And now 58,000 died from COVID-19 in the last month.
When was that model released?
Before or after February 27?
And now 58,000 died from COVID-19 in the last month.
He's not re ed, he's evil. He doesn't value human life.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuac...y-assumptions/Why did you cite the University of Nebraska model?
It's your research, dude. Why did you it up?
I'm citing Mutiple models that are being used by the cdc to impose lockdown that included mitigation....
It's your research, dude. Why did you it up?
This is what you wrote. So you're COMPLETELY wrong when you claim those early models took mitigation efforts into consideration. The explicitly did not....
This is incorrect. Not only did models of take into account distancing and isolation, they were updated numerous times and still innaccurate until about now. But again, that is expected and how modeling works.
The original post, which I was absolutely correct about. The original predictions were wrong. You need not worry if you have no pre existing conditions and you are not over 70. You salty
Obviously you aren't educated on this topic. Start here. Probably easier for you than reading peer reviewed...
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/03/1...t--in-detail-/
when you are finished reading we should discuss more public health issues. This way we can start to proactively address issues rather than reactively infringe on others rights.
he tried measuring it in chicagos and now we are measuring them in vietnams
You're flailing.
Which one "started it all"?
You can only give one answer. So far you have like four.
Could you please stick with one answer?
Which one "started it all"?
trump
I'm sorry you don't understand this.
60,000 now dumb
Oh my. You get proven wrong so many times you can't keep up
Could you please stick with one answer?
Which one "started it all"?
The original tweet that I linked started this extensively long thread.....
My response to the tweet was that only older and persons with preexisting conditions would need to be careful.
You then said that the original models did not use mitigation as an outcome.
I responded that, in fact they did. The original model that was used is the imperial college, which started, and is a major factor in federal and state restrictions, did include mitigation.
Its sad that you don't understand that models have many assumptions regarding the data. Models including mitigation versus do nothing, are why the government has intervened.
Similarly multiple models, which you say have never changed, including Washington and Ohio state models, have changed dramatically from the beginning.
*** again all.models change with new data... it is what models do *** please stop spreading gossip. Read up on modeling. Be hygienic, which again is the main mitigation. But seemingly you did not understand this at the beginning. Oh well you are learning.
How many died of coronavirus but nothing else?
Like saying how many died of AIDS but nothing else.
Deaths in US from COVID-19 in last month 58,000.
Not really. But if that makes you uncomfortable, let's talk about age. Do you know the average life expectancy is 78? Do you know that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are in the 75 plus age range? These people need protection and extra caution. Similarly those who have died from this, again a majority, have an underlying health condition. Do your best to be hygeinic around these folks, same as before this pandemic.
Not really? COVID causing pneumonia is the main killer. LOL your flu comment. So don't breathe nor talk around old people at any time?
I didn't say anything about the flu in that quote. Additionally the virus isn't proven to be spread by talking. I mean bioaeresols could travel 4 inches, but I would be interested to read if that could be possible. But going back to the main point, if you aren't 70 and have a preexisting condition it won't matter if you get it, in terms of dying.
And the virus has been shown to be spread airborne. That church choir in Seattle was the first known case of it.
So you're sticking with the fourth model you talked about? Not the first or second or third?
Go ahead and make yourself clear.
Say "I wasn't talking about that model I claimed was from the AHA when it was actually from the University of Nebraska even though I posted this:"
"but I meant this other thing I didn't mention at all until I was shown how wrong I was with everything else."Reminder of the tweet that began this debate.
Can you do that?
I'll believe you, but you need to tell everyone what you meant when you reposted the figures from the University of Nebraska model you mistakenly thought were AHA figures and NOT anything else
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-29-2020 at 07:37 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
