For the Record: Covid-19 Hospitalizations, Fatalities

Covid-19 related current hospitalizations are up; administratively defined fatalities are up slightly. However the pattern displayed in figure 1 is unsettling (a rejoinder to all those folks who think hospitalization is falling, and think cases rising is merely a reflection of more testing; e.g., here).

Figure 1: Hospitalizations associated with Covid-19 (blue, left scale), and fatalities due to Covid-19 (red, right scale), both 7 day trailing moving averages. Source: Covid Tracking Project, accessed 10/10/2020, and author’s calculations.

 

115 thoughts on “For the Record: Covid-19 Hospitalizations, Fatalities

  1. Mosess Herzog

    In our state, “southern plains” if you will, the number of hospitalizations has risen pretty dramatically in roughly the last week (which I suspected they would). The death numbers have not kicked up yet to follow the hospitalizations numbers. But I will be shocked if the deaths numbers don’t rise relatively sharply (at least percentage-wise) in the next two weeks.

    There was a story in the state’s largest (and really only) newspaper (Saturday, 10th) about a fourth-grade teacher who was much liked by her students, and had her Master’s degree in Educational Leadership. She got the Covid 19 10 days before her death, was on a ventilator for 7 days. She was a wife and the mother of three children. She was age 50, and asked for donations, in lieu of flowers, to the American Kidney Fund. Her services will be held at a Nazarene Church.

    I assume sammy, CoRev, and Bruce Hall already have figured out this journalist “Is part of the liberal conspiracy” and her hundreds of students and her family who witnessed her slow 10 day death in a metro hospital are part of the consiracy that QAnon and MAGA have tried to warn us about:
    https://oklahoman.com/article/5673572/okc-teacher-dies-after-contracting-covid-19

    Bruce Hall, sammy, and CoRev know that all of these people are “full of liberal wickedness” and have not payed enough attention when the orange creature brought his daughter’s Bible he yanked out of her Max Mara purse to use as a prop for his show and tell exhibit in DC.

    Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      Oh look, it’s the porn girl F*cking Jesus freak, who reads Jesus’ word every night before bed.
      https://youtu.be/5ShnqmiKLE8?t=301

      Glad the porn girl F*cking Jesus freak who never wears a mask is such a “germaphobe” or I might be worried he’d be a superspreader or something. Thank heavens he declared himself a “germaphobe” and we can all repeat it. “the sky is red” “the sky is red” “the sky is red” “the sky is red”. Yup, the sky is red. “trump is a germaphobe” “trump is a germaphobe” “trump is a germaphobe” “trump is a germaphobe” “trump is a germaphobe”. Yup the porn girl F*cking man who never wears a mask and probably uses soap on his hands once every 3 weeks is a germaphobe. Yup, he’s a germaphobe.

      He mocks and laughs at southern Evangelicals, and he mocks and insults American soldiers and War heroes. And why not, as he simultaneously mocks and insults them, right to their face and to their parents’ face at graves, and refuses to visit war hero’s cemeteries because the rain might get on his suit, people like sammy and CoRev think he’s going to save them from “the evil darkies and evil brown people”. Well, he’s holding the book he never reads, so I’m sure sammy approves of the shit-show pretense as sammy loves being the last guy in the room to get the joke.

      Reply
    2. Bruce Hall

      Hey, Moses, thanks for thinking about me. I hate to do all of that work just for pgl.

      Here is the weekly update on CDC data for COVID-19. Note that the provision data (first chart) includes one extra day this week because it is as of Wed. 10/14 rather than the Tuesdays updates I usually do. It was a great day yesterday in Michigan with clear skies, highs in the upper 60s, and mild breezes… so I spent the day at the golf course rather than at the computer.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/dqzw15bizprc8lx/Covid-19%20Deaths%2C%20Cases%2C%20and%20Hospitalizations%20-%2010-13-20.pdf?dl=0

      Reply
      1. Moses Herzog

        @ Bruce baby
        Did you hear about your 6 right-wing Michigan militia friends who got arrested trying to kidnap/kill your governor?? I assume you must be in their same social circle because your IQ levels match so closely with theirs. I’m “surprised” you haven’t said a single word about it on this blog, as I assumed you liked “law abiding” people, and therefor, by extension, would despise those six weak pathetic LOSERS that have no respect for American law.

        While I respect your efforts on cataloguing data (that’s a genuine sentiment, no sarcasm) I don’t visit links that I can’t verify the safety of.

        Reply
      2. pgl

        Glad you got out on bail. Wow – you finally learned to plot the daily death count, which has not washed away like you predicted 3 months ago. Enjoy the golf while you can. After the trial – you’ll be in jail for years. Wear that mask.

        Reply
  2. Ivan

    Our Prez is of his Roids, and not doing so well. He had planned to talk for 30 minutes to an adoring crowd, but only held up for 18 minutes. Will be interesting to see how his rally in Florida goes on Monday. How long and how much huffing and puffing.

    Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      @ Ivan
      Twitter expunged one of the orange creature’s tweets recently for claiming he was noncontagious now after being diagnosed with Covid-19 , when basic science does not support that claim.

      Reply
    2. Moses Herzog

      It’s interesting to note, many Republican politicians have been crying about people “using science to politicize things”. Which if you think about it is the equivalent of saying “stop using tangible facts to call out my lies, it’s not fair using objective facts against my lies”.

      Reply
  3. pgl

    Wait, wait – Bruce Hall just told us that hospitalizations and deaths were down. He even provided data with a graph of hospitalizations. Then he again he was looking at his graphs upside down.

    Reply
  4. ltr

    October 10, 2020

    Coronavirus

    US

    Cases ( 7,945,505)
    Deaths ( 219,282)

    India

    Cases ( 7,051,543)
    Deaths ( 108,371)

    Mexico

    Cases ( 809,751)
    Deaths ( 83,507)

    France

    Cases ( 718,873)
    Deaths ( 32,637)

    UK

    Cases ( 590,844)
    Deaths ( 42,760)

    Germany

    Cases ( 323,453)
    Deaths ( 9,691)

    Canada

    Cases ( 180,179)
    Deaths ( 9,608)

    China

    Cases ( 85,536)
    Deaths ( 4,634)

    Reply
  5. ltr

    October 11, 2020

    Coronavirus   (Deaths per million)

    US   ( 661)
    Mexico   ( 647)
    UK   ( 629)
    France   ( 500)

    Canada   ( 254)
    Germany   ( 116)
    India   ( 78)
    China   ( 3)

    Notice the ratios of deaths to coronavirus cases are 10.3%, 7.2% and 4.5% for Mexico, the United Kingdom and France respectively.

    Reply
  6. ltr

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-10-11/Chinese-mainland-reports-21-new-COVID-19-cases-all-from-overseas-UuDlzlua1q/index.html

    October 11, 2020

    Chinese mainland reports 21 new COVID-19 cases

    The Chinese mainland on Saturday registered 21 new COVID-19 cases, all from overseas, the National Health Commission announced on Sunday.

