(07-27-2020 05:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 04:08 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 01:40 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  It's been all about politics since Day 1

Absolutely...by the end of this the mortality rate will be around 1%...I don’t believe anything these people say about this

Nobody with any knowledge thinks its that high. The best estimates are around .25% to .50%.

So why are we locked down?

"I content if Hillary had won the election in 2016, there would have been no Covid-19, no pandemic...simply no need to destroy our Nation’s economy and kill thousands of Conservative voters."



Correction: if Killery had been president there wouldn't be a need for Chiflu to destroy the economy the Socialists in her administration would have accomplished that themselves.

(07-27-2020 05:59 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 05:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 04:08 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 01:40 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  It's been all about politics since Day 1

Absolutely...by the end of this the mortality rate will be around 1%...I don’t believe anything these people say about this

Nobody with any knowledge thinks its that high. The best estimates are around .25% to .50%.

So why are we locked down?

Because its extremely communicable and we've already seen how much worse that death rate can get if it rips through an area unchecked.

Also, .5% is a 1 in 200 chance of death (obviously affected by risk factors etc). I wouldn't call that no big deal.

If that were the real number I'd agree with you.

There is no way to have a conversation with someone who will simply discredit the facts every time they run out of arguments.

If they are "facts", then prove them with numbers without using CNN or MSNBC in your proof. Like, say, show me where those numbers are on the CDC website. I'll wait.

(07-27-2020 07:40 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  If they are "facts", then prove them with numbers without using CNN or MSNBC in your proof. Like, say, show me where those numbers are on the CDC website. I'll wait.

CDC is estimating 0.5% IFR on their site and uses that to make its estimates of fatalities in different scenarios: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...s.html#box

You can see they use 0.005 as the "fatality ratio" and that is 0.5%.

Quote:Parameter Values that vary among the five COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios. The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not (CDC emphasis) predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19. The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19. Additional parameter values might be added in the future (e.g., population density, household transmission, and/or race and ethnicity).

Not hard data. Next?

(07-27-2020 07:18 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Also, .5% is a 1 in 200 chance of death (obviously affected by risk factors etc). I wouldn't call that no big deal.

Well the regular flue is about 1/4th that.

And a couple of different studies estimate the lockdowns killed 25-30,000 people from March to May.

Foregone procedures, suicides and overdoses of drugs. That doesn't count the long term deaths that unemployment leads to.

Of course they don't know for sure. What you are asking for is not possible until this thing is over. The fact is, the best estimates that we have from top experts are in that 0.5% range. Which to me is still quite high.

So your position is that we should simply gamble on it because YOU think that estimate is too high, and ignore the possible problem (that we've seen happen before) of overrunning hospitals.

(07-27-2020 08:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 07:18 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Also, .5% is a 1 in 200 chance of death (obviously affected by risk factors etc). I wouldn't call that no big deal.

Well the regular flue is about 1/4th that.

Yes and the regular flu, despite being less severe than COVID, is still considered a pretty big deal if you haven't noticed. It's been normalized to most people because we don't think its ever going away, but the flu season is no joke in the medical world.

Since we do have a vaccine that works well enough to basically ensure we won't have capacity issues in a bad flu season, lockdowns and such wouldn't really have any purpose for the flu.

(07-27-2020 08:05 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Of course they don't know for sure. What you are asking for is not possible until this thing is over. The fact is, the best estimates that we have from top experts are in that 0.5% range. Which to me is still quite high.

Not what you originally said. So now you're simply pandering since you cannot backup your own words.

(07-27-2020 08:05 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  So your position is that we should simply gamble on it because YOU think that estimate is too high, and ignore the possible problem (that we've seen happen before) of overrunning hospitals.

Proof of any hospitals being overrun. I'll wait.

(07-27-2020 08:08 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Since we do have a vaccine that works well enough to basically ensure we won't have capacity issues in a bad flu season, lockdowns and such wouldn't really have any purpose for the flu.

