Trump - A New Battle Everyday

[kallend 1,623]

Another typical week in Trumpland.

He cancelled a meeting with the Danish prime minister over her refusal to consider the possibility of an impossibility. He declared that American Jews who vote against the Republican Party display  "either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.” He quoted a right-wing commentator describing him as loved by Israeli Jews like “the second coming of God.” He called the Fed chairman, Jerome Powell, whom he selected for the job, an “enemy” — along with Chinese President Xi Jinping — and tweeted that  “I hereby order” American companies to leave China.

[billvon 2,400]

Hey, another thing Trump is the best at - bringing things back!  Making America great again, like it was in 1950!

=================================================

“We’re embarrassed”: US is close to losing measles-elimination status

BETH MOLE - 8/28/2019, 11:08 AM

There’s a “reasonable chance” that the US will soon lose its status as a country that has eliminated measles. That’s according to Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

. . . . .

The US triumphantly declared measles eliminated in 2000—after spending decades tenaciously working to promote widespread vaccination. (The CDC had originally hoped to have it eliminated by 1982.) And in 2016, the WHO declared measles eliminated from the Americas altogether. WHO’s Regional Office for the Americas (PAHO) celebrated the news with announcements titled, in part, “Bye, bye measles!”

But now—after a global resurgence of the highly infectious viral illness, spurred partly by misinformation and vocal anti-vaccine advocates—both of those achievements are close to being undone.

Massive outbreaks of measles ignited late last September in New York. The disease has continued to spread in flare-ups around the country, sickening a total of 1,215 people since the start of 2019. This week, the CDC reported 12 new cases from the week before. Experts expect the weekly case counts will rise with the start of school—and they’re bracing for a stinging defeat.

"We're embarrassed. We're chagrined," infectious disease experts Dr. William Schaffner from Vanderbilt University told CNN.

 

[normiss 622]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

Hey, another thing Trump is the best at - bringing things back!  Making America great again, like it was in 1950!

=================================================

“We’re embarrassed”: US is close to losing measles-elimination status

BETH MOLE - 8/28/2019, 11:08 AM

There’s a “reasonable chance” that the US will soon lose its status as a country that has eliminated measles. That’s according to Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

. . . . .

The US triumphantly declared measles eliminated in 2000—after spending decades tenaciously working to promote widespread vaccination. (The CDC had originally hoped to have it eliminated by 1982.) And in 2016, the WHO declared measles eliminated from the Americas altogether. WHO’s Regional Office for the Americas (PAHO) celebrated the news with announcements titled, in part, “Bye, bye measles!”

But now—after a global resurgence of the highly infectious viral illness, spurred partly by misinformation and vocal anti-vaccine advocates—both of those achievements are close to being undone.

Massive outbreaks of measles ignited late last September in New York. The disease has continued to spread in flare-ups around the country, sickening a total of 1,215 people since the start of 2019. This week, the CDC reported 12 new cases from the week before. Experts expect the weekly case counts will rise with the start of school—and they’re bracing for a stinging defeat.

"We're embarrassed. We're chagrined," infectious disease experts Dr. William Schaffner from Vanderbilt University told CNN.

 

If ONLY the anti-vaxers acquired the preventable deadly virus contagions....

[kallend 1,623]

Can the Ministry of Truth be far behind?

"Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0T1KKIQOCt1ucValWqR3IFR3knIJfsOIX1risw6X4XSJX4zznQkXuInkQ

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by kallend

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

"Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president."

From your Article:

"staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”

They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post."

 

Wow, so the NOAA staff wasn't really warned against contradicting Trump.  They were just directed to actually stick to official National Hurricane Center forecasts rather than their own opinions - How fucked up is that, right?  

 

From another inaccurate Wapo Article:

Quote

Ten days ago, computer model predictions did present a scenario in which Dorian would strike Florida, enter the Gulf of Mexico and potentially affect Alabama. However, by Aug. 29, when the president was briefed by acting NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs, that scenario had become highly unlikely.

Yet, the NOAA map on Aug. 30  below showed an even greater threat to Alabama than it did on Aug. 29.

 

Quote

The NOAA statement Friday makes no reference to the fact that when Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, it was not in the National Hurricane Center’s “cone of uncertainty,”

According to Ken Graham, the director of the National Hurricane Center, "the center could be anywhere inside that cone."

