Tell me again how bad it is.

Well then saddle up and go forth into the world. šŸ˜‚. But I really really think you should wear a mask, put on goggles, when you do out, and stay home as much as possible.
 
squatting dog said:
Latest from the CDC. :unsure: I kind of like that 99.96%. :):)

View attachment 118501
Click to expand...
Not if you are in the .04 percent. And death rate by percentage should be figured on people infected, not total population. It is over 2%, and that is high very high. I also don't believe your numbers are from the CDC. I just checked and that is not what I found on their website. This is the kind of misinformation, fake news we shouldn't be listening to.
 

macgeek said:
I really think we've been scammed about the severity and danger of this "virus". Over hyped by the media for reasons I cant say because we are not allowed to discuss on this board. :LOL: :cool:
Click to expand...
You can always test it out, go several crowned places, eat inside restaurants, go to indoor movies, without protection, repeatedly, and let us know how it goes. Or be safe and donā€™t.
 
There are several problems with your analysis.

  1. The total tests may include people who have been tested more than once
  2. The positive tests may include people who have been tested more than once
  3. You use total population divided into number of deaths to get your mortality rate. You need to use cases divided into number of deaths to get mortality rate.
Another thing you are missing is that death isn't the only negative effect of having Covid-19. It is certainly the worst, but we are learning more and more about the possible long term effects of the disease. There hasn't been enough reporting on the number of people with long term effects so we don't really know how wide spread it is. Also some of the long term effects don't show up symptomatically in people, but come out when one compares their pre-test and post-test results from certain heart tests. I tried to find the article I saw it in but couldn't find it. If I do I'll post it here.
 
asp3 said:
There are several problems with your analysis.

  1. The total tests may include people who have been tested more than once
  2. The positive tests may include people who have been tested more than once
  3. You use total population divided into number of deaths to get your mortality rate. You need to use cases divided into number of deaths to get mortality rate.
Another thing you are missing is that death isn't the only negative effect of having Covid-19. It is certainly the worst, but we are learning more and more about the possible long term effects of the disease. There hasn't been enough reporting on the number of people with long term effects so we don't really know how wide spread it is. Also some of the long term effects don't show up symptomatically in people, but come out when one compares their pre-test and post-test results from certain heart tests. I tried to find the article I saw it in but couldn't find it. If I do I'll post it here.
Click to expand...
Death might not be the worst thing, depends on the long term side effects. There are worst things than death in todayā€™s world of keeping long term coma patients and brain dead patients alive.
 
MacGeek, if you really believe this is all a "scam," as Aneeda suggested, feel free to go out to all sorts of crowded places, full of people coughing, sneezing, laughing, and shouting in your face. It's a free country.
 
Squatting, this might make it clearer to you. Let's say there is a truly terrible, highly infectious disease with 100% fatality for anyone who gets it. And only 10 people worldwide get it.

The mortality rate for that disease would be 100%. But the mortality by population would be a very tiny number. The first figure would be the significant one. Would you want to go near one of those 10 people? Of course not, even though the percentage of worldwide population who have it would be very small.

Here's an interesting link about phony "CDC" stuff. I hope you didn't send them a donation.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/phishing.html
 
Last edited:
Sunny said:
Squatting, this might make it clearer to you. Let's say there is a truly terrible, highly infectious disease with 100% fatality for anyone who gets it. And only 10 people worldwide get it.

The mortality rate for that disease would be 100%. But the mortality by population would be a very tiny number. The first figure would be the significant one. Would you want to go near one of those 10 people? Of course not, even though the percentage of worldwide population who have it would be very small.
Click to expand...

First thing to come to mind is the old saying.... "figures lie and liars figure". However, based on your scenario, I'd say it was sad for those 10 people, but, good news for me. 10 people out of an entire worlds population. o_O
 
pip48 said:
And...................the CDC no longer has the current information as it doesn't go to them any longer. That is a true fact.
Click to expand...


So who exactly is "it", and who exactly is "them" ? What is the exact "fact" implied here ?

Your statement sounds like just blanket denial ........
 
I really donā€™t care if the skeptics get it or not. If they get it, they deserve it. The concern is that the stupid dolts will pass it onto others who may be vulnerable in spite of precautions.
Until the pandemic I never had any idea how totally ignorant, selfish and greedy so many Americans are.
 
Geezerette said:
I really donā€™t care if the skeptics get it or not. If they get it, they deserve it. The concern is that the stupid dolts will pass it onto others who may be vulnerable in spite of precautions.
Until the pandemic I never had any idea how totally ignorant, selfish and greedy so many Americans are.
Click to expand...


Well, since you're going down the personal attack / name calling road ......... I will as well.

" Until the pandemic I never had any idea how totally ignorant, selfish and greedy so many Americans are."

Right back at ya....And I''ll add gullible to the equation.

Although I really do not understand why "selfish & greedy" are factored in......when discussing a difference of opinion, on a medical question situation ?
 
rgp said:
Right back at ya....And I''ll add gullible to the equation.
Click to expand...

If following the advice of a majority of those trained to deal with diseases and those who are trained to investigate diseases and give recommendations makes one gullible, what do we call those who follow the advice of a small portion of the people trained to deal with and investigate diseases along with the advice of people with little or no such training?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top