Coronavirus discussion thread

6113 posts / 0 new
Last post
raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 14675
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

The NFL is not joking around.

Recently, three head coaches didn't wear their face masks properly.

Each coach was fined $100,000

And each of their teams were fined $250,000

That's a little over a million dollars in fines!

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 36 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12486
Location: nyc

Huh? Why fine the teams for something the coaches did (or didn’t do)? Sounds like someone wants to make A Statement…

Then again, that’s what the sports seems to be about nowadays. Players go memorialiaing a “kid” who was ostensibly in the car involved in a drive-by shooting (ie, a criminal himself, or someone who hangs around them while they’re spraying people with bullets), but everyone’s picking on the guy who covers that name and instead memorialises a soldier/hero who suffered burns over something like 75% of his body rescuing his comrades (while soaked in fuel and still on fire, yet) pulling them out of the vehicle.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/steelers-teammate-surprised-by-al-villanue...

Kneeling, protesting, etc., why don’t they just stick to playing the game?

Back to the masks, the coaches are on the sideline, and I understand calling plays and whatnot, probably far away from others, while players (even those on the sidelines) are practically sniffing each other, yet they’re exempt.

So yeah, it seems more about the gesture and “setting an example”, by making an example… of the coaches. And hitting the teams for it, too? Seems kinda ridiculous.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 14675
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

Lightbringer wrote:

Kneeling, protesting, etc., why don't they just stick to playing the game?

You ever hear of freedom of expression or the First Amendment?

Professional athletes are human beings with rights, too.  :FACEPALM:

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 36 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12486
Location: nyc

No one’s forbidding anyone from protesting. There’s a time and a place for everything. It’s just tacky to do it during a game.

Do you have, like, an actual job? Ie, where you’re working for someone else (who makes the rules)? If so, you don’t have absolute “freedom” to disrupt normal business to “protest”. You can get your ass fired in a hurry.

There’s that whole “unsportsmanlike behavior” thing, too. If convention has a player taking off his helmet and standing quietly during the SSB, that’s what he should do. No one says he has to sing along, but just don’t be an ass and ruin it for other people who want to show respect.

Hell, players can get fined if they don’t show up at press conferences and answer nosy questions after a game, or if they quite literally say the wrong thing (eg, question/criticise an Official Decision). That stifles their freedom of expression. They’re not even allowed to express their opinions to the press, at best say “No comment”.

But during a game, with all the cameras rolling, they’re allowed to “protest” and to disrupt things??

Ask yourself what would happen if any players would walk onto the field with “MAGA” hats, or write “Trump 2020” on their helmets. LOL

(Oh, I know what would happen.)

They either need to allow all forms of protest (turning games into a free-for-all), or none at all. Once they start picking’n‘choosing what’s allowed and what’s not, they clearly start showing their biases.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

NorthernHarrier
NorthernHarrier's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 11/30/2018 - 12:05
Posts: 338
Location: Eastern USA

While the first amendment doesn’t apply while a pro athlete is doing their job for their employer, kneeling during the anthem or taking off one’s helmet doesn’t ruin anything for anyone. That type of protest doesn’t interfere with the game in any way.

Protest has always been a legitimate way of getting the attention of those in power, when there has been serious injustice that isn’t addressed. We have a long history of it in the USA. Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party?

As for coaches being fined for not wearing a mask, the league is merely protecting its top priority, which is money. The coaches set an example for the players. If many players get Covid-19, the league will have to cancel games. They will lose ticket revenue and advertising revenue. It isn’t about making a statement. It’s about money – a lot of money.

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2394
Location: United States , Pa.

People that don’t believe in a cause always question protests. As to why they do it on the field. Pretty simple. Protesting in your own living room gets 0 coverage. Protesting in viewers living rooms gets a lot.

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Online
Last seen: 7 min 50 sec ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 3343
Location: Canuk in NM

As much as I support the right to protest injustices as we see them, I believe that “drifting” this discussion on coronavirus into kneeling at a football game is blowing the lid right off the proverbial “can of worms”.

Don’t you all think that maybe that should be left untouched on our dear flashlight forum?

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2394
Location: United States , Pa.

You are right. Nuff said.

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 14675
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

:BEER: 

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9360
Location: Berkeley, California
Quote:
Massive genetic study shows coronavirus mutating and potentially evolving amid rapid U.S. spread The largest U.S. genetic study of the virus, conducted in Houston, shows one viral strain outdistancing all of its competitors, and many potentially important mutations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mut...

Rexlion
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 05/18/2019 - 16:59
Posts: 788
Location: Okla.

If some athletes took a knee to protest masks and other covid restrictions, would you feel the same about their right to express themselves? Would it change the way you look at the league if the league allowed this?

When the shoe is on the other foot….. Wink

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 14675
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

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?  :FACEPALM:

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 36 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12486
Location: nyc
raccoon city wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
Can we quit discussing this controversial subject?

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

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 14675
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

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
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 36 sec ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 12486
Location: nyc

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

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 14675
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

Lightbringer wrote:

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

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
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 11/19/2010 - 17:25
Posts: 3097
Location: healdsburg, california usa earth

Lightbringer wrote:
raccoon city wrote:
Can we quit discussing this controversial subject?

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

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

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2394
Location: United States , Pa.

Don’t you guys sleep?

