Numbers Don't Lie

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: av8r007

Lies , Damn lies and statistics.
They may not matter to you but each one of those 144,000 deaths matter to the people who have lost anyone in that number , their percentage of the population makes no difference.

No doubt if there was a Democrat in the big chair those 144,000 deaths would be a bigger deal.

What about the deaths FROM lockdown? Do those matter to you? Apparently not?

Yea they don't...and if it quacks and walks like a duck....

So go figure, not only did one of the last ten or twelve pages of the bill passed to, "keep Americans paid and on top of their bills," (which gave some people a thousand bucks at most after tax to pay these last five months of bills and equaled 200 or 300 billion dollars of the 7 TRILLION dollars spent on "paying Americans bills"...) include some ridiculous stipulations like for the duration of the pandemic, Congress removes it's spending limits set on its representatives, representatives cannot be audited for spending on any items deemed necessary because of something COVID related, and other downright criminal ridiculousness...

Where the numbers REALLY talk outside of the whole 150k deaths or whatever, and given 100 doctors complaints, they were attributing more deaths to COVID that weren't related to the disease but the person merely had recent run of the mill antibodies for Corona, for flu, for common cold, who knows...but more like 25-50k deaths...IF THAT AT ALL...

IS THE FACT THAT RIGHT AS THE PANDEMIC WAS BEING WARNED ABOUT POSSIBLY TAKING FOOT, the FED printed and sent out 450 billion dollars to a handful of the most successful stock brokerage companies on Wall Street to buy stock, but ALSO made it quite clear why only 1000 bucks after tax is meant to pay 40% of the population's bills for five months...BECAUSE THEY ALSO SET ASIDE 27 TRILLION DOLLARS...TWENTY SEVEN TRILLION...to BUY FORECLOSED RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE...as if they had Miss Cleo telling them in THEIR reading that soon, an incredible percentage of the entirety of US residential real estate was about to become available for purchase. That b@&$# only told me, "Dooon't do it! Dooonna make me take ya ta church young man!"

a reply to: NightVision

144,000 is for half a year and that's with a lockdown. I would hate to think how many deaths there would be without a lockdown for a whole year.

a reply to: CobaltCPD

TOTAL CURRENTLY KNOWN INFECTED.
4,170,000.

331,000,000, the total population has NOT been exposed to the virus yet.

4 Million infected / 147,000 dead = 3-4% fatality rate. (3.7%ish technically but I like to round)

Yes, the death rate based on infected numbers is what the media keeps talking about (or did, back when the known cases was low and the death rate was high). However, that statistic is meaningless because no one knows how many people have the virus. All of the recent cries to shut down the economy again are based on known cases increasing.

In order to ascertain how many people are infected, we would need to conduct a randomized sampling of the population and test them. We could get a reasonable idea how many were infected that way. Instead, we are including numbers from the early months of 2020 when only those who showed symptoms were being tested (along with many cases reported that were reported based only on symptoms). Of course the death rate was high per number of cases... all of the cases were people who were already in serious condition!

It's like saying that 100% of dead people stop breathing... no duh, Sherlock!

So, with the actual numbers being so muddled for so long, the only reliable base number is population. We have a pretty good idea how many people there are, and even though the death numbers have been padded, we can still say that there are no more deaths than are reported. At this time, that is the only metric that seems to have any basis in reality.

I believe it is quite possible that we are already nearing the percentage of the population that would be considered as "herd immunity." Recall that the majority of people who get this disease either have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. People with no symptoms do not generally take the opportunity to get a test done, so the probability that there are many unknown positive infections is quite high. Also, the tests show if a person has a viral infection, not whether one had a viral infection. There is some debate on how long antibodies remain in one's system after the virus is neutralized, but we know that antibodies are the method by which all viral infections are neutralized. Once neutralized, an accurate test would not show positive.

So we can add up the number of known cases, the number of unknown cases due to lack of testing, and the number of uninfected individuals who previously survived an infection, and it is quite possible that we are getting very close to herd immunity. The decreasing death rate bears this hypothesis out; those highly susceptible to the virus have mostly already succumbed to it.

We can thank Andrew Cuomo for some of that... he helped ensure a lot of nursing home patients were exposed and died early on.

TheRedneck

a reply to: conspiracy nut

There is no scientific evidence that the lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. That is based on assumptions.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
There is no scientific evidence that the lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. That is based on assumptions.

That is a bold statement coming from someone who just posted:

I believe it is quite possible that we are already nearing the percentage of the population that would be considered as "herd immunity."

You're just NOW coming to this realization? Thought most of us knew what was up by April....

a reply to: daskakik

Oh, forgive me... care to point out the control group we used to compare the effects of a lockdown with the effects of no lockdown?

