COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 352

starting strength gym
Page 352 of 2316 FirstFirst ... 2523023423503513523533543624024528521352 ... LastLast
Results 3,511 to 3,520 of 23159

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #3511
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    905

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by ltomo View Post
    Yep, it's gonna be a real shit show. I don't see how Biden can pull off a win with the way he's acting right now. Like, can you imagine a live debate between Trump and Joe? It would be like something out of an SNL skit.
    The guy honestly looks terrible, regardless of your politics. They want to hide him from debates and public appearances; This is the politics of the virus.

    I have just seen reports that Trump is indicating he would refuse to sign the renewal of the domestic surveillance powers recently passed in the senate; This is why he is one of the few politicians I can support.

    When I vote, I typically will vote for the most libertarian candidate and vote in the republican primaries for that candidate knowing they will not win. But, when I look more deeply, even the libertarian candidates' platforms fail to address most of the root causes of our march towards socialism.

  2. #3512
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    So, "co-morbidities" include well over half the population: heart disease, high blood pressure, asthma, GERD, Crohns, Diabetes. (48% of American adults have heart disease, fyi).

    I think it is "Highly" contagious. You may disagree with the modifier. It is certainly contagious. But, a disease we'd never heard of a year ago is on track to be in the top 5 causes of death in the US. I would call that deadly, yes.
    Let me try asking a different way, because you didn't quite answer what I (thought I) was asking. I'm not asking if it's deadly. If you can die from it, it's deadly. Chickenpox is deadly.

    You said earlier that it was "deadly to a large percentage of the population". About 84% of the USA is under the age of 65. That population has 77% of the cases but only 26% of fatalities. Given what we think we know about IFR/CFR, comorbidities, total COVID deaths, comparison to the seasonal flu, percent of cases that remain asymptomatic, seroprevalence/undiagnosed cases, etc. etc.

    Do you actually believe that COVID19 is deadly to a large percentage of the population?

    I'll lay my cards out in advance - I don't. Using the 77%/22% you get a CFR of 2%. If you look at the seroprevalence studies showing that a much higher percentage of the population had this thing (like 50 time higher), the IFR could be 0.04% for the under 65 crowd. This thing is just not that bad for the vast majority of people.

  3. #3513
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnst_nhb View Post
    I've been bothered by the use of the term "new cases." As more testing is done, we will and are finding more and more people with the antibody. Is this a new "case?" My guess is that the vast majority take this to mean a new infection resulting in illness- resulting in what we've come to expect from the hysteria machine. I'm not able to find how many of these new cases are asymptomatic.

    A positive antibody test is meaningless when it comes to contagiousness. I'd like to see tests that measure viral titer and I have not seen that yet.

    What am I missing here?
    Its even worse than you think...check out what these idiots did:

    CDC acknowledges mixing results of viral and antibody tests, plans changes - CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling View Post
    Nah, secretly he wants to go back to that watering hole in Georgia so he can come back and talk some more shit about the rednecks there. He's lucky he didn't get a mudhole stomped in his ass last time he was there.
    Those guys are my friends. they tolerate me and i tolerate them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mpalios View Post
    I will not argue on if it is contagious. I won't argue about anything. I will ask for clarification.

    on 5:21pm on 5/27/20, you said: "COVID is highly contagious and deadly to a large percentage of the population."

    what are you choosing to define as "the population"? I interpret that as the US population of 330MM people.

    If the 100k deaths YTD is accurate, let's double it to 200k by year's end; heck I'll triple it to 300k Do you think that 300k out of 330MM people is a "large percentage"? That is .0909% of the population. Do you define that as a "large percentage"?
    Apologies. Poorly worded again. The point I was trying to make, is the disease is fatal among those under 65, not just "The elderly." 26% of the population is between 45 and 64 and there are plenty of fatalities in that group. For what it is worth, 300k deaths from Covid in one year would make it the third highest cause of death in the US, in between Cancer and Accidents.

  4. #3514
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muntz View Post
    Apologies. Poorly worded again. The point I was trying to make, is the disease is fatal among those under 65, not just "The elderly." 26% of the population is between 45 and 64 and there are plenty of fatalities in that group. For what it is worth, 300k deaths from Covid in one year would make it the third highest cause of death in the US, in between Cancer and Accidents.
    Let me try this again, because you're not understanding how this works.

