re: Do the math. It is almost impossible for an American to die of COVID-19.

quote:

---

Where are you not allowed to go outside?

---

In a neighborhood full of Karen.

quote:

---

you do realize that even nyc hospitals never got "overwhelmed" right?

---

As predicted, if mitigation efforts work, people will say it wasn't necessary.

But this is another argument from ignorance.

quote:

---

there is no reason to use the word "severity."

---

What word do you suggest we use to describe the level of "badness" then? Keep in mind that the severity of a situation could very well be minuscule.

quote:

---

you are intentionally overselling the situation to create a crisis that matches your reasoning. that's called cooking the evidence.

---

I am selling the situation as realistically as possible. You are the one throwing out wild accusations at health care workers and health departments to try to "cook the evidence" in a certain direction.

quote:

---

i'm stating facts. you are sensationalizing

---

I think the true CFR will end up somewhere between 0.3% and 1.0%. This is not in ANY way "sensationalizing" things. This estimated range is backed by numerous studies and a lot of data.

quote:

---

Except according to the NYC data, that is already an impossibility. At present, 0.1% of the population of NYC has already died of Covid. In other words, we would have to assume that 100% of the residents of NYC have already been infected in order for the mortality rate to drop to flu levels, much less below flu levels.

---

But I don't live in New York and I would like to go out for pizza.

quote:

---

again, you don't even understand what you're critiquing, which explains why you and moss are making such stupid comments. no one is asking for that. no one. the question is the methodology which is leading to the RESPONSE. if comorbidities are being included in the 19 mortality numbers, fine. at least they're being honest about it. and since they are, then we can feel more assured that the virus isn't as bad as advertised and not something that should stop relatively normal socio-economic activity. it's a simple correlation. well, for most people.

---

Did you miss the part where I said I don't think the shutdown is warranted?

quote:

---

and here is the point of debate. and it's very debatable.

---

It's really not, though. We know what the disease can do to people. We know how sick they get. We also know that people live for decades with heart disease, obesity, hypertension, etc. Could one of these conditions have been the actual cause of death during the few weeks that they happened to be ill with covid? Absolutely. Are the odds at all significant? Absolutely no chance. It's silly to even try to argue this. Just downright laughable.

quote:

---

i couldn't care less about the methodological tradition

---

Clearly. I am proud of you for using "couldn't care less" correctly, though.

quote:

---

i care about how it's fostering the socio-economic response of fear mongering.

---

I care about that too. I just don't believe that accurately reporting on reality is "fear mongering".

quote:

---

and you are factually wrong on this matter, according to birx and fauci. you have been corrected on this. to continue to make a factually wrong claim is just a waste of time and you're only deluding yourself.

---

quote:

---

no, i did not.

---

The fact that you still don't understand that you are doing exactly that tells me that you are not equipped to have this discussion.

quote:

---

As predicted, if mitigation efforts work, people will say it wasn't necessary.

---

the only mitigation efforts that "worked" in any appreciable, measurable manner were those that kept the most at risk demographic isolated - senior citizens. given that most people who contract the virus are asymptomatic, there's no way a karen like you would ever be able to know with any amount of certainty that any mitigation efforts worked on those who are not the most at risk. if they worked significantly, then the virus wasn't nearly as deadly as advertised because the numbers have been so low. if they didn't work, then many people caught it and just didn't present symptoms which makes it not as deadly as advertised. it's one or the other but both lead to the same conclusion. either they worked or didn't and for someone to say they know, like you're doing, is unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

What word do you suggest we use to describe the level of "badness" then?

---

one that doesn't imply that the virus was "severe" to the extent we needed these draconian socio-economic measures and think that they actually did anything worthwhile in a broad sense.

quote:

---

You are the one throwing out wild accusations at health care workers and health departments to try to "cook the evidence" in a certain direction.

---

oh my gosh. this does not even CLOSELY resemble ANYTHING i have said. i quoted the cdc. i said YOU are the one cooking the evidence through your reasoning. and then you're complicating things by trying to trot out rhetorical fallacies that you aren't even applying correctly. honestly, until you slow down and comprehend what's being said, you should probably refrain from the conversation because you're all over the place.

quote:

---

This is not in ANY way "sensationalizing" things

---

your opinion of the cfr was not what i was referring to when using that term. again, you can't accurately reproduce the position you are trying to critique which is causing you to make all sorts of ridiculous statements.

quote:

---

This estimated range is backed by numerous studies and a lot of data.

