England enters another lockdown

[edjr 5,567]

 

 

[Cdub100 3,381]

99.997%

[edjr 5,567]

1 minute ago, Cdub100 said:

99.997%

The chance of me failing at crypto?

[Cdub100 3,381]

Just now, edjr said:

The chance of me failing at crypto?

No that's 100%

[supermike80 1,286]

8 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

99.997%

What is this number?  And can you link it?  I see stuff like this thrown around, but I never see proof.

Not doubting, but I would like some evidence to support that 

[edjr 5,567]

9 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

No that's 100%

[TimHauck 1,801]

5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

What is this number?  And can you link it?  I see stuff like this thrown around, but I never see proof.

Not doubting, but I would like some evidence to support that 

It's wrong.  0.1% of the US has already died from it.

(and no I don't think England should be entering a lockdown)

[supermike80 1,286]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

It's wrong.  0.1% of the US has already died from it.

(and no I don't think England should be entering a lockdown)

I do't want the US in a lockdown, but I'd like to see evidence to support what CDUB is selling.

I have seen 98%....

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

21 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I do't want the US in a lockdown, but I'd like to see evidence to support what CDUB is selling.

I have seen 98%....

Nobody knows for sure, although it is not 2%. Below is from a respected medical journal and a study in spain and they came to the conclusion that it is 0.8%, however there was an early study published in a different medical journal that was 0.7% mortality.

The true mortality rate will not be known for years, although it looks like it is between 0.4% and 1%.

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4509

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

14 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I do't want the US in a lockdown, but I'd like to see evidence to support what CDUB is selling.

I have seen 98%....

If you do a google search on deaths from covid in the US, you'll see 354k.  If you divide that by 328.2M (US population), you'll get 0.108%.  So, that's the number of people in this country who have died from Covid.  I guess technically his 99.997% is wrong... it should 99.892%.  I believe that's what he's referencing.

If you use this as your source, you have 352,464 people who have died and 20.7M who've tested positive.  That would indicate that 1.700% of the people who got infected with the virus, died.  Meaning, 98.30% survivability rate.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 minute ago, MTSkiBum said:

The true mortality rate will not be known for years, although it looks like it is between 0.4% and 1%.

100% of whom were already being artificially supported by medication.  In 10 years it would all even out.  

[edjr 5,567]

Deaths and Mortality

Data are for the U.S.

• Death rate: 867.8 deaths per 100,000 population

 

•  

  Quote

   

  • Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

  • Heart disease: 655,381
  • Cancer: 599,274
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 167,127
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 159,486
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 147,810
  • Alzheimer’s disease: 122,019
  • Diabetes: 84,946
  • Influenza and Pneumonia: 59,120
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 51,386
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 48,344

   

  Perpetual lockdown!! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

If you do a google search on deaths from covid in the US, you'll see 354k.  If you divide that by 328.2M (US population), you'll get 0.001%.  So, that's the number of people in this country who have died from Covid.  I guess technically his 99.997% is wrong... it should 99.999%.  I believe that's what he's referencing.

If you use this as your source, you have 352,464 people who have died and 20.7M who've tested positive.  That would indicate that 0.017% of the people who got infected with the virus, died.  Meaning, 99.983% survivability rate.

Math may not be your strong suit.

100-((352,464/20,700,000) * 100) is how you get the survivability percentage using your numbers. Which would be 98.29, but this is wrong because many people who have the virus are not getting tested.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

Just now, MTSkiBum said:

Math may not be your strong suit.

100-((352,464/20,700,000) * 100) is how you get the survivability percentage using your numbers. Which would be 98.29, but this is wrong because many people who have the virus are not getting tested.

 

I typed too fast.  I fixed it.

[supermike80 1,286]

9 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

If you do a google search on deaths from covid in the US, you'll see 354k.  If you divide that by 328.2M (US population), you'll get 0.001%.  So, that's the number of people in this country who have died from Covid.  I guess technically his 99.997% is wrong... it should 99.999%.  I believe that's what he's referencing.

If you use this as your source, you have 352,464 people who have died and 20.7M who've tested positive.  That would indicate that 0.017% of the people who got infected with the virus, died.  Meaning, 99.983% survivability rate.

If I take the 352,464 and divide with the 20.7 cases, the rate is more like 98%, which is the more correct number in my opinion.

I don't think the math is fair to use the whole population and divide by deaths.   

