Virus Schmirus

[Double Mocha Man]

BTW, your James Fetzer guy has been booted out of numerous universities and he is a known conspiracy theorist. He claims nobody died at Sandy Hook, it was a FEMA drill.

[BaseHitDerby]

You're saying all those 30 points are false even though some of them are studies done by Ph.Ds? Even the CDC estimated the IFR to be 0.26%.

[Double Mocha Man]

You're saying all those 30 points are false even though some of them are studies done by Ph.Ds? Even the CDC estimated the IFR to be 0.26%.

Nope. But many are playing with statistics and they are politically motivated. I'm guessing you won't be wearing a mask starting Friday if you live in Washington state.

[gil]

You're saying all those 30 points are false even though some of them are studies done by Ph.Ds? Even the CDC estimated the IFR to be 0.26%.

Nope. But many are playing with statistics and they are politically motivated. I'm guessing you won't be wearing a mask starting Friday if you live in Washington state.

I find this interesting. When searching for the 0.26% number, I found it on some right-leaning sites, e.g., Breitbart, Horowitz, Reason (for example, https://principia-scientific.org/offici ... just-0-26/) but not on the CDC. I found this on the CDC site, and it appears to be what people are talking about (and is not exactly hidden, as some people have claimed): https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... arios.html If I am correct, the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) is with respect to the overall population (not just people who contract the virus.)

I have three thoughts about this:

1. Any reasonable analysis shows that death rates are higher in 2020 than "average" over a period of years, and while the effect is greatest in older people, it is true in all age groups.

2. Just because someone has a PhD does not give him or her the license to say anything s/he wants and pass it off as fact. This is why we have peer review, so other people knowledgable about a subject can review data, methods, and conclusions and judge how sound they are. Does peer review guarantee zero mistakes? Certainly not, but I believe that most scientists involved in peer-reviewed research (this who submit research and those who review) are genuinely trying to be as accurate as possible.

3. I certainly don't know "what would have happened" if we had not voluntarily (and involuntarily) locked down. But it seems to me that dire predictions in March turned out to be NOT accurate because we (as a country) reduced the rate of transmission. It's misleading to argue "see how wrong the so-called experts were" or "see, we didn't need all these restrictions after all," because what we did affected the outcome.

[Moe Gibbs]

How or why would you include PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INFECTED with the INFECTION MORTALITY RATE...?

As long as this disease is used as a tool by the Globalist owned news media to unseat Trump, people will question COVID19s origins as well as the obvious inflated [false] death counts.

[Donn Beach]

its interesting to me the attitude that science is in some sort of lockstep marching to its conclusions. I think the reality is more the opposite, there is no order to it at all, its an intense debate of opposing arguments. This process has i would think been pretty remarkable, there has probably been more than 10,000 papers published on the topic in only a matter of months. Sure the scientists are not necessarily correct, but then nobody is. Its also interesting to me the tendency now to turn to conspiracies to explain events. I think there is comfort in the belief someone is in charge, even if their intentions are against yours. I think its taken the place of God, God is dead, only to be replaced with conspirators, its a way to put order to things that are beyond our comprehension, which is pretty much how its always been i guess. Nobody is in charge, there is nobody at the controls

I read a David Brooks column years ago that really impressed me, in fact i studied the topic a bit further. It was about the fragility of our modern civilization. He dealt more with actual technology, how we had integrated so many functions, made them so complicated that we are leaving ourselves open to having huge impacts over minor issues. The argument being, we feel our technology is making us more secure, in reality its also making us more vulnerable.

I read some more stuff that sort of touched on it in terms of ancient civilizations. There are any number of them, more or less around the Mediterranean that sort of followed a similar pattern. They became pretty sophisticated in their trading and technologies. They developed into a web of countries that were interdependent, something went haywire in one of them and the whole thing collapsed. I was thinking then, what is so special about our civilization?

