912 U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Reported Tuesday

Up from 558 yesterday, which was itself a record.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

That's the WorldOMeters data; it's consistent with the CNN report from several hours ago, saying there were 770 deaths Tuesday as of then. For a broader perspective, see this post; we're still not seeing France/Switzerland/Belgium/Netherlands daily per capita death rates, much less Italy/Spain rates, or even UK rates (which also spiked yesterday) but they were a lot higher yesterday than before.

It's possible this is a one-day spike, unlikely to be repeated, but that's not the way the progression of death counts has gone so far.


NEXT: The Private Sector Heroes Leading the Fight Against COVID-19

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Perhaps some jurisdictions are starting to practice Dutch triage. If they are over 65, give them an injection to keep them comfortable while they are waiting for a bed to open up.

    1. Why would you think this?

      The attempts to minimize are really getting fanciful. And horrific.

      At this point, I expect Amos’ unsupported post below to become the party line after this is all over.

      1. I agree = The attempts to minimize are really getting fanciful. And horrific.

        The briefing we received yesterday from the coronavirus task force was sobering, and truly horrifying. The jury came back: This is not influenza, it is far worse. Those who have been minimizing COVID-19 (or KungFlu, to use their term) were wrong, and it is time to stop that nonsense.

        In WW1, this country suffered ~116,000 dead. The totals from the Wuhan coronavirus will likely exceed this. That is an unbelievably high number…and this is the lower end of the current estimates. This virus does not care where you live, what politics you have, your race, your gender, or what you believe. It can afflict anyone and everyone.

        As Americans, we should and must pull together to save lives. Every single one of us can individually do our part to save lives. It literally is within our power to alter the course of events. It is as easy as rigorously following the 30-days to Stop the Spread guidelines from the CDC. I hope and pray we do that.

        May God send a refuah schleimah (a healing of body and spirit) to everyone afflicted by the Wuhan coronavirus.

        Stay safe, stay healthy everyone.

        1. You do know that we have a much larger population, don’t you?

          1. He’s not making a statistical argument.

            Deaths are deaths.

            1. Thank you…exactly right. Deaths are deaths.

              And we have it within our power to lower the number of deaths! I thought it was hugely libertarian to say we can (partly) control our own destinies with our own actions.

            2. No they aren’t.

              While tragic, the deaths of random strangers does not have the same impact as the death of a loved one. The US Population in 1918 was 103M, it’s 328M today — more than three times larger — hence a death today is three times more likely to be that of a random stranger.

              Looking at it a different way, 1918 is the only year in the 20th Century when the US population actually declined — by 60,000 people or 0.06%. To have a similar impact on the population today, we’d have to have three times the *combined* death toll of WW-I and the Spanish Flu.

              See: https://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt

              1. Are you really endorsing the ‘A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic?’ Stalinist philosophy?

                1. Are you really endorsing the ‘A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic?’ Stalinist philosophy?

                  Now there’s the straw man-spewing Sarcastr0 we all know and….ahem…love.

                  1. No [deaths] aren’t [deaths].
                    While tragic, the deaths of random strangers does not have the same impact as the death of a loved one…

                    Hard to see another assumption other than Stalins that could give rise to this flight from my and Commenter’s point about tragedy into cold statistics.

                    But enough of your pedantry – do you agree with Ed? That the bare number of deaths is a dumb thing to care about, and the metric we should care about is how much the total population is decreased?

                2. No, but let’s just focus on the relative impacts on people. Because our population is much larger people are much less likely to lose a family member than in 1918-19. That matters. It also matters that the death toll is negligible in younger generations, while the 1918-19 pandemic was especially brutal to the 18-40 cohort. I’m over 60 myself, and my mother is 92, but I’m a lot less worried knowing that my children are almost certainly safe.

              2. The US Population in 1918 was 103M, it’s 328M today — more than three times larger — hence a death today is three times more likely to be that of a random stranger.

                Only if you assume that the average American knows only the same number of people the average American in 1918 knew. I very much doubt that’s the case. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the number in 2020 is three times the number in 1918 or more.

