So how deadly is it? - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15079301
BeesKnee5 wrote:Bizarre argument to assume all Corona viruses are equal.


I didn't say they were all equal, I said that millions of them go unreported because many them are very mild. And in most cases SARS-CoV-2 is very mild, which is why it has gone unreported in the vast maority of cases.

The common cold is a Corona virus and kills virtually no one.


It's an innocuous virus for otherwise healthy people but it is the final nail for a lot of old people with severe health issues.

There is absolutely no reason to lump them together and assume all Corona viruses are relatively harmless.


Well I didn't do that, that's some shit you just made up.
#15079304
Sivad wrote:
I didn't say they were all equal, I said that millions of them go unreported because many them are very mild. And in most cases SARS-CoV-2 is very mild, which is why it has gone unreported in the vast maority of cases.



It's an innocuous virus for otherwise healthy people but it is the final nail for a lot of old people with severe health issues.



Well I didn't do that, that's some shit you just made up.


The point is you are adding Corona viruses together to make a nonsense claim.

Almost no one goes to the doctor with a cold therefore all corona viruses are largely undetected.

The reason we are seeing healthcare systems overwhelmed is because it affects many in all categories. It may not kill those who are previously healthy but many still need cpap and ventilators to get through this.
#15079305
BeesKnee5 wrote:The point is you are adding Corona viruses together to make a nonsense claim.


No, that's just what you're saying. I could type out retarded nonsense and attribute it to you, anyone can do that to anyone. It doesn't mean anything, it's just a braindead tactic.

Almost no one goes to the doctor with a cold therefore all corona viruses are largely undetected.


Never said anything like that, that's just you making shit up.

The reason we are seeing healthcare systems overwhelmed is because it affects many in all categories. It may not kill those who are previously healthy but many still need cpap and ventilators to get through this.


A tiny fraction require hospitalization, most cases are very mild or even asymptomatic.
#15079307
Sivad wrote:
No, that's just what you're saying. I could type out retarded nonsense and attribute it to you, anyone can do that to anyone. It doesn't mean anything, it's just a braindead tactic.



Never said anything like that, that's just you making shit up.



A tiny fraction require hospitalization, most cases are very mild or even asymptomatic.


Yes you did. You made the statement that every year millions of Corona virus cases go unreported . This is irrelevant to covid-19 unless you are attempting to lump it in with all other Corona viruses.

Even if 1% of cases require hospitalisation it's enough to tip most healthcare systems over the edge. Once that happens then the death rate rockets because there is insufficient capacity to save lives.
#15079315
BeesKnee5 wrote:Yes you did.


No I didn't. You are either very dense or very dishonest.


You made the statement that every year millions of Corona virus cases go unreported .


Yes I did.

This is irrelevant to covid-19 unless you are attempting to lump it in with all other Corona viruses.


No it's not. It's totally relevant to CoV 2 because millions of cases of Cov2 are going unreported for the exact same reason millions of other coronavirus cases go unreported - because they're extremely mild or asymptomatic and so people just don't bother to see a doctor about them.

Your stupid claim that it somehow lumps them all together is just a stupid claim. It doesn't logically follow from anything I've said, you're just trying to twist shit to score a pofo point.
#15079316
Sivad wrote:

No it's not. It's totally relevant to CoV 2 because millions of cases of Cov2 are going unreported for the exact same reason millions of other coronavirus cases go unreported - because they're extremely mild or asymptomatic and so people just don't bother to see a doctor about them.



Still a crisis, still waiting to see relevance from the wacko Right.
#15079317
Sivad wrote:
No I didn't. You are either very dense or very dishonest.




Yes I did.



No it's not. It's totally relevant to CoV 2 because millions of cases of Cov2 are going unreported for the exact same reason millions of other coronavirus cases go unreported - because they're extremely mild or asymptomatic and so people just don't bother to see a doctor about them.

Your stupid claim that it somehow lumps them all together is just a stupid claim. It doesn't logically follow from anything I've said, you're just trying to twist shit to score a pofo point.

I'm not interested in points scoring, I'm highlighting your false equivalence and assumptions.

Ok let's play your maths.

In your view what percentage die and what percentage require hospitalisation?
#15079324
Sivad wrote:
No you're not, you're just making shit up.




You can go read through the thread, I have no interest in discussing it with someone who doesn't know the facts, makes shit up, and is just out to confuse people with bullshit.


It's you who is making up nonsense.

I will repeat, the number of non-covid-19 Corona virus infections unreported in prior years is irrelevant to the number of covid-19 cases unreported.

The reason is simple, more people are falling seriously ill with this disease and therefore the number unreported will be significantly lower.

You won't discuss with me because as soon as you try to put figures to your claim you know it falls apart.
#15079331
BeesKnee5 wrote:I will repeat, the number of non-covid-19 Corona virus infections unreported in prior years is irrelevant to the number of covid-19 cases unreported.

The reason is simple, more people are falling seriously ill with this disease and therefore the number unreported will be significantly lower.


I got a study saying 86% of cases of CoV2 have gone unreported and the Oxford study says up to half the population of the UK could be infected. You just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You won't discuss with me because as soon as you try to put figures to your claim you know it falls apart.


