Yahoo! News Headline: U.S. death toll passes 60,000 mark Trump said would mark success in coronavirus fight

Well then, I guess we’re officially in failure territory now.

26 thoughts on “Yahoo! News Headline: U.S. death toll passes 60,000 mark Trump said would mark success in coronavirus fight

  1. Well hooray for your team.

    Do you get a trophy when it passes 100,000?

    I have to say I prefer President Trump’s hopeful optimism to the Democrat’s cynical, but predictable,, exploitation of hardship and death.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I would prefer cautious optimism over fake cheer leading.

      There is no hooray for ANY team. Divisive statements such as that are a big part of the problem today. Feeding into it does not solve anything,

      Liked by 3 people

      1. And please demonstrate the “exploitation of hardship and death” you claim to know of. Describe the cynicism you believe exists from the Democrats.

        All you are doing is driving a wedge.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I had to pause at trump’s delusions being described as “hopeful optimism”.

          And speaking of “delusions” trump’s back and forth with Jim Acosta on Obama’s “broken tests” may become the Gold Standard for him (well, until sometime today)….

          Liked by 2 people

    2. @Tabor

      You have spun up yet another euphemism for Trump’s egregious lies – “hopeful optimism.”
      Good one.

      Yes, the Democrats see a political issue in the wave of avoidable deaths sweeping the country. You can pretend that focusing on the massive failure of leadership and continuing dishonesty by the President is somehow inappropriate but you are wrong. In a democracy, the leaders are responsible and accountable. Or at least, they are supposed to be.

      But maybe the Dems could do even more to cynically exploit deaths. Maybe they should organize countless Congressional hearings and demand that Trump spend 11 hours under oath explaining himself?

      Liked by 2 people

        1. @Tabor

          “And yet you still haven’t pointed to a single policy that caused avoidable deaths.”

          I have pointed to that policy countless times. You just want to pretend it did not matter. Trump had plenty of reason to know how serious the pandemic would be from the very earliest days. He chose to follow a POLICY of downplaying that seriousness for about two months. His egregious dishonesty (what you call “hopeful optimism”) affected the behavior of everybody and fatally delayed the time when individuals, businesses and governments took action. He allowed the infections to continue to grow exponentially when changed behavior in response to responsible and honest leadership could have flattened the curve and saved many, many thousands of lives.

          He also followed the POLICY of leaving FDA red tape in place long past when he should have cut it. Whether that POLICY was to avoid communicating the true seriousness of the threat or just plain lazy indifference and incompetence we do not know.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. The red tape in the FDA has been on place since Johnson was President and it has built its own constituency in Congress. Prior to a declaration of national emergency, there wasn’t a damned thing Trump could do about the FDA. But interesting that now, after supporting bureaucracy as long as the Pilot had a forum, you suddenly fault Trump for not rooting one out.

            Which two months of delay are you talking about? What specific action should have been taken 2 months earlier based on what was known at the time.

            You could reasonably claim that Trump could have closed down travel from Europe 2 WEEKS earlier, but again, the extent to which the virus had spread through Europe was not known at the time.


          2. @Tabor

            Laughable. really and truly.
            You simple refuse to see the truth.

            The “red tape” at the FDA serves a very important purpose – to ensure that medical products are safe and effective. It exists because the “free market” would immediately sell products that do not meet those criteria if it could.

            But even so, the President not only manages those agencies with his people in charge, he also has the authority to curtail the “red tape” at any time by declaring an emergency. And THAT is not really such a big deal. There have been 61 declared and 27 of them are still active. Six have been declared by Trump and that includes the one that he declared so he could reallocate funds to his pet project – The Wall.

            We would not be discussing this if the weasel Trump were not endlessly and falsely trying to shift the blame for his own indifference, laziness (won’t even read his PDBs) and incompetence.

            Trump did NOT “close down” travel from anywhere. Purely symbolic restrictions and, with respect to China, an early thrust of his emerging bogus defense – “It’s not MY fault. China did this pandemic to us to hurt MY re-election chances.”

            Liked by 1 person

    3. The president’s daily exhortations, threats, insults and distractions at the briefings were perfect examples of “predictable exploitation of hardship and death”.

      People had to tune in to get information, so the audience was captive. And Trump made sure to alternate his words with the scientists. Plus all channels were their at prime news time.

      What should have been 1/2 hour of updates and medical information became a free campaign rally in the face of a national catastrophe.

      Trump’s bragging that the briefings were on par with NFL and “The Bachelor “ reality show is evidence of the crass exploitation by our own president at the expense of tragedy.

