We need to stop over-reacting to the Coronavirus.

[bendog]

David Nunes says it's a fine day to go out for Italian.

And what's your opinion on his statements?

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

His comments are indicative of the gop's basic incoherence. On one hand scientific appointees within the admin make statements that, gently, counteract Trump "hoax it'll all go away poof" and "under control" and Nunes. And McConnell who appears to not be any hurry to take up the House bill.

Trump bases his claim to competence on natl security and the econ. The virus is a direct threat to that.

That's a nice way to put it.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

I think the reality is that the gop is still with Trump on the virus "just passing through" and "going away when it gets warm." That opinion does not seem to be shared with people who have medical and scientific training. Or at least those people don't want to bet on it. But if the gop takes steps to actually change lives, rather than urge interest rates cut, then Trump's probably toast. So they appear to be willing to chance an Italian or Spanish scenario … on a larger scale of course.

What does your gut tell you?

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Something walked up and bitchslapped Trump in his head. He went from "it'll blow over to close stuff till July" in a week

 

[Redfish]

And what's your opinion on his statements?

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

His comments are indicative of the gop's basic incoherence. On one hand scientific appointees within the admin make statements that, gently, counteract Trump "hoax it'll all go away poof" and "under control" and Nunes. And McConnell who appears to not be any hurry to take up the House bill.

Trump bases his claim to competence on natl security and the econ. The virus is a direct threat to that.

That's a nice way to put it.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

I think the reality is that the gop is still with Trump on the virus "just passing through" and "going away when it gets warm." That opinion does not seem to be shared with people who have medical and scientific training. Or at least those people don't want to bet on it. But if the gop takes steps to actually change lives, rather than urge interest rates cut, then Trump's probably toast. So they appear to be willing to chance an Italian or Spanish scenario … on a larger scale of course.

What does your gut tell you?

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

Something walked up and bitchslapped Trump in his head. He went from "it'll blow over to close stuff till July" in a week

being overly cautious, just like our state and local politicians. We will know soon if it was too much.

 

[jc456]

well post the paper it was in.

It’s funny how I’m posting the paper you’re supposedly referencing. Just goes to show that you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...na-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

Mortality rates discussed around the bottom of page 12.

yeah, thanks for the link, but what is it on page 12 that backs your position? quote it. I had confirmed cases. I did a word search. now within this quoted material, where does it mention people under 50?

here's all I found.

As of 20 February, 2114 of the 55,924 laboratory confirmed cases have died.

Mortality increases with age, with the highest mortality among people over 80 years of age (CFR 21.9%). The CFR is higher among males compared to females (4.7% vs. 2.8%). By occupation, patients who reported being retirees had the highest CFR at 8.9%. While patients who reported no comorbid conditions had a CFR of 1.4%, patients with comorbid conditions had much higher rates: 13.2% for those with cardiovascular disease, 9.2% for diabetes, 8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer

Yes. As you see, they didn’t include mortality rates for individuals ages below 80 which is why the spots on the chart are blank. If no one in those age brackets died, the mortality rate would be listed as zero. The spots are blank because there is no data.

So you see how you’re mistaken?

Stop making things up.

I'm not mistaken at all. there is no data. no data means no data. you're making up shit, not me. I merely posted factual data. I made nothing up. there is no figure for any person under 50. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. you failed poindexter.

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

 

[jc456]

so that means there some? come on fk, again, spin as you need. my point is still valid and yours is still missing. so once you can point to one death under 50, I'll be stating no confirmed deaths below 50.

It remains unclear hoe you’ve come to the conclusion there have been no confirmed deaths below 50.

Are you just making that up?

If you are claiming that there are confirmed deaths of people below 50 from coronavirus, you should verify it

Why am I the only one that has to verify it. The other poster made the claim that no one under 50 has died. You don’t ask them for verification?

because you said there were. I provided data that shows me correct. you haven't proven there were. still waiting.

You have not provided any data that shows you’re correct, as I’ve attempted to point out to you and you’re refuses to acknowledge. That’s not my fault that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s especially not my fault that you aren’t listening to me setting you straight.

the fk I didn't. Fk you tool. I gave you a table with the reported deaths and there is nothing but numbers in the >80 column and row. Now, if you wish to challenge my data, you present data that shows me wrong. It's really quite simple that concept.

 

[jc456]

BTW, nothing like the governor of a state to shame his constituents for going to bars and celebrating St. Patty's Day. yeah, the little respect he may have had left at that speech. Fk Pritzger.

You really think now is a time for public celebration?

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

98% of people won't die if they catch it. so far no one under 50. why are you over reacting?

Nope. Nope. Nope.

View attachment 312788

you should go tell the CDC then.