I don't want to sound too wacky but this covid deal really strikes home for me in terms of what i studied then, the actual fragility of this. A dude can cook up some bat soup on the other side of the world and the whole stinking place comes to a screeching halt. So what do we do, reject our experts, our priests? That is what's going on isn't it? We have worshiped at the alter of science but now that things are coming unglued we are going to find a new set of priests i guess

[Double Mocha Man]

How or why would you include PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INFECTED with the INFECTION MORTALITY RATE...?

As long as this disease is used as a tool by the Globalist owned news media to unseat Trump, people will question COVID19s origins as well as the obvious inflated [false] death counts.

Moe, you're right up there with James Fetzer and his conspiracy theories. I prefer both rates... percentage of people (healthy and otherwise) who will catch the the virus and die... AND the rate among those who have the virus and will die. That way I'll know my odds no matter which group I'm in and then place a bet with my bookie.

Gil said, " It's misleading to argue "see how wrong the so-called experts were" or "see, we didn't need all these restrictions after all," because what we did affected the outcome." Yeah, but see BaseHitDerby... those so-called experts have their Ph.D's. Got yer mask ready for tomorrow?

[Double Mocha Man]

Nobody is in charge, there is nobody at the controls.

Oh, somebody is in charge, but he is spinning wheels, yanking at levers and randomly pulling handles... hoping for the best. His best.

[BaseHitDerby]

You're saying all those 30 points are false even though some of them are studies done by Ph.Ds? Even the CDC estimated the IFR to be 0.26%.

Nope. But many are playing with statistics and they are politically motivated. I'm guessing you won't be wearing a mask starting Friday if you live in Washington state.

I find this interesting. When searching for the 0.26% number, I found it on some right-leaning sites, e.g., Breitbart, Horowitz, Reason (for example, https://principia-scientific.org/offici ... just-0-26/) but not on the CDC. I found this on the CDC site, and it appears to be what people are talking about (and is not exactly hidden, as some people have claimed): https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... arios.html If I am correct, the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) is with respect to the overall population (not just people who contract the virus.)

I have three thoughts about this:

1. Any reasonable analysis shows that death rates are higher in 2020 than "average" over a period of years, and while the effect is greatest in older people, it is true in all age groups.

2. Just because someone has a PhD does not give him or her the license to say anything s/he wants and pass it off as fact. This is why we have peer review, so other people knowledgable about a subject can review data, methods, and conclusions and judge how sound they are. Does peer review guarantee zero mistakes? Certainly not, but I believe that most scientists involved in peer-reviewed research (this who submit research and those who review) are genuinely trying to be as accurate as possible.

3. I certainly don't know "what would have happened" if we had not voluntarily (and involuntarily) locked down. But it seems to me that dire predictions in March turned out to be NOT accurate because we (as a country) reduced the rate of transmission. It's misleading to argue "see how wrong the so-called experts were" or "see, we didn't need all these restrictions after all," because what we did affected the outcome.

I can make the same argument on how the MSM doesn't report the low IFR. It doesn't fit their narrative of fear mongering. Fear headlines give them more article clicks and fits their political agenda. Btw, some of those articles ARE peer reviewed which is why they appeared in journals such as bmj. You can click on the hyperlinks on that site to see where the info came from.

[BaseHitDerby]

How or why would you include PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INFECTED with the INFECTION MORTALITY RATE...?

As long as this disease is used as a tool by the Globalist owned news media to unseat Trump, people will question COVID19s origins as well as the obvious inflated [false] death counts.

Moe, you're right up there with James Fetzer and his conspiracy theories. I prefer both rates... percentage of people (healthy and otherwise) who will catch the the virus and die... AND the rate among those who have the virus and will die. That way I'll know my odds no matter which group I'm in and then place a bet with my bookie.

Gil said, " It's misleading to argue "see how wrong the so-called experts were" or "see, we didn't need all these restrictions after all," because what we did affected the outcome." Yeah, but see BaseHitDerby... those so-called experts have their Ph.D's. Got yer mask ready for tomorrow?

I get it, you rather listen to liberal mainstream media journalists with their liberal arts degrees than Ph.D.s that do research studies for a living.