There's nothing to complicated to understand about the stat. It's a simple IFR calculation. Even Sheriff Joe can do it. The question is whether its true and how they derived it....don't have time right now to look at it but some friends are checking. Not rock science....not even calculus oh high and mighty math master.
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
There's nothing to complicated to understand about the stat. It's a simple IFR calculation. Even Sheriff Joe can do it. The question is whether its true and how they derived it....don't have time right now to look at it but some friends are checking. Not rock science....not even calculus oh high and mighty math master.
I didn't say you can't compute it. I said you don't understand what it means.
And still don't. You're thinking of IFR as constant, while over at the grown ups table they try to predict how IFR changes as hospitals fill.
Out of your league.
The IFR has been consistently dropping. Whether that's because there are way more tests, or the virus is becoming less deadly or a combo of both is unknown. I'm going with a combo of both. It's certainly not 3.4% which was your initial foray into fear mongering.
You really are such a hypocrite...decrying the ad hominems while you yourself engage in them. Like I said you'll engage in any rhetorical exercise to protect your precious blue pill whether goalpost moving, strawmanning, ad hominems, putting words in peoples mouths, making assumptions or outright changing things. He so got you in that video...
What you don't realize is you are in the delusional table, fascinated by the mathematics of how the IFR changes, chatting about it with your math buddies, convinced its going to crash as the hospitals fill up. News flash: the trend has been going down. It's been going down since the beginning where it was estimated at 3% and is now down to somewhere between .1- (in even the most widely pessimistic predictions) .4%. (Note, I get the better way to understand this is a range, but the only relevant question is where it is now).
Delusional hypocrite, crying about his masks.
I should clarify, I'm not sure the virus itself is becoming less deadly, but I think we are way better at treating it.
This is a major part of it. There's a theory going around the virus has weakened as it became more virulent but that's never been proven and the evidence is scant. The other component is the brush theory (people who are genetically or because of age or age related health conditions who would otherwise be vulnerable to respiratory illnesses caught it and died early on leaving the people more resilent around).
More evidence that masks can't stop outbreaks. In Golden Gate Fields (isn't dad around there?), 200 racetrack workers fell ill (most asymptomatic) despite rigorous sanitation, mask, temp checks and testing. Yes, there were some residents there, but the protocols didn't protect the non-residents either. It's of course possible the masks reduced viral loads or stopped another portion of the workers from getting ill. But either the horses are transmitting it, or the masks didn't help stop it in this circumstance.
www.berkeleyside.com
How did 200 racetrack workers at Golden Gate Fields get COVID-19?
One week after a COVID-19 outbreak involving hundreds of Golden Gate Fields workers became public, many who tested positive are back to work.
www.berkeleyside.com
It appears that you can't help yourself.
BTW, in the future, all lawyer jokes will be illustrated with the picture of Rudy with his hair dye running down his face.
The virus is not a single organism. There is no biological mechanism by which billions of independent virus particles will spontaneously "weaken".
If you don't like being out of your league, stop reposting twitter garbage and go back to posting articles.
/https%3A%2F%2Ftf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffiler%2Fe6%2Fba%2Fe6ba8600-5c8e-4b33-8dad-f983531e1052%2Fsars-cov-2-sem-purple_nih-flickr-crop_web.jpg)
Will the Coronavirus Evolve to Be Less Deadly?
History and science suggest many possible pathways for pandemics, but questions remain about how this one will end
www.smithsonianmag.com
I did pass it on saying I hadn't had time to check out veracity. Unlike you, I'm careful not to mislead. Why is it the antilockdowners are the only ones crying about don't post the information??? Oh yeah....your precious....you don't want that threatened.
The mechanism is natural selection. Viruses compete with each other, too.
Close but not quite. Read the article I posted. Who is out of their league again?
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
If I understand it correctly, IFR is estimated. The denominator is the number of infections - estimated somehow from actual tested infections and some other method to estimate untested infections. Ignoring changes due to different estimates of untested infections, some of the drop could be due to a smaller proportion of the high risk people catching it due to efforts to protect them and those in lower risk groups doing little to protect themselves. As you say, better treatment definitely appears to be improving IFR as well. Some of it could also be that our behavior and/or “seasonality” lowered the initial viral load obtained by those infected. There is evidence that the initial load is directly related to the severity of the illness. If that’s the case, we may see IFR go up this winter - or, not drop as much as it would if we were in our summer.
Probably both of us. No need to make a single cause fallacy.
Your article is a great description of what natural selection means in a viral context.
You'll have to find one of my many other mistakes if you want to call me out of my league.
I’m fairly sure it was mascara, used as hair dye to touch up the grey, but either way... funny.
as usual you have only a partial understanding. You got right that the mechanism in action is natural selection in a viral context. You didn’t describe the mechanism correctly. And no I’m not going to fall for another one of your transparent rhetorical tricks and get into interpreting what the author meant or annotating the author. Folks can read the article and decide themselves.
Can we substitute images of politicians, who seem to be disproportionately attorneys... just like Rudy?