"Muh Sweden."

[ChumpDumper]

I can't talk to you about it. You are so wrong all the time. Kansas flu, models, more ships, don't know ny had wet markets.... don't you want to stop?You called COVID-19 the flu.

Do you think all the lockdowns were totally unnecessary?

Yes or no.

[tholdren]

You called COVID-19 the flu.

Do you think all the lockdowns were totally unnecessary?

Yes or no.

Is is more like the flu than the Kansas flu..... lol you

[ChumpDumper]

Is is more like the flu than the Kansas flu..... lol you:lmao you called COVID-19 the flu.

Completely wrong disease.

You're not smart.

[tholdren]

Is is more like the flu than the Kansas flu..... lol you

[ChumpDumper]

COVID-19 is the flu:lmao

[tholdren]

Kansas

[ChumpDumper]

COVID-19 is the flu

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Is is more like the flu than the Kansas flu..... lol you

It has already killed more people in two months in the US than the flu kills in a normal year by a factor of two.

That makes it (for now) roughly 12 times more deadly than the flu.

Is getting 1/12th of a paycheck like getting a full paycheck?

[ChumpDumper]

It has already killed more people in two months in the US than the flu kills in a normal year by a factor of two.

That makes it roughly 12 times more deadly than the flu.

Is getting 1/12th of a paycheck like getting a full paycheck?He said COVID-19 is the flu.

He still believes it.

[tholdren]

It has already killed more people in two months in the US than the flu kills in a normal year by a factor of two.

That makes it (for now) roughly 12 times more deadly than the flu.

Is getting 1/12th of a paycheck like getting a full paycheck?

Demographics...

[RandomGuy]

He said COVID-19 is the flu.

He still believes it.

Delusions can be hard to dislodge.

[ChumpDumper]

Man, thildren is terrified of real conversation.

So is DMC.

Sad.

[tholdren]

Delusions can be hard to dislodge.

so the demographics of at risk are different for covid than seasonal flu? Got it

[RandomGuy]

Demographics...

flu risk across demographics is almost a perfect mirror for this. Flu tends to kill the elderly at much greater rates.

It is like the flu in that regard.

Only vastly more deadly.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

[tholdren]

Delusions can be hard to dislodge.

remember when you said evictions are legal by changing locks in 24 hrs. WRONG

[ChumpDumper]

remember when you said evictions are legal by changing locks in 24 hrs. WRONGSee. You're terrified.

[RandomGuy]

so the demographics of at risk are different for covid than seasonal flu? Got it

Nope. Feel free to read up on the science.

You are deluded, in htat you hold something as true, that is provably, objectively not true.

[tholdren]

flu risk across demographics is almost a perfect mirror for this. Flu tends to kill the elderly at much greater rates.

It is like the flu in that regard.

Only vastly more deadly.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?
So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. Feel free to read up on the science.

You are deluded, in htat you hold something as true, that is provably, objectively not true.He's gonna go into full meltdown over that.

[tholdren]

Nope. Feel free to read up on the science.

You are deluded, in htat you hold something as true, that is provably, objectively not true.
Same people at risk, as you point out. Thanks.

[DMC]

It has already killed more people in two months in the US than the flu kills in a normal year by a factor of two.

That makes it (for now) roughly 12 times more deadly than the flu.

Is getting 1/12th of a paycheck like getting a full paycheck?

Texas had 3500 flu related deaths last year. California had almost 7K. Where are they now with COVID? I know you want to take NY numbers and disperse them to other states to average them for narrative reasons, but it's obvious that the flu deaths are quite significant and COVID hasn't gone 12x as many of them in most states. Funny how narratives and stats work. Also, there's such thing as seasons. I get that doesn't help your "sky is falling cuz orange man bad" narrative but them's the breaks kid.

[ChumpDumper]

So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.Is death the only possible negative outcome from COVID-19?

[RandomGuy]

remember when you said evictions are legal by changing locks in 24 hrs. WRONG

No. I said the process for us took about 24 hours after we notified our tenants. (shrugs)

The sky is blue.

Am I wrong about that because I did not know about the legal parameters of evictions in Texas?

[ChumpDumper]

Texas had 3500 flu related deaths last year. California had almost 7K.How were those counted? That seemed to be important for you with COVID-19.

[tholdren]

Texas had 3500 flu related deaths last year. California had almost 7K. Where are they now with COVID? I know you want to take NY numbers and disperse them to other states to average them for narrative reasons, but it's obvious that the flu deaths are quite significant and COVID hasn't gone 12x of them in most states. Funny how narratives and stats work.

back to your emotional reactions. I said at risk populations are the same. Keep proving me correct. I appreciate helping you learn

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

[tholdren]

No. I said the process for us took about 24 hours after we notified our tenants. (shrugs)

The sky is blue.

Am I wrong about that because I did not know about the legal parameters of evictions in Texas?

nope you're wrong because you stated gossip as fact, just like you are doing with covid. You were really wrong. You positioned it as fact. You duped ChumpDumper now he looks more foolish than normal.

Did you tell him about Kansas and wet markets too?

[ChumpDumper]

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?He's afraid of this question.

[DMC]

How were those counted? That seemed to be important for you with COVID-19.

<((((((((((><

[tholdren]

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?

Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.

[ChumpDumper]

nope you're wrong because you stated gossip as fact, just like you are doing with covid. You were really wrong. You positioned it as fact. You duped ChumpDumper now he looks more foolish than normal.

Did you tell him about Kansas and wet markets too?:lol this is your fear response.

[RandomGuy]

Texas had 3500 flu related deaths last year. California had almost 7K. Where are they now with COVID? I know you want to take NY numbers and disperse them to other states to average them for narrative reasons, but it's obvious that the flu deaths are quite significant and COVID hasn't gone 12x as many of them in most states. Funny how narratives and stats work. Also, there's such thing as seasons. I get that doesn't help your "sky is falling cuz orange man bad" narrative but them's the breaks kid.

Indeed. That is why one aggregates data.

Aggregates across larger populations tend to be more reliable. Feel free to do some leg work on that and come up with a more accurate, state by state, model. I would be happy to accept what you come up with if the calculations and reasoning are good.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.:lol is that supposed to be a sentence?

[tholdren]

Indeed. That is why one aggregates data.

Aggregates across larger populations tend to be more reliable. Feel free to do some leg work on that and come up with a more accurate, state by state, model. I would be happy to accept what you come up with if the calculations and reasoning are good.

Hey. At risk population the same. The end.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey. At risk population the same. The end.:lmao trying to shut down discussion out of fear

[DMC]

Indeed. That is why one aggregates data.

Aggregates across larger populations tend to be more reliable. Feel free to do some leg work on that and come up with a more accurate, state by state, model. I would be happy to accept what you come up with if the calculations and reasoning are good.

So do you think the state of California staffs for the national aggregate or for their state averages?

If 7K people are dying from influenza related illnesses in a year, doesn't that justify a yearly lockdown? Is it ok to kill 7000 people for "muh business"?

[DMC]

:lmao trying to shut down discussion out of fear

fear of tedium. Don't act like you're a cornucopia of new information there red herring man.

[boutons_deux]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=c5ffe9fe07&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-a:r4075621261273324798&th=17238d3e1313ff58&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ8bRSSNXgpB7qkoa83TFQJjSzabz270CgCJ_6G PccgWjSdU7im_0cK-N4OvQeXB6dVAueJhWAQ8odmBA4SpAE_KSnMU_n-uFyIRDI75K7kwFQq73jVMmG-Xaow&disp=emb&realattid=ii_kah7ay130


https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&casesMetric=true&dailyFreq=true&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&country=SWE+DNK+FIN+NOR

[ChumpDumper]

So do you think the state of California staffs for the national aggregate or for their state averages?

If 7K people are dying from influenza related illnesses in a year, doesn't that justify a yearly lockdown? Is it ok to kill 7000 people for "muh business"?Which brings us back to this question you won't answer.

