Coronavirus

Started by dadudemon504 pages

Originally posted by Blakemore
I think I predicted 300,000 by christmas to see if exponential growth is a thing.

I should really post the whole figures instead of using 'xxx' just so it can be mathematically calculated. Unfortunately, this doesn't take lockdowns into consideration, but as with all stats, they're just approximations. So far, the net death toll per 24 hours has gotten larger every 24 hours... shame I haven't been posting the exact figures.

I'll do that.

Originally posted by Blakemore
We'll be at 300,000 deaths in USA before the election, give or take. Best case scenario is 290,000 imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ah, so that's what is was. Thanks, man.

I looked into Peru to see why so many deaths are happening.

They had the strictest lockdown and the earliest lockdown, relative to new cases, of any other country.

But they have the worst mortality rate of any country in the world:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/south-america/peru/articles/peru-strict-lockdown-excess-deaths/

If lockdowns work, why is Peru doing so terribly? If early testing and early lockdowns work, why is Peru doing so terribly?

On March 16, when there were only 28 confirmed cases, Peru closed its borders and imposed an eye-watering curfew. Men and women were allowed to leave home on alternate days, and only for essential purposes. The restrictions were enforced by the army and, by and large, they were obeyed. Google images showed a massive reduction in the number of people outdoors.

Yes, Peru’s healthcare system is poor, but no more so than those in many Latin American countries, let alone most of Africa, where the virus has not been nearly so lethal. Peruvians themselves, naturally, blame their government. Human beings will generally judge a policy less by its intrinsic merits than by whether they like the person proposing it. Thus, in Britain, where there is a Conservative government, Leftists argue that we should have locked down earlier. In Spain, where there is a socialist government, it is the other way around, and Rightists have convinced themselves that the epidemic was far worse because big events to mark International Women’s Day on March 8 were allowed to go ahead.

In both cases, we are giving in to bogus anthropocentrism, imagining that there must somehow be a human hand in big events. Our ancestors blamed plagues on witches or religious minorities. We blame them on politicians.

What is actually going on in Peru? Yes, it has a poor water supply, crowded slums and the rest, but no more so than many countries that have come through with few deaths. Vietnam, for example, faces many of the same challenges, yet it has suffered only 35 fatalities from a population of 96 million.

Perhaps there are differing levels of pre-existing immunity, or at least of resistance.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/18/peru-has-toughest-lockdown-world-still-ended-worst-fatality/

Looks like Jaden may be right or at least partially right. Some of the infections and deaths may be related to water supply. Previous research has already shown lockdowns have no statistically significant result on mortality figures, as I've posted many times. This holds true for strict lockdowns and early border closures: both ineffective.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I looked into Peru to see why so many deaths are happening.

They had the strictest lockdown and the earliest lockdown, relative to new cases, of any other country.

But they have the worst mortality rate of any country in the world:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/south-america/peru/articles/peru-strict-lockdown-excess-deaths/

If lockdowns work, why is Peru doing so terribly? If early testing and early lockdowns work, why is Peru doing so terribly?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/18/peru-has-toughest-lockdown-world-still-ended-worst-fatality/

Looks like Jaden may be right or at least partially right. Some of the infections and deaths may be related to water supply. Previous research has already shown lockdowns have no statistically significant result on mortality figures, as I've posted many times. This holds true for strict lockdowns and early border closures: both ineffective.

Peru is a shithole.

Thanks for the kind words, everyone.

So, this morning we found out my brother tested positive. Given that he moved home due to Covid, this means that we all have to get tested now. Fun times.

I've been tested and it came back negative, but I still wear a mask and distance myself socially as much as I can.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I've been tested and it came back negative, but I still wear a mask and distance myself socially as much as I can.

👆

Smart man.

Thanks, bruv.

Originally posted by Blakemore
~1,000 increases since this post.

223,xxx

Glad you came back negative 👆

The US is at 225,xxx right now, might hit 226+ before end of day.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Originally posted by Robtard
Glad you came back negative 👆

The US is at 225,xxx right now, might hit 226+ before end of day.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

So, 230,xxx before hallows?
Well that puts DDMs shit analysis out of the water...

Google says 220K

worldometers says 225,451 at this time

let's see the exponential growth, eh?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Originally posted by Blakemore
So, 230,xxx before hallows?
Well that puts DDMs shit analysis out of the water...

Going by WorldoMeters, which I was told in here was the most correct metric to use, yes, the US should be over 230K by 10/31/2020, likely around 234-236K

Which means the model of 250K deaths in November and 300K by end of year is not only possible, it's likely to happen unless something changes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Going by WorldoMeters, which I was told in here was the most correct metric to use, yes, the US should be over 230K by 10/31/2020, likely around 234-236K

Which means the model of 250K deaths in November and 300K by end of year is not only possible, it's likely to happen unless something changes.

But DDM had expert math analysis and is smarter than most people in Oklahoma..

What can I say, even going by WorldoMeters, it is what is it:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ 225,xxx

By 01/01/2021, the US will likely be around 286-301k, really depends on trends.

230K berfore hallow's eve?

We'll be at 226k by tomorrow and we're doing 500-1,000 a day, so yeah, likely.

but DDM said it'd be 230k by January 2017 based on his expert math statistics.... is that why he sucks elephant dick? because he was wrong? ****ing hell.

We're at 225,6xx right now on 10/20/2020, there's 73/72 days left in the year, so the US would need to drop to around a 75 deaths per day average in order for the US to not surpass 230,999 deaths by 01/01/2021.

Something would have to drastically change in order for that to happen. As it stands, we'll be over 230K by Nov 1st, very likely before.

edit: See above, around 234-236K on 10/31/2020

Tragic.

Charges dropped against Michigan barber who defied Whitmer's lockdown

Finally something I'm sure we can all agree is a good outcome 👆