To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    Show me real ass numbers. I think there are false reports. Now many? I get the feeling that we're kinda using the same criteria to say different things. It looks to me like some of you guys want to believe that the survival rate is 99.whateverthe****, because people keep saying it, and then using the fact that we have no reliable numbers to justify it! :n00b:

    If you don't know the numbers you can't say it's 99.whateverthe****. And, I think it's not controversial that young healthy people rarely die while older/unhealthy people have a higher death rate. So saying there's an overall death rate, even if it were an accurate number, has limited usefulness anyway.

    Why is it so necessary to say it's virtually nothing? Reality isn't going to change, but your perception will. Though unknown, the real ass numbers are what they are. If it's important to know, which I think it is, it's better to know what the numbers actually are than let our perceptions rule what we think it is.
    And you believe the spoon fed :poop: from the CDC that has been bent and twisted so many times. And proven wrong.
    You guys are really out there. You show me real world experience IK. Show me the fracking body’s.
    I need to step away before I get banned.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,176
    113
    North Central
    Show me real ass numbers. I think there are false reports. Now many? I get the feeling that we're kinda using the same criteria to say different things. It looks to me like some of you guys want to believe that the survival rate is 99.whateverthe****, because people keep saying it, and then using the fact that we have no reliable numbers to justify it! :n00b:

    If you don't know the numbers you can't say it's 99.whateverthe****. And, I think it's not controversial that young healthy people rarely die while older/unhealthy people have a higher death rate. So saying there's an overall death rate, even if it were an accurate number, has limited usefulness anyway.

    Why is it so necessary to say it's virtually nothing? Reality isn't going to change, but your perception will. Though unknown, the real ass numbers are what they are. If it's important to know, which I think it is, it's better to know what the numbers actually are than let our perceptions rule what we think it is.
    We can say it is no F*****G big deal and be correct in a world of propaganda that it is the killer of the century that even their inflated numbers numbers don't justify.

    It is necessary to say this to combat the propagandized information the sheep are receiving...
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    'Now'? I've been arguing the numbers are wonky for the better part of a year. Perhaps you remember me showing our worldometers derived CFR was declining while us having a 'third wave' was being relentlessly hyped, or that the poster children for 'getting it right' (Japan and Germany) had CFR's that were converging on ours. I have always thought that the CFR will converge on the IFR but see no way to wring the deliberate distortions out of what numbers we have available

    Goldilocks because, as you may recall, she was all about finding the choice that was 'just right' - according to her personal preferences. The 'these numbers are two high' and 'these numbers are too low' reminded me of that process

    Edit: I think the point of showing that more than 98% survive WuVid just fine is to remind them it is not Marburg or Ebola

    I don't disagree with your points about CFR/IFR. I think it's silly to go around claiming with blind faith confidence that the CFR is 99.whateverthe****%. If you agree that the numbers are too muddled to be that confident (though I think it's fair enough to say the numbers aren't as dire as we're led to believe) then I don't see why it's so hard for you to agree with me that saying it's 99.whateverthe****% isn't accurate enough to be so confident about it. BTW, I say 99.whateverthe****% because the decimal seems to change with memes.

    And, what's wrong with you calling me "goldilocks" is that it's completely misjudging the situation, and probably you were looking for a tidy pejorative to marginalize my point of view. I'm not trying to find the middle. I'm not trying to find "just right". That's absurd if you're looking at it with intellectual honestly. I'm trying to get the closest to IS right. Not subjectively. Objectively. And judging from your past few posts, I would think you'd draw the same logical conclusion I did from these "wonky" numbers.
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    No one said it was not. I lost a friend. The 1st death related was a life long friend of mine.
    here’s the thing. India. What a complete :poop: hole. A black plaque waiting to happen. This is in them and how they choose to live.
    influenza “A” kills people every year and we seem not to hear about this.
    sars went nuts and no real big deal.
    So here’s my thing. I have had it as have (allegedly) Several family and friends. Nobody died or was even close. No one else in close family households caught it. Nobody. I call :bs: from real world experiences with it.
    my old beat down tired ass us right dead center in the folks that they say it will kill. Nope. I have been just as sick with a cold/flu.
    Yes. People die. Every fracking day.
    they have wrecked a vital economy and screwed up our kids. ****-em. I am over the :bs:
    Even in the worst statistics group the survival rate is >90% in the CDC model. No one is saying that if you're in one of those most at risk groups you will die. You can't extrapolate your personal experience to the entire data set. Covid does appear to be more dangerous than the flu to at risk groups. That does not mean you have to give up your worldview derived conclusion is that the reaction to it has been over the top and politicized.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,176
    113
    North Central
    Even in the worst statistics group the survival rate is >90% in the CDC model. No one is saying that if you're in one of those most at risk groups you will die. You can't extrapolate your personal experience to the entire data set. Covid does appear to be more dangerous than the flu to at risk groups. That does not mean you have to give up your worldview derived conclusion is that the reaction to it has been over the top and politicized.
    So in the end your objection is we assign a value we believe to be true to a situation that has been corrupted beyond belief.
     

