COVID gratuitous dumpster fire thread

Pennstate1985

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2016
1,495
1,669
1
That’s an interesting statistic which indeed may show that I was over-optimistic/out-of-date/hyperbolic regarding the ability to get herd immunity. (Vaccines would still help tremendously even if we can’t get herd immunity, and can’t beat COVID to near-nothingness.) Is that 40% statistic from an authoritative science-based source?
The Health Minister of Great Britain stated that number.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Dogwelder

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
694
420
1
You chose to use vague terminology when you made your initial statement, not me.

So, the death rates for the unvaccinated are higher than those for the vaccinated? Good for the vaccinated. Are the death rates higher or lower for unvaccinated people now than they were six months ago? A year ago? And, whether it is higher or lower, so what? The vaccinated are protected, so they should be happy.

Here's a study that shows the mortality rates of vaccinated, versus unvaccinated people from LA County. Vaccinated people were 25% of covid cases (an amazing stat to begin with) and they suffered a 0.2% mortality rate. Unvaccinated were 71% of the study, and they suffered, gasp, a 0.6% mortality rate. Considering the overall mortality rate from the inception until now is 1.6%, a mortality rate of 0.6% in unvaccinated people seems pretty good. Could that be due to better medical understanding? Better treatment methods?

Several lower vaccinated states are seeing comparable deaths to the prior peak, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, and that’s with “lower vaccinated” still being about 40% of the total population and likely 60% or so of the vulnerable population being vaccinated.

I think saying “far more dangerous” for Delta may be a stretch, but there was at least one study that concluded it had a higher risk of hospitalization. However the fact that it’s more contagious is confirmed, so even if it’s similar in deadliness to prior strains or heck even slightly less deadly, more infections = more deaths.
You do have me curious though, I may take a look at the age specific data to see what some of the younger to middle aged groups look like. I know the share by age has changed with the elderly making up a lower share than they used to, so that would suggest that deaths may actually be up vs the prior peak in the younger ages (moreso referring to like 30-50).
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,427
22,615
1
Several lower vaccinated states are seeing comparable deaths to the prior peak, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, and that’s with “lower vaccinated” still being about 40% of the total population and likely 60% or so of the vulnerable population being vaccinated.

I think saying “far more dangerous” for Delta may be a stretch, but there was at least one study that concluded it had a higher risk of hospitalization. However the fact that it’s more contagious is confirmed, so even if it’s similar in deadliness to prior strains or heck even slightly less deadly, more infections = more deaths.
You do have me curious though, I may take a look at the age specific data to see what some of the younger to middle aged groups look like. I know the share by age has changed with the elderly making up a lower share than they used to, so that would suggest that deaths may actually be up vs the prior peak in the younger ages (moreso referring to like 30-50).
The graphs for the two states you mention are interesting. In both cases, the newest wave appears to have peaked in a much shorter period of time than the last peak. For MS, both the 3 and 7 day moving averages are lower this time around. For LA, both are higher. It will be interesting to see if the waves are as short- lived as they look to be.

By the way, thank you for the reasonable dialog.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
694
420
1
25% of the cases in the LA study I cited earlier were fully vaccinated. And, that wasn't a small study.

25% of cases. Looks like it says 3% of hospitalizations and 0.5% of those admitted to ICU.

Although I think I have seen some places in the US say 25% of hospitalized covid patients were fully vaccinated. But I think in many places probably at least 75% of the people most vulnerable to death are vaccinated.

So if 75% of a population accounts for 25% of deaths or hospitalizations, that'd be a vaccine effectiveness of 89%

75/250 = 0.3

25/750 = 0.033

(0.3 - 0.033) / 0.3 = 89%



So maybe not quite as good as we thought when the trial data was announced, but still pretty dang good. And that's also not accounting for people with natural immunity that are probably less likely to get vaccinated so would bring down these numbers.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,427
22,615
1
25% of cases. Looks like it says 3% of hospitalizations and 0.5% of those admitted to ICU.

