The coronavirus
Comments
-
bootlegger10 said:gvn2fly1421 said:Let’s say I was on the fence about getting the vaccine. How does this incentivize me to get it?
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.“
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.0 -
gvn2fly1421 said:Let’s say I was on the fence about getting the vaccine. How does this incentivize me to get it?
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.“
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 10 -
benjs said:gvn2fly1421 said:Let’s say I was on the fence about getting the vaccine. How does this incentivize me to get it?
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.“
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.0 -
Halifax2TheMax said:Glacier melt gonna melt.
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.Post edited by nicknyr15 on0 -
mrussel1 said:benjs said:gvn2fly1421 said:Let’s say I was on the fence about getting the vaccine. How does this incentivize me to get it?
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.“
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 10 -
benjs said:mrussel1 said:benjs said:gvn2fly1421 said:Let’s say I was on the fence about getting the vaccine. How does this incentivize me to get it?
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.“
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.
But you are banging your head against a wall when you try and reason with the anti- mask, anti- vax conspiracy believers.0 -
Bentleyspop said:benjs said:mrussel1 said:benjs said:gvn2fly1421 said:Let’s say I was on the fence about getting the vaccine. How does this incentivize me to get it?
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.“
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.
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
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:gvn2fly1421 said: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.
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.
- 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?
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.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
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.Stop.
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. Now actually 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.0 -
benjs said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:gvn2fly1421 said: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.
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.
- 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?
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.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
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.Stop.
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:
- 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.0 -
F Me In The Brain said:Ahahaha.
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.
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.Post edited by cutz on0 -
gvn2fly1421 said:Let’s say I was on the fence about getting the vaccine. How does this incentivize me to get it?
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.“
He clearly says he has increased some of his activity, like gathering indoors with other vaccinated friends/family. He also makes it clear his avoidance of indoor dining and such is due to waiting for enough folks to get vaxxed to achieve herd immunity (herd mentality according to Mr. Trump), and not wanting to do anything to slow that goal down. Something we should all focus on..
Also says he isn't traveling because he's too busy currently.
So if you read and comprehend everything he says, its not "I'm vaccinated but still afraid and staying in lock down", it's "I'm vaccinated, gathering in small groups with others who are also vaccinated, and being patient till enough of the rest of the population is vaccinated so its safe for everyone to resume the activities we all miss".This weekend we rock Portland0 -
Poncier said:gvn2fly1421 said:Let’s say I was on the fence about getting the vaccine. How does this incentivize me to get it?
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.“
He clearly says he has increased some of his activity, like gathering indoors with other vaccinated friends/family. He also makes it clear his avoidance of indoor dining and such is due to waiting for enough folks to get vaxxed to achieve herd immunity (herd mentality according to Mr. Trump), and not wanting to do anything to slow that goal down. Something we should all focus on..
Also says he isn't traveling because he's too busy currently.
So if you read and comprehend everything he says, its not "I'm vaccinated but still afraid and staying in lock down", it's "I'm vaccinated, gathering in small groups with others who are also vaccinated, and being patient till enough of the rest of the population is vaccinated so its safe for everyone to resume the activities we all miss".“And now you know the rest of the story!”Paul Harvey
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
mace1229 said:mrussel1 said:mace1229 said:mrussel1 said:gvn2fly1421 said: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.
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.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:gvn2fly1421 said: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.
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.
- 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?
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.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
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.Stop.
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. Now actually 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.
1. You ask why I didn't use 1.15%? Well a few reasons:
A. - the link you provided was from OCTOBER, not today.
B - it's a study from a college and an estimate.
C- If you go back to my original post, I simply took the number of confirmed deaths/confirmed cases. And guess what that math is? 2.15%. Here's the link, do the fucking division yourself. https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=/m/02j71&gl=US&ceid=US:en
So then you went on about "asymptomatic cases" which has nothing to do with unreported cases, which I think your point may have been, but you cant' keep those terms straight. So you threw out 40-45%. So I increased the number of cases to 189MM FOR YOU, and kept the deaths the same (which would not be accurate, they would be higher but WTF, my point was about herd). That made the infection death rate 1.5%.
Now you're talking about the rate being 1.15% citing some study from seven fucking months ago. So why not look at this contemporaneous data (we'll wait while you look up that big word) and tell me which countries have an rate above 1.15 and below 1.15 and tell me if you still think that's the number. And last, here's a screen shot from yet ANOTHER source, by country. I'm making this easy on you.. how many of these first world countries are below the 1.15% number you cited? Hint.. it's one. NZ https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate
And finally, let me ask you one more time since you won't stfu about this. You tell me what the estimated cost in lives would be for herd immunity... because that's THE FUCKING POINT. Not whether the rate is 2%, 1.5% or 1.15% CAN YOU PLEASE DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE?