Do you think all the lockdowns were unnecessary?

Yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

So do you think the state of California staffs for the national aggregate or for their state averages?

If 7K people are dying from influenza related illnesses in a year, doesn't that justify a yearly lockdown? Is it ok to kill 7000 people for "muh business"?

I simply asked you for a better metric, if you had one. I see you don't have one.

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[ChumpDumper]

fear of tedium. Don't act like you're a cornucopia of new information there red herring man.I don't. You're the one acting like you have expert knowledge. I ask you about that and you shut the fuck up. It doesn't make much sense.

[ChumpDumper]

I simply asked you for a better metric, if you had one. I see you don't have one.He just can't stand being called out on his claimed omnipotence.

[DMC]

Which brings us back to this question you won't answer.

Do you think all the lockdowns were unnecessary?

Yes or no.

You're asking the wrong questions. Obviously they weren't necessary as a stand-alone measure (without a goal).

In order for something to be necessary, there has to be a goal and the necessary thing is required to meet it. Since the acceptable death count is zero and not one higher, then lockdowns were too late, and therefore not necessary. However something doesn't need to be necessary in order to be prudent. I've stated many times that I support the current measures even if I can argue against some of them statistically.

It's obvious in how you ask questions that you're a layman and so you don't get the nuances of science.

[tholdren]

You're asking the wrong questions. Obviously they weren't necessary as a stand-alone measure (without a goal).

In order for something to be necessary, there has to be a goal and the necessary thing is required to meet it. Since the acceptable death count is zero and not one higher, then lockdowns were too late, and therefore not necessary. However something doesn't need to be necessary in order to be prudent. I've stated many times that I support the current measures even if I can argue against some of them statistically.

[ChumpDumper]

You're asking the wrong questions. Obviously they weren't necessary as a stand-alone measure (without a goal).

In order for something to be necessary, there has to be a goal and the necessary thing is required to meet it. Since the acceptable death count is zero and not one higher, then lockdowns were too late, and therefore not necessary. However something doesn't need to be necessary in order to be prudent. I've stated many times that I support the current measures even if I can argue against some of them statistically.Wow, you manufactured a false premise just to get out of answering a yes or no question.

Bravo.

[RandomGuy]

He just can't stand being called out on his claimed omnipotence.

I honestly would be happy if he had a more accurate method or calculation, that is the funny part. Best estimate of the actual mortality is still from those first 100% tested populations at about .0066, quite a bit higher than the flu. Newer estimates still put it at roughly that, some as low as .0035, again still much higher than the normal flu, which is, if memory serves, only about at .0002 or so.

[DMC]

nope you're wrong because you stated gossip as fact, just like you are doing with covid. You were really wrong. You positioned it as fact. You duped ChumpDumper now he looks more foolish than normal.

Did you tell him about Kansas and wet markets too?

He will laugh at give a mea culpa, then continue spewing false information. The amount of tripe from the websperts here is amazing.

[ChumpDumper]

I honestly would be happy if he had a more accurate method or calculation, that is the funny part. Best estimate of the actual mortality is still from those first 100% tested populations at about .0066, quite a bit higher than the flu. Newer estimates still put it at roughly that, some as low as .0035, again still much higher than the normal flu, which is, if memory serves, only about at .0002 or so.His and thilden's internet glory is found in telling other people they're wrong. They absolutely lose their shit when they are proved wrong. They have trouble committing to a yes or no when asked out of fear of being proved wrong at some point.

[DMC]

His and thilden's internet glory is found in telling other people they're wrong. They absolutely lose their shit when they are proved wrong. They have trouble committing to a yes or no when asked out of fear of being proved wrong at some point.

:lmao spent the last 17 years telling people they are wrong on ST

dual PhD in "you're wrong"

[DMC]

Wow, you manufactured a false premise just to get out of answering a yes or no question.

Bravo.

No false premise. How can you say something is necessary without saying what it's necessary for?

You set up a false premise (unnecessary yes or no) and then act like any answer outside of your narrow acceptance window is dodging.

No one in their right might would propose that and expect a real answer.

[RandomGuy]

No. I said the process for us took about 24 hours after we notified our tenants. (shrugs)

The sky is blue.

Am I wrong about that because I did not know about the legal parameters of evictions in Texas?



nope you're wrong because you stated gossip as fact, just like you are doing with covid. You were really wrong. You positioned it as fact. You duped ChumpDumper now he looks more foolish than normal.

Did you tell him about Kansas and wet markets too?

So the sky is not blue, because "I stated gossip as fact".

Fascinating. :lol What color is the sky in your world then?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao spent the last 17 years telling people they are wrong on ST

dual PhD in "you're wrong"And I've accepted when I've been proved wrong.

You haven't. You and others here have a jihad going against those who do prove you wrong. It's funny.

[DMC]

He will laugh at give a mea culpa, then continue spewing false information. The amount of tripe from the websperts here is amazing.


So the sky is not blue, because "I stated gossip as fact".

Fascinating. :lol What color is the sky in your world then?
:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

No false premise. How can you say something is necessary without saying what it's necessary for?The goal of zero deaths is a false premise.

[DMC]

And I've accepted when I've been proved wrong.

You haven't. You and others here have a jihad going against those who do prove you wrong. It's funny.

:lmao

Sure, the thousands of pages of back and forth between you and ____________ (insert random poster here) proves it!

Yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[crickets]

I didn't think it was that hard.

Anyone else want to try it?

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Sure, the thousands of pages of back and forth between you and ____________ (insert random poster here) proves it!

Yes or no?Your posts definitely prove it.

[DMC]

The goal of zero deaths is a false premise.

It was what Vy65 stated and you were obviously aware of it (you're always here), thus you had a chance to offer a different number.

What is the acceptable number of fatalities?

[DMC]

[crickets]

I didn't think it was that hard.

Anyone else want to try it?

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

Misleading trap.

Which diseases are you referring to and show the statistics to back up your claim without the kindergarten antics. Use your words.

[DMC]

Your posts definitely prove it.

^another example of you never being wrong

[ChumpDumper]

It was what Vy65 stated and you were obviously aware of it (you're always here), thus you had a chance to offer a different number.

What is the acceptable number of fatalities?
It's not even your premise but you'll use it in your jihad.:lmao

[DMC]

It's not even your premise but you'll use it in your jihad.:lmao

I am willing to accept a different number. What is the acceptable number of fatalities? What is the goal of the lockdown, statistically?

[ChumpDumper]

^another example of you never being wrongIt's my opinion. I think it's true but I'll look for evidence to the contrary from you if you have it.

[DMC]

It's my opinion. I think it's true but I'll look for evidence to the contrary from you if you have it.

This is how you manage thousands of pages of tripe - noise posting and evasive maneuvering.

[RandomGuy]

It was what Vy65 stated and you were obviously aware of it (you're always here), thus you had a chance to offer a different number.

What is the acceptable number of fatalities?

Generally zero. *If* they can be avoided. Some people will die no matter what, so that is not entirely possible here.

If the health care system gets overwhelmed, people will die from lack of treatment that would not have died otherwise.

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Agree? Disagree?

[ChumpDumper]

I am willing to accept a different number.You can't think of one for yourself?

Why not?

[DMC]

Generally zero. *If* they can be avoided. Some people will die no matter what, so that is not entirely possible here.

If the health care system gets overwhelmed, people will die from lack of treatment that would not have died otherwise.

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Agree? Disagree?


The goal of zero deaths is a false premise.

:lmao

When you say "limit deaths", anything other than every human on earth meets that requirement. Quantify it.

[DMC]

You can't think of one for yourself?

Why not?

I am not the one asking about "necessary".

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


Misleading trap.

Which diseases are you referring to and show the statistics to back up your claim without the kindergarten antics. Use your words.

Not trying to be misleading at all. Merely succinct. Sorry if you don't understand it. I will try to clarify there then.

