Defensive Carry banner

141 - 160 of 180 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,381 Posts
Well, I just tested Positive yesterday, so there is that!:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,940 Posts
There’s something seriously broke with this country. No safe harbors ahead on this course . Time to turn the boat around.
It all starts with the indoctr…education system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
713 Posts
Well, I just tested Positive yesterday, so there is that!:(
If you have symptoms and have significant medical comorbidities (any respiratory or cardiovascular diseases, or other severe chronic illness) you should receive outpatient treatment, more so if you're older. PM me if you have questions. A huge pet peeve of mine is when people who are eligible for treatment don't get it because no one including their doctor knows it's available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
A point of clarification - I did not mean that covid is not more dangerous than the flu, zika, etc. I meant that I've yet to read that some particular mutation is driving a new and more deadly outbreak than what we had before.
See Nextstrain.

Certainly there are mutations, and all we can do is monitor them. But the fact that they are mutations, like in ever other virus, should not be a cause to be overly concerned; we should just take the normal precautions we do with other pathogens.
Nextstrain's genomic epidemiology of novel coronavirus has nothing to do with instilling alarm over new strains. It's a ledger of how all strains trace back to 19A, the first one, which was also found in two animals analyzed by the lab. The animals contracted it outside the lab, before any of the lab workers were ever infected.

As for your table, don't be offended, but it's just your collection of data...
Negatory, there, good buddy! I didn't collect the data. See the Sources in the lower left for the institutions that did.

I'm a Data Analyst, not a Data Collector. :D

...and it's not clear if you are comparing case fatality rate of corona to infection fatality rate of influenza.
I'm comparing the Resolved Case Fatality Rate of Covid-19 to the Resolved Case Fatality Rate of Seasonal Influenza.

Case rates, all the rage throughout the media last year, is the wrong metric, as the denominator is overinflated with cases that have not yet resolved one way or the other.

More to the point, if we don't know the IFR, how can we simply make the claim that the ratio is 52.1 time more deadly than the flu?
We don't "make" any such claim. It's a calculated result.

I provided you with the calculations. Please review them.

And from other sources I have read, while it's apparent its more deadly than the flu, there's no clear answer to how much more deadly it actually is.
I've revealed all my resources, and the calculations are simple and straightforward. I can't help you with "other sources" whose claims run contrary to basic math. Question is, do you trust the data? Or do you trust someone else's unqualified opinion claiming "there's no clear answer..."

Of course there's a clear answer. It's right smack in front of you.

Regardless, it clear that more people died of covid than from the flu, so I'm not sure how we got down this side track.
Can't compare raw numbers like that, as people over the years haven't taken hardly any precautions to protect themselves against catching the flu, whereas some rather extraordinary precautions were taken by most people to protect themselves against catching Covid-19.

That said, comparing the Resolved Case Fatality Rate of Covid-19 to the Resolved Case Fatality Rate of Seasonal Influenza is examining the mortality rate AFTER the diseases have been contracted. Thus, whatever precautions people took for either is not material to the results. The 52.1 to 1 ratio is a direct measure of how much more deadly Covid-19 is than the seasonal flu.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
I will probably never understand how people would think I need to wear a mask for their safety.
It's called "minimizing contamination by unknown carrier.

This idea is proof that people will believe anything.
Your statement is proof you have no idea how diseases travel from one person to another.

It's more absurd than thinking the earth is flat.
Now you're just being rude.

If theirs doesnt work, then why would mine?
Theirs works fine, but two masks are HOW much better than one?

LET US CALCULATE IT!

Let Mask A be the one worn by the other people. Let Mask B be the one worn by you.

Mask A: N95: 96% (measured) stopping power.

Mask B: Surgical Mask: 84% (measured) stopping power.

Combined Stopping Power = 1 - ( 1 - 96% ) * ( 1 - 84% ) = 99.4%

Now, the other people's 96% is only 3.4% different than the combined effectiveness of 99.4%, right?

WRONG. That's not the way it's calculated.

Rather, you must first calculate what gets through, 4% for the N95 mask and 0.64% for both people wearing masks, and take their Ratio = 4/0.64 = 6.25

Thus, when both masks are worn, the effectiveness of the N95 mask is increased by a factor of 6.25.

That's a 525% increase in effectiveness, not 3.4%.

I'm sorry, Havok, but this is just reality. You're a very bright human being in many ways, but this is just not your area of expertise. Much of what you say in this field is just flat-out wrong.

