Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV/COVID-19)

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your numbers are way off on lightning..

Chance of being struck in lifetime is 1/15,300 or 0.000065%

https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-odds

I went with what NatGeo stated, sorry.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...out-lightning/

Also, your % is off by 2 orders of magnitude.

0.0065% not 0.000065%

[pheoxs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your numbers are way off on lightning..

Chance of being struck in lifetime is 1/15,300 or 0.000065%

https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-odds

His COVID numbers are off too.

In AB 1121 people have been hospitalized to date from 27,664 confirmed cases. So it's more like 4% chance of being hospitalized if you catch covid.

[revelations]

yea how dare I speak AHS official numbers, as of (last week friday) 140 and 25 in ICU

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-1...statistics.htm

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

His COVID numbers are off too.

In AB 1121 people have been hospitalized to date from 27,664 confirmed cases. So it's more like 4% chance of being hospitalized if you catch covid.

Numbers are correct. And also includes secondary spreads within hospitals.

Looks like another hospital in Edmonton have 6 cases on 3 units over the weekend, taken those units out of play for the time being.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I went with what NatGeo stated, sorry.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...out-lightning/

Also, your % is off by 2 orders of magnitude.

0.0065% not 0.000065%

Correct - I marthed by marth.

0.0065%

[NoSup4U]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

yea how dare I speak AHS official numbers, as of (last week friday) 140 and 25 in ICU

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-1...statistics.htm

**ICU cases are a subset of those in hospital.

[never]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

His COVID numbers are off too.

In AB 1121 people have been hospitalized to date from 27,664 confirmed cases. So it's more like 4% chance of being hospitalized if you catch covid.

Unless he was talking about the population rate at 0.03%...which doesn't match either.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

His COVID numbers are off too.

In AB 1121 people have been hospitalized to date from 27,664 confirmed cases. So it's more like 4% chance of being hospitalized if you catch covid.

Yea, those darn AHS numbers again.

AB population = 4,400,000

total number of AB hospitalizations this year (not today) for c19 = 1121

1121/4,400,000 = 0.025% of the population (or rounded up, 0.03%) - which is what I also quoted for being struck by lighting in the USA.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

**ICU cases are a subset of those in hospital.

well shit, that certainly doesn't do anything to further the mass media fear narrative

[pheoxs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yea, those darn AHS numbers again.

AB population = 4,400,000

total number of AB hospitalizations this year (not today) for c19 = 1121

1121/4,400,000 = 0.025% of the population (or rounded up, 0.03%) - which is what I also quoted for being struck by lighting in the USA.

So then you're comparing the rate of getting struck by lightning over a lifetime (~80 years) to the rate of covid hospitalization for 8 months of this pandemic? Also ignoring the fact that the number of cases is rapidly exploding recently.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So then you're comparing the rate of getting struck by lightning over a lifetime (~80 years) to the rate of covid hospitalization for 8 months of this pandemic? Also ignoring the fact that the number of cases is rapidly exploding recently.

It has exploded so much that we have 140 (average age = 60) people in a province of 4.4 million, right now in hospital.'

You know those really bad flu years when it seems like 1/3 of the office is gone home actually sick? (and not just coming in with a cough) - yea, this is not it.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So, to confirm. You do not live your life as if we are locked down.

But you want everyone else to.

Yes please. April through June was fucking awesome for commuting to work.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So then you're comparing the rate of getting struck by lightning over a lifetime (~80 years) to the rate of covid hospitalization for 8 months of this pandemic? Also ignoring the fact that the number of cases is rapidly exploding recently.

Not to mention the things the vast majority of human beings do as common sense to minimize a lightning strike risk, such as not flying kites in a storm.

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It has exploded so much that we have 140 (average age = 60) people in a province of 4.4 million, right now in hospital.'

You know those really bad flu years when it seems like 1/3 of the office is gone home actually sick? (and not just coming in with a cough) - yea, this is not it.

I'm really curious as to what sort of disease does not require this sort of response (lockdown, mandatory health orders) in the eyes of the covid boppers

I think that would help me get a better idea of where they are coming from, because the risk (something Buster loves to talk about for finance) does not remotely match our response. Like a chart of "how deadly is X disease" and a mark of where they think these resoponses are appropriate and not.

And it is just staggering how they keep arguing it does, when nothing backs them up besides for "spoooooooky, we don't know the long term health results, be veeeerrrrryyyyy sccccaaaarrrreeeedddd"

I don't know if the spanish flu would have the same affect on the population it did previously due to our advancing of medical knowledge and tech, but if we saw something like that, these people basically would want society locked down, everyone in hazmat suits, and papers/trackers for who can go where and who visits who.

