Lurker > abaddon41_80

GregShmedley posted...

Any opinion that downplays this situation doesn't deserve to be entertained. Any opinion that downplays this situation is 100% incorrect.

This statement is 100% incorrect. You do realize that the reason you consider my opinion to be downplaying the situation is because you do not agree with my opinion, right? Most of what I have said has not even been an opinion. The death counts I gave for the flu and AIDS are facts. The CDC revising their mortality rate from 3% to 0.3% is a fact. The mortality rate for healthy people under 65 years old being essentially 0% is a fact.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

I think everything should be thicker.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

We have been consistently under the daily death projections in the US since this really started in early March. A quick Google search shows that many people predicted a daily death toll of 3000 deaths in the US by the beginning of June, we are barely at half of that right now.

I have no doubt that the COVID-19 death toll will likely surpass the total for the flu, and maybe even AIDS, but to act like it is a certainty is ridiculous. It is entirely possible that the disease is already so widespread that the majority of people who are going to die from it have already been exposted and died and the death rate will slow down drastically in coming months.

Some of you do not like the other side of this discussion, and that is okay because everyone is entitled to their opinion, but do not sit there and act like your opinion is 100% correct, especially when there is plenty of evidence to support the opposite opinion.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

GregShmedley posted...

We are well on the track to pass it in about a 45 days, assuming no major drops in daily deaths. Not seeing your point. Once those numbers are beat, what's the next milestone for you?

Can you show me the projections that show COVID-19 passing the high-end of that estimate in 45 days?

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

GregShmedley posted...

Keyword--estimated. And we are well past the low end of those estimations.

It really gets old having to explain this type of shit to you people.

So you can just assume that the actual flu deaths are on the low-end of the estimates? Even if you take the median from that estimated, which is a fair thing to do, you are looking at around 470k flu deaths annually. Is COVID-19 past that yet?

TommyG663513 posted...

Please no one take the bait for such low effort trolling.

He is attempting to say he is arguing with facts, but his facts are super incorrect.

Which of those facts are incorrect? Just curious, @TommyG663513 .

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

DoctorPiranha3 posted...

The worst flu season in a while was 2018, and that was 80K deaths in a 6 month timespan. So that's factually wrong, Covid has been much deadlier.

Worldwide, the flu kills an estimated 291k to 646k people annually. I am not just looking at numbers in the US.

umax555 posted...

I hope that's a good thing, but it's also Memorial Day weekend so reporting might be down quite a bit. Deaths do seem to be trending down, but new cases have been pretty steady these last couple weeks after they had been decreasing prior to that. Hard to say which direction things will go in the coming weeks.

Overall cases are going to continue to increase but that is due to an overall increase in testing. Considering that anywhere from 35-50% of people are completely asymptomatic, an increase in testing is going to catch more cases. Providing the infection rate remains constant, an increase in testing is going to result in an increase in confirmed cases.

The CDC just changed their CFR estimate from 3% to 0.3%.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

I am not downplaying anything, though. I am well aware of the deaths and the death rate. The total deaths worldwide, as of now, are likely not even to the level of the flu deaths in a year and nowhere near the death count of AIDs on a annual basis. Those are facts.

The death rate may pick up again soon, though most experts believer it will remain relatively constant, but we do not know that. We do not know how things are going to go right now, but so far the projections on the death toll have been consistently far too high. No matter where you look, the death rate has been on a decline even when social distancing guidelines were relaxed in the beginning of May,

The numbers show that the only people this disease really poses a serious risk to, meaning death, are the elderly and those with previously existing medical conditions. Those are the people who should take serious precautions in order to avoid the disease. Those under 65 with no pre-existing conditions have nearly a 0% chance of dying from COVID-19.

The reason I argue against the response to COVID-19 so much is simply because most of the media reports are nothing but fear-mongering hysteria meant to boost ratings. People take those reports and make further sensationalist statements without any real knowledge. People need to know the facts and the numbers and very few people have taken the time to actually do that research. If they did, there would still be a healthy, rational fear of this pandemic instead of a hysterical, irrational fear.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Having a different opinion than you, or others, is not trolling. I have done nothing more than post statistical facts. If you want to argue that facts that is fine, I am happy to do it, but do not dismiss things as trolling just because you disagree.

