Sorry but that’s not going to work.
Blame your commie brothers in China and your globalist overloads. That’s the only cult here.
You can blame Trump all you want but this had nothing to do with him, even illhan Omar said he’s doing a good job.
You would rather see the globe sink than give him credit for a single sent because he said Mexico was sending us rapists.
cool post 👆
GameStop is refusing to close it's stores because they consider themselves an "essential business" lol
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/tech/gamestop-open-essential-business/index.html
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
cool post 👆GameStop is refusing to close it's stores because they consider themselves an "essential business" lol
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/tech/gamestop-open-essential-business/index.html
To some people, I'm sure they are lol.
I'm a gamer myself but I'd never go so far as to call my hobby or the ability to purchase games "essential". I can get by perfectly fine w/out them (though it would suck lol).
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
cool post 👆GameStop is refusing to close it's stores because they consider themselves an "essential business" lol
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/tech/gamestop-open-essential-business/index.html
That may beat package stores staying open.
Originally posted by dadudemonI agree that as more deaths occur, the infectious rate decreases creating an S curve situation, so maybe my 1800 deaths is a bit extreme and laziness on my part.....
This turned out to be false when you examine other datasets that do not rely on sick people who have been exposed to other sick people who were already diagnosed with COVID-19.The problem with both the mortality rate and the Ro figures, which is what whipped everyone up into hysteria, was using a subset of a subset. Bullshit data like, "Ro of 5!" "1 in 5 require hospitalization!" and "It has a mortality rate of 3-5!!!"
Turns out that examining proper samples of COVID-19 (representative of the population and not a subset of a subset), you see an Ro closer to 1.2, mortality rate at about .3%, and 1/150 (who have been diagnosed with COVID-19) requiring hospitalization.
What is also not be discussed is the fact that COVID-19 already spread to millions of Americans earlier this month. If the public was notified that we likely passed the 10 million threshold already, it would cause even more mass hysteria.
Italy has around 15,000 to 20,000 deaths from the annual flu, at the moment. They will land between 25,000 and 30,000 deaths related to annual flu (multiple strains).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971219303285
Due to how the infections work, incubation periods, symptoms, and the duration of illness, we will see 1 of 2 outcomes in Italy:
1. There will be a sudden turning point in the number of deaths.
2. The deaths will continue.My bet is on #1. And here's why: we already went beyond the point of containing it in many places and we have already hit near saturation. The thing with geometric growth is you cannot continue to grow, geometrically, across a relatively static population. You will eventually saturate the population with COVID-19 exposure and your geometric growth becomes halted in its tracks. Then recovery and testing also overtakes those figures.
So far, I have been correct. My predictions have come true. And they are based on math, not gut feeling, not opinions, and not bad science (where you broadcast mortality rates using subsets of subsets of the population).
Originally posted by dadudemonIt may well be somewhere inbetween, but whoever is closest gets bragging rights, deal?
500-800 for tomorrow.Let's see who is right.
"‘I’m definitely going to get it. We all are,’ N.J.’s top health official says as she leads the state’s coronavirus war"
Originally posted by Blakemore
I agree that as more deaths occur, the infectious rate decreases creating an S curve situation, so maybe my 1800 deaths is a bit extreme and laziness on my part.....It may well be somewhere inbetween, but whoever is closest gets bragging rights, deal?
Numbers are in.
627 New deaths.
New cases went up, recovery went up, new deaths went up. However, they are all doing so at different rates and those rates are changing. They are changing for multiple reasons.
The death rate reflects population saturation (it's not there but it is getting close) and the ripples of quarantining. The deaths are from infections many days prior. The deaths we see today are from infections from many days ago.* Some suggest that we are getting better with helping people recover but that's not true. We are getting only marginally better because recovering techniques are not new magical protocols - it's still the same stuff we've been doing for decades.
New cases are a function of test availability and logistics (getting people in and out of tests). It is not necessarily a direct function of measuring infection in the population. Seems odd because that's the point of the tests - see who is infected. But at large scales like these, statisticians are only seeing data from test availability and how efficiently testing administrators can deliver them. With this type of problem, you can use the data to look at how infections occur in geography (you can watch exposure light up on a map if you time your infection confirmations to a map) or figure out inefficiencies with testing.
*I suggested that true infection/exposure rates are vastly higher than is being broadcast. Because it would induce mass panic but also mass complacency shortly after. When you see death rates declining but infection rates increasing, you can be sure that there are 2 factors at play - more tests being administered and the population is nearing infection saturation.
Originally posted by samhain
Aren't those the only two possible outcomes really? Genuinely asking.
For very near future?
No. If we ignore what happened yesterday (because it makes it unfair that I got the projections right) and ignore what knowledge we have today..we'd only have the data from the 19th and before to go off of.
Based on that, the next 3-5 days would see one of those 2 outcomes: either 2. the same death rates growing, day over day, or 1. a slowing of the deaths and a turning point is seen.
1 is what was seen. However, we cannot be sure, just yet. We need to wait the 2-4 more days to see if the death rate growth is slowing.
Originally posted by dadudemon24 hours after my post isn't for another 4 hours.
Numbers are in.627 New deaths.
New cases went up, recovery went up, new deaths went up. However, they are all doing so at different rates and those rates are changing. They are changing for multiple reasons.
The death rate reflects population saturation (it's not there but it is getting close) and the ripples of quarantining. The deaths are from infections many days prior. The deaths we see today are from infections from many days ago.* Some suggest that we are getting better with helping people recover but that's not true. We are getting only marginally better because recovering techniques are not new magical protocols - it's still the same stuff we've been doing for decades.
New cases are a function of test availability and logistics (getting people in and out of tests). It is not necessarily a direct function of measuring infection in the population. Seems odd because that's the point of the tests - see who is infected. But at large scales like these, statisticians are only seeing data from test availability and how efficiently testing administrators can deliver them. With this type of problem, you can use the data to look at how infections occur in geography (you can watch exposure light up on a map if you time your infection confirmations to a map) or figure out inefficiencies with testing.
*I suggested that true infection/exposure rates are vastly higher than is being broadcast. Because it would induce mass panic but also mass complacency shortly after. When you see death rates declining but infection rates increasing, you can be sure that there are 2 factors at play - more tests being administered and the population is nearing infection saturation.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"‘I’m definitely going to get it. We all are,’ N.J.’s top health official says as she leads the state’s coronavirus war"
This personifies the wasteland that is Jersey perfectly!
Originally posted by Blakemore
24 hours after my post isn't for another 4 hours.
Feel free to measure that data but the data does not come anywhere close to your numbers:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
I'm measuring by day according to that site as their clock is the same, day to day, and is the only valid way I can see to get day-to-day numbers. I cannot separate out the data by hour.