Lessons the country needs to learn from the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

 

[Maxdeath]

Your post reads a bit cold, like you don't care how many die.

How about we discover and test a few medications, and stay away from crowds until around Easter when the weather is getting warmer and the virus is more under control? We can still keep our social distance and will probably have a few medications by then.

Have to agree with you. Might not necessarily be Easter but eventually we need to stop hiding under the bed. We need to realize that we take a chance every time we get into a car, step onto a plane or even walk down the street.
At some point we need to restart the economy realizing that everything has a risk. If we don't restart it before long the government will be more concerned with how to pay for all the bread and soup lines then they are with how many dead.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

 

[Maxdeath]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

The 1.2-1.5% is being thrown around as if the mortality rate is in that range for the total population
That is false and an outright crime to put such alarming but incorrect info out

Who said anything about the entire population? You limited your calculation to not the total number of infected people you cited but rather the number of hospitalized infected people. That to me says you are doing a calculation that doesn't make sense on the face of it.

I've seen a lot of really really bad math lately and I've seen a lot of very selective use of numbers so I ask sources which so far haven't really been forthcoming.

The numbers I cited were per suspected cases, be they symptomatic or potential exposure. If that number renders only 10% positive then a per capita number would be even lower.

Actually, if that's your argument you are doing bad math. It possibly could speak to how infectious this is. But it also would raise its mortality. The more people who are confirmed infected and survive the lower the mortality. If you state that only 10 percent of people who are tested are positive and at the same time I assume you assert they are counted as infected that would mean it would be more deadly to those who are actually infected.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

The 1.2-1.5% is being thrown around as if the mortality rate is in that range for the total population
That is false and an outright crime to put such alarming but incorrect info out

Who said anything about the entire population? You limited your calculation to not the total number of infected people you cited but rather the number of hospitalized infected people. That to me says you are doing a calculation that doesn't make sense on the face of it.

I've seen a lot of really really bad math lately and I've seen a lot of very selective use of numbers so I ask sources which so far haven't really been forthcoming.

The numbers I cited were per suspected cases, be they symptomatic or potential exposure. If that number renders only 10% positive then a per capita number would be even lower.

Actually, if that's your argument you are doing bad math. It possibly could speak to how infectious this is. But it also would raise its mortality. The more people who are confirmed infected and survive the lower the mortality. If you state that only 10 percent of people who are tested are positive and at the same time I assume you assert they are counted as infected that would mean it would be more deadly to those who are actually infected.

Other way around. The mortality is rated against the infected but the infected turn out to be a much lower number than anticipated. That suggests less contagious than expected and overall less lethal. Considering the specific demographic of those who die, the precautions are too comprehensive and counterproductive in their own right.

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

The 1.2-1.5% is being thrown around as if the mortality rate is in that range for the total population
That is false and an outright crime to put such alarming but incorrect info out

Who said anything about the entire population? You limited your calculation to not the total number of infected people you cited but rather the number of hospitalized infected people. That to me says you are doing a calculation that doesn't make sense on the face of it.

I've seen a lot of really really bad math lately and I've seen a lot of very selective use of numbers so I ask sources which so far haven't really been forthcoming.

The numbers I cited were per suspected cases, be they symptomatic or potential exposure. If that number renders only 10% positive then a per capita number would be even lower.

Actually, if that's your argument you are doing bad math. It possibly could speak to how infectious this is. But it also would raise its mortality. The more people who are confirmed infected and survive the lower the mortality. If you state that only 10 percent of people who are tested are positive and at the same time I assume you assert they are counted as infected that would mean it would be more deadly to those who are actually infected.

Other way around. The mortality is rated against the infected but the infected turn out to be a much lower number than anticipated. That suggests less contagious than expected and overall less lethal. Considering the specific demographic of those who die, the precautions are too comprehensive and counterproductive in their own right.

Ok, simple math what's a lower percentage? I'll make this simple not realistic. 200000 infected and 1000 deaths or 100000 infected and 1000 deaths?

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.

Oh really you think so? Italy has more hospital beds per capita more doctors per capita and more ventilators per capita.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

I didn’t dispute any of your points about case numbers and limited facilities. I just added necessary context that a headline leaves out on purpose.

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

I didn’t dispute any of your points about case numbers and limited facilities. I just added necessary context that a headline leaves out on purpose.

I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

Actually that's exactly what you did, and something I felt I needed to respond to.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.

Oh really you think so? Italy has more hospital beds per capita more doctors per capita and more ventilators per capita.

That is skewed. US has more critical care beds per 100,000 than Italy. 35 - 12.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

I didn’t dispute any of your points about case numbers and limited facilities. I just added necessary context that a headline leaves out on purpose.

I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

Actually that's exactly what you did, and something I felt I needed to respond to.

Selective numbers may suggest that but overall it’s likely not so. NY, WA and LA are not the rest of the country.

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.

Oh really you think so? Italy has more hospital beds per capita more doctors per capita and more ventilators per capita.

That is skewed. US has more critical care beds per 100,000 than Italy. 35 - 12.

Yes, but when someone is trying to make statements about single-payer countries typically treating patients in hallways hospital beds is more relevant is it not?

By the way, I'm still waiting on my little math sum.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.

Oh really you think so? Italy has more hospital beds per capita more doctors per capita and more ventilators per capita.

That is skewed. US has more critical care beds per 100,000 than Italy. 35 - 12.

Yes, but when someone is trying to make statements about single-payer countries typically treating patients in hallways hospital beds is more relevant is it not?

By the way, I'm still waiting on my little math sum.

What math sum?

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

I didn’t dispute any of your points about case numbers and limited facilities. I just added necessary context that a headline leaves out on purpose.

I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

Actually that's exactly what you did, and something I felt I needed to respond to.

