HOOWIE wrote:
My father in law who is 56 years old, healthy, non-smoker, no pre-existing conditions and does not take any prescription medication just spent three days in the ICU with pneumonia and a blood clot in his lung. COVID test negative. Someone explain that.
Are you serious?...negative for COVID-19??? Was he tested for this year's season flu strains? If it's not COVID nor the flu, what a bizarre situation. ?
Well....... wrote:
HOOWIE wrote:
My father in law who is 56 years old, healthy, non-smoker, no pre-existing conditions and does not take any prescription medication just spent three days in the ICU with pneumonia and a blood clot in his lung. COVID test negative. Someone explain that.
Well, he had a blood blot and didn't have CV19.
Hope that helps explain it!
Wait, I thought doctors were labeling all deaths as COVID-19 so they get paid more?
Now I'm confused.
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Well....... wrote:
Well, he had a blood blot and didn't have CV19.
Hope that helps explain it!
Wait, I thought doctors were labeling all deaths as COVID-19 so they get paid more?
Now I'm confused.
He must have had insurance and probably in a Republic state, and/or possibly just an honest doctor.
Help me to understand? wrote:
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Wait, I thought doctors were labeling all deaths as COVID-19 so they get paid more?
Now I'm confused.
He must have had insurance and probably in a Republic state, and/or possibly just an honest doctor.
I thank the Lord everyday that our country is run by a good, Christian, handsome, hardworking Republican who understands BUSINESS.
Thank you Donald J Trump!
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Help me to understand? wrote:
He must have had insurance and probably in a Republic state, and/or possibly just an honest doctor.
I thank the Lord everyday that our country is run by a good, Christian, handsome, hardworking Republican who understands BUSINESS.
Thank you Donald J Trump!
He works at a school where six or so people tested positive for covid. One other tested negative but was diagnosed covid. My father in law was also told by ER doctor he has covid. Apparently some of these tests don't work well.
Facts Matter? wrote:
If the true mortality rate turns out to be 0.1%, how are you going to explain that social distancing is what saved all the lives? That's not how it works.
Social distancing is exactly how it works. If a virus can't spread to another person, the infection stops. It's called the germ theory of disease. It's been a thing for a few centuries now.
You'll have the number 61,000 dogging you forever because you have no sense for how exponential rates of increase work, but that's a common failing. It's the stubborn rejection of basic sixth-grade biology that wins you the clown emojis.?????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_diseaseI don’t think Facts Matter made it to sixth-grade biology.
He dropped out after fifth grade and became an itinerant faith healer & prophet. He worked hard, and his prices were reasonable.
I've been reading your posts since you started to opine on this subject...and you're probably a troll (which if you are then kudos to you)... but if you're not I must say...based on your comments (which I can only presume are a result of ypur intellectual musings) - if you are a bookie, you must be the in the population of those that get hospitalized frequently from broken bones and ultimately end up with cement shoes at the bottom of some large body of water - you are the face of those unable to think critically
authentic info wrote:
Facts Matter? wrote:
If the true mortality rate turns out to be 0.1%, how are you going to explain that social distancing is what saved all the lives? That's not how it works.
Social distancing is exactly how it works. If a virus can't spread to another person, the infection stops. It's called the germ theory of disease. It's been a thing for a few centuries now.
You'll have the number 61,000 dogging you forever because you have no sense for how exponential rates of increase work, but that's a common failing. It's the stubborn rejection of basic sixth-grade biology that wins you the clown emojis.?????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
You just posted something that shows how viruses spread easily and claim I don't understand biology, I posted you FACTS about when the virus was first in California and the millions upon millions of people that would have interacted with it and traveled around the country with it for 2 months before any lockdown and your response is "that's exactly how social distancing works?" How does social distancing work when it's not in place yet. How does social distancing make a virus have a mortality rate of 0.1%? You internet idiots and your "basic biology" need a refresher.
You should probably look up what exponential growth is yourself if you think it applies mathematically here
Corona Bookie wrote:
61001... bro
Impersonating me just proves me right.
Quit while you are behind, or I'll join the others and bring out the clown emojis.
Corona Bookie (Facts Matter) wrote:
I’m just messing around, I really think these guys are on to something. COVID -19 is not really killing anyone, it’s all made up. I also have a freakishly small penis and that’s why I never really say anything, I’m too scared to have an opinion that mommy doesn’t give me so I just agree with everyone about everything. The lockdown doesn’t bother me because I live with mom and she pays for everything.
So, now I am Hardloper AND Corona Bookie? That would take some serious mental gymnastics. For someone that likes to call others conspiracy theorists, you sure do come up with some whoppers.
HOOWIE wrote:
Apparently some of these tests don't work well.
They work so poorly that they don't even work.
jesseriley wrote:
I don’t think.
For once, I agree with you.
Why is the number 61,001 so significant to this discussion?
Facts Matter? wrote:
I am Sam wrote:
We know how many people have died even with a lock down, much greater than was speculated by OP without a lock-down.