    No deaths related to the coronavirus were reported over the previous 24 hours, while 9 patients were discharged from hospitals.

    The COVID-19 tally on the Chinese mainland stands at 85,557 infections and 4,634 fatalities, while 381 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation.

    Chinese mainland new imported cases

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-10-11/Chinese-mainland-reports-21-new-COVID-19-cases-all-from-overseas-UuDlzlua1q/img/8bd38a702d704576b7fb0f07d8aaa081/8bd38a702d704576b7fb0f07d8aaa081.jpeg

    Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-10-11/Chinese-mainland-reports-21-new-COVID-19-cases-all-from-overseas-UuDlzlua1q/img/92721728d1934487b54c35d10233ac4c/92721728d1934487b54c35d10233ac4c.jpeg

    [ There has been no coronavirus death on the Chinese mainland since May 17.  There has been no community or domestic coronavirus case for 56 days.  Since June began there have been only 2 limited community clusters of infections, in Beijing and Urumqi in Xinjiang, both of which were contained with mass testing, contact tracing and quarantine, and both outbreaks ended in a few weeks.  Imported coronavirus cases are caught at entry points with required testing and immediate quarantine.  Asymptomatic cases are all quarantined.

    The flow of imported cases to China is low, but has been persistent.  There are as a result 218 active imported coronavirus cases on the Chinese mainland, none of which cases are classed as serious or critical. ]

    Reply
  7. ooe

    Paging to Dr. Death I mean Dr. Redfield who claimed back in late-August that fatalities would drop. Guess what? they did not .
    we need change now.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Redfield had assumed people would listen to sensible people like him. Alas Trump started screaming nonsense which morons like CoRev and Bruce Hall cheered. And yea – deaths are inching back up.

      But to blame Redfield? Pathetic.

      Reply
      1. oo e

        He is in charge of the CDC which supposed to be in charge of Disease control not lack-of-control . he is a political appointee. if he feels he cannot do the job properly, he can quit.

        Reply
          1. Ooe

            So what ? what difference would it have made? the death rate being the same or give 1000 more?

            Mattis resigned under protest? why not him? this is Collin Powell redux. He was part of the gang that destroyed Iraq and now is trying to rebuild his reputation with help of the corporate press.

          2. baffling

            “So what ? what difference would it have made? the death rate being the same or give 1000 more?”
            and you think an appointee, such as atlas, who is promoting herd immunity as a policy, would not have contributed to a much greater death rate if he replaced redfield? foolish.
            there were people angry with fauci, saying he should resign if he did not stand up to trump. i don’t think you could replace fauci with anybody, and get a better result. but i am confident you could replace him with somebody else, and get a much worse result.

            “if he feels he cannot do the job properly, he can quit.”
            trump relies on suckers to think exactly like this. it is much easier to promote his agenda if he can get rid of folks who could be even a slight hindrance. your type of thinking and behavior actually enables donald.

    2. Ivan

      Looking at the data, the 7-day average for deaths per day fell from over 1000 (August 22) to around 700 today. That would be a drop in my book. I doubt he would have claimed there would be no second wave (but give me a link to what he actually said).

      Reply
  8. pgl

    Kevin Drum updates his COVID deaths per million by country:

    https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/10/coronavirus-growth-in-western-countries-october-10-update/

    We have past the UK but now trail Mexico for the highest on his list. His last report had Mexico at 652 and the US at 650.

    Despite all this lies from Bruce Hall, the US total is now at 652. But it seems Mexico has jumped to 654.

    I guess this is why all the Trumpians are dismissing masks and social distancing. We are #2 on this awful list and the lead is getting wider. But I have faith in those who want Americans to be irresponsible to convince their fellow Trumpian fools and make America #1 again. MAGA!

    Reply
  9. pgl

    CNN exclusive: Fauci says he was taken out of context in new Trump campaign ad touting coronavirus response

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/fauci-trump-campaign-ad-out-of-context/index.html

    Dr. Anthony Fauci did not consent to being featured in a new advertisement from the Trump campaign touting President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert told CNN his words were taken out of context. “In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate. The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials,” Fauci said in a statement provided exclusively to CNN when asked if he agreed to be featured in the ad. The Trump campaign released the new ad last week after the President was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center following treatment for Covid-19. The 30-second ad, which is airing in Michigan, touts Trump’s personal experience with the virus and uses a quote from Fauci in an attempt to make it appear as if he is praising Trump’s response. “President Trump is recovering from the coronavirus, and so is America,” the ad’s narrator says. “Together we rose to meet the challenge, protecting our seniors, getting them life-saving drugs in record time, sparing no expense.”

    I watched this disgusting ad. It did lie about what Dr. Fauci said. It also lied about the efficacy of these yet to be proven treatments. Of course Trump’s retarded son Eric says Walter Reed gave his dad vaccines. Trump treats his supporters like the morons many really are.

    But the most insulting thing about this 30 second piece of garbage – Trump is only concerned about his “personal experience”. It is crystal clear he could give a rats a$$ about anyone else. MAGA!

    Reply
  10. Moses Herzog

    Spoiler ALERT!!!!! Spoiler ALERT!!!!!! Spoiler ALEERT!!!!!

    Nobel prize Winners, co-shared
    Paul R. Milgrom and Robert B Wilson for auction theory

    Reply
    1. Barkley Rosser

      This fits with the committee avoiding political and ideological conttroversies during this turbulent time. I made no forecast as I could not see any of the many political or politically correct possibilities, and was leaning, as noted in another comment to maybe it would be some people in econometrics, a safe, non-political, technical subject.

      But conventional micro theory applied to auctions and such like fits this, technical, apolitical, and all that. This is an utterly non-controversial selection, with everybody accepting they deserve it. Milgrom in particular would have deserved it alone, he has done so many important things in many areas of economics. But the committee I think especially likes when we see economic theory both being advanced and then applied in the real world, which is what this prize is about, with the FCC spectrum auctions a big deal, and these two men playing crucial roles in getting them set up.

      The only issue here was which of the “Gang of Four” would get it, with only three possible for a single Sveriges Banksprizen: David Kreps, Milgrom, John Roberts, and Wilson. The coauthored a famous paper on reputation in repeated games that showed how cooperation could arise back in 1982. All four were at Stanford, and they had coauthored with each other multple times in multiple combinations. It would have been great to give to all of them, but not possible.

      Indeed, there is a bit of an oddity. If one looks at Google Scholar citations, Wilson is the bottom of the four, with only about 27,000 citations. Kreps and Roberts are both at around 50,000 (I note that our Jim Hamilton is ahead of all three of those), but with Milgrom out there in front with over 100,000. He was clearly going to get it, whichever of the others would.

      Clearly the way the committee decided this was to focus on auction theory and the spectrum auctions, given how important these have been. This narrowed it down to Milgrom and his major prof, Wilson, who is somewhat older than the others. I note that Milgrom is now his third student to get the prize, with Bengt Holmstrom and Al Roth preceding Milgrom, so maybe there is also a bit of rewarding the mentor of all these with this.

