I’m confused… Isn’t your second sentence just repeating the definition of “research”?
okay, i might be wrong on that. now that i think about it, the last dude lied about being a scientist so don’t challenge him unless you want him to make a fool out of you. searched for him on linkedin, and found out he worked in real estate and was basically lying. he flashed some certificate that showed he took some class. i looked closely at it and it was a 10 day class! dude was in the military where he took 10 day classes on science that supposedly made him an expert. but he would not shut up and eventually i had to delete my post rather than get notifications every 10 seconds.
i’m not sure how to argue with them though when they claim that COVID has something like a 99%+ survival rate. i think they might be right there, but 300k plus american deaths and many others with lasting issues is not good.
facebook threatened to de-platform him. do it facebook!
those people are migrating to parler. i hope facebook de-platforms all of them and they all disappear to parler.
Since the state boundries are pretty much arbitrary anyway - we should just redraw them:
Here’s how they come up with their survival rate =315,000 deaths/17,600,000 cases = 1.8% death rate (or 98.2% survival rate). Based on CDC weekly death counts, I happen to think the number of COVID deaths is actually under-counted (despite the occasional anecdotal type of story like a gunshot victim being counted as a COVID death).
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm#dashboard
My favorite graph is the “Excess Deaths with and without COVID-19” button (you’ll need to also press the “Update Dashboard” button.
It’s very hard to argue with the “number of weekly deaths”. That figure is hard to manipulate and isn’t subject to interpretation. And when that line continually exceeds the threshold for excess deaths - something significant is happening.
1 Like
If you leave out very old people you can come up with a much higher survival rate.
It’s obviously a lot of extra deaths, though. And a lot of extra disability, although it’s not yet clear how common “long covid” is.
i think they were claiming the survival rate is higher than 98.2%. they were claiming 99.9 or something crazy like that. they are claiming it is less deadly than the flu.
the number of cases likely undercounts though, so you would have to increase the demominator, since people with less severe cases won’t necessarily get tested. if you’re asymptomatic entirely, you would be far less likely to get tested. the number of deaths is probably undercounted too, but i’d think the number of cases is undercounted more.
yeah, right before my physical therapist decided he’s too scared of getting covid to continue in-office visits, he said that a huge portion of their clients right now are long-haulers who have to learn how to breathe and function normally again, and a lot of them are in their 30’s and 40’s and some even had what they thought were mild cases. PT somehow helps them in some way there.
oh right, they also leave out very old people because they claim they were gonna die soon anyway. THESE ARE NOT GOOD PEOPLE.
1 Like
There is sense to the argument that if you want to determine a COVID death rate that applies to an individual you would just look at COVID deaths and COVID positive cases from a population cohort similar to the individual. That’s what actuaries do. That’s how they construct mortality tables.
That rate wouldn’t be universal, but it certainly would be applicable to anyone in that cohort.
i’m not arguing that it doesn’t vary based on age. this has nothing to do with what actuaries do.
i guess if you’re a selfish person who doesn’t care that you might infect and kill old people you would.
they are also very anti-mask, and claim people who wear them are sheep who are being controlled by the government.
I think the point you’re awkwardly trying to make is the risk of someone’s death from COVID can be very different from the risk of spreading COVID. The two rates aren’t directly linked.
The individual’s survival rate from COVID might actually be “99.9% or something like that”. That’s science (depending on the actual numbers for their cohort). However, the risk of that individual spreading COVID, and possibly spreading it to a higher risk cohort, isn’t directly related to their own survival rate.
A compromise idea: No breaking up the union. Instead, we start eliminating bits of the federal government (I feel like someone in this thread was advocating that… Hmm who was that?). Then the states do that bit but they form interstate compacts to do it.
For example, we could eliminate social security at the national level and leave it to the states. Blue states could band together to have uniform benefits, pool taxes, and make payments from Compact funds.
What I’m thinking is we need a structural change that makes dumb states suffer the consequences of their stupidity. If you want to whip your constituency into an unthinking, automatic rejection of all progressive ideas by labeling those to ideas as socialist (i.e. evil), fine: No entitlements for you. Us blue states will do it ourselves and you can see how that rugged individualism works out for you.
1 Like
You were looking for me?
Fantastic idea. We’re seeing that exact thing currently happening in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Texas and Florida.
You lost me. To what structural change are you referring?
Even if you “educate” (will they be sent to re-education camps for this education???) them, 50% of the populace will still have below average ability to “think” and not “feel”.
So…um… What if i want to move?
Two serious problems with the design of traditional defined benefit pension plans are that they penalize people who change employers, and the cost to the employer is heavily loaded towards older aged employees. So both employees and employers are disincented to let old people find new jobs.
This decreases overall economic efficiency. (Not as relevant to states, but also, of your employer runs into hard times when you are an older employee, your are screwed.)
Doesn’t sound like a win to me.
Good point. No structural change is needed to make dumb states suffer the consequences of their stupidity. They’re seeing it right now with droves of citizens and and businesses leaving.