| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Tom, You can't make science out of bad data. Using case counts that were dependent upon testing results, which were notoriously in short supply early on and only recently catching up to demand is GARBAGE data that if used to try to show correlation is garbage. To then manipulate a lag time to find what seems like a logical or reasonable result is pure garbage. You know what I do for a living. This isn't new to me. Spacecraft, aircraft, and even motorcycles don't work safely because of what anyone believes may seem reasonable. They work safely as they do because they are developed using scientific principles, namely testing and analysis, from the material allowable and characteristics to the full scale parts. Would you trust that guy with your life, cause of his feels? He may be right, or he may be wrong. I don't know. Neither does he. That's the point. Stick with hard data. No need to do otherwise. The virus is going to have its way no matter what we do. The mitigation measures are intended to prevent over-burdening the hospital system. You know this yes? | ||
| Aesquire |
https://xkcd.com/2294/ https://xkcd.com/2295/ | ||
| Blake |
Even with all our large cities, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonia, El Paso, Austin, Corpus Christi, the great state of Texas seems to be handling the pandemic well:  | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, RE: https://xkcd.com/2295/ Winner! | ||
| 86129squids |
"Tejas" wanted to be a separate state from the Union, almost a separate country... it's size disallows accurate data to be recovered. It'll take some time. | ||
| Ratbuell |
quote: I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19. This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged. My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place. Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand). That comment speaks about the UK numbers. That would be very odd considering that was published on March 30, predicting 80K. Certainly a reasonable number given where we are now. Published, yes. Revised since then. Look up any news source from any date timeframe, and you will see the revision track. No link for the CDC? Again - check any news source and you will see documentation of the CDC claims based on date. I'm assuming that was assuming no mitigation. True? False. This article here: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/white-house-corona virus-expert-predicts-up-to-200000-us-coronavirus- deaths.html is dated March 30 and as you can see in the headline, that is the number "if we do things almost perfectly". Birx and Fauci, as you know, base the majority of their predictions on CDC numbers. And my claims about mitigation stem from the idea that the "horse was already out of the barn" before we locked anything down. 85 TIMES the number of infected. You see in your quote above about the UK: Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought - this thing is more prevalent than anyone will admit, probably moreso than we will ever know. Yet...nowhere near the body count that was predicted. This thing was here long before we shut everything down. The delay in symptomatic cases, and hospitalizations, and deaths, was simply a byproduct of the incubation period. It was here already. We shut down society and crashed the economy. The virus went through its standard incubation period, and is now (and you can see these numbers nationwide) declining. "Mitigation" didn't kill the virus, but it sure as hell killed our country. | ||
| Sifo |
Blake, I literally pleaded with you to explain yourself. This is one of the most critical points in the conversation we are having. If you can't explain, I feel we are at an impasse. Would you trust that guy with your life, cause of his feels? Perhaps... Because he has a PHD in epidemiology and can explain how a virus spreads, and why it stops spreading. Call me crazy. You can't make science out of bad data. Using case counts that were dependent upon testing results, which were notoriously in short supply early on and only recently catching up to demand is GARBAGE data that if used to try to show correlation is garbage. Blake, you have painted yourself into a corner. I fully acknowledge that the confirmed cases number is imperfect. Early on it was based purely on a Doctor's diagnosis. It largely still is because there is still a back log on testing in many areas. I call it imperfect data, you call it garbage. Here's what happens. A person gets sick. They see a Dr. The Dr. diagnoses that person with Covid-19, often based on nothing more than the symptoms. (Yes, imperfect. Garbage if you prefer.) They get admitted to a hospital where they are treated as a Covid-19 patient. (Yes, imperfect. Garbage if you prefer.) They die and get added to the list of Covid-19 fatalities. (Yes, imperfect. Suddenly it's not garbage any more though.) The Covid-19 deaths are a subset of the data you say is garbage. Yet here you are using it for all kinds of advanced analysis like you were calculating stresses on a wing spar. BTW, what kind of margin of safety is added to that wing spar? Why is that? My guess would be that a lot of it has to do with the fact that we don't live in a perfect world. BTW, I wouldn't feel good about flying in an airplane designed by Dr. Martenson. It simply isn't his area of expertise. The virus is going to have its way no matter what we do. The mitigation measures are intended to prevent over-burdening the hospital system. You know this yes? I've said it many times. It also buys time while we figure out better ways to treat the victims of this virus. | ||
| Sifo |
That comment speaks about the UK numbers. It applies to the entire study. The study was based on zero mitigation. The 2.2 million deaths in the US was based on zero mitigation. Yes, he revised his estimate for the UK based on their mitigation strategies. Did he do the same for the US? I don't know. It would much more difficult without knowing the mitigation strategies state by state. The US would be much more complicated. Published, yes. Revised since then. Look up any news source from any date timeframe, and you will see the revision track. How about you do the leg work to support you position?
