Michigan Protesters Cause Gridlock

[NWRMidnight]

First, experts said it could be as many as 3 million deaths. 3 million! That was based on herd immunity of 80% of Americans getting the virus. That means the death rate would still be <2%.
- again -- this does not support your original statement.

There is zero data behind your original statement (30-40% death rate among COVID positive patients) -- it is pure speculation, isn't it?


As for 15 gallons in a 5 gallon bucket -- what do you call fitting a 30-40% death rate into <20% of cases being severe?

Again, I tried to find ANY data that proved your point and found none.

I'll repeat:

There is zero data behind your original statement (30-40% death rate among COVID positive patients) -- it is pure speculation, isn't it?

First of all, there is speculation from the experts that we may never have herd immunity, as there is still over all very little known about COVID-19.

Regardless, out of those 3 million, do you think that the majority of those deaths would have come slowly over the span of the pandemic, or the majority of those deaths quickly in a fairly large group?

Basically, You are manipulating what I said. Here is the quote:

Not sure where you get your 1.1%. New York city currently has a death rate of over 5.5%. You might want to check your math.

If you didn't have the shut downs, that 5.5% would be more like 30 to 40% or more.

I wasn't talking about over all death rate when this was over, I was talking about he current 5.5% death rate would currently be 30% to 40% or more if we did not have the stay at home orders. Do you comprehend?

The rest of your comment is just more manipulation. Again, go figure out how you can get 15 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket all at once.. (hint.. the bucket is the hospitals... the water is the patents, if that will help you understand... 2/3 of the patents wouldn't get any care, resulting with a majority of them dying)

 

[amrnuke]

Regardless, You are manipulating what I said. Here is the quote:

Not sure where you get your 1.1%. New York city currently has a death rate of over 5.5%. You might want to check your math.

If you didn't have the shut downs, that 5.5% would be more like 30 to 40% or more.

I'll repeat:
There is zero data behind your original statement (30-40% death rate among COVID positive patients) -- it is pure speculation, isn't it?

I wasn't talking about over all death rate when this was over

Neither was I.

I was talking about he current 5.5% death rate would currently be 30% to 40% or more if we did not have the stay at home orders. Do you comprehend?

Yes. You think there would be a death rate of 30-40% or more of confirmed cases right now, based on zero data, with no proof or even rational speculation from reliable sources to back it up.

The rest of your comment is just more manipulation. Again, go figure out how you can get 15 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket all at once.. (hint.. the bucket is the hospitals... the water is the patents, if that will help you understand my bucket analogy)

The bucket is severely ill patients and the water are dead patients. Figure out how you can fit 30-40% of COVID positive cases (deaths) into <20% of COVID positive patients (severe cases).

 

[Paratus]

Steering the topic back to the economic impacts of stay at home orders vs opening up economy that @jasklas was hitting on I wanted to point out something.

Personally, even with Texas opening up my family and I will not be going to the theater, nor eating out, our buying from local businesses will be less than 1/3rd of what we normally do. We won’t be the only ones continuing to minimize our interactions with the economy.

Plus workers in heavily hit areas are being sent home which is why we are seeing the loss of meat production.

So how will opening up the economy save it? It will not be going back to Jan 2020 levels of business anytime soon.

Local, state, and federal governments need to keep the restrictions in place while building up testing and traceability capability. Start showing it by closing infected meat packing plants for a few days, test everyone twice and send those who clear the tests back to work to keep the supply chain functioning.

Once new infections are down and can be kept down we can approach something like normal business until a acceptable treatments or a vaccine is available.

Opening up too soon will cause a spike in cases, requiring a longer shutdown, impacting the economy even more than if we had done what we should have in the first place.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Republican leader wants anti-lockdown protesters to wear medical scrubs.

She is asking them to impersonate medical personnel

What a fucking nutter...Why would health care workers, who are already working harder than ever before, be protesting for the government to open their businesses?

The tactic is two-fold. 1) it's the old, 'see, not all scientists believe in global warning' gambit. They think if the public sees nurses and doctors on both sides it makes the whole thing meaningless. And B) if that doesn't work, it's the old, 'we know their nurses and doctors are fake because our nurses and doctors are fake," dodge.

Either way, they don't give a shit. They're just trying to muddy the waters.

 

[Commodus]

Republican leader wants anti-lockdown protesters to wear medical scrubs.

