Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Far-Right is at it Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Nice try, but no, it isn't.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      The common cold and the flu also have "unbelievable" infection rates, and measles is 18 times more infectious than CV. As Blackhat pointed out, what matters is the mortality rat, which is extremely low. What also matters are the sequelae* which so far are nil.

      *(An example of sequelae is the loss of hearing from some childhood diseases and the heart problems caused by rheumatic fever as a child.)

      The most "unbelievable" thing about CV is the hype, misinformation, government BS and just plain idiocy and panic associated with it.
      Who is the genius who told you such things about measles?

      We have vaccines for measles which means that we have herd immunity which makes wayyy less likely to spread the disease

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_vaccine

      Measles vaccine is a vaccine that prevents measles.[1] Nearly all of those who do not develop immunity after a single dose develop it after a second dose.[1] When rates of vaccination within a population are greater than 92% outbreaks of measles typically no longer occur; however, they may occur again if rates of vaccination decrease.[1]

      Both mortality and infection rates matter. A much less lethal disease which spreads easily can kill wayyyy more people than a disease like Ebola which has a 50% average mortality rate

      https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...-virus-disease

      The average EVD case fatality rate is around 50%. Case fatality rates have varied from 25% to 90% in past outbreaks.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Blackhat View Post
        The infection rate is less important than the death rate. The infection rate sounds terrifying, but the rate requiring any form of hospitalization is 5% and the death rate is showing to be under 2% and more evidence is coming forward that it may be less than 1%. Practical common sense has to be applied. The cure can't be worse than the disease. Otherwise, we should eliminate motor vehicle travel permanently, since it's the only way to guarantee saving the 38,800 people that died in accidents last year. That seems to be the mindset with this virus.
        A death rate a of 2% or 1% is actually a LOT! . Do you know many transportation means with 2% or 1% death rate? That is more comparable to a death rate in a combat mission during war.

        The infection rate is as much important as the death rate. You need to take into account both to come to some rough estimation of the projected casualties.

        If somebody tells you that without control measures this disease can infect on third of the US population, this is 100 millions infections. And if your numbers are correct (I did not check ), then you have 5 million hospitalizations and under 2 million deaths.

        If the infection rate is one tenth of the above value, the estimation of the number of victims will be adjusted accordingly by one tenth.

        So, you cannot ignore the estimation of the infection rate under different scenarios. Their impact on the projected deaths is big.

        Then you have to estimate the time for developing a vaccine. If it needs one year, then you have to consider if the cost of having an economy functioning with limitations during this period justifies the reduction of casualties that you estimate based on the reduced infection rates that is expected based on such limitations.
        Last edited by pamak; 17 Apr 20, 20:29.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          The common cold and the flu also have "unbelievable" infection rates, and measles is 18 times more infectious than CV. As Blackhat pointed out, what matters is the mortality rat, which is extremely low. What also matters are the sequelae* which so far are nil.

          *(An example of sequelae is the loss of hearing from some childhood diseases and the heart problems caused by rheumatic fever as a child.)

          The most "unbelievable" thing about CV is the hype, misinformation, government BS and just plain idiocy and panic associated with it.


          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

            Yes, if they pass with all the symptoms of COVID, it makes sense to include them.
            No : that is not correct .

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post

              No : that is not correct .
              It does not have to be 100% correct. It has to be more accurate than the alternative of not including them. And that is indeed the case.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                A death rate a of 2% or 1% is actually a LOT! . Do you know many transportation means with 2% or 1% death rate? That is more comparable to a death rate in a combat mission during war.

                The infection rate is as much important as the death rate. You need to take into account both to come to some rough estimation of the projected casualties.

                If somebody tells you that without control measures this disease can infect on third of the US population, this is 100 millions infections. And if your numbers are correct (I did not check ), then you have 5 million hospitalizations and under 2 million deaths.

                If the infection rate is one tenth of the above value, the estimation of the number of victims will be adjusted accordingly by one tenth.

                So, you cannot ignore the estimation of the infection rate under different scenarios. Their impact on the projected deaths is big.

                Then you have to estimate the time for developing a vaccine. If it needs one year, then you have to consider if the cost of having an economy functioning with limitations during this period justifies the reduction of casualties that you estimate based on the reduced infection rates that is expected based on such limitations.
                The so-called death rate is wrong as it is founded on non existent figures .
                650000 Americans are claimed ( wrongly ) to be infected by CV.35000 Americans are claimed (wrongly ) to have died FROM CV .
                If you use these 2 figures to calculate a death rate, you have a death rate not from 2 % but from 5 % .
                But, if you use the numerator, you will not have the same death rate .
                There is no proof that if 100 million Americans are infected, 5 million will die .
                If 6 million car accidents result in 36000 deaths = a death rate of 0.6 %, that does not mean that 60 million car accidents will result in 360000 deaths, also a death rate of 0.6 % .
                That is basics taught on school .
                A different number of infected people will result in a different number of dead people and a different death rate.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  It does not have to be 100% correct. It has to be more accurate than the alternative of not including them. And that is indeed the case.
                  No : it must be totally correct : 90 % correct does not exist .
                  100 proved and 50 possible is not 150 proved .

