Best wishes to France, but what does that have to do with covid-19 allegedly being a lightweight because it wasn't supposed to kill anywhere near what the flu kills in the US and now we're anywhere from 2-5 times that number**?
**this is going with a projected 100k US deaths within two weeks or so. This will only increase as the covid-19 death number keeps rising
Originally posted by Robtard
We've passed the seasonal flu deaths by a factor of 5 reportedly, which was originally argued that it wouldn't come close to the flu's numbers in the US.
2019-2020 flu seasons:
24,000 – 62,000 Deaths, according to the CDC. And when I stopped tracking the numbers, it was over 32 thousand (it was an exact number of people actually coded with the flu, not an estimate).
39,000,000 – 56,000,000 illnesses.
That's just through April 4.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
And the CDC themselves stopped tracking actual flu deaths for weeks, now.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm
So, also, explain 2017-2018 flu season had 50,000-80,000 and why we didn't lockdown, then? We had a vaccine, right?
What's the threshold? 2x? 3x?
Why arbitrarily lockdown for this while also over-counting deaths towards COVID-19?
Can you explain these discrepancies for me?
You tell me, it was argued initially that covid-19 was nothing much because it wouldn't reach the flu's death-numbers in the US. We've passed that now, considerably so, if Fauci ends up being correct again (iirc he said 100k, but could be as high 150-200K), it could be much more.
Why is this factor not a factor anymore, when it was all the rage in March when we had very few deaths and covid-19 was supposedly at it's end?
I have to poop.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
considering we've had the worst flu season since the 60's this time around (drastically worse) the numbers may not be that far off. I caught both strains this season
this flu season was freakishly bad. if it only had occured post-lockdown, the death toll likely would have been laughably slim
Originally posted by Robtard
You tell me, it was argued initially that covid-19 was nothing much because it wouldn't reach the flu's death-numbers in the US. We've passed that now, considerably so, if Fauci ends up being correct again (iirc he said 100k, but could be as high 150-200K), it could be much more.Why is this factor not a factor anymore, when it was all the rage in March when we had very few deaths and covid-19 was supposedly at it's end?
I have to poop.
No, you tell me. I asked you. When does the charade end and we stop pretending this is as extreme as it is with ineffective measures? Remember, we were at 2.2 million deaths.
OR
Do we take the stance that every cold and flu season is super terrible and react this same way during every single one?
If you argue the latter, yes, I could say you're consistent and basing your opinions on science.
My threshold would be based on the science, who is affected, and what the methods are for combating them. SARS? We took the wrong actions and are still taking them.
I noticed skipped over that point in my post. Why?
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you tell me. I asked you. When does the charade end and we stop pretending this is as extreme as it is with ineffective measures? Remember, we were at 2.2 million deaths.OR
Do we take the stance that every cold and flu season is super terrible and react this same way during every single one?
If you argue the latter, yes, I could say you're consistent and basing your opinions on science.
My threshold would be based on the science, who is affected, and what the methods are for combating them. SARS? We took the wrong actions and are still taking them.
I noticed skipped over that point in my post. Why?
You skipped over mine with your initial post and following posts, starting top of this page...
Point: If it was argued this is a nothing-virus by comparison because it wouldn't touch flu-death numbers, what now that we've passed them?
To answer yours: The lockdowns were due to the then unknowns, the lack of a vaccine and how rapidly this was speading.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In fact, you can see a significant drop in Germany's daily cases despite increased daily testing (this usually creates the opposite trend). What gives?Same results with their daily deaths.
What gives?
Increased daily testing leads to increased daily cases being recorded because the numbers are more accurate due to testing.
However testing, tracing and isolating is the only way to keep on top of this thing if the world wants to get back to work.
And even though US (and U.K.) are boasting large numbers of tests, they began to ramp up testing so damn late that its not nearly enough at this point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/woman-who-blamed-trump-after-giving-her-husband-fish-tank-cleaner-now-under-investigation-for-murder/And New York Times columnist re-tweeted the Free Beacon story with this reminder:
https://twitter.com/benyt/status/1254035100142129152
Finally, here's he original Free Beacon article where they busted this story:
The Free Beacon withheld their full names, initially, to protect their identities. But their identities eventually got out and we now know her to be Wanda Lenius.
If The Free Beacon had lied about their interviews and research into their donations, they'd be in hot water with the police. You also can't slander people so blatantly like that.
