COVID-19 Megathread 4: Grandma Got Run Over by the Dow Jones

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

What the "experts" forcast as the second coming of the Black Death turned out to be a nastier version of the seasonal flu. For this we put 17 million people out of work.

[PSOL]

What can I say, I made an attempt to warn you guys about the swine.

[T'Chenka]

What the "experts" forcast as the second coming of the Black Death turned out to be a nastier version of the seasonal flu. For this we put 17 million people out of work.

When I rise to power, you people will be sterilized.


(Mods - I am NOT being literal or serious)

[roxas11]

We will not be able to keep the economy shut down and everyone unemployed and locked in their homes until every human being on this planet is vaccinated. That is not realistic and it actually causes the cure to be worse than the disease.

I agree its not realistic nor is that what Im advocating at all
Im not saying lets just keep everybody locked in their homes until every human being on this planet is vaccinated

that sounds silly and ridiculous


All Im saying is that I rather be safe than sorry when it comes to this virus

Now if things have truly turned a corner and than sure reopen everything  
but if that is not the case than we should wait before opening anything because no amount of money is worth human lives

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

For the fourteen thousandth f__king time...

You are putting the health (and lives) OF OTHERS at risk, not just your own. You are potentially commiting manslaughter.

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

Scientists, doctors and epidemiologists agree with my statement. Your decision to not take it seriously is you turning your back on science/reality. Sadly, science and reality will not their back on you. It is possible and somewhat likely that your betrayal of your community will ultimately kill somebody due to your wrecklessness. Maybe more than one person. All because you wanted to act like a rebellious teenager. Disgusting...

This applies to literally everything based on this broken logic yall have been derping about for a month no matter how attenuated. You think germs DONT spread during flu season? You think we aren't putting other lives at risk anytime we drive a car, fart, or organize a labor union rally? Its all hypothetical statistical models on paper. You may give heavier weight to a 0.36% chance of death but that's your business. Its broken logic to claim "oh you may choose to risk it but that increases others risk ... that means you are deciding for them ... so we have decided for you!" At least with what I want at risk populations can CHOOSE to stay quarantined. If you expect me to be ashamed because I support true CHOICE over government coercion, it just aint gonna happen. There have already been manipulative alarmists carrying this to its logical conclusion that if OMG we MUST demand everyone surrender their tangible liberty to "save" hypothetical, on paper people models ... that means gun control, Medicare for all, open borders, fracking bans ... do what we say or else u r a MURDERER! No really look at our paper models!

If the options are people choose for themselves or the government chooses for you, I'm supporting the people.

[GeorgiaModerate]

This is bad:

https://twitter.com/strickdc/status/1248703742708461571

[ON Progressive]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

Also ignoring that an IFR of 0.3% can still easily mean hundreds of thousands of Americans dead without any controlled spread (even if nowhere near every American gets it), or that it would be higher than 0.3% death rate anyway with uncontrolled spread because hospitals would be so overwhelmed.

We will not be able to keep the economy shut down and everyone unemployed and locked in their homes until every human being on this planet is vaccinated. That is not realistic and it actually causes the cure to be worse than the disease.

Not a single person is suggesting a lockdown for 12-18 months.

[Mr. Reactionary]

no amount of money is worth human lives

If Ford determined it could save 5 lives per year by adding a car part to each car that cost an extra $1 million per unit, should they? Is it murder if they don't?

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Roxas, cost benefit analysis.

[roxas11]

While many including myself are skeptical about trying to quickly reopen everything so soon
Ultimately it is Trumps call. He will soon have a big decision to make and for better or worse we will all have to live with it

If he is right He can once again run around saying he was correct while the so called experts were 100 percent wrong  

But if he is wrong on this he and his supporters will now have to live with both the moral and political consequences of that fateful decision.  

[T'Chenka]

no amount of money is worth human lives

If Ford determined it could save 5 lives per year by adding a car part to each car that cost an extra $1 million per unit, should they? Is it murder if they don't?

This has been debunked as a bad faith argument. It would cost them MUCH less, almost 20 times less, to just take all those cars and scrap them and start over with a new design. No real world actual reason they would need spend $1 million per car.

[It’s so Joever]

I will gladly take a slight risk to my health to go enjoy my life with friends/coworkers/etc.

For the fourteen thousandth f__king time...

You are putting the health (and lives) OF OTHERS at risk, not just your own. You are potentially commiting manslaughter.

Repeat after me folks, 0.5 percent death rate.

Please don’t tell me you are using the one German study.
The mortality rate is probably 1%, and that is what the average studies show.
The 0.4% study was an outlier and Germany also counts Covid-19 deaths differently than most places.
I know you are smart enough to know why a single study of 500 people in Germany isn’t going to be accurate (just like the cruise ship data isn’t 100% accurate on the mortality rate)

[Grassroots]

@ Idiots who think we can't reopen the Summer

Keep putting your foot in your mouth, you'll eventually learn to like the taste.

