- 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: That data is in—stop the panic-end isolation... Stanford Doctor explains....
Posted on 4/24/20 at 2:44 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Posted on 4/24/20 at 2:44 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
WaWaWeeWa
Can you guys not contain your scare tactics to your stickied thread
quote:
the inability to understand statistics on this board is embarrassing
I think pretty much everyone has figured out that the statistics are crap and we are at this point just flinging poo at the wall to see what sticks.
0
Posted on 4/24/20 at 2:52 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Yea that’s the current rate because we curbed the infection. It’s not the infection fatality rate. In other words, he makes it sound like you have a 0.01% chance of dying if you get infected.
So, what is your chance of dying if you get infected and are 18 to 45?
Posted on 4/24/20 at 2:54 pm to Tcalman
Probably the best piece I've read to date on this situation 
Posted on 4/24/20 at 3:32 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Yea that’s the current rate because we curbed the infection. It’s not the infection fatality rate. In other words, he makes it sound like you have a 0.01% chance of dying if you get infected. That’s not what his statistic is saying, but I’m sure that’s not how it will be interpreted here.
Well, thats a possibility, but you’re making a speculative claim yourself. We do NOT know that the quarantine efforts were effective and/or to what degree. But we can certainly compare stats (as non-standardized as they are) between areas that quarantined and those that didn’t, which seems to indicate that for various possible reasons, it didn’t seem to make that much difference.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 3:37 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Yea that’s the current rate because we curbed the infection. It’s not the infection fatality rate. In other words, he makes it sound like you have a 0.01% chance of dying if you get infected. That’s not what his statistic is saying, but I’m sure that’s not how it will be interpreted here
Are you proposing a lockdown till a vaccine is created and can be massively distributed?
Posted on 4/24/20 at 4:20 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
So, what is your chance of dying if you get infected and are 18 to 45
Pretty much a big fat zero..
unless you are a big fat zero.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 7:41 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
But the inability to understand statistics on this board is embarrassing
My dad taught me that you've lost the debate once you start throwing out insults. As far as the debate itself, I find his case more covincing than yours.
Posted on 4/24/20 at 7:46 pm to roadGator
But but but, the party of science
Posted on 4/25/20 at 2:42 am to Tcalman
quote:
Wow you TDS folks don’t to humor and sarcasm do you? Sad!
I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again. How exactly do I have TDS?
What’s sad is that you assume everyone that disagrees with you is against Trump or has “TDS”. You cannot get more brainwashed partisan than that.
Posted on 4/25/20 at 3:25 am to LSU2a
quote:
There were deaths due to COVID19 outside of hospitals that went uncounted so even if they are being overzealous its probably a wash anyway.
So the fact that people are lying on purpose to jack up the virus numbers is covered by the fact that they probably don't know what they are talking about at all?
Got it
Science!
Posted on 4/25/20 at 3:52 am to Tcalman
quote:^^THIS is a giant step toward segragation, and the denial of Constitutional rights based on an age discrimination. That is ALL it is. (well, maybe a hint of impending Euthanasia tossed in there)
The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19.
1) He equates "older people" with "ones with underlying conditions" - this is intellectually dishonest (at best - idiologically murderous at worst)
2) There are 50,000,000 Americans over the age of 70. 40,000 or 100,000 flu-like deaths is not grounds to separate Seniors from their Condtitutional rights.
3) These 50,000,000 Americans are the most active voting group, BY FAR. Want to KILL Trump's chances in November? Easy. Disenfranchise the over-70's... piss THEM off.
4) And if pissing them off isn't enough, then give Chuckie and Nancy a free pass to Force Mail-In voting for Seniors... to PROTECT them. What could possibly go wrong with that????
This post was edited on 4/25/20 at 3:56 am
Posted on 4/25/20 at 7:25 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Yea that’s the current rate because we curbed the infection. It’s not the infection fatality rate. In other words, he makes it sound like you have a 0.01% chance of dying if you get infected. That’s not what his statistic is saying, but I’m sure that’s not how it will be interpreted here.
What he is saying is, up until this point that was your chance of dying. It doesn’t say anything about your chances going forward.
Wtf are u saying? I mean it's very likely that was/will be are pretty close. Even if it doubles in the future (which is very improbable) ur looking at .02%? I'll take my chances. I'm much more likely to die from car crash, cancer, etc than this right now. What a goofball statement.
Posted on 4/25/20 at 7:59 am to Tcalman
What most people keep forgetting: The purpose of the lockdown was to slow the spread of the virus so that the hospitals and health care workers could handle the influx and get prepared for the long haul.
That. Has. Happened.
The purpose of the slow reopening is to allow businesses to rev back up based upon their state’s guidelines, which are based upon federal recommendations. No state should continue its current stay-at-home order. Rather, each should switch to an emphasis upon social distancing and sanitary practices. Vulnerable people should continue to practice the precautions they’ve been following.
It’s time to get back to work.
That. Has. Happened.
The purpose of the slow reopening is to allow businesses to rev back up based upon their state’s guidelines, which are based upon federal recommendations. No state should continue its current stay-at-home order. Rather, each should switch to an emphasis upon social distancing and sanitary practices. Vulnerable people should continue to practice the precautions they’ve been following.
It’s time to get back to work.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News