                1. Although I suspect a more relevant statistic may be the odds of someone you consider to be “close to” dying.

                  Due to the internet, fluid job markets, increased relocation (for professional, economic or social reasons), declining percentage of the population living in small towns, and declining religious observance, I suspect that the number of people that the average person is “close to” likely has declined.

                  Consider a Facebook “friend” that you communicate with a few times a year, have never met in person and know little about except one or two facets of their life due to a single shared interest. Sure, that person isn’t a “random stranger” and you probably wouldn’t have known that person even 50 years ago, but if they die it’s quite different than someone dying who you see once or twice a week at church, whose kids’ you know, whose spouse you know, and who you get together with in business or social environments regularly.

                  For another example, there are may people who post interesting technical/engineering/medical/aviation/… content on YouTube who are not “random strangers” to me. At most I’ve communicated with these individuals a few times in the comment section of their videos. I never would have even knew existed 50 years ago. However, if any these individuals died I would feel slightly saddened by it when I heard the news, but I wouldn’t feel anything resembling “grief” as I know virtually nothing about their personal lives.

                  1. You may be right about “close to.” I don’t know. Families and households are smaller today, so that’s one reason to think so.

                    I do think we know more people personally, which is to say we have contact with them in person, than we did.

                    If you work in a big organization – vastly more common to day than a century ago – you’re going to have contact with more people, probably than a farmer in 1918 did. And big cities may be impersonal, but they do have a lot of people in them and my experience at least, contrary to common belief, is that people do know others in their building.

        2. In WW1, this country suffered ~116,000 dead. The totals from the Wuhan coronavirus will likely exceed this.

          Some context.
          The number of US fatalities from car accidents from 2017 to 2019: 118,435
          The number of overdose drug deaths from 2017 to 2018: 94,604

          All deaths are bad. But context is needed.

          1. War and pandemic are both single events above the baseline. You point to the baseline.
            That’s not context, that’s distraction.

            The only demographic/attitudinal group with majority saying the economic impact is a risk greater than that to health and health care is Republicans (55%).

            On the ‘Common Good Constitutionalism’ thread I was noting how some people worship the market just as hard and as dangerously as some who become captured by the self-image of their own bureaucracy. Seems relevant to your post, and this poll.

            1. Actually, there’s evidence that smoking pot makes one more unacceptable to the Wuhan Virus, and Democrats are more likely to smoke it…

              1. An April Fools joke I assume.

            2. The mass of opioid related deaths in this country is not “baseline.” It is not a “distraction”. It is an EPIDEMIC as defined by the CDC. It’s resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Real people, who died due to the epidemic.


              Perhaps these people didn’t matter to you, because they were poor and white. Perhaps they’re just “distractions” to you.

              1. Don’t be daft, AL. It’s a growing problem, maybe even a crisis, but it is not a one-time thing like a pandemic or terrorism or war; it’s chronic, and will never be solved; merely managed. Like the flu. Not like this.

                Helluva thing to get on your soap box and condemn me for not taking your thing seriously when you are quite blatantly arguing for not taking this seriously.

                Screw you.

                1. I also cannot walk out on the street and catch an opioid addiction …

                2. Literally hundreds of thousands of deaths. Above “baseline”
                  But it’s just “a growing problem”. “Maybe” a crisis.

                  But it’s just poor white people who suffer. Who cares if a few hundred thousand die?

                  1. It’s a huge problem. And I certainly care about the poor whites who die from it. But because it results from volitional illegal activity, a solution is difficult to find. A shutdown along the lines of what is happening now will do no good whatsoever. By contrast, if people comply with the shutdown it will enormously reduce the fatalities that will result when the hospitals get overwhelmed. If you have solutions to the drug crisis, please put them forward.

                  2. Quit saying I don’t care about deaths from opined addiction. You dick.

                    1. Then stop calling the hundreds of thousands of victims of opioid overdoses “distractions”, you heartless bastard.

                      Because when you do, it’s quite apparent you don’t care one bit about them.