    US Population: 330 Million
    26% of the population (45-64 age group): .26 * 330M = 85.8M people
    Total Deaths 45-64 age group: 41,000

    Deaths per million: 477

    This means that for every million people in that age group, 477 of them contract COVID-19 and die.

    Now, let's do 65+

    US Population: 330 Million
    17% of the population (65+ projected 2020 stats from 2017): .17 *330M = 56.1M people
    Total Deaths 65+: ~226K

    Deaths per million: 4028

    You have about a 10x higher death toll in the 65+ age group despite that population being about 40% smaller than the 45-64 group.

    Is 41,000 a lot? Yes. But, as a percentage of the entire 45-64 population it's about .05% of that age group.

    Now, for the next question... How many people in the 45-64 age group do you think are socially and/or economically affected by the lockdown?

  5. #3515
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,239

    Default

    Frank, I think this guy is probably a waiter, or a janitor, or has some simple job that has him functioning at the peak of his capacity in that job. He can't understand our argument, and it's pointless to explain it. Or he's a troll. I've kept him approved so that the pacifists don't think I'm being ugly. But I see no point in responding to him.

  6. #3516
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Frank, I think this guy is probably a waiter, or a janitor, or has some simple job that has him functioning at the peak of his capacity in that job. He can't understand our argument, and it's pointless to explain it. Or he's a troll. I've kept him approved so that the pacifists don't think I'm being ugly. But I see no point in responding to him.
    That must be the case, Rip. I can conceive of no other explanation for their inability to comprehend.

  7. #3517
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    When I vote, I typically will vote for the most libertarian candidate and vote in the republican primaries for that candidate knowing they will not win. But, when I look more deeply, even the libertarian candidates' platforms fail to address most of the root causes of our march towards socialism.
    The three biggest flaws with libertarian candidates are:

    1-They never seem to understand that you cannot get there from here without some sort of compromises with the ideals.

    2-They never seem to understand that you cannot get there from here by just implementing anything that will pass in any order without the one thing making the next thing impossible. So open borders might be workable, but not until you got rid of the welfare state or at least restructured it as to be unrecognizable to what we have now.

    3-They never actually intend to win. They just like the attention and the book and speaking engagement sales afterwards.

  8. #3518
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    724

    Default

    So you just did what I was very slowly getting to, and much more effectively than I ever would.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank_B View Post
    Let me try this again, because you're not understanding how this works.

    US Population: 330 Million
    26% of the population (45-64 age group): .26 * 330M = 85.8M people
    Total Deaths 45-64 age group: 41,000

    Deaths per million: 477

    This means that for every million people in that age group, 477 of them contract COVID-19 and die.

    Now, let's do 65+

    US Population: 330 Million
    17% of the population (65+ projected 2020 stats from 2017): .17 *330M = 56.1M people
    Total Deaths 65+: ~226K

    Deaths per million: 4028

    You have about a 10x higher death toll in the 65+ age group despite that population being about 40% smaller than the 45-64 group.

    Is 41,000 a lot? Yes. But, as a percentage of the entire 45-64 population it's about .05% of that age group.

    Now, for the next question... How many people in the 45-64 age group do you think are socially and/or economically affected by the lockdown?

  9. #3519
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George Christiansen View Post
    The three biggest flaws with libertarian candidates are:

    1-They never seem to understand that you cannot get there from here without some sort of compromises with the ideals.

    2-They never seem to understand that you cannot get there from here by just implementing anything that will pass in any order without the one thing making the next thing impossible. So open borders might be workable, but not until you got rid of the welfare state or at least restructured it as to be unrecognizable to what we have now.

    3-They never actually intend to win. They just like the attention and the book and speaking engagement sales afterwards.
    I think you're talking about Libertarian Party candidates. I wasted a lot of time and money on these fools.

    Here is an interesting article, from USA Today, that indicates some problems with Dr. Fauci: Risk of coronavirus in U.S. is 'minuscule' NIH's Dr. Anthony Fauci says

  10. #3520
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I think you're talking about Libertarian Party candidates. I wasted a lot of time and money on these fools.
    I'm not sure which ones are full fledged party candidates or not, but I have never seen an exception of someone using the title who ran under it. I think someone like Ron Paul may have been libertarian, but he didn't run as one the last time. He ran as a Republican, which I actually think was a bad move, but he was generally exempt from those three criticisms I listed.

    I'd extend those criticisms to most libertarians I have met as well too.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •