150,000 Americans Dead
#891
thanks Bozo, I knew you'd be on my side. All these guys have really fallen for it, hook line and sinker. The military industrial complex has brainwashed all of you. WW2 had a death rate of less than 0.30%, yet all these history books make it out to be some big deal and the movies all show tons of people dying. It was only 0.3%!!! And those that did die were dumber and more unhealthy than the rest. It's not that hard to not get killed, and it's really a matter of personal responsibility. Besides, we're just culling the herd and making ourselves stronger by shedding the weak.
That number, even though it's super small, is probably inflated though. How many of those storming the beaches of Normandy had preexisting conditions? I bet some had undiagnosed cancer that would've killed them anyway, and yet the coroners listed KIA as cause of death just to help the war propaganda and boost their stats.
Same thing with Pearl Harbor. Don't you guys think it's suspicious that we LET the Japanese bomb us? It was all a ploy by deep-state FDR to seize power over the US and advance his liberal takeover of America.
Sorry that it won’t fit the narrative though that we all collectively decided is true. Wake up sheeple!
That number, even though it's super small, is probably inflated though. How many of those storming the beaches of Normandy had preexisting conditions? I bet some had undiagnosed cancer that would've killed them anyway, and yet the coroners listed KIA as cause of death just to help the war propaganda and boost their stats.
Same thing with Pearl Harbor. Don't you guys think it's suspicious that we LET the Japanese bomb us? It was all a ploy by deep-state FDR to seize power over the US and advance his liberal takeover of America.
Sorry that it won’t fit the narrative though that we all collectively decided is true. Wake up sheeple!
#893
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 534
He offers NO mitigation options; just let it rip (even now knowing we have 90% efficacy vaccines). He USED to be a big proponent of South Korean style massive testing/quarantine but seems to have completely dropped this.
I don’t think I’m going to be giving this guy any more of my time or clicks.
#894
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
got some more math for you bud.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/22/healt...ort/index.html
I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not "math" that you value, but rather anything that confirms what you already believe. Gotta reinforce those delusions, right?
Here's another article that's "all math" written by Harvard scientists. https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/19/...vid-19-deaths/
A bit dated, but since you like math, I thought you'd enjoy
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/22/healt...ort/index.html
I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not "math" that you value, but rather anything that confirms what you already believe. Gotta reinforce those delusions, right?
Here's another article that's "all math" written by Harvard scientists. https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/19/...vid-19-deaths/
A bit dated, but since you like math, I thought you'd enjoy
Daily cases and deaths in the US and the New York metropolitan areaarewellfit by the transmission model(Fig.1a-d). The inferredbasic reproductive numbers, 𝑅"≡𝛽𝐷[𝛼+(1−𝛼𝜇]13,16, forsix metropolitan areas –New York, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Miami–on five dates(March 15, March 29, April 12, April 26, May 3)areshown in Table 1 (Methods). After March 15, 𝑅"in all six metropolitan areas decreasessubstantially in association withthe implementation of social-distancing policiesand practices. Theestimatedeffective reproductive numbers, 𝑅#≡𝛽𝐷[𝛼+(1−𝛼𝜇]𝑆/𝑁, forthese six metropolitan areasalso decreasefrom March 15, 2020 to May 3, 2020(Fig. 1e).In fourof the six metropolitan areas 𝑅#is well below 1 as of May 3, 2020. ForChicagoandLos Angeles,where daily confirmed cases and deaths are still increasingor stable, 𝑅#is close to 1(Figs. S3-S4).In the New York metropolitan area 𝑅#dropped below 1 onApril 8and has continued decreasing sincethen.The estimated nationwide ascertainment rate declinedfrom 0.18onMarch 15, a time of rapid COVID-19 spread, and wentbelow 0.1 onMarch30(Fig. 1f).The ascertainment rate slowly increased after April 5.Note that this finding indicates that, prior to April 5,even though testing capacity increased substantially, daily new infectionsincreasedfaster, leading to a declining ascertainment rate.
#895
Thanks Mesaba. Got there before I did. To my original "bud" who called me "delusional" and seeking out information from sources that I already agree with - thanks for the link to an old CNN article and another opinion piece. How is yours any different than mine? I mean, other than that yours agrees with your warped viewpoint and demonstrated ability to do little to contribute to the debate beyond amplify what Hoda Kotbe says and try to shout down everyone who might disagree?
#896
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: NBC
Posts: 763
From the Canada thread, more appropriate here:
If we applied YPLL as our GAS metric, we would see a dramatic shift in the culture of this country.
Not sure why “saving lives” suddenly matters to the lockdown crowd. At least Gov DeWine is consistent. And isn’t this the crowd that just last year was wishing Boomers would die off so the good paying jobs would open up?