From your link...
Clearly, that was a statement about no mitigation. It explicitly states it. This is why I'm going to ask you to provide your own sources. Had I looked that up, I would have to assume it's not your source. is dated March 30 and as you can see in the headline, that is the number "if we do things almost perfectly". Birx and Fauci, as you know, base the majority of their predictions on CDC numbers. Well, you gave a range. A range that wasn't given by Birx and Fauci BTW. One number was with mitigation, the other was without. This is a big part of the problem with discussing this with you. Your fact's are simply wrong far too often. Then you want me to find where your erroneous facts came from. And my claims about mitigation stem from the idea that the "horse was already out of the barn" before we locked anything down. 85 TIMES the number of infected. You see in your quote above about the UK: Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought - this thing is more prevalent than anyone will admit, probably moreso than we will ever know. Yet...nowhere near the body count that was predicted. Yes, mitigation was done late. That doesn't mean the mitigation doesn't work though. It does mean that mitigation is more difficult. If only people had paid attention to the videos I had been posting. He was preaching this. He was dead on correct on the need to start mitigation much, much earlier. Yet, his videos get ridicule. How about that HONEST discussion we were supposed to be having? On the "body count", you may have noticed that we aren't done counting. You are like the MSM on election night claiming Trump doesn't have a chance at the Whitehouse. You need to finish counting. This thing was here long before we shut everything down. The delay in symptomatic cases, and hospitalizations, and deaths, was simply a byproduct of the incubation period. It was here already. And now you are in fantasy land. You have no evidence to support that theory. S. Korea noticed the had unexplained pneumonia deaths happening early on. They knew before we knew what it was. We haven't seen that in our country. We knew it was coming, and ignored it. SK jumped on mitigation right away. We ignored it. SK largely snuffed it out, at least for the time being. You still wish to ignore it, as well as ignoring the science that tells us it will kill far more people if we do so. "Mitigation" didn't kill the virus, but it sure as hell killed our country. No, stupidity killed our country. FIFTYS!!! North Korea told us so!!! | ||
| Ducbsa |
VDH is always good: https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/19/suppression-of- expression-obscures-the-truth-about-the-virus/ | ||
| Gregtonn |
Just when you get the crap cleaned off the board and the pieces set up for a challenging match the pigeon swoops in again. G | ||
| Ratbuell |
From your link... Read the headline. Read the article. And, read my post - Birx claimed 200,000 deaths WITH MITIGATION. Here. Allow me to do the legwork for you, and post the headline from that link: Dr. Birx predicts up to 200,000 U.S. coronavirus deaths ‘if we do things almost perfectly’ If you want to call that "MY erroneous information" then you better start preaching to the country at large, because these are the numbers that our rulers...er, elected officials are going by when they tell us to lock everything down. They (there's that word you don't like, again) are the ones using these numbers, to create (and revise, and revise again) policy for all of us. And, that is the information that 99% of the USA population is hearing, because that is the only information that the MSM is putting out for mass consumption. You have no evidence to support that theory. No..but I have common sense. 1. this came from China 2. China - widely known for their honesty and transparency - said the virus hit in early December. Oh, and here's that legwork you don't want to do: https://www.axios.com/timeline-the-early-days-of-c hinas-coronavirus-outbreak-and-cover-up-ee65211a-a fb6-4641-97b8-353718a5faab.html 3. President Trump institutes a travel ban on January 31 4. In the interim, 430,000 people came to the US from China (legwork: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus- china-travel-restrictions.html) Now, the bay area study has shown in a relatively-random sample that up to 85 TIMES the suspected number of people, actually have this virus. This is where common sense has to step in. I know...it's hard...but give it a shot. Possibly 85 times the people, have the virus, compared to what we initially suspected. 430,000 people came here from China after the virus was "announced" (which, consider the source, was likely a lie and chances are very good that the virus was around much earlier. legwork: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus- china-travel-restrictions.html, also can be found on a WaPo page but I don't subscribe so I can't read that. This cable in question was sent to the US State Dept. in JANUARY 2018). So...how does that work for your timeline? How many flu deaths, do you suppose, were actually CV19 deaths...but we didn't know to look for it at the time? Who's to say this thing hasn't been wandering the globe, unchallenged, for...all season? A year? Two years? We'll never really know...but personally I think it's been out all this season. If you look at how many people actually HAVE it based on that first random study in