Social distancing

[Scott h]

[QUOTE=sk270;4202092]Talking Moose, you are totally ignoring the length of time people are incapacitated by Covid-19 as well as the serious chronic effects of the virus when you say that 99.5% recover from it.

Here's a new study helping to put to bed these completely uninformed statements saying that 99% of people will be completely fine. They won't. For those that don't want to read it, the study shows around 50% of the people they looked at ended up with cardiac damage.


https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging...searchresult=1

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

I agree with you as I am astounded how people will immediately jump to whatever solution the government provides without any thought. When this came out people jumped on board and immediately began to berate others who didn't do the same. Its my right to think and act freely for myself and take the consequences of my actions. I do not social distance or have made any changes to by actions from prior to the virus. If you want to distance or wear a mask or what have you, go ahead.

Here is a sample of their advice 70 years ago when the threat of an atomic strike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

They have a terrible track record for the advice they give when there is a new threat looming.

So you of course would have no problem with health care professionals doing what they really believe and refuse you treatment as you appear to do nothing to try and avoid getting infected?????

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Here's a new study helping to put to bed these completely uninformed statements saying that 99% of people will be completely fine. They won't. For those that don't want to read it, the study shows around 50% of the people they looked at ended up with cardiac damage.

Just what exactly are you trying to say?

[Talking moose]

[QUOTE=Scott h;4202289]

Originally Posted by sk270

Talking Moose, you are totally ignoring the length of time people are incapacitated by Covid-19 as well as the serious chronic effects of the virus when you say that 99.5% recover from it.

Here's a new study helping to put to bed these completely uninformed statements saying that 99% of people will be completely fine. They won't. For those that don't want to read it, the study shows around 50% of the people they looked at ended up with cardiac damage.


https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging...searchresult=1

Live. Live. Live.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Just what exactly are you trying to say?

Seems pretty clear. The claim that 99% of people who get covid are just fine is completely false.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Seems pretty clear. The claim that 99% of people who get covid are just fine is completely false.

Live. Live. live.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Seems pretty clear. The claim that 99% of people who get covid are just fine is completely false.

So out of the almost 9000 cases in Alberta, 50% of those aren't going to be ok? How many NHL players have tested positive? I'll give you a hint...it's more than 2 dozen. So how many of them won't be playing in the playoffs?

You should make a graph, I really miss the graphs.

[EZM]

[QUOTE=Scott h;4202289]

Originally Posted by sk270

Talking Moose, you are totally ignoring the length of time people are incapacitated by Covid-19 as well as the serious chronic effects of the virus when you say that 99.5% recover from it.

Here's a new study helping to put to bed these completely uninformed statements saying that 99% of people will be completely fine. They won't. For those that don't want to read it, the study shows around 50% of the people they looked at ended up with cardiac damage.


https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging...searchresult=1

Agreed, The issue with that ridiculous 99.5% number is, the actual documented rates, of confirmed and recovered (or death as a result of the cases) is currently at 12.8% in the US on resolved cases.

Of the 3.4 million cases currently in the US, 2.4 Million (more than 2/3 rds) are unresolved and more people will die, even if infections stop tomorrow. Death rates lag behind infections.

The CDC is counting all cases resolved and unresolved and comparing that to deaths which isn't actually scientifically (or statistically) sound when presented that way.

It stands to reason they will die at a similar rate to what has been documented in the 1 million resolved cases with 139,000 deaths.

In the US (round figures here) ...

139,000 dead
1,000,000 recovered
2,400,000 unresolved (some will die and most will recover but the deaths will continue to keep growing).

You can't count a death rate on something that isn't finished yet - So when I hear numbers like 99.5% I just shake my head - and I have yet to see one shred of factual or credible evidence to even approach that figure. Not one.

****EVERYTHING I just cited is from the CDC, and under the authority of the Trump administration. Not a magazine, an internet article, a clever anecdote on facebook, not CNBC, but from the governments own official website.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So out of the almost 9000 cases in Alberta, 50% of those aren't going to be ok? How many NHL players have tested positive? I'll give you a hint...it's more than 2 dozen. So how many of them won't be playing in the playoffs?

You should make a graph, I really miss the graphs.

I'm pretty sure your understanding of cardiac disease is equal to your understanding of covid and I'm not saying anything, the study I posted showed the results they got.What part of the study would you liked graphed? Visuals are much easier to understand for many people.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Scott h

So you of course would have no problem with health care professionals doing what they really believe and refuse you treatment as you appear to do nothing to try and avoid getting infected?????

Have health care professionals been refusing treatment to certain people?
This is new...

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Scott h

I'm pretty sure your understanding of cardiac disease is equal to your understanding of covid and I'm not saying anything, the study I posted showed the results they got.What part of the study would you liked graphed? Visuals are much easier to understand for many people.

You posted the study, you're saying it.

Please, tell us your background that has enabled you to become such an expert in the fields of cardiac disease as well as transmittable viruses. So far all you're doing is baffling with BS. Let's try some brilliance. We can all copy and paste.

