Anticipating The Greatest Talking Point Ever Talked...

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
482 posts
User avatar
omh

Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5,538

skews13 » 31 Jul 2020, 8:16 am » wrote: Great. Open up your own school, convince people to send their kids to it, and your all set.

Let’s us know how it works out for you.
who is your "us". Why not you saying just "me". Do I detect a psychological make anyone you talk with feel out numbered.
Log in or Register to remove ads

when your reality won't explain real completely, you joined a socially corrupt intellectual mind that won't tolerate you using your own brain.

User avatar
GeorgeWashington

Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 7,839
Politics: Revolutionary
Location: Mount Vernon, VA
Contact:

SoapBeerPopcorn
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote:
GeorgeWashington » 30 Jul 2020, 3:33 pm » wrote: Is your preferred news not reporting the 99% survival rate?
Let’s stick to scientific and medical sources.
I have posted only scientific and medical sources.  
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote: I’ll leave the selection of “preferred” news to those of you who have pledged fealty to the current president of the United States or Russia.
Are you putting yourself in the "pledged fealty to the current president of the United States or Russia" camp? 

After all, It was you that selected your preferred source and posted a link with the CFR being nearly 10%, while I merely called **** on the tinfoil hat scare mongering.  
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote:  John Hopkins published a Mortality chart which uses CFR. it corresponds with the earlier link I provided because it uses the same data.

No, the link you posted earlier had the CFR at 9.92%, which is why I called it tinfoil hat fear mongering propoganda. See below:
Olivaw » 29 Jul 2020, 1:49 pm » wrote:
Mortality rate is 3.43%
Case Fatality Rate is 9.92%
https://www.covid19projections.com/projections/US

Please justify your figures. Bonus points if you identify the long term health problems associated with COVID-19.
 
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote: Will you now claim that John Hopkins is also fear mongering
I never claimed the CFR of 3.4% from JH was ****.  I called **** on your amateur tally which had it at 9.9%
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote:
or will you accept the truth?
Stop projecting. I have done nothing to call my character into question. Keep that bag of **** in your lap, thanks.
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote:
CFR is calculated by dividing deaths by the number of confirmed cases of the disease COVID-19.. It’s based on hard medical data.  It offers an expert a figure for the average persons odds of death after a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis.
Wrong again. CFR cannot offer an expert a figure for the average person's odds of death after a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, because CFR does not include infenctions of average people.  It includes confirmed cases only, and we both know there are more cases than confirmed.   
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote: It’s currently 3.4% but an individuals odds depends on age, fitness, health care etc. Anyone who claims this metric to be **** betrays a poor understanding of it.
Ok.. is it 3.4% or 9.9%? Are you stepping back from your previous 9.9% propganda spew?
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote: IFR is calculated by dividing deaths by the estimated number of individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2. The number is lower because, as I assume you know,  some individuals are asymptomatic Uncertainty lies in estimating the number of infected individuals due to the shortcomings of past antibody tests and the factors mentioned above.
Did you know that flu infections are estimated to be 200x greater than confirmed numbers, and this estimate is what's given to the public and used by policy makers?  
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote: So which is right? I’d be willing to accept that the data may suggest that the odds of death are below 1% if one is asymptomatic but the odds are above 3% if one is diagnosed with COVID-19.
So far, nearly every study I have found has the IFR at <= 1%
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote: Ducky and Trump have yet to address the long term health effects on those who survive and the evidence (inconclusive) that immunity may be short lived.
SARS-COV-1 immunity lasts from 12-24 months. Why would you assume this is any different?
Olivaw » 30 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm » wrote: 150,000 dead Americans later and some people still refuse to accept the severity of the pandemic and wear a **** mask. 
Ooooh. I get it now... Its ok to use blatantly false data(9.9% CFR) as long as it helps your agenda?  Set your integretiy aside for your political party?

 
 

User avatar
sooted up Cyndi

Unread post

User avatar
Water Cooler Poleece
Water Cooler Poleece
Posts: 7,593
Politics: Independent

ROFL
GeorgeWashington » 31 Jul 2020, 8:21 am » wrote: I have posted only scientific and medical sources.  

