- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Rush just hit a world series grand slam
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:04 pm to doubleb
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:04 pm to doubleb
You said this:
You now say this:
I have no idea what your point is.
quote:(emphasis mine)
What is ironic is that a lot of these ardent Trump guys blame everyone but Trump for shutting down the economy to stop a hoax.
You now say this:
quote:
It’s a fact that no one shut down the economy.
I have no idea what your point is.
0
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:15 pm to Indefatigable
quote:no. didn't say that
you actually think that social activity is at pre-covid levels?
quote:some. probably not as much as you think
You don’t think there has been any change at all in the amount of people visiting businesses?
quote:i already commented on how this is not totally relevant
It’s an objective fact that less people are going to social activities
quote:i would think someone who didn't actually understand what i said would post something like this
What a blatantly ridiculous position to take on your part
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:15 pm to MIZ_USA
quote:Proof? and no we don't shut shite down when its H1N1 but you know OMB.
Dipshit, that’s 60k with full social distancing. We don’t shut everything down to mitigate seasonal flu.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:19 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:you have been corrected on this numerous times in multiple threads. you have been proven factually wrong on this matter. the models were crap. that is a fact. even the CDC IS ADMITTING THIS
Categorically false
quote:so you're calling the cdc liars. are you stupid? they've admitted it and it has been discussed widely on this board
Categorically false
quote:i'm starting to think you are really stupid. it's absolutely relevant. if most people are asymptomatic, there is no way to ever tell how well the social mitigation is working. no way. you know why right?
ultimately pretty irrelevant as to this topic
quote:since you responded with blatant lies, this response can go right in the trash bin
Untrue
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:20 pm to MIZ_USA
quote:
Dipshit, that’s 60k with full social distancing. We don’t shut everything down to mitigate seasonal flu.
Yeah instead we have Vaccine with 43% effective rate
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:36 pm to bfniii
quote:
Categorically false
you have been corrected on this numerous times in multiple threads. you have been proven factually wrong on this matter. the models were crap. that is a fact. even the CDC IS ADMITTING THIS
No one has come close to correcting me on this issue. Saying "nu-uh" with your fingers in your ears is not "correcting".
But please explain, in detail, how the models were false.
And, no, the CDC never admitted they were false.
quote:
Categorically false
so you're calling the cdc liars. are you stupid? they've admitted it and it has been discussed widely on this board
The only people who think the CDC "admitted" to overcounting COVID deaths are people incapable of basic reading comprehension.
I just posted the CDC guidelines in another thread, go look at them and tell me what is so objectionable.
quote:
i'm starting to think you are really stupid. it's absolutely relevant. if most people are asymptomatic, there is no way to ever tell how well the social mitigation is working. no way. you know why right?
Its incredibly relevant for herd immunity but irrelevant for this discussion. Unless you believe that the percentage of asymptotic carriers radically changed once we started social distancing, then we can look at the effects of social distancing without needing to look at asymptomatic carriers.
Here is the problem. You just keep parroting these talking points you get from the board without looking at the sources behind them. You so desperately desire an outcome where you can prove that this whole COVID is a charade that you will accept anything, true or untrue, at face value so long as it supports your preconceived notion. Its confirmation bias but worse because you also accept and parrot things that are legitimately false because it supports your position.
This post was edited on 4/8/20 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:57 pm to doubleb
quote:but the reaction was based on the models which were political to begin with and never really intended to be accurate, especially given that most people are asymptomatic. it was a fear mongering, crisis inducing, sky is falling cash grab the whole time. not even nyc, one of the worst hotspots in the world, came anywhere near being "overwhelmed." it was a huge joke.
Flattening the curve was intended to keep hospitals open for new patients
Posted on 4/8/20 at 5:59 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
But please explain, in detail, how the models were false.
You know the models do things besides predict deaths with a huge-arse window that anybody could have hit, right? You know they predicted peak dates, number of beds needed, ICU beds needed, etc? All of those predicted shortages were the driver behind the entire "flatten the curve" stuff. If there are no bed shortages then flatten the curve does zero, zip, nada.