Two fictional diseases, totally made up. The only thing I am trying to get here is simply agreement on a principle.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

When you say "limit deaths", anything other than every human on earth meets that requirement. Quantify it.Now you're demanding I quantify someone else's policy. I don't know what they thought was acceptable or if they even thought in those terms. I'm going to conclude they knew zero was an impossible goal.

I don't know but do think the "acceptable losses" number has been quantified by governments as they reopen, but that number is and will remain in a black box.

[RandomGuy]

Generally zero. *If* they can be avoided. Some people will die no matter what, so that is not entirely possible here.

If the health care system gets overwhelmed, people will die from lack of treatment that would not have died otherwise.

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Agree? Disagree?



:lmao

When you say "limit deaths", anything other than every human on earth meets that requirement. Quantify it.

Hmm. Agree or disagree?

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Yes? No?

[ChumpDumper]

I am not the one asking about "necessary".I am.

Ultimately I'm asking you would've been OK with a higher death rate than we've already had to this point. It seems like you're OK with the concept but don't want to admit it.

[Chucho]

Hmm. Agree or disagree?

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Yes? No?


Meh, most of these people had it coming. Karma and/or natural selection. Take your pick.

[DMC]

Not trying to be misleading at all. Merely succinct. Sorry if you don't understand it. I will try to clarify there then.

Two fictional diseases, totally made up. The only thing I am trying to get here is simply agreement on a principle.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

There's no reason to ask a hypothetical other than to lay a trap so when you reveal "ah hah! COVID will be 12x more deadly in 12 months!" (which is a falseshood since they both appear to have seasons).

[RandomGuy]

Meh, most of these people had it coming. Karma and/or natural selection. Take your pick.

So far yes.

But if the health care system gets overwhelmed, and people start dying from a lack of care that would be bad, yes? Assume that those that died from a lack of care could have been saved with intervention.

[DMC]

Hmm. Agree or disagree?

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Yes? No?

But that's not a goal. That's a value statement. A goal needs to be quantifiable to know you've reached it. How do you ever know you've reached the goal of limiting deaths?

[Chucho]

If you're cool with abortion, you should be cool with these deaths.

Innocent lives having no choice in the matter, amirite?

People should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, amirite?

People know the consequences of fucking without basic contraception that is easily accessible and affordable, people should know the consequences of going outside. You can easily get shot, run over or struck by lighting just stepping outside. Actually, I bet the chances are higher of those things happening than catching Rona and dying from it. (One of you gerbils will go look that up, 1:1 odds)

LOL, they need more studies on the science of convenience.

[DMC]

So far yes.

But if the health care system gets overwhelmed, and people start dying from a lack of care that would be bad, yes? Assume that those that died from a lack of care could have been saved with intervention.

He's being sarcastic.

Interesting you agree they had it coming.

Wow.

Nice to know.

[Chucho]

So far yes.

But if the health care system gets overwhelmed, and people start dying from a lack of care that would be bad, yes? Assume that those that died from a lack of care could have been saved with intervention.


I could be (and probably will be via some random, googled article) wrong, but I haven't read of ANY ERs or facilities outside of the Eastern seaboard (over populated, small geographic area in the oldest part of the country and is very, very filthy with plenty of dirty poor people) having manpower issues or being overwhelmed.

But, to be fair, I haven't seen any articles or news about GA or FL opening up two weeks ago and any high spikes in cases that could be related to those reopenings.

That said, doesn't mean neither is happening. Christian genocide is the most disturbing thing, and largest genocide in modern history, but it isn't reported here either. JS.

[Chucho]

He's being sarcastic.

Interesting you agree they had it coming.

Wow.

Nice to know.


Shut up pudgy digits. I'm in charge of us.

[DMC]

Shut up pudgy digits. I'm in charge of us.

You want a pic of me/us?

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


Misleading trap.

Which diseases are you referring to and show the statistics to back up your claim without the kindergarten antics. Use your words.


Not trying to be misleading at all. Merely succinct. Sorry if you don't understand it. I will try to clarify there then.

Two fictional diseases, totally made up. The only thing I am trying to get here is simply agreement on a principle.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


There's no reason to ask a hypothetical other than to lay a trap so when you reveal "ah hah! COVID will be 12x more deadly in 12 months!" (which is a falseshood since they both appear to have seasons).

Here is my stated reason:
I want to have a mutually agreed on principle to work with. No more, no less. One step at a time. Good conversations and meeting of the minds always flow from things that are mutually understood and agreed on.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"?

[DMC]

Here is my stated reason:
I want to have a mutually agreed on principle to work with. No more, no less. One step at a time. Good conversations and meeting of the minds always flow from things that are mutually understood and agreed on.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"?

Mutually agreed upon doesn't make it correct. How about you just stat facts as fact and opinion as opinion. I think most here can recognize facts and at least use Google as well as you.

[Chucho]

You want a pic of me/us?

Nah. I know we're under 200 lbs.



As an aside, the funny thing about this is that I was offered hand-modeling gigs twice. No joke. Also, had many a broad tell me my hands were incredible. Second best part of my anatomy they said.

[RandomGuy]

Generally zero. *If* they can be avoided. Some people will die no matter what, so that is not entirely possible here.

If the health care system gets overwhelmed, people will die from lack of treatment that would not have died otherwise.

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Agree? Disagree?



:lmao

When you say "limit deaths", anything other than every human on earth meets that requirement. Quantify it.


Hmm. Agree or disagree?

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Yes? No?

But that's not a goal. That's a value statement. A goal needs to be quantifiable to know you've reached it. How do you ever know you've reached the goal of limiting deaths?



goal =noun
n
\ ˈgōl , chiefly Northern US especially in senses 3b and 2a also ˈgül \
Definition of goal
1: the end toward which effort is directed

Limiting deaths to those which cannot be avoided is "an end towards which effort is directed".

It is, therefore, a goal. It is possible to work towards goals that you will never reach.

So, once again, an agreement of principle.

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Yes? No?

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


Misleading trap.

Which diseases are you referring to and show the statistics to back up your claim without the kindergarten antics. Use your words.


Not trying to be misleading at all. Merely succinct. Sorry if you don't understand it. I will try to clarify there then.

Two fictional diseases, totally made up. The only thing I am trying to get here is simply agreement on a principle.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


There's no reason to ask a hypothetical other than to lay a trap so when you reveal "ah hah! COVID will be 12x more deadly in 12 months!" (which is a falseshood since they both appear to have seasons).


Here is my stated reason:
I want to have a mutually agreed on principle to work with. No more, no less. One step at a time. Good conversations and meeting of the minds always flow from things that are mutually understood and agreed on.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"?


Mutually agreed upon doesn't make it correct. How about you just stat facts as fact and opinion as opinion. I think most here can recognize facts and at least use Google as well as you.

Not really an answer to the question.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"?

[DMC]

Nah. I know we're under 200 lbs.



As an aside, the funny thing about this is that I was offered hand-modeling gigs twice. No joke. Also, had many a broad tell me my hands were incredible. Second best part of my anatomy they said.

I broke a chick's hymen with my middle finger.

[DMC]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.











Not really an answer to the question.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"?
In what way?

You're the Leo Getz of the forum.

[RandomGuy]

He's being sarcastic.

Interesting you agree they had it coming.

Wow.

Nice to know.

No. I merely took it as generally agreeing with the statement "unavoidable".

I can roll with some ambiguity as long as there is some general agreement. I would take issue with "had it coming" as being a bit callous and overly judgmental. I would though, rather keep on track. One thing at a time.

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


Misleading trap.

Which diseases are you referring to and show the statistics to back up your claim without the kindergarten antics. Use your words.


Not trying to be misleading at all. Merely succinct. Sorry if you don't understand it. I will try to clarify there then.

Two fictional diseases, totally made up. The only thing I am trying to get here is simply agreement on a principle.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


There's no reason to ask a hypothetical other than to lay a trap so when you reveal "ah hah! COVID will be 12x more deadly in 12 months!" (which is a falseshood since they both appear to have seasons).