the US, and if you use common sense when using the infection ratio projections and the travel numbers, you will see that there is no way only 2.4m people worldwide have this thing. Not if it's THAT contagious - and the 85-times study backs up the infection rate. And then some. I suspect the more random studies we see, the more confirmation we'll have that this has penetrated much more of our population than we expected. And as such, the known number of dead will turn into an exponentially lower percentage of infected people. Read the VDH article posted above, if you'd rather hear these same thoughts from someone more "respected" than some putz on a Buell forum who doesn't understand what I'm talking about. Even when the Imperial College scarifying “2.2 million” dead in the United States was withdrawn, or when Gavin Newsom’s “25.5 million infected” by early May in California seemed hysterical, or today’s prognostications from the University of Washington modified older models that politicians used to set policy, there was more ridicule leveled at the original skeptics than at the promulgators of such myths—despite the fact that some disastrous public policies resulted from assurances that hundreds of thousands would likely die soon from the virus. Hm. Kinda hits home, there. | ||
| Ratbuell |
More from VDH (article posted above): The same strange reaction met most who suggested that the virus might have reached the United States earlier than late January, or that it might already have infected far more than once thought, or that it was likely to be less lethal than assumed from the commonly used calculus to determine its toxicity. Similarly taboo was questioning the notion that everyone who died with COVID-19 died because of it, even when the dying and the deceased were not tested for the virus and the methodology of ascertaining causes of death seemed too often reinvented or changed weekly. We were not to question the weird formula of assessing a virus’s morbidity by dividing the number of deaths only by the actual number of those who had at any time had tested positive for an active infection. Yet nearly the entire scientific community had agreed that the real number of those infected by the virus could be 10 times or more than the misleadingly precise number of positive tests. Nonetheless, daily referenced fatality rates were drawn from such a flawed equation. Certainly, if such a procedure were used in flu cases—of requiring only positive flu virus tests to ascertain the denominator—then the lethality to case rate of influenza might well appear as 10 percent and send the country into shock. When some frontline physicians, or a rough sampling of patients, or preliminary studies suggested that in some pre-ventilator cases hydroxychloroquine seemed efficacious in treating the virus, even the use of a medicine prompted a weaponized debate. Hm. Again...sounds kinda familiar. Eh? Sucks when common sense starts to take over... | ||
| Aesquire |
Multiple sources, which of course can mean one older source often repeated, speculate, claim, and verify that Pooh's Breath hit the USA in November at the latest. That's highly probable, as if it was in Wuhan province, it was on planes going all over the planet, but especially California and New York. ( because to coastal elites, there isn't anywhere else that matters ) So a lot of flu cases could well have been the CCP Coronavirus instead. The tell on that would be if antibody tests show a high number of recovered infected that was previously not expected. Imho it's still too early to bet either way, since testing has just started. ( and we aren't going to dig up flu victims to prove any speculation today. Later, when there are plenty of test kits, medical students will pull out blood samples from flu patients from 2019 and write a paper ) Frankly I no longer understand what the argument here is. I'm doubting the folk arguing can define their opinions now. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2020/5/the-culture -of-corona The situation on the ground is not so much evolving as mutating. As part of the multi-trillion dollar federal package to battle the economic effects of the epidemic and the measures taken to combat it, hospitals will get paid 15 percent more if a Medicare patient is classified as having “a principal or secondary diagnosis of covid-19.” Expect to see many, many more such diagnoses. Distinguishing between legitimate covid fatalities and merely nominal ones will be a future statistician’s nightmare. ...... Benjamin Jowett’s observation is to the point: “precautions are always blamed,” he said: “When they are successful, they are said to be unnecessary.”... | ||
| Ratbuell |
