Coronavirus

[Mike S./Rocks]

Not so fast!

According to Cuomo's briefing today, only 2% of the hospitalizations in NYS were caused by congregating. The top sources of admission:

Home: 66%
Nursing home: 18%
Other: 8%
Assisted living facility: 4%
Homeless: 2%
Congregate: 2%
Jail/Prison: <1%

Staying at home has caused most of the hospitalizations in the state! Which makes sense, because most of the people who have been hospitalized in NYS are 60+ years old. Those aren't the people you see congregating in Central Park.

Does this mean the people went straight to the hospital from these places? Just because a person went straight from home to the hospital doesn’t mean they’ve spent the last D amount of time at home.

If so, I would like to know the percentage of hospital admissions from different places for different diseases.

[Commish]

It means they survey people when they arrive at the hospital to determine where they've been. As Lee pointed out, they could be lying by saying they were locked indoors. But again, if that's the case, then why bother locking down at all?

[LeeScholtz]

Fauci recently told us masks don't work and are just about symbolism.

Do you mean in February when we knew even less than we do now about the virus? Maybe I've missed a recent update; however, I think i found the quote you are referring to from middle of May, "I want to protect myself and protect others, and also because I want to make it be a symbol for people to see that that's the kind of thing you should be doing," .. Don't see him saying not to wear them, quite the opposite. Also an article from two weeks ago regarding wearing masks.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-d ... mic-2020-7

Seems to have changed his mind from early on, once more was known about the spread.

[Commish]

We've known since the beginning that the virus spreads through breathing, singing, shouting, coughing, sneezing, etc.. And yet, Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, our Surgeon General, etc., all said masks are pointless up until 6-8 weeks ago. That only changed when it became clear that the economy couldn't open until people felt safer to venture out of their bunkers. Seeing people in masks makes people feel safer. That's what it's all about.

What's interesting is when you look at the data in terms of who is wearing masks, who isn't, and how that has affected the case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths. There is zero correlation. Over 70% of Americans now wear masks, and yet our numbers keep rising. A lower percentage of people wear masks in Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, etc., and their numbers are lower than ours.

If you look at a map of the US and overlay the counties where masks are worn most often with a map of the highest number of cases, etc., you'll see a huge overlap. People in areas with the biggest outbreaks are more likely to wear masks. Which means: a) people wear masks because they're afraid of the virus, and b) the masks don't do shit.

[Mike S./Rocks]

We've known since the beginning that the virus spreads through breathing, singing, shouting, coughing, sneezing, etc.. And yet, Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, our Surgeon General, etc., all said masks are pointless up until 6-8 weeks ago. That only changed when it became clear that the economy couldn't open until people felt safer to venture out of their bunkers. Seeing people in masks makes people feel safer. That's what it's all about.

What's interesting is when you look at the data in terms of who is wearing masks, who isn't, and how that has affected the case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths. There is zero correlation. Over 70% of Americans now wear masks, and yet our numbers keep rising. A lower percentage of people wear masks in Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia, etc., and their numbers are lower than ours.

If you look at a map of the US and overlay the counties where masks are worn most often with a map of the highest number of cases, etc., you'll see a huge overlap. People in areas with the biggest outbreaks are more likely to wear masks. Which means: a) people wear masks because they're afraid of the virus, and b) the masks don't do shit.

If true, then 3) masks make people think it's safe and therefore they go out and spread the virus even more.

Therefore quarantines for everyone is the way to go.

[Commish]

Therefore quarantines for everyone is the way to go.

Absolutely. Lock people in a hotel room for weeks, with guards posted at their door, similar to what they do in New Zealand. Or lock them inside and board them up so that they can't possibly escape, even if there's a fire, as they do in China. Or lock down the borders as they have done in many countries, and don't allow anyone to come or go.

Great ideas, Mike! You'd make a fine totalitarian dictator!

[Mike S./Rocks]

Therefore quarantines for everyone is the way to go.

Absolutely. Lock people in a hotel room for weeks, with guards posted at their door, similar to what they do in New Zealand. Or lock them inside and board them up so that they can't possibly escape, even if there's a fire, as they do in China. Or lock down the borders as they have done in many countries, and don't allow anyone to come or go.

Great ideas, Mike! You'd make a fine totalitarian dictator!

Those look like your ideas. They are posted under your name!

[Commish]

Well, you said "quarantines for everyone." I was just taking it to the next logical step.

[Commish]

Don't ask me why, but I found myself scrolling through this thread earlier today. It's a pretty cool BDBL time capsule showing our real-time reactions to a historical event. I'm commenting here mostly to give this a bump so it doesn't disappear, but also to highlight a few quotes:

Help me understand this.

...Up to 720 Americans could possibly die from COVID-19.

...Is my math wrong?

Yes, it was! Of course, we now know why: the Chinese were LYING to us. Their numbers were bullshit, which is why my math, based on their numbers, was so wildly wrong.

But more importantly: are we going to do this every year from now on? ...Isn't it safe to assume, then, that we'll see another "novel" coronavirus next year at this time? And the next year? And the next? If so, are we just going to shut everything down every year from now on? Is this the new normal?