She is asking them to impersonate medical personnel

What a fucking nutter...Why would health care workers, who are already working harder than ever before, be protesting for the government to open their businesses?

The tactic is two-fold. 1) it's the old, 'see, not all scientists believe in global warning' gambit. They think if the public sees nurses and doctors on both sides it makes the whole thing meaningless. And B) if that doesn't work, it's the old, 'we know their nurses and doctors are fake because our nurses and doctors are fake," dodge.

Either way, they don't give a shit. They're just trying to muddy the waters.

Egads... arguably, that violates Twitter policies for threats. It's not only encouraging protests, it harms healthcare workers.

 

[uallas5]

Republican leader wants anti-lockdown protesters to wear medical scrubs.

She is asking them to impersonate medical personnel

What a fucking nutter...Why would health care workers, who are already working harder than ever before, be protesting for the government to open their businesses?

The tactic is two-fold. 1) it's the old, 'see, not all scientists believe in global warning' gambit. They think if the public sees nurses and doctors on both sides it makes the whole thing meaningless. And B) if that doesn't work, it's the old, 'we know their nurses and doctors are fake because our nurses and doctors are fake," dodge.

Either way, they don't give a shit. They're just trying to muddy the waters.

"Ward added the hashtags #ProblemSolved, #WeAreAllHeroic, #1A, and #JustWearScrubs."

Awww they just want participation medals. Not sure why bitching about needing a haircut and bags of mulch is considered heroic, but that the far right for you.

 

[pmv]

There is some confusing here, mostly from me when I answered your question yesterday. My answer was from the standpoint of why the death count is not accurate, which is because of the miss-classifications, and the uncounted deaths, which has been my argument all along when it comes to the death count. So I am not bouncing back and forth, I am including BOTH in that reasoning.

Now, you talk about good faith arguing. But the argument has changed. So lets go thru the arguments we have had just in the last page or so:

1. The 1.1% death rate calculations, which you said your math was solid, as it was based off of the results of the Antibody testing, and estimates from that. Which I pointed out are based off testing that is flawed and inaccurate, which means any calculations made from those numbers are garbage, so not solid. (I never even touched the flawed testing locations of the "randomly" 3000, which the locations they used will give inflated numbers - grocery stores and shopping centers). As of yet, we still don't have an accurate antibody test available, which is still being worked on. So right now, the ONLY numbers that have any accuracy are the confirmed case count and death count, and they are far from accurate, but it's the most accurate numbers we have at this time, anything else, is just numbers being pulled out of thin air.

2. Next it was that the case count and death count are under counted. You argument is that the case count is way under counted, and so is the death count, just not near as much. I don't agree with that. I believe the death count is under counted just as much because of the miss-classifications and the unknown deaths, of course that doesn't include the numerous deaths that will continue to come in long after people stop contracting the virus. Now, there is information being reported, that there is a failure of counting nursing home deaths in New York, so that is going to skew the death count even further.

3. Next, you argued that you can use the historical death count data to determine how off the death count is for COVID-19. I argued that you can't use historical data to determine that, as it's impossible to do based if previous years numbers and the fact that there is missing data in the death count numbers. All you can do is try to Guess how inaccurate the numbers are, but that is all it is, is a guess.

4. You then decided to throw out a new 2.9% death count number using, all KNOWN deaths and half of the estimated case count numbers derived from the antibody test. which is nothing but a made up equation using a case count number with no accuracy at all. In other words, useless.

that is just a quick run down of the different arguments.

Now, how many deaths that are not being reported? well, we already know of 17 from last week from just 1 nursing home that was hiding the bodies in a room. How many other's are doing similar? We don't know. How many single people have died that are alone and the body is just sitting in their houses waiting for someone to discover it. I am sure there are many, specially in the low income areas. These are all reasons why there is no way to have an accurate death rate number.

What it comes down to is it is Way to early to have any real accuracy on the real death rate, and we won't have that for months. All we have at this time, that has any meaning at all, are the confirmed case count, and confirmed death count. That's it.

Nothing you say here is an accurate account of the thread! Not remotely. You seem very, very confused.

Nowhere have you shown that the antibody testing is as flawed as you claim, nor have I ever claimed it to be perfect, nor does its reliability affect the 'solidity' of the maths.