Are you putting yourself in the "pledged fealty to the current president of the United States or Russia" camp? 

After all, It was you that selected your preferred news and posted a link with the CFR being nearly 10%, while I merely called **** on the tinfoil hat scare mongering.  

No, the link you posted earlier had the CFR at 9.92%, which is why I called it tinfoil hat fear mongering propoganda.

I never claimed the CFR of 3.4% from JH was ****.  I called **** on your amateur tally which had it at 9.9%

Stop projecting. I have done nothing to call my character into question. Keep that bag of **** in your lap, thanks.

Wrong again. CFR cannot offer an expert a figure for the average person's odds of death after a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, because CFR does not include infenctions of average people.  It includes confirmed cases only, and we both know there are more cases than confirmed.   

Ok.. is it 3.4% or 9.9%? Are you stepping back from your previous 9.9% propganda spew?

Did you know that flu infections are estimated to be 200x greater than confirmed numbers, and this estimate is what's given to the public and used by policy makers?  

So far, nearly every study I have found has the IFR at <= 1%

SARS-COV-1 immunity lasts from 12-24 months. Why would you assume this is any different?

Ooooh. I get it now... Its ok to use blatantly false data(9.9% CFR) as long as it helps your agenda?  Set your integretiy aside for your political party?
George, I cant sign in at all. sent you a PM SOS

User avatar
omh

Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5,538

sootedupCyndi » 31 Jul 2020, 8:28 am » wrote: George, I cant sign in at all. sent you a PM SOS
reboot your devise, I had the same thing last night, I rebooted my computer and could log in again.
when your reality won't explain real completely, you joined a socially corrupt intellectual mind that won't tolerate you using your own brain.

User avatar
sooted up Cyndi

Unread post

User avatar
Water Cooler Poleece
Water Cooler Poleece
Posts: 7,593
Politics: Independent

ROFL
omh » 31 Jul 2020, 8:29 am » wrote: reboot your devise, I had the same thing last night, I rebooted my computer and could log in again.

I tried that twice. Ok i'll try again. do a restart. its gonna take a long time to come back. ten minutes at least

User avatar
Famagusta

Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,500
Politics: Libertarian

sootedupCyndi » 31 Jul 2020, 8:35 am » wrote: I tried that twice. Ok i'll try again. do a restart. its gonna take a long time to come back. ten minutes at least
Are you here now?

I’m still waiting for those two dudes to show up.

User avatar
omh

Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5,538

sootedupCyndi » 31 Jul 2020, 8:35 am » wrote: I tried that twice. Ok i'll try again. do a restart. its gonna take a long time to come back. ten minutes at least
do a history clear of cookies as George said. I forgot I did that when I rebooted last night. funy thing it happened again when I replied this morning, but I didn't clear history and it still reset where I could log in.

Its the servers between links messing everything up at both ends of this website and everyone connecting to it. Know how communication networks work. I do because I worked for one 32 years. Original baby bell of A.T.&T. Changed its name 4 times by the time I retired.

Copper wire, fiber optics, or wireless still operates the same distributing way instead of nationally now globally instead of land lines satellites. What will people do when ruling elites shut it off. do individuals understand life only exists as naturally timed apart now. Do not navigate existing by clock and calendar semantics.
when your reality won't explain real completely, you joined a socially corrupt intellectual mind that won't tolerate you using your own brain.

Polar1ty

Unread post

   
   
Posts: 978

skews13 » 31 Jul 2020, 8:16 am » wrote: Great. Open up your own school, convince people to send their kids to it, and your all set.

Let’s us know how it works out for you.
Irrelevant to my post. Have a nice day.

