• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Good news

BS. Add in the number of people not tested before they died. Add in deaths that are actively being hidden by corrupt politicians. And even if this is true, still doesn’t help the families of lost loved ones.
 
Greenman said:
It appears that covid19 is far less deadly than was first thought.
www.npr.org

Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought

Tests for the immune response to the coronavirus are revealing thousands of people who were infected but never got severely ill. The findings suggest the virus is less deadly than it first appeared.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
Click to expand...
Wasn't any less deadly to the people who died, but yet again, if if doesn't personally affect a Republican, then it didn't happen.
 
nickqt said:
Wasn't any less deadly to the people who died, but yet again, if if doesn't personally affect a Republican, then it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
What an odd response. Covid19 is going to kill fewer people than we thought. While anyone dying from it is a tragedy, fewer is better.
 
Greenman said:
It appears that covid19 is far less deadly than was first thought.
www.npr.org

Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought

Tests for the immune response to the coronavirus are revealing thousands of people who were infected but never got severely ill. The findings suggest the virus is less deadly than it first appeared.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
Click to expand...
What I have been seeing as well in analysis that is properly controlled. Somewhere between .25-1% fatality rate. The lower being close to a severe flu season the higher far more serious of course. But I think it is going to become apparent shutting down the economy was exactly the wrong thing to do. The better, as done in some States/Countries but not others is to aggressively protect and isolate nursing/long term care homes, quarantine and contact trace those actively symptomatic and for the other 99%, business as usual with some social distancing type recommendations.

Hindsight will be 20/20 of course but as things stand now, this is my best estimate of what we will eventually conclude.
 
Apparently it is our moral duty to attack the messenger if he has taken positions we disagree with even in cases where the message may be good news. Well, it happened to Jesus so, Greenman, you nobody, go straight to the guillotine and don't pass Go.
 
dphantom said:
What I have been seeing as well in analysis that is properly controlled. Somewhere between .25-1% fatality rate. The lower being close to a severe flu season the higher far more serious of course. But I think it is going to become apparent shutting down the economy was exactly the wrong thing to do. The better, as done in some States/Countries but not others is to aggressively protect and isolate nursing/long term care homes, quarantine and contact trace those actively symptomatic and for the other 99%, business as usual with some social distancing type recommendations.

Hindsight will be 20/20 of course but as things stand now, this is my best estimate of what we will eventually conclude.
Click to expand...
20 20 hind sight is fine if you are looking without bias. However, somebody who believed we shouldn't have sheltered will believe whatever turns up that he or she can use as by association to produce the desired rationalization.

In shout, I would not trust your hindsight any farther than I can throw it. Sorry. I'm a skeptic. Looking forward to my own hindsight, if I'm lucky and don't die first.
 
dphantom said:
What I have been seeing as well in analysis that is properly controlled. Somewhere between .25-1% fatality rate. The lower being close to a severe flu season the higher far more serious of course. But I think it is going to become apparent shutting down the economy was exactly the wrong thing to do. The better, as done in some States/Countries but not others is to aggressively protect and isolate nursing/long term care homes, quarantine and contact trace those actively symptomatic and for the other 99%, business as usual with some social distancing type recommendations.

Hindsight will be 20/20 of course but as things stand now, this is my best estimate of what we will eventually conclude.
Click to expand...
Look at fatality rates in Scandinavia. Sweden has 4x more deaths than Norway, Finland, and Denmark combined. Sweden effectively did what you suggest and their death rate is quite high.

How do you propose to shelter only the old. Hand them some seeds and a shovel? The elderly tend to need help. The only way to keep them safe would be to zheltet their caretakers. The only way to keep tge caretakers safe ... well you know where this is going.

The choice was to shelter and protect at risk peole or to decide the stock market was more important. Only you can decide your allegiance.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
Greenman said:
It appears that covid19 is far less deadly than was first thought.
www.npr.org

Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought

Tests for the immune response to the coronavirus are revealing thousands of people who were infected but never got severely ill. The findings suggest the virus is less deadly than it first appeared.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
Click to expand...
Imagine if action were taken the total would be around 17,000

The story is good news based on the current shitshow. Like being the skinny kid at fat camp.
 
yeah, that's been a long-time assumption that the mortality rate would drop, because we already knew that testing has been woefully, inexcusably pathetic in this country for a long time.

But, it's good that it is less fatal--we've also improved treatment from how we were dealing with cases early on. That has certainly helped in lowering the death rate among those that were, are, and will be critical.

....still about 6x deadlier than the Flu with the updated projections. So, that piss-poor talking point remains defeated.
 
Greenman said:
What an odd response. Covid19 is going to kill fewer people than we thought. While anyone dying from it is a tragedy, fewer is better.
Click to expand...

How many did we think it was going to kill from the beginning? You ask the right people, it was anywhere between 10, 100, and certainly less than the flu. Or way way higher.

Which number should we go with in hindsight to declare this "positive"?

I'm sure the AT P&N history of the covid deniers will not paint a pretty history of what that number should have been....
 
This has already been well established. The death rate has been vastly over-estimated by people that can't do simple math.

The best means of this calculation was through things such as outbreaks on cruise ships where the majority of the people onboard had the virus - but few still died from it.... and that was with cruise ships having a vastly elderly crowd.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
This has already been well established. The death rate has been vastly over-estimated by people that can't do simple math.

The best means of this calculation was through things such as outbreaks on cruise ships where the majority of the people onboard had the virus - but few still died from it.... and that was with cruise ships having a vastly elderly crowd.
Click to expand...

no, you fucking chud. The death rate was never accurate because testing has been abysmal. There is no math that can be done properly without proper data.

