The Coronavirus, not the beer

So then basically every disease/virus is misinforming, since the deaths from people at risk will always be higher than people who are not. Again, more useless information from you,

Nobody pushes death rates in the public sphere on any of these viruses. If they were then it would be highly damaging to the public .
 
IFR is a perfectly legitimate concept. It is not perfect or all-encompassing. It leaves out nuance that is sometimes important. But to call it misinformation, that's just another example of bad faith posting.

It is complete misinformation. There is zero context for that figure given.

Majorty of people need to know they are at effectively zero risk of dying.
 
Places/businesness were deemed essential. Those that were not essential were deemed to be non-safe. Do you disagree?


I took exception to this sentence that you posed:

What is the science that packed supermarkets are fine but open space parks and beaches are bad?

I know of no science that claims supermarkets are safe and beaches are not. Of all the things we can criticize science for surely this is not one of them.
 
Places/businesness were deemed essential. Those that were not essential were deemed to be non-safe. Do you disagree?

They are just as safee/non-safe as as essential businesses. The difference being that they are not essential.
 
Nobody pushes death rates in the public sphere on any of these viruses. If they were then it would be highly damaging to the public .

Well that's plainly a lie. No one pushed death rates for H1N1 in the media? Is that really the new lie you are telling yourself?
 
It is complete misinformation.

I understand how the IFR data are not congenial for the ideas you have been pushing. I think the problems are with your pet theories not with the IFR concept, which everyone who uses professionally understands very well, including its limitations.
 
Places/businesness were deemed essential. Those that were not essential were deemed to be non-safe. Do you disagree?

Even you have enough functional brain cells to understand this decision was made with a quick risk/reward calculation. A threshold of sorts was set that determines what was closed.

Standing next to a cashier to buy groceries was below that threshold. Open.

Standing next to a hairstylist to get your tips frosted was above that threshold. Closed.



It is beyond clear you are in a mental state that makes you physically incapable of applying logic to facts at hand.
 
It is complete misinformation. There is zero context for that figure given.

Majorty of people need to know they are at effectively zero risk of dying.

I think the majority of people can figure out basic math that even if 1 percent of the population dies from the virus, that the other 99% of the population won't.
 
Well that's plainly a lie. No one pushed death rates for H1N1 in the media? Is that really the new lie you are telling yourself?

I dont know honestly. There wasnt massive takeover of the news when that was happening but will gladly say that anyone quoting a blended death rate then was misleading
 
I understand how the IFR data are not congenial for the ideas you have been pushing. I think the problems are with your pet theories not with the IFR concept, which everyone who uses professionally understands very well, including its limitations.

Oh the professionals definitely understand. Not questioning that at all.
 
I took exception to this sentence that you posed:

What is the science that packed supermarkets are fine but open space parks and beaches are bad?

I know of no science that claims supermarkets are safe and beaches are not. Of all the things we can criticize science for surely this is not one of them.

So why then were beaches and parks closed? Just for fun?
 
[Tw]1253448851027001345[/tw]

Take out NYC and all the state politicians missteps and the virus was handled very well by the country.

Shame that NY ****ed up everything
 
This is also why a using a historical death rate to extrapolate future results is stupid and proves a lack of comprehension of the facts on the ground.

What a disaster Cuomo/deblasio and the rest of the socialist herd was during this.
 
I dont know honestly. There wasnt massive takeover of the news when that was happening but will gladly say that anyone quoting a blended death rate then was misleading

Maybe because H1N1 wasn't nearly as deadly. People tend to take notice when a bunch of people start dying from a virus in a short amount of time. Especially when these deaths are happening in major developed countries like China and Italy.
 
[Tw]1253448851027001345[/tw]

Take out NYC and all the state politicians missteps and the virus was handled very well by the country.

Shame that NY ****ed up everything


Yeah, Albany, GA and Chelsea, MA totally didn't get hit hard. We totally wouldn't have had more cities like that if we didn't take drastic measures. These towns just didn't get enough sunlight in March/April.
 
Yeah, Albany, GA and Chelsea, MA totally didn't get hit hard. We totally wouldn't have had more cities like that if we didn't take drastic measures. These towns just didn't get enough sunlight in March/April.

This doesnt refute what I said but please continue
 
There is a good faith discussion to be had about what could be done to limit the spread of COVID-19 at nursing homes. I won't be holding my breath.
 
The Food and Drug Administration warned Friday that people should not take chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat covid-19 outside of a hospital or formal clinical trial, citing reports of “serious heart rhythm problems.”

Many of those adverse effects occurred in patients with the virus who were treated with the anti-malaria drugs, often in combination with azithromycin, also known as Z-Pak. President Trump has described such drugs as a potential “game-changer,” although results from clinical trials are not yet in to show whether they are effective.

“We will continue to investigate risks associated with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 and communicate publicly when we have more information,” the FDA wrote.

The adverse events reported include abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation, dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, and in some cases, death, the agency said. The FDA did not say how many deaths have been reported.

Patients who also have other health issues such as heart and kidney disease are likely to be at increased risk of these heart problems when receiving these medicines.
 
Back
Top