I'm doubting the folk arguing can define their opinions now. I know exactly what mine is - we've crashed our entire society and our entire economy, for an overblown interpretation based on fearmongering, for a virus that's going - once more numbers come in and we have a real grasp of how many people actually have it - to turn out to be no worse than a normal seasonal illness. That, is my argument. That the cure is infinitely worse than the actual disease. That we fu(ked ourselves and gave over personal civil liberties...for no valid reason. With no evidence that we'll ever get them back - witness all the restrictions being put on things that have NOTHING to do with this virus. What does a virus have to do, with MORE gun-grab legislation? Other than a power grab by the elites, that is...we've opened the door for them to take as they see fit, and they're going to take, and take, and take. Until....when? What stops it? What ends it? Who decides? And what gets me is, people are simply bending over and taking it like VDH mentions in his article. More people are getting angry with skeptics like me, than they are with the people who screwed up the models and put us in this lockdown nightmare to begin with. At least our President has the balls to de-fund W.H.O. - that's a good start. Now, hold Fauci and Brix accountable. Pin Cuomo to the wall, too, for all his BS complaints and predictions that have, like all the others, fallen flat thus far. Not that NYC isn't a hotspot...but "I need 30,000 ventilators"...and it turns out only 5,000 were required. New, emergency-build hospitals and field hospitals...unused. Mouthy, blowhard, fearmongering •••••••. Tell Pelosi to get out of her $24,000 freezer full of thousands of dollars of ice cream, and go look around the streets, and talk to real people who can't feed their families, if she wants to "understand" why people are upset at the lockdowns, and why they just want to go back to work. I understand - if you've never worked an honest day in your life, you can't grasp the concept...but if you want to shape policy? You better goddamned LEARN how to understand it. THAT, is my argument. We've screwed the pooch here, but nobody is being held accountable. | ||
| Hootowl |
I don’t care any longer. I do care that our friendly discussion has turned nasty. I hope the next group ride we’re on doesn’t become awkward. I hope we all remember that our friends are on the other end of the keyboard. | ||
| Sifo |
Read the headline. Read the article. And, read my post - Birx claimed 200,000 deaths WITH MITIGATION. Here's what you posted and highlighted in red.
If you aren't going to be honest about your own words, it's going to be a very arduous discussion. Now you are claiming she said 200,000. What she really said was 100,000 to 200,000. I guess honesty is right out the window. I'll be amazed if the death total doesn't wind up at least in that range. Not long ago you were bitching that the tens of thousands predictions were completely false. You claim victory like CNN on election night! Possibly 85 times the people, have the virus, compared to what we initially suspected. Simple answer to that is, no. First off, assuming that flawed study where they advertised for participants on FaceBook is correct, it would be 85x confirmed cases. A very different number than what may have been suspected. Nobody with any understanding of this suspected that confirmed cases = actual number of infected. The simple fact that they were talking about asymptomatic people confirms this. Why do you insist on twisting ALL of the facts? How many times do you need to be corrected? Talk about willful ignorance! The funny thing is you are claiming a victory on the 85x bit. The reality is that someone who claimed zero actual infections would have been much closer to what that 85x number comes out to. You've moved the goal post about 95 yards on that one! How many flu deaths, do you suppose, were actually CV19 deaths...but we didn't know to look for it at the time? That one's actually a fairly good question. The reality is that a half good Dr. is going to notice that this isn't really like the flu. Dr.s in SK certainly did. Can Dr,s in SK do what our Dr.s can't regarding basic diagnostics of the flu? They KNEW something was up and took action. Where are our Dr.s who are saying they saw similar cases that just weren't like the flu? They may not have known at the time, but they certainly would come forward with any pieces of this puzzle if they had them, don't you think? I suspect the more random studies we see, the more confirmation we'll have that this has penetrated much more of our population than we expected. And as such, the known number of dead will turn into an exponentially lower percentage of infected people. You seem oddly focused on a percentage that doesn't change the number of people dead. Are you that desperate for some little victory, to claim it's no worse than the flu, while ignoring the people who have died? Read the VDH article posted above, if you'd rather hear these same thoughts from someone more "respected" than some putz on a Buell forum who doesn't understand what I'm talking about. He also fails to understand some very basic things about the projections from the models. The early projections were based on continuing forward under current conditions (That would have been without mitigation). When society starts down the path of mitigation, is it not reasonable to take the current state into account in the model? Will that not lower the projection? If you are driving in a car and your passenger notes that if you don't turn, you are going to hit a wall, is he/she wrong if you turn and miss the wall? Should he/she continue screaming that you are going to hit the wall after you turn away from it? When mitigation starts, you have to revise projections. It's that simple. Someone who doesn't understand that, simply isn't worth taking advice from. | ||
| Court |
Could we appoint someone to toss that wrestling with a pig metaphor into the dialogue? Seems like about time. | ||
| Sifo |
