🦇🦠🧪✡️ COVID-19 Hangout Thread 🔬🛸💊🦎 Episode IV: A New Hope

[eod8989]

I already know there is. We've been saying this on here since before Trump even declared it a national emergency.

[garthismad]

Trying to use it as a chance to tank the economy because they think it will help Trump lose. He kind of seems to have fallen for it initially too. Think he's caught on now.

the whole world wants trump to lose and is in on it? Well maybe

[crupiea]

Trying to use it as a chance to tank the economy because they think it will help Trump lose. He kind of seems to have fallen for it initially too. Think he's caught on now.

This is correct.

Ask yourselves and honest question.

Do you trust the Clintons or Pelosi and the dems 100% that they would not resort to this? Is there a slight chance they would?

[GerbilFarmer]

They thought it would be worse and over reacted

/thread


If you think this has given the dems a better chance you are so wrong. Biden can’t campaign, he can’t give public speeches, he can’t raise funds. Trump is on TV everyday saving the country.

[Farley1324]

Wow, 85 times the official number. Taken across the whole country that is about 2.5 million people infected.

That would put us at 7.7% and we only need 80% to get herd immunity. Almost 1/10 of the way there!

[Frank Drebin]

OP is retard. You realize that this would be a lot worse with no precautions. I get that the media overhyped this but it's worse than the flu.

I'm not convinced that its worse than the flu, just that its more contagious.

[Frank Drebin]

That would put us at 7.7% and we only need 80% to get herd immunity. Almost 1/10 of the way there!

herd immunity implies zero new infections? But less susceptible carriers reduces the effective R0/spread, flattening the curve, right? That's 7.7% of people that cant' reinfect others.

[Farley1324]

I'm not convinced that its worse than the flu, just that its more contagious.

Right? Flu regularly kills 2500 people a day in the US

[Farley1324]

herd immunity implies zero new infections? But less susceptible carriers reduces the effective R0/spread, flattening the curve, right? That's 7.7% of people that cant' reinfect others.

Herd immunity means it stops pandemic level spreading. With the contagiousness of this virus that means about 80% of the population needs to have immunity. Using super inflated non-approved test multipled estimate study numbers people keep parroting, we get up to 5.2% with immunity.

So we might be up to 5.2% if you believe the inflated study, and we need 80%. To get to that 5.2% estimated number, about 40k people have died.

[Frank Drebin]

Sounds good for the Northern hemisphere, but the Southern Hemisphere is just gearing up for winter

you're such a panicel. whats winter in australia, 20C?

[Frank Drebin]

Right? Flu regularly kills 2500 people a day in the US

its novel/new and more contagious. I believe mortality rates will be sub .5%

[Farley1324]

its novel/new and more contagious. I believe mortality rates will be sub .5%

So maybe it will kill 5x as many of the infected as flu, while infecting many times more. That isn't exactly good.

What's why we are somewhere between 0.22% and 5% of the population having been infected (by the "nothing to see here move along" posts on this page, we get those %'s) and pushing 40k deaths in under a month

During the biggest lockdown the country and world has ever seen

[Frank Drebin]

So maybe it will kill 5x as many of the infected as flu, while infecting many times more. That isn't exactly good.

What's why we are somewhere between 0.22% and 5% of the population having been infected (by the "nothing to see here move along" posts on this page, we get those %'s) and pushing 40k deaths in under a month

During the biggest lockdown the country and world has ever seen

No one has ever suggested this thing is good.

And you can't take that number from an area that isn't that hard hit and apply it to the whole country. Take NY state, with a population of ~20m and 234k verified infections. 1.2% of the population is already verified to have the virus. Imagine there was a bit of truth to that research done in Santa Clara and there was 20x the people walking around with the antibodies. That puts NY state at nearly 25% immunity.

You don't have to poo poo every bit of good news in an effort to relay how bad this thing is. We know its bad, but it ain't the end of the world.

[HockeyBacon18]

Herd immunity means it stops pandemic level spreading. With the contagiousness of this virus that means about 80% of the population needs to have immunity. Using super inflated non-approved test multipled estimate study numbers people keep parroting, we get up to 5.2% with immunity.

So we might be up to 5.2% if you believe the inflated study, and we need 80%. To get to that 5.2% estimated number, about 40k people have died.

do you have a source for the 80% needed?

Ive seen the R0 around the 3 range, which would not correspond to the 80% for herd immunity

[PimpMasterC]

Lol. You sound like a nice little cult member doubling down on their beliefs after finding out the end of the world didn’t happen.

lol okay. But you don´t refute my point. Looks like I have the better argument

[Farley1324]

No one has ever suggested this thing is good.

And you can't take that number from an area that isn't that hard hit and apply it to the whole country. Take NY state, with a population of ~20m and 234k verified infections. 1.2% of the population is already verified to have the virus. Imagine there was a bit of truth to that research done in Santa Clara and there was 20x the people walking around with the antibodies. That puts NY state at nearly 25% immunity.

You don't have to poo poo every bit of good news in an effort to relay how bad this thing is. We know its bad, but it ain't the end of the world.

