Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
MTP Reggie

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms: Georgia reopening 'not as bad as I thought'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

MTP Reggie

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms: Georgia reopening 'not as bad as I thought'
By Jessica Chasmar
The Washington Times
Tuesday, May 19, 2020

<More Here>

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said Monday that Gov. Brian Kemp’s aggressive approach to reopening the state’s economy has not been “as bad” as she predicted.

Appearing on MSNBC, the Democratic mayor was asked by anchor Brian Williams whether she was willing to admit she was “wrong” for criticizing Mr. Kemp’s reopening plan.

“Is it a little muddier than being able to say, ‘I was right’ or ‘I was wrong’?” Mr. Williams asked the mayor. “Are we as of the time of this conversation somewhere in the middle, do you think?”

Ms. Bottoms responded, “Well, what I can say, Brian, is it’s not as bad as I thought that it would be.”

“So, I am pleased about that, but I still think it’s too soon to say,” she continued. “The reason being, whereas initially, we were seeing increases between deaths and people testing positive, rising anywhere from 25 to 30 percent over a seven-day period. Right now we’re somewhere between 12 and 15%. And it’s better than it was, but it’s still not great. We’ve still not seen that 14-day decline, as recommended by the CDC.

“So, we’re not quite there where I can say that we are out of the woods, because we are not,” she added. “Because what we know, as we reopen this state, we’ll also see whether or not this impacts our number of people who are testing positive.”

(snip)

<More Here>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
29 minutes ago, MTP Reggie said:

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms: Georgia reopening 'not as bad as I thought'
By Jessica Chasmar
The Washington Times
Tuesday, May 19, 2020

<More Here>

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said Monday that Gov. Brian Kemp’s aggressive approach to reopening the state’s economy has not been “as bad” as she predicted.

Appearing on MSNBC, the Democratic mayor was asked by anchor Brian Williams whether she was willing to admit she was “wrong” for criticizing Mr. Kemp’s reopening plan.

“Is it a little muddier than being able to say, ‘I was right’ or ‘I was wrong’?” Mr. Williams asked the mayor. “Are we as of the time of this conversation somewhere in the middle, do you think?”

Ms. Bottoms responded, “Well, what I can say, Brian, is it’s not as bad as I thought that it would be.”

“So, I am pleased about that, but I still think it’s too soon to say,” she continued. “The reason being, whereas initially, we were seeing increases between deaths and people testing positive, rising anywhere from 25 to 30 percent over a seven-day period. Right now we’re somewhere between 12 and 15%. And it’s better than it was, but it’s still not great. We’ve still not seen that 14-day decline, as recommended by the CDC.

“So, we’re not quite there where I can say that we are out of the woods, because we are not,” she added. “Because what we know, as we reopen this state, we’ll also see whether or not this impacts our number of people who are testing positive.”

(snip)

<More Here>

When did "positive tests" become the benchmark? over 95% of people who contract COVID-19 recover completely. . .

The goalposts have been moved so much in this cluster%%%% it's disgusting. .  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeansToTheRight
2 hours ago, mjperry51 said:

When did "positive tests" become the benchmark? over 95% of people who contract COVID-19 recover completely. . .

The goalposts have been moved so much in this cluster%%%% it's disgusting. .  .

Right from the start, “cases” or “infections” became the easy number to use because it was going to be a large number quickly and it would be easy to stoke fears by continually referencing how widespread this “deadly virus” was.

Never once have I heard anyone on TV (at least none of the talking heads) except for Tucker Carlson mention the low mortality rate of this virus.  Local news idiots did the dirty work for the control-seeking government by talking up the “infections” and driving home the (false) idea that this virus was a deadly one, and that we should all obey our overlords for “our safety”.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
3 minutes ago, LeansToTheRight said:

Right from the start, “cases” or “infections” became the easy number to use because it was going to be a large number quickly and it would be easy to stoke fears by continually referencing how widespread this “deadly virus” was.

Never once have I heard anyone on TV (at least none of the talking heads) except for Tucker Carlson mention the low mortality rate of this virus.  Local news idiots did the dirty work for the control-seeking government by talking up the “infections” and driving home the (false) idea that this virus was a deadly one, and that we should all obey our overlords for “our safety”.

But "infections" was not entirely quantifiable -- required testing of ALL citizens which wasn't going to happen, even though it was the sore spot everyone picked at. ICU hospitalizations and deaths were the hot buttons for the media because they were hard numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot

Gutless.  All she can muster is "it's not as bad as I thought".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
3 hours ago, mjperry51 said:

When did "positive tests" become the benchmark? over 95% of people who contract COVID-19 recover completely. . .

The goalposts have been moved so much in this cluster%%%% it's disgusting. .  .

Up until a week or so ago, they were short on test kits here in GA and were only testing people who had symptoms AND a referral from a doctor. They've now opened it up to anybody who wants a test (But you still need an appointment) but it hasn't been well-publicized; I don't know how much of the general public know this.

Besides, the test kit most widely used here is the "antibody" test rather than the more expensive and time-consuming "Diagnostic Virus" test, and is completely useless UNLESS you've also got the symptoms.

The antibody test has it's place: it's quick and cheap and has enabled things like mass "Drive-through" testing. IF you've got the symptoms, it's a quick-and-dirty way of estimating if that's WHY you have the symptoms. But if you DON'T have the symptoms, then it only means that you've been exposed to any one of several covid-19-like coronaviruses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaky McSelfie
2 hours ago, ThePatriot said:

Gutless.  All she can muster is "it's not as bad as I thought".

Right there is her statement as Biden's potential VP.

It's not as bad as I thought.  Followed up with, it's much worse!  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
49 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Up until a week or so ago, they were short on test kits here in GA and were only testing people who had symptoms AND a referral from a doctor. They've now opened it up to anybody who wants a test (But you still need an appointment) but it hasn't been well-publicized; I don't know how much of the general public know this.

Besides, the test kit most widely used here is the "antibody" test rather than the more expensive and time-consuming "Diagnostic Virus" test, and is completely useless UNLESS you've also got the symptoms.

The antibody test has it's place: it's quick and cheap and has enabled things like mass "Drive-through" testing. IF you've got the symptoms, it's a quick-and-dirty way of estimating if that's WHY you have the symptoms. But if you DON'T have the symptoms, then it only means that you've been exposed to any one of several covid-19-like coronaviruses. 

The "anybody who wants a test" canard is useless. With all the fear-stoking that has occurred on COVID-19 an unnecessary demand for testing has been created.

Additionally there are multiple components of testing; sample gathering, sample testing, test evaluation, and results notification. The average person does not consider the logistics, and doesn't care -- all they know is the media screams bloody murder about "no tests". They don't consider the need to understand what is being tested for and, how to accurately test for it. And of course we're supposed to have all this in place for a virus we knew nothing about until 4-5 months ago.

Expectations of the general public are outrageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
2 hours ago, erp said:

Right there is her statement as Biden's potential VP.

It's not as bad as I thought.  Followed up with, it's much worse!  ;)

It could also apply to her private interview with Fast Fingers Joey to get the job... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
3 hours ago, erp said:

Right there is her statement as Biden's potential VP.

It's not as bad as I thought.  Followed up with, it's much worse!  ;)

I don't see Bottoms going for Veep. Bottoms is at least reasonably competent, as far as Dems go..

Stacey Abrams on the other hand, is a political whore (Can I use that word here?). Pretty sure that the she not only doesn't object to Slow-Joe (allegedly) forcibly fingering someone, but would probably volunteer for it herself to get the job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MTP Reggie
49 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Pretty sure that [Stacey Abrams] not only doesn't object to Slow-Joe (allegedly) forcibly fingering someone, but would probably volunteer for it herself to get the job. 

 

I'm thinking Kamala Harris would too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
1 hour ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

I don't see Bottoms going for Veep. Bottoms is at least reasonably competent, as far as Dems go..

Stacey Abrams on the other hand, is a political whore (Can I use that word here?). Pretty sure that the she not only doesn't object to Slow-Joe (allegedly) forcibly fingering someone, but would probably volunteer for it herself to get the job. 

 

1 hour ago, MTP Reggie said:

 

I'm thinking Kamala Harris would too.

 

Oh hell, wouldn't they all? We're talking about Democrats here...

:whistle: 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
16 hours ago, MontyPython said:

Oh hell, wouldn't they all? We're talking about Democrats here...

:whistle:

Some are definitely worse than others. Given that ANY mayor of Atlanta is going to be a black Democrat, Keisha Lance Bottoms wasn't the worst choice. Atlanta hasn't had a white mayor since the early 1970s, and hasn't had a Republican mayor since the 1870s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2020 at 6:58 AM, mjperry51 said:

When did "positive tests" become the benchmark? over 95% of people who contract COVID-19 recover completely. . .

The goalposts have been moved so much in this cluster%%%% it's disgusting. .  .

If 95% completely recover, that means 5% DON'T completely recover.  If 200 million Americans get it (ballpark of what we'd need to get herd immunity), that'd be 10 million Americans who don't completely recover.

For the record, I don't think the death rate, which may or may not be the same thing as "don't completely recover", is as high as 5%.  Just pointing out that "95% completely recover" isn't something to trumpet and would need to be a lot closer to 100% to make the pandemic not a really big deal.

Edited by Timothy
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Timothy said:

If 95% completely recover, that means 5% DON'T completely recover.  If 200 million Americans get it (ballpark of what we'd need to get herd immunity), that'd be 10 million Americans who don't completely recover.

For the record, I don't think the death rate, which may or may not be the same thing as "don't completely recover", is as high as 5%.  Just pointing out that "95% completely recover" isn't something to trumpet and would need to be a lot closer to 100% to make the pandemic not a really big deal.