---

totally different topic but, the "studies" and data have not fared well throughout this episode. you saying you're relying on that is par for the course

quote:

---

It's a real shame that this must be explained.

---

you're right. reasonable people are intuitive enough to contextualize the numbers. you don't seem to be in that camp.

quote:

---

it is OVERWHELMINGLY likely that covid is the cause of death.

---

this is highly, highly debatable and this is precisely what is being debated because it is a big part of what is causing the overly dramatic response.

quote:

---

what do you think are the sheer fricking odds that one of their other conditions, which they have presumably been living with for years, was the actual cause of death?

---

the odds could be sky high for all we know. you're trying to act like you and these cdc guidelines can know all counterfactuals. it's completely stupid and most people can see through it.

quote:

---

I'll give you a hint: practically zero.

---

in your opinion

quote:

---

My point is that YOUR point lacks evidence.

---

i am not the one pretending i can know all counterfactuals. i simply quoted the cdc officials and stated that the political response to their methodology is specious, which is a fact. and given the increasing resistance to the response and the climate of this forum, it seems i'm not alone.

quote:

---

This is a clear and obvious case of shifting the burden of proof.

---

ah geez. yes, asking you to back up your claim is shifting the burden.

quote:

---

Again, this is classic conspiracy theorist behavior.

---

i have at no time endorsed any sort of conspiracy theory. i quoted the cdc and how it relates to the response. i have not said that the cdc is doing anything secret in regards to the mortality.

if you couldn't fight strawmen, would you have ANYTHING to say?

quote:

---

Your wife is a whore. Prove that she is not.

---

you realize i could do this, right? easily.

quote:

---

However, you can NOT prove that she is NOT a whore, because there will always be the possibility that she is.

---

did you get educated by comic books? you're trying to talk about epistemology and you don't understand the first thing about it. i suppose you are trying to cite hume, but doing it poorly. if you can account for a person's whereabouts/activity (hume's regularity), you can very well eliminate the possibility in a bounded system. this is done in courts of law every day. this is just getting bizarre.

quote:

---

So the default assumption MUST be that she is NOT a whore, even though it cannot be proven.

---

and then you somehow land on this convoluted conclusion which is not a logical outworking of your bizarre wife scenario and has basically nothing to do with this discussion.

quote:

---

But you take those words to mean something that they don't.

---

nope. i understood them perfectly. as did most everyone else. most people know they don't know all counterfactuals like you are trying to pretend you do.

quote:

---

This is another logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

---

listen, i don't know where you think you are getting your rhetorical training from but, FIRE THEM. they have totally failed at educating you. i made no appeal to authority. i cited someone who cited the state of nyc. it's just the facts of what was reported. just raw data. my word

my advice, stop playing with epistemological toys that you don't understand.

quote:

---

You are acting like there is a problem with the guidelines and how they are implemented.

---

news flash: it's not just me. it's basically every reasonable person who has a problem with it. yeah, it's creating a problem. you have a nation locked down because nyc got some cases of the virus. no reasonable person thinks that's an appropriate response. the response was based on fear mongering and the morbidity reporting is fueling that.

quote:

---

First of all, it's hilarious that you are calling your numerous logical fallacies "made up discussion rules".

---

thinking that there is a burden of proof on a discussion board - yeah. that's made up. thinking that you also weren't making a claim that required substantiation - yeah. that's made up.

quote:

---

I just don't believe that accurately reporting on reality is "fear mongering".

---

the reporting is not the actual fear mongering.

quote:

---

The fact that you still don't understand that you are doing exactly that tells me that you are not equipped to have this discussion

---

when you stop misapplying concepts, maybe this comment will have some validity.

quote:

---

Antonio Moss

---

it's a good thing you're staying out of this one. you would probably just wind up getting hurt

quote:

---

one that doesn't imply that the virus was "severe"

---

It's not my fault that you misunderstood the term "severity" to imply that something is, indeed, "severe".

quote:

---

oh my gosh. this does not even CLOSELY resemble ANYTHING i have said. i quoted the cdc.

