Edited for clarity. It's a checkmate to the views of 20+ irrational Trump haters that all have the same view:

Fact: Democrats are 80+% of the spreaders
Democrat Opinion: It's Trump's fault

This is on par with thinking that rioting, pulling down statues and defunding the police will make black lives better rather than worse. Facts, evidence and reason don't matter, these people are out of their mind.

If the red states were the ones spreading it (rather than overwhelmingly the blue states, overwhelmingly disproportionately Democrat voting minorities, overwhelmingly disproportionately Democrat voting young people), then sure, you could have a point that Trump's lack of wearing a mask/politics is a big problem. As it is the data is 100% against that opinion, yet people keep holding it because facts and evidence don't matter; Trump is the witch and the village mob will blame her for everything.

Tooth, both of these things can be true:

1) Trump has handled this poorly and had terrible messaging.
2) The effects from 1) are overstated by the media and the average person.

A good example of how to handle the coronavirus is the Greek Prime Minister. He emphasized the importance of masks and had the entire country on the same page in terms of the severity of the situation.

He definitely benefited from a more homogeneous country than the US but he showed great leadership.

Trump had many, many things going against him. But, Trump, along with the media, have created toxic division and as someone said above he's made the decision to wear a mask a political issue. That is poor leadership. Would also say that how the media has handled is poor journalistic integrity.

We can debate how big of an effect that has had on cases/deaths but it's hard to argue he showed good leadership and has handled this well.

I actually think he handled it somewhat well up until March or so. After that he's been objectively bad.

I think something to watch out for is having a contrarian bias. I know I have it. Let's say the truth is X. But, the other side says it's X+10. Saying it is X - 3 means you are still wrong.

The problem is just saying the truth might mitigate your political bargaining power. So, it creates a pendulum effect where each side counters ridiculousness with equal and opposite ridiculousness.

Nope, testing and tracing, small population (ultra simple to get enough tests - 3% of the population of the US!), central control both practically and legally, and a compliant, non-traveling populace was the difference. Trump had none of those things. If you put the Greek PM in charge of the US the result would look the same, sadly.

Again, your Trump Derangement Syndrome is causing you to make hilarious logic fails. You're better than that. If wearing a mask is a political issue, it's an issue for Republicans - if anything Trump not wearing making Democrats who hate him more inclined to be different.

But 80+% of spreaders are Democrats who hate Trump. So the vast bulk of the problem has nothing at all to do with the political stuff you talk about.

So why are you bringing up Trump mask wearing when logically it has made close to zero difference, and the CDC/WHO themselves said for months NOT to wear one? The only reason you would is Trump Derangement Syndrome in your media trained brain, because it has nothing to do with causing corona in the US in any meaningful way so far, and you're smart enough to know that.
What could Trump have done differently that would have substantially altered the outcome? If the red states (and Republican voters) were the majority and spreading this, I'd agree with you. But Democrats are overwhelmingly the majority spreading it. So your logic fails.

He nailed it up until March, then the US got totally shafted by the CDC's/expert's screwups (how can you handle a pandemic if you can't even test for it?). At that point nothing could have been done and the outcome was always going to be like this.

You say "objectively bad". What should practically have been done differently that would have a made a meaningful difference to the outcome right now? I'm going to laugh in your face if you say "wear a mask".

Testing has been ramped as hard as possible, national strategies put in place. I agree that the no mask stuff is terrible messaging, but it has not mattered in practical terms so far. So what should he have done differently that you think would have made a difference in say, 30% corona, 0.3% death rate minority Trump-hating Kings suburb in NY? That would have altered the behavior of the young Democrats spreading it? Minorities? There isn't even hard evidence that population mask wearing makes a lot of difference (The CDC and WHO for months said NOT to wear one)
Except nearly all the ridiculousness is all on the Trump hating side here. They're far nuttier than even the Republican idiots who say corona is a hoax.

Mindless consumerism fueling endless seeking of gratification and validation creating toxic individualism.

Yet the ones overwhelmingly spreading it are anti-capitalist socialists (the young, minorities, extreme blue states with blue governors and mayors). Another fail.

Trump is a terrible leader who literally does something either stupid or divisive every couple of days.