      In any case, I expect no political fights or controversies over this. Maybe in this troubled time, the committee decided we all needed a rest.

      Reply
      1. Moses Herzog

        @ Barkley Rosser
        Two points I’d like to make here from the “small state college guys” portion of the crowd.

        1) I think that similar to the awarding of an Oscar for “Best Actor” or “Best Actress”, in any randomly chosen year an argument can be made for many candidates, without anyone necessarily having to feel “wronged” by not being chosen. That would have held true if they had chosen from a top tier group of females this year as well.

        2) Contrary to how some mountain hillbillies in Harrisonburg Virginia may view this, I very much doubt it is through the accumulation of a large stockpile of published papers that a person acquires a Nobel Prize in Economics. But rather one could probably win a Nobel Prize in Economics with a relatively moderate amount of published/peer-reviewed research papers, but have one single impactful idea, concept, theory or argument which inspired/facilitated the correct pathway of a specialized area of research.

        Now, Menzie may disagree with me on this (he’s very welcome to disagree) but I think if you went down the list of Nobel in Economics winners, you’d find the single impactful idea/ single train of thought to be the more common thread of the winners, than volume/stockpile of published papers. And frankly I think your counting of citations slightly childish, like a 3rd grader who thinks if he skims books to get a high number in a summer book reading contest is an “accomplishment” rather than the reading comprehension and soaking up of the contents of the books themselves.

        Reply
        1. Barkley Rosser

          The problem this time, Moses, is that the really important idea was what I said it was, the idea about how reputation explains how in repeated games cooperation can be built up. But the problem as known for a long time by many has been that there were four people who wrote that paper, the “Gang of Four,” but only three people can get the prize at a time. As it is, lots of people have discussed this problem for a long time, especially given have that various sub-combinations of this group have been publishing papers on several important related ideas with each other. There is really a stream of papers and research and papers that are being rewarded, but pinning down how to deal with this has been a problem.

          Frankly, the ideas behind he spectrum auctions that Milgrom and Wilson got it for a not nearly as interesting or innovative than several others that have appeared in this stream, including the crucial idea in that 1982 paper by all four of them. Frnakly, the gs citation rates correlate with how many of these important papers the authors were in on, and both Kreps and Roberts have been in on more of them than Wilson. But spectrum auctions are something practical and noticeable in terms of public policy, so saleable to the publid.

          This matter of getting it right does matter. Keep in mind that my late friend Marty Weitzmann committed suicide because he did not get it when many think he should have. In particular there are a lot of people think David Kreps should have gotten it, and there is a thread over on the awful ejmr about how somebody needs to put a suicide watch on Kreps

          As it is, Kreps himself has very professionally put out a comment you can find yourself praising the award for Wilson (no need to do that for Milgrom becausse he so clearly deserved the award than any of the other four, which does correlate with his grater number of g.s. citations). He emphazised both Wilson’s role in the starting of these ideas, but also his role as a teacher and influence, including of Kreps himself, who took courses from Wilson as a grad student, even though he was getting a PhD in a different department, operations research.

          I know that you are always looking for an excuse to call me names, Moses, but on this one I am playing it very atraight. I suspect Menzie will not comment on this, but if he did I expect he would agree with what I have said here..

          Reply
        2. Barkley Rosser

          Another reason why Menzie may choose not to comment on this is that this microeconomics, with the Gang of Four arguably playing a central role as a group in establishing the form of current microeconomics, a set of interrelated ideas involving game theory, asymmetric information, contract theory, auction theory, organization theory, industrial organization, and some other matters. Several of these have gotten Nobels, with some of the Gang of Four getting mentions when some of those were awarded. As it is, I know Menzie is cautious about commenting on topics here he does not consider himself expert on, although I know he is well acquainted with much of what these people have done. They are pretty much ubiquitous.

          OTOH, I am shamelessly willing to comment on all sorts of branches of economics and what is going on in them. But then, Moses, I am the senior coeditor of the fourth edition New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, with the third edition being 15,000 pages long, 3800 entries, and 37 Nobelists having contributed to the third edition. So I like to kid myself that I am able to comment on what is going on in many different sub-areas of economics, nauseatingly egomaniacal that is of me.

          Reply
  11. pgl

    Trump Resumes Public Events With Mini-Rally on White House Lawn

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-resumes-public-events-with-mini-rally-on-white-house-lawn/ar-BB19TeXt?ocid=uxbndlbing

    Mini is the operative word here as Trump got just a few hundred people to show up for this White House charade. But this is the part that incredibly offensive:

    ‘Attendees appeared to be mostly masked but were standing close together with no suggestion of social distancing.’

    The White House lawn had plenty of space for social distancing but the organizers decided to have these fools packed into a small area to make the crowd look bigger than it was. As usual Trump does not care if his rally leads to more cases of this virus and more deaths as this self centered bastard just wants to look powerful.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      No child lives with some one 50+? That is dumb even for you. Oh wait your daddy abandoned you when you were in grade school. Guess he was ashamed he gave birth to a wannabe Trumpian troll.

      Reply
    2. pgl

      My God – Bruce Hall links to something where he did not even read the damn headline:

      Schools aren’t COVID-19 super-spreaders, new data suggests

      But dumbass Bruce think the kiddies are superspreaders??? BTW Brucie – Cuomo has the same fear. So you are now agreeing with our governor? OK!

      BTW I know some of the school teachers here. They are doing a great job adhering to CDC guidelines. In other words, we are doing well because our teachers are smart enough not to listen to your incessant BS.

      Now Bruce – did you ever learn to read? If so, then read what you link to for the 1st time in your trolling career.

      Reply
  12. Moses Herzog

    Are we due for a post on the RMB’s recent move upward Menzie?? Or do we have to forfeit UW-Madison tuition from our wallets for you to drop that knowledge on us??

    Reply
  13. ltr

    October 12, 2020

    Coronavirus

    Israel

    Cases ( 292,230)
    Deaths ( 1,993)

    Deaths per million ( 217)

    July 4, 2020

    Coronavirus

    Israel

    Cases ( 29,170)
    Deaths ( 330)

    Deaths per million ( 36)

    Reply
  14. ltr

    Having apparently approached a containment of the coronavirus in June, the Israeli government incautiously opened schools and businesses, and the result has been a persistent community infection spread contributing to what are now 292,230 cases in the small country as compared to 85,578 in all through all of mainland China.

    Israel has unfortunately more than three-times the number of coronavirus cases in mainland China.  Paul Krugman noticed the Israeli “disaster” on September 14 when there were 160,000 coronavirus cases.  The per capita case rate is startlingly high.  The persisting difficulty in limiting a new spread of infections in so developed a country has become startling to me. What would make for Israel having the highest rate of coronavirus infections of any developed country?