User avatar
Olivaw

Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 622
Politics: Liberal

GeorgeWashington » 31 Jul 2020, 8:21 am » wrote: I have posted only scientific and medical sources.
Appreciated. Unfortunately none of them say 99%+ survival.  
Are you putting yourself in the "pledged fealty to the current president of the United States or Russia" camp?
 Nah, I suspect that you are in that camp. Otherwise, why the tantrums?  
After all, It was you that selected your preferred source and posted a link with the CFR being nearly 10%, while I merely called **** on the tinfoil hat scare mongering.   No, the link you posted earlier had the CFR at 9.92%, which is why I called it tinfoil hat fear mongering propoganda. See below: I never claimed the CFR of 3.4% from JH was ****.  I called **** on your amateur tally which had it at 9.9%
Ahh. My apologies. I didn’t realize you were hair splitting. I thought you were interested in the more important discussion of CFR and IFR. I posted both figures with a link. The data at the projection site is accurate. The formulas are disclosed. I’ve tried to find why they used CFR in an unconventional way and cannot so I’ll concede that they used the figure in an unconventional way. I failed to notice and copy/pasted with a link. 

How about this? You ignore the site because it does not suit your political agenda. I’ll reference it daily because the trend analysis guides me in assessing the danger to me and my family of this deadly pandemic. No need for the histrionics.  

JHU uses CFR and Mortality rate interchangeably.   Hair split that.https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality 
Stop projecting. I have done nothing to call my character into question. Keep that bag of **** in your lap, thanks.
You appear to be attempting to understate the risk of a dangerous disease for cheap political points on a forum frequented by low information Trump supporters. Speaks poorly, IMO. Don’t concern yourself with it. I’m unconcerned with your current assessment of my character. You need not concern yourself with my assessment of yours.
  
Wrong again. CFR cannot offer an expert a figure for the average person's odds of death after a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, because CFR does not include infenctions of average people.  It includes confirmed cases only, and we both know there are more cases than confirmed.
Wrong again. Your error stems from an apparently poor understanding of CFR. I tried to explain. You refuse to consider. Perhaps this will educate you. Perhaps not.    https://www.britannica.com/science/case-fatality-rate
Ok.. is it 3.4% or 9.9%? Are you stepping back from your previous 9.9% propganda spew? Did I, or did I not quote the 3.4% figure and link the formula used to calculate it?   Now we”re exploring your character, , here is what I mean about your  character. I never said
Again, too much anguish on your part. It is statements And misrepresentations like the above that first lead me to question your agenda and character. Don’t fret about what people on the Internet think of you son. Worry about your family and, to a lesser extent, your friends, neighbors and coworkers. Prioritize!  
Did you know that flu infections are estimated to be 200x greater than confirmed numbers, and this estimate is what's given to the public and used by policy makers?
No I didn’t. It rings true. I seldom go to a doc over a routine flu bug. Seems reasonable to assume that others don’t bother either. Relevance? 
So far, nearly every study I have found has the IFR at <= 1%
Nearly?  

What part of “I’d be willing to accept that the data may suggest that the odds of death are below 1% if one is asymptomatic but the odds are above 3% if one is diagnosed with COVID-19.” offends you?    
SARS-COV-1 immunity lasts from 12-24 months. Why would you assume this is any different?
 No assumption was made or stated. I do think youR assumption that they are the same is misguided. I’d explain why I think that but I suspect you’d ignore the comment and thrash about for another cheap shot.   
Ooooh. I get it now... Its ok to use blatantly false data(9.9% CFR) as long as it helps your agenda?  Set your integretiy aside for your political party?
Incorrect! The data was 100% accurate. Both figures were quoted. The formula was disclosed in the link. What does it say about your character that you’d launch into a personal attack when we’re dealing with a disease that has cost over 152,000 Americans their lives?

I advise people to wear masks and follow health guidelines. You tell them that it’s no big deal. I hold my head high. Can you?  

Wear a **** mask. Refusal to do so, if you do so refuse, says more about you character than anything I post.
 
 
Last edited by Olivaw on 31 Jul 2020, 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

Polar1ty

Unread post

   
   
Posts: 978

GeorgeWashington » 30 Jul 2020, 3:33 pm » wrote: Is your preferred news not reporting the 99% survival rate?