What should I tell them? That you’re making stuff up?

Do you really think no one under 50 dies from COVID-19?

none have been recorded. you're welcome to update the forum with that data.

 

[colfax_m]

It remains unclear hoe you’ve come to the conclusion there have been no confirmed deaths below 50.

Are you just making that up?

If you are claiming that there are confirmed deaths of people below 50 from coronavirus, you should verify it

Why am I the only one that has to verify it. The other poster made the claim that no one under 50 has died. You don’t ask them for verification?

because you said there were. I provided data that shows me correct. you haven't proven there were. still waiting.

You have not provided any data that shows you’re correct, as I’ve attempted to point out to you and you’re refuses to acknowledge. That’s not my fault that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s especially not my fault that you aren’t listening to me setting you straight.

the fk I didn't. Fk you tool. I gave you a table with the reported deaths and there is nothing but numbers in the >80 column and row. Now, if you wish to challenge my data, you present data that shows me wrong. It's really quite simple that concept.

You assume the lack of numbers in that table for age categories below 80 means the number is actually zero.

That’s a false assumption. You’re not relying on data. You’re relying on false assumptions.

 

[colfax_m]

It’s funny how I’m posting the paper you’re supposedly referencing. Just goes to show that you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...na-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

Mortality rates discussed around the bottom of page 12.

yeah, thanks for the link, but what is it on page 12 that backs your position? quote it. I had confirmed cases. I did a word search. now within this quoted material, where does it mention people under 50?

here's all I found.

As of 20 February, 2114 of the 55,924 laboratory confirmed cases have died.

Mortality increases with age, with the highest mortality among people over 80 years of age (CFR 21.9%). The CFR is higher among males compared to females (4.7% vs. 2.8%). By occupation, patients who reported being retirees had the highest CFR at 8.9%. While patients who reported no comorbid conditions had a CFR of 1.4%, patients with comorbid conditions had much higher rates: 13.2% for those with cardiovascular disease, 9.2% for diabetes, 8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer

Yes. As you see, they didn’t include mortality rates for individuals ages below 80 which is why the spots on the chart are blank. If no one in those age brackets died, the mortality rate would be listed as zero. The spots are blank because there is no data.

So you see how you’re mistaken?

Stop making things up.

I'm not mistaken at all. there is no data. no data means no data. you're making up shit, not me. I merely posted factual data. I made nothing up. there is no figure for any person under 50. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. you failed poindexter.

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

It was the paper you’ve been relying on to make this unfounded claim.

The fact you don’t know that shows how lost you are in your own stupid argument.

 

[jc456]

If you are claiming that there are confirmed deaths of people below 50 from coronavirus, you should verify it

Why am I the only one that has to verify it. The other poster made the claim that no one under 50 has died. You don’t ask them for verification?

because you said there were. I provided data that shows me correct. you haven't proven there were. still waiting.

You have not provided any data that shows you’re correct, as I’ve attempted to point out to you and you’re refuses to acknowledge. That’s not my fault that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s especially not my fault that you aren’t listening to me setting you straight.

the fk I didn't. Fk you tool. I gave you a table with the reported deaths and there is nothing but numbers in the >80 column and row. Now, if you wish to challenge my data, you present data that shows me wrong. It's really quite simple that concept.

You assume the lack of numbers in that table for age categories below 80 means the number is actually zero.

That’s a false assumption. You’re not relying on data. You’re relying on false assumptions.

no it isn't, otherwise they would have put a number in one of the other columns. Also, there is no NA either.

 

[jc456]

yeah, thanks for the link, but what is it on page 12 that backs your position? quote it. I had confirmed cases. I did a word search. now within this quoted material, where does it mention people under 50?

here's all I found.

As of 20 February, 2114 of the 55,924 laboratory confirmed cases have died.

Mortality increases with age, with the highest mortality among people over 80 years of age (CFR 21.9%). The CFR is higher among males compared to females (4.7% vs. 2.8%). By occupation, patients who reported being retirees had the highest CFR at 8.9%. While patients who reported no comorbid conditions had a CFR of 1.4%, patients with comorbid conditions had much higher rates: 13.2% for those with cardiovascular disease, 9.2% for diabetes, 8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer

Yes. As you see, they didn’t include mortality rates for individuals ages below 80 which is why the spots on the chart are blank. If no one in those age brackets died, the mortality rate would be listed as zero. The spots are blank because there is no data.

So you see how you’re mistaken?

Stop making things up.

I'm not mistaken at all. there is no data. no data means no data. you're making up shit, not me. I merely posted factual data. I made nothing up. there is no figure for any person under 50. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. you failed poindexter.

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

It was the paper you’ve been relying on to make this unfounded claim.

