The coronavirus
Comments
-
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.bootlegger10 said:
Totally get it, bro. I don't wear a seat belt because they tell me I still should avoid car accidents.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 -
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?"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 -
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”.benjs 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?"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 -
WhatHalifax2TheMax 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 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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”.benjs 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?"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 -
You seem to always make a concerted effort to present a cogent argument.benjs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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”.benjs 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?"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:
You seem to always make a concerted effort to present a cogent argument.benjs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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”.benjs 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?"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 -
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-is-about-one-point-15-percentmrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.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 -
So would you agree that IFR would be a more accurate means of determining herd immunity deaths in lieu of using CFR?benjs said:
https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.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 -
Now I don't feel as bad as I ONLY gained about 15-18 LB.s>HAHAF 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 -
So did you read the whole article or just the couple of quotes you cherry picked to try and make your argument?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:
So did you read the whole article or just the couple of quotes you cherry picked to try and make your argument?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 -
I personally was concerned about his pressure on the vaccine makers and the FDA to just get it out there, without proper trials/approvals.mace1229 said:
I didn’t say this board, although there probably were some. No one remembers people being anxious about a vaccine back in September/October?mrussel1 said:
Many people on this board? Like who?mace1229 said:
I do remember in the months leading up to the election a lot of people openly expressed distrust in any vaccine, acting as of Trump himself was mixing chemicals in the whitehouse basement.mrussel1 said:
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.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.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Holy shit dude, you're still going on about this. Okay, I'll bullet it out AGAIN so you understand:FiveBelow said:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-is-about-one-point-15-percentmrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.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:
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.mrussel1 said:
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.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 -
-
If you go back and actually read what I have written you would see I agreed with your math, but felt it was not the best way to determine the herd theory because it did not include a factor for unknown infections. Thanks to @benjs he introduced (IFR) which is what I was trying to explain without knowing what it was called. This is very important in determining a more accurate mortality rate (MY ENTIRE FUCKING POINT). If you still don’t understand that for every unknown infection (whether due to the carrier being asymptomatic, testing not being deemed necessary or testing being unavailable) the true mortality rate decreases, you really shouldn’t be questioning my intelligence. I figured you would understand that the numbers I provided only supported my thoughts of how not factoring in unknown infections hurt your claim. Pointing that out must have really hurt your ego, I’ll make note of your sensitivity.mrussel1 said:
Holy shit dude, you're still going on about this. Okay, I'll bullet it out AGAIN so you understand:FiveBelow said:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-is-about-one-point-15-percentmrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.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 -
Derp... you said 40'45%. I said fine, here's the new number. You keep going on about it. Endlessly... for no reason. That was 10 posts ago. And repeated. Over and over.FiveBelow said:
If you go back and actually read what I have written you would see I agreed with your math, but felt it was not the best way to determine the herd theory because it did not include a factor for unknown infections. This is very important in determining a more accurate mortality rate (MY ENTIRE FUCKING POINT). If you still don’t understand that for every unknown infection (whether due to the carrier being asymptomatic, testing not being deemed necessary or testing being unavailable) the true mortality rate decreases, you really shouldn’t be questioning my intelligence. I figured you would understand that the numbers I provided only supported my thoughts of how not factoring in unknown infections hurt your claim. Pointing that out must have really hurt your ego, I’ll make note of your sensitivity.mrussel1 said:
Holy shit dude, you're still going on about this. Okay, I'll bullet it out AGAIN so you understand:FiveBelow said:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-is-about-one-point-15-percentmrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:FiveBelow said:
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.mrussel1 said:
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K 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
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help