If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
A lot of people get tested when they are asymptomatic. That's how we have a rough idea of how many people are asymptomatic.
I know where I live we are contacted if we have had close contact with someone who has tested positive. I have heard of many examples of people finding out they have asymptomatic covid this way.
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
A lot of people get tested when they are asymptomatic. That's how we have a rough idea of how many people are asymptomatic.
I know where I live we are contacted if we have had close contact with someone who has tested positive. I have heard of many examples of people finding out they have asymptomatic covid this way.
A sizable number of people are required to be tested weekly or even twice a week at jobsites, colleges, and the like.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Got Moderna vaccination #2 about 7 1/2 hours ago. So far, achy back and fatigue. This things feels like it wants to kick my ass. The thing is though, I've made it through the pandemic without Covid or any other illness. It's been good while since I've had any kind of bug, so I'm really putting up a fight but, damn, this vaccination is nipping at my heels.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Got Moderna vaccination #2 about 7 1/2 hours ago. So far, achy back and fatigue. This things feels like it wants to kick my ass. The thing is though, I've made it through the pandemic without Covid or any other illness. It's been good while since I've had any kind of bug, so I'm really putting up a fight but, damn, this vaccination is nipping at my heels.
Glad you got it though, Brian. Might be a tough 24 hours but worth it.
I hope people get rid of that. Adding almost thirty pounds on average is not the way to live.
Damn, that’s a lot. And I’m sure those companies are just dying to help those lost, overweight souls. There are so many ways and means to exercise from home, to at least counter all of that hopefully not-too-often comfort or fast food.
I’m fortunate that I’ve neither lost nor gained during the past plus-year (weightwise, anyway).
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Stop.
Using your 45% under counted rate, it reduced the mortality rate from 2% to 1.5%. That's how it went from 122 to 91. You have called this 45%asymptomatic, clearly mixing that up with unreported. I have conceded the point of 45% , even though you've failed to provide any evidence or link of that.
And last, most importantly, I didn't try to pass it off as "fact". How can a hypothetical number be a "fact"? It's an argument about whether herd immunity should have been undertaken. I used CDC and WHO numbers to calculate a possible death number for herd. That's why I don't care if it's 122, 91 or 50 million. These are all unacceptable numbers. So unless you come up with a number that's acceptable under herd immunity, why are you wasting my time?
Got Moderna vaccination #2 about 7 1/2 hours ago. So far, achy back and fatigue. This things feels like it wants to kick my ass. The thing is though, I've made it through the pandemic without Covid or any other illness. It's been good while since I've had any kind of bug, so I'm really putting up a fight but, damn, this vaccination is nipping at my heels.
Glad you got it though, Brian. Might be a tough 24 hours but worth it.
Thanks, M!
We made our consecutive day #141 of our one hour per day of brisk walking today but it was only a couple hours after the injection. By the end of the hour I was beat. Will we be able to make day 142 tomorrow? I hope so, but not certain. Feeling pretty roughed up right now.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Stop.
Reverse engineer it then. 560,000 dead ‘Muricans with all the efforts taken/not taken. Herd immunity = do nothing, what fucking number are you comfortable with for “freedumb?”
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Regarding the first resource posted, projecting infection fatality rate is no different than any other projection. It involves the collection of a sample, the estimation of its over/under-effectiveness and the possible differences between the sample and the population, and the correction of that estimate through a bias understanding and countering mechanism. In the case of viruses, it's serology.
From the second resource posted, here's the explanation of serology:
"Serologic tests measure the antibody response in an individual. Antibodies to COVID-19 are produced over days to weeks after infection with the virus. The presence of antibodies indicates that a person was infected with the COVID-19 virus, irrespective of whether the individual had severe or mild disease, or even asymptomatic infection. Surveillance of antibody seropositivity in a population can allow inferences to be made about the extent of infection and about the cumulative incidence of infection in the population. The use of serology in epidemiology and public health research enables understanding of:
the occurrence of infection among different populations;
how many people have mild or asymptomatic infection, and who may not have been identified by routine disease surveillance;
the proportion of fatal infections among those infected;
the proportion of the population who may be protected against infection in the future"
It sounds to me like some are conflating the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) with the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). Additionally, some are falsely assuming that these serological studies were somehow neglected by a global leader in critical statistical information collection, and that only we on the Pearl Jam forums knew better.