So now if you kill off 2% of the us population, you get 656,000 deaths.  That's my math.

And I don't think deaths are the only thing to deal with here.   Hospital overruns due to non fatal, but still severe cases have to be considered.

I still would rather NOT shut everything down, but using CDUB's % number as a defense is weak sauce.

[frank 2,145]

England’s as happy as England can be. 

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

If I take the 352,464 and divide with the 20.7 cases, the rate is more like 98%, which is the more correct number in my opinion.

I don't think the math is fair to use the whole population and divide by deaths.   

But that is wrong, many people get the virus and are not being tested, you need to read the study I linked.

The below is the study.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4509

 

 

[supermike80 1,286]

1 minute ago, MTSkiBum said:

But that is wrong, many people get the virus and are not being tested, you need to read the study I linked.

 

I am aware of this.  I am just using the published numbers.  I can't do much with what people THINK.   

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

If I take the 352,464 and divide with the 20.7 cases, the rate is more like 98%, which is the more correct number in my opinion.

I don't think the math is fair to use the whole population and divide by deaths.   

 

3 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

But that is wrong, many people get the virus and are not being tested, you need to read the study I linked.

 

That, and there are also false positives and false negatives.  There's also inaccurate reporting's as well.  In the end, I think we're talking about a very small number of people dying.  One side is making too much of it and the other side is making too little of it.  Precautions should be taken... excessive precautions is fear mongering, no precautions is stupid.

[Cdub100 3,381]

20 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I do't want the US in a lockdown, but I'd like to see evidence to support what CDUB is selling.

I have seen 98%....

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Infection Fatality Ratio†	0-19 years: 0.00002 20-49 years: 0.00007 50-69 years: 0.0025 70+ years: 0.028		0-19 years: 0.0001 20-49 years: 0.0003 50-69 years: 0.010 70+ years: 0.093		0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I am aware of this.  I am just using the published numbers.  I can't do much with what people THINK.   

But that study is also using published numbers, however it is using different published numbers.

 

These studies use antibody test sampling to determine what percent of a population has had the disease, not the test that shows whether you have the disease at that time.

 

[Cdub100 3,381]

28 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

It's wrong.  0.1% of the US has already died from it.

(and no I don't think England should be entering a lockdown)

Hey dipsh1t if you're going to be a b1tch and ignore me don't respond to people asking ME a question with your facebook stats.

[Thornton Melon 544]

5 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Infection Fatality Ratio†	0-19 years: 0.00002 20-49 years: 0.00007 50-69 years: 0.0025 70+ years: 0.028		0-19 years: 0.0001 20-49 years: 0.0003 50-69 years: 0.010 70+ years: 0.093		0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054

Multiply all those numbers by 100 to get the percentage. i.e., the fatality percentage for those over 70 years of age is 5.4%

[Cdub100 3,381]

Just now, Thornton Melon said:

Multiply all those numbers by 100 to get the percentage. i.e., the fatality percentage for those over 70 years of age is 5.4%

Yeah old people die when they get sick. They die a lot more when they catch the flu too. That's your point? 

[supermike80 1,286]

9 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Infection Fatality Ratio†	0-19 years: 0.00002 20-49 years: 0.00007 50-69 years: 0.0025 70+ years: 0.028		0-19 years: 0.0001 20-49 years: 0.0003 50-69 years: 0.010 70+ years: 0.093		0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054

I just want a TOTAL.  Not by age group

[Thornton Melon 544]

Just now, Cdub100 said:

Yeah old people die when they get sick. They die a lot more when they catch the flu too. That's your point? 

My point is your 99.997% claim is wrong. You were trying to back that claim up with these numbers, right?

[Cdub100 3,381]

Just now, supermike80 said:

I just want a TOTAL.  Not by age group

Why? When it comes to this stuff it hurts people differently. Don't you want the truth and not some jumbled stat to make you more fearful?

[Cdub100 3,381]

1 minute ago, Thornton Melon said:

My point is your 99.997% claim is wrong. You were trying to back that claim up with these numbers, right?

It's not wrong. It's right there.

[Thornton Melon 544]

Just now, Cdub100 said:

It's not wrong. It's right there.

No, it's not...try again, there's a quiz on Friday

[supermike80 1,286]

7 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Why? When it comes to this stuff it hurts people differently. Don't you want the truth and not some jumbled stat to make you more fearful?

I'm aware it huts people differently.   You keep spewing a total number so back it up.   