---

And what is your reason for quoting the CDC if not to imply that the guidelines are inflating the numbers?

quote:

---

honestly, until you slow down and comprehend what's being said, you should probably refrain from the conversation because you're all over the place.

---

quote:

---

totally different topic but, the "studies" and data have not fared well throughout this episode. you saying you're relying on that is par for the course

---

I do my own studying, as well. Do you?

quote:

---

you're right. reasonable people are intuitive enough to contextualize the numbers. you don't seem to be in that camp.

---

quote:

---

this is highly, highly debatable and this is precisely what is being debated because it is a big part of what is causing the overly dramatic response.

---

Again, it's really not debatable.

quote:

---

the odds could be sky high for all we know.

---

This tells me all I need to know about your understanding of statistics and probability.

quote:

---

ah geez. yes, asking you to back up your claim is shifting the burden.

---

It absolutely is. You made a baseless claim that the covid deaths are inflated, which you are trying to pass off as "simply quoting the CDC". You even started talking to me in defense of the guy saying that they're coding "everything" as covid. It is clear what you are implying, and also clear that your opinion is not simply a quote of the CDC.

So don't try to crawfish now. You have made it quite obvious that you think the numbers are inflated. And such a claim requires evidence, or it will be dismissed. And that's what I did, I dismissed it. That is what should happen to baseless claims. And now you are demanding proof that it is baseless! That's absurd! All you have to do is provide one piece of evidence to back your claim. Instead, you're trying to put the burden on me to prove that all the data is perfect.

It's really hard to imagine a more textbook example of shifting the burden of proof.

quote:

---

i have at no time endorsed any sort of conspiracy theory. i quoted the cdc

---

Again, you have made it quite clear that you believe the numbers to be inflated. That is far from simply quoting the CDC.

quote:

---

you realize i could do this, right? easily.

---

Do it.

quote:

---

did you get educated by comic books? you're trying to talk about epistemology and you don't understand the first thing about it. i suppose you are trying to cite hume, but doing it poorly. if you can account for a person's whereabouts/activity (hume's regularity), you can very well eliminate the possibility in a bounded system. this is done in courts of law every day. this is just getting bizarre.

---

That is a huge "if". We aren't talking about an alibi for a day or week. We are talking about the entirety of an adult life. Or, in the case of covid data, we need the details of tens of thousands of lives. Like I said before, we cannot prove a negative. Unless you claim to be omniscient?

quote:

---

i made no appeal to authority. i cited someone who cited the state of nyc. it's just the facts of what was reported. just raw data. my word

---

Except you didn't cite any "raw data". You said Brit Hume "ran some numbers" and yadda yadda in your face, basically. Classic appeal to authority.

quote:

---

thinking that there is a burden of proof on a discussion board - yeah. that's made up. thinking that you also weren't making a claim that required substantiation - yeah. that's made up.

---

If you don't back up your claims, then it's just more meaningless drivel. Fits in with the rest of this board, I guess. And maybe you should go back and read the thread. A baseless claim was made, which I dismissed as "not true". Back to the wife example, should I have to prove that she is a whore, or will you allow me to force you to prove that she is not?

quote:

---

Fits in with the rest of this board, I guess.

---

frick you

quote:

---

A baseless claim was made, which I dismissed as "not true".

---

All this panic shite and only a few 10's of thousands will die

Let's go with 100,000.


100,000/330,000,000 = 0.0303%
3 100ths of a percent = "almost impossible for an American to die of it"


idiot

But by God we have spent up into 8 figures per death to stop it and that number would still be high 7 figures if a million deaths were "prevented"

Now post more horse shite and insult the board.

quote:

---

Are fatal car wrecks "almost impossible"? Because tomorrow 20 times more people will die of covid-19 than will die in car accidents.

---

So still less deaths than diabetes? Ohhhh wait....forgot that gets tagged under “probably covid19 death” now so never mind it’s still more

Bad news Korkstand and others pulling for the virus. It has been determined by Gov. labs to be a SARS flu version and as such is slowed down in N. America by late spring and summer sunlight, longer days, heat and humidity. and also he fact that people are outside more. This phenom is somewhat unique to America, btw, but SARS is fixing to hit a downward spiral. Oh the flu survives and yes spreads in summer time even with a vaccine and so will this virus but not to the extent that it has.