SasaS

True but at the time he was "riding high" and now, the impression is he is at the lowest point of his presidency, due to the government response, and yet he has the best rating ever, as the result of people rallying around the leader, any leader, in a crisis. Tub of lard would be at 40% right now.

And I imagine we are arguing the same thing, but if it helps, I am willing to concede defeat.

Our impression outside of the US, based on reading US media, was that he has completely failed as a leader so far. Majority of Americans thought his reponse to the crisis was good, and his approval rating was best ever. My point is that in a crisis (most) people would rally around their current leadership, because in a crisis, people our desperate for leadership, any leadership. So at first, any leader would enjoy incresed support.

It seems to be the predominant view outside the US.

True, but it has come at a time when you would, at least looking at it from outside, conclude he has been found wanting as never before in his mandate. As in, at his lowest point as a leader, rating is the highest.

It's the same in the US, Trump has the best ever approval rate despite the economic meltdown and quite obvious lack of leadership. In times of crisis people rally around the existing leaders for a while, it's the same in wars. Psychology.

That's interesting but does not really answer my question. I see more an more people questioning the official death figures everywhere, without actually looking at any figures (total deaths, corona attributed deaths etc). Head of the German Koch Institute said a week ago that the number of unrecorded Corona deaths (died at home, died but not tested, positive but death attributed to other conditions) would not significantly alter German death numbers. If Italy recorded 64,000 deaths in the last 30 days (I am working with statistical average only here), that would suggest official numbers are correct in showing 9,000 excess deaths, as they are called in the Sky video. If Italy had for example, over 70,000 deaths, it would suggest they have many more Corona deaths than they are admitting. The problem is, nobody seems to care to analyze this. Which is all extremely baffling given how many people have seemingly expert opinions on that in the media alone, not to mention us on forums and on social media.

Does anyone actually have any figures or estimates how much higher the death toll goes if you add suspected Corona deaths (not tested, not died in hospitals)? For example, Italy alone had about 660,000 deaths last year, which would suggest some 55,000 people would have died during the pandemic in the past 30 days without Corona virus, when Corona deaths are listed at over 9,000.

You will probably be able to buy soon.

It's not just for them. It's also for the people doing it. People isolated at home.

It has certainly been all over Europe for a couple of weeks. Even the time is always the same.

How much are they testing now? You could be right, looking at the number of hospitalized vs. milder cases isolating at home, a week ago the number of hospitalized dropped bellow the number of milder cases for the first time, which is insane, must mean that majority of milder cases went on untested and unregistered. The difference has been growing ever since.

Yes and no. It depends how much you can test. Worst affected countries mostly test symptomatic people.

A question, retired health care professionals that are coming out of retirement in the UK to help the NHS now, are they going to be used elsewhere, so more younger and presumably healthier doctors and nurses can be transferred to working with Corona patients, or do they just plan to push them to the Corona frontline? With 6,500 health care workers infected in Italy to date and over 40 doctors already dead.

Absolutely. As soon as the social distancing measures are relaxed, I will make an appointment to check if I am fucking stupid, can I in fact use my brain and to determine the exact location of my head in relation to my ass, as per your kind suggestions. To reciprocate your friendly advice, I would suggest looking up terms "exponentially" and "exponential growth" before using them in a sentence.