NorthernHarrier
NorthernHarrier's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 11/30/2018 - 12:05
Posts: 338
Location: Eastern USA

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
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9360
Location: Berkeley, California

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

Quote:

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
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9360
Location: Berkeley, California

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mut...

Quote:

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
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 51 sec ago
Joined: 08/23/2019 - 19:13
Posts: 145

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's picture
Online
Last seen: 8 min 35 sec ago
Joined: 10/29/2016 - 12:12
Posts: 5565
Location: Portugal

71k5 wrote:
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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
† 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...). 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:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1...

which starts:

Quote:
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_enPT908P...
Cases: 31,993,442
Deaths: 978,369

Have fun…

[REVIEWS] ACEBEAM: H20 / TK16 // AMUTORCH: S3 / S3 vs 219c / AM30 / AX1 / VG10 // BLITZWOLF: BW-ET1 // BRINYTE: T28 / PT18pro / PT28 // DQG: AA Slim Ti // FIREFLIES: ROT66 GEN II // HC-LIGHTS: SS AAA // KLARUS: XT1C // LIVARNOLUX: 314791 // LUMINTOP: Tool AA V2.0 + Tool 25 // NITEFOX: UT20 / ES10K / K3 // ODEPRO: KL52 / B108 // OLIGHT: M2R Warrior / OW Mini // ON THE ROAD: M1 / i3 / M3 Pro / 311 / Z821 / i5 // ROVYVON: A2 + A5R / E300S / A8 / A23 / E200u // SKILHUNT: M150 / M200 // SOFIRN: SF14 + SP10A / SP32A / SP10B // WUBEN: TO10R / E05 / T70 / E10 / TO50R / E19 / E12R / E61 // XTAR: PB2 Charger // Mods: 1 / 2 // TIR: 1 / 2 // Others: Biscotti 3 + 1*7135 / Triple TIR w/ XP-G2 /// My Collection /// My Review’s Blog (PT) /// OL Contest 2019 /// GIVEAWAY: 1 / 2

kennybobby
kennybobby's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 05/10/2017 - 09:13
Posts: 519
Location: huntspatch, alabama

71k5 wrote:
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.

Quote:
† 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...). 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.

Favorite Song = "Flashlight" (BLF of course, with a righteous bass)
https://youtu.be/gCTGMIXaD64

Exercise and Training:
My typical training routine: https://youtu.be/_aVASp9raMk
Morning Workout: https://youtu.be/ZEA_3yXG570

Remember Don't Do Drugs...
without me: https://youtu.be/oVKtxHTcnho

71k5
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 51 sec ago
Joined: 08/23/2019 - 19:13
Posts: 145

kennybobby wrote:
71k5 wrote:
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.

Quote:
† 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...). 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
MascaratumB's picture
Online
Last seen: 8 min 35 sec ago
Joined: 10/29/2016 - 12:12
Posts: 5565
Location: Portugal
kennybobby wrote:
(…)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.
Thumbs Up 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:

Quote:
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_enPT908P...

[REVIEWS] ACEBEAM: H20 / TK16 // AMUTORCH: S3 / S3 vs 219c / AM30 / AX1 / VG10 // BLITZWOLF: BW-ET1 // BRINYTE: T28 / PT18pro / PT28 // DQG: AA Slim Ti // FIREFLIES: ROT66 GEN II // HC-LIGHTS: SS AAA // KLARUS: XT1C // LIVARNOLUX: 314791 // LUMINTOP: Tool AA V2.0 + Tool 25 // NITEFOX: UT20 / ES10K / K3 // ODEPRO: KL52 / B108 // OLIGHT: M2R Warrior / OW Mini // ON THE ROAD: M1 / i3 / M3 Pro / 311 / Z821 / i5 // ROVYVON: A2 + A5R / E300S / A8 / A23 / E200u // SKILHUNT: M150 / M200 // SOFIRN: SF14 + SP10A / SP32A / SP10B // WUBEN: TO10R / E05 / T70 / E10 / TO50R / E19 / E12R / E61 // XTAR: PB2 Charger // Mods: 1 / 2 // TIR: 1 / 2 // Others: Biscotti 3 + 1*7135 / Triple TIR w/ XP-G2 /// My Collection /// My Review’s Blog (PT) /// OL Contest 2019 /// GIVEAWAY: 1 / 2

kennybobby
kennybobby's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 05/10/2017 - 09:13
Posts: 519
Location: huntspatch, alabama

71k5 wrote:

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.

Favorite Song = "Flashlight" (BLF of course, with a righteous bass)
https://youtu.be/gCTGMIXaD64

Exercise and Training:
My typical training routine: https://youtu.be/_aVASp9raMk
Morning Workout: https://youtu.be/ZEA_3yXG570

Remember Don't Do Drugs...
without me: https://youtu.be/oVKtxHTcnho

71k5
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 51 sec ago
Joined: 08/23/2019 - 19:13
Posts: 145

kennybobby wrote:
71k5 wrote:

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
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 47 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 2469
Location: USA
71k5 wrote:
Did I say he did? He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.

Yes.
Google to the rescue? Oops

71k5
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 51 sec ago
Joined: 08/23/2019 - 19:13
Posts: 145
Joshk wrote:
71k5 wrote:
Did I say he did? He works under the NIH, at NIAID, just as the CDC does.

Yes.
Google to the rescue? Oops

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.

Pages