- 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: Some Math for the Karens and Kevins on why this is LESS deadly than flu
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:28 am to WaydownSouth
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:28 am to WaydownSouth
You do realize we are simply making fun of your retarded math and not your overall point, right?
0
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:30 am to Rep520
I think yesterday's sample study of New York state finding that 14% have antibodies is significant. Is it that crazy to think that in 2 more weeks its possible that at least 10% of the countries population has antibodies?
This post was edited on 4/24/20 at 10:31 am
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:30 am to WaydownSouth
That's some fancy number massaging to make a point.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:31 am to WaydownSouth
quote:
The same study you are referencing even says
Yea I’m trying to help you out by posting the study that best helps your case even though it has obvious flaws and it still doesn’t come close to your ridiculous math. What does that tell you?
This post was edited on 4/24/20 at 10:34 am
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:32 am to upgrayedd
3-4 times is likely too low. I think after everything that's come out this week you could argue that number is 10 times.
This post was edited on 4/24/20 at 10:33 am
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:33 am to setinways
quote:
Is it that crazy to think that in 2 more weeks its possible that at least 10% of the countries population has antibodies?
Yes it is because 90% of the country doesn’t have near the deaths that the hotspots that have 10-20% infection have.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:33 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
But did they? Or did they die of being fat
Well y’all are gonna have to pick how you want it because the flu numbers that constantly gets brought up are based on very broad and general criteria similar to the shenanigans with COVID-19.
It’s why most epidemiological verbiage uses the term ILI (influenza like illness) rather than just influenza.
You can’t take one number as fact and “downgrade” the other.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:34 am to Salmon
quote:
if we are going by the antibody studies, its like 3-4x higher than the amount being projected
Didn't the preliminary results from New York antibody testing estimate 14% statewide there (20% in NYC ranging to 3% out in the sticks)?
With those sorts of numbers and the likelihood this was here earlier than initially suspected (first death in CA 2.6.20) and how infectious it seems to be, 12% might not be a terrible estimate.
This post was edited on 4/24/20 at 10:48 am
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:34 am to WaWaWeeWa
Dear team flu:
If your actual argument is that this is not the apocalypse, so we shouldn't tank the economy like it was - just make that argument. Drop the fricking flu analogy, its fundamentally untrue and easily debunked.
Fact is, your argument doesn't depend on if its as deadly as the flu or more deadly. There really isn't an a number between 1x flu and 10x flu where your preferred path forward would change (10x small number is still small number in some sense).
Making the argument that its "LESS deadly than the flu" only implies that if data comes back and says its MORE deadly, you'd change your opinion on what to do going forward - which isn't the case.
If your actual argument is that this is not the apocalypse, so we shouldn't tank the economy like it was - just make that argument. Drop the fricking flu analogy, its fundamentally untrue and easily debunked.
Fact is, your argument doesn't depend on if its as deadly as the flu or more deadly. There really isn't an a number between 1x flu and 10x flu where your preferred path forward would change (10x small number is still small number in some sense).
Making the argument that its "LESS deadly than the flu" only implies that if data comes back and says its MORE deadly, you'd change your opinion on what to do going forward - which isn't the case.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:35 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
If that's the case then that's bullshite.
There’s another dynamic that has been going on in Baton Rouge. There have been a number of deaths at the Lake where the patient was admitted for other reasons, like bacterial infections, but the patients died due to extreme respiratory issues, looking like Covid, but they made the intentional decision not to test for Covid. My Doc buddy at the Lake says that deaths are being under counted in that hospital.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:37 am to BRIllini07
quote:It is emotionally based flailing. The opposite side of the same coin as the Karen and Kevin they use to try to dismiss people that won't get in line with them.
Dear team flu:
If your actual argument is that this is not the apocalypse, so we shouldn't tank the economy like it was - just make that argument. Drop the fricking flu analogy, its fundamentally untrue and easily debunked.
Fact is, your argument doesn't depend on if its as deadly as the flu or more deadly. There really isn't an a number between 1x flu and 10x flu where your preferred path forward would change (10x small number is still small number in some sense).
Making the argument that its "LESS deadly than the flu" only implies that if data comes back and says its MORE deadly, you'd change your opinion on what to do going forward - which isn't the case.
This post was edited on 4/24/20 at 10:38 am
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:37 am to setinways
quote:
I think yesterday's sample study of New York state finding that 14% have antibodies is significant. Is it that crazy to think that in 2 more weeks its possible that at least 10% of the countries population has antibodies?
Eh, New York has over 30% of the total confirmed cases in the US. It's not particularly representative of the total US.
People talking about the California antibody test, that pegged under 5% of the population in a state with 40 million people.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:38 am to BRIllini07
Exactly. Just say it’s time to get back to work. I agree.
It doesn’t have to be less deadly than the flu for you to say that.
It doesn’t have to be less deadly than the flu for you to say that.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:38 am to WaydownSouth
Your math isn’t far off, because the antibody tests are showing around 13-14% infected. The mortality rate is mere fraction of what is being reported. Probably the 0.2% range.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:38 am to WaWaWeeWa
I'm not going to argue because no one truly knows st this point. The thing is that most of the population lives in crowded areas so those numbers really sway the total count. Also, I'm not sure if this has been brought up but how many children were tested for antibodies? How much did this virus run thru schools before they were cancelled. How many of our kids have antibodies? Thst percentage could be larger in that group. Kids are our biggest hope for herd immunity.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:39 am to WaWaWeeWa
Also this from confirmed cases. I have a feeling that people have been dealing with this virus since November.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:40 am to Antonio Moss
I’ve posted this before:
Keeping it simple, we’ve been told from the beginning that 80% of the people who get infected will not know it. So if there are 828,441 confirmed cases we can assume there are roughly 4,142,205 total infected. Using that number the mortality is actually about 1.1%. Much higher than the flu but not nearly as bad as we are being told.
Keeping it simple, we’ve been told from the beginning that 80% of the people who get infected will not know it. So if there are 828,441 confirmed cases we can assume there are roughly 4,142,205 total infected. Using that number the mortality is actually about 1.1%. Much higher than the flu but not nearly as bad as we are being told.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:40 am to WaydownSouth
how did the gather all you trumpkins for a picture.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:40 am to Rep520
Ok but California's total cases are lower per capital than others. I bet that 5% of the population is multiple (like 20 times) higher th as n their "case count"
Posted on 4/24/20 at 10:41 am to TigrrrDad
quote:
Your math isn’t far off, because the antibody tests are showing around 13-14% infected.
only 1 done in NY, which was high due to NYC, which currently has like 30% of the total confirmed cases
it wouldn't seem to be smart to extrapolate that to the population in Iowa
also the CA antibody test was 1.5-4%
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News