Governor DeWine Suppresses Data Disproving COVID-19 Policies
wmfd.com/article/governor-dewine-suppresses-d...
wmfd.comPosted May 27, 2020, 2:04 AM UTC
053
wmfd.comThis is one of the longest, most pointless, poorly written articles I've ever seen. Even the formatting makes me upset.
10
But not DeWine. Right?
-11
Don't waste your time. This is some jagoff with a .com who thinks he's Fox News.
8
[removed]
1
Your comment has been removed because
- Purely political posts and comments will be removed. Political discussions can easily come to dominate online discussions. Therefore we remove political posts and comments and lock comments on borderline posts. (More Information)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Fox loves DeWine.
-9
I can’t believe this is an actual news org website. The formatting made me die inside.
6
Does fake data to induce fear in a pandemic bother you less, or more, than the article’s formatting?
-11
They acted based on early data. It turns out that data wasn't awesome. The data that they had to act on was minimal because a certain spray tan covered executive sat on his hands for not one but two whole fucking months and did not even try to adequately use available resources because that was boring, golfing and rallies are more fun.
The content of the article pretty much reads like a high school position paper written the night before the deadline about an event on which we have 20-20 hindsight. Yes Ferguson's models are flawed. All models are flawed, to what extent is the question.
The governors in numerous states acted with the tools they had. I remember February and March wondering when something was going to be done by the executive branch, that wasn't just closing up the barn door after the horses got out.
If you want to be butthurt about decisions being made on bad data, you can look to the agencies that fell asleep at the switch and the person who heads them who would rather be golfing.
3
It was off by a factor of 20. That’s so bad it’s almost unthinkable for a scientist.
1
Yeah it would have been great if the CDC was run by somebody who didn't spend the 80's saying aids was god's revenge on the gays. It would have been great had a certain task force been able to disseminate information. As it was they had to act on the information they had.
What states got was this: You are on your own.
1
We spend $8 billion a year on the CDC, yet state health departments were having to cobble their own models together with no data. Because back in February the CDC was still tripping over itself trying to make a test that actually worked while the FDA was making labs physically mail data across the country to get their own tests approved.
ODH relied on faulty models because they basically had to guess at everything. Thanks to the CDC's defective kits, the state wasn't able to do its own tests until March and the CDC refused to believe there was any community spread in the US until the end of February, so they wouldn't test anyone who didn't have overseas travel history.
We had the opportunity to be like South Korea and get out ahead of it, but the feds wasted 2 months. So instead, state governments had to take desperate measures to keep from being Italy.
1
What, specifically, was off by a factor of 20. I suspect you aren't reading something correctly. For example, you might be saying that the number of deaths in the US is off by a factor of 20 because of this statement:
"In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality."
If so, you are making two errors:
- You don't understand what "unmitigated" means. As clearly stated in a preceding sentence:
"In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour"
- You are assuming that the epidemic is over, today.
1
The fake data was bad but the formatting was the final straw.
1
this sub reddit was good before the MAGA idiots got here
3
OP has 166 posts in T_D
5
He gave me this gem here:
Did you know Fauci was working with WHO on AIDS in Africa when it exploded and was spread by drug companies like Bayer using WHO money.
Shit somebody call the tinfoil factory.
4
Triggered you enough to mine a Reddit history. Whatever helps you deny inconvenient info.
-2
This line is just blatantly false:
Outside of sampling a full prison with thousands of inmates, Ohio has never seen more than 100 cases in any given day throughout the health emergency.
There were over 500 cases yesterday.
1
I cannot find any source of that.
0
Of what? The quote is from this article. I cleaned up the random linebreaks. The unedited quote is:
Outside of sampling a full
prison with thousands of inmates, Ohio has never seen more than 100 cases in
any given day throughout the health emergency.
That there were over 500 cases yesterday is easily verifiable from multiple sources.
1
While I’ve lost a lot of support lately for DeWine’s actions (I’m an Ohioan) this is a very one sided garbage article. It lost me when he talked about death suppression. Uhh I watched the conference today, they reported the amount of deaths you’re claiming it’s not some hoax or lie. The 84 number the article gets off the website wasn’t claimed to be deaths today and only idiots or people who can be fooled/tricked by individuals like the one who wrote this article will perceive that data that way.
Did they say they’d be doing over 150,000 tests a week by now and we barely have done over 300,000 total? Yes.
Did they have other errors or bumps with things. Definitely.
But this is an awful opinionated piece, borderline manipulating information to skew things to one side.
Also an Ohioan. This article is garbage. The person writing it comes off as angry and not very intelligent.
[removed]