Being Mortal is a good read.
Eventually the death rate is ALWAYS 100%, which is why the usual metric of death measurement in epidemiology (at least in less snowflake times) was YPPL, that is, Years of Potential Life Lost.
That metric would value the death of a 90 year old at his/her actuarial life expectancy of just under five years while valuing the death of a 16 year old at 65 and a half years, a recognition that nobody is going to live forever.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
That metric would value the death of a 90 year old at his/her actuarial life expectancy of just under five years while valuing the death of a 16 year old at 65 and a half years, a recognition that nobody is going to live forever.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Not sure why “saving lives” suddenly matters to the lockdown crowd. At least Gov DeWine is consistent. And isn’t this the crowd that just last year was wishing Boomers would die off so the good paying jobs would open up?
Being Mortal is a good read.
#897
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: NBC
Posts: 763
Well, it's not even August 1st, and we're here. To be fair, this has exceeded all of our expectations with how much death this virus can bring. And we're not even close to being done yet. The fall and winter are going to be absolutely devastating without a major course correction.
It's a trip to go back to when the outbreak first started in March and April to read the predictions of where this was going. I'm curious if some of those early deniers have evolved their positions. I would guess not. Here's Speed Select's post from two days ago:
So obviously he hasn't evolved from his position from months ago. One thing he's absolutely wrong on. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the richest. The rich will have the resources to remove themselves from high risk scenarios where the poor will not. The rich will have access to high quality healthcare to keep them breathing, and the poor will not.
This natural selection nonsense is complete and utter propaganda. We aren't living on the plains of the Sub-Saharan savanna. We have a very unequal society which completely takes Darwinism off the table.
So coldly in return, Speed Select, I say take your economic hardship like a man. Your poor excuses for the deaths of hundreds of thousands are revolting and prejudicial at its core.
Those who prioritize the economy over health will get neither.
It's a trip to go back to when the outbreak first started in March and April to read the predictions of where this was going. I'm curious if some of those early deniers have evolved their positions. I would guess not. Here's Speed Select's post from two days ago:
So obviously he hasn't evolved from his position from months ago. One thing he's absolutely wrong on. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the richest. The rich will have the resources to remove themselves from high risk scenarios where the poor will not. The rich will have access to high quality healthcare to keep them breathing, and the poor will not.
This natural selection nonsense is complete and utter propaganda. We aren't living on the plains of the Sub-Saharan savanna. We have a very unequal society which completely takes Darwinism off the table.
So coldly in return, Speed Select, I say take your economic hardship like a man. Your poor excuses for the deaths of hundreds of thousands are revolting and prejudicial at its core.
Those who prioritize the economy over health will get neither.
Can we revisit this?
You were right, deaths accelerated this winter. At the very same time, it seems like some governors, ie. Governors Cuomo/Whitmer/DeSantis/Newsome/Dewine no longer consider economic hardship acceptable.
Where does reopening despite record CV infections fall on the economy/health spectrum? (we’ve learned how to treat this virus, and it’s less lethal than months ago)
With CV statistics at numbers all of us hoped to never see (25M cases, approaching 400K deaths), CNN removed the CV statistic board from their broadcast. The vaccine doesn’t seem to be the panacea we were hoping for (still transmissible, merely reduces symptoms, unknown immunity duration, etc). People were patient for the vaccine, but have grown so weary of the lockdowns and unfulfilled promises that they’re ignoring them. Despite the highest infection numbers yet, people seem to be realizing that we’re going to have to learn to live with this thing. (like I said in the post you quoted to start this thread)
I agree that CV is a tragedy on so MANY levels. But
The travel recovery numbers, IMO, have little to do with the virus, and more to do with governments reopening their states. As things reopen, travel will recover, regardless of the virus numbers. I know it’s a catch-22, but just like viruses are gonna virus, humans are gonna human.
Last edited by Speed Select; 01-16-2021 at 07:43 AM.
#898
Most likely the vaccine will mostly prevent or greatly minimize transmission, and will have a duration measured in years (single digit years, my SWAG is around two years).
Taking a big dent out of contagiousness (both viral load and duration) will reduce the overall R-value.
#899
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: NBC
Posts: 763
That's not accurate, they don't have the data yet.
Most likely the vaccine will mostly prevent or greatly minimize transmission, and will have a duration measured in years (single digit years, my SWAG is around two years).
Taking a big dent out of contagiousness (both viral load and duration) will reduce the overall R-value.
Most likely the vaccine will mostly prevent or greatly minimize transmission, and will have a duration measured in years (single digit years, my SWAG is around two years).
Taking a big dent out of contagiousness (both viral load and duration) will reduce the overall R-value.
#900
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post