                    2. I’ve explained why I made the distinction, and it has nothing to do with not caring. What the hell is wrong with you?

          2. I guess by that rationale 9/11 was no big deal since the death toll was only around 4,000 or so.

            1. It wasn’t.

              Terrorism is asymmetric warfare that plays upon statistically unrealistic fears. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to be shot by a police officer than killed by a terrorist — and we don’t go around in fear of police officers…

              All of the TSA’s Kabuki theater resulted from ~300 people dying in hijacked airplanes, less than 1/100th the annual motor vehicle death toll. Think about that for a minute…

              1. You’re not going to find many who join you in your attempt to compare and minimize mass deaths events.

              2. I’m pretty sure that it resulted from 3,000 people dying as the result of hijacked airplanes.

            2. As we used to be consistently reminded by the liberal-side, those were only the casualties of the initial day. The events of 9/11 led to far, far more casualties.

            3. People do argue that. Not that it wasn’t a big deal, but the $2 trillion on war would have been much better spent in medical research, if saving lives were your goal.

          3. Also, we are likely to see a reduction in deaths due to natural causes for several years after this pandemic passes (probably because we have a vaccine for it). Many of the people who are dying from COVID-19 have underlying health problems and/or are fairly old so their deaths have just been accelerated by a few years.

            1. Deaths being accelerated by a few years ain’t nothing.

            2. It’s not at all clear that you’re correct about this. Many younger people are hospitalized with COVID–19; although few of them die, there are indications that some of the survivors suffer permanent lung damage. This in turn likely to shorten their lives, thereby increasing the deaths from natural causes in the years to come.

          4. It also seems very likely that we’ll see some reduction in flu deaths due to social distancing measures. Right now the fever heat map shows levels well below typical for this time of year.

        3. As long as people keep giving me raw numbers – and only for Wu Flu – I’m not going to take them seriously.

          The death rate last year for the US was 8.6/10k in the US. That’s 7700 deaths per day. 50k+ of those deaths were from influenza (about the same as kidney disease).

          How does Shanghai Lung Rot change that number? Is it killing people who would have died anyway, or is it killing new people?

          Yes, death is bad. But is it really worth shutting down our economy to save people from Nanking Pneumonia only for them to die of heart disease?

      2. How is that minimizing the deaths? I was speculating on reasons why the death toll might have spiked.

        But i will note The Lancet is now saying they expect the death rate is about .66%.

        As someone who shall not be named recklessly speculated:

        “Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number. Now, and this is just my hunch, and — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this. Because a lot people will have this and it’s very mild. They’ll get better very rapidly. They don’t even see a doctor. They don’t even call a doctor,” Trump said. “I think that that number is very high. I think the number, personally, I would say the number is way under 1 percent.”

        1. I have no idea what model will be correct, especially since they all rely on certain assumptions for American behavior I don’t think we can predict.

          But you’re minimizing the seriousness of the virus, if not the deaths, by means of rank unsupported speculation. Your impulse to do so is understandable; our data sucks, and as above our models are also not great.

          But where you decide to go is telling. Many of the libertarians and conservatives on here, faced with what need only be an outlier to their ‘government is always bad’ worldview akin to war, are instead retreating into fictional lands.

          1. Huh? The infection rate is very dependent on behavior, the death rate is likely to be pretty much cooked in already with static variables of age, smoking, and comorbidities.

            1. The total deaths – the important number – is going to require both numbers.
              Attacking data about the virus based on your own unsupported speculation is not some scientific insight; without evidence it’s just storytelling.

              I myself don’t worry overmuch about future predictions because I don’t think we’re going to get the data to ever make good predictions other than the threshold of ‘it’s bad now, and is not going to be better tomorrow.’ I know what I need to do for now.
              We’ll know more after the fact.

              1. The most important number is probably number of QALYs lost due to COVID-19.

                It shouldn’t be hard to reach agreement on this as that’s the number often used in the UK to make recommendations as to if a particular medical intervention is “cost justified” so should be provided/denied. It’s well accepted in a single payer system that many in the US cite and seem to admire.

