re: Running average of 49 worldwide antibody studies is showing a mortality rate of 0.23%

quote:

---

Until some methodology is developed to study the effect of social distancing we have no idea if it actually reduced the rate of infection. Saying it did is just speculation, not science.

---

Uh it did, and there is no doubt about this. We have been studying the way viruses are passed on for over a century. What more do you want?

It sounds like you're asking for an impossible study because we can't control every variable. We would have to do multiple "runs" with the same virus among the same population while controlling for everything except social distancing. Just ain't happening.

quote:

---

Until some methodology is developed to study the effect of social distancing we have no idea if it actually reduced the rate of infection. Saying it did is just speculation, not science.

---

Sure it worked. Too well. It delayed us getting through this nonsense. Now, when we finally hit the start button, it’ll still be months before it runs it’s course. Without stay at home orders, we very well could have been on the back end of all this by now.

quote:

---

Everything we needed to know about this virus was given to us by the Diamond Princess back in February.

---

That report called for a 0.5% mortality rate while the “experts” were still touting 4%. It also had the infection rate pegged at 17% while sky screamers were going on about this novel virus with no natural immunity.

I never saw a single thing about that report anywhere except for 1 thread here, and it only went for a couple pages at most.

Was there ever anything that came out on passenger demographics?

quote:

---

Uh it did, and there is no doubt about this. We have been studying the way viruses are passed on for over a century. What more do you want?

---

Explain Sweden, which did not “lockdown” yet has almost the same number of deaths per million as the US.

quote:

---

This is a bold faced lie

---

I said "most diseases" and "roughly the same proportions", which is absolutely true. About 85% of all flu deaths are age 65+.

quote:

---

you should not ever be listened to again

---

quote:

---

Usually, virus strains are more serious for those under 3(and then a slope until you reach about 12), similar to how it effects the elderly

---

Hm ok, usually, but not always (the 17-18 flu hardly affected <3 at all). And though it may be more serious for children under 3 than it is for older kids, it is still much, MUCH more serious for older people. The difference is stark. And the rest of the age groups are in line, as well. In fact, if presented with unlabeled charts of mortality rates by age group, you could likely not tell the difference between various flus and covid.

quote:

---

Covid however does not have that effect

---

You think we have enough data to know that definitively? Your entire argument is based on child deaths on the order of ~100 out of several million infected by flu in that age group.

Get your shite together before you try to discredit me.

quote:

---

However, if you really want a very rough comparison between a lockdown vs social distancing, you should compare Sweden vs. an area of similar population AND population density, like Arizona. Arizona is at 65 deaths per million, while Sweden is at 300.

---

Wouldn't the climate in Arizona likely explain at least some of that difference?

quote:

---

Wouldn't the climate in Arizona likely explain at least some of that difference?

---

Probably, along with the date of first infection or first death, or the date it really started spreading at a decent rate. Also culture, demographics, and probably a hundred other variables that we can't account for.

It's a pointless exercise, really.

The only way to measure the impact that social distancing or a full lockdown really has would be with a time machine.

Other than that impossibility, we just have to use the knowledge we've accumulated about how viruses spread. If you kiss a sick person, chances are pretty fricking high that you'll get what they have. If you just shake hands, chances are much lower but still relatively high. If you wash your hands soon after, chances are lower still. And if you avoid that person altogether, then you won't catch anything from that person.

This is just really, really basic shite, and I can't believe that in the year two thousand fricking twenty we actually have people arguing that it's only "speculation" that we can slow the rate of spread by practicing these things on a wide scale. It blows my fricking mind.

quote:

---

I'm still in awe this data wasn't taken more seriously.

You had a perfect pietri dish and a closed system. Who could have asked for a better real world experiment?

Probably even skewed to the worst case since the average population on a cruise ship is higher than the norm.

---

I think it was and still is taken seriously. But while it is a decent size sample, it's really not big enough to extrapolate to the rest of the world.

I can't find the ages of all the Diamond Princess deaths, but just taking the raw numbers 19% of the population was infected, and the CFR was 2%. That is very high, and likely due to the age skew as you mentioned. And we are only talking about 14 total deaths, so once you break it down by age group there will only be single digit deaths per each. That's not enough to draw any sort of conclusion.

quote:

---

Can one of the epidemiologists here explain that 66% of the positive tests in NYC were people sheltering in place? If it is so infectious, what is the purpose of the lockdown?

---

It was just what the newly sick admitted to, that outside of work they were mostly sheltering in place. So it’s still possible they got it from riding the subway to work, going to the grocery store, or from someone else in their household or inner circle.

I also think there’s likely a lot of bias toward people not admitting they are being more social.

I also think it’s very likely in the future our testing is proven to be crappy and more people are either ‘immune’ to getting it or got it and didn’t know. Therefore a large majority of the only people left in places like NYC that haven’t been exposed are those sheltering in place. So no one else is left to get it but those trying to live cautiously therefore they are a large portion of the new cases.

Re read what I said...grocery store, visitors from their inner circle, etc.

Do you think a fairy gave it to them?

Do I think people and the media lie? Fricking yes