at none of the posts specifically saying the words "tone it down" even though the message was right there. its akin to chris's "never said such"
You're welcome to your own take, but the idea that your commentary on a politics discussion board is ideologically neutral or should be taken as such, strains plausibility.
at none of the posts specifically saying the words "tone it down" even though the message was right there. its akin to chris's "never said such"
btw... over 500 deaths today. barely cracked 400 yesterday. less than 300 the day before
over 40% of all covid-19 deaths in the US have come in the last 2 days
That is factually correct, but saying so is simplistic and sensational.Better not to mention the death count at all, people might freak out or have an infarction.
YELLOW JOURNALISM! YOU ARE TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE!
It is. There's data lag with death counts. There's often co-morbidity in many patients so it's difficult to pin down what EXACTLY caused death (did you bother to read the article I posted?). On a per capita basis, we are 7 deaths per 1 million people vs. Italy's 166 per 1 million (who the mainstream media keeps saying we're on the path to becoming).
Will the mainstream media cite these facts during their reporting? No. They'll flash the numbers in red, while they breathlessly report on the carnage.
yes which is why it was premature for people to declare things peachy based on early mortality rates and death counts. the rising death counts now shows how bad it had been then when people thought its just a flu. and no reason to think we're any better off now than we were a few days ago
Earlier you said we'd have to wait to get a true picture of the rate of mortality, now you insist on the early figure to back up your argument.
Seems you're speaking from either side of your mouth to suit the moment.
Who declared anything peachy? I've said many times New York is in the crosshairs of this thing, and that is very troubling. But for all the reporting you'll see about New York, they will be ZERO mention of the situations in Florida, California, and Texas, and other less densely populated states. Florida tested the most people they did in a day and the returning positive count was encouraging. They're at about 40K total tests with a 9.4 percent positive. NY at 45K was at a 22 percent positive rate. This hopefully indicates spread in Florida (21 million people in the state) isn't nowhere near as severe.
They won't mention that New York's situation is limited to the city, with the rest of the state relatively quiet.
https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en
You brought up 40 percent of US deaths have happening in the past few days, but New York has driven most of it. I'm not trying to say New York doesn't count, but the media will frame it like everywhere will become New York "soon." No mention of their population density, weather profile, and other factors that just make the city a patch of dry brush waiting for the lit match.
But maybe you're right. Maybe it's better to terrify people into staying home.
Yes, because we need mass testing of ALL cases to get that picture. Right now, they're just testing obvious cases, meaning we're getting a flood of deaths from the lag but not a flood a new cases to see where the true mortality rate might be headed. Mass testing is supposed to start soon, so we'll just have to wait. Read the Iceland study: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/03/21...cold-symptoms/
Iceland mass tested everything, so this might be the clearest picture we have on true mortality rate. Their's is .2 percent, flu levels. But frustratingly, because they have such a small population, their 700+ plus sample size isn't enough.
That's very simplistic. You're minimizing again.
0.2% morbidity is near historically bad -- twice as deadly as the 1957 and 1968 pandemics.
(I notice you didn't deny being two-faced with statistics. I'll take that as tacit assent.)
Chumpettes
^^^gnawing ankles, nothing to add
And as ^ a corollary to the Iceland study (from that same article):
Good and bad. Bad because these asymptomatic cases might spread. Good because it means many, many people have already had it and recovered and we expect this fact to aid in "flattening the curve." It'll also translate into a much lower true mortality rate. If I take the lower bound of 5x as many cases out there than reported, the adjusted mortality rate will be around .03. In the range of the flu.These results echo the results of another statistically helpful case. The small Italian town of Vo is where the virus was first identified in Italy. All 3,300 people living there were tested after being put into lockdown. A total of 66 people, 3% of the population, tested positive for the virus. Perhaps most importantly, most of the infected had no symptoms. After two weeks of self-isolation, 6 people still tested positive but were without symptoms, meaning that prevalence of the virus had dropped by 90% (from 66 people to just 6 people) and all symptoms of the virus were gone.
BuzzFeed adds: “A study published on Monday in the magazine Science found that for every confirmed case of the virus there are likely another five to 10 people with undetected infections in the community.
There's my "optimism" for the day.
Instead of pointing it out, you interject and infer it (again). It was already inferred and I didn't see it in the posts. Your obligatory doesn't change that, philo.
Whataboutism noted though
Oh well, if you did not aee it, then it couldn't possibly be there.
Obviously it's right there in your posts. You didn't have to use the word "peachy" you just said "we need more data" but anyone who isn't sucking Trump's nuts knows what you're saying.
He denies saying it. I didn't see it. Somehow you magically find it coded into those posts and now you want the benefit of doubt? no
What were the ages of those who died? No anecdotes about a baby or otherwise healthy dad of 6.
Also what percentage were in NY?
No, you misconstrued my position, per usual in your little tiff with me here because I'm not building a bunker while CNN flashes the numbers on screen.
Who's building a bunker?
I just walked to the corner for supplies. Might even go out on my bike for some light exercise.
sr21 saw it. Seemed plain enough to me too. MP was griping about the reported facts as such, for their putative impact on a callow viewing/reading public.
Neat trick that, holding journalists responsible for the (again, putative) simplicity of their audience.
Right, you just preach end times, Alex, you don't actually believe the .
The 1958 pandemic killed 116,000 when the population was half the size. The flu usually infects 61 million per year. Cut that in half and 116000/31000000=0.38. I say flu levels because a nasty flu season anywhere in the world has a range of 0.1-1 percent morbidity.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)