This is what failure looks like.

This graph starts at the point where 500 cases was reached in each of the four countries. Not shown is South Korea which had its first deaths at the same time as this country. Its total deaths is now at 162 and inching up. Ours stands at 3,170 and skyrocketing. Government dithering and failed leadership are deadly.

42 thoughts on “This is what failure looks like.

    1. @Jim

      How you see a celebration in my sharing these raw facts is something that you need to think about. As is your name-calling in response to them.

      We have a President who is a known pathological liar and whose main skill is gas lighting. Enough is enough. The truth is important and never more so than when we are facing this deadly disease. Trump’s failure to lead effectively and honestly is a disaster. He is NOT doing “a great job.” He wants people to believe 100,000 – 200,000 deaths would be a “terrific” outcome. The experience of other countries shows that he is wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. @Jim

      That’s a weird comment. Pointing out the failure of our leadership is in noway a celebration.

      While the facts make it apparent that the American people need more knowledgeable and competent leadership to deal with the various crises that will inevitable come our way.

      I see such posts as a public service, ergo my reference to “weird”.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Constantly pointing out Trump’s failures is not a public service; it is piling on. And, apparently, a full-time gig for Paul and his ilk.

        Did Obama fail with his handling of a pandemic in 2009? Hint: Check the statistics before you reply.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I think the broader point is that whenever Obama, Bush, Clinton, made material mistakes that cost lives or significant money (or both) there was a tremendous amount of “piling on” to point it out.

          I also believe that your and other’s perception of many people over-doing it when it comes to trump, is a simple a reflection of his incredibly incompetent handling of virtually everything he comes in contact with.

          It is not with “celebration” these things are pointed out; it is with a profound sense of sadness..

          Liked by 2 people

        2. @Jim

          “Did Obama fail with his handling of a pandemic in 2009?”

          No. The Swine Flu pandemic was handled competently. The Government had plans in place and implemented them IMMEDIATELY. Obama did not dither for two months, lie to the public every day nor downplay the seriousness of the threat.

          The first case was diagnosed on April 15, 2009. A public health emergency was declared on April 26, 2009 and the first tests for the new flu were approved on April 28th. Shipments of the new test began on May 1, 2009.

          https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/cdcresponse.htm

          https://www.npr.org/2020/03/13/815363362/fact-check-trumps-accusations-about-the-obama-administration-and-swine-flu

          Your clueless spreading of Trump lies is duly noted. And, I will continue to post information to set the record straight. Piling on, as you refer to it. Too many lives are at risk to allow lies from the President of the United States to remain unchallenged even if you and your “ilk” don’t care to hear the truth.

          Liked by 1 person

  1. You just can’t he;p yourself, resorting to known lies about the response to Covid19

    Cases percapita

    And, of course, we now know that China has not been including cases that do not require medical intervention in its reporting.

    In this case, the graph compares total cases between the US and much smaller countries. Compared per capita, the US response has been effective.

    But keep on dancing on the graves, there is plenty of time between now and November for people to see this as it really is.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Tabor

      The point of the graph is the comparative shape of the curves. Duh!
      Are you really so dull that you think graphing it as total numbers or per capita numbers changes the slope?

      Apparently so.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. @Tabor

          LOL!
          No, it doesn’t.

          The population of each country is a constant.
          If the number of cases grows x% the number of cases per capita grows x% as well.

          Do the math.
          Country X has a population of 1,000,000 and 500 cases. That is 0.0005 cases per capita
          Two days later there are 1,000 cases. That is 0.0010 cases per capita.
          Number of cases grows at the same rate (slope of the curve) as the number of cases per capita grows.

          You threw out your accusations of spreading lies based on this – let’s say – error. The point made by the graph is an honest and fair one. Other countries slowed the growth of the pandemic. As of now, we still have not.

          Maybe it is because doctors, nurses and EMT’s are massively stealing protective masks to sell on the black market?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. @paul

            If trump told them the law of gravity had been repealed they would jump off a building.

            Actual facts will not fix that….

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @Tabor

            The spread?
            It is the slope that matters. You have heard of “flattening the curve?” Right?”

            Sure, the graph would be more messy if presented on a per capita basis because each country would start from a different per capita number when they reached 500 cases. Instead of all starting at 500. But the relative slopes would not change. Ours would still be steep and theirs relatively flatter.

            And then there is South Korea who did not make this chart because they stopped the pandemic in its tracks through early, effective action and honest leadership.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “The point of the graph is the comparative shape of the curves.”

        In that case, the graph is a total failure. It doesn’t tell us anything of comparative value because it doesn’t illustrate anything that is either the same or different other than the presence of coronavirus cases. It might as well be four different graphs: apples, oranges, lemons and persimmons.

        You need the per capita statistics to even begin to compare the countries in a potentially meaningful way. You need them even for your purposes of making the fallacious assumption that the public health response has been differently effective in each country.

