• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

At Least 130,000 Covid-19 Deaths Were Avoidable, Trump Administration An ‘Abject Failure’

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,679
Reaction score
51,736
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
From the center-right Forbes magazine:


A group of researchers from Columbia University say that between 130,000 and 210,000 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. could have been avoided were it not for the government’s “abject failures” in managing the crisis — blaming an administration that was slow to act, ignored experts, and failed to adapt and improve over the course of the pandemic, as well as “woefully inadequate” contact tracing and testing and the lack of any national mask mandate or guidance.

While figures differ — the U.S. Covid-19 fatality rate is double that of Canada and 50 times that of Japan — the researchers estimated a minimum of 130,000 deaths could have been avoided if the U.S. took an “averaged” approach that mirrored the strategies of other nations.

While a crude metric, the researchers say the discrepancy in deaths — which continues to grow daily — is useful in assessing the government’s response to the crisis.

trump has hundreds of thousands of deaths on his hands. There is no way to explain this away.
 
From the center-right Forbes magazine:






trump has hundreds of thousands of deaths on his hands. There is no way to explain this away.

Great post and thanks for that. Columbia's report is based on science which means there are people who will not look at it. Many of the people who need to understand the report feckin hate science. Also, the people who would most benefit from reading the report won't, largely because they wish to remain willfully ignorant.

No matter, the facts are in and published, by Columbia University, no less.

In the future when I read inane and ignorant arguments defending Trump and his administration regarding their non-response to COVID I will link them to this thread.

Here is the conclusion of Columbia's report:

By contrasting the U.S. proportional mortality rate with that of six other high-income countries, this report highlights the stark reality that is the United States’ continued mismanagement of the pandemic response. Particularly, it is the inability or unwillingness of U.S. officials to adapt or improve the federal response over the course of the pandemic that has strongly contributed to the nation’s uniquely high Covid-19 fatality rate.23 The U.S. should have – and could have – done better to protect the nation, and particularly its most vulnerable populations, from a threat that was identified and recognized early in 2020.

The failure of the federal government to (a) create a rigorous national strategy for testing and contact tracing, (b) coordinate data collection and coordination among U.S. states, or (c) recognize the scientific validity of non-pharmaceutical interventions like face coverings and social distancing reflect a deeply inadequate national response when contrasted to other high-income countries. Our comparative analysis estimates that somewhere between 130,000 and 210,000 American deaths to date could have been avoided.

The weight of this enormous failure ultimately falls to the leadership at the White House – and among a number of state governments – which consistently undercut the efforts of top officials
at the CDC and HHS. Further, there is little evidence to suggest that science-based policies will prevail going forward with DonaldTrump as President given his continued attacks on science
and government scientists. A pandemic is not a time for a decentralized and combative national response. It requires strong leadership and coordination across states towards a common purpose of defeating the threat with the might of the whole nation. The cases of South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany, and France demonstrate that the scope of the crisis and suffering did not need to reach the levels seen in the U.S.
 
Well, let's take a look at the actual "study."

Point 1.

Given the United States’ unique social and political realities, we recognize that it might have been particularly challenging to implement the same caliber of response as South Korea and Japan, both of which maintain centralized unitary governments.
https://ncdp.columbia.edu/custom-content/uploads/2020/10/Avoidable-COVID-19-Deaths-US-NCDP.pdf

Point 2, Introduction:

Many of the underlying factors amplifying the pandemic’s deadly impact have existed long before the novel coronavirus first arrived in Washington state on January 20th – a fractured healthcare system, inequitable access to care, and immense health, social and racial disparities among America’s most vulnerable groups.
https://ncdp.columbia.edu/custom-content/uploads/2020/10/Avoidable-COVID-19-Deaths-US-NCDP.pdf

Point 3, When you go into the actual methodology, they are using estimates, which in their own words...

None of these estimates is without potential flaws. Crude mortality estimates such as these have clear limitations, despite their value for inter-country comparisons. Many additional factors (such as demographics, geographical distribution of population, and health indicator risk factors such as obesity and health care access) likely contribute to the unique mortality rate in each population.
https://ncdp.columbia.edu/custom-content/uploads/2020/10/Avoidable-COVID-19-Deaths-US-NCDP.pdf

They used an "averaged approach," ending up blaming "not enough testing," and "contact tracing." Also asserting that it was "delayed response," and "lack of mask guidance" as the critical factors.