 

[evh 22]

That chart shows a chance of just 5-25% for a tropical storm of 39 mph....

 

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, evh said:

That chart shows a chance of just 5-25% for a tropical storm of 39 mph...

Trump during the Fema/Ken Graham Briefing:

"The federal government stands ready to assist their readiness, response, and recovery operations. And, I will say, the states -- and it may get a little piece of a great place: It’s called Alabama. And Alabama could even be in for at least some very strong winds and something more than that, it could be. This just came up, unfortunately.

It’s the size of -- the storm that we’re talking about. So, for Alabama, just please be careful also. I ask everyone in Hurricane Dorian’s path to heed all warnings and evacuation orders from local authorities. It looks like they’re going to have to be giving them, unfortunately. And I wish you’d watch."

 

And actually, that chart shows 5-40% chance depending where you live in Alabama - and that was just a 5 day forecast when their flying spaghetti models were all over the place and still displayed a high level of uncertainty.  Even when those models finally started to agree on a sharp turn to the north, they still weren't sure when/where it would actually turn:

Ken Graham:

"The big question is: where is it going to make that turn?"

 

Trump: 

"Can I just ask you, two days ago, we were given a really comprehensive briefing, and they seemed to think almost every prediction was that it was going to go right through Florida and into the Gulf. Actually, right across Florida. Does that not have a chance of happening now, or what do you think?

I mean, everything seems now, it goes up north. What do you think the chances it goes directly straight as the original predictions were?"

 

Ken Graham:

"Yeah, this is -- well inside this cone, having this variability and this forecast track, and what's happened [Inaudible] has slowed down. The forecasts had this nudged to the north because now it has that influence with that trough. Teeny changes to make a big difference in the eventual movement of these storms, literally thousands of parameters that we're trying to measure and, clearly, computer models to be able to get these tracks.

a small change can cause that forecast track to nudge a little bit. That's why there's so much uncertainty, and we spend a lot of time talking about the actual cone. . .

So, we try to communicate the uncertainties, and -- and it does happen, especially when you're measuring thousands of parameters, trying to get that into the model, you can have these small changes."

 

And as I already said:

According to Ken Graham, the director of the National Hurricane Center, "the center could be anywhere inside that cone."

Edited September 8, 2019 by Coreece

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, evh said:

That chart shows a chance of just 5-25% for a tropical storm of 39 mph....

And as I sated earlier it actually shows 5-40% depending on where you live in Alabama.  It also showed that most of North Carolina had 0-10% chance, so what's your point?

[yobnoc 142]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

And as I sated earlier it actually shows 5-40% depending on where you live in Alabama.  It also showed that most of North Carolina had 0-10% chance, so what's your point?

 

You're trying so hard.  Bless your heart...

Timestamps are everything, amirite?

At NO POINT after the 8/31 forecast was any part of AL in the path.  Then President Dipshit tweets 27 HOURS after the latest projection does NOT include AL that AL is going to get hit much harder than previously thought. 

If he spent less time fucking around on the golf course and more time making the barest attempt at presiding over the affairs of the country writ large, this wouldn't have been an issue.

Edited September 9, 2019 by yobnoc
amplifying comment; bad math

[jakee 1,254]

34 minutes ago, Coreece said:

And as I sated earlier it actually shows 5-40% depending on where you live in Alabama.  It also showed that most of North Carolina had 0-10% chance, so what's your point?

What's your point? Remember that what Trump actually said was that Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated."

 

1) "Most likely"

2) "Much harder than anticipated".

 

How does the map you have posted justify either part of that statement? Maybe you've just fallen for his bullshit, weaselly lie that he was right to say that Alabama possibly could have been "hit or grazed", but the rest of us know that he absolutely did not say that.

[jakee 1,254]

And another pointless fight Trump can't drop...

 

"Yes, I am currently suing various people for violating their confidentiality agreements. Disgusting and foul mouthed Omarosa is one. I gave her every break, despite the fact that she was despised by everyone, and she went for some cheap money from a book. Numerous others also!"

 

So she's a horrible person, and everyone can tell she's a horrible person except for Donald "I'm The Best Judge Of Character" Trump who gives her promotion after promotion until it turns out everyone except him is right and she stabs him in the back because she's horrible. I'm struggling to see why he thinks it's a good idea to share this story.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

What's your point? Remember that what Trump actually said was that Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated."