And you know they whiffed, badly, on those numbers, right? That qualifies to most people as "false", although I have zero doubt you're about to present the forum with some mental gymnastics that will amaze and stun the crowd.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 6:00 pm to RobbBobb
quote:nyc started closing schools, etc, in early march yet still got hit hard. cali barely got hit at all proportionately speaking. of course, chicken littles are going to say "it would have been so much worse." but that is complete speculation. fla closed beaches in late march and has a huge population of seniors. they should have gotten pummeled with deaths. social mitigation was a band aid on an elephant. it was totally civilian control under the guise of MUH MODELS
And yet the US didn't social distance until March 15th
Posted on 4/8/20 at 6:02 pm to MIZ_USA
quote:
Dipshit, that’s 60k with full social distancing. We don’t shut everything down to mitigate seasonal flu.
We are not even close to full social distancing. The New York subways are still packed. People are still going to grocery stores and to pickup up food at restaurants. Doctors and nurses are treating the sick and still going home to their families and getting gas and groceries and picking up food. And so on.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 6:27 pm to MIZ_USA
quote:we do have vaccines for it tho. Retard
Dipshit, that’s 60k with full social distancing. We don’t shut everything down to mitigate seasonal flu.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 6:32 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:oh my word. you just described yourself and what you are doing. you are wrong. EVEN THE CDC HAS ADMITTED IT DORK. the models have been publicly revised downward. that is a fact.
No one has come close to correcting me on this issue. Saying "nu-uh" with your fingers in your ears is not "correcting".
quote:i'll let birx explain it to you herself
But please explain, in detail, how the models were false.
quote:lie
And, no, the CDC never admitted they were false
quote:you're acting like you post information that never gets refuted. congrats on being stupid
I just posted the CDC guidelines in another thread, go look at them and tell me what is so objectionable
quote:YOU CAN'T LOOK AT ASYMPTOMATIC CARRIERS because no one knows how many there are. therefore, no one will EVER know how much social mitigation worked. therefore, your conclusion is stupid. it doesn't matter if asymptomatic carriers increased or decreased. the point is you don't know which means you can't say with any certainty that anything worked at all. i have cited several examples of how social mitigation isn't really working based on proximity and frequency of social interaction.
Unless you believe that the percentage of asymptotic carriers radically changed once we started social distancing, then we can look at the effects of social distancing without needing to look at asymptomatic carriers
you can't have it both ways. most of the country has done little to no social mitigation and isn't experiencing the outbreak which means the models were wrong. if the models were right, then early adopters like nyc should have better numbers.
one mistake you are making is conflating a nyc numbers with national numbers in relation to the national models. this was primarily a nyc problem. the rest of the country has hardly noticed this outbreak. until you stop doing that, basically nothing you say on the matter is valuable.
also, you are misusing the word "asymptotic." i'm pretty sure you mean to say asymptomatic.
quote:otherwise known as facts. tell me what i said that's not factual
You just keep parroting these talking points
quote:and here is your problem. i have at no time, not once, said anything of the sort. the virus is not a charade. it was overblown (fact) and the reaction was unnecessary (fact).
You so desperately desire an outcome where you can prove that this whole COVID is a charade
quote:name one thing
you also accept and parrot things that are legitimately false
Posted on 4/8/20 at 6:35 pm to Flats
quote:
You know the models do things besides predict deaths with a huge-arse window that anybody could have hit, right?
THIS!! "Shaded areas indicate uncertainty"
Posted on 4/8/20 at 7:32 pm to bfniii
quote:
But please explain, in detail, how the models were false.
i'll let birx explain it to you herself
Admit it. You just read the title and didn't actually watch the video.
She never once says the models were "false"; she clearly states that the models were readjusted when the new data "on the ground" came in. Of course that happened. Every model in the history of models adjusts with new data. The upper range of the data came way down because the new data on the ground showed much lower transmissions rates and better mortality. This has a lot do with the Chinese and the WHO being incompetent (WHO) and evil (Chinese) bastards who released bad information to the rest of the world. Yet the original models still accounted for this because the low end runs of the original March 26th model are still below actual results and new (as of April 8th) model ranges.
quote:
YOU CAN'T LOOK AT ASYMPTOMATIC CARRIERS because no one knows how many there are. therefore, no one will EVER know how much social mitigation worked.