Data is data.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

We are doing significantly better than the average of Europe so far.  The free East Asian countries are doing the best of all and we should think carefully about what we can learn from them.

What would be that? Testing? Sure (so Japanese didn't test that much as far as I know).

Many other things are cultural or historical built-ins
- washing your f**king hands
- not shaking hands
- wearing masks during flue season or similar
- less social overall?
- piety towards the System and politicians (this one would be hilarious) and accepting authoritarian methods/giving up freedoms, if they come form the System?

[It’s so Joever]

We probably will be able to reopen in many parts this Summer, but let’s not celebrate until we actually win against the disease. I said it weeks ago, and I will say it again, we still are at war.
If we have a nationwide lockdown for two weeks, we can begin talking about reopening things. As long as several States are still trying to pretend everything is normal, things won’t return to normal.

[Brittain33]

While many including myself are skeptical about trying to quickly reopen everything so soon
Ultimately it is Trumps call.

It's not, though, except in the states like Florida and Iowa where Republican governors are dependent on his goodwill. It's up to the governors.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

@ Idiots who think we can't reopen the Summer

Keep putting your foot in your mouth, you'll eventually learn to like the taste.

Data is data.

You're not looking at data, you're looking at a model output. It literally says "projected". That's not data.

I find it insulting that people who don't know the difference between a credible interval and a confidence interval are trying to appeal to one model result as if they were experts, or as if they could even understand what the model is doing.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

What studies? Even WaPo and CNN recognized eventually that most studies shows it in 0.3-1%. The study from Germany was in fact the FIRST true random study, other are estimations based of [incomplete] data.

Obviously, one study is just one study, but it was first proper one.

The study by researchers at the University of Bonn involves testing 1,000 individuals in the hard-hit district of Heinsberg in northwestern Germany in an attempt to ascertain the number of people who have been infected without realizing it.

The preliminary findings were based on results from 509 individuals, the researchers said in a news conference on Thursday.

Some 14 percent of the sample had antibodies for the disease, and an additional 2 percent had current infections. A death rate of 0.37 percent is well below the 3.4 percent case fatality rate cited by the World Health Organization last month and at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists.

Basically, all the studies showed Trump was right when he criticized ridiculous 3.7% of WHO. But CNN and MSNBC were... being CNN and MSNBC.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

What studies? Even WaPo and CNN recognized eventually that most studies shows it in 0.3-1%. The study from Germany was in fact the FIRST true random study, other are estimations based of [incomplete] data.

Obviously, one study is just one study, but it was first proper one.

The study by researchers at the University of Bonn involves testing 1,000 individuals in the hard-hit district of Heinsberg in northwestern Germany in an attempt to ascertain the number of people who have been infected without realizing it.

The preliminary findings were based on results from 509 individuals, the researchers said in a news conference on Thursday.

Some 14 percent of the sample had antibodies for the disease, and an additional 2 percent had current infections. A death rate of 0.37 percent is well below the 3.4 percent case fatality rate cited by the World Health Organization last month and at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists.

Basically, all the studies showed Trump was right when he criticized ridiculous 3.7% of WHO. But CNN and MSNBC were... being CNN and MSNBC.

Dawg, you're literally quoting something that states it's not a random study. It's the first sentence of the text you quoted.

From a Bayesian perspective, it's one study from a pool of studies. It adds information and informs our range of what we think plausible outcomes are, but there are other studies which plausibly give other values which produce a range of outcomes. And this even ignores plausible uncertainty in estimates within each of these models.

Acting like 0.36% is a definitive number rather than one of a suite of plausible mortality rates is dishonest and pushed by people who don't care or know enough about science on it to have a valid opinion.

Your shtick of turning every post into this thread into a referendum on Trump is extremely tedious by the way. Donald Trump couldn't tell the difference between heteroskedasticity and Oklahoma City. I have absolutely zero interest in his idiotic opinions on science and statistical models.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Re: models


*thread*
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1248643693684367360



Every model has overestimated. Even moderate models overestimated by factor of 2-3. Sure, better safe than sorry, but let's get real. Very unlikely, that any state will be hit harder than NY.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Did you miss the part of the tweet you posted that said "the number of *deaths* has been broadly in line with models in NY State that assumed social distancing"?

The rest of the thread is dedicated to giving plausible alternative explanations for why you may still have a high case load without seeing a disproportionate increase in hospitalizations.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

What studies? Even WaPo and CNN recognized eventually that most studies shows it in 0.3-1%. The study from Germany was in fact the FIRST true random study, other are estimations based of [incomplete] data.

Obviously, one study is just one study, but it was first proper one.

The study by researchers at the University of Bonn involves testing 1,000 individuals in the hard-hit district of Heinsberg in northwestern Germany in an attempt to ascertain the number of people who have been infected without realizing it.

The preliminary findings were based on results from 509 individuals, the researchers said in a news conference on Thursday.