Your argument about the historical death data is just plain wrong. There is no other mysterious cause of death suddenly starting at the same time as Corvid19. Furthermore I didn't argue that 'next', it's not a new point, I've been making that point since before you even started arguing, that's the best way we have to account for deaths being misclassified.

Nowhere have a I mentioned 'a new 2.9% figure' - you just made that up entirely!

 

[amrnuke]

Nothing you say here is an accurate account of the thread! Not remotely. You seem very, very confused.

Nowhere have you shown that the antibody testing is as flawed as you claim, nor have I ever claimed it to be perfect, nor does its reliability affect the 'solidity' of the maths.

Your argument about the historical death data is just plain wrong. There is no other mysterious cause of death suddenly starting at the same time as Corvid19. Furthermore I didn't argue that 'next', it's not a new point, I've been making that point since before you even started arguing, that's the best way we have to account for deaths being misclassified.

Nowhere have a I mentioned 'a new 2.9% figure' - you just made that up entirely!

He's mistaking my calculation as yours.

Interestingly, that calculation was just me trying to inflate deaths and deflate case counts to make the death rate higher to try to reach his 30-40% death rate somehow, which I failed to do with the data we have available no matter how the data is sliced. He still hasn't provided any proof of his claim.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I'll repeat:
There is zero data behind your original statement (30-40% death rate among COVID positive patients) -- it is pure speculation, isn't it?


Neither was I.


Yes. You think there would be a death rate of 30-40% or more of confirmed cases right now, based on zero data, with no proof or even rational speculation from reliable sources to back it up.


The bucket is severely ill patients and the water are dead patients. Figure out how you can fit 30-40% of COVID positive cases (deaths) into <20% of COVID positive patients (severe cases).

NO it isn't pure speculation. It's math. You seem to think that all the numbers would stay constant or linear if there was no stay at home order put in place, and that is where you keep deriving your <20% severe case count from as you are basing them off current numbers which are derived from the results of stay in place orders in effect. That would all change exponentially if the stay at home order was never implemented, including the severe case count percentage, that number would also substantially increase, as the numbers are not linear. Like I said, it's all math. You keep wanting "reliable source", what do you think the model and estimated of 3 million deaths Nation wide came from, estimates based off the entire US? They didn't run them for Just New York... But to put things into perspective.. New York State is 39% of the TOTAL US deaths currently right now, but only has 29% of the actual case count. So using the National model that predicted 3 million deaths.. IF the numbers did stay linear for simple math, 39% of 3 million = 1,170,000 which equal 13.7% of the TOTAL population of New York. That is every man woman and child in New York infected, which wouldn't happen. If that number comes from 80% of the population being infected, that percentage raises to almost 18%, and hits 22% if it is 60% of the population of New York Infected, and 27% if it's 50% of the population. That is using linear numbers, and the total death count when it is all over. You add the exponential factors into the mix, as well as the fact that 70 to 80% of those death would happen in the first few months, which means the death rate would also exponentially increase during those months and the peak before coming back down. it's easy to see where 30% to 40% comes from.

If you want any other data beyond that, then I suggest you go jump into a time machine, go back in time, and stop the stay in orders so you can have hard data facts.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Nothing you say here is an accurate account of the thread! Not remotely. You seem very, very confused.

Nowhere have you shown that the antibody testing is as flawed as you claim, nor have I ever claimed it to be perfect, nor does its reliability affect the 'solidity' of the maths.

Your argument about the historical death data is just plain wrong. There is no other mysterious cause of death suddenly starting at the same time as Corvid19. Furthermore I didn't argue that 'next', it's not a new point, I've been making that point since before you even started arguing, that's the best way we have to account for deaths being misclassified.

Nowhere have a I mentioned 'a new 2.9% figure' - you just made that up entirely!

I didn't give you an account of the thread, I gave you an account of OUR arguments the last page or so, which is exactly what I said.

There are various articles that have talked about the anti body tests not being accurate, I guess when you are someone who jumps on results of such tests, because it allows you to downplay the death rate of it, you don't take the time to research the accuracy, so here: https://khn.org/morning-breakout/an...ate-results-shortages-and-doctor-mishandling/ . https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medte...accurate-enough-for-mass-screening-say-oxford https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/04/4...-assays-scrutinized-accuracy-ucsf-uc-berkeley
(Edit). This is from today: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-terrible/index.html

It will be weeks before we have accurate antibody testing, and 12 to 18 months before there is a vaccine.