Here is my stated reason:
I want to have a mutually agreed on principle to work with. No more, no less. One step at a time. Good conversations and meeting of the minds always flow from things that are mutually understood and agreed on.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"?


Mutually agreed upon doesn't make it correct. How about you just stat facts as fact and opinion as opinion. I think most here can recognize facts and at least use Google as well as you.



Not really an answer to the question.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"?



In what way?

You're the Leo Getz of the forum.

In every way.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"? Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol If you have to narrow it down to single aspects in which they are "just alike," they probably aren't "just alike" overall.

But everyone knows this. Half the posts here are pulling the teeth of the omnipotents because to them agreement is defeat.

[RandomGuy]

:lol If you have to narrow it down to single aspects in which they are "just alike," they probably aren't "just alike" overall.

Pretty much.

The easy answer is

"No, if one disease is much more deadly than another, they are NOT "just alike" ".

Seems pretty common sense.

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty much.

The easy answer is

"No, if one disease is much more deadly than another, they are NOT "just alike" ".

Seems pretty common sense.DMC thinks agreeing with that his personal defeat. He'll need to change the subject.

[DMC]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.
















In every way.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"? Yes or no.

You want to nail something down on generalities? Try harder.

[tholdren]

Hmm. Agree or disagree?

The goal should be to limit deaths to those which cannot be avoided. Yes? No?

Bwahahahaha look at you going on and on.

Riddle me this riddle me that.

Lol. The people at risk for death of covid are the same at risk for death of the flu. Thats the fact. Same demographic

Only your ignorance of the discrepancy between what a model does and what science is keeps you from stepping away from they keyboard.

Continue to twist your previous stance into something to rectify your over reaction.

You were closer with your argument about eviction processes.

[DMC]

DMC thinks agreeing with that his personal defeat. He'll need to change the subject.

I noticed you abandoned the thread until the smoke cleared after you and Getz here said completely opposite things.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.



Bwahahahaha look at you going on and on.

Riddle me this riddle me that.

Lol. The people at risk for death of covid are the same at risk for death of the flu. Thats the fact. Same demographic

Only your ignorance of the discrepancy between what a model does and what science is keeps you from stepping away from they keyboard.

Continue to twist your previous stance into something to rectify your over reaction.

You were closer with your argument about eviction processes.

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[tholdren]

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

Not until you admit what I said is a fact. The demographics of dying from covid is more like the flu, than the cdc and ChumpDumpers claim that it is more like the kansas flu.. then we can play your riddle games.

[RandomGuy]

You want to nail something down on generalities? Try harder.

:lol

Chickenshit. I accept your surrender.

[tholdren]

:lol

Chickenshit. I accept your surrender.

You've been evicted

[ChumpDumper]

I noticed you abandoned the thread?

Nope.

[ChumpDumper]

Not until you admit what I said is a fact. The demographics of dying from covid is more like the flu, than the cdc and ChumpDumpers claim that it is more like the kansas flu.. then we can play your riddle games.Nah, if you insist on its being a game, you already lost. That's why you change the subject.:tu

[RandomGuy]

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


Bwahahahaha look at you going on and on.

Riddle me this riddle me that.

Lol. The people at risk for death of covid are the same at risk for death of the flu. Thats the fact. Same demographic

Only your ignorance of the discrepancy between what a model does and what science is keeps you from stepping away from they keyboard.

Continue to twist your previous stance into something to rectify your over reaction.

You were closer with your argument about eviction processes.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

Not until you admit what I said is a fact. The demographics of dying from covid is more like the flu, than the cdc and ChumpDumpers claim that it is more like the kansas flu.. then we can play your riddle games.

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[tholdren]

That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

So you did all that. Just to admit you started the argument with yourself. Man you must be triggered.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao agreement is personal defeat for thildren

[tholdren]

:lmao agreement is personal defeat for thildren

lol remember when you said none of the models included mitigation? That was almost as awesome as the kansas thing.

[RandomGuy]

flu risk across demographics is almost a perfect mirror for this. Flu tends to kill the elderly at much greater rates.

It is like the flu in that regard.

Only vastly more deadly.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?



So when I said if you do not have a preexisting conditiom or are not over 70 you have a .001 chance of death, I was correct. Thanks.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"?


Nope the flu for not at risk is similar for covid not at risk. And thats the facts.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


Bwahahahaha look at you going on and on.

Riddle me this riddle me that.

Lol. The people at risk for death of covid are the same at risk for death of the flu. Thats the fact. Same demographic

Only your ignorance of the discrepancy between what a model does and what science is keeps you from stepping away from they keyboard.

Continue to twist your previous stance into something to rectify your over reaction.

You were closer with your argument about eviction processes.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

Not until you admit what I said is a fact. The demographics of dying from covid is more like the flu, than the cdc and ChumpDumpers claim that it is more like the kansas flu.. then we can play your riddle games.


That is not an answer to my question.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.


So you did all that. Just to admit you started the argument with yourself. Man you must be triggered.

That is not an answer to my question. Quit being a pussy.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[ChumpDumper]

lol remember when you said none of the models included mitigation? That was almost as awesome as the kansas thing.lol remember when you said COVID-19 is the flu?

[ChumpDumper]

Not really an answer to the question. You giant pussy.

If one disease is many times more deadly than another are they "just alike"?He's started his meltdown.

[tholdren]

lol remember when you said COVID-19 is the flu?

Yep. And I also said if you were at risk of death for flu you were at risk. If you weren't you have the same death rate = .001

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. With real data.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep.:lmao

You have a question pending.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[RandomGuy]

He's started his meltdown.

Pretty much. He is as big of a pussy as Cosmored and DMC. Honest people will answer simple yes or no questions, dishonest ones won't.

It is a litmus test, IMO.

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty much. He is as big of a pussy as Cosmored and DMC. Honest people will answer simple yes or no questions, dishonest ones won't.

It is a litmus test, IMO.Yep. Such fragile egos on an anonymous message board.:lol

[tholdren]

Yep. And I also said if you were at risk of death for flu you were at risk. If you weren't you have the same death rate = .001

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. With real data.

[RandomGuy]

Yep. And I also said if you were at risk of death for flu you were at risk. If you weren't you have the same death rate = .001

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. With real data.

"disprove my number" is dishonest shifting of burden of proof. Your claim your burden of proof.


Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext


Our estimate of an infection fatality ratio of 0·66%

Time for you to show your work. Where do you get your figure? Your claim, your burden of proof.

[ChumpDumper]

:cryYou have a question pending.

If a disease A is 12 times more deadly than disease B, are they "just alike"? Simple yes or no question.

[tholdren]

Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-
elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters

CONCLUSIONS:
People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and
deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon.
Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in
managing the pandemic.

[tholdren]

Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-
elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters

CONCLUSIONS:
People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and
deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon.
Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in
managing the pandemic.

I guess I was wrong. I said age 70, not 65.... my bad.

[ChumpDumper]

Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-
elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters

CONCLUSIONS:
People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and
deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon.
Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in
managing the pandemic.I have a question:

How many people <65 years have underlying predisposing conditions?

[tholdren]

I have a question:

How many people <65 years have underlying predisposing conditions?
Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in
managing the pandemic

[dbestpro]

I have a question:

How many people <65 years have underlying predisposing conditions?

41.4 million adults ages 18-64 are at risk due to an underlying medical condition.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/how-many-adults-are-at-risk-of-serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/

[hater]

I have a question:

How many people <65 years have underlying predisposing conditions?

20-50% of americans < 65 have this tbqh

lets be nice and say 30%

thats around 75 million americans imho

[hater]

1.4 million adults ages 18-64 are at risk due to an underlying medical condition. kff.org

um no

https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Forms-Reports-and-Other-Resources/preexisting

[dbestpro]

um no

https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Forms-Reports-and-Other-Resources/preexisting

41.4 million. Missed on copy. Corrected.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covi...h-coronavirus/

[tholdren]

1.4 million adults ages 18-64 are at risk due to an underlying medical condition. kff.org

so out of those, I wonder what the percentage of risk of death is? So at what point does the world promote lockdowns to hypothetically help these people?