NOTE: No mention of those States that initially ordered the most vulnerable members of society, the elderly, to be housed together with those elderly who had Covid-19. Reports have attributed nearly 50% of all deaths to that action. State ordered action by the way.

Final note, I have problems with placing any faith in many studies occurring these days. Too often they are subject to confirmation bias, as in this case "how can we find that the current Administration is responsible for..."

The methodologies, assumptions, and other crucial steps often lead to exactly what the "researcher's" are "expecting" to find. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Of course the US could have done better, but by selectively using comparative analysis, one can further a narrative.

US: 328,200,000 population, 8,398,267 cases, 222,940 deaths. 2.55% of population tested positive; .067% of population died. 2.65% of those with COVID died
France: 66,990,000 population, 1,041,991 cases, 34,237 deaths. 1.55% of population tested positive; .042% of population died. 3.28% of those with COVID died

Presumably, no one without COVID died of COVID, otherwise, they would be in the numbers. If someone tests positive for COVID in the US, they are a case. If they are tested the next day and are positive, they are another case. More flaws. Similarly, are there no instances where someone with COVID and then died did not die from COVID, merely with COVID? More flaws.

Someone in France could draw the conclusion that 6,576 of the French could have been saved if the people who contracted COVID had the same recovery rate as the US. That simplistic view would be flawed too.

To be fair, the researchers did acknowledge: "None of these estimates is without potential flaws. Crude mortality estimates such as these have clear limitations, despite their value for inter-country comparisons."
 
Well, let's take a look at the actual "study."

Point 1.

https://ncdp.columbia.edu/custom-content/uploads/2020/10/Avoidable-COVID-19-Deaths-US-NCDP.pdf

Point 2, Introduction:

https://ncdp.columbia.edu/custom-content/uploads/2020/10/Avoidable-COVID-19-Deaths-US-NCDP.pdf

Point 3, When you go into the actual methodology, they are using estimates, which in their own words...

https://ncdp.columbia.edu/custom-content/uploads/2020/10/Avoidable-COVID-19-Deaths-US-NCDP.pdf

They used an "averaged approach," ending up blaming "not enough testing," and "contact tracing." Also asserting that it was "delayed response," and "lack of mask guidance" as the critical factors.

NOTE: No mention of those States that initially ordered the most vulnerable members of society, the elderly, to be housed together with those elderly who had Covid-19. Reports have attributed nearly 50% of all deaths to that action. State ordered action by the way.

Final note, I have problems with placing any faith in many studies occurring these days. Too often they are subject to confirmation bias, as in this case "how can we find that the current Administration is responsible for..."

The methodologies, assumptions, and other crucial steps often lead to exactly what the "researcher's" are "expecting" to find. 🤷‍♂️

Even the scientific method is not desgned to provide some proof. Same with statistics. So, the attempt to dismiss any study which doesn't present the certainty you seem to expect is irrational.

Note: Reports have atributed nearly 50% of all deaths in long-term nursing homes across many states, red and blue, with higher and lower death rates

It also does not sound convincing to believe that the top edipemiologists have a liberal bias. When prestigious mediccal jourrnals come out with editorials criticizng the administration, this is a sign of a real problem and not of some expression of partisan politics
 
Even the scientific method is not desgned to provide some proof. Same with statistics. So, the attempt to dismiss any study which doesn't present the certainty you seem to expect is irrational.

Note: Reports have atributed nearly 50% of all deaths in long-term nursing homes across many states, red and blue, with higher and lower death rates

It also does not sound convincing to believe that the top edipemiologists have a liberal bias. When prestigious mediccal jourrnals come out with editorials criticizng the administration, this is a sign of a real problem and not of some expression of partisan politics

You make a lot of hasty generalizations and assumptions. For example, we've already had "battles of the experts" who disagree on all sorts of things having occurred during this pandemic; from the value or lack there-of of masks, various pharmaceuticals, herd immunity, etc.. One also forgets the many mistakes made by such experts depending on false or misleading information. The W.H.O.'s assertion of no "human to human" transmission for one. Fauci's original assertions that masks have no value for another.