Although I think I have seen some places in the US say 25% of hospitalized covid patients were fully vaccinated. But I think in many places probably at least 75% of the people most vulnerable to death are vaccinated.

So if 75% of a population accounts for 25% of deaths or hospitalizations, that'd be a vaccine effectiveness of 89%

75/250 = 0.3

25/750 = 0.033

(0.3 - 0.033) / 0.3 = 89%



So maybe not quite as good as we thought when the trial data was announced, but still pretty dang good. And that's also not accounting for people with natural immunity that are probably less likely to get vaccinated so would bring down these numbers.
Not 3% of hospitalizations.

3.2% of the vaccinated who caught covid were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of the unvaccinated.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,427
22,615
1
lot's of arguments ... can you actually trust the data? Regardless of who is presenting it...
I was told very early in this thread that I couldn't question covid data from destitute, third world countries, who have bigger problems, like the majority of their inhabitants living without electricity. Despite those issues, their covid reporting was timely and accurate, I was told.

Of course, the data being presented didn't fit the narrative of the people that told me that. So, I've always wondered if that was why they insisted I believe the data. Could it be?
 

82bordeaux

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2019
3,795
11,790
1
58
eriespecialty.com
I stayed off this thread for a couple of days and missed 2 full pages. And it struck me as I skimmed through the posts. I wasn't sure if I was on the Covid Dumpster thread or the thread about Joe Lee in March. Both are filled with terminology like "taking too many unnecessary risks", "needs better defense", and "doesn't understand the risk/reward ratio".
If we only broke down a pandemic like we do a wrestling match, we'd be able to put this thing behind us.
 

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,701
5,010
1
by definition there isn't an objective answer to your subjective proposition, so yes i got nothing, but also you got nothing, so it's a draw
I never wanted an objective answer. You proposed that and promptly acted like I was asking for it. I wanted a debate based on facts . You have no facts and could have just ignored me but choose to debate yourself by crediting me with things I never said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

psumacw

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2017
1,264
984
1
I never wanted an objective answer. You proposed that and promptly acted like I was asking for it. I wanted a debate based on facts . You have no facts and could have just ignored me but choose to debate yourself by crediting me with things I never said.

this you?

I contend that the only bad thing (based on real science) is the insanely low death rate and our extreme efforts to reduce it even further. Make the argument based on science instead of blah blah human emotion. Anyone?

is "make the argument based on science" not tantamount to asking for an objective answer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogwelder

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,701
5,010
1
this you?



is "make the argument based on science" not tantamount to asking for an objective answer?
No. An answer "based on science" would certainly not be objective. An objective answer would never be based on one thing and one thing alone. Use science rather than emotion to make a subjective argument. Why is this so difficult for you?
 

Dogwelder

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2013
6,965
15,231
1
No. An answer "based on science" would certainly not be objective. An objective answer would never be based on one thing and one thing alone. Use science rather than emotion to make a subjective argument. Why is this so difficult for you?

180ed94219bc5a6496a4e458932d37af.jpg
 

rmg78

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2017
709
1,217
1
Another pre-print study that fringe media sources are picking up. What could possibly go wrong?
Also coming from a far right website that has been known to push conspiracy theories.

Next will be goggles quoting Alex Jones as fact, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogwelder

Sportfan2017

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2017
2,697
5,304
1
Your poor students.