Meanwhile, leaders like Jacinda Ardern and Angela Merkel have somehow managed to navigate this whole crisis without making themselves look a total idiot every time someone points a microphone at them.

The idea that if he traded spots with either of these leaders, that there would be no effect on their countries outcome is laughable.

Massive thread derail could ensue.
High standard of living in USA is a result of USA consumerism.

Eurozone benefits from consumerism too actually. Nothing to do with TRUMP leadership though I admit.

Carry on with the orange man is bad. One hundred twenty five days or so until November elections.

The only COVID/Trump statements that matter are the following:

1. If _______ was President, ACTION X would have been done by DATE Y which Trump didn’t take at that point, which would translate into improvement Z in death, hospitalization, economic, or market stats.

It’s hard to rationally make such claims, especially because at those times various leaders didn’t have the hard data available now. Go for it if you think you can make such a claim.

All else is polititarding.

However, beyond such claims, here’s the only political take that is worth saying:

1. COVID-19 has largely brought political unity in many countries internally as they dealt with a sudden major national threat. Not only has Trump missed a major opportunity to unify a divided population in a time of war-like crisis, but in many instances he continues to stoke the flames of division, and this fact alone has probably cost him his reelection. All other COVID-19 stats, right or wrong, are now looked at through this negative political lens.

What is laughable is you thinking a political figurehead is the primary determinant of outcomes in situations like this.

Fauci probably gets off too easily because he (unlike Trump) is a likeable guy. But I remember him back in March telling us not to cancel travel plans, not to wear masks, go out to dinner and shows, etc.

But the question is, why is the US so much worse at handling this than other countries. We are the only country (so far at least) to have had a lockdown, changed the trajectory of the curve, and then gone right back up to record highs. Look at the graphs of every other country, even hardest hit like Italy, France, and China. Then look at the US. We are an outlier in the worst way.

Just to clarify for all those people with an IQ <85 and for whom reading comprehension is challenging, saying something would have an effect greater than zero is not the same as saying they would be the primary determinant of an outcome.

A lot of theories on why this is, but air conditioning may play a role.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...-in-the-south/

I have seen a couple different research papers floating around indicating that blood from some people who have never had Coronavirus show immunity in vitro (in the lab), especially T cell immunity.

I think it is possible that there is some significant % of full/partial immunity in the human population due to recent infection from other coronaviruses and/or genetic factors.

I suspect that in any given locality 25-30% of the population becoming infected may be enough to have some level of herd immunity. It seems there is a trend were places that had a brutal initial first wave (NYT, Italy, Spain) are not getting a second wave upon reopening, which supports this thesis. Although it could also be behavioral modifications that are keeping the other 75% of the population from being infected.

Time will tell.

We didn't lock down until cases hit zero or a manageable number. We locked down to avoid another NYC scenario

We did nothing like all other countries, save for Sweden, who now admit publicly that they ****ed up

That and nobody seems to understand or care for the significance of exponential spread and the R0 rising above 1

Yeah, I'm not buying the immunity thing. They only just reopened (after greatly reducing cases to low levels such that it will take months to get high again), and the reopening is far from normality.

This is the busiest place in Venice right now:



If you've ever been to Venice in July I'm sure you're laughing at calling this a "reopening".

This is the Spanish Steps in Rome, live:

This is a story that came out today on T cells.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...study-12018799

One person that has been a big proponent of this theory is Dr. Karol Sikora, who has been widely criticized for it and other ideas he has had. But it makes a lot of sense.

This also seems to be the prevailing theory among lots of smart non-epidemiologist STEM types working on it and seems to model reality must better the supposed 'experts' and their garbage code.

It basically looks like there are two paths with this virus - either the Noah's Ark approach of lockdown early and hard then track/trace/squash any minor outbreaks early and until global eradication/vaccine, or see it go through the population until it naturally finds its ceiling at 25-30% saturation in dense connected areas (up to say half in incestuous ground zero ski resorts) which in addition to immunity from previous coronaviurses is enough to reach a tipping point, after which transmission goes into inexorable decline, except for minor flare ups.