I know exactly what mine is - we've crashed our entire society and our entire economy, for an overblown interpretation based on fearmongering, for a virus that's going - once more numbers come in and we have a real grasp of how many people actually have it - to turn out to be no worse than a normal seasonal illness. Why then for so long did the discussion revolve around (and still does largely) around the people that die from the flu vs. the people that die from Covid-19? The answer is clear, that it's because this is the metric that matters to most people. You seem to be on the train of if more people survive being infected, that it's not as bad as the flu, regardless of the dead bodies that pile up. Think about that a bit. On the matter of what we've done to our economy, I feel the pain. We can't have a service for my Mother-in-Law who passed last Thursday. No doubt, things are messed up. But guess what. We live in a Democratic Republic where we elect leaders to do their best. I understand the data they were presented with. I understand the political implications of not doing anything. You've pointed to Sweden as an example of not doing anything as an example of success. Their deaths per million have soared past the US and are currently at 156 (World average is 21.7!). Their death count has gone up by an order of magnitude in a month. Is that really success? What would you consider failure? | ||
| Ratbuell |
I'm about done with this. 1. no, I am not ignoring the number of people who have died. I have said so repeatedly. What I AM arguing is, the number of dead we DO have does not come close to necessitating the apocalyptic shutdown of western society. I say again - we don't shut down society every year for flu...why did we this time? Because of bad information. With no recourse against those who were horribly wrong. And, for about the same number of dead people. Hard numbers are hard numbers, no matter how you get there, and the hard number is we haven't lost any more Americans to CV19 than we have to flu, this year. Read the CDC information I posted earlier. 2. If you read the headline of the story that talked about Brix - I won't link it again - you would see the headline stated in very plain words she claimed 200k dead "with doing everything perfectly". I even pasted the headline for you. One quote - 200k to 1.7M - was from the CDC, and I stated and credited it as such. The Brix statement was also credited to Brix, along with a direct quote of the headline. You seem unwilling to read plain English, or to click links to actual stories quoting our elected officials, and where their policies come from - policies which affect every one of us. I guess if it isn't on a scare-tactic video, you don't concern yourself with it, and that's OK by me. I'm done with this. We'll see how it all turns out in the end. | ||
| Ratbuell |
We live in a Democratic Republic Wrong. Constitutional Republic. https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republi c/ | ||
| Sifo |
1. no, I am not ignoring the number of people who have died. I have said so repeatedly. What I AM arguing is, the number of dead we DO have does not come close to necessitating the apocalyptic shutdown of western society. I say again - we don't shut down society every year for flu...why did we this time? Because of bad information. With no recourse against those who were horribly wrong. And, for about the same number of dead people. Hard numbers are hard numbers, no matter how you get there, and the hard number is we haven't lost any more Americans to CV19 than we have to flu, this year. Read the CDC information I posted earlier. You claim it's bad information. Experts on this say mitigation works. We see evidence of this in places like Sweden where they have their heads in the sand, NYC where people were told to enjoy the Chinese New Year, New Orleans where they didn't want to shut down Mardi Gras, Spain where they didn't want to disrupt the tourist season, Italy that enjoyed Spain's tourist season and didn't stop migrant labor travel from China and Iran. That's just off the top of my head. Then we have South Korea, who learned lessons about dealing with viruses with the SARS epidemic. The difference is HUGE! Mitigation works, especially done early. 2. If you read the headline of the story that talked about Brix - I won't link it again - you would see the headline stated in very plain words she claimed 200k dead "with doing everything perfectly". I even pasted the headline for you. One quote - 200k to 1.7M - was from the CDC, and I stated and credited it as such. The Brix statement was also credited to Brix, along with a direct quote of the headline. And if you read past the headline you see that's not what she said. It's in the article. I quoted it for you. She said 100k to 200k. Why is this even and issue? The 200k - 1.7M was without mitigation in place. Why is this even an issue? You seem unwilling to read plain English, or to click links to actual stories quoting our elected officials, and where their policies come from - policies which affect every one of us. I guess if it isn't on a scare-tactic video, you don't concern yourself with it, and that's OK by me. I'm done with this. We'll see how it all turns out in the end. But I have read those news stories, and corrected you on your claims of what they say. "B-b-b-but the headline said 200K!!!". Read the fricking story! | ||
| Sifo |
Wrong. Constitutional Republic. If you wish. You just seem pissed off that put a higher value on life than you do. | ||