                We, of course, don’t yet know this number but in a year we probably will have a good handle on it.

        2. Is that the same guy who claimed our 15 cases were going to zero any day now?

          1. With reporters at his news conferences begging him for national martial law, and him resisting, I’m not so sure Hillary winning would have been a good thing, even assuming every other issue on her side.

            1. So your response to accusations of Trump minimizing this crisis is to hypothesize based on…your gut? that Hillary Clinton would have invoked martial law at this point?!


        3. Lancet is not saying the death rate IS 0.66%; it is estimating that the death rate in China WAS 0.66%.

          China didn’t run out of hospital beds (or rather, was able to add them at breakneck speed). The U.S. probably will, even with aggressive social distancing, and certainty would have without it.

          1. We do not know what actually happened in China. We do know that China’s communist government serially lied about it.

      1. Please stop with Gateway Pundit.

  2. or maybe more people are dying because of quarantine conditions.

    1. Why does a right-wing legal blog with an academic veneer attract so many uneducated, ignorant, bigoted, disaffected Republicans?

      1. Seriously. I’ve often wondered what the Conspirators think of the commenters here with whom they share general ideological space. Are they useful idiots or an embarrassment to critical-minded conservatives?

        1. “I’ve often wondered what the Conspirators think of the commenters here with whom they share general ideological space. Are they useful idiots or an embarrassment to critical-minded conservatives?”

          The better question is probably …. what happens when you view people as useful idiots, but they have the power and you do the work?

          Who is the useful idiot then?

        2. There are plenty of embarrassments and useful idiots on both sides, it seems to me.

        3. Just because the Conspirators don’t censor a comment doesn’t mean they share “general ideological space” with the person making the comment. It may just mean that they believe daylight is a good disinfectant and that most of those here are not snowflakes who need to be protected and that most here are smart enough to differentiate the trolls from those with interesting, informative, or insightful comments.

          For example, there’s one individual that regularly posts comments here and resorts to name-calling, such as calling anyone that disagrees with them “clingers”, rather than utilizing logic, reason, or data to support their position. These comments seem to stay up but I, and I think other intelligent people, don’t think that this individual shares the majority of the Conspirators’ “general ideological space” but instead believe they are just trolls.

          1. I thank the Conspirators for enabling unvarnished conservative thinking to be presented for a broader audience, but you have identified the real problem at this blog — too many lefty comments interfering with the movement conservative content.

            I encourage you to direct your complaints to the Volokh Conspiracy’s Board of Censors, whose viewpoint-controlled censorship might be just your tonic.

        4. If you find yourself agreeing with an obvious troll then you may want to re-examine your position.

      2. Why does a right-wing legal blog with an academic veneer attract so many uneducated, ignorant, bigoted, disaffected Republicans?

        When did you become a Republican?

    2. “or maybe more people are dying because of quarantine conditions”

      It definitely isn’t helping — and those who have it are dying alone, and there is a real psychological harm caused by the isolation.

    3. “or maybe more people are dying because of quarantine conditions.”

      Not yet. Those will come later because of the poverty and despair from suicid-ing our economy.

  3. Times like these we need humour. This is gallows humour admittedly but the juxtaposition of Peppa Pig and death has amused me no end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgBRJc0gE3I&t=5s

  4. It will certainly get worse, and the death rate will continue to increase. We are just starting up the steepest part of the curve. This projection, from Washington University, has the US death rate peaking at 2,600 per day on about April 16:
    Then it tapers off to 15 or so by July 1st. The cumulative deaths by that date are projected to be 93,655.
    Note that yesterday the actuals were higher than the projections by Wash. U.

    1. Minor correction here, it’s University of Washington, in Seattle, not Washington University, which is in St. Louis.

    2. Using the term “rate” implies it is measured against something for example at percentage of the whole or a period of time like a day. It is not at all clear the “rate” as a percentage of infections is increasing while it is clear the death rate per time period is increasing as is the total number of confirmed cases. Pretty much everyone agrees the number of cases is being under reported due to the limited testing. There are probably many who have had the infection and may not know it.