They're not my figures, they all come from top experts from top institutions, the figures aren't the issue and they can be found all throughout this thread. If you want to comment on them then go right ahead. If one of your comments is actually interesting or exceptionally stupid I might respond but I'm not debating someone like you because you don't know what you're talking about and your intellectually dishonest.
#15079334
Sivad wrote:
I got a study saying 86% of cases of CoV2 have gone unreported and the Oxford study says up to half the population of the UK could be infected. You just don't know what the hell you're talking about.



They're not my figures, they all come from top experts from top institutions, the figures aren't the issue and they can be found all throughout this thread. If you want to comment on them then go right ahead. If one of your comments is actually interesting or exceptionally stupid I might respond but I'm not debating someone like you because you don't know what you're talking about and your intellectually dishonest.


The authors of the Oxford study have made clear they do not beleive the computer model used is complete and the evidence is also clear that if this is true at the time of the study then the death rate should already be falling.

So 86% unreported.
Leaving the amount reported at 14%

Let's plug this in.

Italy 86,000 reported gives 600,000 infected.
Based on current deaths this will kill 100,000 Italians or 0.2% of population.

If you look at countries doing thorough testing then the morbidity is 0.2-0.5% so this seems reasonable.

Go beyond this and in a country like Italy that hasn't carried out community testing then a large percentage of your remaining 14% are identified because they have been hospitalised. No healthcare system can handle those numbers.
#15079339
BeesKnee5 wrote:The authors of the Oxford study have made clear they do not beleive the computer model used is complete


They said that the model needs to be tested with data, but where did they say the model wasn't complete? And incomplete in what way? you'll need to post the link to that.
#15079347
BeesKnee5 wrote:Based on current deaths this will kill 100,000 Italians or 0.2% of population.


uh, no. How many people it kills depends on how many people get infected and what % of which demographic groups are infected and all that depends on so many factors that you need an advanced degree to figure it out. The fact that you would even attempt to come up with a total death projection tells me all I need to know about you.
By Sivad
#15079348
Rancid wrote:Does anyone have data on what the hospitalization rate by age group is?


it's posted in this thread.
#15079351
Sivad wrote:
They said that the model needs to be tested with data, but where did they say the model wasn't complete? And incomplete in what way? you'll need to post the link to that.


You've done it yourself.

The data is the source of the modelling.

You are relying on a preliminary, non peer reviewed model that openly says it requires more data to improve the accuracy of the model.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20042291v1
#15079353
Sivad wrote:
uh, no. How many people it kills depends on how many people get infected and what % of which demographic groups are infected and all that depends on so many factors that you need an advanced degree to figure it out. The fact that you would even attempt to come up with a total death projection tells me all I need to know about you.


So your false argument is that millions more are infected and that differing proportions of demographic are infected.

You really are grasping now.

The shares of infected across demographic is identical, the proportion who fall seriously ill is not and neither is the proportion who die.
#15079363
BeesKnee5 wrote:You've done it yourself.

The data is the source of the modelling.


That's every model then. Every model is incomplete.

You are relying on a preliminary, non peer reviewed model that openly says it requires more data to improve the accuracy of the model.


Every model requires more data to improve accuracy and the Imperial model that most governments are relying on has major issues of its own.

Francois Balloux, a computational epidemiologist who worked on an influential new coronavirus model, on the trade-offs that have to be made.

A model is only as good as what you put into it. What assumptions does this model make?

I think the model is pretty sophisticated. It is detailed and realistic, but there are many, many assumptions, and some of them are not super-explicit. But in terms of ballpark figures, I think it’s right. It doesn’t give specific numbers but suggests ranges. This many people are likely to need expensive care. This many are likely to die. But the numbers are big whatever happens. The report is not the nicest read, and the scenarios are actually pretty optimistic.

In what way?

There are a few important variables not built in. For instance, it makes the assumption that if someone is infected, they will be immunized for life. But that’s something we don’t actually know. We don't know how long people stay immunized after they recover—if they can catch the disease twice, and if they can, after how many months. That would change the outcome quite a bit, and not for the better.

The other thing that the model does not take into account properly is seasonality. So, for instance, the common cold is much more common in winter than in summer. The common cold is also a coronavirus, and in some ways the two are not that different. But the model doesn’t really account for that change through the year. I’m not saying they should have looked at the effect of warm or cold weather on the virus. Rather, they just assume that there will be a certain number of hospital beds throughout the year, which isn’t true. The NHS is really stretched in winter. If those ICU beds are not free in winter, an outbreak would be much worse.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6153 ... al-deaths/
#15079364
BeesKnee5 wrote:
The shares of infected across demographic is identical


:knife: no they most certainly are not. you just pulled that straight out of your ass.
#15079368
Sivad wrote:
That's every model then. Every model is incomplete.



Every model requires more data to improve accuracy and the Imperial model that most governments are relying on has major issues of its own.

What are you arguing here?
That the more data you have then the better the model.

Agreed.

So what makes you lean more heavily on the Oxford model than the Imperial model?

I'm going to assume it fits your preconceptions.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 32

Thanks for posting those latest RIOT-TIME videos, […]

That's how it works. You either support the idea […]

For propaganda to work the first thing is that it[…]

RIPPA The Farm Robot Exterminates Pests And Weeds […]