Then you would have to determine how many lost their job to do this.

So if the number that the government is protecting, and remember they haven't lost their job, is less than those who have been negatively effected, is this logical.

Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical? Both sides you are choosing someone's life over anothers life...

[dbestpro]

so out of those, I wonder what the percentage of risk of death is? So at what point does the world promote lockdowns to hypothetically help these people?

Then you would have to determine how many lost their job to do this.

So if the number that the government is protecting, and remember they haven't lost their job, is less than those who have been negatively effected, is this logical.

Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical? Both sides you are choosing someone's life over anothers life...

It is 41.4 million. I made a copy error.

[ChumpDumper]

Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical?IMO yes.

Answer your own question.

Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical?

Yes or no.

[tholdren]

It is 41.4 million. I made a copy error.

Thats fine, the premise of my argument isn't going to change. You would still need to figure cost of a life, even though the argument for shutdown seems to downplay this fact.

[tholdren]

IMO yes.

Answer your own question.

Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical?

Yes or no.

No

[spurraider21]

I broke a chick's hymen with my middle finger.
how did your sister respond?

[ChumpDumper]

NoOK, how much are 2 million lives worth then?

I can't actually say exactly -- your hypothetical was easy for me -- but you seem to have it down to a science.

How much are 2 million American lives worth?

[ChumpDumper]

how did your sister respond?:lol

[tholdren]

IMO yes.

Answer your own question.

Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical?

Yes or no.
And thats the discussion that needs to take place. Otherwise you are just going to go round and round of blaming. A goal has to be set out of that conversation.

[ChumpDumper]

And thats the discussion that needs to take place. Otherwise you are just going to go round and round of blaming. A goal has to be set out of that conversation.So start the discussion--

How much are 2 million American lives worth?

[tholdren]

OK, how much are 2 million lives worth then?

I can't actually say exactly -- your hypothetical was easy for me -- but you seem to have it down to a science.

How much are 2 million American lives worth?

Right. Everyone avoids the conversation. But its ultimately what the decisions have been based upon. At first they wanted to save lives, now they want to go back and stop ruining lives. The scary thing will be of they continue to go back and forth.

There is no goal because there is no real discussion. It's political bullshit which all the government is guilty of.

[RandomGuy]

Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-
elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters

CONCLUSIONS:
People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and
deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon.
Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in
managing the pandemic.

You forgot your links.

Let's follow. Guessing you got it from reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fxgecg/populationlevel_covid19_mortality_risk_for/

Which gets it from here:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20054361v2
Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-
elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters


This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Still appears to be a reasonably well done paper, albeit on some incomplete data, as a lot of things are at this stage. Seems to dovetail with other data.

Points out that most deaths are in teh 40+ range.

Economically though, people are in their peak earning years 40-55 or so. Probably good for the follow up cohorts as slots in organizations need to be filled.

[ChumpDumper]

Right. Everyone avoids the conversation.Ok, start the conversation.

How much are 2 million American lives worth to you?

[tholdren]

So start the discussion--

How much are 2 million American lives worth?

I dont know. If you were 80 and had a preexisting condition that put you at risk would you want your last days to be in hiding or would you want to be out living?

I think that this conversation is hard because dearh is extremely taboo to discuss.

At the end of my life I would want to live with restrictions or a por quality of life. But others may want to live as long as they can no matter their quality of life.

[ChumpDumper]

I dont know.Oh, well when you figure it out let everyone know. You have a lot more time than the policymakers did to decide.

[tholdren]

Oh, well when you figure it out let everyone know. Looks like you have a lot more time than the policymakers to decide.
I just did.

[ChumpDumper]

I just did.You just said you didn't know. That means you don't have it figured out.

[RandomGuy]

so out of those, I wonder what the percentage of risk of death is? So at what point does the world promote lockdowns to hypothetically help these people?

Then you would have to determine how many lost their job to do this.

So if the number that the government is protecting, and remember they haven't lost their job, is less than those who have been negatively effected, is this logical.

Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical? Both sides you are choosing someone's life over anothers life...

30 million people with ruined lives will live to recover their economic livelihoods.

Lose 2 million people, you lose every single dollar they would have contributed for every single day of their lives. If you want to get down to the simple economics.

Underlying question, is why does this have to ruin 30,000,000 lives?

Seems to me that any economic system that is so fragile for 30,000,000 has a whole lot of endemic problems.

If tens of millions of people can't afford to miss a few paychecks before becoming homeless or bankrupt, that is a shitty system IMO.

[tholdren]

30 million people with ruined lives will live to recover their economic livelihoods.

Lose 2 million people, you lose every single dollar they would have contributed for every single day of their lives. If you want to get down to the simple economics.

Underlying question, is why does this have to ruin 30,000,000 lives?

Seems to me that any economic system that is so fragile for 30,000,000 has a whole lot of endemic problems.

If tens of millions of people can't afford to miss a few paychecks before becoming homeless or bankrupt, that is a shitty system IMO.

The first part is speculation just like lives saved or if a person died of or with covid. You can't say that they will or will not get their livelihood back at all. You also don't take into account those people have families. So the impact on their life could be impacted for years as well.

[TimDunkem]

30 million people with ruined lives will live to recover their economic livelihoods.

Lose 2 million people, you lose every single dollar they would have contributed for every single day of their lives. If you want to get down to the simple economics.

Underlying question, is why does this have to ruin 30,000,000 lives?

Seems to me that any economic system that is so fragile for 30,000,000 has a whole lot of endemic problems.

If tens of millions of people can't afford to miss a few paychecks before becoming homeless or bankrupt, that is a shitty system IMO.
Many lives weren't going swimmingly before this. Now it's a choice between staying home and hopefully getting their UBI, or going back to work at the risk of their health and/or family's for that meager check. It isn't so black and white.

Not that the economy would be doing all that well anyway if 2 million die in a short period of time.

[tholdren]

30 million people with ruined lives will live to recover their economic livelihoods.

Lose 2 million people, you lose every single dollar they would have contributed for every single day of their lives. If you want to get down to the simple economics.

Underlying question, is why does this have to ruin 30,000,000 lives?

Seems to me that any economic system that is so fragile for 30,000,000 has a whole lot of endemic problems.

If tens of millions of people can't afford to miss a few paychecks before becoming homeless or bankrupt, that is a shitty system IMO.
And again, you're blaming if people can't afford to miss a few paychecks.... not their fault..

However obesity is completely someone's fault. Which are probably many of those in your numbers of preexisting conditions. So the argument could easily be that since these prexisintg conditions are self inflicted why do people who live healthy have to be lockeddown?

[tholdren]

Many lives weren't going swimmingly before this. Now it's a choice between staying home and hopefully getting their UBI, or going back to work at the risk of their health and/or family's for that meager check. It isn't so black and white.

Not that the economy would be doing all that well anyway if 2 million die in a short period of time.

Well stated.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, start the conversation.

How much are 2 million American lives worth to you?

There is actually an answer to that. the "standard life" value. Depends greatly on age though.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843?t=1587652786263


MALONE: So, to do this math, we start with the current - but pre-coronavirus - value of a life. And, according to the Department of Transportation and the CDC and a bunch of other government agencies, this number is now around $10 million.

2,000,000*10,000,000 = 20,000,000,000,000

2019 US GDP = 21,000,000,000,000

[tholdren]

There is actually an answer to that. the "standard life" value. Depends greatly on age though.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843?t=1587652786263



2,000,000*10,000,000 = 20,000,000,000,000

2019 US GDP = 21,000,000,000,000

There are more economic formulas that address value and cost of life as well . People don't like those though because well death is a touchy subject for many.