      Simultaneously talking about the mortality rate (deaths as a ratio of total cases) and the total number of deaths is I think confusing. Commenters should be careful about sloppy language on such an important matter.

      1. Did you mean your reply as a criticism of mine, or as just a note to other readers? There is nothing sloppy or inaccurate about my post. I know perfectly well what “rate” means, and the rate I refer to is the number of deaths per day, i.e., first derivative /dt of deaths. I never related the death rate to the infection rate.

        So what are you talking about?

  5. Much worse is almost certainly coming, though yesterday’s White House numbers might have been about expectations (and if they weren’t, they should have been). Given month-long clinical course from infection to mortality, the benefit of precautions takes a while to show up, but if the Seattle numbers are correct, they only take the reproduction rate down to 1.4. So it’s going to be a slog.

    What’s missing from the current discourse is some instruction to commerce to “shelter in place” rather than pack up and leave the Exchange. If capital stays in the market, there’s a chance of getting back to normal in a few years, time enough for everyone’s retirement. If everyone takes their gold back, the markets crash, and penury impends. Corporations are chartered by states for the benefit of the people of the states. If they start acting like it, perhaps they’ll be able to retain their capitalization.

    Mr. D.

    1. “If capital stays in the market, there’s a chance of getting back to normal in a few years, time enough for everyone’s retirement.”

      Wow, what good news for me. At 41 years old, I figured I’d work for at least another 20 years. But I guess we all get to retire in a few years.

      Also, I like how we’re supposed to keep the money in the market so a bunch of baby boomers can retire and pull THEIR money out of the market. That way GenX can take the losses. Sure thing, Boomers.

      1. Don’t worry a lot of us Boomers are dying early so there should be plenty of money for you to retire at 72 like you are supposed to in 31 years. The Republicans have been propagating that canard for as long as the time you have until you reach retirement.

  6. I pray Damocles’ Sword of Truth cuts deeply through failed prognosticators when this is over.

    Read all of N. N. Taleb’s popularized work at least. If you can handle it then his deeper work is insightful.

  7. Fake news, because Orange Man Bad.

  8. How many deaths from ‘regular’ flu?
    How many deaths from traffic accidents, even with reduced driving?
    How many abortions?
    How many out of work suicides?
    Who is John Galt?

    1. By that rationale, I guess 9/11 was no big deal because the death toll was only around 4,000 or so.

      1. Screw 9/11. By LTBF’s rationale, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nam and Korea combined were no big deal. The aggregate U.S. fatalities from those wars were roughly 100,000, a low estimate of COVID-19 deaths assuming high nationwide compliance with the risk reduction measures currently mandated by several states.

  9. “It’s possible this is a one-day spike, unlikely to be repeated, but that’s not the way the progression of death counts has gone so far.”

    It’s unfortunate that the so-called “law professors” on this website have to engage in such rank speculation while ignoring the real stories.

    First, think of all the millions of people that haven’t died. Each day!
    Second, how are the ratings of those COVID-19 press conferences? Pretty, pretty, pretty good, right?

    1. To be fair, the point about press conference ratings is that people want to watch these press conferences. And yet media voices have been clamoring for censorship and blocking of the press conferences.

      1. Nobody has been clamoring for “censorship” or “blocking” anything.

        1. Numerous calls for refusing to broadcast the entire press conferences, despite the demand. And yesterday, far-left CNN did just that, blacklisting the most significant and historic address by the President on this matter to date. CNN can do whatever they want to do of course, but the overt political agenda should be pointed out.

          1. That’s not censorship, nor is it blocking.
            You also don’t seem to know what blacklisting means.

            Cutting away when the My Pillow guy gets up seems pretty easy to explain without positing a political agenda.

            1. “Here’s some incredibly dumb semantic arguments.”

              Thanks guys, good one.

              1. So DMN and I are correct, and you’re just using scary words as you yell at the media in the usual tired old conservative wankery.