    Cases per million   ( 31,772)

    Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      @ ltr

      “ltr” asks: What would make for Israel having the highest rate of coronavirus infections of any developed country?

      While you are correct Israel is a developed country, not “developing”, even though they have an incredibly short national history compared to, uh, “some particular” xenophobic nations of Asia…….

      Answer: Israel’s 400 per km squared vs China’s 153 per km squared population density?? Making Israel’s population density over twice as high?? Not to mention the fact Israel doesn’t have a state policy of cremating human beings and then pretending they NEVER existed, then threatening Covid-19 death victims’ families with being ostracized or death if they discuss it on alternative media. “Strange” how all of those things can have a suppressive effect on numbers.

      ltr, Didn’t head of China brainwashing Huang Kunming teach you how to ask questions like a lawyer would, where you know what the logical response will be before you ask the question?? I think you need to go back to Huang Kunming’s 101 brainwashing class for regressive students.

      Reply
    2. Moses Herzog

      I wasn’t certain Huang Kunming had taught you this in his “Brainwashing 101 for Slow and Regressive Students” tutorial, so I copied this off an Australian news site for your own personal enjoyment ltr:
      China is still categorized as a “developing” country and enjoys the same “special and differential treatment” afforded to nations like Papua New Guinea and Zimbabwe.

      Please enjoy that thought ltr

      Reply
  15. ltr

    Looking for the sake of comparison to the United Kingdom, in which policy makers have been thinking on and off of allowing for “herd” immunity to develop, there is a coronavirus infection rate of 8,880 while the rate in Israel is 31,772.

    Reply
  16. sammy

    The UK’s envoy to the World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) has condemned mass coronavirus lockdowns, slamming the “ghastly global catastrophe” caused by crashing the world economy.

    Dr. David Nabarro from the W.H.O. appealed to world leaders on Saturday, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus.

    He claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved.

    Speaking to Andrew Neil of the Spectator magazine, Dr. Nabarro bemoaned the collapse of the international tourism industry and claimed there would be a “doubling” in the levels of world poverty and child malnutrition by 2021 as he warned that lockdowns make “poor people an awful lot poorer.”

    “I want to say it again: We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of controlling this virus,” Dr. Nabarro said.

    “What we want to try to avoid – and sometimes it’s unavoidable and we accept that – but what we want to try and avoid is these massive lockdowns that are so punishing to communities, to society and to everything else,” he said.

    https://www.breitbart.com/health/2020/10/11/backflip-w-h-o-condemns-coronavirus-lockdowns-just-doubling-global-poverty/

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Ah yes – taking advice from a government that went with the herd immunity approach until the virus bit Boris Johnson. Sammy – dumbest troll ever!

      Reply
    2. pgl

      “Dr. David Nabarro from the W.H.O. appealed to world leaders on Saturday, telling them to stop using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus.”

      The primary control method might be wearing masks except mental midgets like Trump and Sammy think wearing masks is socialism or whatever.

      Reply
    3. Dr. Dysmalist

      And the way to avoid the need for lockdowns is for everyone to wear masks and socially distance. However, if people childishly insist on not doing those two things, some adult may have to force some distancing on them to avoid more outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths.

      If people were endangering only themselves, I would say let ’em die. The problem is that they can infect many many other people before the virus kicks them into bed.

      You want to not have lockdowns? Get people to stop being so selfish and self-indulgent.

      Reply
    4. 2slugbaits

      sammy We already have a cure for poverty; it’s called money. There is no good reason why people should die because they are poor. If Dr. Nabarro is really all that concerned about the world’s poor, then why doesn’t he give up some of his money? What people like Nabarro really want is a return to normality and tourism for those who, like himself, can mitigate the risks of COVID for themselves and to hell with everyone else. I recognize crocodile tears when I see them. What we don’t have yet is a cure for COVID, which also kills people.

      Lockdowns can be government directed or self-directed. Government directed lockdowns tend to be more effective at suppressing the spread of the virus. Self-directed lockdowns result in waves of infections and are really just a slow walk to herd immunity and all of the deaths and pain that involves. But lockdowns are not the first choice for combatting the pandemic. How about wearing a mask? How about maintaining social distance? How about not holding super spreader events at the WH? How about no campaign rallies? How about not getting drunk at redneck bars? How about acting like a responsible adult?

      And your sources are the Spectator and Breitbart? Really? No wonder you’re so clueless.

      Reply
    5. pgl

      Sammy cites Breitbart but then has to cherry pick what they wrote. Why did Sammy forget to note this?

      “He claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved.This is in direct contrast to W.H.O. chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus who as far back as April gave his full support to lockdowns, and even warned against lifting them too soon, as Breitbart News reported. Then in August, Tedros praised several national governments including the UK, France, South Korea and Germany for “using all the tools at their disposal to tackle any new spikes” which included regional lockdowns.”

      Sammy wants us to believe Nabarro speaks for the entire WHO. Once again – Sammy lied.

      Reply
  17. ltr

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-anti-lockdown-crusade-gains-oxygen.html

    October 12, 2020

    The anti-lockdown crusade gains oxygen from this government’s ineptitude

    If anyone still doubts that Brexit was our Trump moment, look at some of the same characters (Tory MPs, newspapers, even voters) who supported Brexit getting behind what has become an anti-lockdown crusade. I use the word crusade deliberately. Rather than religion it is ideology that drives most anti-lockdown proponents. That ideology is libertarian, although to borrow a phrase from Chris Dillow on mask phobia, this libertarianism is just solipsistic narcissism. What the crusade isn’t, for most of the anti-lockdown brigade, is evidence led….

    — Simon Wren-Lewis

    Relative libertarian policy:

    October 12, 2020

    Coronavirus

    UK

    Cases   ( 617,688)
    Deaths   ( 42,875)

    Deaths per million   ( 631)

    Germany

    Cases   ( 328,289)
    Deaths   ( 9,708)

    Deaths per million   ( 116)

    Reply
  18. Moses Herzog

    I would tell Menzie I scrounged this one up especially for Menzie, but he’s just perceptive enough to know I’d be full of it if I said that.

    Video, in which Stephen Moore makes the very first dead on accurate analysis of his entire career discussing donald trump’s debate performance.
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-stephen-moore-crappy-debate_n_5f84e71bc5b6e6d033a68092

    Just hit the Aqua green play button in the lower left portion of the video square.

    Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      I was trying so hard to be cutesy in my phrasing, I forgot to mention for the avid Wisconsinites out there, that the Moore video was uncovered by a Wisconsin watchdog group titled “Documented”. So score a few points for the Badger faithful.

      Reply
  19. pgl

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/13/world/coronavirus-covid

    The good news:

    Johnson & Johnson, which just began the so-called Phase 3 trial of its vaccine last month, was behind several of its competitors in the vaccine race, but its vaccine had some advantages over others. It does not need to be frozen, and it could need just one dose instead of two. It would also be the largest trial, with a goal of enrolling 60,000 volunteers.