I am looking at your study and it is not what you think it is.    Here are quotes from this link:

• Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning.

• Are not predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19.

[supermike80 1,286]

19 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Infection Fatality Ratio†	0-19 years: 0.00002 20-49 years: 0.00007 50-69 years: 0.0025 70+ years: 0.028		0-19 years: 0.0001 20-49 years: 0.0003 50-69 years: 0.010 70+ years: 0.093		0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054

Here's more info from what is now showing me to be a study you link to, but you either didn't read, or you don't understand

• Scenarios 1 through 4 are based on parameter values that represent the lower and upper bounds of disease severity and viral transmissibility (moderate to very high severity and transmissibility). The parameter values used in these scenarios are likely to change as we obtain additional data about the upper and lower bounds of disease severity and the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
• Scenario 5 represents a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States, with the same caveat: the parameter values will change as more data become available.

[Gladiators 1,904]

Mike - what's your cutoff for lockdowns?  No one has a definitive %.  Just curious where you're going with this.

[supermike80 1,286]

4 minutes ago, Gladiators said:

Mike - what's your cutoff for lockdowns?  No one has a definitive %.  Just curious where you're going with this.

I'm not going anywhere with this.  No hidden agenda.  I just see this 99.999999999 bullsh!t % thrown around and I have seen no evidence to support it.

It's really a dumbass question to ask anyway.  That's like asking  "how many deaths are acceptable before you feel we should act?"  

[Cdub100 3,381]

4 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Here's more info from what is now showing me to be a study you link to, but you either didn't read, or you don't understand

• Scenarios 1 through 4 are based on parameter values that represent the lower and upper bounds of disease severity and viral transmissibility (moderate to very high severity and transmissibility). The parameter values used in these scenarios are likely to change as we obtain additional data about the upper and lower bounds of disease severity and the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
• Scenario 5 represents a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States, with the same caveat: the parameter values will change as more data become available.

what's your point You ask where the information came from I gave it to you it's from the CDC and you're complaining that they put in their things change

 

[Gladiators 1,904]

5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I'm not going anywhere with this.  No hidden agenda.  I just see this 99.999999999 bullsh!t % thrown around and I have seen no evidence to support it.

It's really a dumbass question to ask anyway.  That's like asking  "how many deaths are acceptable before you feel we should act?"  

You seem awful worked up about it and I'm not sure why.  No one has an accurate %, but I'd guess it's between 98% and 99.997%.  Carry on.

[supermike80 1,286]

5 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

what's your point You ask where the information came from I gave it to you it's from the CDC and you're complaining that they put in their things change

 

Well I asked where you got your 99.9997 or whatever number you got from and you have yet to show me,

But yeah, I see your CDC link with data that is essentally meaningless,

[Thornton Melon 544]

34 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

It's not wrong. It's right there.

I'll help you...if 99.997% of people survive it, then 0.003% die, which is a ratio of 0.00003. If 350,000 people in the US have died from it, then to determine how many people have had Covid, you would divide 350,000 by 0.00003, which is ~11.7 billion people. There are only ~335 million people in the US.

Even if you think the 350,000 deaths is inflated (which is reasonable assumption), if every single person in the US caught Covid, the total number of deaths would be ~10,000 at a 99.997% survival rate.

[posty 2,296]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

It's wrong.  0.1% of the US has already died from it.

A correction...

[lod001 1,237]

All depends on whether you are reading fake news or reality.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327

They then estimated the infection fatality ratio (the percentage of all infected people who die from the disease, including those with mild disease) as 0.66% (0.39% to 1.33%).

[lod001 1,237]

Now, the CDC has 301k "deaths INVOLVING Covid" which of course means, if you die of a car accident, they will test for covid to see if they hit the jackpot. If you die of a gunshot to the head, they will test you to see if you can help them boost their #s. Heart attack, hell yeah, you died of 'covid complications, no ifs ands or buts. Be a dead trooper and accept your covid death.

btw, of the 301k, 178000 are 75 and over. Guess how many of those people are already on their death bed....like all of them. On a somewhat related note, my nephew asked how old that woman (I can use that word here, right) is that hangs out at the bar at the golf course. I said you mean 'jane doe', he said yeah. I said I graduated with her. He goes, 'WTF, she looks like she's 80.' I said 'shes aging well then because 20 years ago, she looked 80'.   Covid would take her out so fast that Ebola would be jealous.