I am not going to insult any of you, regardless of how much I disagree with you. Some similar level of respect and civility would be nice.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Tired-Insomniac posted...

I think I know why Trump supporters keep downplaying the tens and soon to be hundreds of thousands of dead people

They can't count that high

Or because the flu, between 291k and 646k, and AIDS, between 570k and 1.mil, have both likely killed more in the past year than COVID-19. When, or if, the COVID-19 deaths exceed the high-end estimate for even the flu is when people might start taking it more seriously. I doubt the worldwide death toll will ever exceed AIDS but I do not see anyone on this message board talking about what should be done to slow down AIDS.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

hockeybub89 posted...

Yeah if I want to piss on your head, it's your responsibility to get out of the way.

In this metaphor, are you implying that you would not attempt to get out of the way if someone was peeing on your head?

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Despite having a global pandemic, the argument could be made that at this point in time, which is likely the low point, the economy is still stronger than it was during the Obama administration. If the trends pre-COVID had continued, it wouldn't even be a discussion. America was definitely on its way until the pandemic completely shut most things down.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

These older and at-risk people really need to act more responsibly.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Very, very average-looking.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Every day I see the left gloating about how poorly these generally right-wing states are handling the pandemic but, in actuality, the top five states in deaths/1m people are all left-wing states. Ring-wing states only have three of the top 12 in terms of deaths/1m people.

California, being praised for their response, has nearly twice the deaths/1m people as Texas and pretty much the same as Florida, two states being ridiculed for their response.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

This topic itself is gloating about how Sweden's response isn't working, and several posters in this topic alone are clearly gloating.

The worst part is that the topic title is false.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

That is what I was looking at, too, but I took out San Marino and Andorra because their populations are so small and the numbers get skewed.

I like how so many people in this topic are just taking TC's information without doing any research and congratulating themselves on how right they were.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

What is your source for this belief? I see Belgium, Spain, Italy, France, and the UK all with higher deaths/1mil than Sweden.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

daynlokki posted...

The data doesnt support that because the states controlling the data arent reporting truthfully. The data didnt support human to human transmission per the WHO at the beginning of this, probably because China had the only data, much like the states control their own.

My bad. I forgot there is a massive conspiracy where every state and country is covering up the actual data in order to try to make this seem worse than it really is.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

It's not the relaxation of the rules that would lead to more infections. It's the people not doing it.

The main problem is that you can be asymptomatic and still spread the virus, so large groups of people not following social distancing guidelines is probably going to result in more infections.

It is okay to have the hypothesis that people not following social distancing guidelines is probably going to result in a higher infection rate but, so far, the data does not seem to support that hypothesis. We won't really know if relaxed social distancing led to a higher infection rate for another month, at least. Even if there is an increase in the infection rate, which I do not believe there will be, we will not be able directly attribute that as the cause.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

I've been at the office since 10:00 with very little to do, most of my regular customers are closed and the only call ins I get are for people asking for PPE, which I do not currently have. I have nothing better to do until I leave at 7:30.

CableZL posted...

Dude... I never said those examples prove the virus is spreading faster. However, at this point it's pretty safe to say that large gatherings like that where people aren't wearing masks or practicing social distancing will cause the virus to spread faster.

That is the point, the data does not show that is a safe assumption. Sweden, who never really implemented any type of guidelines, has had pretty much a straight line for new cases per day since April, for example. At no point has their rate of infection increased in any significant way.

Look at the graphs. On May 1st, Florida had 1037 new confirmed infections. The highest that number has gotten, per this data, in May is 1204 as of yesterday. That is a very slight and not at all statistically significant increase, especially when you consider most days in May have been below 1000. That is why the NY Times lists Florida under the "new cases mostly the same" header.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

The NY Times also lists Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi in that group. The NY Times actually has Illinois trending downward.

There is no statistical evidence for relaxing social distancing rules leading to more confirmed infections and/or a faster rate of infection. That is simply your belief and you are trying to use data to support it, but the data actually supports the other end of the argument.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

I think people refusing to quarantine and follow social distancing guidelines in Florida and everywhere else are going to cause the virus to spread faster.

