Page 776 of 1581 FirstFirst ... 2766767267667727737747757767777787797807868268761276 ... LastLast
Results 19,376 to 19,400 of 39524
  1. #19376
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    26,970
    Lol wrong. Just look at the deaths. Try again later
    You dumb? Per your own in' data there has been 19,911 Covid deaths under age 65.

    Per the CDC's flu mortality data I linked, there were 10,197 flu deaths under age 65.

    Now let's calculate a rough IFR from these numbers.

    10,197/38,856,875 cases under 65 = .00026 IFR

    19,911/~20 million estimated infected under 65 (and I'm being very generous with that 20 million estimate) = .001 IFR

    Covid is just a shade under 4x more lethal for the under 65 age group in total.

    Quit lying. Quit gossiping. Wear a in' mask and write Abbott to shutdown non-essential businesses.

  2. #19377
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,837
    Flu considers estimated infections while COVID data seems to only consider positive tests. What is the estimated infections of COVID and if those numbers are tallied, does the ifr change?

  3. #19378
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    73,409
    lol good enough to find error in your headline post.
    Yeah I didn't think you were anything. I'll take their word over a verified confirmed lying piece of .

  4. #19379
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    19,014
    You dumb? Per your own in' data there has been 19,911 Covid deaths under age 65.

    Per the CDC's flu mortality data I linked, there were 10,197 flu deaths under age 65.

    Now let's calculate a rough IFR from these numbers.

    10,197/38,856,875 cases under 65 = .00026 IFR

    19,911/~20 million estimated infected under 65 (and I'm being very generous with that 20 million estimate) = .001 IFR

    Covid is just a shade under 4x more lethal for the under 65 age group in total.

    Quit lying. Quit gossiping. Wear a in' mask and write Abbott to shutdown non-essential businesses.
    So you are taking a lower percentage of the probable deaths of the flu calculating ifr and then using data, not mine by the way, that includes an over estimate of every probable covid death?

    LololoIolololol

    You're the only one thats gossipimg trying to generate ifr from low avg of estimates. Lololol

    Get software


    Man you thought you were on to something. You blake jr?

  5. #19380
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    26,970
    Flu considers estimated infections while COVID data seems to only consider positive tests. What is the estimated infections of COVID and if those numbers are tallied, does the ifr change?
    Not for IFR estimates, only for CFR estimates. The best current estimate we have for the actual number of Covid cases is 27 million of the population has been infected. This is about 7x higher than the official 3.8 million count.

    https://covid19-projections.com/

    I was being generous with my 20 million infected under age 65 because in New York about 40 percent of the infected were over 65. If we prorate that nationally, around 16 million infected under 65 so far, which would increase the IFR.

  6. #19381
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    73,409
    So you are taking a lower percentage of the probable deaths of the flu calculating ifr and then using data, not mine by the way, that includes an over estimate of every probable covid death?

    LololoIolololol

    You're the only one thats gossipimg trying to generate ifr from low avg of estimates. Lololol

    Get software


    Man you thought you were on to something. You blake jr?
    You're a lying schmuck tho

  7. #19382
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    26,970
    So you are taking a lower percentage of the probable deaths of the flu calculating ifr and then using data, not mine by the way, that includes an over estimate of every probable covid death?

    LololoIolololol

    You're the only one thats gossipimg trying to generate ifr from low avg of estimates. Lololol

    Get software


    Man you thought you were on to something. You blake jr?
    Nice try idiot. I'm taking the mean of both cases and deaths. If I were to take the upper bound of estimated deaths I would also divide that by the upper bound of infections, so the IFR doesn't change all that much.

    And covid deaths are being under counted. All those "mysterious" pneumonia deaths happening in Texas, FL, and Georgia at time when pneumonia deaths are practically gone.

  8. #19383
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    19,014
    Not for IFR estimates, only for CFR estimates. The best current estimate we have for the actual number of Covid cases is 27 million of the population has been infected. This is about 7x higher than the official 3.8 million count.

    https://covid19-projections.com/

    I was being generous with my 20 million infected under age 65 because in New York about 40 percent of the infected were over 65. If we prorate that nationally, around 16 million infected under 65 so far, which would increase the IFR.
    Its not the best, its simply 1. Fatalities way too high

  9. #19384
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    19,014
    Nice try idiot. I'm taking the mean of both cases and deaths. If I were to take the upper bound of estimated deaths I would also divide that by the upper bound of infections, so the IFR doesn't change all that much.

    And covid deaths are being under counted. All those "mysterious" pneumonia deaths happening in Texas, FL, and Georgia at time when pneumonia deaths are practically gone.
    No lol. You dont even understand you just added up a lowball account of flu estimates. BwahHahahaaahahahahahaha


    Lollll at your understanding covid death count.

    Keep using your calculator bwahahahaha

  10. #19385
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    19,014
    you know what will help your math?