    Chewie

    Old, Tired, Grumpy, Skeptical
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 28, 2012
    2,334
    113
    Martinsville
    Look, numbers and percentages we hear don't mean crap! To many variables. What really killed people? Covid or some other comorbidity? We don't know and never will know "real" numbers. Does covid kill on it's own? I am sure it does. But it is here to stay in one form or another. Time to give up your "woobies" quit sucking your thumb and deal with it, it's now part of life. Those who fear dying of covid have already died inside themselves. Toughen up, it's here and it ain't going away. Live or give in, it's your choice, but don't tell me I'm wrong in choosing to live life and not fear it!
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    So in the end your objection is we assign a value we believe to be true to a situation that has been corrupted beyond belief.

    Essentially, yes. But it's more the confidence with which some of you proclaim it that made me question it in the first place. First there's the meme. Alright, whatever. And then some of you repeat those numbers as if they were true. And they're no more true than the CDC's numbers.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    Early on it seemed that the test accuracy was poor, people were getting tested one day positive and next day negative and there was never an explanation for it. I haven't followed the news on it much just doing the mask thing where it's required to get business done, but I never have heard any follow up on the test accuracy.
     

    ditcherman

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Dec 18, 2018
    7,609
    113
    In the country, hopefully.
    I`m different on the businesses. A private business has the right to mandate a mask. It`s no different then the "No shirt No shoes No service" thing. If a business posts that masks are required, I wear the mask, or I don`t go there. Same with the no firearms signs. I`ll honor a businesses mandate that I don`t bring a weapon on their property, it`s their right. But my billfold and my business go elsewhere...
    I agree they have the right, and I’ll try to obey when asked, but not by the standard sheep sign. I just had a conversation with my brother this morning while driving down the interstate about how I drive into Michigan, Ohio or Kentucky and I’m like “what is wrong with these people? They’re driving the speed limit.” It just seems so foreign to me to be that obedient.
    My point is, and how this relates to masking signs, is that they don’t really mean it. The store owner is told to put up a sign or else, so he does. And everyone is confused.
    There is a void right now that a little bit of leadership can fill, and change hearts and minds.
    It is also high time for civil disobedience.

    PS, I also completly ignore no gun signs, I’ll do my business there with my gun on if I want, and hope they find out about it.
     
    Last edited:

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    11,794
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    Essentially, yes. But it's more the confidence with which some of you proclaim it that made me question it in the first place. First there's the meme. Alright, whatever. And then some of you repeat those numbers as if they were true. And they're no more true than the CDC's numbers.

    Do you have the same problem with people repeating the phony CDC numbers?
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,896
    149
    Columbus, OH
    We took a lot of precautions in the US, but here's what happens if you don't:

    file-20210503-21-1jco2wf.jpg



    I don't understand why it's so hard to believe this virus is killing people.
    Is that India, JK. I know it is the new poster child for the horrible, horrible killer virus - but did you look at the numbers?

    India had 616531 deaths from influenza and pneumonia in 2018 (WHO numbers). Their worldometers total deaths are currently 249183 - just 40.4% of that total

    Their deaths per million population is exactly 1/10th of ours. Their cases per million are just a hair less than 1/6th of what ours is (16.4% of ours)

    Their worldometers derived CFR is 1.086% while ours is 1.779% - they're at 61% of what ours is - and this despite that fact that they have over 4x our population living in 1/3 of our land area with many, many more crowded into slums

    So, do you ever stop to wonder why the WuVid narrative NEEDS to be hyped so much if it in reality is so very, very deadly?

    Because there seems to be no excuse for not doing the math when the numbers are so readily available
     
    Last edited:

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    11,794
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    Is that India, JK. I know it is the new poster child for the horrible, horrible killer virus - but did you look at the numbers?

    India had 616531 deaths from influenza and pneumonia in 2018 (WHO numbers). Their worldometers total deaths are currently 249183 - just 40.4% of that total

    Their deaths per million population is exactly 1/10th of ours. Their cases per million are just a hair less than 1/6th of what ours is (16.4% of ours)

    Their worldometers derived CFR is 1.086% while ours is 1.779% - they're at 61% of what ours is - and this despite that fact that they have over 4x our population living in 1/3 of our land area with many, many more crowded into slums

    So, do you ever stop to wonder why the WuVid narrative NEEDS to be hyped so much if it in reality is so very, very deadly?

    Because there seems to be no excuse for not doing the math when the numbers are so readily available

    There you go using logic, common sense and numbers - you know all that stuff that isn't emotion just confuses him. :)
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,896
    149
    Columbus, OH
    I don't disagree with your points about CFR/IFR. I think it's silly to go around claiming with blind faith confidence that the CFR is 99.whateverthe****%. If you agree that the numbers are too muddled to be that confident (though I think it's fair enough to say the numbers aren't as dire as we're led to believe) then I don't see why it's so hard for you to agree with me that saying it's 99.whateverthe****% isn't accurate enough to be so confident about it. BTW, I say 99.whateverthe****% because the decimal seems to change with memes.