I stated an opinion... the poster I replied to made an incorrect assumptive statement (we calls that a "lie" down heah).

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
"I would hate to think..." sounds similar to "I believe..."

There is no control group to compare to just like there is no "number of unknown cases" to add up. Assumptions all around.

a reply to: daskakik

There is no control group to compare to just like there is no "number of unknown cases" to add up. Assumptions all around.

You're right that there is no control group, and that means there is no way to say for certain what would have happened had there been no lockdown. We don't know. We can likely never know now, since the data is so corrupted.

However, as to "unknown cases," we do have information there: from The Atlantic dated April 16:

There is clearly some group of Americans who have the coronavirus but who don’t show up in official figures. Now, using a statistic that has just become reliable, we can estimate the size of that group—and peek at the rest of the iceberg.

According to the Tracking Project’s figures, nearly one in five people who get tested for the coronavirus in the United States is found to have it. In other words, the country has what is called a “test-positivity rate” of nearly 20 percent.

Based on a population of 311 million people, that would give an expected case count of almost 62 million three months ago. That's a far, far cry from the number of known cases even now! So we can say with some certainty that there are a substantial number of unknown cases.

Sorry that doesn't fit your political narrative, but this ain't about politics. This is about science, and science doesn't work the way you want it to.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: daskakik

There is no control group to compare to just like there is no "number of unknown cases" to add up. Assumptions all around.

You're right that there is no control group, and that means there is no way to say for certain what would have happened had there been no lockdown. We don't know. We can likely never know now, since the data is so corrupted.

However, as to "unknown cases," we do have information there: from The Atlantic dated April 16:

There is clearly some group of Americans who have the coronavirus but who don’t show up in official figures. Now, using a statistic that has just become reliable, we can estimate the size of that group—and peek at the rest of the iceberg.

According to the Tracking Project’s figures, nearly one in five people who get tested for the coronavirus in the United States is found to have it. In other words, the country has what is called a “test-positivity rate” of nearly 20 percent.

Based on a population of 311 million people, that would give an expected case count of almost 62 million three months ago. That's a far, far cry from the number of known cases even now! So we can say with some certainty that there are a substantial number of unknown cases.

Sorry that doesn't fit your political narrative, but this ain't about politics. This is about science, and science doesn't work the way you want it to.

TheRedneck

Not about politics? All you know is if those numbers are legit that's how many people died after testing positive. Every doctor and some governor's have been saying that for months, that they're told to rule any death that possibly could be COVID as COVID ..I'm sorry, that's with or without a test being performed all the time.

And 27 trillion dollars taken and earmarked by the FEDs private investors to hand over to the real estate entities who do business for them and done right alongside the initial announcement of a possible virus in China? As if they know that American real estate is about to be cheeeeeeap and available?

This is a way now that the dollar has failed, and we are pumping in trillions and trillions to make it look normal, but the rich are just trying to line pockets one last time to ensure they're not in the effected class of slaves were all in. And if course, it draws disdain toward Trump who is blamed for the dumbest things....look at twitter.com look at any Trump story. Or CNN on YouTube. It's almost alarming and definitely disgusting the things they pull out of what's happening with incredible mental gymnastics. Soros puts about her 250 million into BLM to keep rioting? Something huge is about to happen and by this time next year or so we will likely know what it is.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: av8r007

Lies , Damn lies and statistics.
They may not matter to you but each one of those 144,000 deaths matter to the people who have lost anyone in that number , their percentage of the population makes no difference.

No doubt if there was a Democrat in the big chair those 144,000 deaths would be a bigger deal.

Just the mere fact that Swine Flu occurred during Obama/Biden (D) and had more of an impact statistically in every way possible, proves your post completely 100% false.

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

Not about politics? All you know is if those numbers are legit that's how many people died after testing positive.

That's my point. The virus doesn't care about politics (although if one watches the news long enough, one could easily deduce that it votes Democrat). The infusion of politics into what is a scientific discussion has only made it impossible to state death rates by number of cases. Heck, we can't even get an accurate death count now... but we can say one thing and one thing only about it:

The death rate for the entire population ranges from a maximum of .06% down to infinitesimal.

That's all we know about the severity. It's all we can know about the severity.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CobaltCPD

TOTAL CURRENTLY KNOWN INFECTED.
4,170,000.

331,000,000, the total population has NOT been exposed to the virus yet.

4 Million infected / 147,000 dead = 3-4% fatality rate. (3.7%ish technically but I like to round)

Yes, the death rate based on infected numbers is what the media keeps talking about (or did, back when the known cases was low and the death rate was high). However, that statistic is meaningless because no one knows how many people have the virus. All of the recent cries to shut down the economy again are based on known cases increasing.