Student: 2+2=5
You: I used to tell my students that if they understood, they'd understand.
Student: So, 2+2 isn't five?
You: You can't play chess for shit, can you?
Student: Uhhh.
You: You know I'm the smartest person in the room right?
Student: That isn't helping me answer the question. So, are you going to help me or not?
You: You figure it out.
Wow. Implying that I don't answer students question and that I insult and swear at them while bragging. You are indeed sad and uninformed. You keep saying people won't answer your question but they DO keep answering you. You just can't seem to grasp their answers. I'll try one more post to see if you understand what I and others are saying. Peace
 
  • Like
Reactions: crablegs1

Sportfan2017

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2017
2,697
5,304
1
EXAMPLE:
The FACTS
are in and indisputable Scientific studies show that:
1. You are FIFTY TWO times more likely to be killed by a meteor than die from Covid-19. FACT
2. On average only ONE American dies from Covid-19 EVERY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS! FACT
Prove me wrong.....you can't.....because:

1. At present 670,000 Americans have died from Covid-19. FACT
2. The last person to be killed my a meteorite was in 1888. FACT
3. The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Do the math!
Can you now see the problem with your's and many other's posts? Even though I posted facts........my post (Up until now) is plain Bat-sh@t crazy. That is because I basically employed every analytical mistake you can make......rendering factual data useless.....much like current conspiracy theories.
Such as this real-world gem:
The Twin towers were not felled by burning jet fuel because jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Fact!?!
Again...While true that fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel..... this premise/conclusion is just as bat-sh@t crazy and analytically defective as mine. Tunnel Vision/faulty transference/ignoring other relevant data etc
1. Jet fuel may not burn hot enough to melt steel but it ignited a LOT of other things...each with a different burning temperature.
2. The most obvious: Steel doesn't have to hit melting temperature to weaken it's structural integrity. We all know metals expand and warp long before they hit melting temperature and weaken considerably as temps rise. Assuming that steel has to melt before weakening is the definition of faulty analysis and bat-sh@t crazy. Watch ONE episode of "Forged in Fire".......You heat it up so you can bend it and hammer it into shape. DUH.
3. This conspiracy theory can only convince those that never look past the first move...ie apply proper analysis techniques. Just like the election being stolen...complete bunk with even a cursory examination.
So you Mr. pawrestlerintn and others keep asking to "Prove my data wrong" Why won't anyone answer my challenge to "prove my data wrong". The answer is: Your ANALYTICS are what is wrong with your post(s). You combine unrelated groups (Vaccinated and Unvaccinated ) Use old data and transfer it to new and different situations. You frequently fail to follow even the basics of Statistical analysis.......while constantly complaining the I and others won't respond to your Data" (Are you gonna answer my question?). WE HAVE ANSWERED. As soon your data &/or postulations & conclusions are poisoned by faulty analysis....there is NO NEED to read further.....it is already poisoned. Kinda like demanding someone respond to your new move when they captured your king on their previous move.....there is no logical reason to continue. I do hope this helps....because I can't type any slower :) Peace
 
Last edited:

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,427
22,615
1
EXAMPLE:
The FACTS
are in and indisputable Scientific studies show that:
1. You are FIFTY TWO times more likely to be killed by a meteor than die from Covid-19. FACT
2. On average only ONE American dies from Covid-19 EVERY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS! FACT
Prove me wrong.....you can't.....because:

