How Low Can You Go?

Over on Twitter yesterday, Bill Kristol made a comment about how inappropriate it was for the media to use Trump's numbers of 100,000-240,000 possible deaths from the coronavirus.  His point was that if the actual number ends up being below that or near the bottom of the range, Trump will claim victory.

A few things, not including that Kristol's record on predictions is not very good.  (And by "Not very good," I mean pretty bad.)

To start with, Kristol is right, and that thought did occur to me previously, as well.  If the number of deaths is below 100,000, Trump will indeed claim he did a great job.  But then, if the number ends up at a million, he will claim he did a great job, since it could have been worse because, after all, he closed down travel from China.

That said -- and I don't mean to get morose here, but deal with reality -- sadly, we will not end up with deaths below or even near the bottom of the range.

Remember:  the projection presented was not "This is what we predict."  It was only...the Best Case Scenaio.  Not only that, but this Best Case was based on a model with data from last week. AND -- importantly -- it was the Best Case, as Dr. Birx said, "If we do things almost perfectly."

We are not going to do things "almost perfectly."  The Trump administration has not done things "almost perfectly" since it was sworn in.  There is no reason to believe it will start doing things "almost perfectly" in the middle of a crisis that they have screwed up since the beginning.  Since even before the beginning, for that matter, starting in 2018 when Trump shut down the Pandemic Response Unit.  And still hasn't started it up again.  And didn't renew the $8.5 BILLION dropped from the CDC budget for infectious diseases in 2019.  And fired the CDC expert on infectious diseases stationed in China, Dr. Linda Quick, in July of last year.

So, no, we are not going to do things "almost perfectly in the future.  But the thing is, that "If we do things almost perfectly" quote was based on us starting "almost perfectly" the next day, now, today.  Actually, that's not true -- it was based on doing things "almost perfectly" from the point of when the model projections were put together last week.  And the past week was pretty bad.  States like Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and more still hadn't issued stay-at-home orders.  Even now, today -- after the "If we do things almost perfectly" standard was stated -- there are over half a dozen states without full stay-at-home orders.

And none of this takes into consideration that we are far, far behind in getting masks and gown and -- God help us -- ventilators to the hospitals that desperately need them.

So...as much as I really, dearly don't want to be morose -- we are not going to be doing things "almost perfectly."  And so, the number of deaths from the coronavirus are not going to be near the bottom of the range, let alone below that Best Case Scenario.

And then there's this to consider --

Trump does not want to show the reality of the crisis, how horrific it may get. That's been the problem from the very first. "We only have 15 cases of infection [it was actually 40 at the time], and then it will go down to 2 or 3 in a few days," he said.  And then added, "And then like a miracle It will be gone soon.  All along the way, Trump has minimized the situation.  Just days ago, he kept insisting that he would order businesses to reopen by Easter.  That was never going to happen.  But he kept pushing it, because he only wants to make everything seem wonderful.  In fact, importantly, this has gotten little attention, but when it came time to answer a question and gie that projection...Trump refused and he himself wouldn't give even THESE numbers but instead had Dr. Birx say it.  Lost in the important news of the numbers, this is how Trump actually answered the question --

“I would like to have maybe Dr. Fauci or Deb [Dr. Deborah Birx.  To Trump, apparently, since she's a woman, she doesn't get the "Dr." honorific...] come up and say — I mean, I have the numbers, but I’d rather have them say the numbers, if you don’t mind. It’s a big question.”

Yes, it's a very big question.  And an even bigger answer.  One a president should normally given to the nation.  But Trump, who only wants to make everything look good, was unable to himself say that the Best Case Scenario was between 100,000 and 240,000 American deaths.  He didn't want the video of him saying that, to be replayed over and over.  He made someone else say it.

It was that bad.  In fact, that he allowed the "Best Case Scenario" numbers be given shows how truly horrific it may get.

And there's on other thing.  Let's say the number of deaths does, like a miracle, actually go even under the bottom of that Best Case Scenario.  Let's say it's 90,000 deaths.  It won't be that low, but let's say.  I would suggest that anyone attempting to use the phrase, "We only had 90,000 Americans die," is going to look really, really, really bad.  His cult acolytes might love him for such a "great victory," but the rest of Americans will not look at only losing 90,000 as any sort of cool win.

Or if it's Bill Kristol's other fear, "near the low end," like maybe 130,000 deaths.  Imagine now someone trying to comfort you with the phrase, "We only had 130,000 Americans die," and claim it as huge success.  How much did you cringe just reading that?  Some comfort.

And that's if there's some bizarre miracle the deaths are at the low end of the Best Case Scenario, if everything goes "almost perfectly" from last week.  

And every one of those deaths can't been as merely "solo."  Each single death, rather than being a loss of that one person on statistical charts, will no doubt affect spouses, children, relatives, friends and acquaintances, each of those people devastated by the "one" death. 

My deepest hope is that we can be under the high end of the Best Case Scenario.  But even that remains a Best Case Scenario.

And none of this takes into consideration the economic devastation and emotional pummeling people will be taking being isolated at home for so long, being out of work for so long and trying to rebuild the economy and their lives.  They will.  But imagine the hurdles.  This is not just about deaths and claiming "victory," despite that ace analyst Bill Kristol's crackerjack thoughts.

I don't like being morose.  And I could be totally wrong.  I certainly hope I am.  But seeing reality is the only way people get out of a crisis both physically and  emotionally.  And you don't also have to carry the additional horrifying baggage around of "What if Trump comes out of this a hero."

He won't.  He is one of the greatest disasters in American history.

But this isn't about Trump, we know who he is.  This is about the elected members of the Republican Party who enable him and are complicit.