[RandomGuy]

The first part is speculation just like lives saved or if a person died of or with covid. You can't say that they will or will not get their livelihood back at all. You also don't take into account those people have families. So the impact on their life could be impacted for years as well.

I am over 40. I can tell you the impact of me losing my job is less than me dying on my family, economically.

I can get another job. They would have a hard time replacing my income 100% for the remainder of my natural working life. This discounts the potential for emotional damage to future economic activity as well, which is also measureably worse.

[ChumpDumper]

There are more economic formulas that address value and cost of life as well . People don't like those though because well death is a touchy subject for many.You're free to bring them up.

[tholdren]

I am over 40. I can tell you the impact of me losing my job is less than me dying on my family, economically.

I can get another job. They would have a hard time replacing my income 100% for the remainder of my natural working life. This discounts the potential for emotional damage to future economic activity as well, which is also measureably worse.
Ok, so nothing negative has happened to you. Or your family. What about kids who go to school to get food or to get out of a domestically abusive or drug ridden home? These people are already in poverty more than likely and now just have a larger burden to carry. But that seems to be a fair tradeoff to save someone 65 with a preexisting condition?

[tholdren]

You're free to bring them up.

I already have in other threads when you carried on about the kansas flu and no wet markets in New York. You missed it though because your here to get internet medals for post count.

[RandomGuy]

There are more economic formulas that address value and cost of life as well . People don't like those though because well death is a touchy subject for many.

10,000,000 is an economic formula. See the NPR link and discussion. I work in insurance and deal with mortality and risk all the time. Behind each death reported as a loss, there are people.

The big question:

we have 300,000 spare hospital beds in teh US for 330,000,000 people.

That means if more than 0.09% of the population suddenly requires hospitalization... they are not getting it. That doesn't even account for ICU/ventilators.

If you need medical attention and you don't get it, for the flu or COVID, your mortality rate skyrockets.

COVID has greater rates of hospitalization than the flu by about a factor of five to what I have seen. (CDC website data on flu for past few years, versus what I culled from a couple of studies posted here)

I think it was about 5% hospitalization rate.

300,000/.05 = 6,000,000

6,000,000 people get sick simultaneously at that hospitalization rate, and you have filled every single open hospital bed in the country.

We are at 1.4M confirmed cases now. with an r0 hovering a bit under 1, with lockdowns and stay at home orders. (based on website CC posted the other day)

Doesn't take much to tick that up.

that is the risk. Overwhelm the health care system, and you have a LOT of excess deaths.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, so nothing negative has happened to you. Or your family. What about kids who go to school to get food or to get out of a domestically abusive or drug ridden home? These people are already in poverty more than likely and now just have a larger burden to carry. But that seems to be a fair tradeoff to save someone 65 with a preexisting condition?

Not the argument I am making. Sorry. Had plenty of negative things happen.

[DMC]

:lol

Chickenshit. I accept your surrender.

There's your reasons.

:lol

[tholdren]

10,000,000 is an economic formula. See the NPR link and discussion. I work in insurance and deal with mortality and risk all the time. Behind each death reported as a loss, there are people.

The big question:

we have 300,000 spare hospital beds in teh US for 330,000,000 people.

That means if more than 0.09% of the population suddenly requires hospitalization... they are not getting it. That doesn't even account for ICU/ventilators.

If you need medical attention and you don't get it, for the flu or COVID, your mortality rate skyrockets.

COVID has greater rates of hospitalization than the flu by about a factor of five to what I have seen. (CDC website data on flu for past few years, versus what I culled from a couple of studies posted here)

I think it was about 5% hospitalization rate.

300,000/.05 = 6,000,000

6,000,000 people get sick simultaneously at that hospitalization rate, and you have filled every single open hospital bed in the country.

We are at 1.4M confirmed cases now. with an r0 hovering a bit under 1, with lockdowns and stay at home orders. (based on website CC posted the other day)

Doesn't take much to tick that up.

that is the risk. Overwhelm the health care system, and you have a LOT of excess deaths.

But the Healthcare was never overwhelmed. In fact they were so underwhelmed, even after the models indicated that with mitigation they would be overwhelmed, every state had to furlough hospital workers.

Even in muh sweeden where lockdowns didn't occur the hospitals were not overwhelmed.

So again, I understand what you are worried about, I just don't understand how you can still believe that will happen, after the data proved the models exaggerated.

[DMC]

:lol

Chickenshit. I accept your surrender.


:lmao agreement is personal defeat for thildren

Two peas in a pod, both looking for the w.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals

924000 total beds

64% occupancy rate for most recent data. Probably a bit higher in 2020 given recent trends.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2016/089.pdf

Call it 66.7% for a nice fraction.

.333*924000= 307,692

307,692 beds for 330,000,000 million people. Just to show my work.

[DMC]

Many lives weren't going swimmingly before this. Now it's a choice between staying home and hopefully getting their UBI, or going back to work at the risk of their health and/or family's for that meager check. It isn't so black and white.

Not that the economy would be doing all that well anyway if 2 million die in a short period of time.

There's always suicide.

[DMC]

https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals

924000 total beds

64% occupancy rate for most recent data. Probably a bit higher in 2020 given recent trends.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2016/089.pdf

Call it 66.7% for a nice fraction.

.333*924000= 307,692

307,692 beds for 330,000,000 million people. Just to show my work.

Number matter suddenly.

Why not just say "as few deaths as possible"?

I know you like wowing people with your ciphering, Jethro, but no one really needs it.

[ChumpDumper]

I already have in other threadsNow they must be hidden

[ChumpDumper]

Number matter suddenly.

Why not just say "as few deaths as possible"?He already did.:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Two peas in a pod, both looking for the w.Nope, you're always terrified of the L.:lol

[DMC]

He already did.:lol

No shit sherlock.

Generalities when asked for specifics of a goal, but numbers when making non-falsifiable predictions.

[DMC]

Nope, you're always terrified of the L.:lol

You got destroyed ITT. It's your daily dose of humility. You deserved it.

[DarrinS]

https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals

924000 total beds

64% occupancy rate for most recent data. Probably a bit higher in 2020 given recent trends.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2016/089.pdf

Call it 66.7% for a nice fraction.

.333*924000= 307,692

307,692 beds for 330,000,000 million people. Just to show my work.

I guess the entire American population is going to simultaneously get sick and overwhelm the system?

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

No shit sherlock.

Generalities when asked for specifics of a goal, but numbers when making non-falsifiable predictions.Nah, that was your false premise. We've been over this.


You got destroyed ITT. It's your daily dose of humility. You deserved it.:lol DMC is always looking for the W.

[DMC]

I guess the entire American population is going to simultaneously get sick and overwhelm the system?

:lol
It's a bit ironic since they also say many Americans cannot afford to go to the hospital so they won't.

[DMC]

Nah, that was your false premise. We've been over this.

That's when you dipped.

That's when RG said zero was the target and you said having zero as a target is a false premise.

That's when I asked for an actual target.

That's when you punted and dipped


:lol DMC is always looking for the W.
It's too ez here

[DMC]

RG never considers reality in his fervor to show his ciphering.

Who is going to drive from NY to Texas to use that one extra hospital bed?

Are people going to uniformly get ill in all states (your numbers say they will, since you like aggregates)?

Why not focus on the areas that actually have problems, like you know... democrat run states mostly.

Why can Bezos offer to spend billions there yet NY can't build hospitals?

[ChumpDumper]

That's when you dipped.

That's when RG said zero was the target and you said having zero as a target is a false premise.

That's when I asked for an actual target.

That's when you punted and dipped

It's too ez here:lol DMC always looking for the W

Sorry. I disagree. Zero deaths is a theoretical goal but that doesn't mean that any death means complete failure.

[DMC]

:lol DMC always looking for the W

Sorry. I disagree. Zero deaths is a theoretical goal but that doesn't mean that any death means complete failure.

So what death rate isn't a complete failure?

