raccoon
September 24, 2020, 5:07am
5757
What some people don't seem to get is that when I say that professional athletes should have the right to express themselves, I am being serious.
They have a platform and they should use it, whether I agree with their expression or not.
So this "what if the shoe were on the other foot" argument makes absolutely no sense.
(And anyone that tries to make that lame argument, in this context, just wants to censor anyone that they don't agree with.)
Can we quit discussing this controversial subject?
Absolutely. Off the field.
If they have rules about their uniforms, their conduct, etc., the NFL (if they had the balls, but they donât) could absolutely forbid âprotestingâ of any kind on the field, and not run afoul of any âfreedom of expressionâ hootsânâhowls. Private contract, not governmentâŠ
Just like those âGod hates fags!â idiots who âprotestâ at funerals? They absolutely have that right, but theyâre kinda douchebags for doing it.
Or those idiots at the Oscars and other award ceremonies who spout their political âopinionsâ as if anyone cares. Like, you (well, I ) just want to tell them, âGo up there, get your award, say âthanksâ, and then shut up and sit down, eh?â. Use duct tape to enforce that if need be.
Thereâs a time and place for everything.
Wait, wait, let me get the last word, then we can stop discussing it. :laughing:
raccoon
September 24, 2020, 5:45am
5759
Although hate speech is legal, I don't think it should be because it is in very poor taste.
Maybe some day it won't legal.
Most other speech doesn't bother me, but wanting to censor people just because they don't agree with your politics is pretty lame.
Hmm, kinda like wanting to ban âdisinformationâ relating to the corovirus?
raccoon
September 24, 2020, 5:50am
5761
Yeah, that was wrong of me, and I freely admit it.
Luckily conspiracy theories aren't allowed anymore on BLF, so there is that.
cabfrank
(cabfrank)
September 24, 2020, 7:12am
5762
Exactly what I thinking when I read that, with the face palm just for emphasis, I guess.
Who recommended banning disinformation about the coronavirus? The only people Iâm aware of that are using government power to limit COVID-19 information available to the public are working in the government.
hank
(hank)
September 24, 2020, 7:01pm
5765
71k5
(71k5)
September 24, 2020, 7:34pm
5767
The CDC updated the survival rates of those INFECTED with COVID19:
0-19 - 99.997%
20-49 - 99.98%
50-69 - 99.5%
70+ - 94.6%
CDC survival rates for COVID19 infections.
MascaratumB
(MascaratumB)
September 24, 2020, 8:07pm
5768
Same source:
Table 1. Parameter Values that vary among the five COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios . The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19. The parameter values in each scenario will be updated and augmented over time, as we learn more about the epidemiology of COVID-19. Additional parameter values might be added in the future (e.g., population density, household transmission, and/or race and ethnicity).
And further justification:
â These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: a modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLoS medicine, 17(7), p.e1003189. Hauser et al. produced estimates of IFR for 10-year age bands from 0 to 80+ year old for 6 regions in Europe. Estimates exclude infection fatality ratios from Hubei, China, because we assumed infection and case ascertainment from the 6 European regions are more likely to reflect ascertainment in the U.S. To obtain the best estimate values, the point estimates of IFR by age were averaged to broader age groups for each of the 6 European regions using weights based on the age distribution of reported cases from COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data (https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf ). The estimates for persons â„70 years old presented here do not include persons â„80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons â„80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.
The article:
Author summary Why was this study done? Reliable estimates of measures of mortality from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are needed to understand clinical prognosis, to plan healthcare capacity, and for...
which starts:
Current data (24th September 2020):
https://www.google.com/search?q=world+covid+numbers&rlz=1C1GCEB_enPT908PT908&oq=world+covid+numbers&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8131j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Cases: 31,993,442
Deaths: 978,369
Have funâŠ
kennybobby
(kennybobby)
September 24, 2020, 8:13pm
5769
So what is your pointâonly the elders die, we should just let them die, they are old anyway?
And those arenât infection survival ratesâthat is dishonest on your part; the data in the report are estimated fatality rates used for Scenario 5 of the CDC planning document, and are based upon a research paper by Hauser et al. using data from Europe.
Why do they not just publish and use the actual data from the USA fatalities, wouldnât that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They donât have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all togetherâthe USA is number 1 by a big margin.