The fact you don’t know that shows how lost you are in your own stupid argument.

I pulled the remaining info after your link. please, feel free to provide another link that confirms your claim. So far you haven't. As such, you don't have one. therefore, your challenge is debunked.

 

[colfax_m]

Why am I the only one that has to verify it. The other poster made the claim that no one under 50 has died. You don’t ask them for verification?

because you said there were. I provided data that shows me correct. you haven't proven there were. still waiting.

You have not provided any data that shows you’re correct, as I’ve attempted to point out to you and you’re refuses to acknowledge. That’s not my fault that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s especially not my fault that you aren’t listening to me setting you straight.

the fk I didn't. Fk you tool. I gave you a table with the reported deaths and there is nothing but numbers in the >80 column and row. Now, if you wish to challenge my data, you present data that shows me wrong. It's really quite simple that concept.

You assume the lack of numbers in that table for age categories below 80 means the number is actually zero.

That’s a false assumption. You’re not relying on data. You’re relying on false assumptions.

no it isn't, otherwise they would have put a number in one of the other columns. Also, there is no NA either.

They didn’t put a number in the column because the paper that they’re citing didn’t publish the number for them to use. The website put together the table, not the authors of the WHO paper, and they could have put NA but it’s a stupid website so what are you going to do?

 

[colfax_m]

Yes. As you see, they didn’t include mortality rates for individuals ages below 80 which is why the spots on the chart are blank. If no one in those age brackets died, the mortality rate would be listed as zero. The spots are blank because there is no data.

So you see how you’re mistaken?

Stop making things up.

I'm not mistaken at all. there is no data. no data means no data. you're making up shit, not me. I merely posted factual data. I made nothing up. there is no figure for any person under 50. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. you failed poindexter.

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

It was the paper you’ve been relying on to make this unfounded claim.

The fact you don’t know that shows how lost you are in your own stupid argument.

I pulled the remaining info after your link. please, feel free to provide another link that confirms your claim. So far you haven't. As such, you don't have one. therefore, your challenge is debunked.

I didn’t link the website. You did. The website you provided doesn’t confirm your as of yet totally unfounded allegation that no one under 50 has died.

It’s okay to admit you’re wrong. I’d actually respect you for it.

 

[Redfish]

How many died of H1N1 before Obama did anything? same question relative to Trump and corona.

The Obama admin had already tested 1million people in the first month. It was well controlled. This is not at all.

Having thousands crammed at the airports for hours and hours just guaranteed the spread and eventual deaths of Americans over something that could be fixed with a phone call.

compare the numbers and get back to us

What numbers?
Tests?

the number infected and died from H1N1 and the same numbers for corona. get em and post em, if you are honest enough to do it.

How can you compare them?
One is history and one is just beginning, dope.

we can compare them using the same time frame from discovery to current. the first 3 months. that data show that H1N1 was much worse in terms of people infected and people who died. And also in the reaction time by the POTUS. Obama dallied, Trump acted.

 

[bendog]

I'm not mistaken at all. there is no data. no data means no data. you're making up shit, not me. I merely posted factual data. I made nothing up. there is no figure for any person under 50. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. you failed poindexter.

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

It was the paper you’ve been relying on to make this unfounded claim.

The fact you don’t know that shows how lost you are in your own stupid argument.

I pulled the remaining info after your link. please, feel free to provide another link that confirms your claim. So far you haven't. As such, you don't have one. therefore, your challenge is debunked.

I didn’t link the website. You did. The website you provided doesn’t confirm your as of yet totally unfounded allegation that no one under 50 has died.

It’s okay to admit you’re wrong. I’d actually respect you for it.

Jmo, but since this thread was improvidently started before Trump started calling for shutting down every gathering of 50 or more and spending upwards of over a billion in stimulus, shouldn't the mods kill the thing? LOL

 

[jc456]

yeah, thanks for the link, but what is it on page 12 that backs your position? quote it. I had confirmed cases. I did a word search. now within this quoted material, where does it mention people under 50?

here's all I found.

As of 20 February, 2114 of the 55,924 laboratory confirmed cases have died.

Mortality increases with age, with the highest mortality among people over 80 years of age (CFR 21.9%). The CFR is higher among males compared to females (4.7% vs. 2.8%). By occupation, patients who reported being retirees had the highest CFR at 8.9%. While patients who reported no comorbid conditions had a CFR of 1.4%, patients with comorbid conditions had much higher rates: 13.2% for those with cardiovascular disease, 9.2% for diabetes, 8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer

Yes. As you see, they didn’t include mortality rates for individuals ages below 80 which is why the spots on the chart are blank. If no one in those age brackets died, the mortality rate would be listed as zero. The spots are blank because there is no data.

