A different way of looking at the COVID-19 numbers

[TU Curmudgeon]

There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.

The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.

This table

​

shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.

One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.

My reading of the figures is that the US:

1. DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
2. DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
   and
   *
3. HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.

NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".

 

[tacomancer]

There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.

The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.

This table

View attachment 67291200
​

shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.

One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.

My reading of the figures is that the US:

1. DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
2. DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
   and
   *
3. HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.

NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".

Great analysis and a great way to show how our medical system does kill people, just through billing and cost.

 

[bluesmoke]

There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.

The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.

This table

View attachment 67291200
​

shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.

One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.

My reading of the figures is that the US:

1. DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
2. DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
   and
   *
3. HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.

NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".

This has been said all along but is good to see in black and white, blue and green. Never saw it put in more particular numbers than this. Just that we're the richest nation on earth and doing the worst with what we have. No duh.

 

[snakestretcher]

There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.

The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.

This table

View attachment 67291200
​

shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.

One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.

My reading of the figures is that the US:

1. DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
2. DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
   and
   *
3. HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.

NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".

When scoring political points and cynically using a killer pandemic to play political tennis with takes precedence over a nation's health, that's what happens

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Great analysis and a great way to show how our medical system does kill people, just through billing and cost.

FYI, two days ago the Column 5 number for the UK was 97.96%.

That means, assuming that that rate of closure continues, the UK will drop out of the .95<x<1.05 zone in approximately 3 days.

That would mean that the United States of America has achieved the distinction of having the HIGHEST chance that one of its people will die from COVID-19 of any of the major economic players in the world.

PS - I do recognize that the PPP GDP per Capita figures are slightly dated (but they were the best that I had to work with at the time).

 

[Moderate Right]

There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.

The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.

This table

View attachment 67291200
​

shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.

One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.

My reading of the figures is that the US:

1. DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
2. DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
   and
   *
3. HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.

NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".

I seriously dispute world numbers, which include China and Russia. This makes the whole thing questionable at best. The thing about dealing with all of these numbers is that anyone can use the data to cherry pick whatever conclusions they want to prove.

 

[sangha]

I seriously dispute world numbers

You misspelled "stupidly"

Sent from my U683CL using Tapatalk

 

[Bullseye]

Great analysis and a great way to show how our medical system does kill people, just through billing and cost.

Isn't our medical system Obamacare?

 

[tacomancer]

Isn't our medical system Obamacare?

The ACA was a piss poor piece of overly compromised legislation that should have been single payer in a just world. However, in this case you are wrong, the issue of health care being too expensive for people to afford it predates the Obama term.

 

[Bullseye]

There are lots of comparisons between relative COVID-19 numbers (you can find a bunch of them at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19), but one other way of looking at relative success is by tying it to the amount of potentially available resources.

The amount of money that is potentially available to fight COVID-19 is one of those potentially available resources.

This table

View attachment 67291200
​

shows the percentage chance of a randomly selected person dying from COVID-19 using the US data as a base line. The first colour-coded column gives the raw rate and the second colour-coded column gives the raw rate as adjusted by "relative ability to pay" (again using the US rate as a base line.

One would expect that the figures would favour the US much more than they do - based on the relative wealth of the US.

My reading of the figures is that the US:

1. DOES have the "financial resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
2. DOES NOT have the "leadership resources" available to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas;
   *
   and
   *
3. HAS NOT mobilized the "societal resources" available sufficiently to fight COVID-19 more successfully than any of the other listed areas.

NOTE - This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "The American Dream", "The American Ideal", "hating America", "hating Trump" or anything else but exactly what it says "The US could afford to be doing a whole lot better in fighting COVID-19 than it is actually doing.".

Some times one can crunch numbers and do all kinds of pretty tables and still produce nothing useful. This is probably one of those cases.

 

[Bullseye]

The ACA was a piss poor piece of overly compromised legislation that should have been single payer in a just world. However, in this case you are wrong, the issue of health care being too expensive for people to afford it predates the Obama term.

