Coronavirus **personal experiences** thread

[Lightbringer]

@raccoon city

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.

Absolutely. Off the field.

If they have rules about their uniforms, their conduct, etc., the NFL (if they had the balls, but they don’t) could absolutely forbid “protesting” of any kind on the field, and not run afoul of any “freedom of expression” hoots’n’howls. Private contract, not government…

@raccoon city

They have a platform and they should use it, whether I agree with their expression or not.

Just like those “God hates fags!” idiots who “protest” at funerals? They absolutely have that right, but they’re kinda douchebags for doing it.

Or those idiots at the Oscars and other award ceremonies who spout their political “opinions” as if anyone cares. Like, you (well, I) just want to tell them, “Go up there, get your award, say ‘thanks’, and then shut up and sit down, eh?”. Use duct tape to enforce that if need be.

There’s a time and place for everything.

@raccoon city

Can we quit discussing this controversial subject?

Wait, wait, let me get the last word, then we can stop discussing it. :laughing:

[raccoon]

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.

[Lightbringer]

Hmm, kinda like wanting to ban “disinformation” relating to the corovirus?

[raccoon]

@Lightbringer

Hmm, kinda like wanting to ban “disinformation” relating to the corovirus?

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]

@Lightbringer

@raccoon city

Can we quit discussing this controversial subject?

Wait, wait, let me get the last word, then we can stop discussing it. :laughing:

Exactly what I thinking when I read that, with the face palm just for emphasis, I guess.

[pennzy]

Don’t you guys sleep?

[NorthernHarrier]

Who recommended banning disinformation about the coronavirus? The only people I’m aware of that are using government power to limit COVID-19 information available to the public are working in the government.

[hank]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01834-3

Coronavirus misinformation, and how scientists can help to fight it
Bogus remedies, myths and fake news about COVID-19 can cost lives. Here’s how some scientists are fighting back.

[hank]

Massive genetic study shows coronavirus mutating and potentially evolving...

The latest
The novel coronavirus may be mutating — learning, in a sense — to defeat human protective measures such as masks, soap and perhaps even vaccines, according to the largest genetic study of the virus conducted in the United States.

The study, led by scientists in Houston and released Wednesday before being peer-reviewed, found that the constantly evolving virus has produced a rapidly spreading mutant strain that appears to be especially contagious. “It is well within the realm of possibility that … when our population-level immunity gets high enough, this coronavirus will find a way to get around our immunity,” a virologist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told The Washington Post. “If that happened, we’d be in the same situation as with flu. We’ll have to chase the virus and, as it mutates, we’ll have to tinker with our vaccine.”

[71k5]

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]

@71k5

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.

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:

† 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 ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥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:

Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: A...

which starts:

As of 16 May 2020, more than 4.5 million cases and more than 300,000 deaths from disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported.

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 fun…

[kennybobby]

@71k5

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.

So what is your point—only the elders die, we should just let them die, they are old anyway?

And those aren’t infection survival rates—that 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, wouldn’t that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They don’t have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all together—the USA is number 1 by a big margin.

† 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 ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥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]

@kennybobby

@71k5

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.

So what is your point—only the elders die, we should just let them die, they are old anyway?

And those aren’t infection survival rates—that 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, wouldn’t that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They don’t have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all together—the USA is number 1 by a big margin.

† 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 ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old as IFR estimates from Hauser et al., assumed that 100% of infections among persons ≥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]

@kennybobby

(…)Why do they not just publish and use the actual data from the USA fatalities, wouldn’t that be more realistic than using adjusted age range data from 6 EU countries. They don’t have nearly the same number of fatalities even if you add them all together—the 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-Württemberg (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]

@71k5

…
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 doesn’t work at the CDC.

[71k5]

@kennybobby

@71k5

…
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 doesn’t work at the CDC.

Did I say he did?
He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.
You don’t 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]

@71k5

Did I say he did?
He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.

Yes.
Google to the rescue? :zipper_mouth_face:

[71k5]

@Joshk

@71k5

Did I say he did?
He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.

Yes.
Google to the rescue? :zipper_mouth_face:

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.

[NorthernHarrier]

Yet another person trying to instigate an argument by misrepresenting information, then accusing others of doing the same by correcting the misrepresentations. Bravo.

It’s 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.

[71k5]

@NorthernHarrier

Yet another person trying to instigate an argument by misrepresenting information, then accusing others of doing the same by correcting the misrepresentations. Bravo.

It’s 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.

So the data I provided, is a misrepresentation?

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.

Look at Scenario 5, Table 1.

Where the data states Infection Fatality ratio :

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

How is that a misrepresentation, when it is data DIRECTLY from the report?

Keep trying to blame me, for yours and others’, efforts to instigate an argument.

When are we going to get some Moderation here?