You'd be surprised how far common sense can get you nowadays. Not everyone has strings that need pulling to survive in this world

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So out of the almost 9000 cases in Alberta, 50% of those aren't going to be ok? How many NHL players have tested positive? I'll give you a hint...it's more than 2 dozen. So how many of them won't be playing in the playoffs?

You should make a graph, I really miss the graphs.

Again this isn't a graph, just an article on percentages of what those that get infected can expect in their future.

https://boingboing.net/2020/07/13/ho...th-1-mort.html

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

You posted the study, you're saying it.

Please, tell us your background that has enabled you to become such an expert in the fields of cardiac disease as well as transmittable viruses. So far all you're doing is baffling with BS. Let's try some brilliance. We can all copy and paste.

You'd be surprised how far common sense can get you nowadays. Not everyone has strings that need pulling to survive in this world

So far you have shown zero amounts of common sense.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by EZM

Agreed, The issue with that ridiculous 99.5% number is, the actual documented rates, of confirmed and recovered (or death as a result of the cases) is currently at 12.8% in the US on resolved cases.

Of the 3.4 million cases currently in the US, 2.4 Million (more than 2/3 rds) are unresolved and more people will die, even if infections stop tomorrow. Death rates lag behind infections.

The CDC is counting all cases resolved and unresolved and comparing that to deaths which isn't actually scientifically (or statistically) sound when presented that way.

It stands to reason they will die at a similar rate to what has been documented in the 1 million resolved cases with 139,000 deaths.

In the US (round figures here) ...

139,000 dead
1,000,000 recovered
2,400,000 unresolved (some will die and most will recover but the deaths will continue to keep growing).

You can't count a death rate on something that isn't finished yet - So when I hear numbers like 99.5% I just shake my head - and I have yet to see one shred of factual or credible evidence to even approach that figure. Not one.

****EVERYTHING I just cited is from the CDC, and under the authority of the Trump administration. Not a magazine, an internet article, a clever anecdote on facebook, not CNBC, but from the governments own official website.

You do realize that resolved cases are the last statistic to be reported. In other words, it has the least priority for input. Not only that, but is the stat least likely to be reported.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Again this isn't a graph, just an article on percentages of what those that get infected can expect in their future.

https://boingboing.net/2020/07/13/ho...th-1-mort.html

There it is folks! How can we possibly doubt something coming from a news source called BOINGBOING!

Keep going Scott! You are really getting some traction now!

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Scott h

So far you have shown zero amounts of common sense.

You use BOINGBOING.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Have health care professionals been refusing treatment to certain people?
This is new...

It's not new, it's always happened. A few examples are cardiac patients being refused surgery due to refusal to stop smoking. Organ transplants to IV drug abusers. You know, why waste good, very expensive medical care on patients that make stupid decisions........

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

You use BOINGBOING.

I know I'm kinda embarrassed by it........at least it's more credible than FOX and I happen to know the percentages are accurate.

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by Scott h

It's not new, it's always happened. A few examples are cardiac patients being refused surgery due to refusal to stop smoking. Organ transplants to IV drug abusers. You know, why waste good, very expensive medical care on patients that make stupid decisions........

OK, but are they refusing treatments to patients from COVID-19 due to their method of contracting the virus?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Scott h

I know I'm kinda embarrassed by it........at least it's more credible than FOX and I happen to know the percentages are accurate.

Let's see the link showing that it is indeed more credible than FOX please.
Does your background in transmittable viruses and cardiac disease back up BOINGBOING'S stated percentages?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Scott h

So far you have shown zero amounts of common sense.

Just trying to fit in with the "it's too soon to open up...., wear your masks to save Grandma" crowd

[Smoky buck]

The more I read these Covid19 threads the more I am starting to think the population getting thinned out might be a good thing

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

There it is folks! How can we possibly doubt something coming from a news source called BOINGBOING!

It very well may be the oldest news site on the internet, there’s a reason it’s been going for 25 years.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Does your background in transmittable viruses and cardiac disease back up BOINGBOING'S stated percentages?

Matter of fact it does

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

It very well may be the oldest news site on the internet, there’s a reason it’s been going for 25 years.

The National Enquirer has been going strong for 94 years. Tenure does not equate to credibility.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

It very well may be the oldest news site on the internet, there’s a reason it’s been going for 25 years.

The National Enquirer has been going for 94 years now. lol

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

The National Enquirer has been going strong for 94 years. Tenure does not equate to credibility.

Hmmm. That's a strange coincidence


The Globe has been around for 64 years. Must be pretty credible as well.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Hmmm. That's a strange coincidence

Not really, you two have been sharing one idea for the last 4 pages.

[Talking moose]

https://images.app.goo.gl/mAJgaxZWr5hZ64a66


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bergerboy]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

Not really, you two have been sharing one idea for the last 4 pages.

We have not been sharing the same idea, we have just used logic and reasoning.