In order to ascertain how many people are infected, we would need to conduct a randomized sampling of the population and test them. We could get a reasonable idea how many were infected that way. Instead, we are including numbers from the early months of 2020 when only those who showed symptoms were being tested (along with many cases reported that were reported based only on symptoms). Of course the death rate was high per number of cases... all of the cases were people who were already in serious condition!

It's like saying that 100% of dead people stop breathing... no duh, Sherlock!

So, with the actual numbers being so muddled for so long, the only reliable base number is population. We have a pretty good idea how many people there are, and even though the death numbers have been padded, we can still say that there are no more deaths than are reported. At this time, that is the only metric that seems to have any basis in reality.

I believe it is quite possible that we are already nearing the percentage of the population that would be considered as "herd immunity." Recall that the majority of people who get this disease either have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. People with no symptoms do not generally take the opportunity to get a test done, so the probability that there are many unknown positive infections is quite high. Also, the tests show if a person has a viral infection, not whether one had a viral infection. There is some debate on how long antibodies remain in one's system after the virus is neutralized, but we know that antibodies are the method by which all viral infections are neutralized. Once neutralized, an accurate test would not show positive.

So we can add up the number of known cases, the number of unknown cases due to lack of testing, and the number of uninfected individuals who previously survived an infection, and it is quite possible that we are getting very close to herd immunity. The decreasing death rate bears this hypothesis out; those highly susceptible to the virus have mostly already succumbed to it.

We can thank Andrew Cuomo for some of that... he helped ensure a lot of nursing home patients were exposed and died early on.

TheRedneck

I disagree. Instead of arguing I'm going to let you make your point, but you have to actually solidify your point.

You said we are approaching herd immunity. When we hit herd immunity the number of infections will nose dive. So call it, call a date. Or choose how many people will be dead before herd immunity hits nationwide. Put it in hard numbers. I did.

200,000+ dead by the end of the year is my prediction. 2 million dead b4 herd immunity kicks in.

a reply to: CobaltCPD

I disagree. Instead of arguing I'm going to let you make your point, but you have to actually solidify your point.

Fair enough.

You claim 200,000 dead by the end of the year and 2 million+ dead before herd immunity kicks in. I say under 200,000 dead by the end of the year, and herd immunity kicking in by then (herd immunity being a nosedive in hospitalizations, not cases... immunity means the disease is quickly cured without medical assistance, not that it doesn't exist; even polio still exists).

See you on January 1.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CobaltCPD

I disagree. Instead of arguing I'm going to let you make your point, but you have to actually solidify your point.

Fair enough.

You claim 200,000 dead by the end of the year and 2 million+ dead before herd immunity kicks in. I say under 200,000 dead by the end of the year, and herd immunity kicking in by then (herd immunity being a nosedive in hospitalizations, not cases... immunity means the disease is quickly cured without medical assistance, not that it doesn't exist; even polio still exists).

See you on January 1.

TheRedneck

Herd immunity does not mean the entire population is immune, nor does it mean the disease is cured.

a reply to: TheRedneck
This isn't about politics but about you hiding behind "it's just my opinion" while bashing someone else for posting their opinion.

I think it is safe to assume that many infections are unaccounted for as well as isolation having an affect on the spread of a communicable disease.

I don't have a problem with either "opinion".

a reply to: CobaltCPD

Herd immunity does not mean the entire population is immune, nor does it mean the disease is cured.

Agreed. Herd immunity will occur, IMO, when the number of hospitalizations needed drops to a minimal level. At that point, most people catching it will not become sick from it due to their natural immunity.

That's why I put so little stock in tests. People who get the flu shot each year can catch and test positive for the flu, but they will normally experience no symptoms and fight the flu off very quickly... often without ever knowing they had it.

We seem to be in agreement on everything except the prognosis. And that is now documented.

TheRedneck

a reply to: daskakik

This isn't about politics but about you hiding behind "it's just my opinion" while bashing someone else for posting their opinion.

I think it is safe to assume that many infections are unaccounted for as well as isolation having an affect on the spread of a communicable disease.

If your opinion is that the lockdowns have helped, I can accept that. You stated it as though it were fact; it is not. We have no way to know if the lockdowns did any good, because there is no baseline.

We also cannot state that the lockdowns did no good. Believe it or not, that is not my opinion... my opinion right now on the lockdowns is that we do not know. I question whether they did any good; that's not the same thing.

On the other hand, there is scientific evidence that the number of cases is grossly under-represented in present reports. You even mention this above and claim "it is safe to assume" that this is true. That is an opinion based on evidence; the question of the lockdowns is an opinion based on lack of evidence.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: conspiracy nut
There is no scientific evidence that the lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. That is based on assumptions.

Exactly. There was no control group. From what I've seen, the lockdowns never stopped the spread of the virus, only possibly slowed it down. That means the primary result of the lockdown has been to severely damage the economy.