COVID-19 (artist formerly known as Wuhan strain novel Corona virus)

Yes, if their data is biased.

 

Wait, so you're admitting that their data is "obviously" biased? Why on earth would you be so ready and willing to trust "obviously" biased data.

It's like we're trying to explain to a 5th grader why he only got partial credit on all of his answers on the math test. It doesn't matter if you end up with the right answers. You have to show your work, and that work has to correctly lead to that final conclusion, or else you're just pulling your numbers out of your ass, regardless of whether those numbers end up being correct or incorrect.

 

All the time? People come to same conclusions from different routes.
The docs methodology can be questioned but their opinions on severity, patients, etc could still be accurate.
What methodology were scientists and cdc using when they greatly overpredicted deaths or how to treat patients, or ventillator need? The wrong one i suppose.

 

Your face is biased.

 

Even if they came to the 'correct' conclusion, if they got there with shitty data and unreliable and illogical processes it doesn't mean much. This is a case where you want to believe their conclusion so you ignore the part where they say 2 + blue = Breaking Bad.

 

The one without shutting down the country for all of April. Do you have the numbers for the America where we didn't to know it was wrong?

 

Indy people have been wrong daily about the virus. I asked about those docs conclusions and what was wrong about them. Their conclusions!. Not their method or control group. And you got no answer except gotta show your work and end result means nothing. End result is everything. Just like end result was hopefully you getting out of sabs car without giving a handy. Dont tell me end result doesnt matter, when thats what i asked about.

 

Why don't you just admit what is really happening here? You are choosing to ignore the fact that their methodology has major flaws because you like their conclusion and it fits your narrative that COVID-19 isn't as big of a deal as people thought.

Your line of thinking is both stupid and dangerous.

 

How can you have confidence in the end result if the way you got there makes no [uck fay]ing sense? That study is just confirmation bias to people who already believe something, it does nothing to convince others that its anything other than wishful thinking.

 

True i didnt get into the media hype about the disease and believe death rate is where TT mentions it, which is closer to those 2 docs predictions than what the govt and media have told everybody.

 

You're trying to rewrite history. You asked "What are they wrong about?" Not, "What's wrong with their conclusions?"

 

I believe the Stanford professor said as much. You smarter than him too? And 2nd, i dont give a [uck fay] if you agree with my opinion on the last 4 months. You got brainwashed. Shocker.

 

What does it matter. End result doesnt matter to you. If they are right and this virus isnt as bad as we have been told for months, it doesnt matter to you because those two docs had biased testing. Brilliant.
If you think its as severe as youve been told, its your decision. If someone else thinks differently, get the [uck fay] over it.

 

Let's say the virus is at 0.5-0.6 death rate.

Have we done enough to buy time to understand the virus and get a few treatments, and now it's time to get back to "normal".

 

Jesus dude, you just keep pointing to different stuff over and over, rather than addressing what is actually being discussed. What a Stanford professor said has nothing to do with whether or not the methodology used by these two doctors can be trusted or not. There is no brainwashing going on here, and it's not a matter of opinion. Their methodology is flawed, regardless of how you "feel" about it.

 

I don't think the death rate being .5 vs 1 is the issue. It's the R0. If 300 million Americans contract the illness over the next year, that would be the difference of 1.5 and 3 million deaths. It's the R0 that is most concerning, given that we are talking about something at least (by the number you used as an example) five times deadlier than annual flu.

 

Not in one post do you see anywhere where i said anything about their methods being correct or agreeing with them.
I do agree with some of their conclusions in regards to the virus, its severity and patients.
Others dont. Why tf does it matter indy if i think the virus is overblown and you are scared shitless. Thats your choice. Roll with it.

 

End result absolutely matters to me. It matters to everyone. Quite making stuff up.

I (and others) don't trust end results that don't have a lick of legitimate evidence backing them up. This isn't the same thing as the doctors with anecdotal evidence of treatment with Hydroxychloroquine working on COVID-19 patients. That anecdotal evidence is worth exploring. This is two dudes taking a bunch of numbers and trying to apply them across an entire population in a way that just doesn't work.

 

One thing that has happened is that people have been educated as to how serious this is. If we go back to "normal," older people should still practice social distancing.

I also don't think some things are worth it. I don't plan to go out to eat. I don't plan to get on any planes (there's an insanely high chance that flying a plane gets you sick even w/o coronavirus). Those are just extras that I can do w/o because I don't want to accidentally kill somebody.

 

I used the numbers that you and TT threw out there.

Is 1.5 -3 million acceptable instead of potentially being locked down to 2022 and the fall out of that.

I've read they expect a ton of people in third world countries to starve due to the economic depression over the virus.

Hard to weigh out all of the seen vs unseen in all of the dominos