Numbers Don't Lie

a reply to: TheRedneck
The original statement about lockdowns wasn't mine, that was conspiracy nut. I pointed out that you took their opinion as a statement of fact and proceeded to bash it, then offered an opinion of your own.

Neither opinion is based on solid facts. They are both WAGs, even if one is wilder than the other.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: daskakik

This isn't about politics but about you hiding behind "it's just my opinion" while bashing someone else for posting their opinion.

I think it is safe to assume that many infections are unaccounted for as well as isolation having an affect on the spread of a communicable disease.

If your opinion is that the lockdowns have helped, I can accept that. You stated it as though it were fact; it is not. We have no way to know if the lockdowns did any good, because there is no baseline.

We also cannot state that the lockdowns did no good. Believe it or not, that is not my opinion... my opinion right now on the lockdowns is that we do not know. I question whether they did any good; that's not the same thing.

On the other hand, there is scientific evidence that the number of cases is grossly under-represented in present reports. You even mention this above and claim "it is safe to assume" that this is true. That is an opinion based on evidence; the question of the lockdowns is an opinion based on lack of evidence.

TheRedneck

I partially agree. Reality has no baseline. We have to operate and predict according to reality. I've backed mine up with the best evidence I got. I'm also the only person here to quantify and make a solid prediction. 200,000 dead by end of year, 2 million before we see the cases drop off. I very well COULD be wrong.

I encourage you to do the same. Make a claim.

Everything I say is my opinion. That is very true. I will add all posts are my "opinion" to the bottom of all posts from here on. That way no one will be confused.

a reply to: daskakik

The original statement about lockdowns wasn't mine, that was conspiracy nut.

Fair enough; I stand corrected.

Neither opinion is based on solid facts.

There are no solid facts, but there is evidence. One is based on a complete absence of evidence, while the other is based on what evidence we have.

I understand what you are trying to do... it's a logical fallacy: equate two dissimilar things, then claim that if one is incorrect, it follows that the other must be incorrect. In the process, either one must accept the incorrect statement or dismiss the correct statement.

It's bull crap. Just so you know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: CobaltCPD

I encourage you to do the same. Make a claim.

I already did. On page 5.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CobaltCPD

I encourage you to do the same. Make a claim.

I already did. On page 5.

TheRedneck

Let me note that I claimed 200,000+ dead by end of year. I did not claim herd immunity at that point, I claimed that at around 2,000,000 deaths without a time frame. Hope that clarifies.

Let me reiterated I am the only one making an actual prediction.

a reply to: CobaltCPD

Let me reiterated I am the only one making an actual prediction.

Say what?

OK, you don't like my prediction, I get it... but I did make one. You're just making yourself look foolish now.

I predicted under 200,000 dead by the end of the year, and that herd immunity, characterized by a sharp decrease in the number of hospitalizations and deaths, would also occur by the end of the year. It's posted on page 5 and linked above.

Quit being disingenuous.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Sorry, but I'm not presenting a false equivalence argument. Both opinions are not dependent on each other.

I said that you claimed conspiracy nut's opinion was a statement of fact and proceeded to bash it.

To be fair, the dip and rise in cases and deaths during lockdown and reopening could also be taken as evidence of the effect of the lockdowns but, that isn't really my point here.

ETA: Should have included the protests along with reopening.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CobaltCPD

Let me reiterated I am the only one making an actual prediction.

Say what?

OK, you don't like my prediction, I get it... but I did make one. You're just making yourself look foolish now.

I predicted under 200,000 dead by the end of the year, and that herd immunity, characterized by a sharp decrease in the number of hospitalizations and deaths, would also occur by the end of the year. It's posted on page 5 and linked above.

Quit being disingenuous.

TheRedneck

That one is totally my bad. Sorry. I seriously misread your post, I'm multitasking right now and had a dum dum moment. I glanced over it and had a doof moment. All is cool. I appreciate a prediction being made.

Your maths is out by a factor of 100.

The US percentage, for example, is 0.043%

You also appear to have assumed that the death toll is the final figure instead of a running total mitigated by the various interventions.

But lets set that aside. Lets assume 0.043% is sound. Now think of it as the medical version of Cloward-Piven. How many ill people does it take to make a healthcare system collapse?

a reply to: daskakik

Translation: "I'm right and anyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong."

Is now about the time you call me a racist?

TheRedneck

a reply to: CobaltCPD

It's cool.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Why all the drama?

All I said was that conspiracy nut also posted an opinion and both yours and his are based on assumptions.

a reply to: daskakik

Why all the drama?