 

1) "Most likely"

2) "Much harder than anticipated".

 

How does the map you have posted justify either part of that statement? Maybe you've just fallen for his bullshit, weaselly lie that he was right to say that Alabama possibly could have been "hit or grazed", but the rest of us know that he absolutely did not say that.

I think his point was revealed in his Freudian slip.  “and as I sated  earlier”.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

From your Article:

"staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”

They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post."

 

Wow, so the NOAA staff wasn't really warned against contradicting Trump.  They were just directed to actually stick to official National Hurricane Center forecasts rather than their own opinions - How fucked up is that, right? 

The staff was told to not contradict "some national level media social posts which hit the news this afternoon."  Those posts were Trump's.

One meteorologist said that “This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast.  It’s hard for me to wrap my head around. One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring — ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”

So yes, if NOAA is under pressure to not accurately disseminate warnings, then that is fucked up.  If your family got needless warnings due to political pressure on NOAA (or worse yet, did NOT get a needed warning because Trump fucked up and was trying to salve his ego) that would be very fucked up.  I am sure you would agree.

Quote

According to Ken Graham, the director of the National Hurricane Center, "the center could be anywhere inside that cone."

Yes.  But you posted an image of the wind speed likelihoods, not the prediction cone.  Better get your Sharpie!

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

From your Article:

"staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”

They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post."

 

Wow, so the NOAA staff wasn't really warned against contradicting Trump.  They were just directed to actually stick to official National Hurricane Center forecasts rather than their own opinions - How fucked up is that, right? 

The staff was told to not contradict "some national level media social posts which hit the news this afternoon." 

No they weren't.  They were told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon."

 

4 hours ago, billvon said:

"One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring — ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”

I agree that Trump's initial tweet was misguided and he should've waited until his next briefing just a couple hours later where he modified his position and asked for clarification.  Likewise, the Alabama Weather Service's tweet was also misguided at that time when it said Alabama would see no impact:

"From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

4 hours ago, billvon said:

One meteorologist said that “This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast. 

That's odd since the email told them specifically to "stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts."

 

4 hours ago, billvon said:

So yes, if NOAA is under pressure to not accurately disseminate warnings, then that is fucked up.  If your family got needless warnings due to political pressure on NOAA (or worse yet, did NOT get a needed warning because Trump fucked up and was trying to salve his ego) that would be very fucked up.  I am sure you would agree.

I do agree, good thing that's not what is/was happening.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

No they weren't.  They were told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon."

 

I agree that Trump's initial tweet was misguided and he should've waited until his next briefing just a couple hours later where he modified his position and asked for clarification.  Likewise, the Alabama Weather Service's tweet was also misguided at that time when it said Alabama would see no impact:

"From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

That's odd since the email told them specifically to "stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts."

 

I do agree, good thing that's not what is/was happening.

Coreese, who are you?  Your profile isn't informative, by design I think, as intended. I am Joe Weber. DZO. Skydiver. Pilot. Sometimes a somebody when skydiving airplane crap happens. But who are you? You have super strong views. Give it up or go away. Who are you?

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

I agree that Trump's initial tweet was misguided and he should've waited until his next briefing just a couple hours later where he modified his position and asked for clarification. 

Why would that have made any difference? What Trump tweeted was reckless, irresponsible, and entirely inconsistent with with any briefings he had received up until that point. Why would one more briefing have changed anything?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Why would that have made any difference? What Trump tweeted was reckless, irresponsible, and entirely inconsistent with with any briefings he had received up until that point. Why would one more briefing have changed anything?

Ya know?

That statement sums up the ENTIRE Trump presidency in a nutshell.

Nicely put.

[billvon 2,400]

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

No they weren't.  They were told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon."

It was very clearly a warning not to contradict the president.  Take away the usual SC "us vs them" approach and I am sure you would agree.

Quote

I agree that Trump's initial tweet was misguided and he should've waited until his next briefing just a couple hours later where he modified his position and asked for clarification. 

We agree there.  Had he said "I misread the forecast" or "I saw an old forecast" then no worries.  He is pathologically incapable of admitting any mistake, so the problem snowballed, and he ended up using a Sharpie to "prove" that he was right all along, even when he was wrong.  He then had to threaten NOAA to make sure they fell in line and made only politically correct statements that supported him.