    The bad news:

    Johnson & Johnson has paused the large late-stage clinical trial of its coronavirus vaccine because of an “unexplained illness” in one of the volunteers, the company said on Monday.

    These trials will not be completed before election day. I guess Trump has to pressure the other companies with a vaccine in phase III trials.

    Reply
  20. ltr

    Thinking about the matter of “herd immunity” as policy and this necessary statement, I better realize how unfortunately misleading consideration of such policy has been:

    http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-10/13/c_139435351.htm

    October 13, 2020

    Herd immunity against COVID-19 “scientifically and ethically problematic”: WHO chief
    “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.”

    GENEVA — The chief of the World Health Organization (WHO) on Monday termed herd immunity against COVID-19 “scientifically and ethically problematic.”

    Speaking at a press briefing, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that herd immunity is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.

    “For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95 percent of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining five percent will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80 percent,” he said.

    “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it,” he said, adding that “it has never been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak.”

    As for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, he noted that the world still doesn’t know enough about immunity to COVID-19, including how strong or lasting that immune response is, or how it differs for different people, let alone some examples of people being infected for a second time. “We have some clues, but we don’t have the complete picture,” he said.

    Additionally, the vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus, meaning that letting the virus circulate unchecked could lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death.

    Meanwhile, the world is only beginning to understand the long-term health impacts among people with COVID-19. And it’s simply “unethical” to allow a dangerous virus that is not fully understood to run free, he said.

    Instead of herd immunity, the WHO chief urged countries to stick to measures already implemented and proven effective to control transmission and save lives, such as preventing amplifying events, protect the vulnerable, as well as empowering, educating and engaging communities, in addition to finding, isolating, testing and caring for cases, and tracing and quarantining their contacts.

    “There are no shortcuts and no silver bullets. The answer is a comprehensive approach, using every tool in the toolbox,” he reiterated….

    Reply
  21. Moses Herzog

    Well…….. here’s a shocker kids…….. The California GOP has been busted for illegal voter fraud—the same party that has pretended to be so “offended” by the idea over these many years, but hardly able to find 3 small examples other than made up ones created by their own county election board leaders:
    https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/12/election-2020-california-officials-say-unofficial-ballot-boxes-illegal/5968972002/

    I guess if Republicans are serious about how “offended” they are by voter fraud, we should see serious federal prison times for all of those California GOP leaders that were involved. Don’t hold your breath waiting for national GOP leaders to insist that the California Republicans involved in this voter fraud be carted off to a federal prison any time soon—similar to “Princeton”Kopits on employers getting prsion time for searching out Mexican illegals for cheap labor—all the GOP leaders will instantaneously become deaf mutes.

    Reply
  22. sammy

    Yes, it is very telling when you have to go to Breitbart to get the statement from the World Health Organization critical of the lockdowns, when, heretofore, their every utterance in support of the lockdowns was cited across the media.

    Science anyone?

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Can I remind you of this?

      Sammy cites Breitbart but then has to cherry pick what they wrote. Why did Sammy forget to note this?

      “He claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved.This is in direct contrast to W.H.O. chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus who as far back as April gave his full support to lockdowns, and even warned against lifting them too soon, as Breitbart News reported. Then in August, Tedros praised several national governments including the UK, France, South Korea and Germany for “using all the tools at their disposal to tackle any new spikes” which included regional lockdowns.”

      Sammy wants us to believe Nabarro speaks for the entire WHO. Once again – Sammy lied.

      ****

      And now you repeat your original lie? Come on Sammy – you have proven over and over again you are nothing more than a lying troll. So relax as we get it.

      Reply
      1. sammy

        pgl,

        I think it’s that the WHO has learned a lot since August. It’s not that lockdowns don’t work; they may slightly slow the spread, but the benefits are not meaningful enough to offset the economic damage and loss of life that they cause.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          Come on Sammy – you lied when you suggested that what Nabarro uttered was the position of the WHO. Until you admit and apologize for this lie, I’m not addressing any of the rest of your straw arguments.

          Reply
          1. sammy

            pgl,

            “I want to say it again: We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of controlling this virus,” Dr. Nabarro said.

            Also the WHO has not disavowed this statement to my knowledge.

          2. CoRev

            TWWA, ” Until you admit and apologize for this lie, I’m not addressing any of the rest of your straw arguments.” Oh please make it so for all of us!!!!!

            Time shifting and using another’s proclamations in this shifted time PROVES NOTHING. Not even your ability to search.

            Only TWWA considers science static. Only TWWA considers science is driven by his own beliefs and experience. Only TWWA is so naive to think that all members of a group as large and diverse as WHO have identical views. (Which coincide with his own.)

            Is there anyone worse?

        2. pgl

          BTW – no one is saying lockdowns are the only tool. Yes the WHO notes that wearing mask etc. are part of the tool kit.

          But Sammy is suggesting a false choice as this is what Trump defenders do. Could it be that Trump and his minions are not wearing masks?

          Come on Sammy – entertain us with more of your stupid lies!

          Reply
          1. pgl

            Oh gee – CoRev jumps in to the fray. My point was simple – one employee’s off the cuff comments does not necessarily speak for the entire organization. If Sammy does not know this – he is dumber than the village idiot CoRev.

            I guess we do live in Trump world where one lie after another becomes gospel.

        3. 2slugbaits

          sammy Lockdowns certainly do reduce the spread. Lockdowns worked very well in Germany, Spain, Italy and France. Lockdowns got their numbers way down. What doesn’t work is lifting lockdowns too soon, especially when you also refuse to mandate the wearing of masks and social distancing. That’s a recipe for another wave of infections. And if anything makes the lives lost in the pandemic meaningless, it’s throwing away all of the hard work and pain that went into getting the numbers down simply because Trump cult members flunked the marshmallow test as children and haven’t yet learned the lesson of the grasshopper and the ant. Any economic distress that results from the pandemic is strictly because the GOP made a conscious choice to inflict pain. And just what are those foregone economic benefits of which you speak? Well, primarily they’re the pleasure of indoor dining, getting drunk at redneck bars and watching the latest action hero movies. Are those pleasures you simply cannot do without for a few months? Are you that undisciplined? Are you so narcissistic that you can’t be bothered to wear a mask in public? I’ll bet you even think it’s okay to drive drunk.

          Reply
          1. pgl

            “I’ll bet you even think it’s okay to drive drunk.”

            He does seem to post comments while drunk – just like his irate buddy CoRev.

        4. Menzie Chinn Post author

          sammy: Once again, I ask you, please provide links to any scientific study which supports your case that lockdowns are not sufficiently effective relative to economic damage to merit implementation. If you do not, then I think we are all justified in labeling each such unsubstantiated statement of this sort what it is.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Menzie, quit inserting yourself without doing due diligence: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588

            Can you show us the study recommending CURRENT lockdowns? I’ve found more references, as far back as May 2020 from Fauci recommending against long term lockdowns.