                1. Yes, but the opposite of that.

                  Censorship n. “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of . . news, etc. that are considered . . .politically unacceptable”

                  Blacklist n. “a list of people or things that are regarded as unacceptable or untrustworthy and should be excluded or avoided.” v. “put on a blacklist”

                  Yesterday CNN decided not to air Trump’s opening address from the press conference, the most historic address concerning this matter to date. That’s because they know Trump is doing well and the press conferences are increasing his approval. After the opening remarks, they cut in. Meanwhile Oliver Darcy bragged about this on Twitter. CNN of course normally airs tired anti-Trump talking points 24/7.

                  1. Yes, Trump is the pandemic’s #1 victim, and not by accident. Those sneaky Celestials know exactly what they’re doing as surely as Putin did when he tried to fix the ’16 election for Hillary. Not to mention Hillary’s Ukrainian puppets who still refuse to turn over the DNC server. I’m moved by our beleaguered president’s courage every time he gets out of bed in the morning. *sniff*

                  2. Did CNN “suppress” or “prohibit” Trump from speaking yesterday? No. No more than they did so for me yesterday. Did CNN create put Trump’s speech yesterday on a list of things other people should avoid? No.

                    By the way, other than the fact that it happened yesterday, what makes Trump’s speech “historic”?

  10. It’s not a spike, see this model which is close to what Dr Birx and Dr Fauci seem to favor: https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

    We are pretty much right on the model-predicted path for deaths, and at the peak (in this model, Apr 16th) there will be 2600 deaths per day (the 95% confidence interval is 1,500-4,500 or so).

    1. That U of Wash work is interesting, but I think the reason “we are pretty much right on the model-predicted path” is that the data is regularly updated and the present-day data is actual, not predicted. If we could see what that graph looked like a week or two ago and compare its April 1 numbers with today’s that would give a better idea how well the model was working.

      1. a fair point, and there is a very wide confidence interval (a wide confidence interval is common with exponential growth models because a small change in assumptions results in a large change in outcomes).

        But: deaths in the model are based on infections as much as 3 weeks ago. So deaths are more certain provided that we know the correct infection rate over the last few weeks (which we don’t).

        And – the model predicts we are on the upswing in deaths with the peek between one and three weeks from now.

      2. A few days ago, they projected about 81,000 deaths. Today, that is up to just short of 94,000. Also as of now, the projected peak is about 2600 deaths on April 16.

        1. The difference between 81,000 and 94,000 is not statistically significant. Expect it to bounce around in a range for a while.

  11. I haven’t yet seen any information on how the US defines a “Coronavirus death.” Are they counting people who actually die from COVID-19, or are the following the example of Italy and some other countries who test anyone who dies _for any reason_ and if they have the virus in the system reports it as a Coronavirus death regardless of what the person actually died of?

    1. Data is sometimes not exacting. That does not rob it of all value in determining magnitudes.

      1. Or in this case, of all value in promoting mass hysteria.

        1. Not seeing so much actual hysteria actually. Overbuying has flattened out.
          People are staying at home, not cowering at home.

          Plenty still working very hard to make this not a crisis, despite all reality.

    2. There is substantial evidence that the Italians are attributing too many deaths to covidia. Professor Ioannidis has noted this as well as Professor Walter Ricciardi, adviser to Italy’s Minister of Health. According to Prof. Ricciardi:

      “The way in which we code deaths in this country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus. On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity many had two or three.”

      In fact, people who had three co-morbidities account for approximately half of the Italian deaths attributed to the Wuhan flu.

    3. Yup, it’s another version the drunk driving fallacy. Intoxication magically protects people from regular accidents due to carelessness, because every accident involving a drunk driver was caused by the alcohol.

      Likewise COVID-19 prevents deaths from other causes.

      1. “Yup, it’s another version the drunk driving fallacy. Intoxication magically protects people from regular accidents due to carelessness, because every accident involving a drunk driver was caused by the alcohol.

        Likewise COVID-19 prevents deaths from other causes.”

        Dude, you heard that guy! Let’s all get drunk and cough on each other.

        -Spring Breakers, Probably.