I said "over 95%" to not overstate things. I've heard recovery rates as high as 99%, but I wasn't prepared to do lots of research. Have more important things to do. Additionally "complete recovery" is not defined, nor is partial recovery. Besides, the co-morbidity issue clouds things; did COVID-19 exacerbate the per-existing condition, or was it the primary cause of death? What was the actual cause of death? Frankly the numbers keep changing, so we don't know.

The "recovery rate" is based on known infections, which is not a quantifiable  number. Your 200MM number is an admitted ballpark (read guess). Useful for scare tactics; not so good for serious discussion.
 

 

Edited by mjperry51
Add pertinent info:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, mjperry51 said:

I said "over 95%" to not overstate things. I've heard recovery rates as high as 99%, but I wasn't prepared to do lots of research. Have more important things to do. Additionally "complete recovery" is not defined, nor is partial recovery. Besides, the co-morbidity issue clouds things; did COVID-19 exacerbate the per-existing condition, or was it the primary cause of death? What was the actual cause of death? Frankly the numbers keep changing, so we don't know.

The "recovery rate" is based on known infections, which is not a quantifiable  number. Your 200MM number is an admitted ballpark (read guess). Useful for scare tactics; not so good for serious discussion.
 

 

The estimates I've seen for the amount of people that need to be immune to achieve herd immunity are generally in the 60-80% range.  Out of a US population of 328 million, 200 million is 61%.  Seems reasonable as a basis for serious discussion.

Let's take the .26% figure cited in the article.  .26% * 200 million = 520,000.

Do you consider that to be enough to justify a major response?

I do.  Definitely enough to justify a shut down of a few weeks.  Definitely not enough to justify a shut down of a few years.  We are in a gray area in between.  Unfortunately there are a number of variables that we only have a ballpark idea of which doesn't leave us with an obvious path forward.  I take issue with any arguments that dismiss out of hand either the threat of the disease OR the social and economic cost of the shut down.

Edited by Timothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hieronymous
3 hours ago, Timothy said:

The estimates I've seen for the amount of people that need to be immune to achieve herd immunity are generally in the 60-80% range.  Out of a US population of 328 million, 200 million is 61%.  Seems reasonable as a basis for serious discussion.

Let's take the .26% figure cited in the article.  .26% * 200 million = 520,000.

Do you consider that to be enough to justify a major response?

I do.  Definitely enough to justify a shut down of a few weeks.  Definitely not enough to justify a shut down of a few years.  We are in a gray area in between.  Unfortunately there are a number of variables that we only have a ballpark idea of which doesn't leave us with an obvious path forward.  I take issue with any arguments that dismiss out of hand either the threat of the disease OR the social and economic cost of the shut down.

What we don't know is how many have actually contracted the virus.  It could well be 200 million people in this country.  The only way to know for sure is to test everyone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
4 hours ago, Timothy said:

I take issue with any arguments that dismiss out of hand either the threat of the disease OR the social and economic cost of the shut down.

Good for you -- that's your world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnnybravo
4 hours ago, Timothy said:

The estimates I've seen for the amount of people that need to be immune to achieve herd immunity are generally in the 60-80% range.  Out of a US population of 328 million, 200 million is 61%.  Seems reasonable as a basis for serious discussion.

Let's take the .26% figure cited in the article.  .26% * 200 million = 520,000.

Do you consider that to be enough to justify a major response?

I do.  Definitely enough to justify a shut down of a few weeks.  Definitely not enough to justify a shut down of a few years.  We are in a gray area in between.  Unfortunately there are a number of variables that we only have a ballpark idea of which doesn't leave us with an obvious path forward.  I take issue with any arguments that dismiss out of hand either the threat of the disease OR the social and economic cost of the shut down.

What is missing in your analysis is the infection rate, and that number we may never know. On the CDC website it says that 14.3% of people tested have tested positive. So for herd immunity approximately 46.9 million people would need to catch the Wuhan which lines up with the amount that normally catch the flu each year. Some people may already have immunity and for some reason, children are rarely infected. 
 

What I find interesting is that on the CDC website provisional death counts, it shows Wuhan deaths at just over 73,000 (this is delayed by a couple of weeks due to lagging death certificates) but the intriguing part is that it shows deaths from influenza at just over 6,000. Seasonal influenza deaths are normally over 50,000. So what is exactly happening here? I don’t know the answer but I do have a guess.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
6 hours ago, Timothy said:

Definitely enough to justify a shut down of a few weeks.  Definitely not enough to justify a shut down of a few years. 

A few weeks as was done? Yeah, okay. A few months? With “few” in this context being 4+, no way. FORGET even mentioning “years”. It’s not even in the discussion. Being extremely generous, anything around/above 4-5 months should not even be in the discussion. I would have made that clear from the beginning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...