The Free Beacon did report her alleged donations, Red State did, and Red State did not provide a citation. I searched for her donation history and could not find it. So if she has a history of donations to Democratic candidates, then why are the FEC filings not being widely-reported on right-wing media? Moreover, Trump has a history of donating to Democratic candidates too, and he is not a Democrat, so what exactly would her alleged donation history prove? How many sextogenerian liberal Democrats do you think are taking medical advice from Trump on Fox News?
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Increased daily testing leads to increased daily cases being recorded because the numbers are more accurate due to testing.However testing, tracing and isolating is the only way to keep on top of this thing if the world wants to get back to work.
And even though US (and U.K.) are boasting large numbers of tests, they began to ramp up testing so damn late that its not nearly enough at this point.
The US leads the word in testing thanks to our President.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Increased daily testing leads to increased daily cases being recorded because the numbers are more accurate due to testing.However testing, tracing and isolating is the only way to keep on top of this thing if the world wants to get back to work.
And even though US (and U.K.) are boasting large numbers of tests, they began to ramp up testing so damn late that its not nearly enough at this point.
You're not wrong but my point was about the increase in testing after re-opening.
Despite Germany increasing daily testing after they opened back up, their daily new cases and daily new deaths still dropped after opening. In most data sets, you see the opposite trend - more testing, more cases.
With estimates being between 10x and 85x more people having active SARS-CoV-2 cases (an active infection, with or without symptoms) than actual test results show, increasing testing almost always shows and uptick in new daily cases and better tracking on daily deaths - more tests, more positives.
But we didn't see that. Despite that, the major news outlets mocked Germany and even lied about there being an increase of daily new cases.
Originally posted by Robtard
You skipped over mine with your initial post and following posts, starting top of this page...
I did not. I directly addressed it. Why are you pretending I didn't and avoiding my questions which directly addresses your position?
You're clearly not an honest actor in this conversation and your only agenda is to say, "IT'S SO MUCH WORSE THAN PEOPLE ARE SAYING! LOOK HOW STUPID YOU ARE!"
When that's not true. Me, personally, I adjusted the model I developed as soon as I saw my R0 value was incorrect - it has a higher R0 than the flu and I originally stated it was less infectious than the flu based on current data. My model still more accurately predicted deaths for weeks whereas the IHME was adjusting their model on a near daily basis and was still getting it wrong.
Originally posted by Robtard
Point: If it was argued this is a nothing-virus by comparison because it wouldn't touch flu-death numbers, what now that we've passed them?
Doesn't this feel like a strawman to you? There's much more honest ways to represent you position such as, "Many people still believe this is a hoax and the deaths are lies."
You're just upset because I've been right since the beginning and held the same position. You still haven't gotten over the fact that I called this overreaction out a long time ago:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, which is why we close down airports, businesses, and stock markets every flu season, right? Oh, we don't? Damn, it is as if the Coronavirus is being blown out of proportion...
And you probably are still angry that I was correct about the true mortality rate (and Infection Mortality Rate) all the way back in the day before this destroyed world economies:
Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean the probably giant load of cases that were COVID-19 but people got over without issue, greatly inflating the mortality rate to 2%?You mean that virus? You mean the particular strain that has been around since 2019 but only recently became "huge" because of the Mass Media fear-mongering? That virus?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/30/limited-data-may-skew-assumptions-severity-coronavirus-outbreak/
Here's a better stat that correctly and accurately reflects reality:
Of the known [b]severe
cases of contracting COVID-19, only 2%, so far, appear to be fatal.And the numbers are likely inflated as even WHO, in their mortality rate study, warns about their data being reflective of severe cases and not absolute 'infected but fine' all the way to 'infected and then died' data being available.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ [/B]
For you, this was always about Trump which is why, to this day, you keep hammering the "haha, people died! See! I was right!". For me, it was always about appropriate science-based policy.
Originally posted by Robtard
To answer yours: The lockdowns were due to the then unknowns, the lack of a vaccine and how rapidly this was speading.
It wasn't an unknown quantity and the reactions pissed off quite a few epidemiologists who know how to respond to SARS viruses. This is a lie being spun up by the think-tanks to justify the improper actions taken.
Additionally, multiple preliminary studies were already conducted and sent to the WHO letting them know that the preliminary mortality rate stats were likely more than 10x than actual. The WHO also changed their position multiple times. At one point, the WHO had on their website that the MR was actually much higher than actual but the MR was based on current available data (I posted about it and linked it). They knew it wasn't 2%-5%. But they let countries react negatively to the number without correcting them. That's the "hoax" of this situation.