| Ratbuell |
This, from the guy who's jumping on me for "not quoting articles correctly"? If you're gonna preach, you should live up to your own standards. Know what sort of a nation you live in, and what sort of government you live with. And you have no idea how much I value life - don't you DARE go there. However, I also value rational thought, and common sense, above abject panic and surrender to decree for no reason. Again (and again, it seems...since this never seems to get through to you): Total COVID deaths for the USA to date: 42,012. Total FLU deaths for the USA to date: 24,000 to 62,000 (data still being compiled). Death sucks. Equally. A dead person is a dead person. My point is not "value of life". My point is, COVID falls square in the middle of the flu death count estimates for this season. Both of those number sets are from CDC, and I have linked to them already in this thread. That's about as apples-to-apples as you can get. Just as many - if not MORE - people have died from FLU this year. Why do you insist on belittling THOSE lives? Don't YOU care?? Maybe we should just shutter every damned thing in the country, from October through May, every single year. Would THAT show you how much I "value life"? Don't you DARE question my value set, simply because I have the balls to question what I see and form my own opinions, and they don't happen to match yours. I'm done here. You don't seem to want to listen to any other than the gloom-and-doom set, and I'm sick of wasting my energy on it. Go watch your sensationalist horror prediction videos, and keep spreading the misery. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself. | ||
| 86129squids |
 | ||
| Zacks |
In the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along"? | ||
| Ratbuell |
Not when someone's preaching to me that I don't care about human life. You want to accuse me of that? You can kiss my ass. | ||
| Sifo |
You're the one who keeps saying it just isn't worth the toll on the economy. Do I need to find a direct quote? I'd be happy to, there's plenty to choose from. Like I have said, I'm glad I'm not in the position of having to make that choice. Our elected officials are in that position. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I'll call them out on stupid stuff like banning fishing from a boat with a motor, but I'll give them a lot of leeway on trying to provide proven mitigation. The sad thing is that we, as a society, have responsibility in a crisis like this to act appropriately. That means that IF you really feel the need to assemble and protest, wear a mask to stop the spread of the virus. We should be doing that anytime we are in a public space where it can be easily passed. That's a simple social responsibility. Had we done the simple things early, we might not have to do the drastic things later. It's laughable that you are willing to accept the CDC estimate of 24,000 to 62,000 dead from flu. Same organization, using the same viral modeling, says 100,000 to 200,000 deaths from Covid-19 though, well, that's just crazy talk in your mind. Aw hell, let's just grab your last quote
All I've done is to try to get facts out, including what's coming down the pike. I explicitly said this shit storm was on it's way. I wonder how I knew? Blake is probably a fine engineer. As an epidemiologist, he's an idiot. It's sad to see this side of people that I once had respect for. | ||
| Court |
Frankly .... this thing is looking kinda overblown. That’s 100% anecdotal talking to 2 ER Docs in Brooklyn. They report their ER being used as ICU overflow but having plenty of time to complete the NY. Times crossword daily. They’ve never run out of PPE. They’ve never used all the Ventilators they have. It’s a bad deal but ... in comparison to what was predicted 2 weeks ago..... it’s fallen far short. Thank goodness. Now back to those apocalyptic videos and stat-magic. | ||
| Aesquire |
So...we haven't crashed the economy? Funny,( sarcasm ) I'm pretty much the opposite of rich and this crash cost me a substantial fraction of the money I've been saving for 30 years. You know, so when I got too crippled to work my job, I'd still be able to eat. And yes, I got the crippled part. ( facts ) I do have hope that the "missing money" will reappear as the economy improves, once the Governors decide to allow their subjects to return to paying taxes. I even have a faint hope, and will keep telling people, that if we recreate the jobs for the stuff sane people consider IMPORTANT to make domestically, like drugs, safety gear, and military electronics, then the economy will actually improve more than expected. I don't mind if we have a pessimistic & an optimistic view here. In fact I think it's a GOOD idea to have such differing viewpoints. I figure somewhere in between is most likely, but more to which end? I still can't tell. And as I keep telling you guys, numbers are a great way to lie. Partly because of the leftist dumbing of schools to keep the subjects stupid and compliant, which has been a Great Success, if you look at how many think Socialism is a great idea, instead of the murderous corruption factory of oppression it has always been where they didn't give the idea up, like the Pilgrim's colony. It's also how the propaganda machine formerly known as back to our regularly scheduled.... Oh, and I can counter steer without using my feet at all.  |