Examples:

1)
Wiconsin bar right after the state supreme court lifted the stay at home order:
https://i.imgur.com/3tcG6jf.jpg (click to expand)

2)
Ocean City Maryland after the stay at home order ended:
https://i.imgur.com/DjOSXU8.jpg

3)
That Holy Ghost Church in Houston having in-person service as soon as they're legally allowed to, causing multiple members to get COVID-19, and likely causing the death of the priest

It's not just Florida. It's people all over the place acting like it's over when it isn't.

None of this proves the virus is spreading any faster. The daily new cases in the US have had a downward trend since the beginning of May, when some states started easing restrictions. There have been spikes here and there, such as yesterday, but the overall trend had been downward.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

I am not going to continue arguing with you about the statistics because it is clear you do not understand the point of statistics is to try to apply actual numerical values to things but that it is impossible to do it perfectly.

CableZL posted...

The relationship between new tests and new cases hinges purely upon what percentage of people taking the tests are infected. If more people are infected at the time you're doing testing, you're going to get more positive cases. If less people are infected at the time you're doing testing, you'll get less positive cases.

This gets to the root of this entire topic. Do you believe that Florida's response to COVID-19 is going to cause it to spread faster?

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

You're changing your argument repeatedly, so it's more like zigzags.

We have:

1) A positive relationship between X and Y
2) A negative relationship between X and Y
3) No relationsihp between X and Y

Therefore, more X does not cause more Y. More X has happened at the same time as more Y. More X has happened at the same time as less Y. More X has happened at the same time as no significant change in the Y value. Therefore having more X does not cause more Y. If more X caused more Y, more X would never happen at the same time as less Y.

Basic logic.

That is the problem here. That is not basic logic. That is bad statistics. Because there are outside factors, the relationship is not always going to remain constant. That is the point of scatterplots and correlation coefficients, in order to get some idea of the relationship between two variables when the relationship was not constant. If the relationship was always constant, there wouldn't be a scatterplot and a correlation coefficient. A constant relationship is a line graph.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

I haven't changed my argument one time. The data shows a correlation between the increased testing and the increase in positive tests per day, that is a fact. There is definitely a noticeable correlation simply between those two numbers.

I have not once said that the increased testing is the absolute and only cause for the increase in positive tests per day. I believe that it is one of the causes, yes, but that is simply my belief. I am not trying to pass it off as a fact. I also believe there are plenty of other factors involved.

You, on the other hand, are trying to pass off your belief that increased testing could not possibly be a cause at all for the increase in cases per day. You are trying to use the data to support that belief but the data doesn't support that belief. The data, taken 100% by itself and not looking at any other factors, actually supports the opposite beliefe.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

The data shows there is no causation because causation means more X causes more Y.

If more X = more Y, then a situation where more = X less Y cannot happen. This is basic logic.

It is like arguing in circles. For most of the data, more X does equal more Y and less X does equal less Y. That is why there is a noticeable correlation on the data, overall and not just in certain segments. There are some segments where this does not hold true but that does not prove no causation at all, that proves the existence of other variables.

To sit here and look at this limited data and say with certainty there is no causation at all makes very little sense. If there was no noticeble correlation, meaning the correlation coefficient is close to 0, that would be a conclusion you could draw.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

You're completely missing the point that the data in no way shows there is no causation at all. That is something you are trying to infer from the data but the data itself does not prove that. From a purely statistical standpoint, no causation or lack of causation can be inferred from the data. The only thing we can infer from this limited data is a correlation.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

Yes, there is correlation. Not causation.

This shouldn't be that hard.

It really shouldn't be but it clearly is. Correlation does not imply causation. That is a given and something everyone learns in statistics.

What you are doing is taking a correlation coefficient with an absolute value above zero, likely around 0.6 looking at most of the graphs, and saying with absolute certainty that there is no way there is any causation at all. From the data, there is just no way you can say that with certainty. I am not sure why you believe parts of the scatterplot showing certain things automatically proves no causation whatsoever but that just isn't the case, especially when there is a relatively high correlation coeffeciant.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

The data does prove that false because causation means one has a direct relationship with the other. We have seen a positive relationship, a negative relationship, and no relationship at all in different areas at different times.

Therefore, there is no causation between X and Y.

There is a direct relationship. It changes at times but for the length of the scatterplot, there is clearly a correlation coefficient with an absolute value greater than zero.

CableZL posted...