Selective numbers may suggest that but overall it’s likely not so. NY, WA and LA are not the rest of the country.

Everywhere where your "Wuhan" hits hospitalizations increase. By what mechanism do you think this won't be the case in other states? Is there a special level of immunity for Montana I'm not aware of?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

I didn’t dispute any of your points about case numbers and limited facilities. I just added necessary context that a headline leaves out on purpose.

I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

Actually that's exactly what you did, and something I felt I needed to respond to.

Selective numbers may suggest that but overall it’s likely not so. NY, WA and LA are not the rest of the country.

Everywhere where your "Wuhan" hits hospitalizations increase. By what mechanism do you think this won't be the case in other states? Is there a special level of immunity for Montana I'm not aware of?

Yeah. People aren’t crammed together in high rise incubators.

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

In areas that have single payer healthcare having people treated in the hallway is pretty normal.

Oh really you think so? Italy has more hospital beds per capita more doctors per capita and more ventilators per capita.

That is skewed. US has more critical care beds per 100,000 than Italy. 35 - 12.

Yes, but when someone is trying to make statements about single-payer countries typically treating patients in hallways hospital beds is more relevant is it not?

By the way, I'm still waiting on my little math sum.

What math sum?

Ok, simple math what's a lower percentage? I'll make this simple not realistic. 200000 infected and 1000 deaths or 100000 infected and 1000 deaths?

Ok, simple math what's a lower percentage? I'll make this simple not realistic. 200000 infected and 1000 deaths or 100000 infected and 1000 deaths?

This one.

 

[forkup]

Finally getting some numbers on tests performed that resulted in positive results vs negative. Finally a benchmark for this one onto itself
That number in USA is looking like 2% infected. That’s 7 million.
Of that 20% or 1.4 million become severe or critical, likely hospitalized, and of that 1.2-1.5 percent dIe or 17-21,000. That’s a sobering loss of life but we go through those sort of numbers each and every year with flus, pnemonia and other debilitations so it’s time to end this bizarre experiment

Show me your benchmark please? For one I highly doubt that you calculate a mortality rate by calculating 1.2 percent on the infected who end up hospitalized.

Surgeon General tweet earlier in the week reported a 10% infection rate among a larger swath of sampling, all either symptomatic or having been potentially exposed. With a mortality rate at 1.35%, the factor of ten drops that to .135% or roughly the same as flu. With fewer overall infections.

Fewer overall infections? Wouldn't the number of infections need to be higher to come to a lower mortality rate? Thanks for the info though. I'dd like the see how large a base sample was taken. Not your job of course. It's encouraging and falls in line with some numbers out of Italy when they took systematic samples.

On the other hand, I've never seen the common flu cause this many hospitalizations and symptoms this severe. So I'm still rather skeptical.

The rate would be per testing and even lower per capita.
I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

U.S. has most coronavirus cases in world, next wave aimed at Louisiana Doesn't seem all that speculative. If you want I can show video of the state of hospitals in Italy and recently NY. Unless you think it's normal to treat people in hallways I think it's pretty undeniable.

That headline you refer to of the US having the most cases worldwide just came onto my phone screen an hour ago. Out of context, of course. Alarmist. It doesn’t consider overall population compared to other countries.
As for crowded medical facilities, I can see where an urban area like NY would have an issue. As for Italy, open borders and and many carriers exposing an aged population exacerbates that image.

I wasn't talking about the headline but the actual article. I don't post headlines I post articles that contribute to the argument in this one several governors are making statements of what's happening in their states, right now. I find it interesting you are completely willing to reject stuff out of hand. Anyways

I didn’t dispute any of your points about case numbers and limited facilities. I just added necessary context that a headline leaves out on purpose.

I don’t know that we’re seeing an increase in hospitalizations due to Wuhan. Just a lot of talk and speculation.

Actually that's exactly what you did, and something I felt I needed to respond to.

Selective numbers may suggest that but overall it’s likely not so. NY, WA and LA are not the rest of the country.

Everywhere where your "Wuhan" hits hospitalizations increase. By what mechanism do you think this won't be the case in other states? Is there a special level of immunity for Montana I'm not aware of?

Yeah. People aren’t crammed together in high rise incubators.

So you think that being less densely populated means that you won't end up in a hospital as much if you get infected by Covid 19?

 

[Pogo]

I believe we should do our best to learn from history. In 1918, when America went through the H1N1 influenza pandemic, which killed almost 700,000 U.S. citizens, many of whom were healthy males in their 20s and 30s, unemployment actually dropped to 1.4% and the stock market did not plummet. This is because the country kept working. In fact, the massive number of deaths among the young to middle aged men in the country actually created a labor shortage. The nation didn't simply wallow in misery and do nothing. The nation adapted and overcame. One vital aspect to our survival in such a troubling time was when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Child Labor laws to be unconstitutional in June of 1918. This created an influx of labor and also put food on the table for many families. Our course of action not only forced the country to build herd immunity, it also helped build work ethic in young children and helped America become the most productive country in the world. It was the foundation of the "Roaring 20s" and the greatest stock market boom in history.

In short, we need to keep businesses open, close schools early for the year, suspend child labor laws, and get the entire nation back to work.

You're COMPLETELY omitting the fact that the USG blatantly lied about the epidemic, SUPPRESSED news of it and set up situations for those 700,000 to DIE.

THAT's why there wasn't a shutdown. THE PEOPLE WEREN'T TOLD ABOUT IT. They were just left to suffer.

Matter of fact it's erroneously called the "Spanish Flu" even though Spain had nothing to do with spawning it -- actually most likely came from Kansas.

HOW COME you uh... "forgot" (wink wink, yeah right) to mention any of that? Hm?