If there are debates to be had regarding CoVID-19's performance (because for some reason, some of us are still questioning what we see and hear and feel with our own senses all around us), it should be related to potential shortcomings in the Infection Fatality Rate calculation, or deficiencies in the serological studies. Anything else would seem to be less relevant.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
Totally get it, bro. I don't wear a seat belt because they tell me I still should avoid car accidents.
Bro, this probably seemed real cute in your head. I understand that this is “the science” that gets used when telling people to wear face masks, but read better.
Our fully vaxxed lead epidemiologist Fauci is saying, by using your example, he is still not getting in the car to drive, no seatbelt needed. As someone who is on the fence about the vax (I’m not but I’m sure some are), what kind of message does that language send?
@FiveBelow Dude, just run now. These folks are so blinded by their politics they can’t see straight. If Halifax responds to you, avoid him like the plague (or the Covid or vax), he keeps talking about getting some guy named Matt off.
“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
This is the problem. A highly transmissible and lethal disease spreads around the world, destroys lives and economies, and when presented with a cure relying on the majority doing what is best for the community, your question is "what do I get out of this today?"
If you're avoiding the vaccine because you're fearful of the ramifications or insufficient testing, in spite of rMNA vaccine research having been done for nearly a decade and expedited by focused global attention on a singular problem, I can comprehend that and would suggest being cautious for the sake of yourself and others, and laying low until the vaccination data shows you what you need to see to feel confident.
If you're avoiding the vaccine because there are no immediately-short-term incentives, I can't comprehend that thought process. It seems fairly obvious that we can't snap our fingers and have a pandemic eradicated and behaviours reverted to the before-times overnight, and incredibly naive to expect otherwise.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
This is the problem. A highly transmissible and lethal disease spreads around the world, destroys lives and economies, and when presented with a cure relying on the majority doing what is best for the community, your question is "what do I get out of this today?"
If you're avoiding the vaccine because you're fearful of the ramifications or insufficient testing, in spite of rMNA vaccine research having been done for nearly a decade and expedited by focused global attention on a singular problem, I can comprehend that and would suggest being cautious for the sake of yourself and others, and laying low until the vaccination data shows you what you need to see to feel confident.
If you're avoiding the vaccine because there are no immediately-short-term incentives, I can't comprehend that thought process. It seems fairly obvious that we can't snap our fingers and have a pandemic eradicated and behaviours reverted to the before-times overnight, and incredibly naive to expect otherwise.
Ben - agree with all. But some people aren’t actually try to figure out what they should do, even if that’s what they say. They’re “just doing their research”.
“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
This is the problem. A highly transmissible and lethal disease spreads around the world, destroys lives and economies, and when presented with a cure relying on the majority doing what is best for the community, your question is "what do I get out of this today?"
If you're avoiding the vaccine because you're fearful of the ramifications or insufficient testing, in spite of rMNA vaccine research having been done for nearly a decade and expedited by focused global attention on a singular problem, I can comprehend that and would suggest being cautious for the sake of yourself and others, and laying low until the vaccination data shows you what you need to see to feel confident.
If you're avoiding the vaccine because there are no immediately-short-term incentives, I can't comprehend that thought process. It seems fairly obvious that we can't snap our fingers and have a pandemic eradicated and behaviours reverted to the before-times overnight, and incredibly naive to expect otherwise.
Ben - agree with all. But some people aren’t actually try to figure out what they should do, even if that’s what they say. They’re “just doing their research”.
Fully agree, and I know that at least a material portion of people are hiding behind these arguments, evidenced by the moving of the goalpost every so often. With that said, I think that like you, it's incredibly hard to look at lies and disinformation being spread (even if it's hidden behind the veil of ignorance or lack of understanding), and to sit by idly and allow it to be spread. At this point, if trying to present logic so that someone engaged in a good faith argument is swayed by it is all I can do, then I figure it's what I should do.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
This is the problem. A highly transmissible and lethal disease spreads around the world, destroys lives and economies, and when presented with a cure relying on the majority doing what is best for the community, your question is "what do I get out of this today?"
If you're avoiding the vaccine because you're fearful of the ramifications or insufficient testing, in spite of rMNA vaccine research having been done for nearly a decade and expedited by focused global attention on a singular problem, I can comprehend that and would suggest being cautious for the sake of yourself and others, and laying low until the vaccination data shows you what you need to see to feel confident.
If you're avoiding the vaccine because there are no immediately-short-term incentives, I can't comprehend that thought process. It seems fairly obvious that we can't snap our fingers and have a pandemic eradicated and behaviours reverted to the before-times overnight, and incredibly naive to expect otherwise.
