The Count of Corona...

[midnightpulp]

Who's building a bunker?

I just walked to the corner for supplies. Might even go out on my bike for some light exercise.

Then what is your in' problem? I don't get your contention here.

[Winehole23]

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.

Yeah, that figure is pfa. I did a little reading. Morbidity in 1957 and 1968 was~ 0.1% each time.

When pressed, you make up plausible sounding without checking a thing .Sounds rational and knowledgeable, but it isn't.

Weak sauce, MP.

[midnightpulp]

Right, you just preach end times, Alex, you don't actually believe the .

I just think he enjoys the sensationalism or something. Not sure what his shtick here is, really. We should examine all the facts, and I feel it's the MSM's job to present all those facts, but he feels flashing numbers and footage of body bags and "Italy!" 24/7 is a more reasonable evaluation of the situation.

[DMC]

I just think he enjoys the sensationalism or something. Not sure what his shtick here is, really. We should examine all the facts, and I feel it's the MSM's job to present all those facts, but he feels flashing numbers and footage of body bags and "Italy!" 24/7 is a more reasonable evaluation of the situation.

He's always wringing his hands over something but obviously doesn't believe half of what he pretends to be so concerned about. If I was as worried as some of these folks seem to be, I damn sure wouldn't be out bike riding or walking a in' dog.

[Winehole23]

Then what is your in' problem? I don't get your contention here.

My contention is that you're neither as studious nor as fact-bound as you give yourself out to be.

You've got an axe to grind, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's pretending you're some kind of Vulcan that grates.

[Nathan89]

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.

Is that Iceland study just for those that currently have covid or was it capable of determining who had it in the past? Because the other study mentioned in the article stated 90% didn't test positive after two weeks.

[DMC]

My contention is that you're neither as studious nor as fact-bound as you give yourself out to be.

You've got an axe to grind, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's pretending you're some kind of Vulcan that grates.

The default accusation here (when losing) is that your opponent is a hypocrite. It's the number 1 go to for the forum. It says nothing about the argument your opponent is making.

[Winehole23]

He's always wringing his hands over something but obviously doesn't believe half of what he pretends to be so concerned about. If I was as worried as some of these folks seem to be, I damn sure wouldn't be out bike riding or walking a in' dog.

You impute worry. It's discussion.

Hard to have a conversation about a pandemic without reference to mortality, rate of infection and human suffering.

In this case, it's causing a global economic contraction in addition to beaucoup pestilence and suffering -- and has dramatic political ramifications too

How does one talk about bad/challenging/gruesome stuff without mentioning it?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, but we also don't want to increase the severity of symptoms from those suffering from illnesses like depression, OCD, anxiety, (which is A LOT of people) and such, which could lead to higher frequencies of suicides, substance abuse, and the like over this time frame.

Sure that all happens. Will those problems kill more people in the next two months than the virus?

[RandomGuy]

The default accusation here (when losing) is that your opponent is a hypocrite. It's the number 1 go to for the forum. It says nothing about the argument your opponent is making.

No-Take McGurk trying to call people out for not having takes.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah, that figure is pfa. I did a little reading. Morbidity in 1957 and 1968 was~ 0.1% each time.

When pressed, you make up plausible sounding without checking a thing .Sounds rational and knowledgeable, but it isn't.

Weak sauce, MP.

It's the CDC's own figure (the 116K):

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-res...-pandemic.html

Not everyone in the country comes down with the flu every year. In 1958, the US population was 175 million. Every year about 60 million people get infected. Our current population is double that, so do the math. Where's your data coming from? I'm googling but can't find a clear mortality rate.

[midnightpulp]

Is that Iceland study just for those that currently have covid or was it capable of determining who had it in the past? Because the other study mentioned in the article stated 90% didn't test positive after two weeks.

Current cases. Yeah, we won't know the actual mortality rate until we antibody test and see how many likely got it.

[Nathan89]

Current cases. Yeah, we won't know the actual mortality rate until we antibody test and see how many likely got it.