            Looking at the origins of the idea, it appears from a 2006 computer simulation and not an actual medical study. Documented here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/11/06-0255_article The article had several scientists who disagreed. Or you could find it referenced in a then contemporary movie, Contagion.

            VERY WEAK SCIENCE!

          2. pgl

            I’m sure his good buddy CoRev can find some paper from years ago to misrepresent. This is what these two lying trolls do.

          3. CoRev

            Menzie, you’re following TWWA. What does your reference have to do with your question of Sammy? What does it have to do with the science? Even it talks about short time limited lockdowns, and not indefinite and repeated lockdowns. Like so many studies it has a lot of may and maybes in it.

            Your reference and everyone realizes there is an economic impact of lockdowns but even you must admit there are other, medical, social, psychological, etc. negative impacts.

            More weak science.

          4. CoRev

            TWWA, in his marvelous understanding of science, says: “I’m sure his good buddy CoRev can find some paper from years ago to misrepresent.” The last study you referenced didn’t even support your contention. You didn’t even know it. BTW, it was a decades old study. You know so little about science you’re an embarrassment.

            It’s clear after the past few days why you must use a pseudonym. Your family, friends and co-workers would otherwise be ashamed.

          5. 2slugbaits

            CoRev This discussion is about sammy’s claim that “It’s not that lockdowns don’t work; they may slightly slow the spread, but the benefits are not meaningful enough to offset the economic damage and loss of life that they cause.”

            sammy is neither an epidemiologist nor an economist, so what qualifies him to make a strong assertion without any evidence to back it up? He’s just BS’ing his way through. As best I can tell sammy is just some random guy who doesn’t appear to be especially well educated and is an easy mark for wingnut media outlets.

            Lockdowns aren’t anyone’s first policy choice. But when you have knuckle draggers who won’t wear masks in public and won’t socially distance and insist on going to super spreader events, we’re not left with many other options. If you don’t like lockdowns, then tell Trump supporters at your next MAGA rally to wear the damn mask and don’t crowd each other. The next time you go to a MAGA rally, take on the role of “the mask Nazi” and tell those Always Trumpers: “No COVID for you!” It’s really that simple. Apologies to Jerry Seinfeld.

            BTW, can you discuss your understanding of your bmj.com link? I mean discuss in your own words. What’s their conclusion? How did they arrive at their conclusion? Do you understand that the paper recommends a policy that would impose an involuntary quarantine on you and Bruce Hall for the duration of the pandemic? If Trump followed that policy recommendation, how long would it be before we saw tweets like “Liberate CoRev!”?

          6. pgl

            This is CoRev’s response?

            “Can you show us the study recommending CURRENT lockdowns? I’ve found more references, as far back as May 2020 from Fauci recommending against long term lockdowns.”

            One could choke on the amount of straw he inserted here. NO ONE is recommending long term lockdowns. The idea of extreme social distancing is to get the spread under control until other measures can be put in place. CoRev may be stupid but even he knows this. But CoRev takes great pride at being the liar of the century.

          7. pgl

            “the analysis shows that lockdowns can substantially reduce COVID-19
            infections, especially if they are introduced early in a country’s epidemic and are sufficiently tight. Thus, despite involving short-term economic costs, lockdowns may pave the way to a faster recovery by containing the spread of the virus and reducing the need for voluntary social distancing over time, possibly having positive overall effects on the economy. This remains an important area for future research as new data become available.”

            From Menzie’s link. I summarize this in the hope that most reasonable people will benefit from this paper. But of course I do know in CoRev’s case he will be angry again and start searching the dark web for most intellectual garbage to spew here. So maybe I should apologize in advance as we know more irate tirades from CoRev are on the way.

          8. CoRev

            What is wrong with the liberal mind? 2slugs asks: “BTW, can you discuss your understanding of your bmj.com link? ” For some reason he is too slow to follow the context of the discussion. He appeared surprised that it was a scientific evidence of support for lockdowns?

            Here’s a contextual hint from our host Menzie: “sammy: Once again, I ask you, please provide links to any scientific study which supports your case that lockdowns are not sufficiently effective relative to economic damage to merit implementation.” To that question I then provided the bmj paper link.

            Confusedly continuing 2slugs also asks: “Do you understand that the paper recommends a policy that would impose an involuntary quarantine on you and Bruce Hall for the duration of the pandemic?” Even that recommendation is denied in the IMF Chapter 2 reference Menzie also provided.

            This science is so weak it is being refuted weekly. Only weak-minded liberal who believe governments can do no wrong; except for non-liberal governments that is, plus blindly believing in weak science and forgetting history shows how weak is liberal thinking/logic.

          9. 2slugbaits

            CoRev You’re clearly drunk. You should really try reading your own link, as evidenced by your inability to summarize the bmj.com article in your own words.

          10. CoRev

            Menzie, The Worlds Worst Analyst (TWWA) is your favorite NYC troll. If he tries to make a point, when not attacking, it is almost always badly wrong.

            And to your point re: Chapter 2, what does it say that is new? Everyone knew the purpose of lockdowns, especially in the short term, but these extended lockdowns we’re seeing in mostly Democratic district are not addressed. Medical science may have a different opinion of their total costs versus the limited economists views.

            Also you asked Sammy for links without even doing any due diligence. There are just a a few supporting lockdowns, as I noted, and they are some of the weakest of science. Was your IMF Report Chapter 2 peer reviewed? Or was it just ANOTHER OPINION PIECE?

          11. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: Thank you for your explanation of the acronym. As a former consultant to the IMF World Economic Outlook, I know that the analyses are internally reviewed through inter-departmental review, and outside consultants. I don’t believe I’ve seen statistical analyses like those in Chapter 2 of lockdowns implemented elsewhere (e.g., IRFs). So, not peer-reviewed like a journal article, but subject to internal and external comment, unlike a blogpost, or a think-tank brief.

            I have cited IMF World Economic Outlook reports innumerable times, without comment from you. And people understand what is involved in such studies, except the willfully ignorant.

          12. 2slugbaits

            CoRev Even it talks about short time limited lockdowns, and not indefinite and repeated lockdowns.

            Sorry, but this is just wrong. Are you sure you read Menzie’s reference? On page 11 you’ll find this:

            These results suggest that to achieve a given reduction in infections, policymakers may want to opt for stringent lockdowns over a shorter period rather than prolonged mild lockdowns. Based on past experience, tighter lockdowns appear indeed to entail only
            modest additional economic costs while leading to a considerably stronger decline in infections.

            Got that? It talks about stringent (not limited) lockdowns relative to prolonged mild lockdowns. You have completely misunderstood the paper…as usual. And if you’ll check Box 2.1 you will see a list of references used to estimate the effects of lockdown scenarios on infection rates.

            And speaking of your misunderstanding what the authors of a study are saying, how about this beauty from you:

            What is wrong with the liberal mind? 2slugs asks: “BTW, can you discuss your understanding of your bmj.com link? ” For some reason he is too slow to follow the context of the discussion. He appeared surprised that it was a scientific evidence of support for lockdowns?