I could ask you the same thing.

Except I already know the answer: you want to argue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Except I offered no drama. I pointed out that conspiracy nut posted an opinion.

I even acknowledged that many infections are indeed unaccounted for. How is that arguing?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

Not about politics? All you know is if those numbers are legit that's how many people died after testing positive.

That's my point. The virus doesn't care about politics (although if one watches the news long enough, one could easily deduce that it votes Democrat). The infusion of politics into what is a scientific discussion has only made it impossible to state death rates by number of cases. Heck, we can't even get an accurate death count now... but we can say one thing and one thing only about it:

The death rate for the entire population ranges from a maximum of .06% down to infinitesimal.

That's all we know about the severity. It's all we can know about the severity.

TheRedneck

Ahhh. Gotcha . Agreed we are.

a reply to: daskakik

And I admitted that as an opinion the argument was valid, if unsupported.

Yet, here we are.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Yeah but you didn't even want to accept that it was an opinion. Even called it a lie.

Also, the unaccounted infections are not really much support for your opinion that things are reaching herd immunity levels. 20%-30% isn't herd immunity and that is around the spot where those numbers seem to be.

They are both unsupported opinions.

a reply to: daskakik

Yeah but you didn't even want to accept that it was an opinion. Even called it a lie.

Stated as a fact, it is a lie. Stated as an opinion, it is simply unsupported. There is no way to ascertain what would have happened without the lockdowns either way.

Also, the unaccounted infections are not really much support for your opinion that things are reaching herd immunity levels. 20%-30% isn't herd immunity and that is around the spot where those numbers seem to be.

Testing is not being conducted at random. Those receiving tests fall into one of three categories: those who need medical assistance; those who have been in contact with known or highly suspected cases; those who are just scared and want to know. The first group comprise nearly all of the early tests, with the latter two groups only recently being tested. Thus, it is quite logical to believe we are actually much higher than 20-30%, which is where present testing shows us.

In addition, there are likely many who have had the virus and survived it without major symptoms. We have verified reports of this happening. Thus, 20-30% at present will not equate to only 20-30% who have been infected.

There are reports that the antibodies are short-lived. I find that hard to believe given the totality of the situation. I accept that a few people have appeared to acquire the virus twice, but I cannot explain it at this time.

Still, if we are at a bare minimum of 20-30% now and likely as high as 40-50%, and considering that this virus has been "loose" for a minimum of 6 months, it is no stretch to my mind that the number of people who have or have had the virus could be closer to 60-70%. Herd immunity is generally considered in excess of 70%, so yes, we would be close to herd immunity now.

As the number of people infected with the virus increases, it will also slow the reinfection rate, as there will be less people susceptible to it.

This is all based on present reports, statements of opinion of many who are treating the virus, and known viral mechanisms. That is my supporting evidence.

There is no supporting evidence for the efficacy of the lockdowns. I wish there were. Our handling overall of this pandemic, specifically the mass hysteria that surrounded it, destroyed much of the hard data that now would be greatly beneficial it finding a treatment and/or vaccine.

Now, does that make you feel better?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
It was stated as an opinion so...

You just put up more assumptions. Of course, in your mind, they support your opinion, that is how it works.

Personally, it makes no difference to me if both, one or neither are right.

a reply to: daskakik

It was stated as an opinion so...

You read it as an opinion, perhaps. I read it as a stated fact.

I have seen pundits use similar statements to try and justify what I believe has been nothing less than an assault on the entire institution of science: the continuing self-inflicted catastrophe that our economy has become. As well, we have crippled the very healthcare system we supposedly were protecting, and likely killed many people who never had the damn virus. So yeah, when I see that statement reinforced, I make it a point to state the actual facts, which are that we have no way to know if the lockdowns were helpful or not. We didn't check; we didn't care. We just did and to hell with any science.

Now I see everyone and their brother, it seems, trying to be armchair scientists when most of them act as though they hadn't gone through 5th grade science class yet. And it's all because of politics. Well, let me tell you: in my almost 60 years on this planet, politics has done me much more harm than good, while science has done me nothing but good. I consider combining the two like someone taking a crap in my ice cream. That'll tick me off too.

I have stated over and over the reasoning behind both why the lockdown issue is completely unsupported and why my position on herd immunity is supported by some evidence. If you can't get it or can't accept it... well, here's hoping you enjoy 5th grade science class. I did.

Personally, it makes no difference to me if both, one or neither are right.

Suuure... that's why you keep harping on the issue.

TheRedneck