        1. ““Yup, it’s another version the drunk driving fallacy. Intoxication magically protects people from regular accidents due to carelessness, because every accident involving a drunk driver was caused by the alcohol.”


          Tall White Pine trees have a bad habit of snapping in half in high winds, with the top half falling to the ground. On one occasion, the top of the tree happened to fall onto a vehicle operated by a drunk driver, killing him.

          That was listed as an OUI fatality while the actual cause of the accident was several tons of tree falling out of the sky — something that the driver couldn’t even see, let alone avoid.

          1. This has been Yet Another Very Special Episode of Dr. Ed Reports a Vague Anecdote.

            1. It is maddening. Every post.

              1. I believe most of the comments here serve an important purpose, exhibiting unvarnished right-wing thinking.

      2. Covid-19 may well increase deaths from other causes. If ER’s are packed, and people needing treatment for heart attacks, accidents, having a tree fall on their cars, etc. can’t be taken care of it is reasonable to attribute those deaths to the virus as well.

        IOW, if you want to make arguments about the marginal effect, make them honestly.

        1. Not to mention medical malpractice caused by overworked healthcare providers’ physical and mental exhaustion.

        2. Well, if we’re calling for honesty, COVID-19 really does decrease some types of deaths. In our county the shelter-in-place order knocked down traffic by 70%, so we ought to knock 70% off the regular commuting deaths, maybe even more since each car has fewer other cars to hit.

          Closing bars…harder to say, there are competing effects of less friction but more angry people has home, maybe it’s a wash.

    4. Ken, my understanding is that it is a positive Wuhan Virus test.
      AND this will inherently include a lot of people who died from something else, or something else in combination with this.

    1. Nothing from Gateway Pundit has ever been “of interest” to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. Ever.

      1. Speak for yourself. It depends on how you define “of interest.”

        I, like me, you want to stay current on Bat Boy’s 2020 presidential campaign — Good news; he just tested negative for COVID-19! — you read Weekly World News. If your cup of tea is the latest on Hillary’s child sex trafficking ring, you follow Jim Hoft.

        1. If

    2. For my sins, I clicked on that nonsense. Was this written by the Coronavirus?

      There is no coverup – that’s a stat no one cares about unless you think being ill should be a death sentence.

      It’s also presented without a baseline.

      1. Death rates vs. other medical issues is a terribly important statistic, and it isn’t being covered up. Retirement homes are bottled up because of it.

        1. Did you click on the link? It’s important epidemiologically, but not as a way to dismiss the deaths.

          1. Ugh. This isn’t rocket surgery. Quarantine the most vulnerable and continue common-sense social distancing and good hygiene, but plan to move back toward a functioning society within weeks, not months, or the economy won’t recover.

            This was in the Gateway post written by someone else. It is not dismissing the deaths. It is in my view a sensible idea especially if it includes universal mask wearing as part of the good hygiene.

            1. Quarantine the most vulnerable is a bad policy, and choosing a bad policy for economic reasons is callous.

              Using the excuse that this only effects sick people is also incorrect, as the numbers show.

              Claiming there’s a coverup by the media to keep this information from the public is fomenting partisan paranoia.

              Sociopathic, partisan paranoia. Standard Gateway Pundit.

              1. You are misconstruing the point of calling attention to the fact that most of the deaths come from old people and people with pre-existing morbidity. ( Forget the coverup business. I don’t subscribe to that.) It doesn’t mean “this only affects sick people” obviously. It means that the risks to young people and healthy adults fall into some category that is like seasonal flu, no fun but not usually life threatening. It means that this cohort can afford some heightened risk of infection if they choose.

    3. Who would have suspected that Dr. Ed was a Gateway Pundit fan?

      1. Yeah; he was such a reasonable horse before he got that graduate degree.

        1. … of course, of course…

    4. That’s just bizarre. So Aunt Martha has a bad heart. It will probably kill her some day. Her life expectancy is 10 years, vs. 15 years for healthy people her age. She catches covid and dies this week. Saying ‘she died of heart disease, not covid’ is nonsense.