Ben - agree with all. But some people aren’t actually try to figure out what they should do, even if that’s what they say. They’re “just doing their research”.
Fully agree, and I know that at least a material portion of people are hiding behind these arguments, evidenced by the moving of the goalpost every so often. With that said, I think that like you, it's incredibly hard to look at lies and disinformation being spread (even if it's hidden behind the veil of ignorance or lack of understanding), and to sit by idly and allow it to be spread. At this point, if trying to present logic so that someone engaged in a good faith argument is swayed by it is all I can do, then I figure it's what I should do.
You seem to always make a concerted effort to present a cogent argument.
But you are banging your head against a wall when you try and reason with the anti- mask, anti- vax conspiracy believers.
“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
This is the problem. A highly transmissible and lethal disease spreads around the world, destroys lives and economies, and when presented with a cure relying on the majority doing what is best for the community, your question is "what do I get out of this today?"
If you're avoiding the vaccine because you're fearful of the ramifications or insufficient testing, in spite of rMNA vaccine research having been done for nearly a decade and expedited by focused global attention on a singular problem, I can comprehend that and would suggest being cautious for the sake of yourself and others, and laying low until the vaccination data shows you what you need to see to feel confident.
If you're avoiding the vaccine because there are no immediately-short-term incentives, I can't comprehend that thought process. It seems fairly obvious that we can't snap our fingers and have a pandemic eradicated and behaviours reverted to the before-times overnight, and incredibly naive to expect otherwise.
Ben - agree with all. But some people aren’t actually try to figure out what they should do, even if that’s what they say. They’re “just doing their research”.
Fully agree, and I know that at least a material portion of people are hiding behind these arguments, evidenced by the moving of the goalpost every so often. With that said, I think that like you, it's incredibly hard to look at lies and disinformation being spread (even if it's hidden behind the veil of ignorance or lack of understanding), and to sit by idly and allow it to be spread. At this point, if trying to present logic so that someone engaged in a good faith argument is swayed by it is all I can do, then I figure it's what I should do.
You seem to always make a concerted effort to present a cogent argument.
But you are banging your head against a wall when you try and reason with the anti- mask, anti- vax conspiracy believers.
or just plain trolls or those with troll like posting
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Stop.
Using your 45% under counted rate, it reduced the mortality rate from 2% to 1.5%. That's how it went from 122 to 91. You have called this 45%asymptomatic, clearly mixing that up with unreported. I have conceded the point of 45% , even though you've failed to provide any evidence or link of that.
And last, most importantly, I didn't try to pass it off as "fact". How can a hypothetical number be a "fact"? It's an argument about whether herd immunity should have been undertaken. I used CDC and WHO numbers to calculate a possible death number for herd. That's why I don't care if it's 122, 91 or 50 million. These are all unacceptable numbers. So unless you come up with a number that's acceptable under herd immunity, why are you wasting my time?
It appears there are other nut jobs like me who feel trying to factor in total infections (not just known) is how to determine a more accurate death rate. Nowactually explain to me for once why you wouldn’t? 1.15% is not 2% so for the last fucking time, your calculation of herd immunity deaths was easy to dispute and just by telling you that you have run in circles trying to defend your calculation. I have given you not only a means of trying to factor in those unknown cases (because they matter) but also data suggesting that the 2% that you are hung up on is not a true indication. If you can’t answer the one question I have asked then don’t bother.
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Regarding the first resource posted, projecting infection fatality rate is no different than any other projection. It involves the collection of a sample, the estimation of its over/under-effectiveness and the possible differences between the sample and the population, and the correction of that estimate through a bias understanding and countering mechanism. In the case of viruses, it's serology.
From the second resource posted, here's the explanation of serology:
"Serologic tests measure the antibody response in an individual. Antibodies to COVID-19 are produced over days to weeks after infection with the virus. The presence of antibodies indicates that a person was infected with the COVID-19 virus, irrespective of whether the individual had severe or mild disease, or even asymptomatic infection. Surveillance of antibody seropositivity in a population can allow inferences to be made about the extent of infection and about the cumulative incidence of infection in the population. The use of serology in epidemiology and public health research enables understanding of:
the occurrence of infection among different populations;
how many people have mild or asymptomatic infection, and who may not have been identified by routine disease surveillance;
the proportion of fatal infections among those infected;
the proportion of the population who may be protected against infection in the future"
It sounds to me like some are conflating the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) with the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). Additionally, some are falsely assuming that these serological studies were somehow neglected by a global leader in critical statistical information collection, and that only we on the Pearl Jam forums knew better.