Don't feel bad. Try to think of it in terms of what you do know, like trying to explain to someone who knows nothing about black powder as to why doubling the charge not only won't double the muzzle velocity of the bullet, but greatly increases the risk of overpressure and potential catastrophic failure of the barrel. That's something to which all of us on this forum can relate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
If you have symptoms and have significant medical comorbidities (any respiratory or cardiovascular diseases, or other severe chronic illness) you should receive outpatient treatment, more so if you're older. PM me if you have questions. A huge pet peeve of mine is when people who are eligible for treatment don't get it because no one including their doctor knows it's available.
Agreed. If you have symptoms, do not wait. My next door neighbor waited just a few weeks ago. He's no longer with us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
713 Posts
Agreed. If you have symptoms, do not wait. My next door neighbor waited just a few weeks ago. He's no longer with us.
To clarify - I am talking about outpatient treatment (monoclonal antibody infusion), which reduces chances of severe COVID-19 disease and hospitalization.

A secondary point is that if anyone has symptoms of severe COVID-19 (fever for more than 3 days, shortness of breath, feeling faint, GI symptoms for more than 3 days), they need to GO TO THE HOSPITAL. Aside from age, comorbidities, and BMI, the next most important determinant of outcome is the time from onset of severe symptoms to hospitalization.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #149 ·
See Nextstrain.

I've revealed all my resources, and the calculations are simple and straightforward. I can't help you with "other sources" whose claims run contrary to basic math. Question is, do you trust the data? Or do you trust someone else's unqualified opinion claiming "there's no clear answer..."

Of course there's a clear answer. It's right smack in front of you


Can't compare raw numbers like that, as people over the years haven't taken hardly any precautions to protect themselves against catching the flu, whereas some rather extraordinary precautions were taken by most people to protect themselves against catching Covid-19.

That said, comparing the Resolved Case Fatality Rate of Covid-19 to the Resolved Case Fatality Rate of Seasonal Influenza is examining the mortality rate AFTER the diseases have been contracted. Thus, whatever precautions people took for either is not material to the results. The 52.1 to 1 ratio is a direct measure of how much more deadly Covid-19 is than the seasonal flu.
I am skeptical of your result because I have not read anywhere else such a quantification. You're a guy that's crunched numbers and came up with a result. But the unbiased scientific community has yet to quantify the lethality of covid relative to influenza. I've read reports of 3x to 10x from peer reviewed journals, but not 50x.

Again, I don't know why this is an issue. It's more deadly than the flu. But exactly how much more deadly, we don't know. It could be 3x, 5x, 10x, or maybe even more. But I have yet to find any definitive quantification that has been embraced by the people that work on this day to day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,940 Posts
It's called "minimizing contamination by unknown carrier.



Your statement is proof you have no idea how diseases travel from one person to another.



Now you're just being rude.



Theirs works fine, but two masks are HOW much better than one?

LET US CALCULATE IT!

Let Mask A be the one worn by the other people. Let Mask B be the one worn by you.

Mask A: N95: 96% (measured) stopping power.

Mask B: Surgical Mask: 84% (measured) stopping power.

Combined Stopping Power = 1 - ( 1 - 96% ) * ( 1 - 84% ) = 99.4%

Now, the other people's 96% is only 3.4% different than the combined effectiveness of 99.4%, right?

WRONG. That's not the way it's calculated.

Rather, you must first calculate what gets through, 4% for the N95 mask and 0.64% for both people wearing masks, and take their Ratio = 4/0.64 = 6.25

Thus, when both masks are worn, the effectiveness of the N95 mask is increased by a factor of 6.25.

That's a 525% increase in effectiveness, not 3.4%.

I'm sorry, Havok, but this is just reality. You're a very bright human being in many ways, but this is just not your area of expertise. Much of what you say in this field is just flat-out wrong.

Don't feel bad. Try to think of it in terms of what you do know, like trying to explain to someone who knows nothing about black powder as to why doubling the charge not only won't double the muzzle velocity of the bullet, but greatly increases the risk of overpressure and potential catastrophic failure of the barrel. That's something to which all of us on this forum can relate.
It's called "minimizing contamination by unknown carrier.



Your statement is proof you have no idea how diseases travel from one person to another.



Now you're just being rude.



Theirs works fine, but two masks are HOW much better than one?

LET US CALCULATE IT!

Let Mask A be the one worn by the other people. Let Mask B be the one worn by you.

Mask A: N95: 96% (measured) stopping power.

Mask B: Surgical Mask: 84% (measured) stopping power.

Combined Stopping Power = 1 - ( 1 - 96% ) * ( 1 - 84% ) = 99.4%

Now, the other people's 96% is only 3.4% different than the combined effectiveness of 99.4%, right?