I hate to point out how consistently you fail at "simple math" on these forums, every goddamn day you claim to be a genius about it, and soldier on anyway, but why would you make such a blatantly brainless claim about not doing a thing that can't possibly be done in the first place?

cruise ships are a "neat" study, but a vastly inferior sample size that doesn't represent actual human population dynamics. I mean, just think about this one problem with your claim for a second: what the fuck demographic do you expect on a cruise ship, and then tell me you are going to use that as a proper sample for the general population. ...would you do that with a straight face?
 
zinfamous said:
no, you fucking chud. The death rate was never accurate because testing has been abysmal. There is no math that can be done properly without proper data.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying detective dipshit.

A cruise ship is essentially a controlled study.

Everyone onboard is tested once they deboard - because obviously they can only spread the virus with the others onboard at the time.

That IS proper data. Instead, the media reports based on who SELECTIVELY goes in to get a test.

The cruise ship is the CLOSEST thing we can EVER get to an accurate study you moron. Way to not read my post at all derpington.
 
I don't know why everyone is trying to downplay this thing so much. 1% could end up being over 3 million people. Even half of that is 1.5 million people. We went to a pointless war with Iraq over 2,000 people. I don't know when human life became so expendable. I guess when people can't go inside a Starbucks that's when people must die.
 
Greenman said:
What an odd response. Covid19 is going to kill fewer people than we thought. While anyone dying from it is a tragedy, fewer is better.
Click to expand...


They are going to pee on you regardless of what you post.

If you posted that they found a cure they would still pee on you.
 
dphantom said:
What I have been seeing as well in analysis that is properly controlled. Somewhere between .25-1% fatality rate. The lower being close to a severe flu season the higher far more serious of course. But I think it is going to become apparent shutting down the economy was exactly the wrong thing to do. The better, as done in some States/Countries but not others is to aggressively protect and isolate nursing/long term care homes, quarantine and contact trace those actively symptomatic and for the other 99%, business as usual with some social distancing type recommendations.

Hindsight will be 20/20 of course but as things stand now, this is my best estimate of what we will eventually conclude.
Click to expand...

I think it's difficult to compare the COVID fatality rate to the flu fatality rate. Because the flu fatality rate is very imprecise and may be way over-inflated. If CDC reports that 35,000 people died of the flu one year, it probably means about 4500 cases were actually verified. CDC thinks most people who die from flu are never tested, so they employ a huge multiplier to the verified number. It's controversial. The truth is, the flu death rate is probably less than what CDC says it is.
 
Am I the only one?

zinfamous said:
no, you fucking chud. The death rate was never accurate because testing has been abysmal. There is no math that can be done properly without proper data.

I hate to point out how consistently you fail at "simple math" on these forums, every goddamn day you claim to be a genius about it, and soldier on anyway, but why would you make such a blatantly brainless claim about not doing a thing that can't possibly be done in the first place?

cruise ships are a "neat" study, but a vastly inferior sample size that doesn't represent actual human population dynamics. I mean, just think about this one problem with your claim for a second: what the fuck demographic do you expect on a cruise ship, and then tell me you are going to use that as a proper sample for the general population. ...would you do that with a straight face?
Click to expand...

Stop denigrating CHUDs by comparing him to them. At least CHUDs are humanoid.
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
I don't know why everyone is trying to downplay this thing so much. 1% could end up being over 3 million people. Even half of that is 1.5 million people. We went to a pointless war with Iraq over 2,000 people. I don't know when human life became so expendable. I guess when people can't go inside a Starbucks that's when people must die.
Click to expand...
The 1% quoted in the article is actually the fatality rate, which is based on the number of people that gets infected and then die. Not the total population.
Right now, based on the data. Fatality rate is 5.8%. 1,768,461 infected. 103,000 dead
www.worldometers.info

Coronavirus Update (Live): 138,024,148 Cases and 2,972,039 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...
www.worldometers.info www.worldometers.info
But it is undoubtedly much lower because we don't have a true total testing of all the people infected.
The more people we test, the more we will find out had CV, and recovered. Then the rate will go down.

Just like when they say the death rate of seasonal flu is 0.1%. That's based on 10% of the population, getting the flu.
In this case, 33M (out of 330M) generally get the flu, on average and 33 thousand people die form flu any given year.
That's the 0.1%, or for every 1000 people that get the flu, one person dies. That's the flu fatality rate.
 
Last edited:
Greenman said:
It appears that covid19 is far less deadly than was first thought.
www.npr.org

Antibody Tests Point To Lower Death Rate For The Coronavirus Than First Thought

Tests for the immune response to the coronavirus are revealing thousands of people who were infected but never got severely ill. The findings suggest the virus is less deadly than it first appeared.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
Click to expand...
Not when the antibody test results are wrong half of the time:

www.cnn.com

Antibody tests for Covid-19 wrong up to half the time, CDC says | CNN

Antibody tests used to determine if people have been infected in the past with Covid-19 might be wrong up to half the time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in new guidance posted on its website.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
I don't know why everyone is trying to downplay this thing so much. 1% could end up being over 3 million people. Even half of that is 1.5 million people. We went to a pointless war with Iraq over 2,000 people. I don't know when human life became so expendable. I guess when people can't go inside a Starbucks that's when people must die.
Click to expand...

source.gif

Well, that's the thing isn't it. None of this means anything until it hits home, and oh man, so many are willing to gamble others lives in the process.

\and as little as it means, my best to your wife in these shittest of times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top