- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Covid19 is now officially a hoax
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:33 am to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:33 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
That still doesn't tell us our reaction was worth the ultimate cost.
I'm not saying it was or wasn't - it's likely too early to know, if we will ever know - I'm just saying.
This is a legitimate point and question. OP would have done better to deal with this instead of claiming the virus is a hoax and saying 2.5 to 3.5 more deadly than the flu is barely more than the flu.
If someone told you that you'd pay two and a half times the taxes you do now, would you be cool with it because that's barely more than you pay now?
2
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:35 am to Rep520
quote:This is what reasonable people take from this. However, this whole pandemic has placed a magnifying glass on how do many people engage in confirmation bias.
This is a legitimate point and question. OP would have done better to deal with this instead of claiming the virus is a hoax and saying 2.5 to 3.5 more deadly than the flu is barely more than the flu.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:36 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
I don't know of anyone who gets the flu and doesn't realize it.
People can carry the flu virus and never show symptoms. The incubation period for showing symptoms is much smaller though compared to Covid19. I think the average incubation for the flu is 2 days, whereas it can be up to 14 days for Covid19. Think of how many more people you interact with in 2 days compared to 14 days.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:36 am to PearlJam
quote:
Interesting. Can you link the evidence? I would like to read more on that.
It's common sense. The people that are dying now are dying with medical care. To the degree that medical care is available, the rate of deaths would be the same (obviously not the total number). If the healthcare system is overrun, the ballgame changes.
This was the fundamental strategy behind distancing. The idea is we can't be at a point where healthcare isn't available because then the death rate would go up.
The meaningfulness of this study is that if the number of people who have antibodies is at say 5%, the death rate is basically .1% which is pretty much your average flu season.
A reasonable person would conclude that we shouldn't have shut down the economy for that unless the healthcare system wouldn't have been able to handle the cases and provide quality care. I guess that's debatable.
This post was edited on 4/21/20 at 10:44 am
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:37 am to LordSaintly
quote:
While I’m glad this virus seems to be slowing down, it’s certainly not a hoax.
Agreed. I don't know how I'm still surprised at the ignorance on this board
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:37 am to PearlJam
quote:
quote:
Social distancing doesn't affect death rate unless the spread is so out of control that the healthcare system can't keep up.
Interesting. Can you link the evidence? I would like to read more on that.
I believe he was just trying to point out that social distancing doesn't empirically affect the odds that you will die from this disease should you become infected. Social distancing is intended to keep you from being infected in the first place.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:37 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Is it no where near as deadly as feared?
Seems like it to me.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:39 am to jimmyb1234
The OT in a nutshell:
Article that says something that supports my belief: didn't even have to read to know it's objective fact.
Article that contradicts my belief: lol CNN? You're really posting that fake news here?
This place is a case study in confirmation bias.
Article that says something that supports my belief: didn't even have to read to know it's objective fact.
Article that contradicts my belief: lol CNN? You're really posting that fake news here?
This place is a case study in confirmation bias.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:40 am to jimmyb1234
The virus is certainly not a hoax. However, these numbers indicate what I've been saying all along - the precautions we have taken are one massive overreaction to something that kills maybe 2 or 3 people in 1,000.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:40 am to LSUBoo
God damn it. I think I confused you with BooCrew
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:42 am to Rep520
quote:
If someone told you that you'd pay two and a half times the taxes you do now, would you be cool with it because that's barely more than you pay now?
Everything is relative.
If someone told you that you could pay 2.5 times the taxes you pay now so that you could mitigate the risk of a flu season that's 2.5 times more deadly than usual, would you do it?
If they initially told you it would be thousands of times more deadly, didn't give you a choice, and you later found out it was only 2-3 times more deadly, would you feel cheated?
Looking at numbers in a vacuum is stupid. 2.5 times my savings is significant. 2.5 times my chances of winning the lottery is not significant.
In this case, if the death rate ends up being 3 times higher than the flu, we made a terrible, terrible choice. And, reasonable people will ask if the mistake was honest and unfortunate, or intentional.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:44 am to moneyg
quote:Yes. I edited my post a few minutes before you responded. I misunderstood you at first.
It's common sense.
quote:Agreed, but it prevents the spread, which will not affecting death rate, does affect overall number of deaths. This, even if this study showed death rate equal to the flu, that death rare may not be acceptable if this virus spreads to 10 times more people than the flu.
This was the fundamental strategy behind distancing. The idea is we can't be at a point where healthcare isn't available because then the death rate would go up.
quote:I agree that it is debatable. I'm not advocating that all of the measures taken everywhere have been the right decisions. I only responded to your comment where it appeared inconsistent with itself.
A reasonable person would conclude that we shouldn't have shut down the economy for that unless the healthcare system wouldn't have been able to handle the cases and provide quality care. I guess that's debatable.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:45 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
God damn it. I think I confused you with BooCrew
It happens.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:45 am to moneyg
quote:Only if you also assume or prove that the infection rate is equal or less than the flu without the distancing measures. Right?
In this case, if the death rate ends up being 3 times higher than the flu, we made a terrible, terrible choice.
Edit: ftr, my opinion at the moment is that we likely overreacted by shutting things down in a lot of places that have been minimally affected-including most areas in my state. But I also don't really know, so my opinion isn't held very strongly.
This post was edited on 4/21/20 at 10:57 am
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:48 am to Rep520
quote:
You say Covid is a hoax and then post a bunch of stuff about how it exists.
That's what the OP fails to understand. The restrictions in place because of it can be argued, but to say the virus itself is a hoax simply isn't true.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:51 am to jimmyb1234
quote:
In addition this revelation, check out the reporters on the hot mic admitting it was a hoax:
reporters and the media are fricking morons, this is your evidence?
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:51 am to moneyg
quote:If it was "intentional" in the sense that economic activity all around the world was slowed down for some nefarious purpose, then there was a truly global conspiracy involving the governments of basically every major nation in the world (including many who view one another as mortal enemies), huge numbers of high profile epidemiologists who have dedicated their lives to this field, a broad swath of international businesses, and dozens of other nonstate actors, many of whom normally can't agree on anything.
And, reasonable people will ask if the mistake was honest and unfortunate, or intentional.
I'll let you judge how likely that is.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:56 am to Joshjrn
quote:quote:
This is huge if true. The numbers in this report imply that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 ranges from 0.27% - 0.357%, barely above the seasonal flu's rate of .1%. And it's entirely possible COVID deaths are being overcounted, so the true rate could be even lower.
In raw numbers, sure. I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm not sure if "three times more deadly than the flu" counts as "barely above" in any practical sense
To an idiot, it all counts.
My go to meme in these situations.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:59 am to PearlJam
quote:
Only if you also assume or prove that the infection rate is equal or less than the flu without the distancing measures. Right?
No. We should never have considered destroying our economy for a death rate that low.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 11:00 am to moneyg
quote:What of there was an infection rate 20 times greater than flu?
We should never have considered destroying our economy for a death rate that low.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News