Is a "theoretical goal" pointless since it cannot be achieved? Don't you mean "ethical statement goal" since you're really not concerned about 1 death?

[ChumpDumper]

DMC in full whataboutorando mode.

He's about to declare victory again.

[ChumpDumper]

So what death rate isn't a complete failure?Again, you're demanding I say what polcymakers have decided or maybe don't even consider.

Is that a W for you?

[DMC]

DMC in full whataboutorando mode.

He's about to declare victory again.

Who are you talking to? Is that the other voice in the "we" and "us" you keep mentioning?

[DMC]

Again, you're demanding I say what polcymakers have decided or maybe don't even consider.

Is that a W for you?

I am asking you. What do you consider to be the death rate where it's no longer a failure? Once that rate is passed, does it even matter once absolute failure is determined to have commenced?

[ChumpDumper]

Who are you talking to? Is that the other voice in the "we" and "us" you keep mentioning?:lol you're flailing now.

I am saying you are flailing.

If people want to read it they are free to do so.

Please continue to lose your shit.

[DMC]

:lol dips out while getting destroyed
:lol returns and declares victory

too ez

[ChumpDumper]

I am asking you. What do you consider to be the death rate where it's no longer a failure? Once that rate is passed, does it even matter once absolute failure is determined to have commenced?Whose definition of failure are you using?

Yours?

Again, you're demanding things other people have decided, if they have decided it at all.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol dips out while getting destroyed
:lol returns and declares victory

too ezYour losing your shit is not my victory. I'm merely one of the posters who asks questions you can't bring yourself to answer. Why that pisses you off is a mystery.

[hater]

:lol dips out while getting destroyed
:lol returns and declares victory

too ez

u drunk, nancy?

[tholdren]

Whose definition of failure are you using?

Yours?

Again, you're demanding things other people have decided, if they have decided it at all.

Egad. New report by cdc. Dath rate much lower than originally modeled. But who woulda thought?

[ChumpDumper]

[subject change]You didn't make a model.

Ever.

[tholdren]

You didn't make a model.

Ever.

Nope, just smart enough to not fall into the trap. But again you wouldn't know anything about that woud you Mr. Kansas or is is mr. Wetmarket?

Me 6 you 0

[ChumpDumper]

Nope0-1 for you.

And you have no medical science background whatsoever.

[tholdren]

And you have no science background whatsoever.

I do. Isn't that obvious when I've been telling you how illogical your modeling beliefs are?

But go on. Its completely hilarious to watch you do this. You were wrong. So were many of the experts you were blabbering about.

[ChumpDumper]

I do.And what medical science background is that?

[tholdren]

And what medical science background is that?

Triggered because your wrong again. So digging deeper into desperation. Quick tell me about what you do personally and your personal background. Thats just creepy. Get over your internet Insecurities.

[ChumpDumper]

Triggered because your wrong again. So digging deeper into desperation. Quick tell me about what you do personally and your personal background. Thats just creepy. Get over your internet Insecurities.I don't claim any medical science background.

What's yours?

[tholdren]

I don't claim any medical science background.

What's yours?
Again with the creepy internet questioning. Everyone here gets your deal. You want to be right all the time and your on a political point proving mission with your hatred of Donald trump. Why don't you stick to posting the stupid things he does instead of trying to be smart. Its not going very well for you.

[ChumpDumper]

[subject change]Wow, you really back down when you're asked about your own claims.

I'll put you down for no medical science background.

You're 0-2.

[tholdren]

Wow, you really back down when you're asked about your own claims.

I'll put you down for no medical science background.

You're 0-2.
Don't take my science background. Take the cdc who originally compared this to the kansas flu, they said spanish, and now...not so much. Back tracking....

[ChumpDumper]

Don't take my science background.I can't take your medical science background because you don't have one.

[tholdren]

I can't take your medical science background because you don't have one.

Cdc says you lost again.

[ChumpDumper]

Cdc says you lost again.Nope, but it's entertaining that you believe them now.

0-3.

[tholdren]

Nope, but it's entertaining that you believe them now.

0-3.
Lol its more like they believe me. But good try.

[ChumpDumper]

Lol ots more like tbey believe me.Oh, did you contact them?

Send them your scientific paper for review?

[ChumpDumper]

.

[DMC]

Whose definition of failure are you using?

Yours?

Again, you're demanding things other people have decided, if they have decided it at all.
Your definition.

[ChumpDumper]

Your definition.Nope.

[DMC]

I do. Isn't that obvious when I've been telling you how illogical your modeling beliefs are?

But go on. Its completely hilarious to watch you do this. You were wrong. So were many of the experts you were blabbering about.

They are wrong on so many things but that doesn't stop them from waxing philosophical about them. :lol

[DMC]

Nope.

Pick a definition.

What is the death rate that exceeds absolute failure?

[ChumpDumper]

They are wrong on so many things but that doesn't stop them from waxing philosophical about them. :lolEh, you've been wrong on so many things too. You just get furious about it.

[ChumpDumper]

Pick a definition.What's yours? I'd like to consider it.

[DMC]

So you refuse to define "absolute failure" but it's claimed here that there has been absolute failure. RG says as few deaths as possible, doesn't explain how to verify that.

So no gauge for failure, no gauge for "fewest deaths possible".

I guess I should just accept your opinions as fact without any evidence whatsoever.

[DMC]

Eh, you've been wrong on so many things too. You just get furious about it.

Tu quoque fallacy

[ChumpDumper]

So you refuse to define "absolute failure" but it's claimed here that there has been absolute failure. RG says as few deaths as possible, doesn't explain how to verify that.

So no gauge for failure, no gauge for "fewest deaths possible".

I guess I should just accept your opinions as fact without any evidence whatsoever.So you refuse to define absolute failure as well after insisting the term be used.

You are not an honest broker.

[ChumpDumper]

Tu quoque fallacyCall it whatever you want, you've been wrong on so many things.

Are you trying to say you're never wrong?:lmao

[DMC]

:lol DMC always looking for the W

Sorry. I disagree. Zero deaths is a theoretical goal but that doesn't mean that any death means complete failure.


What's yours? I'd like to consider it.

Whatever you were referring to here.

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever you were referring to here.:lmao I said that's NOT complete failure.

Man, you're flailing.

[DMC]

:lmao I said that's NOT complete failure.

Man, you're flailing.

You'd need to know what a complete failure is to know that's not it.

Also..


Let's say it's a complete failure as a prophylactic and he gets it. What are his chances, doctor?


thildren still holding Trump blameless for his failure?:lol


By deflecting attention away from Trump's failures.



Actually he could donate plasma for antibody research.

No need to get even more defensive about Trump's miserable failure.


Can't be folding if I already did it. :lol you're such a failure at this.

You seem pretty adept at knowing what a failure is.

Go ahead and define it.

cue the obvious "DMC" response as a diversionary tactic.

[ChumpDumper]

You'd need to know what a complete failure is to know that's not it.OK, then you obviously know what it is. I'm keen to see your definition since you insist on including it here.

I would say compete failure in this particular case would be taking no action to shut down whatsoever and taking that death count.

[ChumpDumper]

I mean even muh Sweden has implemented restrictions.

[DMC]

OK, then you obviously know what it is. I'm keen to see your definition since you insist on including it here.

I would say compete failure in this particular case would be taking no action to shut down whatsoever and taking that death count.

Together? Is the death count required or just not shutting down?

What death count threshold equates to failure? Is it a moving target?

[ChumpDumper]

Together? Is the death count required or just not shutting down?

What death count threshold equates to failure? Is it a moving target?Still waiting for your definition.

Are you even going to try after demanding the term's inclusion?

If not, it wasn't important for you to include in the first place and we can continue without it.

[DMC]

Still waiting for your definition.

Are you even going to try after demanding the term's inclusion?

If not, it wasn't important for you to include in the first place and we can continue without it.

I don't need to define it. I haven't called anything a complete failure regarding the death toll or actions implemented. If you're going to give statements like that, you need to define the terms.

