forums

OT:NBA regular season suspended

Advertisement
Rudy Gobert is a ****** ****head.

If I'm Donovan Mitchell, after the quarantine process is over I'm demanding the front office get rid of that ****** moron or I would not play a single second any further for the Jazz.
 
MovingZen said:
What the **** are you babbling about now NY Jr.? You think of something new you needed to come back and reply to my post again?
Click to expand...

The old EC would say something incredibly nasty, witty, and truthful about your mom.

The new EC kindly asks you to stop being insulting.

So.

Please stop.
 
Advertisement
Empirical Cane said:
The old EC would say something incredibly nasty, witty, and truthful about your mom.

The new EC kindly asks you to stop being insulting.

So.

Please stop.
Click to expand...
Of course you think I'd care what you have to say about my mother. Go ahead and keep babbling, somebody will show up and toss you some change.
 
For_The_U said:
Right. We got those behind us. Just like we'll get COVID-19 behind us. This is in large part because modern advances in technology (across many industries) make the severity of a flu-based virus like this much less devastating in 2020 than it was in 1918. SARS, MERS, bird flu, swine flu, they all likely would have wrecked much more havoc in 1918 than they did in the 21st century.

Look, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Spanish Flu/red herring debate. You think Spanish Flu is referenced solely to point out how taking actions to keep people away from gathering in huge crowds is helpful. I didn't need a mention of the Spanish Flu of 1918 to know that, and I don't think most other Americans did either. My personal take is that it is being referenced continually by many people right now for a very different purpose. But if you disagree, all good.
Click to expand...
The reason the Spanish Flu was worse is not because it was a long time ago. It was a different strain, and then it mutated into being not as dangerous and became endemic.

They’re predicting the same thing with Covid. It will become endemic, but the death rate will lower. Why? Because a strain that kills fewer people will spread wider.
Empirical Cane said:
You don't appear to gave the first grasp of even how to read the data that I, and others, posted.

Let me try and help:

The cohort table I shared shows the immuno-comprimised death rate for all ages. The .9% you keep flapping about for the young were those very young at risk for a bad outcome--not the healthy.

Furthermore, ypu do understand how DIME is calculated right? D is the ONLY close to as factual number you have because, well, YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL DEAD BODY TO COUNT (respect IJJB). I, M, E fluctuate quite a bit, and are ALWAYS understated.

ALWAYS. Why is this important? BECAUSE IT ARTIFICIALLY ELEVATES the "death rate". If the actual I, M, Es were known or at least better counted, particularly the I, and M (E doesn't always convert to D, but 99% do).

So, if they are reporting .9%, 10%, ffs 50% "death rate", then they better have either have 100% I, M, and E counts or there better be a ton of Ds found laying on the street or in their homes collapsed and gone.

So, all the death rate you have been quoting, is a basic, but OVERSTATED benchmark (same for flu season each year).

www.bbc.com

Coronavirus death rate: What are the chances of dying?

The current best guess of a 1% death rate does not apply to everyone.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

Hopefully this will help calm your severe case of the vapors.

PS Has there been a SINGLE report in US of corona virus death in street or someone found dead and cold at home?

Now granted, this spreads in LA homeless community, watch out--for them.

Healthy people, by almost every single GLOBAL account, it's a bad cold/flu.
Click to expand...
You'll sadly never know how dumb you are. How in any way is that entire page only immuno-compromised people? It doesn't say that anywhere.

The 0.9% is for people with NO pre-existing conditions. That means that they are not immuno-compromised. In fact that list has death rates FOR the immuno-compromised like those with cancer, etc. 0.9% is for people without any comorbidities.

"I, M, E fluctuate quite a bit, and are ALWAYS understated."

Yes, it's understated for the flu as well.

You somehow think you're smarter than every doctor and epidemiologist on the planet and have figured out that it's not worse than the flu.
 
Empirical Cane said:
How are you going to avoid now?

I've given you numerous face saving off ramps from your losing and unsupportable assertions.

Do take the latest one.
Click to expand...
You've literally proven nothing lmao. The death rate is higher for this than the flu in every age group.
 
Advertisement
jhtheking said:
We don’t know the overall death rate in the US. It’s too early.

And yes, South Korea is experiencing a much higher death rate than the flu. 7 times. And given they are testing much more rigorously than they do or anyone does for the flu, it’s probably higher than 7x.

China has a death rate of over 20x the flu, and given that their testing rate is more in line with that of the flu, it’s probably more accurate. But let’s say South Korea is more accurate.

It doesn’t matter if it’s more heavily skewed toward older people and those with comorbidities. If younger people don’t care and spread it, it will spread to older people and kill them. Get it yet?

But keep spreading misinformation because you’re close minded. Show me some real data that this is no worse than the flu. Here’s mine https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-south-korea

The 30-50 age range has a death rate equivalent of the flu overall (in South Korea). Just like the coronavirus, the flu primarily kills older and those with preexisting conditions. The flu kills about .02% of those in the same age range. So according to South Korea’s data, it has a 5 times higher death rate than the flu for that age range.

Lastly, a significant part is the rate at which it infects people. A certain percent will have to be hospitalized. If the transmission rate is too high, and there are too many cases, hospitals will be overwhelmed and the death rate will skyrocket. THAT is why I brought up the Spanish flu. Cities that took intense precautions slowed the spread, and dramatically reduced the fatality rate. Cities that didn’t, had death rates up to 20% at the worst times.