      Sorry, but the Democrats and the media are correct to question and criticize the administration for its missteps, misleading information and outright lies.

      That is not exploitation. That is called demanding accountability.


      Liked by 4 people

    4. RE: “Do you get a trophy when it passes 100,000?”

      I had a similar reaction. One has to pretend the Yahoo! story has no other purpose or significance than to bash the president to glean a bashing message from it. To me, the story is more of a reminder that the models we based public policy on proved to be unreliable. But one might also suspect on the evidence reported that Dr. Fauci has been giving the president bad advice, or that the quantitative effects of social distancing remain unproved and may, at best, be marginal.

      That is to say, there are multiple ways to read this essentially trivial item. Orange man bad is at best an ambiguity.


      1. The newer models show a 74,000, based on the relaxation of some stay-at-home orders. So your statement …”the quantitative effects of social distancing remain unproved and may, at best, be marginal.”… is disproved by the changing models based on new, up-to-date information.

        And to point out Trump’s statement that 60,000 deaths is a “success” is just reminding us of what he said and the fact that we just surpassed that number is reporting. Nothing more nothing less. Using his own words is not trivial in any way, shape, or form. It is what he said. If it is time for you to ignore that, then go ahead.

        If you feel that it makes the orange man bad an ambiguity, that is your choice.

        However, if you would like to tell the loved ones of the over 60,000 dead that their deaths are trivial, go ahead and tweet away.


        1. RE: “So your statement …’the quantitative effects of social distancing remain unproved and may, at best, be marginal.’… is disproved by the changing models based on new, up-to-date information.”

          My takeaway is that the IHME model is adjusted to “prove” what its users already believed to be true.


          1. Then you prove any knowledge of how modeling works They didn’t change the model to “prove” anything. They changed the model when the facts on the ground changed.


      2. @Roberts

        “To me, the story is more of a reminder that the models we based public policy on proved to be unreliable.”

        How so?
        The expert models with no action projected millions dead in this country. These models were used to urge action. Public policy and individual behavior changed dramatically. Now, hopefully there will be far fewer deaths. It is kind of like saying to your doctor . . .

        “You were wrong. You said I would die if I didn’t take my medicine. I am not dead.”

        after taking the prescribed medicine.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “How so?”

          Obviously, the model predicting 2 million deaths was wrong. That it scared people into doing “the right thing” is a questionable virtue in my mind. As a rule, I’m not in favor of exploiting lies to create the behavior in others that I want. I’m also not convinced that the lockdown policies we have seen were indisputably the “right thing.”


          1. “I’m not in favor of exploiting lies to create the behavior in others that I want“

            And you support trump, THAT is as funny/sad as funny/sad gets….

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Roberts

            “Obviously, the model predicting 2 million deaths was wrong. ”

            Uh, no it was not wrong. It was not a lie. It was a reasoned projection of what could happen given the state of the evidence at the time it was made. And it was based on doing business as usual.

            That it may not be coming to pass is because we DID radically change our behavior. We followed the doctor’s prescription to avoid the worst outcome.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “Uh, no it was not wrong. It was not a lie.”

            You should read more carefully. I said the model predicting 2 million deaths was wrong, not a lie.


          4. @Roberts

            So I should read more carefully? That, or maybe YOU should understand what YOU write.
            Why would I have thought you believed that model to be a lie? Did I just make it up or did I understand this sentence as you wrote it . . . ?

            “As a rule, I’m not in favor of exploiting lies to create the behavior in others that I want.”

            Liked by 1 person

          5. It was not wrong as it turns out, and it was/is not a lie.

            The model predicted an outcome based on behavior estimates of the virus and of people. The estimates of the virus’ behavior were pretty much in line, but have changed. It is now considered more aggressive but less deadly than estimated in January.

            You can run a simulation at Mass General website that was built by Harvard epidemiologists. Even with the new estimates for the virus (based on data collected over the last 2 months), if people HAD DONE nothing to mitigate the infection, there would STILL be 2 million dead by September.

            They model 3 societal behaviors: nothing, current practice, complete lockdown for two 12-week periods. You can mix and match, model what we did do, could do, or should do and get results for all States, one State, or compare.


            Liked by 2 people

  2. I found it disgusting that trump would use the “number of dead” Americans as a way to measure his success and crow about doing a “ great job”.

    Whether 60,000 dead people is a reflection of failure or success is irrelevant to the friends and families that have lost someone.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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