Apparently, yes.

This will indeed be devastating to the economy. It will probably finish off Trump.

Yep. And yep! Stein goes 2-for-2 in the predictions game.

So you think there would still be a low infection:mortality rate if we left everything as is and just let everything proceed as normal? The shutdowns will have no effect?

After all is said and done, it sure looks like this would have been the smart approach. Sweden was roundly criticized for not locking down, keeping schools and businesses open, and going about their business normally. They currently rank 53rd in COVID deaths per capita, and 21st out of 31 European countries. If Sweden were a US state, they would rank 43 out of 50. And their students, children, and businesses didn't suffer the way that ours have.

Instead, we're SHUTTING DOWN OUR ECONOMY, and putting millions of people into poverty and bankruptcy. This is a gross overreaction. But what's worse is that we've allowed the government to strip us of our freedom -- and we're okay with that. We have just rolled over and accepted whatever mandates the government hands down.

Yep. The worst part about the past two years, from my perspective, was seeing so many people not only accept the loss of their freedom, but cheer for it -- and shame others for not doing the same.

Imagine if that happened here...So, we'd add $4.4 trillion to our $23 trillion debt, and workers would give up five days of pay just to keep their jobs. Something tells me the overwhelming response to all of this would be: HELL NO. But then, given that our entire economy is about to collapse, and millions will lose their jobs thanks to this overreaction, maybe most people would consider that to be a fair deal.

Instead, we added $6 trillion (and counting) to our debt, paid people not to work, and are now living with 1970's-style inflation, an employment crisis, a supply chain crisis, an energy crisis, and economic ruin because of it.

Either way, the lockdown didn’t work. Older people, staying mostly at home, still got sick. So what was the point of shutting down the entire economy, sending countless millions into unemployment, poverty, and bankruptcy?

This is the greatest mistake mankind has ever made. We may never recover from the pointless overreaction to this virus.

I stand by that statement. And we've only begun to suffer to the consequences of that mistake.

[Mike S./Rocks]

If you got Covid, raise your hand!

The vaccine probably kept it to mostly a nasty cough for a few days and about 10 days of fatigue.

[LeeScholtz]

If you got Covid, raise your hand!

The vaccine probably kept it to mostly a nasty cough for a few days and about 10 days of fatigue.

That's the narrative that should have been out there from the get go.... it should never have been get the vaccine so you can't get covid; it should have been - it helps prevent serve symptoms and deaths, which it actually does.

I got COVID, was just a mild cold. I firmly believe its because I got vaccine.

[Commish]

You're both under 65 years old, so having no (or mild) symptoms is extremely common.

As for the vaccines, I was completely on-board and pro-vax from the beginning -- because I believed what they told us about them. I believed it would not only protect me from harsh symptoms (or worse), but that it would prevent me from passing it to others. That latter premise was the entire reason I got the jab this past spring.

But...

Now that we have almost a year's worth of data, it seems like we should step back for a minute and evaluate the results of the vaccinations. 70% of the country is now vaccinated...and yet we're still losing 1,000 Americans per day to the Rona, and the virus is still spreading like wildfire across the country. It defies logic to suggest that only the unvaxxed are dying and spreading the virus.

Clearly, the vaccines are not stopping the spread of the virus, as advertised. But also, this notion that 99% of the people hospitalized with the Rona are unvaxxed defies both logic and the actual data we're seeing. A CDC study in September showed that 13% of hospitalized patients are full-vaxxed, with another 25% partially-vaxxed. And a significant percentage of the people excluded from that study are very likely to have been fully-vaxxed given their underlying conditions. Add it all up, and over 50% of hospitalized patients are likely to be fully-vaxxed.

That number nearly matches a study from the UK, which showed that 62% of all Delta-variant deaths were fully-vaxxed. (Of course, the UK uses a shitty Astra Zeneca vaccine.)

In other words...I don't think these vaccines are doing what we've been told they will do.

[LeeScholtz]

You've been clouded by a classic tactic of stats.. If 99% of the population was vaccinated; and 50% of the populous gets COVID, you would expect the total number of people to get COVID to be higher on the vaccinated side, because ya know math. SO yes if you are talking pure count, yes you are correct.

However, when actually dig into the numbers, you'd see that of the people who are unvaccinated that get COVID, their death rate is way way way higher when compared to the group who is vaccinated and their death rate. To try and cross-stats and take total numbers and say SEE the vaccine doesn't do anything, is just irresponsible reporting by whomever article you got that information from.

[Commish]

I got the article from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7038e1.htm

[LeeScholtz]

I got the article from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7038e1.htm

Well then its your interpretations of it. If you have a pool of 1MM people, and 90% are vaccinated, and you have 400K people that got COVID and 350K were vaccinated and 50K weren't. It does nothing to say well 35% of the 1MM were vaccinated and got COVID, while only 5% of the unvaccinated people got COVID. You have to look deeper and say well of the 900K that were vaccinated only 39% got covid, where the unvaccinated 50% got covid.

Based on that you could post an article that would actually be 100% accurate that says, more people that had the vaccine got covid than without. You could also say that infection rate was much higher in unvaccinated people (which is actually the point).