'Murica! (124 Viewers)

ALC

Ohaulick
Oct 28, 2010
46,540
He obviously forgot to name himself in there.
If he did that than all respect to him.
The tweet would have looked much better like this " You and I are in no position to tell the average Joe not to fear covid, because we have the money and influence to get preferantial treatment".
But that would mean no virtue signaling by him so that's a no-no.
he’s not telling Americans not to fear Covid tho. Trump is. There’s no reason for him to include himself in that
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
Jun 6, 2015
11,391
He obviously forgot to name himself in there.
If he did that than all respect to him.
The tweet would have looked much better like this " You and I are in no position to tell the average Joe not to fear covid, because we have the money and influence to get preferantial treatment".
But that would mean no virtue signaling by him so that's a no-no.
Or he simply naively expected people to understand what they read.
 

kappa96

Senior Member
Jun 20, 2018
7,470
Or he simply naively expected people to understand what they read.
Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
By putting yourself in the equation you show humility and that you are down to earth.
Saying it like he said it, he looks like he just climbed up on his high horse and started to lecture another high horse rider like him.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,178
Not very smart by Trump, the Democrats will do anything to prevent a stimulus deal before the election, yet he comes out and says the negotiations are over. Now it looks like it's his fault when really it's everyone's fault, both parties are just a joke and have spent money recklessly for decades. He might have lost the election the past two days.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,665
Not very smart by Trump, the Democrats will do anything to prevent a stimulus deal before the election, yet he comes out and says the negotiations are over. Now it looks like it's his fault when really it's everyone's fault, both parties are just a joke and have spent money recklessly for decades. He might have lost the election the past two days.
the meds are so good
 

Vlad

In Allegri We Trust
May 23, 2011
24,057
For people talking about Spain, this is the data from Spain.
Their second wave occured when they recklessly loosened their lockdown.
Their numbers had gone down to very low levels during the lockdown.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/spain/
Screen Shot 2020-10-06 at 1.48.40 PM.png
They loosened measures in 3 phases, with half the country opening up at beginning of the June iirc. The curve is pretty flat until middle of July. Fatalities were also at relatively low count between middle of May until middle of August, with 1000 deaths. Since the end of August, they have been increasing measures and slowly locking up. Since they reintroduced some of the measures back, the fatalities went up.
Screenshot_20201006-211928_Samsung Internet.jpg

You cant interpret this both ways ofc, if they started lock down sooner, there would be less deaths in September/October. Or inspite od locking up, fatalities went up significantly then when measures were loose. Incubation period is 5-6 days, more severe measure end of August, peak in fatalities beginning of October....

With the estimate that on every reported infection, there are at least 10 that go under radar between asymptomatic and mild cases, IFR rate in Spain is prolly around 0.1% - 0.3% and they are one of the worst hit countries. Relatively low count, and imo not enough to justify strict measures and consequences it will leave. But leave all that aside Im sure if you lock everyone in for a year and allow them only to do basic stuff when going outdoor, revoke everyone's drivings license, there would be even less fatalities, but is it the way we should live? I mean the fact that we are having this discussion, means our ancestors managed to survive all kind of ilnesses throughout hundred of thousands of years, which added up to our immunity. I wonder how the constant use of disinfectants will reflect on general health, will the number of allergies spike up, etc... If the IFR for Covid was higher and if affected more severely all age groups, Id take all this more seriously.
 

Fab Fragment

Senior Member
Dec 22, 2018
4,104
Not even close :p. Why?
Poor comprehension skills on my part! You used the word "court" and have Magisterial on your avatar.

- - - Updated - - -

The broke guy living in the most expensive public housing in the country decides to withhold economic relief from the rest of the country. Talk about rubbing salt on one’s wounds.
Breitbart thinks he is playing 4D chess
 

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
They loosened measures in 3 phases, with half the country opening up at beginning of the June iirc. The curve is pretty flat until middle of July. Fatalities were also at relatively low count between middle of May until middle of August, with 1000 deaths. Since the end of August, they have been increasing measures and slowly locking up. Since they reintroduced some of the measures back, the fatalities went up.
Screenshot_20201006-211928_Samsung Internet.jpg

You cant interpret this both ways ofc, if they started lock down sooner, there would be less deaths in September/October. Or inspite od locking up, fatalities went up significantly then when measures were loose. Incubation period is 5-6 days, more severe measure end of August, peak in fatalities beginning of October....

With the estimate that on every reported infection, there are at least 10 that go under radar between asymptomatic and mild cases, IFR rate in Spain is prolly around 0.1% - 0.3% and they are one of the worst hit countries. Relatively low count, and imo not enough to justify strict measures and consequences it will leave. But leave all that aside Im sure if you lock everyone in for a year and allow them only to do basic stuff when going outdoor, revoke everyone's drivings license, there would be even less fatalities, but is it the way we should live? I mean the fact that we are having this discussion, means our ancestors managed to survive all kind of ilnesses throughout hundred of thousands of years, which added up to our immunity. I wonder how the constant use of disinfectants will reflect on general health, will the number of allergies spike up, etc... If the IFR for Covid was higher and if affected more severely all age groups, Id take all this more seriously.
BS on your numbers. The 10-1 thing was from early in the pandemic when testing capabilities were much lesser. That has significantly changed. Serological studies to determine how many have actually had COVID have consistently shown that the IFR is in the 0.6- 1.0% range, vastly higher than the nonsense you just calculated. When New York first did antibodies testing, they determined an IFR of 0.76%.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

Spain determined an IFR of 0.83% on July 15, 2020, from serological study to determine total infections, including asymptomatic, and those not detected. They showed 1.07% if taking excess death toll into account.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.06.20169722v1.full.pdf

Maybe show some evidence other than your own guesses before you start making such claims.

And, yes, 0.83% IFR is very significant. That’s a lot of deaths before “herd immunity” is arrived at.

https://www.publichealth.columbia.e...-fatality-risk-double-earlier-estimates-study

Another New York City IFR studies show 1.45%. But lol. It’s 0.1-0.3. :sergio:
 
Last edited:

Vlad

In Allegri We Trust
May 23, 2011
24,057
BS on your numbers. The 10-1 thing was from early in the pandemic when testing capabilities were much lesser. That has significantly changed. Serological studies to determine how many have actually had COVID have consistently shown that the IFR is in the 0.6- 1.0% range, vastly higher than the nonsense you just calculated. When New York first did antibodies testing, they determined an IFR of 0.76%.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

Spain determined an IFR of 0.83% on July 15, 2020, from serological study to determine total infections, including asymptomatic, and those not detected. They showed 1.07% if taking excess death toll into account.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.06.20169722v1.full.pdf

Maybe show some evidence other than your own guesses before you start making such claims.

And, yes, 0.83% IFR is very significant. That’s a lot of deaths before “herd immunity” is arrived at.

https://www.publichealth.columbia.e...-fatality-risk-double-earlier-estimates-study

Another New York City IFR studies show 1.45%. But lol. It’s 0.1-0.3. :sergio:
I also see a lot of inconclusive, difficult, hard to identify, questionable etc... in the article you posted. You are cherry picking. There is even pointed out IFR may range from 0.16% - 1.6%. Maybe you should tone it down a bit since you didnt post anything more significant. Or dont, keep harping.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 10, Guests: 86)