I'm not the one trying to take that number and apply it to the whole country, I am responding to people who are doing that and explaining why it doesn't mean what they think it means.

Imagine if there was a bit of truth to the santa clara numbers where 1.5% of people tested (by a non-FDA approved test that shows false positives to other different viruses) positive to antibodies? Okay, imagine if 1.5% of people were positive?

But, let's just play pretend and say NY has 25% immunity. That would mean NY, who is way ahead of the rest of the nation on the timeline, is 1/3 of the way to their herd immunity target. If their CFR held steady from current till they hit that threshold, that would mean NY deaths tripling from 17k to 51k. NY alone. Now, take that ratio of deaths/population and apply it to other areas as they get into the meat of their curve on a time delay from NY.

do you have a source for the 80% needed?

Ive seen the R0 around the 3-5 range, which would not correspond to the 80% for herd immunity

^

An R0 of 5 gives about 80%. Pretty much the % depends on the R0 and the R0 we are seeing corresponds to 80%. That single town in Germany study people were parroting around in a similar fashion to the Stanford study claimed at least 60% would need immunity to stop pandemic level spread, also.


See, the flipside to "this is so contagious everybody is getting it but they aren't dying" is "this is so contagious everybody is going to catch it and until that happens the spread isn't going to stop or even noticeably slow"

And even the most optimistic massaged hyper inflated guesses by misc only puts a hopefully infected in the hottest of hotspots in NY at 25%


Meanwhile the study being quoted literally showed 1.5% with antibodies

[Blasting]

Right? Flu regularly kills 2500 people a day in the US

How do you not understand this super simple concept? I’ve seen you do it on multiple occasions. Oh that’s right, you’re a fear mongerer.

People have made this argument multiple times. It can be just as deadly relative to the flu, person by person, but also be more contagious thus creating more deaths. We also don’t have a vaccine or known, effective treatment for COVID, like we do for the flu.

[Farley1324]

How do you not understand this super simple concept? I’ve seen you do it on multiple occasions. Oh that’s right, you’re a fear mongerer.

People have made this argument multiple times. It can be just as deadly relative to the flu, person by person, but also be more contagious thus creating more deaths. We also don’t have a vaccine or known, effective treatment for COVID, like we do for the flu.

I see...deaths don't count if it's because there's no vaccine, no treatment, and no way to stop the spread. If we had those things, we'd have fewer deaths, so, the tens of thousands who already died just don't count.

k


(no but really 0.5% CFR would literally be 5 times more lethal then seasonal influenza, which is at or below 0.1%, of those infected)

That's the super simple concept. 0.5% is 5x 0.1%

[Frank Drebin]

I'm not the one trying to take that number and apply it to the whole country, I am responding to people who are doing that and explaining why it doesn't mean what they think it means.

Imagine if there was a bit of truth to the santa clara numbers where 1.5% of people tested (by a non-FDA approved test that shows false positives to other different viruses) positive to antibodies? Okay, imagine if 1.5% of people were positive?

But, let's just play pretend and say NY has 25% immunity. That would mean NY, who is way ahead of the rest of the nation on the timeline, is 1/3 of the way to their herd immunity target. If their CFR held steady from current till they hit that threshold, that would mean NY deaths tripling from 17k to 51k. NY alone. Now, take that ratio of deaths/population and apply it to other areas as they get into the meat of their curve on a time delay from NY.



^

An R0 of 5 gives about 80%. Pretty much the % depends on the R0 and the R0 we are seeing corresponds to 80%. That single town in Germany study people were parroting around in a similar fashion to the Stanford study claimed at least 60% would need immunity to stop pandemic level spread, also.


See, the flipside to "this is so contagious everybody is getting it but they aren't dying" is "this is so contagious everybody is going to catch it and until that happens the spread isn't going to stop or even noticeably slow"

And even the most optimistic massaged hyper inflated guesses by misc only puts a hopefully infected in the hottest of hotspots in NY at 25%


Meanwhile the study being quoted literally showed 1.5% with antibodies

What is your point with these replies? Seriously. I know a lot of people are going to die.

[inspectionstare]

How do you not understand this super simple concept? I’ve seen you do it on multiple occasions. Oh that’s right, you’re a fear mongerer.

People have made this argument multiple times. It can be just as deadly relative to the flu, person by person, but also be more contagious thus creating more deaths. We also don’t have a vaccine or known, effective treatment for COVID, like we do for the flu.

So kill the economy because .06% people who get it will die.. Okay Timothy. Not to mention this mitigation strategy is only delaying the inevitable.

[HockeyBacon18]

An R0 of 5 gives about 80%. Pretty much the % depends on the R0 and the R0 we are seeing corresponds to 80%. That single town in Germany study people were parroting around in a similar fashion to the Stanford study claimed at least 60% would need immunity to stop pandemic level spread, also.


See, the flipside to "this is so contagious everybody is getting it but they aren't dying" is "this is so contagious everybody is going to catch it and until that happens the spread isn't going to stop or even noticeably slow"

And even the most optimistic massaged hyper inflated guesses by misc only puts a hopefully infected in the hottest of hotspots in NY at 25%


Meanwhile the study being quoted literally showed 1.5% with antibodies

yea ive seen it closer to r0 of 3 which would be above 60 but less than 80, so im just curious why you selected the very extreme percentage to make your point about NY?