            No, the bmj.com paper (your own link) was not “scientific evidence of support for lockdowns.” First, it was a simulation result that attempted to explain a counter-intuitive result from a prominent COVID simulation model. It was a model simulation and not an empirically based scientific paper. Given some parameter estimates the simulation predicted greater deaths under a lockdown. This is a surprising and counter-intuitive result and the authors explained how this could happen under certain parameter estimates. Again, you completely misunderstood the authors’ findings. You do that a lot.

          13. CoRev

            Menzie, you don’t often see me comment on IMF economics reports, so you shouldn’t be surprised by my reticence.

            The science is especially weak and shallow on both lockdowns and use of masks. Weakness is evident when there are serious studies espousing alternative views. It is especially shallow when no or only 1 or 2 studies are available and they are not current.

            Only the willfully ignorant and overwhelmingly biased accept this science as anything else than weak.

          14. CoRev

            2slugs, you finally grasped the meaning of weak science re: lockdowns: “No, the bmj.com paper (your own link) was not “scientific evidence of support for lockdowns.” First, it was a simulation result that attempted to explain a counter-intuitive result from a prominent COVID simulation model. It was a model simulation and not an empirically based scientific paper. Given some parameter estimates the simulation predicted greater deaths under a lockdown.” YUP!

            You’ve shown again you can’t follow context. The study was shown in response to Menzie’s question. Please, please go back and read Menzie’s original question.

            Unfortunately, your belief in model outputs being dependent on input assumptions only applies to those instances when those inputs support your current position(s). AGW come to mind as well as lockdown models.

            What is wrong with the liberal mind that can not follow context or completely misconstrues meanings? You and TWWA do amaze.

          15. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: Clarification: My query was for links to scientific peer reviewed articles indicating the benefit-cost ratio for lockdowns was much less than one.

          16. Barkley Rosser

            Menzie,

            In case you have not figured it out yet, “TWWA” is CoRev’s pet acronym for pgl, with”pgl” already one standing for “Pro-Growth Liberal,” if I am remembering correctly. Needless to say, nobody else has taken up CoRev’s acronym, which I shall not elucidate further on what he has it standing for.

          17. 2slugbaits

            CoRev Now you’re clearly lying. Pulling a CoRev, as they say across the interwebs. Regarding you own link you said this:

            He appeared surprised that it was a scientific evidence of support for lockdowns?

            So there you were saying that your link supported lockdowns. Then when I pointed out that you were misunderstanding the link, you tried to backtrack with this lie:

            You’ve shown again you can’t follow context. The study was shown in response to Menzie’s question. Please, please go back and read Menzie’s original question.

            Unfortunately, your belief in model outputs being dependent on input assumptions only applies to those instances when those inputs support your current position(s). AGW come to mind as well as lockdown models.

            So here you are trying to pretend that your link was evidence against the effectiveness of lockdowns. That’s a complete 180 from what you previously said. All these lies just to avoid having to admit that you either didn’t read the link or didn’t understand it? All that and you still couldn’t summarize your own link in your own words. An octogenarian with a keyboard is a pathetic site. We know who the world’s worst analyst is.

            BTW, I never criticized the article. The authors’ purpose was clear. They were neither arguing for nor against lockdowns, they were simply trying to explain how you could get a counter-intuitive result from a well known COVID simulator.

            You also asked: but these extended lockdowns we’re seeing in mostly Democratic district are not addressed

            What extended lockdowns? I am not aware of any lockdowns anywhere in the country. Here and there you’ll find mandate to wear masks or ordinances against large crowds, but there are no lockdowns anywhere in this country. Is Trump aware of any lockdowns when he goes to these superspreader rallies?

            Confusedly continuing 2slugs also asks: “Do you understand that the paper recommends a policy that would impose an involuntary quarantine on you and Bruce Hall for the duration of the pandemic?” Even that recommendation is denied in the IMF Chapter 2 reference Menzie also provided.

            Try again. First of all, my comment was not about the IMF paper; it was referring to your own link. Here is what I said:

            BTW, can you discuss your understanding of your bmj.com link? I mean discuss in your own words. What’s their conclusion? How did they arrive at their conclusion? Do you understand that the paper recommends a policy that would impose an involuntary quarantine on you and Bruce Hall for the duration of the pandemic?

            What part of “your bmj.com link?” did you not understand? Where did I refer to the IMF study? If you had bothered to read your own link, which it’s painfully obvious you didn’t, then you would have known that one of their simulations found that quarantining people over 70 would be an effective way to limit deaths while keeping the economy open.

            And you call pgl the world’s worst analyst?

  23. pgl

    This rightwing zealot who wants to be a Supreme Court justice says she opposes judicial activism. But it is very clear that she would have the Court invalidate the will of the people and Congress by terminating the Affordable Care Act. Now that is the height of judicial activism.

    Could just one of these Senators on the Justice Committee ask Ms. Zealot about this clear inconsistency?

    Reply
  24. pgl

    Bruce Hall pretends to hate New York City but I suspect he used to be our mayor – our worst mayor ever:

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/giuliani-italians-for-trump-philadelphia-covid

    Giuliani Declares ‘People Don’t Die Of This Disease Anymore’ Amid Rising COVID Deaths
    Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani went all in on President Trump’s efforts to portray himself as an all-powerful strongman who has beat COVID-19 (he has not) during an indoors Italians for Trump rally in Philadelphia Monday night. Speaking to a crowd of about 75 Trump supporters at the campaign’s Northeast Philadelphia office space — which was originally scheduled to be held at the 15,000-square-foot 2300 Arena, but was forced to relocate when the arena’s owners canceled the night before after finding out the event was a Trump rally — Giuliani falsely declared victory over COVID-19 as the country tops more than 215,000 fatalities amid the pandemic. “People don’t die of this disease anymore,” Giuliani said, before baselessly insisting that “young people don’t die at all” and that “middle age people die very little”. “And even elderly people have only 1 percent chance of dying,” Giuliani said, without evidence.

    Yea we all realize that RUDY has been mentally ill for a long time. But how is this insanity any different from the intellectual garbage Bruce Hall routinely pollutes this place with?

    Reply
    1. 2slugbaits

      CoRev No you didn’t. You said this: it was a scientific evidence of support for lockdowns?

      If that was your understanding of your own link, then you really need to sharpen your reading comprehension skills. I suspect that you never actually read the link…just skimmed it perhaps. The paper argues against lockdowns. The point of their simulation was to provide an explanation for a potentially counter-intuitive result in which lockdowns increased the number of deaths. Sober up before you go to the polls.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        You know if we just ignore this idiot – maybe he will just blow away. Of course Trump took that approach to COVID-19 and it has not gone away yet. I fear we will have to endure all this loud, irate, and really stupid BS from CoRev for longer than we will have to endure COVID.