For example, is 1 death a failure? Is 100 deaths a failure? Is 1000 deaths a failure? is 10000 deaths a failure?

If the goal is as RG described, then quantify it so you know if you achieved the goal. Quality assessments based on political opinions doesn't do anything to address goals. The fact that you're struggling so much to define the term you use so often and to quantify the goal tells me you don't really have a goal and you don't really have a target, you just have a politically biased opinion that changes with the color of the party in power.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't need to define it.I did. If you don't like it, that's fine. Truly complete failure would be the death count from complete inaction.

Do you remember what you were trying to argue before your tangent?

Are you just looking for a fence to sit on?

[DMC]

I did. If you don't like it, that's fine. Truly complete failure would be the death count from complete inaction.

Do you remember what you were trying to argue before your tangent?

Are you just looking for a fence to sit on?

I cornered you into defining it. I usually don't speak in such absolutes while refusing to define criteria.

You say "fence to sit on" but what you're really saying is you picked a side and you'll sacrifice truth and integrity to support it. I won't.

[ChumpDumper]

I cornered you into defining it. I usually don't speak in such absolutes while refusing to define criteria.Yes, you demanded it. You want to sit on a fence rather than define it. OK. You've concluded no such definition is necessary.

Now do you remember what you were arguing or is this just part of your jihad against me and other posters?

Be an honest broker.

[tholdren]

Oh, did you contact them?

Send them your scientific paper for review?

I didn't have to. They got caught. Just like I said when I told you they were grossly misrepresenting data. But then you wanted to do your stupidity, talk about epidemiologists backgrounds, etc. Now you just look really really dumb. But not as stupid as baseline bum

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't have to. They got caught. Just like I said when I told you they were grossly misrepresenting data. But then you wanted to do your stupidity, talk about epidemiologists backgrounds, etc. Now you just look really really dumb. But not as stupid as baseline bumSo, no contact.

You're 0-4.

Looking really back for you.

You'd better try to change the subject again.

[tholdren]

OK, then you obviously know what it is. I'm keen to see your definition since you insist on including it here.

I would say compete failure in this particular case would be taking no action to shut down whatsoever and taking that death count.

Lol beep beep beep... backing up to move the posts. This is excellent

[ChumpDumper]

Lol beep beep beep... backing up to move the posts. This is excellent?

[tholdren]

?
I've never seen someone so unable to read graphs and yet so sure of a completely inaccurate stance except you. Lol you really don't have any mathematical understanding. Lol

This is again why its a mixture of funny and sad because you really thought this time, all this time, you were right

[ChumpDumper]

I've never seen someone so unable to read graphs and yet so sure of a completely inaccurate stance except you. Lol you really don't have any mathematical understanding. Lol

This is again why its a mixture of funny and sad because you really thought this time, all this time, you were right?

You're not explaining this at all.

Are you unable?

There's no right or wrong in this case. It's all opinion.

[tholdren]

?

You're not explaining this at all.

Are you unable?

There's no right or wrong in this case. It's all opinion.

lolololololol you are serious? Bwahahaha

[ChumpDumper]

lolololololol you are serious? BwahahahaYes. You are failing to explain yourself.

[tholdren]

?

You're not explaining this at all.

Are you unable?

There's no right or wrong in this case. It's all opinion.
Hahaha backing up and slowly walking away after he realizes he can't interpret data.... man I thought you were a semi decent troll, but you're just ignorant to math and science. You want a lesson?

[ChumpDumper]

Hahaha backing up and slowly walking away after he realizes he can't interpret data.... man I thought you were a semi decent troll, but you're just ignorant to math and science. You want a lesson?Sure.

Go ahead.

I get the feeling we're not talking about the same thing.

[tholdren]

Sure.

Go ahead.

I get the feeling we're not talking about the same thing.
You have no idea what you are talking about. That is evident

[ChumpDumper]

You have no idea what you are talking about. That is evidentI said you can go ahead.

Tell me what you're talking about.

[tholdren]

Sure.

Go ahead.

I get the feeling we're not talking about the same thing.
quick read up on the cdc latest and explain how the icfr plays into the cases. And how this goes with your argument for lockdown. I'll wait.

[ChumpDumper]

quick read up on the cdc latest and explain how the icfr plays into the cases. And how this goes with your argument for lockdown. I'll wait.I'm waiting on you.

You offered a lesson and I accepted.

If you want to take back your offer, just say so.

[tholdren]

I'm waiting on you.

You offered a lesson and I accepted.

If you want to take back your offer, just say so.

bwahahahahaha dude. You have no idea what it means and you've been arguing for months like you knew. But you dont even know anything. Hahahahaahahahah

[ChumpDumper]

bwahahahahaha dude. You have no idea what it means and you've been arguing for months like you knew. But you dont even know anything. HahahahaahahahahBeep--beep--beep. You're backing away from your offer.

[tholdren]

Beep--beep--beep. You're backing away from your offer.

Start here dolt. Its basically narrative since nymbers and graphs confuse you.

https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

[ChumpDumper]

Start here dolt.No, you said you'd give a lesson not a link.

Get to it.

[DarrinS]

These "debates" you guys have are fascinating, and a productive use of your time. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

These "debates" you guys have are fascinating, and a productive use of your time. :tuMeh, not much to do at the domicile. Watching Turnadot but can multitask.

[DarrinS]

Meh, not much to do at the domicile. Watching Turnadot but can multitask.

Sad

[ChumpDumper]

SadIt's more a confusing story by modern standards, but you want to feel good about yourself. That's less confusing.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals

924000 total beds

64% occupancy rate for most recent data. Probably a bit higher in 2020 given recent trends.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2016/089.pdf

Call it 66.7% for a nice fraction.

.333*924000= 307,692

307,692 beds for 330,000,000 million people. Just to show my work.



I guess the entire American population is going to simultaneously get sick and overwhelm the system?

:lol

No, Darrin.

Follow the reasoning here. A few good faith questions, and we can both get to a mutual understanding of the issue.

What percentage of the American population can get sick and still get adequate medical attention in a hospital bed, based on this data?

[tholdren]

But of course the whole linchpin of the lockdown argument is that it would have been even worse without such a step. Sweden never closed down borders, primary schools, restaurants, or businesses, and never mandated masks, yet 99.998% of all their people under 60 have survived and their hospitals were never overburdened

[ChumpDumper]

But of course the whole linchpin of the lockdown argument is that it would have been even worse without such a step. Sweden never closed down borders, primary schools, restaurants, or businesses, and never mandated masks, yet 99.998% of all their people under 60 have survived and their hospitals were never overburdenedSo you'd be comfortable with the same deaths per capita?

[DMC]

Yes, you demanded it. You want to sit on a fence rather than define it. OK. You've concluded no such definition is necessary.

Now do you remember what you were arguing or is this just part of your jihad against me and other posters?

Be an honest broker.Since the argument wasn't with you, however Buttinski had to have company, then you should be able to find out by going back before anyone asked you.

Then I left you where I found you.

[tholdren]

Since the argument wasn't with you, however Buttinski had to have company, then you should be able to find out by going back before anyone asked you.

Then I left you where I found you.

He's in deep shit now. All those posts about the cdc being right about how dangerous to everyone, overwhelming hospitals, fatality rate. Cdc disproving their own theories.. hilarious.

[ChumpDumper]

Since the argument wasn't with you, however Buttinski had to have company, then you should be able to find out by going back before anyone asked you.

Then I left you where I found you.:lmao you don't even remember what you were arguing.

You were looking for a nice fence to sit upon.

[tholdren]

:lmao you don't even remember what you were arguing.

You were looking for a nice fence to sit upon.

You know you were completely wrong about literally every aspect of this virus, right? I mean you can't read a graph and you said....
...
...
KANSAS flu
.....
Shame

[ChumpDumper]

:cry:lol All I did was ask DerpMC what his argument was.

That triggered the shit out of both of you.

:rollin