This isn't a slippery slope argument. This is that these are the stops we have pulled out for a disease which isn't deadly, as the massive spike in new cases vs deaths/day puttering along at 25/day shows.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm really curious as to what sort of disease does not require this sort of response (lockdown, mandatory health orders) in the eyes of the covid boppers

I think that would help me get a better idea of where they are coming from, because the risk (something Buster loves to talk about for finance) does not remotely match our response. Like a chart of "how deadly is X disease" and a mark of where they think these resoponses are appropriate and not.

Show me a virus that spread just as fast to unsuspected people in the history before we can give you proper answer.

SARS got close but it killed too quick to propagate.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

well shit, that certainly doesn't do anything to further the mass media fear narrative

While I don't doubt there is a fear element in reporting but if they stopped or change the format ever since this started, the conspiracy theorist will go the other way saying the government has something to hide and people are dead. You can't win.

But yes, I see they are reporting percentage more lately and I'm glad they do. Cases means shit at this point. All I know from the numbers is that my mom's weekly trip to grocery store is 2-4x more risky than before school started especially in presence of people not wearing mask properly and that's the only essential trip she does since pandemic started.

That's what the numbers are telling me.

And really how scary is the reporting if people are ignore it.

[adam c]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Show me a virus that spread just as fast to unsuspected people in the history before we can give you proper answer.

SARS got close but it killed too quick to propagate.

And it didn't spread until symptoms were present, unlike covid

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Show me a virus that spread just as fast to unsuspected people in the history before we can give you proper answer.

SARS got close but it killed too quick to propagate.

It's very difficult to convince people that their past experiences and our history are not all that relevant. They want to anchor to something that they can compare to for their own psychological well-being. People much prefer being wrong but assuaged than right but scared.

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And it didn't spread until symptoms were present, unlike covid

Asymptomatic spread is a virtual non-issue, as our own health authorities have stated. You can't say they are right and we have to follow what they say, then turn around and say how they are wrong. If you are appealing to authority, it severely weakens your argument to then argue against said authority.

As for your response Buster, that's fine if your stance is the past does not suggest a path forward in the future.

But then our next metric is death. And you won't even debate on that because you and I both know this disease isn't deadly.

So the final fallback is "long term complications". Please elaborate on how awful the long term complications are in comparison to other diseases.

And you won't, because your whole argument is it can't be compared, which is a chicken shit argument. You are fundamentally denying any form of analysis if there is no comparative. Even you know this.

Overall, the major metrics is severe longterm disability and death. Anything else is pure circle jerk of whatifs. People can suffer long term affects and still live long productive lives. There are so few "long haulers" that it is practically impossible to study with useless papers looking at groups of under 100 patients. And then I throw your response back, there are WAY too many variables to remotely consider these papers definitive, or even leading in any particular direction for information.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Asymptomatic spread is a virtual non-issue, as our own health authorities have stated. You can't say they are right and we have to follow what they say, then turn around and say how they are wrong. If you are appealing to authority, it severely weakens your argument to then argue against said authority.

Again, you are reading that wrong. Most asymptomatic test are negative and hold little value to testing them doesn't mean asymptomatic spread doesn't happen. It's just doesn't return enough bang for $ to continue when more resources are needed for the infected. This again is a victim of our own success.

While not conclusive, any contact tracing that failed to linked back to the a source could very well be asymptomatic spread. Unfortunately, some people either just won't co-operate and many other factors that makes it tough to nail down.

And here's a study release in Sep on this topic.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1003346

A more digested TLDR version:
https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...erious-disease

The key takeaway:

“Therefore, asymptomatic people or people in early stages of disease that may be unaware that they are infected are the most contagious,” Haseltine explained.

Hence, masks. You don't want to spread it before you know you have it. If you go into public without mask and subsequent tested positive, you are basically contributing to the untraceable cases.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So the final fallback is "long term complications". Please elaborate on how awful the long term complications are in comparison to other diseases.

You can't argue against something that's unknown. It's may be a lot. It may be nothing. So far from survivors, they all fall between those 2 but all evidence are anecdotal. There isn't a credible study on this yet. And even starting a unbias study on this is a nightmare. North American numbers on diet and BMI probably is different from Asian countries or Europeans.

From a disruption perspective, having multiple units of a hospital down for weeks at a time for deep cleaning on every case detection to keep patients safe is already a huge hassle/impact.

[revelations]

Any way you want to slice it and dice it, with a sample size of almost 4.5 million people - having 140 (average age 60) mostly elderly people in a hospital at the moment and 14 deaths thus far in the 0-59 age category (and many of those, co-morbid conditions), in no way is a pandemic, except in the eyes who are selling you fear.