    And, what's wrong with you calling me "goldilocks" is that it's completely misjudging the situation, and probably you were looking for a tidy pejorative to marginalize my point of view. I'm not trying to find the middle. I'm not trying to find "just right". That's absurd if you're looking at it with intellectual honestly. I'm trying to get the closest to IS right. Not subjectively. Objectively. And judging from your past few posts, I would think you'd draw the same logical conclusion I did from these "wonky" numbers.
    It just doesn't seem that you really look at the numbers much, either, though

    Again using worldometers because of ease of use and no evidence it is any better or worse than any other numbers. Take that 1.779% CFR, we are at 1377740 tests per million population, or 1.378 tests per person. If the number of cases is based off of the number of positive tests, then it is likely to be quite far off the mark. So lets divide the CFR by the overage in testing

    1.779 ÷ 1.378 = 1.291

    Then, IMO we can be pretty sure that deaths attributed to WuVid have been drastically overstated, but by how much? Taking the WHO US deaths from influenza and pneumonia for 2018 (the latest full year available) of 14.9 per 100000 that translates to 49566. Since almost no deaths from those usual causes have been recorded during this 'pandemic', as an approximation for a minimum correction to the death total we could rationally take all of that.
    That death total equals 8.32% of the death numbers, so correcting further, we would get

    1.291 x 0.9168 = 1.184%, which is getting quite close to that 99.something percent you so dislike, even without any other corrections to likely inaccuracies (see: anecdotal evidence of people dying in auto wrecks or from cancer being classified as WuVid deaths if they were found to be positive)

    I can certainly see how the CFR could actually easily be under 1% and the survival rate be over 99% without it being much of a stretch at all. So that makes me wonder why it is so hard for you to set the error bars on survivability any wider than you have wanted to so far, because I don't see a case for that in the numbers. You can't say the numbers are inaccurate to an unknown degree and then simultaneously say those same numbers preclude a slight inaccuracy in the data sufficient to take the survival rate above 99%. I don't think it would be 99.8% but see no reason it couldn't be 99.1 or 99.2%
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    It just doesn't seem that you really look at the numbers much, either, though

    Again using worldometers because of ease of use and no evidence it is any better or worse than any other numbers. Take that 1.779% CFR, we are at 1377740 tests per million population, or 1.378 tests per person. If the number of cases is based off of the number of positive tests, then it is likely to be quite far off the mark. So lets divide the CFR by the overage in testing

    1.779 ÷ 1.378 = 1.291

    Then, IMO we can be pretty sure that deaths attributed to WuVid have been drastically overstated, but by how much? Taking the WHO US deaths from influenza and pneumonia for 2018 (the latest full year available) of 14.9 per 100000 that translates to 49566. Since almost no deaths from those usual causes have been recorded during this 'pandemic', as an approximation for a minimum correction to the death total we could rationally take all of that.
    That death total equals 8.32% of the death numbers, so correcting further, we would get

    1.291 x 0.9168 = 1.184%, which is getting quite close to that 99.something percent you so dislike, even without any other corrections to likely inaccuracies (see: anecdotal evidence of people dying in auto wrecks or from cancer being classified as WuVid deaths if they were found to be positive)

    I can certainly see how the CFR could actually easily be under 1% and the survival rate be over 99% without it being much of a stretch at all. So that makes me wonder why it is so hard for you to set the error bars on survivability any wider than you have wanted to so far, because I don't see a case for that in the numbers. You can't say the numbers are inaccurate to an unknown degree and then simultaneously say those same numbers preclude a slight inaccuracy in the data sufficient to take the survival rate above 99%. I don't think it would be 99.8% but see no reason it couldn't be 99.1 or 99.2%
    Seeing no reason it COULDN'T be 99.1? You do realize I'm complaining about the confidence with which people are saying 99.whatever. And if you look through the thread to see what numbers people are saying, it's like 99.6 or 7 or 8.

    But, okay, let's confidently state "covid could be 99.1% survivable!"

    I can see why you guys would rather say it the way you say it.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,896
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Seeing no reason it COULDN'T be 99.1? You do realize I'm complaining about the confidence with which people are saying 99.whatever. And if you look through the thread to see what numbers people are saying, it's like 99.6 or 7 or 8.

    But, okay, let's confidently state "covid could be 99.1% survivable!"

    I can see why you guys would rather say it the way you say it.
    Personally, I am 'confident' that the numbers on this will converge on those of a bad novel flu, like H1N1

    0.2% CFR tops
     

    miguel

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Oct 24, 2008
    6,614
    113
    16T

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Personally, I am 'confident' that the numbers on this will converge on those of a bad novel flu, like H1N1

    0.2% CFR tops
    I think the CFR has gotten way better since the worst of it, back when we thought ventilators were the key to treating it. Undoubtedly treatments will evolve. And also our immune systems become more adapted, it'll get better. I can't say CFR would be below 0.2%. But certainly less than 1% overall. But still not so great in the most vulnerable.
     
    Top Bottom