1. At present 670,000 Americans have died from Covid-19. FACT
2. The last person to be killed my a meteorite was in 1888. FACT
3. The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Do the math!
Can you now see the problem with your's and many other's posts? Even though I posted facts........my post (Up until now) is plain Bat-sh@t crazy. That is because I basically employed every analytical mistake you can make......rendering factual data useless.....much like current conspiracy theories.
Such as this real-world gem:
The Twin towers were not felled by burning jet fuel because jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Fact!?!
Again...While true that fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel..... this premise/conclusion is just as bat-sh@t crazy and analytically defective as mine. Tunnel Vision/faulty transference/ignoring other relevant data etc
1. Jet fuel may not burn hot enough to melt steel but it ignited a LOT of other things...each with a different burning temperature.
2. The most obvious: Steel doesn't have to hit melting temperature to weaken it's structural integrity. We all know metals expand and warp long before they hit melting temperature and weaken considerably as temps rise. Assuming that steel has to melt before weakening is the definition of faulty analysis and bat-sh@t crazy.
3. This conspiracy theory can only convince those that never look past the first move...ie apply proper analysis techniques. Just like the election being stolen...complete bunk with even a cursory examination.
So you Mr. pawrestlerintn and others keep asking to "Prove my data wrong" Why won't anyone answer my challenge to "prove my data wrong". The answer is: Your ANALYTICS are what is wrong with your post(s). You combine unrelated groups (Vaccinated and Unvaccinated ) Use old data and transfer it to new and different situations. You frequently fail to follow even the basics of Statistical analysis.......while constantly complaining the I and others won't respond to your Data" (Are you gonna answer my question?). WE HAVE ANSWERED. As soon your data &/or postulations & conclusions are poisoned by faulty analysis....there is NO NEED to read further.....it is already poisoned. Kinda like demanding someone respond to your new move when they captured your king on their previous move.....there is no logical reason to continue. I do hope this helps....because I can't type any slower :) Peace
Explain to me why a 25 year old young woman should not be allowed to choose whether to have this shot injected into her body.

enhance
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,427
22,615
1
As soon as you explain to me when and where a 25 yr. old woman forcibly had this injected into her body against her will.
Of course, you'll respond with, "Well, they didn't have to quit or get fired. They could have gotten the jab." Some choice.

And, now we have the announced, attempted OSHA mandate.


So, answer the question...should there be a governmental vaccine mandate, or should it be a personal choice, which can be made with information like I posted above?
 

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
550
852
1
Of course, you'll respond with, "Well, they didn't have to quit or get fired. They could have gotten the jab." Some choice.

And, now we have the announced, attempted OSHA mandate.


So, answer the question...should there be a governmental vaccine mandate, or should it be a personal choice, which can be made with information like I posted above?
All I know is I’d feel much better being treated at that hospital now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier Lion

Sportfan2017

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2017
2,697
5,304
1
Of course, you'll respond with, "Well, they didn't have to quit or get fired. They could have gotten the jab." Some choice.

And, now we have the announced, attempted OSHA mandate.


So, answer the question...should there be a governmental vaccine mandate, or should it be a personal choice, which can be made with information like I posted above?
Typical.....ask someone to answer a question about something that has NEVER happened and then criticize the fact that they point out that it has NEVER happened by deflecting to something different. Comparing apples to Belly Button Lint. Analytical skill = ZERO
 

Sportfan2017

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2017
2,697
5,304
1
So, answer the question...should there be a governmental vaccine mandate, or should it be a personal choice, which can be made with information like I posted above?
I did answer your question. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED! To the surprise of NO ONE.....YOU never answered my question.....You Can't answer ......Because.......wait for it..........IT. HAS. NEVER. HAPPENED. Good Grief
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier Lion

Sportfan2017

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2017
2,697
5,304
1
My Turn: This is what it it like having discussions with some people......who can't even see the Irony:

FACT: In the entire history of our Space Program........During the 60+ years that Democrats/Republicans controlled the White House........the United States has NEVER......NOT ONCE brought a woman back from the moon. Not one single woman. Explain to me how you can possibly support such a bunch of Misogynistic Pigs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier Lion

82bordeaux

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2019
3,795
11,790
1
58
eriespecialty.com
My Turn: This is what it it like having discussions with some people......who can't even see the Irony:

FACT: In the entire history of our Space Program........During the 60+ years that Democrats/Republicans controlled the White House........the United States has NEVER......NOT ONCE brought a woman back from the moon. Not one single woman. Explain to me how you can possibly support such a bunch of Misogynistic Pigs?
I'd leave 'em there too.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,427
22,615
1
Typical.....ask someone to answer a question about something that has NEVER happened and then criticize the fact that they point out that it has NEVER happened by deflecting to something different. Comparing apples to Belly Button Lint. Analytical skill = ZERO
So, something has to happen before you can discuss it as a possibility in the future? Got it.