13 May 2020 - IUPUI scientists estimate the infection-fatality rate for the novel coronavirus in Indiana to be 0.58 percent, making it nearly six times more deadly than the seasonal flu, which has an infection-fatality rate of 0.1, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

https://news.iu.edu/stories/2020/05/iup ... virus.html

07 May 2020 - The IFR-S in the US was estimated to be 1.3% (95% central credible interval: 0.6% to 2.1%). County-specific rates varied from 0.5% to 3.6%. The overall IFR for COVID-19 should be lower when we account for cases that remain and recover without symptoms.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00455?utm_campaign=covid19fasttrack&utm_medium=press&utm_content=basu&utm_source=mediaadvisory&

01 May 2020 Further, we analyze the deaths and infections in New York City to estimate an overall IFR for the United States of 0.863 percent.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3590771

26 Mar 2020 - Adjusting for delay from confirmation to death, we estimated case and infection fatality ratios (CFR, IFR) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the Diamond Princess ship as 2.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–6.7) and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.38–3.6), respectively. Comparing deaths on board with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates from China, we estimated CFR and IFR in China to be 1.2% (95% CI: 0.3–2.7) and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.2–1.3), respectively.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118348/

16 Mar 2020 - The age-stratified proportion of infections that require hospitalisation and the infection fatality ratio (IFR) were obtained from an analysis of a subset of cases from China12 . These estimates were corrected for non-uniform attack rates by age and when applied to the GB population result in an IFR of 0.9% with 4.4% of infections hospitalised (Table 1).

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf

03 Mar 2020 - The death rate of the seasonal flu varies year to year but is about 0.1%, compared to about 2% for COVID-19.

https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/22896/Duszynski_WhyPublicHealthOfficials.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Several more in preprint/peer review ...

https://www.medrxiv.org/search/covid%252Bifr

While the CFR is extremely valuable for experts, IFR is increasingly being called for by policy-makers and the lay public as an estimate of the overall mortality from COVID-19.

Conclusion Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until May, 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53-0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents the true point estimate. It is likely that, due to age and perhaps underlying comorbidities in the population, different places will experience different IFRs due to the disease. Given issues with mortality recording, it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure. More research looking at age-stratified IFR is urgently needed to inform policy-making on this front.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20089854v4
I said the same thing, that the IFR (the most accurate measure) is likely 0.5% to 1%. Anyone who tries to use some other calculation by ignoring the "hidden pool" of unconfirmed cases + asymptomatic persons is either stupid or intentionally deceptive.

User avatar
Olivaw

Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 622
Politics: Liberal

omh » 31 Jul 2020, 6:03 am » wrote: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha patented answer. well rehearsed. Program complete. A perfected social mind where the initial brain doesn't register why the body is specifically here.
Your attempted point collapsed under scrutiny. Don’t try to hide behind meaningless babble, just admit it.   
Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

User avatar
Olivaw

Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 622
Politics: Liberal

Polar1ty » 31 Jul 2020, 4:43 pm » wrote: I said the same thing, that the IFR (the most accurate measure) is likely 0.5% to 1%. Anyone who tries to use some other calculation by ignoring the "hidden pool" of unconfirmed cases + asymptomatic persons is either stupid or intentionally deceptive.
****. CFR is an important metric that has been used in the medical community for decades. Go try to spew that crap to an epidemiologist and see how long it takes for security to escort your arse out. 

Your attempt to understate the severity of the pandemic will not bring over 152,000 victims of the disease back to life. 
Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

User avatar
Vegas

Unread post

User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness
Posts: 13,688
Politics: Capitalist

Olivaw » 31 Jul 2020, 4:49 pm » wrote: I won't answer Vegas's question if BLM denounced the black rioters because the answer completely vaporizes my point like the atom bomb on Hiroshima.
Well, at least you admit it. 

User avatar
Olivaw

Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 622
Politics: Liberal

Let’s review Team Trump/Putin’s talking points on this virus to date. Off the top of my head:
  • The flu kills more people
  • it’s a Democratic hoax
  • Fake news media are trying to scare us
  • The number will soon be zero, it will miraculously disappear
  • Heat kills this virus / packed churches by Easter
  • Herd immunity, herd immunity.
  • Hydroxycholoroquine is a miracle cure.
  • We’re trotting out some quacks. They aren’t on the front line but they call themselves America’s front line doctors. Ignore the experts. Listen to our quacks.
  • You say it’s serious? Liar liar, pant on fire. It’s not serious. 
We’ve seen PPE shortages, nurses wearing garbage bags, 152,000 dead Americans, thousands dying daily, tens of thousands in acute care and long term health effects on those who recover. RW talking points have collapsed almost as quickly as Trump’s approval rating,  

Will they accept the truth, even if it looks bad for the president, or will they double down on their dance of denial? The latter, I suspect. 
 
