tailgater
6 years ago

But his numbers use total population as the denominator. When we're in the middle of a quarantine-like situation.

It makes zero sense to use total population as the denominator after you have isolated a bulk of the population from each other. A 50 year old staying in their apartment who had not contracted it prior to the isolation will have a 0% chance of dying of the coronavirus. To include those people in the numbers is essentially combining both the viral lethality AND the effectiveness of the isolation activities, and then claim it's all the viral lethality.

It's either very dishonest or very dumb.

victor809 wrote:



It also includes those who got the virus and survived and never got tested.
I guess that's dumb and dishonest as well.

You become very myopic far too often.

tailgater
6 years ago

Ah, now I follow where you are going. You are absolutly correct. All of those per 100,000 graphs are puzzling in that you cant use them for anything as the data is meaningless.

Speyside wrote:



Ratios are meaningless?

tailgater
6 years ago

Nah. It wasn't tail. I'm sure he could have walked right in and done it. It's easy.

teedubbya wrote:



Who's sister we talking about?

MACS
  • MACS
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
6 years ago

MACS it is possible you haven’t had it. I told you about my seester

teedubbya wrote:



If it's as contagious as they say, and it appears to be... how is that remotely possible? I shared an office with 2 people who positively had it. It's a small office, 2 desks and computer stations. It can't be bigger than maybe 10' x 10'.

I was back at work before the mask wearing and clorox wiping was in effect. Before the 2 of them went out with it.

Sure, it is possible, but highly improbable to me.
tailgater
6 years ago

Correct. Which is why the proper questions can easily tell you whether the statistics are worth listening to or not.

They are not lies. They are factual representations of a set of parameters chosen by the person who assembled them.

The lie comes in the representation.

For example... tail created a statistic (or selected one) in which he identified that Covid only killed approx 0.017% of the Mass residents in 50-59 age group. Is that a lie? No it is not.

The lie is then taking that statistic and applying it to the lethality of a virus.

All it took was one question to see where he had misapplied his numbers.

victor809 wrote:




Let's revisit what I said.
"the 50 to 59 demographics are 0.017% likely to die from it."

That is a far more accurate representation of real life then a statistic that relies on faulty data points such as "confirmed cases".
MOST cases go untested. Using that in your denominator (to steal your terminology) is simply a fancy way to lie.


If you live in Massachusetts and are in your mid 50's the numbers I provided are accurate.
Not sure why you get your panties in a twist over them.
Hell, they weren't even the point of my post. It was to show how bullet proof the young people are.


No need to troll me over something that was a sidebar when I typed it.



victor809
6 years ago
You don't get it tail.

Perhaps you never worked in an environment where the specific calculations you were representing were important.

I explained it above, I walked you through exactly why your numbers were intentionally or due to poor education, an incorrect representation of your point. You clearly don't understand. You are doubling down on intentionally incorrect numbers or you have a very poor grasp on this. There is nothing more I can do.
tailgater
6 years ago
Funny.
The liberals always cry "do it for the children".
Well, now the children are unaffected but they're closing their schools and sports and life.
This is a bunch of boomers trying to save themselves and their elderly parents.

Which is fine.
If it didn't mean destroying the future of our young to do it.

Selfish pricks.
tailgater
6 years ago

You don't get it tail.

Perhaps you never worked in an environment where the specific calculations you were representing were important.

I explained it above, I walked you through exactly why your numbers were intentionally or due to poor education, an incorrect representation of your point. You clearly don't understand. You are doubling down on intentionally incorrect numbers or you have a very poor grasp on this. There is nothing more I can do.

victor809 wrote:



What a f'king troll.

Even when I point it out you feel compelled to troll again.

I feel sorry for you.

Honest.

victor809
6 years ago

The irony? I'm pretty sure I got it before I ever went back to work... from that gym.

MACS wrote:



Where did you get it? The gym or work? You've sort of mentioned both.

I don't know macs.... Think of the people closest to you... wife, kids whoever you saw of a regular basis back when you were convinced you got it. If you were regularly eating with about 4 people... and neither you nor them are sick... then which do you think is more probable? That you got it but neither you nor any of your immediate family got sick... or that you simply didn't get it.

(note- either is perfectly possible. Each option has some unknown odds associated with it... but even odds can be beaten. I'm just trying to think through it logically)
victor809
6 years ago

What a f'king troll.

Even when I point it out you feel compelled to troll again.

I feel sorry for you.

Honest.

tailgater wrote:



Yes. You pointed out your misleading number. I pointed out what that number represented way earlier in this thread.

It is not what you represent it as in a world you are trying to argue for.
teedubbya
6 years ago
MACS virus infection is a complicated thing. I’m not kidding when I say it’s like **** with the virus being sperm. Even with no immunity it’s not 100% each time. But over time it’s a certainty. If you practice safe sex you increase your odds just like the measures your employer likely took.

I’m not saying it’s probable. It is possible though and I wouldn’t discount that until you know for sure. I’m shocked my sister didn’t test positive for covid antibodies. It’s not probable but is possible. And no that doesn’t mean it’s not as contagious as they say. It is.
victor809
6 years ago
Maybe MACS is like the one guy in his workplace who actually washes his hands before he eats.

(actually only half joking. People are generally fuxking disgusting if you don't watch them)
MACS
  • MACS
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
6 years ago
Wife and BIL both in the house with me. Wife had dry cough, nothing else. BIL was on a flight from PI to LAX with Chinese people back in January. Over half the people show no symptoms, right? Pretty possible.

I had a week and a half back in late Feb, early Mar when going to the gym where my lungs just could not keep up with my regular workouts. Shortness of breath and dry cough. I likely had it then, which would explain why I did not get it when I shared the office with the 2 that did get it in the jail. *shrug*

Obviously we're both speculating and the only way to be sure is for me to get the antibody test. I just think the odds favor me having had it.
teedubbya
6 years ago
Could be true. Short of breathing in the aerosol it is possible to be vigilant with hand washing etc. it’s also possible to be vigilant with the aerosol too it’s just harder. And even then you need the right conditions. This isn’t like a zombie movie.
teedubbya
6 years ago
MACS I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m just saying until you know for sure don’t act like you do (in real life not in here). The risk for you and yours is too great to go on a hunch. You very well could be right, or you could be wrong.

I was 90% sure I’d had it. I didn’t.
victor809
6 years ago

Could be true. Short of breathing in the aerosol it is possible to be vigilant with hand washing etc. it’s also possible to be vigilant with the aerosol too it’s just harder. And even then you need the right conditions. This isn’t like a zombie movie.

teedubbya wrote:



What pisses me off most about this pandemic is they stopped filming the current season of Walking Dead like 2 episodes from the end....

fuxking coronavirus.
teedubbya
6 years ago
96 for victor.
victor809
6 years ago
I'm pretty sure I haven't gotten it yet....

Not from the descriptions people have given of how long it takes to recover.

But I still have hope I can get it. Lot of old people out there to shake hands with....
teedubbya
6 years ago
MACS I’m not suggesting being paranoid about it either. Just have some doubt and be careful for yourself and others.
teedubbya
6 years ago
Victor that’s the flip side. You may have and there could be zero symptoms. That’s the scary part yet some grab on to that as a minimizing factor.

As an aside there are correct ways to calculate such things and incorrect. They are that way for a reason and have been for a very long time. But it’s really not worth arguing with someone who thinks they’ve got it figured out better than folks that have worked on these things for more than a week or two and the experts by definition are fear mongers from a certain party not to be trusted.
Users browsing this topic