      I’m pretty utilitarian – Sarcasto upbraids me for it all the time – and I completely agree that an 80 year old dying is less tragic than a 20 year old, all other things being equal. But that 80 year old dying 10 years early is still a big tragedy. Just ask Uncle Jim, Martha’s husband of 50 years.

      1. Hah.

        I hope I don’t upbraid you too much. I disagree with utilitarianism but it’s axiomatic and so hard to say it’s wrong.

        I do think utilitarian paradigms are usually political nonstarters, since America’s individualistic philosophy makes us more Kantian than anything else.

        We save our utilitarianism for bloggers and supervillain motivations ????

  12. it’s consistent with the CNN report

    With all due respect, I wouldn’t cite consistency with anything that CNN reports as a measure of something’s validity.

  13. Here’s a succinct RW smackdown of the “it’s only the olds who had one foot in the grave already anyway” and “but what about car crashes?” Trumpian grotesquerie.

    1. There is some smug satisfaction to be had, I suppose, with framing the issue of mitigation–how much, how long–as a “lefties who care about life” versus “righties who only care about the economy” dichotomy. Unfortunately it’s a complex issue that doesn’t lend itself well to cartoonish views of the world.

      If it is true that almost all the deaths are among the old and those with some form of morbidity then that should be taken into account in devising a strategy. Most old people who aren’t in some assisted care facility can self-isolate fairly easily. Most don’t have to work and those who do could be subsidized during the crisis. The same could apply to those with health risks, allowing them to stay home. The rest of the population could wear N95 masks–it isn’t hard–and go back to work.

      1. There is some smug satisfaction to be had, I suppose, with framing the issue of mitigation–how much, how long–as a “lefties who care about life” versus “righties who only care about the economy” dichotomy.

        I’d consider taking that attack more seriously if (1) the author of the linked post wasn’t a virulently anti-left, long-time conservative blogger and friend/ally/admirer of the late Andrew Breitbart, and (2) the right wing commentators he calls out for their ghoulish callousness were merely opining on the optimal cost and duration of mitigation.

        1. Why not address the issue rather than making up quotes from people living in your head? Patterico, your fav “righty”, who will vote for any Dem who ends up on the ballot come November, does the same thing. He has exactly one actual quote, the rest are his fantasies. It’s really easy to smack down stupid especially when you make it up yourselves.

          1. Actually, Patterico said he will not vote for Bernie Sanders.

            As for the rest of your comment, I co-sign the replies by Sarcastro and loki.

      2. Check out these coronavirus threads, donojack. Maybe not representative, but if so, it looks like the right’s response is:

        1) It’s a Chinese bioweapon
        2) The death numbers are a conspiracy hoax/bad data
        3) Shutting down the economy is too much of a cost/plays into liberals’ hands
        4) we should concentrate on the liberal glee, not on the administration
        5) Trump has really been the best on this, as in all things. Just the best.

        The right may not all only care about money, but the majority of them seem to be existing in crazytown.
        And reality may have something to say to crazytown before this is over, so I hope they leave asap:

        1. You can find dumb stuff everywhere, left and right. You have accused conservative commenters here of only caring about the “Market.” I’ve seen a few dumb comments downplaying the crisis but I’ve also seen some thoughtful ones that are concerned about the economy tanking. We will have to have a strategy for transitioning to a normal economy sooner or later and simply characterizing any mention of it as heartless is not helpful.

          1. “You can find dumb stuff everywhere”

            You can! And yet, it is just so very easy to find here, in the comments of the VC, by the right. So very, very easy.

            But well played. It’s like telling someone that their house is on fire, and they reply with, “Yeah, but you know what? That guy down the street has a gas range. I bet that uses fire too!”

          2. As I said, maybe not representative. But surveys also seem to indicate the toxic combination of denial, conspiracism, and myopic focus on negative partisanship is all over the place in the GOP. And much less so for any other cohort, political or otherwise.

            I know it’s in keeping with my preferred narrative, but I don’t think
            being angrily, proudly, wrong should be a death sentence. I really hope either that this turns out not as bad as models predict, or that many of these folks on the right pull up in time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.