  11. #19386
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    26,970
    No lol. You dont even understand you just added up a lowball account of flu estimates. BwahHahahaaahahahahahaha


    Lollll at your understanding covid death count.

    Keep using your calculator bwahahahaha
    That's the mean, idiot. Not the lower bound. When you calculate in this regard, you use the in' mean.

  12. #19387
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    19,014
    That's the mean, idiot. Not the lower bound. When you calculate in this regard, you use the in' mean.
    Lolololololololololol you are so wrong with how you are going about it. And you have no clue so you use profanity. Bwahahhahahahahahauuss

    esults 36 studies (43 estimates) were identified with usable data to enter into calculations and another 7 preliminary national estimates were also considered for a total of 50 estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.222% to 47%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and corrected values ranged from 0.00% to 1.31%. Across 32 different locations, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.24%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters with high death tolls. Median corrected IFR was 0.10% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rate less than the global average (<73 deaths per million as of July 12, 2020), 0.27% in locations with 73-500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and 0.90% in locations exceeding 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%). Conclusions The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients as well as multiple other factors. Estimates of infection fatality rates inferred from seroprevalence studies tend to be much lower than original speculations made in the early days of the pandemic.

  13. #19388
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    73,409
    you know what will help your math?
    By staying away from yours

  14. #19389
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    73,409
    Lolololololololololol you are so wrong with how you are going about it. And you have no clue so you use profanity. Bwahahhahahahahahauuss

    esults 36 studies (43 estimates) were identified with usable data to enter into calculations and another 7 preliminary national estimates were also considered for a total of 50 estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.222% to 47%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and corrected values ranged from 0.00% to 1.31%. Across 32 different locations, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.24%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters with high death tolls. Median corrected IFR was 0.10% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rate less than the global average (<73 deaths per million as of July 12, 2020), 0.27% in locations with 73-500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and 0.90% in locations exceeding 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%). Conclusions The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients as well as multiple other factors. Estimates of infection fatality rates inferred from seroprevalence studies tend to be much lower than original speculations made in the early days of the pandemic.
    No source link. Nobody cares about your text wall

  15. #19390
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    19,014
    No source link. Nobody cares about your text wall
    blake trying to go 0 for 3 today

  16. #19391
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    19,014
    That's the mean, idiot. Not the lower bound. When you calculate in this regard, you use the in' mean.
    Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and

  17. #19392
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    26,970
    Lolololololololololol you are so wrong with how you are going about it. And you have no clue so you use profanity. Bwahahhahahahahahauuss

    esults 36 studies (43 estimates) were identified with usable data to enter into calculations and another 7 preliminary national estimates were also considered for a total of 50 estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.222% to 47%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and corrected values ranged from 0.00% to 1.31%. Across 32 different locations, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.24%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters with high death tolls. Median corrected IFR was 0.10% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rate less than the global average (<73 deaths per million as of July 12, 2020), 0.27% in locations with 73-500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and 0.90% in locations exceeding 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%). Conclusions The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients as well as multiple other factors. Estimates of infection fatality rates inferred from seroprevalence studies tend to be much lower than original speculations made in the early days of the pandemic.
    You even read what you post?

    Dumbing it down so you can understand, your own in' info estimated IFR for <70 at .05%. That is even higher (5x higher) than my estimate for that age group:

    19,911/~20 million estimated infected under 65 (and I'm being very generous with that 20 million estimate) = .001 IFR or .01%


    Doesn't know how to read studies. Constantly self-owns. Loves Trumplololololooololol

  18. #19393
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    73,409
    blake trying to go 0 for 3 today
    Tholderp trying to go perfect on lying in every post

  19. #19394
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    26,970
    oh,
    John Ioannidis

    Debunked.

  20. #19395
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    26,970
    No source link. Nobody cares about your text wall
    He's linking a pre-print by a known professor turned Covid truther. No one believes the coming out of Ioannidis's mouth.

    John Ioannidis

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

  21. #19396
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    26,970
    Oh, and tholdren linking papers from May

    That study has already been shredded.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...872280577.html

    llolololol tholdren doesn't show his math, doesnt know how to read studies, links studies by truthers from may lololololol so desperate for Covid to be benign so it wont hurt lolololoTrumplololollo

  22. #19397
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    150,493
    Remember when you linked that article saying COVID was 6x more deadly than the flu? Good times.
    Remember that time he predicted 10k deaths, and then took a 2 month sabbatical to go talk to the good ol' ball coach after deeeet one.. good times.

  23. #19398
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    150,493
    can't wait for the I wes jeeez trolling...

  24. #19399
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    73,409
    He's linking a pre-print by a known professor turned Covid truther. No one believes the coming out of Ioannidis's mouth.
    figured.

  25. #19400
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    150,493
    He's linking a pre-print by a known professor turned Covid truther. No one believes the coming out of Ioannidis's mouth.
    He's probably a boomer, tbh, so no surprises there.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •