You are basing this on the NYC data which again their policies contributed to the IFR.
IFR was ALWAYS going to be a function of how we control who and who doesn't get infected
The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
You are basing this on the NYC data which again their policies contributed to the IFR.
IFR was ALWAYS going to be a function of how we control who and who doesn't get infected
Hopitalization rate is not a belief
IFR is not a belief
Not sure what else to say about this.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Your made up IFR number is a belief... I'm still waiting for you to address the experts who do this for a living and tell me why they are wrong and you are so enlightened.
The same experts that missed hopsitalization numbers by factors of 4 and more?
The same experts that had a IFR of anywhere from 1-3.4%?
Those experts?
Not just NYC. Detroit, New Orleans, Chelsea MA, Albany GA, Greensburg IN, and several other cities where near .1% of the entire population has already died.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
I'm just curious why you're posting on a baseball message board instead of changing the world since you know so much more about it. Still going with your made up IFR, I see.
For someone who quickly criticized Mr Shawg you have some interesting techniques to converse.
Oh well, just another person on the left who talks about something without having any idea what they are talking about.
Of course there will be areas where the IFR goes up or down from that level. But overall it will settle in close to that .1% as long as we actually address the real risks.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
How exactly am I on the left if I've never voted for a Democrat or a left leaning candidate in my life? The conservatives just unfortunately took a right turn out into crazyville with Trump. Really curious about that one. But keep on deflecting. You are the real expert... I want you to get out there and save us thethe... you know better than all of those career epidemiologists!
You literally have no grasp of the data (evidenced by your comments on Sweden) but that doesn't stop you from trying to assess what our responses are. Thats fine if you want to do that.
There is no way to "address the real risks" even with mitigation (though it's certainly helped). We've been shutdown and testing and social distancing for well over a month and nursing homes are STILL getting outbreaks. This isn't going to magically change, especially as we come out from lockdowns. It's going to go up.
In a bunch of other cities, you're already seeing .05% of the entire population has died, meaning half the population would have to be infected for a .1% IFR to be accurate. Again, it's utterly insane and agenda driven to try and say the IFR is "around .1%."
Last edited:
Runnin
Well-known member
Are you the expert who said there wouldn't be 12,500 deaths?
And lots of kids live with their grandparents, if the single moms or low income parents have to work.
It's a terrible situation.
A good friend of mine hasn't been able to hug her kids because she's a nurse and her kids are staying with the grandparents since March.
There is research that shows children under 12 are not material vectors of the spread.