Proof of this too, cause that's BS. Only a small percentage of the population even gets a flu shot.

(07-27-2020 07:17 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 05:59 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 05:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 04:08 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 01:40 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  It's been all about politics since Day 1

Absolutely...by the end of this the mortality rate will be around 1%...I don’t believe anything these people say about this

Nobody with any knowledge thinks its that high. The best estimates are around .25% to .50%.

So why are we locked down?

Because its extremely communicable and we've already seen how much worse that death rate can get if it rips through an area unchecked.

Now this came from China so take it for what its worth. But if you are going to say, not true at least back it up with a report/study.

Quote:The results show that overall, the rate of infection among household members was 16.3%, with adults facing a greater likelihood of infection than children.

I found this study on the flu

Quote:We reviewed published studies and found that once one household member is infected with influenza, the risk of infection in a household contact can be up to 38%, and the delay between onset in index and secondary cases is around 3 days. Younger age was associated with higher susceptibility.Nov 21, 2015

Before someone stars pointing out the deaths over the last few months compare to flu deaths over a year....

60+ % of COVID deaths are from asst living/nursing homes.

To those under 40 and healthy COVID is a mild to bad cold for most. That's totally different with the flu because the flu will kill and do damage to the young and healthy.

Now if there's only 16.3% of families, spreading it at home its twice as likely that you will catch the flu from a spouse than COVID. Lets look at this extremely communicable...

we are talking couples having sex, can you get any closer? Parents hugging and kissing their children.

At some point we will need to get back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and let those healthy people go about their life as this world has always done. Those sick, older people need to understand they are the ones that have a greater chance of dying.

So they need to stay away from those younger family members till we find a treatment. Most older people do this with the flu, they get their shot and try to avoid sick people.

From the beginning of modern times the world has attacked problems like this just with personal responsibility and those at risk knowing they are just that. The world also accepted there would be deaths....

what changed in 2020?

(07-27-2020 08:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  what changed in 2020?

<raises hand> Trump is up for reelection?

(07-27-2020 08:11 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 08:08 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Since we do have a vaccine that works well enough to basically ensure we won't have capacity issues in a bad flu season, lockdowns and such wouldn't really have any purpose for the flu.

Proof of this too, cause that's BS. Only a small percentage of the population even gets a flu shot.

According to the CDC it only has a 45% effective rate and I bet 10% of that is granny staying home during winter months

(07-27-2020 08:09 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 08:05 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Of course they don't know for sure. What you are asking for is not possible until this thing is over. The fact is, the best estimates that we have from top experts are in that 0.5% range. Which to me is still quite high.

Not what you originally said. So now you're simply pandering since you cannot backup your own words.

(07-27-2020 08:05 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  So your position is that we should simply gamble on it because YOU think that estimate is too high, and ignore the possible problem (that we've seen happen before) of overrunning hospitals.

Proof of any hospitals being overrun. I'll wait.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/nyc-hospi...dent-warns

Morgues too.

https://talentrecap.com/scary-footage-of...avirus/amp

We all know about what happened in Europe too.

(07-27-2020 08:11 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 08:08 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Since we do have a vaccine that works well enough to basically ensure we won't have capacity issues in a bad flu season, lockdowns and such wouldn't really have any purpose for the flu.

Proof of this too, cause that's BS. Only a small percentage of the population even gets a flu shot.

https://thenationshealth.aphapublication...t/47/9/E45

47% of people took it in 2017, more in the 65+ demographic. So that's quite a bit of protection and progress toward herd immunity, for the strains the vaccine covers.

"Flu vaccine prevents millions of illnesses and flu-related doctor’s visits each year. For example, during 2017-2018, flu vaccination prevented an estimated 6.2 million influenza illnesses, 3.2 million influenza-associated medical visits, 91,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations, and 5,700 influenza-associated deaths."

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/va...weffective