[5x10]

Hope to see more of this
Tests negative for Wuhan virus
Shows antibodies to virus
No symptoms

https://twitter.com/sethdillon/statu...212708353?s=21

[Farley1324]

So kill the economy because .06% people who get it will die.. Okay Timothy. Not to mention this mitigation strategy is only delaying the inevitable.

Your number is off by a factor of 100.

[Frank Drebin]

Meanwhile the study being quoted literally showed 1.5% with antibodies

compared to .09% of the population being tested positive...off by a factor of 16

My point is, in case you missed it:


It is 16x less deadly than the posted death rate of 3.9%, effective mortality rate is ~.25%

[Farley1324]

What is your point with these replies? Seriously. I know a lot of people are going to die.

Based on everything we know, without a drastic change to circumstances, a lot more people are yet to die than already have.

People are getting a very dangerous idea with this bullsht about "80 times more people have it than we thought"...looking at actual numbers from studies and understanding what they would actually mean is what we need, not to bleat like sheep at the OMGHSD80TIMES headline with 0 understanding of anything 'under the hood'.

Yes, Stanford did a study where 1.5% of people tested had antibodies. They then massaged those numbers to estimate that up to 5.2% might have immunity. Even if you take conservative low numbers for herd immunity we need 60%. We've already had 40k die to get to the estimated 5.2% number...how many will die to get to even just 60%?

So, the problem is people being misled and completing missing the actual real world implication of those numbers, and those people then declaring it's not a big deal, go back to normal, spread the virus everywhere, what could go wrong?





We can't continue with the current level of lockdown but we need to eaaaaase into it with great caution and take it step by step because a whole lot more people are going to get infected yet

[Blasting]

Hope to see more of this
Tests negative for Wuhan virus
Shows antibodies to virus
No symptoms

https://twitter.com/sethdillon/statu...212708353?s=21

Yes sir!

Glad to see you’ve stayed realistic throughout this ordeal. I know you’ve been worried about it and rightfully so but you haven’t fallen into the doom and gloom crowd.

Also, fuk the cowboys!!

[inspectionstare]

Your number is off by a factor of 100.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...udy/index.html

“The study estimated that 2.49% to 4.16% of people in Santa Clara Country had been infected with Covid-19 by April 1. This represents between 48,000 and 81,000 people, which is 50 to 85 times what county officials recorded by that date: 956 confirmed cases.”

73 deaths in Santa Clara county.

That’s a ACTUAL fatality rate of between .16 and .09%

I'm sure you'll discredit it... too painful to face your own inability to determine reality.

[Farley1324]

compared to .09% of the population being tested positive...off by a factor of 16

My point is, in case you missed it:


It is 16x less deadly than the posted death rate of 3.9%, effective mortality rate is ~.25%

Your number is likely not correct. But, let's play the "what if" game.

Say the effective mortality rate is 0.25%. And say we take the low end herd immunity number of 60% of the population (keeping in mind the more contagious it is, the more people we don't know about that already have it...the higher that % goes...easily to 80% or more). But anyway, US population 324 million * 60% * 0.25% * = 486,000. Do you disagree with that equation or its relevance?

[inspectionstare]

Based on everything we know, without a drastic change to circumstances, a lot more people are yet to die than already have.

People are getting a very dangerous idea with this bullsht about "80 times more people have it than we thought"...looking at actual numbers from studies and understanding what they would actually mean is what we need, not to bleat like sheep at the OMGHSD80TIMES headline with 0 understanding of anything 'under the hood'.

Yes, Stanford did a study where 1.5% of people tested had antibodies. They then massaged those numbers to estimate that up to 5.2% might have immunity. Even if you take conservative low numbers for herd immunity we need 60%. We've already had 40k die to get to the estimated 5.2% number...how many will die to get to even just 60%?

So, the problem is people being misled and completing missing the actual real world implication of those numbers, and those people then declaring it's not a big deal, go back to normal, spread the virus everywhere, what could go wrong?





We can't continue with the current level of lockdown but we need to eaaaaase into it with great caution and take it step by step because a whole lot more people are going to get infected yet

Yeah unhealthy people die from infections. Nothing new here. Virus ain't even close to what it has been billed as. Does this upset you?

[Blasting]

I see...deaths don't count if it's because there's no vaccine, no treatment, and no way to stop the spread. If we had those things, we'd have fewer deaths, so, the tens of thousands who already died just don't count.

k


(no but really 0.5% CFR would literally be 5 times more lethal then seasonal influenza, which is at or below 0.1%, of those infected)

That's the super simple concept. 0.5% is 5x 0.1%

You just keep ignoring the obvious. Jesus Christ.

So kill the economy because .06% people who get it will die.. Okay Timothy. Not to mention this mitigation strategy is only delaying the inevitable.

Wtf? I’ve been calling for the reopening before most people. But with obvious guidelines.