So you see how you’re mistaken?

Stop making things up.

I'm not mistaken at all. there is no data. no data means no data. you're making up shit, not me. I merely posted factual data. I made nothing up. there is no figure for any person under 50. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. you failed poindexter.

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

It was the paper you’ve been relying on to make this unfounded claim.

The fact you don’t know that shows how lost you are in your own stupid argument.

you keep saying unfounded. It's in the paper, you just said so, so tell me how it's unfounded? There is no data saying <50 died. Not one piece of data. Again for the umpteenth time, merely provide a link that backs your claim. The link you provided, my link, doesn't qualify to prove your point, Just mine.

 

[bendog]

why are you folks even having such an absurd disagreement?

Who is getting sick? A look at coronavirus risk by age, gender, and more

 

[jc456]

why are you folks even having such an absurd disagreement?

Who is getting sick? A look at coronavirus risk by age, gender, and more

I gave the table with the WHO risk factors. No where did they confirm any deaths under age 50. I son't see that in your link either, they had the lower limit at 60.

The ARDS patients had an average age of 61, compared to an average age of 49 for those who did not develop ARDS. Elderly patients “were more likely to develop ARDS,” the researchers wrote, suggesting how age can make Covid-19 more severe and even fatal: age increases the risk that the respiratory system will basically shut down under viral assault.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes. As you see, they didn’t include mortality rates for individuals ages below 80 which is why the spots on the chart are blank. If no one in those age brackets died, the mortality rate would be listed as zero. The spots are blank because there is no data.

So you see how you’re mistaken?

Stop making things up.

I'm not mistaken at all. there is no data. no data means no data. you're making up shit, not me. I merely posted factual data. I made nothing up. there is no figure for any person under 50. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. you failed poindexter.

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

It was the paper you’ve been relying on to make this unfounded claim.

The fact you don’t know that shows how lost you are in your own stupid argument.

you keep saying unfounded. It's in the paper, you just said so, so tell me how it's unfounded? There is no data saying <50 died. Not one piece of data. Again for the umpteenth time, merely provide a link that backs your claim. The link you provided, my link, doesn't qualify to prove your point, Just mine.

It’s not in the paper. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.

The paper never made the claim that no one under 50 does. They don’t say anything about the mortality rate of people under 50. The fact that the paper doesn’t mention that does not mean there is no mortality, it just means they didn’t discuss it in the paper.

How hard is this for you to understand?

 

[jc456]

I'm not mistaken at all. there is no data. no data means no data. you're making up shit, not me. I merely posted factual data. I made nothing up. there is no figure for any person under 50. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. you failed poindexter.

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

It was the paper you’ve been relying on to make this unfounded claim.

The fact you don’t know that shows how lost you are in your own stupid argument.

you keep saying unfounded. It's in the paper, you just said so, so tell me how it's unfounded? There is no data saying <50 died. Not one piece of data. Again for the umpteenth time, merely provide a link that backs your claim. The link you provided, my link, doesn't qualify to prove your point, Just mine.

It’s not in the paper. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.

The paper never made the claim that no one under 50 does. They don’t say anything about the mortality rate of people under 50. The fact that the paper doesn’t mention that does not mean there is no mortality, it just means they didn’t discuss it in the paper.

How hard is this for you to understand?

fine, so give one that does. for the umpteenth time plus one.

 

[colfax_m]

There’s plenty of data, it’s just not written in that paper that you’re citing without actually knowing you’re citing it.

That’s how confused you are. You don’t even know what you’re basing your own argument on.

well son, that's your paper, not mine. I was kind enough to read it. And to point out that the information you claim isn't there. Period. If you wish to state that individuals under 50 died who had the virus, merely post a link to that information instead. Seems quite simple to comprehend.

It was the paper you’ve been relying on to make this unfounded claim.

The fact you don’t know that shows how lost you are in your own stupid argument.

you keep saying unfounded. It's in the paper, you just said so, so tell me how it's unfounded? There is no data saying <50 died. Not one piece of data. Again for the umpteenth time, merely provide a link that backs your claim. The link you provided, my link, doesn't qualify to prove your point, Just mine.

It’s not in the paper. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.

The paper never made the claim that no one under 50 does. They don’t say anything about the mortality rate of people under 50. The fact that the paper doesn’t mention that does not mean there is no mortality, it just means they didn’t discuss it in the paper.

How hard is this for you to understand?

fine, so give one that does. for the umpteenth time plus one.

You made the claim but can’t back it up. Now you’re demanding I prove you wrong. Is that the gist of your argument?

Why should I give a source that proves or disproves your claim?

 

[miketx]