0 -
FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:gvn2fly1421 said: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.
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.
- 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?
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.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
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.Stop.JC man. The actual mortality rate is 2%, period. You may have theories that the factual reported cases are understated, and someone else has a theory the fatalities are underreported. Speculation either way is not fact.Your theories are fine for speculation, but the fact remains the mortality rate is factually TWO PERCENT.0 -
-
mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:gvn2fly1421 said: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.
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.
- 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?
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.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
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.Stop.
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. Now actually 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.
1. You ask why I didn't use 1.15%? Well a few reasons:
A. - the link you provided was from OCTOBER, not today.
B - it's a study from a college and an estimate.
C- If you go back to my original post, I simply took the number of confirmed deaths/confirmed cases. And guess what that math is? 2.15%. Here's the link, do the fucking division yourself. https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=/m/02j71&gl=US&ceid=US:en
So then you went on about "asymptomatic cases" which has nothing to do with unreported cases, which I think your point may have been, but you cant' keep those terms straight. So you threw out 40-45%. So I increased the number of cases to 189MM FOR YOU, and kept the deaths the same (which would not be accurate, they would be higher but WTF, my point was about herd). That made the infection death rate 1.5%.
Now you're talking about the rate being 1.15% citing some study from seven fucking months ago. So why not look at this contemporaneous data (we'll wait while you look up that big word) and tell me which countries have an rate above 1.15 and below 1.15 and tell me if you still think that's the number. And last, here's a screen shot from yet ANOTHER source, by country. I'm making this easy on you.. how many of these first world countries are below the 1.15% number you cited? Hint.. it's one. NZ https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate
And finally, let me ask you one more time since you won't stfu about this. You tell me what the estimated cost in lives would be for herd immunity... because that's THE FUCKING POINT. Not whether the rate is 2%, 1.5% or 1.15% CAN YOU PLEASE DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE?Post edited by FiveBelow on0 -
FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:gvn2fly1421 said: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.
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.
- 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?
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.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
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.Stop.
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. Now actually 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.
1. You ask why I didn't use 1.15%? Well a few reasons:
A. - the link you provided was from OCTOBER, not today.
B - it's a study from a college and an estimate.
C- If you go back to my original post, I simply took the number of confirmed deaths/confirmed cases. And guess what that math is? 2.15%. Here's the link, do the fucking division yourself. https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=/m/02j71&gl=US&ceid=US:en
So then you went on about "asymptomatic cases" which has nothing to do with unreported cases, which I think your point may have been, but you cant' keep those terms straight. So you threw out 40-45%. So I increased the number of cases to 189MM FOR YOU, and kept the deaths the same (which would not be accurate, they would be higher but WTF, my point was about herd). That made the infection death rate 1.5%.
Now you're talking about the rate being 1.15% citing some study from seven fucking months ago. So why not look at this contemporaneous data (we'll wait while you look up that big word) and tell me which countries have an rate above 1.15 and below 1.15 and tell me if you still think that's the number. And last, here's a screen shot from yet ANOTHER source, by country. I'm making this easy on you.. how many of these first world countries are below the 1.15% number you cited? Hint.. it's one. NZ https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate
And finally, let me ask you one more time since you won't stfu about this. You tell me what the estimated cost in lives would be for herd immunity... because that's THE FUCKING POINT. Not whether the rate is 2%, 1.5% or 1.15% CAN YOU PLEASE DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE?
0 -
The 2% death rate is only as accurate as the positive case count. And hasn’t even the cdc confirmed there could be many unreported cases? I thought it was accepted by everyone we don’t have a really accurate count on the total numbers. But even at 1% is too high to just hope for herd immunity. And I think that’s what FiveBelow was saying. The 2% doesnt account for unreported cases, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter, 1% is still too high.0
-
DEATHS CAN BE UNDERREPORTED JUST LIKE CASES MIGHT BE.
ITS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE FIRST TYPE OF ERROR TO NOT EXIST IF THE SECOND EXISTS
The most likely scenario is both do. And mild covid cases are nearly irrelevant in considering the true danger to the vulnerable. So let’s stop pretending that mild cases make covid less deadly.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help