30,000-40,000 ventilators urgently needed for New York

originally posted by: UKTruth
In the US after just 2 months.
4.2m tests

Which of the extremely error prone tests are you referring to?

The PCR test, that was never, ever intended to be used as as a diagnostic test because it is so error prone?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: UKTruth
Your article is from over 3 weeks ago.
The reason less ventilators are needed is because the spread is slowing - due to mitigation.
Not that complicated to understand.

No, the IHME models accounted for FULL mitigation, but thanks for stopping by with a one-liner.

You personally predicted 1.2 million deaths without mitigation (after we began mitigation...). I predict 327 million deaths without mitigation, so it's a good thing we shut everything down, even though that number is completely unfalsifiable because we took mitigation action.

Nope - It was more than a one liner.
Models are predictions.
The mitigation has worked better than forecast. Obviously.
...and no, I did not predict 1.2 million deaths. They were the known forecasts of others, which I agreed with.
We HAVE mitigated.
The forecast with mitigation is much lower... 100-200k, which is about what the US will end up seeing.

But keep it up. I can see why you have to cover for the fact you though this was just another flu.
Cheers

So I disagree with your thesis about mitigation... BUT....

I had originally ballparked the estimate of total deaths at north of at least 5mm when this came out - maybe more than 1% of the population. Figure north of 30mm Americans have diabetes and 1.5mm or so are in nursing homes or care facilities.... that’s a lot of “at risk” people and isn’t inclusive of all of them.

But that was back in February/early March. We had little data or understanding of the virus in terms of how it would actually play out. As the hyperbolic reporting increased I started paying attention. Then the lock downs were proposed and I started digging into this big time.

By early April I had seen enough data, read enough about how deaths have been “counted”, scaled the data I could find or the whole situation multiple ways/in historical context/etc. and I called this a hoax.

The more time goes along, the more the data has supported that stance.

I have no idea what the end game truly is here but I doubt it’s a story that ends with everything being exactly as it once was - and I’m not talking about the economy specifically.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth
the LA study was just 1,000 people.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just asking:

When the big news agencies do national polls, they often poll around 1,000 people and somehow that is widely considered large enough to be a representative sample for the nation.

So why would 1,000 people be too small of a sample to represent one county?

Because the 1,000 self selected.
At that volume, bias in the sampling will have an enormous impact in the validity of the result.

Is that another way of saying they volunteered?

Isn't that how all polling is done? They call around and invariably get people that refuse to participate. They keep calling until they get the desired number.

In political polling - at least the honest ones - a cross section of political ideologies are sampled for the final report.
The likelihood of responding matters less because quotas can be reached for each ideology.

With testing for the virus there can be no such sampling. The people who come forward are obviously more likely to be people who have some symptoms, especially against a backdrop of limited testing and not being able to get tested without more serious symptoms.

You realize that any bias that gives the study would have the effect of there actually being more asymptomatic cases than the study found, then? And the death rate would be correspondingly even lower.

Yep - indeed. The bias could falsely show that more poeople had the virus and thus falsely show the death rate to be lower. Or maybe there is no bias and by chance a representative sample came forward and thus the death rate really is like the flu. Point is - we don't know. There can be no conclusions drawn from a study subject to such significant bias in the result. The solution is to wait until more widespread testing is done and in the meantime monitor the reported numbers. As tests becoe more widespread we'll know.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Rashid Buttar BLASTS Gates, Fauci, EXPOSES Fake Pandemic Numbers As Economy Collapses

[yvid][/yvid]