Meanwhile, IMO there are many reasons why certain "academics" will come out "criticizing the Administration." IMO there is a significant bias in those institutions of higher learning that have been one of the root causes of much of the current social discontent.

So when a "study" comes out asserting to blame the "Administration" for alleged "failures," I will take it with a "ton" of salt. Especially after READING it and pointing problems out with it. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
You make a lot of hasty generalizations and assumptions. For example, we've already had "battles of the experts" who disagree on all sorts of things having occurred during this pandemic; from the value or lack there-of of masks, various pharmaceuticals, herd immunity, etc.. One also forgets the mistake made by such experts depending on false or misleading information. The W.H.O.'s assertion of no "human to human" transmission for one.

Meanwhile. There are many reasons why certain "academics" will come out "criticizing the Administration." IMO there is a significant bias in those institutions of higher learning that have been one of the root causes of much of the current social conflicts.

So when a "study" comes out asserting to blame the "Administration" for alleged "failures," I will take it with a "ton" of salt. 🤷‍♂️

I do not see a "battle of the experts" regarding the US response or the benefits of testing and tracing. If you want to find an odd ball, you can find this in any field, including in science, but I do not see journals or university studies praise the Trump response. And nobody can seriously argue that his response of downplaying the pandemic' threat did not undermine the effectiveness of the public response. Same with the slow deveopment of testing in the US which put the country behind even countries like the bankrupt Greece in the initital and most crucial stage of the pandemic. Obviously, you can have your opinion, but citing the language of uncertainty abou certain issues that you see in a scientific paper is not serious evidence because such uncertainty is always present in science.


A study shoud come out to examine how we can do things better next time. It is just that some people dol not want to learn from mistakes because such thing would require first admission of such mistakes based on their political agenda.
 
Last edited:
I do not see a "battle of the experts" regarding the US response or the benefits of testing and tracing. If you want to find an odd ball, you can find this in any field, including in science, but I do not see journals or university studies praise the Trump response. And nobody can seriously argue that his response of downplaying the pandemic' threat did not undermine the effectiveness of the public response. Same with the slow deveopment of testing in the US which put the country behind even countries like the bankrupt Greece in the initital and most crucial stage of the pandemic. Obviously, you can have your opinion, but citing the language of uncertainty abou certain issues that you see in a scientific paper is not serious evidence because such uncertainty is always present in science.

There should NOT be any (allegedly) scientific "journals or university studies" praising ANYONE for anything. Leave that to biographers, publicists, and the odd historian.

IMO academics should be seeking truth and to inform, hopefully in a positive way. Not act as political surrogates seeking to lay blame on those who don't adhere to their preferred ideology.
 
From the center-right Forbes magazine:






trump has hundreds of thousands of deaths on his hands. There is no way to explain this away.
Another "Would'a, could'a, should'a" bullshit hindsight car-fest.
 
It is an assessment - scientifically sound - that many of us have been expecting, and arguing, for months. It is what has made us so angry.

This right here.

Once it became clear to the general public sometime in April what was going on, the sane among us were begging trump to do something sensible. Like a mandatory mask requirement.

But people who have been saying that are the same ones who have been warning just how badly trump would mismanage a national crisis. Well, here we are.
 
Another "Would'a, could'a, should'a" bullshit hindsight car-fest.

Says someone who couldn't give a flying **** about over 200,000 dead Americans.
 
There should NOT be any (allegedly) scientific "journals or university studies" praising ANYONE for anything. Leave that to biographers, publicists, and the odd historian.

Academics should be seeking truth and to inform, not act as political surrogates for their preferred ideology.

Progress is based on comparing results across the world and adopting the things that seem to work best. This is as true for the economy as it is for medicine.
The New England Journal of Medicine never published an editorial with a political message for more than two centuries. The fact that they chose to do it now is becausee this administration has attacked every scientific institution in this counry and has created a dangerous situation related to public health by politicizing agencies like the CDC, FDA, etc.

In any case, regarding the Columbia study, which is the topic of this thread, the objective seems to be more the examination of different responses so that we can learn from the best performers in the world.
 