We will just agree to disagree about historical death rate. Because I believe you are wrong because the historical annually death rate numbers fluctuate by hundreds and thousands every, and most definitely there are fluctuations between causes of death. One year they may have 8000 drug over doses, and the next it might be 7000, but had an increase in car accidents to "balance it". In this situation, there could be cancer or heart patients who die to COVID-19. Yet they may have died later in the year from the the cancer or heart issues if there where no virus. That's the problem with historical numbers. They are only an guideline of what "normally" happens, but can fluctuate dramatically for any given reason. There could be a plane crash that kills 300 people, or as you said, there could be a bad flu season.. There is now way to determine if any influences have effected the actual numbers when you are trying to use historical numbers to compute your answer. right now, we know we have the COVID-19 as a big influence on those numbers, but we have no way to tell just how much, because of the cancer patients, heart patients and others who would have died even without the COVID-19 pandemic. All you can give is a "ballpark estimation" but you will still be off because of such factors. So. we will agree to disagree.

The Next argument is a new argument between you and me.. again I was not describing the thread.

You are correct, about the 2.9% figure, I got you confused with ammuke, my mistake, sorry.

 

[amrnuke]

You keep wanting "reliable source", what do you think the model and estimated of 3 million deaths Nation wide came from, estimates based off the entire US?

Yes, based off 80% of the population getting infected, and a 1-1.5% death rate nationally -- as a total count at the end of the pandemic.

But to put things into perspective.. New York State is 39% of the TOTAL US deaths currently right now, but only has 29% of the actual case count. So using the National model that predicted 3 million deaths.. IF the numbers did stay linear for simple math, 39% of 3 million = 1,170,000 which equal 13.7% of the TOTAL population of New York. That is every man woman and child in New York infected, which wouldn't happen.

That's not 30-40%. Also... you're taking the eventual national death count and applying it to current NYC proportion of death rates, ignoring the fact that many other locations have a far different case/death growth curve, many places nationally are at different places on the pandemic's logistic growth curve, etc.

If that number comes from 80% of the population being infected, that percentage raises to almost 18%

Wow. No.
The ~3 million deaths is roughly based on herd immunity of 80% infected and ~1-1.5% death rate. If you reduce the % infected, you also reduce national death count, and hence also NYC's expected number of deaths (assuming your numbers even had any validity, for reasons I explained above).
Let's do the basic math anyway.
If you only infect 60%, you knock the total death count down to 2.25 million. NYC's proportional deaths, 39% of 2.25 million = 877,500 deaths. 60% infection rate in NYC = 8.4 million * 0.60 = 5,040,000 infected. Death rate = 17.4%.
If you infect only 50% nationally, you knock the total death count down to 1.875 million. NYC's proportional deaths, 39% of 1.875 million = 731,250. 50% infection rate in NYC = 8.4 million * 0.50 = 4,200,000 infected. Death rate = 17.4%.
Magic! If you reduce the total number of infected people, the death rate in NYC would stay the same.
r/TheyDidntDoTheMath

, and hits 22% if it is 60% of the population of New York Infected, and 27% if it's 50% of the population.

It seems like you're proposing that if the national % infected count is 50%, you would keep NYC's expected % infected at 80%? That's convenient.
But if you're going to assume NYC has a higher % infected count than nationally (which is not unreasonable), then you're going to need to adjust your calculations above to account for current death rates and extrapolated death rates (which you have not done). If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I suggest you take some epidemiology and statistics courses and come back when we can have a discussion based on science rather than opinion.

That is using linear numbers, and the total death count when it is all over.

You are taking the total number of eventual cases predicted (3 million) but using the current NYC proportion of US deaths. You already told me you were not talking about eventual death rates, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.

You add the exponential factors into the mix

This is vague. Exponential factors like... what? Care to share any data?

as well as the fact that 70 to 80% of those death would happen in the first few months

That actually is not a fact. Is that how things went with the Spanish flu? How do you know 70-80% of this pandemic's deaths will happen in the first few months? When we aren't even 3 months in from the first death? Also, I thought we were talking about death rates NOW, not eventually? WTF?

which means the death rate would also exponentially increase during those months and the peak before coming back down.

Yes, that's how pandemics generally work, the total number of deaths and cases follows a logistic curve.

it's easy to see where 30% to 40% comes from.

No it's not. You stating it does not make it true. In fact, all the work you did above is just proof of the mental gymnastics people are willing to go through to try to defend their wrong opinions.