WRONG. That's not the way it's calculated.

Rather, you must first calculate what gets through, 4% for the N95 mask and 0.64% for both people wearing masks, and take their Ratio = 4/0.64 = 6.25

Thus, when both masks are worn, the effectiveness of the N95 mask is increased by a factor of 6.25.

That's a 525% increase in effectiveness, not 3.4%.

I'm sorry, Havok, but this is just reality. You're a very bright human being in many ways, but this is just not your area of expertise. Much of what you say in this field is just flat-out wrong.

Don't feel bad. Try to think of it in terms of what you do know, like trying to explain to someone who knows nothing about black powder as to why doubling the charge not only won't double the muzzle velocity of the bullet, but greatly increases the risk of overpressure and potential catastrophic failure of the barrel. That's something to which all of us on this forum can relate.
all this could be simplified by the fact that someone who is not sick is not at risk of getting anyone else sick. Therefore, your calculations do not matter. If the masks work then it’s not a big deal. If they are so worried they can wear a second one in place of the one I’m not wearing. Also, your math is flawed because you are assuming a certain level of protection from the mask they were wearing that you can not guarantee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
713 Posts
But I have yet to find any definitive quantification that has been embraced by the people that work on this day to day.
There is plenty of literature using now large-scale meta-analysis to provide this answer, including estimates that account for asymptomatic infection. Of course, if you discount the entirety of published scientific literature as being political at the outset, then no, there isn't any data, and there can never be any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,940 Posts
I am skeptical of your result because I have not read anywhere else such a quantification. You're a guy that's crunched numbers and came up with a result. But the unbiased scientific community has yet to quantify the lethality of covid relative to influenza. I've read reports of 3x to 10x from peer reviewed journals, but not 50x.

Again, I don't know why this is an issue. It's more deadly than the flu. But exactly how much more deadly, we don't know. It could be 3x, 5x, 10x, or maybe even more. But I have yet to find any definitive quantification that has been embraced by the people that work on this day to day.
I doubt people as a whole will ever settle on anything due to using different sets of data to obtain their results. There is no data set that is absolutely correct, but we could say the same about the seasonal flu as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,773 Posts
Discussion Starter · #154 · (Edited)
There is plenty of literature using now large-scale meta-analysis to provide this answer, including estimates that account for asymptomatic infection. Of course, if you discount the entirety of published scientific literature as being political at the outset, then no, there isn't any data, and there can never be any.
I don't discount it. But honestly, I have searched for this, and the ranges I have found range from 3x to an order of magnitude (or more). I have seen results in NEJM, the CDC, etc. And they appear to change over time. You are certainly more versed in this, as it is your wheelhouse, so if you have a range with some certainty I'd love to hear it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
713 Posts
I don't discount it. But honestly, I have searched for this, and the ranges I have found range from 3x to an order of magnitude (or more). I seen results in NEJM, the CDC, etc. And they appear to change over time. You are certainly more versed in this, as it is your wheelhouse, so if you have a range with some certainty I'd love to hear it.
I have a tight deadline so I can get back to the larger literature question in a day or two.
I will give you approximated figures (for privacy reasons) for a large healthcare system for now.
~25'000 positives
~5000 hospitalizations
~1000 ICU admissions
~500 deaths
The actual case mortality is 1.7%

This is in line with other unadjusted case mortality figures for industrialized nations, which range from 1% to 4%.
This includes the early on disasters, so if you limit it to the last few months it's a bit lower, but stays above 1%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,940 Posts
But where were those 25000 tested at? If at the hospital, the data would be skewed quite heavily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
713 Posts
But where were those 25000 tested at? If at the hospital, the data would be skewed quite heavily.
This is both inpatient and outpatient testing combined.
This is within a very small margin of the state numbers, and it happens to match the national numbers for the US (598k dead, 33.4M positives = 1.8% case fatality rate).
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
144,332 Posts
Please - No more little stabs and pokes between members participating in this thread.
Agree OR Disagree but, do not make it personal! :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
I'm just wondering if the information that the virus matched that found in two animals before any people were infected was provided by the CCP? If so, I wouldn't give it too much credence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,114 Posts
LOLOL. it's funny until somebody has a heart attack. 😠😆
I take ZERO responsibility for the health of others. If one of them had a heart attack, it would be on them since I was just minding my business and checking out.
But if they both were Democrats and had the big one right there......now that would be humorous beyond words. I have no empathy for people like these two last night.
Stay out of my face, and I stay out of yours.
 
141 - 160 of 180 Posts
Top