Looking at our 2 arguments side by side, I’d say mine has more reasoning than yours. It uses actual data, while yours doesn’t. Yours makes claims with literally no proof. “The death rate is not higher”. It is. Let’s see if you’re smart enough to change your mind when presented with facts.
Click to expand...

@Mcanes305 care to give your intellectual input?
 
jhtheking said:
The reason the Spanish Flu was worse is not because it was a long time ago. It was a different strain, and then it mutated into being not as dangerous and became endemic.

They’re predicting the same thing with Covid. It will become endemic, but the death rate will lower. Why? Because a strain that kills fewer people will spread wider.

You'll sadly never know how dumb you are. How in any way is that entire page only immuno-compromised people? It doesn't say that anywhere.

The 0.9% is for people with NO pre-existing conditions. That means that they are not immuno-compromised. In fact that list has death rates FOR the immuno-compromised like those with cancer, etc. 0.9% is for people without any comorbidities.

"I, M, E fluctuate quite a bit, and are ALWAYS understated."

Yes, it's understated for the flu as well.

You somehow think you're smarter than every doctor and epidemiologist on the planet and have figured out that it's not worse than the flu.
Click to expand...

I'm not smarter, I'm just looking at the data.

PS. Yes the table says exactly what I said.
 
jhtheking said:
The reason the Spanish Flu was worse is not because it was a long time ago. It was a different strain, and then it mutated into being not as dangerous and became endemic.

They’re predicting the same thing with Covid. It will become endemic, but the death rate will lower. Why? Because a strain that kills fewer people will spread wider.

You'll sadly never know how dumb you are. How in any way is that entire page only immuno-compromised people? It doesn't say that anywhere.

The 0.9% is for people with NO pre-existing conditions. That means that they are not immuno-compromised. In fact that list has death rates FOR the immuno-compromised like those with cancer, etc. 0.9% is for people without any comorbidities.

"I, M, E fluctuate quite a bit, and are ALWAYS understated."

Yes, it's understated for the flu as well.

You somehow think you're smarter than every doctor and epidemiologist on the planet and have figured out that it's not worse than the flu.
Click to expand...
Yes, those factors played a role in its severity. So did the fact it took place in 1918.

Coronavirus will unquestionably circulate around seasonally moving forward. Just like most of the other viruses in that same family do. That's what they've said from day one.
 
Empirical Cane said:
I'm not smarter, I'm just looking at the data.

PS. Yes the table says exactly what I said.
Click to expand...
That table is for people with pre-existing conditions. It lists several different pre-existing conditions, and their death rate. The last item is death rate for people with no pre-existing conditions. That rate is 0.9%. How can you not understand that? It is so. *******. simple.
 
Advertisement
jhtheking said:
That table is for people with pre-existing conditions. It lists several different pre-existing conditions, and their death rate. The last item is death rate for people with no pre-existing conditions. That rate is 0.9%. How can you not understand that? It is so. *******. simple.
Click to expand...

That is what I said fron the beginning. Pre-existing conditions.

Can you not read friend.

If not mistaken, it appears the healthy population death rate for Corona Virus is now down to .1%-.3%.

And possibly dropping lower.

That would again track towards overall routine influenza rates I believe.
 
Empirical Cane said:
That is what I said fron the beginning. Pre-existing conditions.

Can you not read friend.

If not mistaken, it appears the healthy population death rate for Corona Virus is now down to .1%-.3%.

And possibly dropping lower.

That would again track towards overall routine influenza rates I believe.
Click to expand...
Dude. For real are you trolling me? People with NO pre-existing conditions have a death rate of 0.9%

From your site: "Patients who reported no pre-existing ("comorbid") medical conditions had a case fatality rate of 0.9%."

 
Advertisement
Empirical Cane said:
I'm not trolling you...I believe the healthy rate is .1%-.3% adjusted now...

seriously...
Click to expand...
The. Data. You. Linked. Says. 0.9%.

And the death rate for healthy people with the flu is around 0.02%.

So IF your number of 0.1% - 0.3% for healthy people was accurate, then that is 5 - 15 times worse than the flu for healthy people.

do you ******* get it yet, Empirical Cane
 
jhtheking said:
The. Data. You. Linked. Says. 0.9%.

And the death rate for healthy people with the flu is around 0.02%.

So IF your number of 0.1% - 0.3% for healthy people was accurate, then that is 5 - 15 times worse than the flu for healthy people.

do you ******* get it yet, Empirical Cane
Click to expand...

The tests (therefore the I, M, and E) for influenza are far greater in number than for Corona (presently).

As the Corona healthy death rates are tracking so low already, they have no where to go but down FURTHER.

Do you get it yet?

Seriously.
 
Empirical Cane said:
The tests for influenza are far greater in number than for Corona (presently).

As the Corona healthy death rates are tracking so low already, they have no where to go but down FURTHER.

Do you get it yet?

Seriously.
Click to expand...
So, Mr. Empirical has gone from lambasting me about how all the data on his links prove me wrong, to realizing the links actually prove him wrong, and twisting the argument into how the death rate is already "so low" (0.9% still buddy), and will totes go down more.

I won. Feels good. See ya around.
 
jhtheking said:
So, Mr. Empirical has gone from lambasting me about how all the data on his links prove me wrong, to realizing the links actually prove him wrong, and twisting the argument into how the death rate is already "so low" (0.9% still buddy), and will totes go down more.

I won. Feels good. See ya around.
Click to expand...

Whoa....

No...I'm trying to walk you through understanding your L without insulting you.

And you keep screetching about what I posted in thise tables as "wrong" doesn't make you "right".

You just don't understand the data and what it means and infers.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top