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                    No : it must be totally correct : 90 % correct does not exist .
                    100 proved and 50 possible is not 150 proved .
                    But not including any of these suspected deaths is ALSO not 100% correct in describing the number of ACTUAL CV deaths.
                    What exists is estimation, and the method which should be used for the ACTUAL number of CV deaths must produce the smallest possible error.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                      The so-called death rate is wrong as it is founded on non existent figures .
                      650000 Americans are claimed ( wrongly ) to be infected by CV.35000 Americans are claimed (wrongly ) to have died FROM CV .
                      If you use these 2 figures to calculate a death rate, you have a death rate not from 2 % but from 5 % .
                      But, if you use the numerator, you will not have the same death rate .
                      There is no proof that if 100 million Americans are infected, 5 million will die .
                      If 6 million car accidents result in 36000 deaths = a death rate of 0.6 %, that does not mean that 60 million car accidents will result in 360000 deaths, also a death rate of 0.6 % .
                      That is basics taught on school .
                      A different number of infected people will result in a different number of dead people and a different death rate.
                      I use his numbers. since I replied to his post.

                      And stop your BS with your proof requirements. When you use influenza numbers for comparisons, you also do not use any number that are "proven" All such number show estimations, and it does not matter if we talk about common flu, Spanish flu, Swine flu, SARS, CV or whatever !
                      Last edited by pamak; 18 Apr 20, 02:44.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        But not including any of these suspected deaths is ALSO not 100% correct in describing the number of ACTUAL CV deaths.
                        What exists is estimation, and the method which should be used for the ACTUAL number of CV deaths must produce the smallest possible error.
                        Not including them is correct, as you give the numbers of proven CV deaths . Unproved CV deaths must be mentioned separately .
                        The smallest possible error is to say what you know . Not to say what you do not know .If you include all unproved deaths, your error will be greater than if you give only the proved deaths .
                        Proved deaths : 100
                        Unproved deaths 100,of whom 10 possible deaths .
                        200 means a likely error of 90
                        100 means a likely error of 10
                        There will never be 100 unproved deaths of whom 90 are possible .

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Next comment directed at another poster in this thread earns time off
                          If you can’t act like adults, you’ll get treated like children.
                          Enough is enough.
                          ACG Staff

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                            Not including them is correct, as you give the numbers of proven CV deaths . Unproved CV deaths must be mentioned separately .
                            The smallest possible error is to say what you know . Not to say what you do not know .If you include all unproved deaths, your error will be greater than if you give only the proved deaths .
                            Proved deaths : 100
                            Unproved deaths 100,of whom 10 possible deaths .
                            200 means a likely error of 90
                            100 means a likely error of 10
                            There will never be 100 unproved deaths of whom 90 are possible .
                            It is not correct because you try to find the number of ACTUAL deaths and to just the number of deaths that your measuring system detected!

                            The smallest possible error must be related to what you WANT to measure, so your claim equates with saying that we should not care about the number of actual deaths because we cannot detect them directly. This never happens for any disease.

                            And NO among 200 unproven deaths , the majority now is CV so, your example of having just 10 CV deaths among the 100 unproven ones makes no sense.

                            The CDC monitor the prevalence of different diseases using statistical methods, including things like percentage of negative tests. The CV frequency of positive identification now is higher than the one of regular flu causing similar symptoms. And we know from the confirmed cases with symptoms that CV is more deadly than regular flu.Thus, the majority of deaths in unproven cases will be actually related to CV deaths.

                            https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

                            Nationally, influenza activity is now low


                            WHONPHL15_small.gif



                            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...covidview.html


                            Summary of Laboratory Testing Results Reported to CDC

                            No. of positive specimens

                            145,764 (21.4%) Week 15 (April 5- April 11, 2020)

                            426,459 (18.4%) Cumulative since March 1, 2020





















                            Last edited by pamak; 18 Apr 20, 15:06.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                              Maybe the OP associates people defending the constitution as "Far Right"?
                              Maybe just people concerned about jobs and livelihoods. The Lock down threatens to recreate the 1930s depression and all for a disease that has an average mortality rate less than 1%. A more sensible way would be to protect those most at risk, the very old and those with underlying conditions, and let everyone else get back to work.
                              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                                Maybe the OP associates people defending the constitution as "Far Right"?
                                I don't think so. How are the demonstrators, who are egged on by the president, 'defending the Constitution'? And the far-right groups are named in the OP...
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • casanova
                                  Berlin.1945
                                  by casanova
                                  The Sowjet T-34 tank against a German Tiger tank in Berlin in the II World War in 1945. ...
                                  Yesterday, 23:41
                                • casanova
                                  AW 169M
                                  by casanova
                                  The Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner declared the buy of 18 Italian military helicopters of the type AW 169M for the Austrian army, the Bundesheer....
                                  Yesterday, 23:26
                                • JBark
                                  What changed?
                                  by JBark
                                  There was a time not too long ago when this forum was full of discussion, multiple posts, votes and involved discussions on the best of the war, etc.,...
                                  Yesterday, 18:54
                                Working...
                                X