🤪🤪🤪 COVID-19 Speculation, Conspiracy Theories Thread #2 🤪🤪🤪

[TurbanMon]

that's because one of the first outbreaks happened in senior homes

[jeshelton]

Add the age ranges of those who died for perspective.

[Spahgetti]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html


75 in U.S.


stop spreading Fake News


And 75 of over 330,000,000

oh noooooo

/s

[hoganrulz]

The US population is like 6x more than the UK and there's 70-80 dead here. How far is the US behind the UK?

[DrewDarden]

already 30k dead of the flu

No use in trying to explain it to "it's just the flu bro" people anymore.

I guess if you don't get it by now, you don't have the capacity to get it.

[VegasLifter26]

how old were the people who died

[NVious]

Panic is the only solution.

If you're not living in fear cowering in a corner, you're not paying attention.

[enzo818]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html


75 in U.S.


stop spreading Fake News


And 75 of over 330,000,000

oh noooooo

/s

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/...e35f65123cd6ef

Here is the source. Over 5k cases. I'm prediction at least 1,000 dead by the end of the month due to multiplying factor.

[AltarOfPlagues]

Imagine if at the "peak" 25% of american's are COVID-19 positive at the same time.

why do people keep saying such huge numbers.

it's 200 times the likely final italian infection rate. all bets are off at that point.


edit- you're not takin granny to the hospital with these numbers, you are having little funerals in your yard.

[enzo818]

No use in trying to explain it to "it's just the flu bro" people anymore.

I guess if you don't get it by now, you don't have the capacity to get it.

d

What do you expect from incel miscers? They wont get it until it's too late. Then they'll blame everybody.

[Witrebel]

why do people keep saying such huge numbers.

it's 200 times the likely final italian infection rate. all bets are off at that point.

Because you can't have it both ways.

Either reported cases is in the ballpark of actual cases, and the 3.4% mortality rate is in the ballpark of accurate. OR, the truth is that there are WAY more asymptomatic cases out there and our "confirmed case" numbers are orders of magnitude wrong. This is the only way you get community spread and a low mortality rate.

If we extrapolate out and say "what happens if america does nothing" then you can't say the 70% or 50% population has it. Pick any number, its a guess. But you have to make the example consistent.

I will try to dig up the study and edit this post with a link, but they tested a town in italy, the entire town. It was like 3 out of 4 positive. With some massive rate of asymptomatic cases. If that is the reality, then why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume a large chunk of america will eventually be infected?

[Rabbitjb]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html


75 in U.S.


stop spreading Fake News


And 75 of over 330,000,000

oh noooooo

/s

You do understand the exponential nature of virus transmission

And what the start of the delay phase means

Interesting times.

Still there may well be some positive resetting of the environment due to lack of transport and movement

[gixxer0.6g]

Fear mongering


More people died from over shi++ing their pants this year that this mild cold.

[Jayarbie]

To summarize, even if you feel strongly that the denominator is wrong and the actual mortality rate from infection is in the low tenths of a percent, there is ZERO immunity to this bug, and its highly contagious. So even if the mortality rate is 0.6%, the ICU rate is still going to be something like 1% or so. Imagine if at the "peak" 25% of american's are COVID-19 positive at the same time. That's 330,000,000 / 4 = 82,500,000 positive cases. Lets say there are 1% that go to the ICU (not counting the "severe cases" that need high flow O2). You have 82,500,000 *0.01 = 82500 ICU patients above and beyond the normal healthcare load. I'll let you google how many ICU beds we have in the US. Again, not counting the severe cases, just ones that will go to ICU or die.

Hint:
Not many of the 82,500 will make it.

Bonus question:
What if its actually more than 1% of infections that result in an ICU visit?

Extra credit:
What if you need to go to the ICU for non COVID-19 causes?

Your math is off. 1% of 82.5m is 825,000, not 82,500. The US has about 50,000 ICU beds in the whole country with the ability to activate another 50,000 in an emergency. That's 8 patients who need one for every bed assuming the geographical demand exactly met the ICU bed distribution around the country. There would certainly be clusters with 10 or 15 or more patients per bed.

There are about 900,000 total hospital beds in the country.

[Spahgetti]

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/...e35f65123cd6ef

Here is the source. Over 5k cases. I'm prediction at least 1,000 dead by the end of the month due to multiplying factor.

I link to CDC

you link to CNN


lol just lol

[Vexidi]

You do understand the exponential nature of virus transmission

No they don't. They also can't see past the end of their noses and don't comprehend problems that arise when you overload a health system with people spending weeks intubated in ICU. Have fun sitting for 6 hours in an ER waiting room with a broken arm because people keep flat-lining and you're low priority.

[MuscleXtreme]

So the virus appears in China in November in a city of 20 million. Those people were freely able to travel to the US and the rest of the world, up until mid-January when President Trump placed a ban on Chinese travel.

So that was 2.5 months of unfettered access to the US during that time. But I’m supposed to believe that the virus just magically appeared in the US in March? **** out of here.

This **** has been here for awhile, and nobody was panicking then. I guarantee that a lot of people had it, have it, or will have it and not even know it and will just go on living their normal lives thinking it was just a cold (which it is, Coronaviruses are one of the three types of common cold viruses).

That’s why these fatality estimates are off. You can’t provide an accurate number when you have no idea what the actual sample size is I.e know what the actual denominator is.

[Witrebel]

Your math is off. 1% of 82.5m is 825,000, not 82,500. The US has about 50,000 ICU beds in the whole country with the ability to activate another 50,000 in an emergency. That's 8 patients who need one for every bed assuming the geographical demand exactly met the ICU bed distribution around the country. There would certainly be clusters with 10 or 15 or more patients per bed.