If there are debates to be had regarding CoVID-19's performance (because for some reason, some of us are still questioning what we see and hear and feel with our own senses all around us), it should be related to potential shortcomings in the Infection Fatality Rate calculation, or deficiencies in the serological studies. Anything else would seem to be less relevant.
So would you agree that IFR would be a more accurate means of determining herd immunity deaths in lieu of using CFR?
Comments
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I know where I live we are contacted if we have had close contact with someone who has tested positive. I have heard of many examples of people finding out they have asymptomatic covid this way.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-how-behavior-activities-changed-after-covid-19-vaccination-2021-4?amp&__twitter_impression=true
“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
29 pounds.
Damn, we fat mofos.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/09/fitness-companies-surge-in-demand-as-americans-rush-to-lose-covid-weight.html
I hope people get rid of that. Adding almost thirty pounds on average is not the way to live.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And last, most importantly, I didn't try to pass it off as "fact". How can a hypothetical number be a "fact"? It's an argument about whether herd immunity should have been undertaken. I used CDC and WHO numbers to calculate a possible death number for herd. That's why I don't care if it's 122, 91 or 50 million. These are all unacceptable numbers. So unless you come up with a number that's acceptable under herd immunity, why are you wasting my time?
Is 4.8M acceptable?
Im just asking.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Cancer gonna cancer.
Car accidents gonna accident.
Poison gonna poison.
Overdose gonna dose.
Guns gonna gun.
War is gonna war.
Death is gonna death.
Virus is gonna virussssssss.
Show me where Matt Getts Off touched you on the POOTWH Doll.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2021/04/10/cuba-may-become-the-smallest-country-to-make-covid-19-vaccines
Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.
I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/serology-in-the-context-of-covid-19
Regarding the first resource posted, projecting infection fatality rate is no different than any other projection. It involves the collection of a sample, the estimation of its over/under-effectiveness and the possible differences between the sample and the population, and the correction of that estimate through a bias understanding and countering mechanism. In the case of viruses, it's serology.
From the second resource posted, here's the explanation of serology:
"Serologic tests measure the antibody response in an individual. Antibodies to COVID-19 are produced over days to weeks after infection with the virus. The presence of antibodies indicates that a person was infected with the COVID-19 virus, irrespective of whether the individual had severe or mild disease, or even asymptomatic infection. Surveillance of antibody seropositivity in a population can allow inferences to be made about the extent of infection and about the cumulative incidence of infection in the population. The use of serology in epidemiology and public health research enables understanding of:
It sounds to me like some are conflating the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) with the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). Additionally, some are falsely assuming that these serological studies were somehow neglected by a global leader in critical statistical information collection, and that only we on the Pearl Jam forums knew better.
If there are debates to be had regarding CoVID-19's performance (because for some reason, some of us are still questioning what we see and hear and feel with our own senses all around us), it should be related to potential shortcomings in the Infection Fatality Rate calculation, or deficiencies in the serological studies. Anything else would seem to be less relevant.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Our fully vaxxed lead epidemiologist Fauci is saying, by using your example, he is still not getting in the car to drive, no seatbelt needed. As someone who is on the fence about the vax (I’m not but I’m sure some are), what kind of message does that language send?
@FiveBelow Dude, just run now. These folks are so blinded by their politics they can’t see straight. If Halifax responds to you, avoid him like the plague (or the Covid or vax), he keeps talking about getting some guy named Matt off.
If you're avoiding the vaccine because you're fearful of the ramifications or insufficient testing, in spite of rMNA vaccine research having been done for nearly a decade and expedited by focused global attention on a singular problem, I can comprehend that and would suggest being cautious for the sake of yourself and others, and laying low until the vaccination data shows you what you need to see to feel confident.
If you're avoiding the vaccine because there are no immediately-short-term incentives, I can't comprehend that thought process. It seems fairly obvious that we can't snap our fingers and have a pandemic eradicated and behaviours reverted to the before-times overnight, and incredibly naive to expect otherwise.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
But you are banging your head against a wall when you try and reason with the anti- mask, anti- vax conspiracy believers.
or just plain trolls or those with troll like posting
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Get my 2nd shot this Friday and I'm thinking of re-joining where I went when this Virus started last March, in May or June.