You'd think there would be a good study including antibody testing already. Even if you can't mass antibody test you can still do whatever it takes to get some data.

[midnightpulp]

My contention is that you're neither as studious nor as fact-bound as you give yourself out to be.

You've got an axe to grind, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's pretending you're some kind of Vulcan that grates.

Maybe your perception is seeing things that aren't there (aka projection). And all I've done is post facts after facts after facts. Apparently you aren't reading the links. Now you'll pivot to my 1958 flu number as "proof" of my not being studious, but I actually could not find a US mortality rate. Only the estimated death toll from the CDC's website.

[RandomGuy]

in 10 days you are going to be at 1k/day, escalating, with no end in sight.

Marked.

Happened in about five days. 20k+ cases diagnosed in the last day.

[Thread]

Happened in about five days. 20k+ cases diagnosed in the last day.

(deaths, dum-dum, not cases.)

[Thread]

[[[The CDC estimates that so far there have been at least 24,000 deaths from flu, 39 million flu illnesses and 400,000 hospitalizations
Cdc]]]

[pgardn]

You'd think there would be a good study including antibody testing already. Even if you can't mass antibody test you can still do whatever it takes to get some data.

Imo we got fortunate to have an antibody test this early.
It can take much longer.

[Winehole23]

Maybe your perception is seeing things that aren't there (aka projection). And all I've done is post facts after facts after facts. Apparently you aren't reading the links. Now you'll pivot to my 1958 flu number as "proof" of my not being studious, but I actually could not find a US mortality rate. Only the estimated death toll from the CDC's website.

see table 1 in this NIH paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...429/#Sec1 le

[Winehole23]

Having skimmed through a few sources, it's striking how much variation there is -- I see US gross mortality for flu that varies between ~33,000 and ~100,000 in 1968. Suggests there's an "artistic" dimension to the epidemiology. It's certainly not exact. Something similar goes for mortality rates.

[midnightpulp]

Having skimmed through a few sources, it's striking how much variation there is -- I see US gross mortality for flu that varies between ~33,000 and ~100,000 in 1968. Suggests there's an "artistic" dimension to the epidemiology. It's certainly not exact. Something similar goes for mortality rates.

Guess this is the first common ground we'll find. That's why qualify with "range." Flu can be .1 to 1 percent depending. I just find the Iceland study encouraging because .2 is a of a lot better than 1.6 or 4 or 10 percent (Italy).

[Thread]

Having skimmed through a few sources, it's striking how much variation there is -- I see US gross mortality for flu that varies between ~33,000 and ~100,000 in 1968. Suggests there's an "artistic" dimension to the epidemiology. It's certainly not exact. Something similar goes for mortality rates.

Guess this is the first common ground we'll find. That's why qualify with "range." Flu can be .1 to 1 percent depending. I just find the Iceland study encouraging because .2 is a of a lot better than 1.6 or 4 or 10 percent (Italy).

The old Winester & the old Midst finding common ground.

Bless-your-hearts.

[ElNono]

The old Winester & the old Midst finding common ground.

Bless-your-hearts.

Amen, as Pheno would say.

[RandomGuy]

in 10 days you are going to be at 1k/day, escalating, with no end in sight.

Marked.

Happened in about five days. 20k+ cases diagnosed in the last day.

(deaths, dum-dum, not cases.)

I know.

Poorly worded post.

Should read:
1k per day deaths happened in about five days. Not going down, as we have 20k new cases diagnosed in the last day.

[DMC]

You impute worry. It's discussion.

Hard to have a conversation about a pandemic without reference to mortality, rate of infection and human suffering.

In this case, it's causing a global economic contraction in addition to beaucoup pestilence and suffering -- and has dramatic political ramifications too

How does one talk about bad/challenging/gruesome stuff without mentioning it?

Nah, it's worry, at least on the surface. I've seen almost zero discussion on progress or ideas toward progress, only gloom and doom predictions and scoreboarding new round number thresholds.