There are about 900,000 total hospital beds in the country.

Fuark. Shouldn't be posting on mobile like a dink. Good catch, glad I had it wrong down not up.

Here are some links relating to widespread asymptomatic spread, which would be supportive of a "everyone gets it but its not that bad" theory. Which still overwhelms hospitals I might ad.

https://www.repubblica.it/salute/med...-T1&refresh_ce

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...cience.abb3221

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/con...#html_fulltext

[AltarOfPlagues]

If that is the reality, then why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume a large chunk of america will eventually be infected?

you can assume that but then none of the numbers suggest that if x country has some 70% infection rate, then 1% of those need hospitalization. the 1% number is pulled out of your ass.

if there are massive amounts of asymptomatic carriers, then the number that needs to be hospitalized goes down accordingly. you dont get to use the same percentages.

we have a lot of empirical data at this point.

[ErnieMccracken]

I will try to dig up the study and edit this post with a link, but they tested a town in italy, the entire town. It was like 3 out of 4 positive. With some massive rate of asymptomatic cases. If that is the reality, then why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume a large chunk of america will eventually be infected?

I think the most reasonable assumption they're working off right now is that there's probably 1M+ positives out infecting everyone and only a small % (but still huge in absolute terms) are life threatening. We can't contain it, so the goal now is to slow it down enough to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed.

[Ratfish]

100 died in car accidents yesterday in the US

globally, there is a 9/11 death toll from car accidents every day

[Rabbitjb]

Yeah it’s a small percent

So 60-70% of nation infected

0.2%-6.7% mortality dependent on age and comorbidities ..average 3.4%

So with 300 million citizens what’s that work out as ...

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[Slayermanlet]

You do understand the exponential nature of virus transmission

And what the start of the delay phase means

No they are either stupid as chit or trying to be edgelords

I've got really pissed off at people irl over the last few days with this attitude

[Ratfish]

absolutely none of the data is gonna mean chit until they actually develop working tests and manufacture millions of them

[eatmycrackers]

Your math is off. 1% of 82.5m is 825,000, not 82,500. The US has about 50,000 ICU beds in the whole country with the ability to activate another 50,000 in an emergency. That's 8 patients who need one for every bed assuming the geographical demand exactly met the ICU bed distribution around the country. There would certainly be clusters with 10 or 15 or more patients per bed.

There are about 900,000 total hospital beds in the country.

Sorry pal 6,000 people have died over the course of 2.5 months globally, I don't see 800K dropping dead from the US alone even through the rest of the year, especially with quarantine efforts in place. The actual flu has killed tens of thousands in the US year-to-date...

You are just fear-mongering at this point bro

[JUGGERNAUT1333]

I think the most reasonable assumption they're working off right now is that there's probably 1M+ positives out infecting everyone and only a small % (but still huge in absolute terms) are life threatening. We can't contain it, so the goal now is to slow it down enough to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed.

This is my belief as well. I think they know that this is here, and it's been here. Right now it's all about keeping society as calm as possible, and letting the hospitals function without getting overrun.

It's all management now.

[MuscleXtreme]

100 died in car accidents yesterday in the US

globally, there is a 9/11 death toll from car accidents every day

#BanAllCars

[NVious]

So the virus appears in China in November in a city of 20 million. Those people were freely able to travel to the US and the rest of the world, up until mid-January when President Trump placed a ban on Chinese travel.

So that was 2.5 months of unfettered access to the US during that time. But I’m supposed to believe that the virus just magically appeared in the US in March? **** out of here.

This **** has been here for awhile, and nobody was panicking then. I guarantee that a lot of people had it, have it, or will have it and not even know it and will just go on living their normal lives thinking it was just a cold (which it is, Coronaviruses are one of the three types of common cold viruses).

That’s why these fatality estimates are off. You can’t provide an accurate number when you have no idea what the actual sample size is I.e know what the actual denominator is.

Dude stfu, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE, THE IMPORTANT THING NOW IS TO BE NEGATIVE, WORRY AND CRY ABOUT IT IN YOUR LAST DAYS.

[enzo818]

I link to CDC

you link to CNN


lol just lol

I swear the misc is filled with people who cant read CLOSELY. CDC does not include repatriated people. I wish the virus would target people with low IQ like you

[Witrebel]

you can assume that but then none of the numbers suggest that if x country has some 70% infection rate, then 1% of those need hospitalization. the 1% number is pulled out of your ass.

if there are massive amounts of asymptomatic carriers, then the number that needs to be hospitalized goes down accordingly. you dont get to use the same percentages.

we have a lot of empirical data at this point.

Well ICU rate is published from Wuhan as ~5%? Severe at 15%

And we are dropping the 3.4% fatality rate down to 0.6% no?

So its a reduction of like 5.6x, the more accurate ICU number would be 5 / 5.6 then or 0.89% roughly?

Again, this is all speculation, and I need to get in front of a computer to give good accurate numbers, going from memory here.

The basic point is just that even if it is super widespread and therefore on average, less lethal, it is still a problem.

It seems like the going argument is "we shouldn't be shutting down for this, just let it pass through" and that argument doesn't seem to hold up.

I think the most reasonable assumption they're working off right now is that there's probably 1M+ positives out infecting everyone and only a small % (but still huge in absolute terms) are life threatening. We can't contain it, so the goal now is to slow it down enough to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed.

This, it can literally be in the realm of "flu" statistics, but if its more contagious with no heard immunity, you will still overwhelm hospitals and the deaths will needlessly increase. There is some wicked calculus in play regarding how much loss of life is acceptable versus how much economic impact is acceptable. Clearly based on what were are seeing, the potential loss of life is pretty major. Otherwise China wouldn't have locked down and we wouldn't be locking down either