The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[QMany]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

WOW....

 

In other words, you have no answer for how stupid and self serving your dear leader is.

I just came to post this.

 

Pence's response is complete gibberish BS.

[TGHusker]

A voice of reason when the people at the top are clueless

 

 

[Undone]

13 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

A voice of reason when the people at the top are clueless

 

 

 

Meh. I'd prefer to have my "voice of reason" served up with a side of actual statistics.

We need an update on the actual death rate from Fauci. He said in this address that we will "be seeing more deaths." Cool story, bro. What is the death rate?

Because that's critical to this conversation. In March, we were told it was 3%. That was actually quite scary. Then, around May 20th-ish, the CDC released its report finding that using its best available data at that point, it was actually .4% - meaning, the original estimate of 3% was off by an over 700% margin of error.

Another month has passed. Where is the calculated death rate at, Fauci?

[RedSavage]

6 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Meh. I'd prefer to have my "voice of reason" served up with a side of actual statistics.

We need an update on the actual death rate from Fauci. He said in this address that we will "be seeing more deaths." Cool story, bro. What is the death rate?

Because that's critical to this conversation. In March, we were told it was 3%. That was actually quite scary. Then, around May 20th-ish, the CDC released its report found that using its best available data at that point, it was actually .4% - meaning, the original estimate of 3% was off by an over 700% margin of error.

Another month has passed. Where is the calculated death rate at, Fauci?

I haven't seen it, so if it's out there, somebody please show it to me but in the same vein, how many of the increased positive numbers are from asymptomatic people?

[Undone]

2 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

I haven't seen it, so if it's out there, somebody please show it to me but in the same vein, how many of the increased positive numbers are from asymptomatic people?

 

Yep.

You'd think more people would objectively be asking this same question. Because this occurrence would then of course lower the actual, aggregate death rate.

[Moiraine]

12 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Meh. I'd prefer to have my "voice of reason" served up with a side of actual statistics.

We need an update on the actual death rate from Fauci. He said in this address that we will "be seeing more deaths." Cool story, bro. What is the death rate?

Because that's critical to this conversation. In March, we were told it was 3%. That was actually quite scary. Then, around May 20th-ish, the CDC released its report finding that using its best available data at that point, it was actually .4% - meaning, the original estimate of 3% was off by an over 700% margin of error.

Another month has passed. Where is the calculated death rate at, Fauci?

 

 

He's attempting to reach regular people. People ignore the #s anyway.

The 3% was the current deaths/cases at that time, it wasn't an estimate of what the mortality rate would be.

Knowing the exact mortality rate isn't that important right now. Total cases, hospitalization rate and hospital capacity are the most important. Even if the mortality rate is very low, we don't have immunity, so there's potential for a lot of people to get it in a short amount of time. The ability to care for patients is the #1 most important factor. It's the bottle neck that should be the main concern when making policy decisions. Because if hospitals fill up it affects people getting treated for other health issues.

[TGHusker]

11 minutes ago, Undone said:

Another month has passed. Where is the calculated death rate at, Fauci?

Most like the president doesn't want it published - only a guess but based on how he thinks the # of positive cases reflects poorly on him - I think it is a fair assumption.

[Undone]

I think it's fair to take the death rate into consideration in terms of how worried an individual or society should be about something affecting them. So to that end, I disagree with this statement, Moiraine:
 

6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Knowing the exact mortality rate isn't that important right now.

 

However, there's nothing I can really find to disagree with in terms of this statement:
 

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

The ability to care for patients is the #1 most important factor.

 

You'll probably say "You missed my point; my point is that the one completely trumps the other." Again, I just happen to disagree.

[Undone]

7 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Most like the president doesn't want it published - only a guess but based on how he thinks the # of positive cases reflects poorly on him - I think it is a fair assumption.

 

I'm not really sure what to do with this reply.

 

You originally stated that Fauci's address was "a voice of reason." In the video, he says there'll be more deaths. Is this some kind of monumental conclusion?

A pathogen with ability to kill that hasn't reached herd immunity in a population will result in more deaths...not exactly a brilliant comment.

[BigRedBuster]

31 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Meh. I'd prefer to have my "voice of reason" served up with a side of actual statistics.

We need an update on the actual death rate from Fauci. He said in this address that we will "be seeing more deaths." Cool story, bro. What is the death rate?

Because that's critical to this conversation. In March, we were told it was 3%. That was actually quite scary. Then, around May 20th-ish, the CDC released its report finding that using its best available data at that point, it was actually .4% - meaning, the original estimate of 3% was off by an over 700% margin of error.

Another month has passed. Where is the calculated death rate at, Fauci?

 

[Moiraine]

17 minutes ago, Undone said:

I think it's fair to take the death rate into consideration in terms of how worried an individual or society should be about something affecting them. So to that end, I disagree with this statement, Moiraine:
 

 

However, there's nothing I can really find to disagree with in terms of this statement:
 

 

You'll probably say "You missed my point; my point is that the one completely trumps the other." Again, I just happen to disagree.

 

 

I definitely don't think death rate doesn't matter. I just think it's the least important of the most important variables, if that makes sense. And of course I'm not saying people dying isn't important, I'm purely talking about policy considerations here. Hospitals filling up is going to lead to a lot of other problems, so it needs to continue to be monitored carefully.

[Undone]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Hospital mortality? Meaning, the ratio of people that die of coronavirus in the hospital after being admitted & treated there for coronavirus?

If "yes," I'm not even sure why you replied with this to me.

I'm talking about the total percentage of the total amount of Americans that have contracted coronovirus - being asymptomatic or symptomatic - and then dying from it.

[Undone]

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I definitely don't think death rate doesn't matter. I just think it's the least important of the most important variables, if that makes sense. And of course I'm not saying people dying isn't important, I'm purely talking about policy considerations here. Hospitals filling up is going to lead to a lot of other problems, so it needs to continue to be monitored carefully.

 

A reasoned take, for sure.

[QMany]

38 minutes ago, Undone said:

Because that's critical to this conversation. In March, we were told it was 3%. That was actually quite scary. Then, around May 20th-ish, the CDC released its report finding that using its best available data at that point, it was actually .4% - meaning, the original estimate of 3% was off by an over 700% margin of error.

 

You're talking about the CDC's COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios, not a mortality report. 

Quote

Each scenario is based on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19. These values—called parameter values—can be used to estimate the possible effects of COVID-19 in U.S. states and localities. The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19.

 

New data on COVID-19 is available daily; information about its biological and epidemiological characteristics remain limited, and uncertainty remains around nearly all parameter values.

 

The parameters in the scenarios:

• Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning.
• Are not predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19.
• Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions.

 

0.4% of the United States is 1,312,800 people.

[Undone]

4 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

You're talking about the CDC's COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios, not a mortality report. 

 

0.4% of the United States is 1,312,800 people.

 

Who put you under the impression that the extrapolation of this is to take .004 and multiply it by the population of the United States? I'm genuinely asking you for an answer.

 

It won't work that way. We don't entirely understand what herd immunity will look like nor reinfection. But if it's like other RNA viruses, herd immunity will take over in a population, and it will not be a thing where:

 

1. Everyone will get it.

2. The death rate will stay flat from where it's at now.

 

Note: I said if it behaves like other RNA viruses.