Lots of European cities are probably there by now and close to saturated (those France antibody numbers are nearly 2 months old now), as well as NYC. Europe is likely not seeing any major second waves due to this despite being mostly open for business again, but non NYC USA is still lagging behind a few weeks and is massive/diverse/unhealthy so is going to be a mess for a while yet (especially if healthcare services overwhelm) but will eventually still get there too, just with a timelag compared to Europe. Hopefully they can learn some lessons and do a better job of protecting the elderly/high-risk/frontline folks who get hit the worst.

I think the 50% infection rate (with 0.5% death rate) in places like Bergamo, Italy disproves the thesis pretty well. As does how well it spread through places like nursing homes. There could be some resistance already from other coronaviruses making it less severe, but it doesn't seem to stop spread. It may explain asymptomatic cases, who also spread it.

It's certainly not applicable to anything but a few suburbs which got to 30% like Queens in NY. Most places are <5% and most of the badly hit places may 10-15%. Noone is near immune.

curious about this subject as i have not seen it addressed much in the media...

for all kinds of things heavily negative affected by this coronovirus. basically anything where people congregate, including offices.

i will use sports events and music concerts as the base case......

media talks so much about how difficult it seems to be for all sports leagues and college sports to come back.

but what is going to be different for 2021, 2022, 2023 etc?.... will the nba/nhl be able to operate outside of a bubble? and people are talking about whether players can hack 40 games in a bubble. well what about 82 games, training camp and playoffs?

will things back to normal for "congregation industries" before 2025 or 2026.

vaccine needed and then the whole population vaccinated. that will take a long time running efficiently. of course, we have anti-vac crowd, personal freedom nuts, severe medical glass shortage etc. etc.

i live in BC, Canada........... our jurisdiction has been cited as perhaps #1 in the world for coronavirus response. and very few cases these days. this is amazing given that we have an airport with tons and tons of flights to asia.

here is what i don't understand......... people are completely "out and about" here. very few people where masks........ is it simply that we respect "social distancing" and other advice from the government? is it that simple?

and don't get me wrong. athough BC has been held up as shining example, there are plenty of places in canada/usa that have done just as good a job.

what do people think of letting the virus run through the population starting with 20-somethings? i.e. maybe herd immunity.. and of course very strong protection of older people and suppressed immune systems....

a few people will die who wouldn't otherwise, but that's no different than our highway system. if you shut-down the USA highway system, it would save some lives

Where are the comparable % results to Bergamo? I already mentioned the obvious one in Ischgl which tested at 42% recently but that is hardly surprising. Bronx was last listed at 32.6% with a lag of a month so maybe 35% now. London was at 17% 2 months ago with peak 1k daily cases been found and now has like 10-20 cases per day with far higher testing compared so is probably getting up there and seems to fit the saturation thesis. Antibody data just lags a lot as it may take weeks for them to show up in the first place.

Care homes would seem to be petri dishes for the virus and not comparable to the real world? Governments also basically seeded them with it by discharging infected patients from hospitals back into them in a panic over freeing up hospital beds. One commentator even grimly compared this strategy to the Siege of Caffa where the Mongols catapulted plague ridden bodies over the city walls.

A butterfly flapping its wings in Madagascar could have an effect greater than zero.

What is your point?

If Trump has been leading Germany or NZ their outcomes would have been similar to what they are today. Because the outcomes in those countries is mostly a consequence of other factors.

Do you think your fairy godmothers (Angela, Jacinda) would have prevented an outbreak in the USA?

I think you're thinking February. By early March Fauci and Messonnier were already suggesting at risk groups should reconsider their plans of travel.

Not wearing masks was scientific consensus at the time. It was best understood as a cognitive blind spot:

1. no evidence that it protects the wearer except in high risk settings (this is still true.)
2. jumping to this means masks don't protect people
3. this was wrong. It protects people from the wearer and with broad adoption lowers transmission rate on a population level

A lot of Republicans (there is no way around this) are straight up ignoring recommendations, and refusing to acknowledge the need to adjust to a "new normal."

I happen to think Sweden got this right (in the sense death toll will not be much higher in Sweden after a year or two) but people need to realize even in Sweden there is dramatically reduced social gatherings and travel. Google GPS data shows this pretty conclusively.

Could and would are not the same. Reading really isn't your strong point, is it?

No, as they didn't manage this in their countries either.