You cannot logically argue that "An increase in tests per day causes an increase in new cases per day" when we have seen all of the following:

1) An increase in tests per day and an increase in new cases per day
2) An increase in tests per day alongside no significant change in new cases per day
3) An increase in tests per day alongside a decrease in new cases per day.

That directly proves that an increase new cases per day does NOT cause an increase in new tests per day. If more X meant more Y, then more X would never happen alongside the same amount of Y or less Y.

Again, the most that proves is the presence of another variable.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

South Korea is yet another example. Daily new tests drastically increased (I'm guessing it's due to the fear of a second outbreak, but not 100% sure), but daily new tests remained almost completely flat.

You're taking out segments of data again. From the beginning of South Korea's graph until around May 1st, there is a clear correlation between tests and new cases. They increase together until early March and then decrease together until early May. The absolute value of the correlation coefficient on that graph is going to be higher than 0.

Early May is when the relationship becomes no longer correlated but that implies the presence of outside factors more than anything else.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

Again, your argument is that an increase in daily testing causes an increase in daily cases. The data proves that is false.

Is daily testing increasing at the same time as daily new cases in some areas? Yes.
Is the increase in daily testing causing the increase in daily new cases? No.

The data does not prove that false. The data is inconclusive because a scatterplot cannot tell you whether causation exists or not. It can only measure correlation.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Correlation does not always imply causation, that is basic statistics.

What you are doing here, though, is seeing a positive correlation on a scatterplot and completely dismissing any possible casual relationship. There might not be a casual relationship but a segment of the graph having a weak correlation does not prove there is no type of casual relationship. There are a million other factors that could contribute to the inverse relationship during that span, and there are a million other factors that could contribute positive correlation for the majority of the scatterplot.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

There is not an inverse relationship between the two values for the length of the scatterplot, though. The overall correlation coefficient is clearly over 0 for those two states.

I will state it this way to make it simple.

1. Would you agree there has been a clear increase in testing rates for both Florida and Texas since May 1st?
2. Would you agree there has been an increase in daily positive tests for both Florida and Texas since May 1st? I already know the answer to this because you said so in posts #99-100.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

Your argument is that increased daily number of tests causes an increase in daily number of cases. The data shows that is false. The timeline in which the argument was proven false is irrelevant because the identities of the two values are still constant. We're still talking about daily tests (X) vs daily cases (Y). Whether we're talking about a month ago, two months ago, or next month is irrelevant in regard to whether that claim is true.

If the daily number of tests increasing directly causes an increase in the daily number of cases, then you would never see an inverse relationship between the two values.

The overall data shows an increase in testing corresponding to an increase in daily number of cases, at least for Texas and Florida. You are picking a segment of that data and disregarding every other segment of the data.

You can absolutely have an inverse relationship for parts of a scatterplot and still have an overall positive correlation coefficient. That is the case here. There is a segment where the correlation coefficient is around 0, it might even dip under 0 in that segment, but for the entire scatterplot of daily cases vs. testing, the correlation coefficient is clearly positive.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

I mentioned that time frame specifically because it shows an inverse relationship between the trends in new cases per day and number of tests per day.

If you have an inverse relationship in the trend of two values, it is nonsensical to say one value increasing causes the other to increase.

If X increases while Y decreases, you cannot logically claim that a past or future increase in the value of X causes an increase in the value of Y.

I didn't think this would be that hard to understand.

Now you are being argumentative and disrespectful when I clearly understand what you are saying for that timeframe. Since that timeframe, though, the number of new cases daily has increased, by your own admission, while the testing has increased at a faster rate. It is not an inverse relationship anymore. The first chart below shows a clear increase in testing and you yourself have stated Texas has shown a clear increase in daily positive tests.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/texas

Do you understand what I am saying? You are trying to apply the relationship from 4/13-4/20 to the time period from 4/21-now even though we have the data for 4/21-now. You do not need to try to apply that relationship.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

So are you trying to apply the increase in tests but decrease in new cases/day from 4/13-4/20 to the period from 4/21-now even though the period from 4/21-now has actual data we can review?

I am honestly just trying to figure out what you are saying. I do not deny that the number of new cases per day remained relatively stagnant from 4/13-4/20 in Texas despite the increase in testing. Since then, though, the amount of new cases per day has increased at a lower rate than the amount of testing being done.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

I think you need to go back and read those posts properly. In those posts, I said they were decreasing at a specific time, April 13th to April 20th. In this same time period, tests per day increased.

