Re: Virus Schmirus
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:59 am
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.
Seattle Mariners & Seahawks Chat Forum
https://marinertalk.com/
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.BaseHitDerby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:02 amYou'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%.
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.)Double Mocha Man wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:57 amNope. 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.BaseHitDerby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:02 amYou'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%.
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.Moe Gibbs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:30 pmHow 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.
Oh, somebody is in charge, but he is spinning wheels, yanking at levers and randomly pulling handles... hoping for the best. His best.
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.gil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:41 pmI 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.)Double Mocha Man wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:57 amNope. 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.BaseHitDerby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:02 amYou'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%.
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 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.Double Mocha Man wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:57 pmMoe, 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.Moe Gibbs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:30 pmHow 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.
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?