Is it better to be honest and say we plan to vote for the President, or is it better to lie and say Biden?
I'm talking from a pure strategic standpoint. Is it a bigger reward to encourage fellow Trump supporters by increasing Trump's poll numbers, OR is it better to lull the Dems into a false sense of security and make the "silent majority" appear even larger come Election Day?
I wanted to see what the community thinks. Comment below.
P.S. I'm assuming for this discussion that a pede actually meets a pollster, which seems to be a pretty rare occurrence.
The current story is that we all have to kiss our children goodbye because the Bad Orange Man is going to give them the Black Death by making them go back to school. Let's do the work the MSM won't do and see just how much risk this entails. (TL;DRs given throughout for those not interested in the math!!)
Sources:
- https://osf.io/wdbpe/
- https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
- https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09-508.pdf
According to Source 1, the infection fatality risk for children 5-9 is 0.0016% [0%-0.019% (95% Crl)] and the infection mortality risk for individuals 10-19 is 0.00032% [0%-0.0033% (95% Crl)]. The range of percentages labelled "(95% Crl)" given after each risk percentage tells us that there is a 95% likelihood that the true outcome will fall somewhere between those two values.
According to Source 2, there are 53,118,014 school-age children (5-17) in the US. Of these, 20,348,657 children are aged 5-9, leaving 32,769,357 children aged 10-17.
NOW, I'm going to do something wild. Let's assume that EVERY SINGLE school-aged child in the United States is infected with the Wuhan Virus. That means 20,348,657 cases of WuFlu between the ages of 5 and 9. Applying the RANGE of possible death rates given in the data from Source 1, the gross death toll of children aged 5-9 within the entire country would be 326, with a 95% chance that deaths will be held beneath 3,866. Similarly applying the range of IFRs for 10-19 year olds to the population aged 10-17 gives a predicted death toll of 105, with a 95% chance that deaths will be kept beneath 1,081.
So, here are my results:
TL;DR1: According to my math and using the above sources for data, if every single American child aged 5-17 contracted the Wuhan Virus, then we could expect the death toll to be approximately 431 deaths with a 95% chance that deaths will be kept under 4,947.
Again, I'm doing the job the media won't do: Let's put this in perspective.
In 2017, according to Source 3, 16,457 Americans aged 5-19 died. Of those deaths, 522 children aged 5-14 died due to intentional self-harm (suicide), and this is only a part of the full 5-19 age range (I imagine this number would be muich higher if it included 15-17 or 15-19 year olds, but the next age-specified range given in Source 3 is 15-24, and I didn't want to be misleading by including this extra range). This figure (522 children) is higher than the predicted number of deaths (431) in a worst case Chinese Flu scenario where every child in the country is infected.
To put the worse case scenario (4,947 deaths at the extent of the 95% Crl range) in perspective, 6,854 Americans aged 15-24 died in motor vehicle accidents in 2017. This is obviously NOT directly applicable to the 5-17 age range with which this post is concerned, but I am using it as a comparison of scale. I would argue that if 6,854 motor vehicle accident deaths in one year is NOT reason enough to make it illegal for individuals less than 24 years old to drive or even ride in a car, then the potential for nearly 2,000 less deaths cannot be cause for closing schools to limit the Wuhan Virus's spread.
TL;DR2: A low-ball estimate of underage suicides in 2017 is still more than would likely die of the WuFlu, even assuming 100% infection of every American child, according to my understanding of the above-cited data. Similarly, there is a 95% chance that more 15-24 year olds died in car accidents in 2017 than 5-17 year olds who would die of WuFlu in a worse (not worst) case scenario.
Please feel free to criticize my methodology below! I am studying to be an engineer, so I feel pretty confident in my use of mathematics. Hopefully this analysis helps a lot of you put the current school debate in perspective!
I wanted to start a sort of discussion post on here to see if other pedes share my opinion on this matter of an Oval Office Address in this time of (manufactured) crisis.
The sum of my opinion to start the discussion is this: Federalism has been the going rule for both the WuFlu and Race War crises, and I think that this is an excellent strategy both constitutionally and electorally for President Trump. However, in order to take advantage of the political momentum stored in the very fact that Democrat-led areas have gone to shit, I think that a Presidential Address from the Oval Office is in order.
The contents of such an address might re-explain the federalist strategy allowing states and cities to protect or destroy themselves, make clear the President's and his administration's position on all matters relevant to the current challenges, and (if we are lucky) include the name-by-name reading of a list of bad-acting or inept local and state representatives with a description of the carnage each elected leader has caused through their policies.
I would REALLY appreciate to hear all of your opinions on this matter. My argument boils down to the idea that we should wait no longer to make clear to the American people that local and state leaders cannot blame Blumpf for all their problems. Should the President make such an address, and if so, what would you like to see within this address?