Logically, that means an increase in daily tests is not directly tied to the increase in cases per day.

Posts #99-100 specifically state the trend line is going up for May.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

I think you're going to need to make up your mind here.

Again, we've seen an increase in tests with a decrease in positive tests, so you cannot logically make that claim at all.

You have repeatedly said new cases per day in Texas and Florida are increasing, have you not? Your original argument in this topic was that Florida had the most new cases yesterday. Posts #99-100 state, from you, "the trend line is going up in May."

Are new cases per day increasing or decreasing, because you have also repeatedly said they are decreasing, see posts #103 and #133.


---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

Uhh, if more and more people are getting infected per day, it does mean it's spreading faster. If the testing is increasing at a faster rate than the new cases per day and the new cases per day is still increasing, that just means more asymptomatic people are getting tested out of caution while the virus is spreading faster and faster.

The whole point of "flattening the curve" is slowing the spread of the virus.

An increase positive tests per day does not mean it is spreading faster, it means there are more positive tests per day. That increase in positive tests is expected given the increase in testing. It does not prove one way or another if the infection is spreading faster or slower than it previously was. It just proves there are more total cases which, again, is going to be a given since more people are getting tested and many people are asymtomatic.

You are confusing the spread rate with the total infections. What you are arguing would only be meaninful if the testing rate had remained constant.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

That's a meaningless statement, though. We already know more people are getting infected with the virus over time.

The new cases per day is also meaningless by itself because it doesn't mean it is spreading any faster. The new cases per day has to be taken with the increase in testing. If the testing is increasing at a faster rate than the new cases per day it is not spreading any faster, it is just being noticed more.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

April 13th: Texas starts ramping up testing.
April 13th - 20th: Testing numbers increased
April 13th - 20th: New cases per day decreased

So again, you cannot logically say that increased new case count is directly tied to increased daily testing when we see an inverse trend between the two.

I think you are misunderstanding my point on this. I am not saying infection rate/infections per day, what you are referring to as the new case count, is increasing with increased testing. I am saying that total infections are increasing with increased testing, which is an obvious fact.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/texas-coronavirus-cases.html

NY Times actually shows an upward trend in May compared to April with new case counts.

https://i.imgur.com/XpSucAQ.png

That trend line went up in May.

CableZL posted...

https://i.imgur.com/KjzyVle.png

NY Times trend line for Florida is also going up in May.

I agree on both parts, but the NY Times still lists both under the "cases are mostly the same" group. I do not know how they decide that. I would imagine it is based on some method for finding a statistical significance.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Delirious_Beard posted...

do not engage abaddon please

Sure. Do not contribute anything to discussion and just dismiss actual facts. The majority of what I have posted in this topic, and in other topics, have been actual numbers.

CableZL posted...

Texas has had at least 3 days in May of reporting higher numbers than what was ever reported in in a day April. Definitely trending upward in May. Texas has had way more days of 1000 or more cases in May than we ever had in April. Even on the days where it's under 1000, it's still in the ballpark at 915, 965, 988, etc. That's unquestionably an upward trend.

I am just quoting the NY Times in stating Texas is among the states where new cases are mostly the same. That is their take. There has clearly been an increase from April to May but, according to the NY Times and not me, new cases are remaining mostly the same.

CableZL posted...

You keep trying to argue that increased testing means an increased number of cases, even though the data shows a decrease in the number of new cases found when there was an increase in testing in April.

What data are you looking at? The second chart in the below link, which is specifically for Texas, clearly shows both testing and cases increasing, though testing increasing at a much higher rate.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/texas

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Texas has a lower amount of cases per 100k and lower amount of deaths per 100k than California.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

My misinterpretation was that Florida reported its highest ever number of new cases yesterday. The fact still stands that the number of new cases in Florida is trending upward again. Same for Texas.

The NY Times list Florida and Texas as states where new cases "are mostly the same."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

As of right now, there has not been a statistically significant trend in cases increasing in Florida from the second half of April to now. The curve flattens out at the end of May and has stayed pretty much the same. Cases increased yesterday but you cannot say that is a trend yet.

I think the problem here is that you, and others, are missing the point that being infected with COVID-19 is not a death sentence. For most people, it is nothing.