Last edited by Olivaw on 31 Jul 2020, 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

User avatar
Olivaw

Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 622
Politics: Liberal

Vegas » 31 Jul 2020, 5:16 pm » wrote: Well, at least you admit it.
Answer the questions. 
 
Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

User avatar
Vegas

Unread post

User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness
Posts: 13,688
Politics: Capitalist

Olivaw » 31 Jul 2020, 5:36 pm » wrote: Answer the questions.

why do you do that? I'm being serious. I asked you long before you asked me anything, yet you evade. Then you have the stupidity to project your deflections on me. 

Why won't you just be honest? 

**** liberals are so God damn predictable. 

User avatar
Olivaw

Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 622
Politics: Liberal

Vegas » 31 Jul 2020, 5:38 pm » wrote: why do you do that? I'm being serious. I asked you long before you asked me anything, yet you evade. Then you have the stupidity to project your deflections on me. 

Why won't you just be honest? 

**** liberals are so God damn predictable.
Nonsense. You entered a discussion about white supremacists arrested for trying to instigate violence at the #BLM demonstrations with a transparent attempt at distraction. Worse, you hid behind a leading question.

If you have a point, state it. Don’t hide behind stupid leading question and demand that your opponent make your point for you. Nobody is dumb enough to fall for that game.    
 
 
 
Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

User avatar
Vegas

Unread post

User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness
Posts: 13,688
Politics: Capitalist

Olivaw » 31 Jul 2020, 5:55 pm » wrote: Nonsense. You entered a discussion about white supremacists arrested for trying to instigate violence at the #BLM demonstrations with a transparent attempt at distraction. Worse, you hid behind a leading question.

If you have a point, state it. Don’t hide behind stupid leading question and demand that your opponent make your point for you. Nobody is dumb enough to fall for that game.  
Another deflection. You have no integrity. Typical dishonest lying liberal. 

User avatar
Olivaw

Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 622
Politics: Liberal

Vegas » 31 Jul 2020, 6:17 pm » wrote: Another deflection. You have no integrity. Typical dishonest lying liberal.
Quit yer whining. The facts are in and it ain’t good for your man.
  • Black Lives Matter.
  • #BLM is a peaceful movement. 
  • #BLM is winning the battle for hearts and minds. 
  • Umbrella man turned out to be a white supremacist trying to incite violence and looting. 
  • Other white supremacists have been caught trying to incite violence at #BLM demonstrations
  • Police overreaction to the demonstrations backfired. There is talk of defunding police departments across the nation. 
  • Bunker boy Trump tear gassed peaceful Americans and clergy for a photo opportunity,
  • Bunker’s boy’s thugs in Portland did more harm than good. 
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/48/37/c5 ... 774698.jpg
 
 
Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

Crazytrain

Unread post

     
     
Posts: 2,127
Politics: Beer and Popcorn

Olivaw » 31 Jul 2020, 4:49 pm » wrote: ****. CFR is an important metric that has been used in the medical community for decades. Go try to spew that crap to an epidemiologist and see how long it takes for security to escort your arse out. 

Your attempt to understate the severity of the pandemic will not bring over 152,000 victims of the disease back to life.
I agree 

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Allota Bologna, Annoyed Liberall, Buffalo, Cannonpointer, Cedar, Crazytrain, Google Adsense [Bot], iamtogtogiam, Ike Bana, Isabel, KFSW, Majestic-12 [Bot], nefarious101, NeoConvict, neue regel, Olivaw, OpenSiteExplorer [Bot], Pastafarian, Pengwin, RollingRock, Semrush [Bot], simple jack, skews13, sooted up Cyndi, Termin8tor, Vegas, WillFranklin, Yandex [Bot] and 816 guests


Log in or Register to remove ads