But it's one of the left's prime articles of faith. Single payer may be the one system that is worse than ACA.

 

[tacomancer]

But it's one of the left's prime articles of faith. Single payer may be the one system that is worse than ACA.

It has a successful track record in many countries, so the evidence is quite clear that it works.

 

[sangha]

Isn't our medical system Obamacare?

No, it's not

Sent from my U683CL using Tapatalk

 

[Bullseye]

It has a successful track record in many countries, so the evidence is quite clear that it works.

I don't really care about the "successful track record" bull**** spiel. This isn't the thread to get into that discussion.

 

[Bullseye]

No, it's not

Sent from my U683CL using Tapatalk

Does Obama know that? :lamo

 

[tacomancer]

I don't really care about the "successful track record" bull**** spiel. This isn't the thread to get into that discussion.

good for you

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I seriously dispute world numbers, which include China and Russia.

And your reason for doing that (other than "Well, because they're Commies and evrewunknoz that the Commies always lie all the time.") is - what?

That being said, do you "dispute" the relative standings between Canada and the US?

How about the relative standings between any of the areas OTHER than "China", "Russia", and "World" vis-a-vis the US?

This makes the whole thing questionable at best.

I see, so all of the other areas (in addition to "China", "Russia", and "World") are all lying about the effect that COVID-19 is having on them - right?

The thing about dealing with all of these numbers is that anyone can use the data to cherry pick whatever conclusions they want to prove.

True, but comparing the US to all of the major economic players on the world scene hardly counts as "cherry picking" - does it?

PS - When I generate a new set of comparisons, the question I ask myself is "What would the result be if I compared 'A' to 'B'?". The question I do NOT ask myself is "What convoluted logic, data exclusion, and statistical manipulation do I have to go through in order to prove 'X'?".

PPS - If you have some other set of calculations that shows how the US is doing in comparison with other countries of similar economic clout, I'd be more than pleased to see them.

PPPS - I suggest that you do NOT use "relative per capita healthcare expenditures" in order to prove that the US is doing better than any other country in the world. Can you guess why?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Isn't our medical system Obamacare?

Nope.

The ACA was the best level of improvement in the availability that could be passed without damaging the profits of the for-profit medical care, medical insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to the point where re-election became excessively problematic.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Some times one can crunch numbers and do all kinds of pretty tables and still produce nothing useful. This is probably one of those cases.

Did you know that you can starve to death in a warehouse full of canned food if you refuse to admit that the thing at your feet is a can opener?

 

[Bullseye]

Nope.

The ACA was the best level of improvement in the availability that could be passed without damaging the profits of the for-profit medical care, medical insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to the point where re-election became excessively problematic.

Sorry, no. IT'S FRIGGIN' "Obamacare" it's been call that since it passed, Obama embraces it as part of his legacy.

 

[Bullseye]

Did you know that you can starve to death in a warehouse full of canned food if you refuse to admit that the thing at your feet is a can opener?

What?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But it's one of the left's prime articles of faith. Single payer may be the one system that is worse than ACA.

Did you know that every single one of the countries in the table that are doing better than the US, on the basis of "ability to pay" has a "single payer" healthcare system and that the only countries that are doing worse than the US do NOT have a "single payer" healthcare system?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sorry, no. IT'S FRIGGIN' "Obamacare" it's been call that since it passed, Obama embraces it as part of his legacy.

The ACA is a PART of the US healthcare system - it is NOT ALL of the US healthcare system.

The MAJORITY of the US healthcare system is NOT "single payer".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What?

Maybe

"I fully defend your right to run towards the cliff with your eyes shut, but I don't want to hear you whining all the way down to the bottom."
​

would have been a better analogy.

 

[Bullseye]

The ACA is a PART of the US healthcare system - it is NOT ALL of the US healthcare system.

The MAJORITY of the US healthcare system is NOT "single payer".

Who said O'care was "single payer"? Employers are mandated to provide HC by ACA. The choices they provide have to meet minimum coverage specified by ACA. Individual policies have to be ACA compliant.