DoctorPiranha3 posted...

The old and at-risk have every bit of the right to life as anyone else.

Which is why they should socially distance themselves. Stores should open an hour later than normal in order to clean better and then have the next hour dedicated strictly to the elderly and at-risk people.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Evening_Dragon posted...

You weren't arguing about this at all. This whole topic you were simply arguing against the (correct) interpretation of the presented data.

That is false. Cable has already admitted to misinterpeting the data.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

Secretly posted...

And? Trump and his supporters would rather see people die than him lose the election

I want Trump to win the election. I would not rather see people die than Trump lose the election. This is my point about taking things to extremes instead of just calmly anazlyzing the information.

CableZL posted...

No. The point is for us to do as much as we can to reduce the number of people who will die from it until we find an effective treatment and/or vaccine. The priest at that Holy Ghost church in Houston would be living today if they had just had remote services instead of in-person services. That's called a preventable death.

You say until we find an effective treatment and/or vaccine like it is a given. That might never happen. I have not even see it confirmed that this priest died of COVID-19.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/coronavirus/texas-church-to-close-after-priest-dies-after-covid-19-infection

He might be alive now if he had socially distanced and been safer but given that it hasn't been confirmed if he died from COVID-19, or where he contracted COVID-19, you cannot make that statement.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

Yeah, because we've learned the vast majority of what we're ever going to know about the flu. We also have flu vaccines available. We don't know much about COVID-19 and new information about it is coming out all the time.

We still don't know what the most effective treatment for COVID-19. There is no vaccine. Right now we're essentially just trying things in hopes that they'll work.

Do you think COVID-19 is somehow going to be completely eradicated if there is a vaccine developed or we have better treatment methods? This strain is likely always going to be around and people are always going to die from it.

The CFR might decrease once more is learned, though it also might not because we might not ever find a good way to treat it. The infection rate might descrease if a vaccine is developed, though it might not because a good vaccine might never be developed.

What I am arguing against during this pandemic is the complete lack of factual information that many use in order to support their beliefs. Headlines are sensationalized, numbers are misreported or omitted altogether, and so-called "experts" use fear-mongering language. I heard a Senator accuse Trump of "sending workers to their deaths" the other day.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

shockthemonkey posted...

lmao troll used deflection, its not very effective

That is not deflecting. That is basically what you are implying. If the total loss of human life is your big argument, you should agree at putting some measures in place during flu season.

CableZL posted...

Comparing the rate of testing to the rate of infections is rather meaningless. More and more people are testing positive, which isn't good in the slightest. What % that is of the number of tests done doesn't mean anything.

Total infections are not what matters when the overwhelming majority of cases are considered mild and do not require outside help to get over it.

VipaGTS posted...

And we're already back to "the flu". Comparing numbers to "the flu" is what caused us to start late, not take it seriously until it was too late, and got us locked into this lockdown longer than we needed to be. Stop going down the same path.

I just acknowledged that it is killing 3x as many people as the flu and that something should be done to help slow COVID-19 down. Based on the death rates and total deaths of the two illnesses, though, the response for COVID-19 has been disproportionately larger.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH

CableZL posted...

The new infection rate being lower than the peak in April doesn't mean it hasn't been increasing. April is over and we're 22 days into May. Since May 1st, the rate of new infections has trended upward.

Yes but they have increased at a lower rate than the testing. So more people are getting tested but less people are testing positive.

DoctorPiranha3 posted...

Abaddon, what is your goal with this? Have everyone go out and return to normal life, while a million American deaths are caused directly by the virus, which doesn't count the indirect doesn't deaths from healthcare attention being taken away to other diseases? Even with a low death rate, it's still going to cost a lot of lives, especially if we lax too soon.

What is anyone's goal in discussing something on a message board?

I think most people should go back and live their normal lives, yes. The hospitilzation and death rates for people under 65 are already miniscule, and that is without even taking out those under 65 with pre-existing. The only people who should be social distancing are at-risks groups, the elderly and/or those with pre-existing conditions.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The flu has killed 10k people/month in the US this flu season. COVID-19 is at about 30k per month. Are you arguing that we should institute a third of the controls we have impleted for COVID-19 during flu season? Those numbers are the total loss of human life, by the way, not CFRs.

---

I HATE ALEX SMITH