        Reply
        1. 2slugbaits

          Maybe he’ll do us all a favor and attend a Trump superspreader rally…maskless, packed in like sardines and full-throated cheering.

          Reply
      2. CoRev

        2slugs, finally admits: ” The paper argues against lockdowns. “, but then follows with “The point of their simulation was to provide an explanation for a potentially counter-intuitive result in which lockdowns increased the number of deaths.”

        Is it so hard to admit that the study supports Sammy’s contention and the link to it answers Menzies question? How big is that wagon for that straw you provide?

        Reply
  25. CoRev

    2slugs, context context, context. Menzie, “sammy: Once again, I ask you, please provide links to any scientific study which supports your case that lockdowns are not sufficiently effective relative to economic damage to merit implementation.”
    CoRev, “Menzie, quit inserting yourself without doing due diligence: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588
    2slugs, “First, it was a simulation result that attempted to explain a counter-intuitive result from a prominent COVID simulation model. … Given some parameter estimates the simulation predicted greater deaths under a lockdown.”

    If it makes you feel better, insert a NOT in front of supports lockdowns, but then you are just arguing with yourself over the value of the study. Just like you have been doing all along.

    I said it. I understood the paper. It supported Sammy’s contention. It was a response to Menzie.

    As I said it is weak science, but it is science no matter how many times you claim its only blah, blah, blah. Sometimes that’s all we have. Did you find the reference for having lockdowns? That’s even weaker.

    For some strange reason, you support this weak science over other scientific studies. You support one set of models and not others. You’re just showing your bias.

    Reply
    1. 2slugbaits

      CoRev If it makes you feel better, insert a NOT in front of supports lockdowns

      Yes, it makes me feel better. That “NOT” makes kind of a big difference. You had plenty of opportunities to insert that “NOT” but you only found it necessary after I explained how you misunderstood the article. Did you finally get around to actually reading it?

      And when did I say anything negative about that study? The authors were simply explaining how a simulation could arrive at a counter-intuitive result if you make certain parameter assumptions. That’s all. And my guess is that you still cannot explain how or why their simulation predicted higher deaths (but not higher infections) under lockdowns using certain parameters.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        2slugs, after making and arguing his strawman is satisfied with a simple word change. Even thought the study ambiguously made both points as he noted:. “The point of their simulation was to provide an explanation for a potentially counter-intuitive result in which lockdowns increased the number of deaths.

        Only 2slugs and TWWA are surprised that lockdowns can increase the infection rates. Winter is coming and surprisingly Summer was in full swing when the southern states had their case increase. Only 2slugs think keeping business es closed is not a lockdown. Ask TWWA about his last indoor restaurant meal in NYC.

        Reply
        1. 2slugbaits

          CoRev Winter is coming and surprisingly Summer was in full swing when the southern states had their case increase. Only 2slugs think keeping business es closed is not a lockdown.

          More evidence that you really never read your own link. Being inside is not what explains the counter-intuitive result in the COVID simulation. Give it up. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that you’re just BS’ing your way through. What a dope.

          Reply
          1. 2slugbaits

            CoRev I think the more relevant question is whether or not you have read the study you provided. Apparently not.

  26. CoRev

    Menzie, “CoRev: Clarification: My query was for links to scientific peer reviewed articles indicating the benefit-cost ratio for lockdowns was much less than one.” Negative?

    BTW, scanning Google Scholar I didn’t find any ground breaking information, similar to the IMF Report. If you found something, I’d be interested in reading it.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      ‘Menzie, “CoRev: Clarification: My query was for links to scientific peer reviewed articles indicating the benefit-cost ratio for lockdowns was much less than one.” Negative?’

      Wow you really do not get benefit cost analysis. Let’s see – if the benefit is small but the cost is huge, then the policy is not exactly promoting efficiently. But in CoRev’s ignorant of all things world only if the benefit is negative is the policy a bad idea.

      CoRev is so drunk and angry that he does not realize he is advocating the most extreme leftwing interventionist standard ever.

      Like I said – CoRev loves to peddle words he found on the Google machine that he does not even remotely understand.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        TWWA, thanks again for your grasp of the obvious. You seem to think only economists do Benefit Cost Analyses.

        Keep trying and maybe you, like the blind squirrel, will find a nut, and then your family, friends and co-workers won’t be so embarrassed of and by you.

        Reply
      1. CoRev

        Menzie, I should have noted this in your earlier terse comment, but this is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
        I asked for your sources: ” If you found something, I’d be interested in reading it.”

        Reply
  27. pgl

    CoRevOctober 13, 2020 at 12:22 pm
    Only TWWA considers science static. Only TWWA considers science is driven by his own beliefs and experience. Only TWWA is so naive to think that all members of a group as large and diverse as WHO have identical views.

    Let me take the last sentence on first. CoRev points out that the WHO is a group of diverse individuals which of course was my point to Sammy. It was Sammy who took one person down the food chain as expressing the view of the entire organization. And CoRev thinks this sentence defends Sammy? Yes – CoRev is that stupid.

    My own beliefs and experience? I guess CoRev was looking at himself in the mirror. Guys when CoRev talks about the scientific method, don’t bother him with silly things like evidence and peer reviews. None of that matters to CoRev. What makes a paper scientific is that it says what CoRev wants to put out as his usual Trumpian BS. Now that is science!

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      TWWA,WOW! We agree on something. ” CoRev points out that the WHO is a group of diverse individuals which of course was my point to Sammy.” Your grasp of the obvious is an amazement, again!

      Also when you say this: “Let me take the last sentence on first. ” Implies you will take the other sentences, but in your consistent laziness, you again ignored them. From that we can assume them to be true: “Only TWWA considers science static. Only TWWA considers science is driven by his own beliefs and experience.”

      OK, got it!

      Reply
  28. noneconomist

    My later mother had a favorite comeback that perfectly describes know-it-all blowhards like CoRev: “You don’t know your a## from a hole in the ground!!’ And, of course, he continues to prove it here on a daily basis.
    This is the guy who admittedly knows little about statistics, data, econometrics who proves his ignorance without remorse. . He has no training in climatology, medicine, agricultural science (blip, blip) et. al. So?
    He even once told me I was way off base in making fun of Gary Cohn’s belief that you could use your average $1000 tax cut to completely remodel your kitchen until I pointed out the obvious and proved that he was full of a lot more than sawdust. The song and dance and the backtracking that followed was what has now become classic CoRev.
    He is, for sure, a self-styled expert on everything, and if you doubt it, just ask: he’ll be glad, as you know, to fill you in. Sure, he doesn’t know macroeconomics from mac and cheese, but you can be sure he’ll fight for his right to prove just how ignorant he really is.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      he is cliff claven, only worse.
      the biggest issue with corev, is that it is unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. not only is he ignorant of most topics, he considers that a badge of honor and desirable characteristic. he is incapable of learning from his mistakes, because just like trump, he believes he is never wrong.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.