â These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: a modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLoS medicine, 17(7), p.e1003189. Hauser et al. produced estimates of IFR for 10-year age bands from 0 to 80+ year old for 6 regions in Europe. Estimates exclude infection fatality ratios from Hubei, China, because we assumed infection and case ascertainment from the 6 European regions are more likely to reflect ascertainment in the U.S. To obtain the best estimate values, the point estimates of IFR by age were averaged to broader age groups for each of the 6 European regions using weights based on the age distribution of reported cases from COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data (https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf ). The estimates for persons â„70 years old presented here do not include persons â„80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons â„80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.
71k5
(71k5)
September 24, 2020, 8:29pm
5770
kennybobby:
So what is your pointâonly the elders die, we should just let them die, they are old anyway?
And those arenât infection survival ratesâthat is dishonest on your part; the data in the report are estimated fatality rates used for Scenario 5 of the CDC planning document, and are based upon a research paper by Hauser et al. using data from Europe.
Why do they not just publish and use the actual data from the USA fatalities, wouldnât that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They donât have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all togetherâthe USA is number 1 by a big margin.
â These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: a modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLoS medicine, 17(7), p.e1003189. Hauser et al. produced estimates of IFR for 10-year age bands from 0 to 80+ year old for 6 regions in Europe. Estimates exclude infection fatality ratios from Hubei, China, because we assumed infection and case ascertainment from the 6 European regions are more likely to reflect ascertainment in the U.S. To obtain the best estimate values, the point estimates of IFR by age were averaged to broader age groups for each of the 6 European regions using weights based on the age distribution of reported cases from COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data (https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf ). The estimates for persons â„70 years old presented here do not include persons â„80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons â„80 years old were reported. The consolidated age estimates were then averaged across the 6 European regions. The lower bound estimate is the lowest, non-zero point estimate across the six regions, while the upper bound is the highest point estimate across the six regions.
I merely provided a link to the data that the CDC provided,
ask Tony Fauci what his point was.
You need to draw your own conclusions from the CDC data.
MascaratumB
(MascaratumB)
September 24, 2020, 8:24pm
5771
kennybobby:
(âŠ)Why do they not just publish and use the actual data from the USA fatalities, wouldnât that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They donât have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all togetherâthe USA is number 1 by a big margin.
:+1: Precisely what I thought!!!
BTW, he study focus on 6 regions of Europe and not 6 European countries (EU would be only for the European Union).
Quoting the article:
six regions in Europe: Austria, Bavaria (Germany), Baden-WĂŒrttemberg (Germany), Lombardy (Italy), Spain, and Switzerland.
It is uncomparable what happened and what is going on here (Europe) and what is going on in these countries (both due the total population, the total infected, and the total deaths:
COUNTRY
CASES
DEATHS
USA
6,971,393
202,163
India
5,732,518
91,149
Brazil
4,634,468
139,294
Russia
1,128,836
19,948
https://www.google.com/search?q=world+covid+numbers&rlz=1C1GCEB_enPT908PT908&oq=world+covid+numbers&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8131j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
kennybobby
(kennybobby)
September 24, 2020, 10:56pm
5772
71k5:
âŠ
I merely provided a link to the data that the CDC provided,
ask Tony Fauci what his point was.
You need to draw your own conclusions from the CDC data.
Tony Fauci doesnât work at the CDC.
71k5
(71k5)
September 24, 2020, 11:18pm
5773
Did I say he did?
He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.
You donât think any data from the NIAID, was used by the CDC, for that report?
Do you question the credibility of the CDC, the NIAID, or every department under the NIH?
Or do you question the credibility of all of them, under the HHS?
Joshk
(Joshk)
September 24, 2020, 11:37pm
5774
Yes.
Google to the rescue? :zipper_mouth_face:
71k5
(71k5)
September 24, 2020, 11:40pm
5775
Hey SB/Mr. Moderator.
Looks as though an argument is being instigated.
And all I did was post this:
The CDC updated the survival rates of those INFECTED with COVID19:
0-19 - 99.997%
20-49 - 99.98%
50-69 - 99.5%
70+ - 94.6%
CDC survival rates for COVID19 infections.
Yet another person trying to instigate an argument by misrepresenting information, then accusing others of doing the same by correcting the misrepresentations. Bravo.
Itâs already been explained that the figures given were estimates, based on various assumptions, from early numbers tabulated in one investigation in Europe. The authors state clearly that those numbers do not represent the expected effects of the virus, in Europe or elsewhere.