If you want any other data beyond that, then I suggest you go jump into a time machine, go back in time, and stop the stay in orders so you can have hard data facts.

I want you to prove your original statement to be true. If you can't do so based on sound statistics and epidemiology, just admit it and let's move on.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Yes, based off 80% of the population getting infected, and a 1-1.5% death rate nationally -- as a total count at the end of the pandemic.


That's not 30-40%. Also... you're taking the eventual national death count and applying it to current NYC proportion of death rates, ignoring the fact that many other locations have a far different case/death growth curve, many places nationally are at different places on the pandemic's logistic growth curve, etc.


Wow. No.
The ~3 million deaths is roughly based on herd immunity of 80% infected and ~1-1.5% death rate. If you reduce the % infected, you also reduce national death count, and hence also NYC's expected number of deaths (assuming your numbers even had any validity, for reasons I explained above).
Let's do the basic math anyway.
If you only infect 60%, you knock the total death count down to 2.25 million. NYC's proportional deaths, 39% of 2.25 million = 877,500 deaths. 60% infection rate in NYC = 8.4 million * 0.60 = 5,040,000 infected. Death rate = 17.4%.
If you infect only 50% nationally, you knock the total death count down to 1.875 million. NYC's proportional deaths, 39% of 1.875 million = 731,250. 50% infection rate in NYC = 8.4 million * 0.50 = 4,200,000 infected. Death rate = 17.4%.
Magic! If you reduce the total number of infected people, the death rate in NYC would stay the same.
r/TheyDidntDoTheMath


It seems like you're proposing that if the national % infected count is 50%, you would keep NYC's expected % infected at 80%? That's convenient.
But if you're going to assume NYC has a higher % infected count than nationally (which is not unreasonable), then you're going to need to adjust your calculations above to account for current death rates and extrapolated death rates (which you have not done). If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I suggest you take some epidemiology and statistics courses and come back when we can have a discussion based on science rather than opinion.


You are taking the total number of eventual cases predicted (3 million) but using the current NYC proportion of US deaths. You already told me you were not talking about eventual death rates, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.


This is vague. Exponential factors like... what? Care to share any data?


That actually is not a fact. Is that how things went with the Spanish flu? How do you know 70-80% of this pandemic's deaths will happen in the first few months? When we aren't even 3 months in from the first death? Also, I thought we were talking about death rates NOW, not eventually? WTF?


Yes, that's how pandemics generally work, the total number of deaths and cases follows a logistic curve.


No it's not. You stating it does not make it true. In fact, all the work you did above is just proof of the mental gymnastics people are willing to go through to try to defend their wrong opinions.


I want you to prove your original statement to be true. If you can't do so based on sound statistics and epidemiology, just admit it and let's move on.

Way to cherry pick my comment.. Next time, quote it's entirely instead of bits and pieces.

But it's not bother, I will just reply:


Do you somehow think that New York's infection rate will stay constant and equal the Nation infection rate? Because that is what your math is showing, which means you don't understand any of it. The only way National infection rate and New York's rate infection rate can equal the same is if Population density was equal thru out the Nation. It isn't. High population density areas like New York will have much higher infection rate than low density areas. So your math is flawed just in that sense alone. Since New York is the 7th highest population dense state in the Nation, it makes sense that I would use a much higher infection rate then what the National average would be. Now, the case count will go up exponentially, and just based on that figure alone, deaths will also go up exponentially, even if the health system wasn't overloaded. However, the deaths have a second exponential variable that you are ignoring or just plain don't understand.. and that is the over loaded health systems. That is the part you don't seem to understand, because an overloaded health system isn't going to effect infection rate, only deaths.

As for the rest of your babble.. I was just using KNOWN numbers to demonstrate to you how and why the death rate would hit 30 to 40% in New York using the ONLY known numbers that any predictions where given with no stay at home orders in place.. How do you know that 70 to 80% would happen in the first few months.. ALL the models have demonstrated that.. what the hell do you think the purpose of the stay at home orders where for and flattening the curve is all about? You keep asking for facts, that you know damn well are impossible to present because they would ONLY be available IF New York never put in place any stay at home orders... Hence, why I told you to jump in your time machine so you can go get your data. No predictions where released for just New York, only national, which is why I used those predictions to demonstrate, in simple layman terms, or simple math, but you still don't get it.