Ok, I'll break this down for you in simple terms. Asymptomatic carriers are some constant. We may not exactly know that constant but we can safely assume it's a constant. Meaning that in every large the population some percentage of people will be asymptomatic. The Tawain model, which seems to be the most accurate, put's it at 40-60% so we can use that but in reality that number doesn't matter for this discussion so long as it is constant.
So, if we assume asymptomatic carriers are 50% of all infected, 30% will get mild cases, and 20% will need hospitalization, and in an initial surge we get 30 patients infected with mild symptoms and confirmed tests and 20 patients hospitalized, then we can safely assume that about 50 people in the population are asymptomatic.
Now, if a week later we get 60 people hospitalized, then we can probably assume you will have 90 patients with mild symptoms, and 150 asymptomatic.
If the spread doubles the next week, you would have 120, 180, and respectively 300.
Now, you institute social distancing measures. You measure their effectiveness without knowing the asymptomatic number because it's a constant. If after two weeks of social distancing, you drop to 90 mild, confirmed cases and 60 hospitalized, you can safely assume social distancing has worked even without knowing the raw number of asymptomatic because you know the percentages of the other two groups and those percentage distributions are constant.
So like I said a long time ago, having a lot of asymptomatic carriers is great for things like herd immunity but we do not need to know that actual number to determine if social distancing is working ... which it very clearly is.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 7:38 pm to MIZ_USA
quote:
Dipshit, that’s 60k with full social distancing. We don’t shut everything down to mitigate seasonal flu.
There's absolutely no proof that the distancing and shutdown did anything. We didn't have enough testing to prove anything.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 7:40 pm to MIZ_USA
quote:
We don’t shut everything down to mitigate seasonal flu.
That's exactly the point, dolt.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 7:48 pm to bogeypro
quote:
There's absolutely no proof that the distancing and shutdown did anything. We didn't have enough testing to prove anything.
There is absolutely no proof that it didn’t help.
Posted on 4/8/20 at 8:00 pm to doubleb
quote:
The average flu season isn’t close to 60K US deaths. Rush struck out.
It’s crazy to think we have so many more deaths from COVID than we do the flu seeing how we have that COVID vaccination that people can take each year. Oh wait, it’s the flu we have a vaccine for and still have tens of thousands of deaths each year. Point Rush!
Posted on 4/8/20 at 8:01 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
She never once says the models were "false"; she clearly states that the models were readjusted when the new data "on the ground" came in. Of course that happened
so they were revised downward. your response is what's called sophistry. the response was predicated on the models. the models were way off and pretty much any person with a brain knew they were gratuitous. the response was overblown. i also noticed you dropped the issue of the deaths being reported incorrectly, which the cdc also admitted.
quote:EXCEPT WHEN THEY'RE ACCURATE TO BEGIN WITH.
Every model in the history of models adjusts with new data
quote:which basically anyone with a brain and doesn't have a handle of antonio moss could plainly see
This has a lot do with the Chinese and the WHO being incompetent (WHO) and evil (Chinese) bastards who released bad information to the rest of the world
quote:ranges being the keyword. like when models predict that a hurricane could land in nc or the yucatan.
Yet the original models still accounted for this because the low end runs of the original March 26th model are still below actual results and new (as of April 8th) model ranges
quote:
The Tawain model
quote:you just don't even get it do you? how many times does it have to be explained to you? the rest of your conjecture is worthless and you don't even know it
if we assume asymptomatic carriers are 50%
quote:total gobbledygook. based on nothing. makes no sense. you can't measure precisely because you don't know the number of people who have it that were never confirmed. therefore, you have NO IDEA whether the social mitigation worked or not. no kinsa fever map is going to account for that at all. not one bit.
You measure their effectiveness without knowing the asymptomatic number because it's a constant
quote:your reasoning on this matter is beyond suspect. it's like you're a used car salesman.
which it very clearly is
Posted on 4/8/20 at 8:02 pm to doubleb
quote:and this is the stupidity of the people who support shutting down the country. they admit they don't even know if the response was worth it. totally unreasonable and not sensible at all. this is what our country has become. a nation of imbeciles. we deserve what we get.
There is absolutely no proof that it didn’t help
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News