point out that you are using the fact that high density arras are more prone to higher infection rates to support arguments that this fact does not support. I will continue to do that whenever you make that error.