Some 14 percent of the sample had antibodies for the disease, and an additional 2 percent had current infections. A death rate of 0.37 percent is well below the 3.4 percent case fatality rate cited by the World Health Organization last month and at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists.

Basically, all the studies showed Trump was right when he criticized ridiculous 3.7% of WHO. But CNN and MSNBC were... being CNN and MSNBC.

Dawg, you're literally quoting something that states it's not a random study. It's the first sentence of the text you quoted.

From a Bayesian perspective, it's one study from a pool of studies. It adds information and informs our range of what we think plausible outcomes are, but there are other studies which plausibly give other values which produce a range of outcomes. And this even ignores plausible uncertainty in estimates within each of these models.

Acting like 0.36% is a definitive number rather than one of a suite of plausible mortality rates is dishonest and pushed by people who don't care or know enough about science on it to have a valid opinion.

Your shtick of turning every post into this thread into a referendum on Trump is extremely tedious by the way. Donald Trump couldn't tell the difference between heteroskedasticity and Oklahoma City. I have absolutely zero interest in his idiotic opinions on science and statistical models.

Where does it state it is not random?

Who's acting like it is "a definitive number"? It is "at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists", but it is first one TRUE study. The only way to get TRUE rate is randomly chose people. Like poll.

It is not my schtick. As I said when Trump rightfully questioned ridiculous WHO #s (based on China), because he had #s from South Korea, MSM and this thread went nuts. So I just pointed out that Trump was right.

The same by the way with Cuomo's ridiculous claim about 40,000 (when Italy had 2,000 totally) additional ventilators. As it is right now, it seems like 5,000 will be enough for NY.

Did you miss the part of the tweet you posted that said "the number of *deaths* has been broadly in line with models in NY State that assumed social distancing"?

The rest of the thread is dedicated to giving plausible alternative explanations for why you may still have a high case load without seeing a disproportionate increase in hospitalizations.

One of the reason of "flatten the curve" is to keep hospitals from overloading.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

What studies? Even WaPo and CNN recognized eventually that most studies shows it in 0.3-1%. The study from Germany was in fact the FIRST true random study, other are estimations based of [incomplete] data.

Obviously, one study is just one study, but it was first proper one.

The study by researchers at the University of Bonn involves testing 1,000 individuals in the hard-hit district of Heinsberg in northwestern Germany in an attempt to ascertain the number of people who have been infected without realizing it.

The preliminary findings were based on results from 509 individuals, the researchers said in a news conference on Thursday.

Some 14 percent of the sample had antibodies for the disease, and an additional 2 percent had current infections. A death rate of 0.37 percent is well below the 3.4 percent case fatality rate cited by the World Health Organization last month and at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists.

Basically, all the studies showed Trump was right when he criticized ridiculous 3.7% of WHO. But CNN and MSNBC were... being CNN and MSNBC.

Dawg, you're literally quoting something that states it's not a random study. It's the first sentence of the text you quoted.

From a Bayesian perspective, it's one study from a pool of studies. It adds information and informs our range of what we think plausible outcomes are, but there are other studies which plausibly give other values which produce a range of outcomes. And this even ignores plausible uncertainty in estimates within each of these models.

Acting like 0.36% is a definitive number rather than one of a suite of plausible mortality rates is dishonest and pushed by people who don't care or know enough about science on it to have a valid opinion.

Your shtick of turning every post into this thread into a referendum on Trump is extremely tedious by the way. Donald Trump couldn't tell the difference between heteroskedasticity and Oklahoma City. I have absolutely zero interest in his idiotic opinions on science and statistical models.

Where does it state it is not random?

Taking samples from one region is by definition not random. Even if it was a random subset of people within that region (nothing in what you posted suggests that is true by the way) you need to do a lot of work to ensure that accurately is applicable to other regions. E.g., if there are discrepancies in the way tests are administered or causes of death are assigned between Germany and Spain, then you couldn't generalize these results to Spain unless you had some sort of corrections. It's the same reason why you have limited inference in applying mortality estimates from Lombardy to mortality estimates in Montana.

At best this study gives you the estimate of mortality for sick people in one region of Germany, and that's under ideal conditions of how these people were included in the survey.

Who's acting like it is "a definitive number"? It is "at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists", but it is first one TRUE study. The only way to get TRUE rate is randomly chose people. Like poll.

This is idiotic. The "true" mortality rate is obviously context and age-dependent. And if you wanted to see people treating this one estimate as gospel, skim though any of the last five pages of this thread and look for blue avatars.

It is not my schtick. As I said when Trump rightfully questioned ridiculous WHO #s (based on China), because he had #s from South Korea, MSM and this thread went nuts. So I just pointed out that Trump was right.

This does nothing to convince me that my previous assessments are correct. You're tedious and Donald Trump doesn't know anything about science.

The same by the way with Cuomo's ridiculous claim about 40,000 (when Italy had 2,000 totally) additional ventilators. As it is right now, it seems like 5,000 will be enough for NY.

Bad deflection.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1247931506250723328