Has nothing to do with Gymnastics... you keep trying to compare the Spanish Flu to support your stance.. EVEN THE SPANISH FLU HAD A LOCK DOWN TO PREVENT IT.. and guess where most of the deaths actually accrued.. AFTER THE LOCKDOWN was lifted... You act like you know how it all works, but you really don't understand anything because if you did, we wouldn't be having this argument.. even in your faulty linear math above, you are at 17.4%.. that is only 12.6% away from 30%, without any exponential factors calculated in, or adjusting for the higher population density, or the overloaded heath systems. But then again, you believe that the % of server cases won't change... that it will stay constant.. Which is a myth.

You keep wanting statistics.. There are none for this Virus.. it is completely unknown, and reacts completely different than any virus we have every had.. That is why it has confused the highest and smartest scientists and doctors in the world. We know very little about it. Statistics from other viruses are useless. All we have to go off of is the last 3 months of data.. all based of of stay in home orders.

But I'm done debating this with you. You don't agree with me, that's your right.. but it doesn't mean I'm wrong, just because you can't wrap your head around it, and disagree.

 

[amrnuke]

Way to cherry pick my comment.. Next time, quote it's entirely instead of bits and pieces.

But it's not bother, I will just reply:


Do you somehow think that New York's infection rate will stay constant and equal the Nation infection rate? Because that is what your math is showing, which means you don't understand any of it. The only way National infection rate and New York's rate infection rate can equal the same is if Population density was equal thru out the Nation. It isn't. High population density areas like New York will have much higher infection rate than low density areas. So your math is flawed just in that sense alone. Since New York is the 7th highest population dense state in the Nation, it makes sense that I would use a much higher infection rate then what the National average would be. Now, the case count will go up exponentially, and just based on that figure alone, deaths will also go up exponentially, even if the health system wasn't overloaded. However, the deaths have a second exponential variable that you are ignoring or just plain don't understand.. and that is the over loaded health systems. That is the part you don't seem to understand, because an overloaded health system isn't going to effect infection rate, only deaths.

As for the rest of your babble.. I was just using KNOWN numbers to demonstrate to you how and why the death rate would hit 30 to 40% in New York using the ONLY known numbers that any predictions where given with no stay at home orders in place.. How do you know that 70 to 80% would happen in the first few months.. ALL the models have demonstrated that.. what the hell do you think the purpose of the stay at home orders where for and flattening the curve is all about? You keep asking for facts, that you know damn well are impossible to present because they would ONLY be available IF New York never put in place any stay at home orders... Hence, why I told you to jump in your time machine so you can go get your data. No predictions where released for just New York, only national, which is why I used those predictions to demonstrate, in simple layman terms, or simple math, but you still don't get it.

Has nothing to do with Gymnastics... you keep trying to compare the Spanish Flu to support your stance.. EVEN THE SPANISH FLU HAD A LOCK DOWN TO PREVENT IT.. and guess where most of the deaths actually accrued.. AFTER THE LOCKDOWN was lifted... You act like you know how it all works, but you really don't understand anything because if you did, we wouldn't be having this argument.. even in your faulty linear math above, you are at 17.4%.. that is only 12.6% away from 30%, without any exponential factors calculated in, or adjusting for the higher population density, or the overloaded heath systems. But then again, you believe that the % of server cases won't change... that it will stay constant.. Which is a myth.

You keep wanting statistics.. There are none for this Virus.. it is completely unknown, and reacts completely different than any virus we have every had.. That is why it has confused the highest and smartest scientists and doctors in the world. We know very little about it. Statistics from other viruses are useless. All we have to go off of is the last 3 months of data.. all based of of stay in home orders.

But I'm done debating this with you. You don't agree with me, that's your right.. but it doesn't mean I'm wrong, just because you can't wrap your head around it, and disagree.

All that you're doing is artificially diminishing the denominator and increasing the numerator by cherry-picking the data we have to support a number you fished out of thin air.

I'm glad you finally admitted you have no statistics.

But you're lying when you say "there are none for this virus." Yes there are. You just refuse to evaluate them because they don't fit your opinion.

 

[NWRMidnight]

All that you're doing is artificially diminishing the denominator and increasing the numerator by cherry-picking the data we have to support a number you fished out of thin air.

I'm glad you finally admitted you have no statistics.

But you're lying when you say "there are none for this virus." Yes there are. You just refuse to evaluate them because they don't fit your opinion.