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          The graph is fair and honest. It shows that the spread of the virus is accelerating in our country versus its spread decelerating in other major countries. I am sorry that you cannot see the obvious truth, but, that is your usual response to factual information that does not confirm your beliefs about Mr. Trump’s stable genius.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “It shows that the spread of the virus is accelerating in our country versus its spread decelerating in other major countries.”

          Yes it does, which by itself is almost meaningless and certainly not useful for the purpose you shared it: to illustrate that our public health response has been less effective than others.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. A little something to consider. As of 930 this morning the rate of deaths related to the coronavirus is 4.85% worldwide, up from about 4.2% last week.

    In the US the rate is 1.92%, up from around 1.4%.

    Instead of arguing about total deaths vs per capita deaths, maybe we should consider the growing rate of deaths associated both here and around the globe.

    The numbers come from axios.com coronavirus dashboard.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. @Roberts
        “The growing death rate reflects the increase in the number of tests being performed.”

        That is maybe true, but with more widespread testing one would expect more of the less deadly cases to be identified LOWERING the death rate.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “That is maybe true, but with more widespread testing one would expect more of the less deadly cases to be identified LOWERING the death rate.”

          Only if the testing were perfectly random. It isn’t. The sample base is biased toward those who are already sick and showing symptoms of sufficient severity to require treatment, as well as those who are at risk for other reasons.

          Like

        1. That is the reason I did the percentages. More known cases and more known deaths are no surprise with more testing. And the RATE of deaths is increasing both worldwide and here in the states.

          Like

        2. RE: “The growing rate of actually known cases ALSO increases based on the number of tests administered. What is your point?”

          I said the same thing. That was my point.

          The thing to grasp is that the death rate based on the number of documented infections is not particularly meaningful. It is a valid surveillance metric, but it doesn’t really tell you much.

          I’m curious to know what you think it tells you.

          Like

          1. You did NOT say the same thing.

            “The growing death rate reflects the increase in the number of tests being performed.” (You play that game all of the time, so I don’t want to hear you try and defend it)

            “I’m curious to know what you think it tells you.”

            It tells me the argument between actual cases vs per capita cases is not that important. What is important is the number of people infected vs the number of people dying. A rising rate is a rising rate, regardless of country. And that is the trend now. It was dropping slightly from the initial rates of about 5% worldwide and 2% here. Now it is going back up. (As I stated) The number of people dying should be going down if more are being tested as they can be identified and treated.

            Oh, wait. Not enough equipment available to treat those now being identified. But that is a different discussion.

            Like

          2. RE: “It tells me the argument between actual cases vs per capita cases is not that important.”

            Maybe not to you, for whatever reason, but it is important to those who want to compare apples in one country with apples in another, as opposed to oranges.

            RE: “The number of people dying should be going down if more are being tested as they can be identified and treated.”

            Nope. You are quoting percentages. For the time being, they should be rising solely because we are testing more people and the people we are testing are mostly those who already have severe symptoms. Using our current approach, the raw number of people dying will only go down when the spread of the disease slows significantly, and even then it may go up for awhile as we test more sick people.

            Like

          3. …”the raw number of people dying will only go down when the spread of the disease slows significantly,”

            Horse hockey. The raw number of people dying will go down when the material needed to treat those afflicted, and to protect those who are treating them, is available without begging by state Governors. And of course the raw number of people dying when the spread slows. That has NOTHING to do with the rate of deaths.

            I suppose if you want to get sick, you should go to Florida because they have everything they have asked for thus far…and more.

            And by quoting percentages I am demonstrating FACTS. The rate of death is INCREASING. PERIOD. Why is that? It is not just because of the number of tests being conducted. That only identifies more people that have it. But why isn’t the rate staying somewhat steady or declining? That is what the percentages give us.

            Like

          4. RE: “Horse hockey.”

            If 1,000 people die and you test 100 of them for Covid-19, and all the tests are positive, you still don’t know what the other 900 people died of. The known death rate would be 10%.

            If you then test 100 more of the dead for Covid-19, and all test positive (bringing the test total to 200), the known death rate would be 20%, but you wouldn’t know what the other 800 people died of. In other words, you’d have a higher known death rate, but you wouldn’t know whether the real death rate is going up or down.

            The doubling of the death rate to 20% would be solely a statistical effect and wouldn’t tell you anything about the real world. The point is to recognize that the statistical effect is an illusion.

            Like

      1. Largely because you have failed to understand the explanations given to you about interpreting the data presented on a variety of subjects and threads.

        I don’t think I could do any better than the painstaking explanations that have been offered to you and will use my time/energy on more potentially productive pursuits.

        I understand that you believe you simply disagree, but I have read enough of your push-backs to conclude you just don’t (or won’t) understand plainly represented facts, to answer your question…

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “I understand that you believe you simply disagree”

        Nope. I believe the things I write are true.

        If they aren’t, it should be easy for you to write truer things. But you don’t.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “It is just that his version of the truth is much different”

          Personal criticism is not a version of truth. Do you think it is?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If you took my observation as a criticism, you are being delusional. Again. I just pointed out the concept of “there are three sides to every story; his, yours and the truth.” I just tend to find his version closer to the truth than yours.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s