Great post and thanks for that. Columbia's report is based on science which means there are people who will not look at it. Many of the people who need to understand the report feckin hate science. Also, the people who would most benefit from reading the report won't, largely because they wish to remain willfully ignorant.

No matter, the facts are in and published, by Columbia University, no less.

In the future when I read inane and ignorant arguments defending Trump and his administration regarding their non-response to COVID I will link them to this thread.

Here is the conclusion of Columbia's report:

Can you imagine how bonkers right-wing extremists would have gone if Obama had let over 200,000 die to mismanagement of the pandemic?! 🙄
 
From the center-right Forbes magazine:






trump has hundreds of thousands of deaths on his hands. There is no way to explain this away.
Surveys consistently show the majority of university faculty are sympathetic to Marxism, since Trump is a threat to their cultural power, all critcism from professors and researchers who have not previously renounced leftism must be regarded as disinformation
 
This right here.

Once it became clear to the general public sometime in April what was going on, the sane among us were begging trump to do something sensible. Like a mandatory mask requirement.

But people who have been saying that are the same ones who have been warning just how badly trump would mismanage a national crisis. Well, here we are.
Trump has no presidential authority to issue such a requirement and it was not until Late that month that anyone was mandating masks at all.

being a leftist you are now purposefully altering the timeline to make it seem as though this was obvious then, even though it’s not even obvious now. The science does not in fact show that the wearing of non-certified masks by non trained people has prevented a single case ever.
 
Surveys consistently show the majority of university faculty are sympathetic to Marxism, since Trump is a threat to their cultural power, all critcism from professors and researchers who have not previously renounced leftism must be regarded as disinformation

Now the argument is that the faculty in schools of medicine are marxist too like their peers in departents of social science :rolleyes:
 
Now the argument is that the faculty in schools of medicine are marxist too like their peers in departents of social science :rolleyes:
Many in fact are, and the ones that are not are still some version of authoritarian. Nearly all educated experts believe if they could just be in charge without any meddling from pesky plebes and their stupid elected leaders it would all be paradise

Fauci is talking about banning people from going to thanksgiving, it’s clear he’s not even thinking about the idea of trade offs

not only am I going to thanksgiving, I’m traveling out of state to do it.Fauci can get bent
 
Now the argument is that the faculty in schools of medicine are marxist too like their peers in departents of social science :rolleyes:

Attacking intellectuals is a very common tactic of authoritarians.
 
Many in fact are, and the ones that are not are still some version of authoritarian. Nearly all educated experts believe if they could just be in charge without any meddling from pesky plebes and their stupid elected leaders it would all be paradise

Fauci is talking about banning people from going to thanksgiving, it’s clear he’s not even thinking about the idea of trade offs

not only am I going to thanksgiving, I’m traveling out of state to do it.Fauci can get bent

Funny then how the AMA has been consistently one of the biggest opponents of goverment healthcare



AMA Goes on the Offensive Targeting Public Plan Option
by Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today June 12, 2009


WASHINGTON, June 12 -- The American Medical Association (AMA) "strongly opposes," a public, government-run insurance plan that pays physicians at Medicare rates, an AMA board member told a Senate panel Thursday.
 
From the center-right Forbes magazine:






trump has hundreds of thousands of deaths on his hands. There is no way to explain this away.
I don't believe I've heard or seen anyone other than politicians making those types of comments. No experts in the field have made statements like that.
 
I don't believe I've heard or seen anyone other than politicians making those types of comments. No experts in the field have made statements like that.

You obviously didn't click on the article. Here is what the very first sentence says:

A group of researchers from Columbia University say that between 130,000 and 210,000 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. could have been avoided were it not for the government’s “abject failures” in managing the crisis

Would you like to try that again? :)
 
Says someone who couldn't give a flying **** about over 200,000 dead Americans.
Say
This right here.

Once it became clear to the general public sometime in April what was going on, the sane among us were begging trump to do something sensible. Like a mandatory mask requirement.

But people who have been saying that are the same ones who have been warning just how badly trump would mismanage a national crisis. Well, here we are.
Except when Trump TRIED to claim he had open/close authority he was shouted down by left wingers who suddenly discovered federalism and claimed states possessed that authority.
 
Back
Top Bottom