There are no statistics.. that is why you have to calculate it using current numbers. If you can show me where there are statistics for New York with NO stay in place orders.. then provide them. You have no data to prove otherwise, but your math that ignores any of the influences/variables, and calculations based off faulty testing data, and linear calculations, so your calculations are much farther off than mine because you refuse to acknowledge the simplest variables that change without the stay in place orders, and the impact those variables will have on the results. That's the point.. it has to be figured based on known data derived from the numbers that we have, which are not based off NO stay in place orders. Now, how am I diminishing the demonstrator and artificially increasing the numerator? Taking into account for the variables that will effect the results, which is the proper way to calculate it, is not diminishing or artificially increasing anything. You are not doing so, and not taking into account the how such variables will change such calculations such as population density, the overloaded health systems, and other factors.. I am.. You are trying to count everything the same and treat everything equal across the board and act like non of that factors and variables have any effect. You even tried to reduce the death count percentage by using the faulty antibody results.. Which are NOT accurate because the tests themselves are not accurate, not to mention there choice in testing location which artificially inflate the results higher than they really are, even if the test where accurate. But that's a whole different argument in itself.

No, I am not lying when I say there are not statistics other than what we have gathered over the last 3 months, when it comes to this virus, which is what I said (I am strictly speaking of the USA) And there are zero statistics or projections for New York with them having no stay in place orders - the very center of this argument. You are welcome to produce the statistics for New York that are out there based off no stay in order results, if you believe they are out there, YOU can't, because they don't exist for New York. You can't even use other nations statistics because of all the differences in variables/influences between such countries. . Example Germany vs Italy.. completely 2 different results.. complete 2 different countries .. statistics are only reverent to the country they are gathered in due to all the variables. You can't really use the National projections because they are not really accurate, but I tried in an attempt to get you realize how wrong you are, but it didn't work. You can't even compare New York's results to Wyoming (one of the states that doesn't have stay in place orders) or any other state because of all the differences between the states.. So again, we don't have the statistics available for THIS virus that are really relevant to our argument of what the death count would be in New York if there where no stay in place orders put in place. You are more that welcome to produce them, since you think I am lying. (previous pandemics are irreverent, because of the differences in the viruses, specially from 100 years ago, not to mention that to little is still unknown about this virus) That is why you have to calculate it using known numbers and take into account for all the variables, or at least attempt to, something you refuse to do. We have only 3 months of statistics, with a lot of them national numbers, not strictly New York, and NON of them that have any relevance to having NO stay in place orders in New York. Unless you want to try and use the numbers from Wyoming, a state that only has a population of 560k or 6 people per square mile vs New York who has a population of 8.5 Million or 47,000 per square mile. You are act like the stay in place orders, social distancing has no effect on the outcome, just like you don't take into account for , population, population density and the health care system and it's effect on the death rate without such orders in place.

Basically all you are is a troll, arguing over my opinion which is based off all the variables and what known statistics we do have, gathered over the last 3 months, which are all based off of having Stay in place orders. All because you don't agree. If you had any numbers from New York that showed the numbers with out stay in place orders, you would have produced them already to counter, but there are no models that show that, so here we are.. The only way you can get such numbers is if New York didn't put stay in place orders in place, which could have only be obtain either with a time machine where you go back and stop the stay in place orders, had someone give out such projections for New York, or an alternate universe. Obviously since that isn't the case , and there where no projections released for New York without the stay in place orders in place, one can only try to calculate it applying all the various variables, which you refuse to do. So You haven't proven anything, other than you disagree and can't wrap your head around all the variables, so you are stuck using linear thinking and calculations , thinking everything will stay constant regardless of such variables.

Hence why I have told you I am done arguing with you.

 

[EduCat]

Lol a fight broke out at one of these protests, surprised the bullets didnt start flying!

Video: Doll with noose prompts fight at Michigan Capitol protest

Video shows organizers calling for police as two protesters fight.

www.mlive.com

 

[brycejones]

Lol a fight broke out at one of these protests, surprised the bullets didnt start flying!

Video: Doll with noose prompts fight at Michigan Capitol protest

Video shows organizers calling for police as two protesters fight.

www.mlive.com

The numbers were down because it was raining. 'Rights' are really important unless the weather isn't ideal then its totally cool to stay home. These are some seriously committed people in the "liberate" movement.