Quote

Likewise, the Alabama Weather Service's tweet was also misguided at that time when it said Alabama would see no impact.

The Alabama Weather Service did the public a service by announcing that Dorian would not, in fact, hit Alabama as Trump had tweeted.  They prevented potential panic in the face of a non-threat.

Quote

"The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

Yep.  That's what you say if you want to keep your job after Trump has threatened it.

 

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

I agree that Trump's initial tweet was misguided and he should've waited until his next briefing just a couple hours later where he modified his position and asked for clarification. 

Why would that have made any difference? What Trump tweeted was reckless, irresponsible, and entirely inconsistent with with any briefings he had received up until that point. Why would one more briefing have changed anything? 

I suppose we don't really know either way, but given his twitter history, that's certainly a valid point.

 

45 minutes ago, billvon said:

Quote

I agree that Trump's initial tweet was misguided and he should've waited until his next briefing just a couple hours later where he modified his position and asked for clarification. 

We agree there.  Had he said "I misread the forecast" or "I saw an old forecast" then no worries.  He is pathologically incapable of admitting any mistake, so the problem snowballed. . .

Agreed, that's a fair assessment.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I suppose we don't really know either way, but given his twitter history, that's certainly a valid point.

What we do know is that what he said was flat out wrong, and not supported by any forecast map at any time.

[ryoder 1,384]

[normiss 622]

9 minutes ago, ryoder said:

LIB

 

[kallend 1,623]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/climate/hurricane-dorian-trump-tweet.html

Commerce Chief Threatened Firings at NOAA After Trump’s Dorian Tweets, Sources Say

[mbohu 77]

On 9/8/2019 at 4:42 PM, yobnoc said:

At NO POINT after the 8/31 forecast was any part of AL in the path.  Then President Dipshit tweets 27 HOURS after the latest projection does NOT include AL that AL is going to get hit much harder than previously thought.

The original tweet, really isn't the big deal here I think. Yes, a President should know how much his word counts and what effect it may have on people if it scares them about something that isn't really an issue for them, so he should have made doubly sure that he got the right information before tweeting out states that could be affected. However, we already know that Trump doesn't do that, and considering that it was quickly corrected by NOAA, this really could have been a completely minor slip, not worthy of much attention.

BUT: The entire circus of what he did afterwards, just to not have to admit that he made a mistake is absolutely grotesque: Using a black marker to draw something on an official map, is so unbelievably childish (and simply incomprehensible that he thought that would be a good idea--a 9 year old would know that this would be too obvious! I mean: He could have ordered someone to use Photoshop to alter the map...that would be scary too, but at least it would seem more adult!...or he could have shown the map that Coreece posted, if that was an official map that was available.) So the arguments about the original mistake (and how inaccurate it may or may not have been) are really irrelevant. I just can't fathom how anyone can see this and think there isn't something wrong with this person?!

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, mbohu said:

The original tweet, really isn't the big deal here I think. Yes, a President should know how much his word counts and what effect it may have on people if it scares them about something that isn't really an issue for them, so he should have made doubly sure that he got the right information before tweeting out states that could be affected. However, we already know that Trump doesn't do that, and considering that it was quickly corrected by NOAA, this really could have been a completely minor slip, not worthy of much attention.

BUT: The entire circus of what he did afterwards, just to not have to admit that he made a mistake is absolutely grotesque: Using a black marker to draw something on an official map, is so unbelievably childish (and simply incomprehensible that he thought that would be a good idea--a 9 year old would know that this would be too obvious! I mean: He could have ordered someone to use Photoshop to alter the map...that would be scary too, but at least it would seem more adult!...or he could have shown the map that Coreece posted, if that was an official map tha208 posts. t was available.) So the arguments about the original mistake (and how inaccurate it may or may not have been) are really irrelevant. I just can't fathom how anyone can see this and think there isn't something wrong with this person?!

There's a reason you have 34 Green Merits with only 208 posts. Normally I wouldn't do this but if you are in the mood to deal I'll trade you 4 Warning Demerits for just 2 Merits. I can't keep the offer open ended obviously.

Edited September 10, 2019 by JoeWeber