So you can just say so and it's so? It doesn't work that way. By now, everyone agrees that the death toll will be nowhere near what you and your alarmists predicted. The only question now is why. The true goalpost movers that will never admit being wrong will say it's the social distancing. Others with common sense will tell you that it's the natural mortality of the virus. No one here wants to admit the latter because they would have to admit they were wrong. If the true mortality rate turns out to be 0.1%, how are you going to explain that social distancing is what saved all the lives? That's not how it works.
Consider this data from the 3 airports that serve the SF Bay Area:
First death in California Bay Area in early February
Virus was spreading in January February and March with no lockdown or social distancing
1.5 million people arrived by Plane at SFO in January Domestically - No mask or protection
1.4 million people departed SFO in January to domestic locations - No mask or protection
637,000 people arrived at SFO in January from international cities - No mask or protection
1.8 million people arrived by plane at SFO in February domestically - No mask or protection
1.8 people left SFO in February to domestic locations - No mask or protection
1.4 million arrived in February from international cities - No mask or protection
930,000 people arrived in March at SFO from domestic locations - No mask or protection
930,000 left SFO in March to domestic locations - No mask or protection
From January 1 to the lockdown from Trump on incoming China travel, 390,000 traveled from China to SFO - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through SJC in January - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through SJC in February - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through OAK in January - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through OAK in February - No mask or protection
452,000 people traveled trough OAK in March - No mask or protection
... but social distancing starting March 19 has magically stopped the virus.
There are about 100 more reasons that the social distancing story falls apart, but you are not going to listen to them anyway, you'e just going to post 61,001 or 2600 or something stupid so you don't actually have to address the facts. What are you going to say when the antibody testing proves that tens of millions of Americans have already been infected?
https://www.flysfo.com/media/facts-statistics/air-traffic-statistics/2020https://www.flysanjose.com/financial-reportshttps://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/04/17/coronavirus-travel-oakland-international-airport-traffic-plunges/
Maybe because the first case in San Francisco was 31 January. So January movements are irrelevant.
The virus was not yet wide spread so movements in January and February weren’t as critical to spread initially in relation to numbers - you know, that exponential element we keep coming back to.
If social distancing doesn’t have any effect, why did 23% of Diamond Princess passengers test positive? Why are the infection numbers so high in high density cities like New York? And lower in areas with lower population density?
I have asked you before but you haven’t answered - if you admit you were wrong saying Covid19 is not as bad as the flu, and you now concede it is the same as the flu, isn’t it possible that - by still using the same reasoning process you have all along with no shift in thought - that you are wrong and Covid19 is worse than the flu? And that you are wrong and social distancing in various forms slows the spread of the disease? You admit you misread the situation once, you haven’t altered the premise of your thinking, so maybe you need to consider you could be wrong on both of these two things too?
Even at 0.1% mortality rate, if it spreads easily enough, as has been shown repeatedly, then it’s a very dangerous virus.
Think About It wrote:
Maybe because the first case in San Francisco was 31 January. So January movements are irrelevant.
The virus was not yet wide spread so movements in January and February weren’t as critical to spread initially in relation to numbers - you know, that exponential element we keep coming back to.
If you start your position with incorrect data, nothing you say after matters. The first death in Santa Clara, CA was February 6. The virus must have been spreading in January in California. Millions were infected long before the lockdown was in place and those millions traveled out of one of the busiest airports in the country to every corner of the US. Millions flew in internationally and hundreds of thousands from China. Even if we pretend like that one infected person that died on February 6 was patient zero, there was almost 6 weeks of unmitigated spread before any lockdown. Use your exponential growth models to see what it says about that scenario in a major metropolitan area with 3 active international airports then come back to me. If the virus was as deadly as people want to believe it is, we'd be in serious trouble. Lucky for us the mortality rate is only flu-like. Millions already have it or had it before anything was in place. And that's only reason 1 of 100 why social distancing is not the driving factor in a low death toll. It's the mortality rate stupid.
I'm actually quite sad that you turned out to be no smarter than the other morons posting here, I had high hopes for you.
Consider this data from the 3 airports that serve the SF Bay Area:
First death in California Bay Area in early February
Virus was spreading in January February and March with no lockdown or social distancing
1.5 million people arrived by Plane at SFO in January Domestically - No mask or protection
1.4 million people departed SFO in January to domestic locations - No mask or protection
637,000 people arrived at SFO in January from international cities - No mask or protection
1.8 million people arrived by plane at SFO in February domestically - No mask or protection
1.8 people left SFO in February to domestic locations - No mask or protection
1.4 million arrived in February from international cities - No mask or protection
930,000 people arrived in March at SFO from domestic locations - No mask or protection
930,000 left SFO in March to domestic locations - No mask or protection
From January 1 to the lockdown from Trump on incoming China travel, 390,000 traveled from China to SFO - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through SJC in January - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through SJC in February - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through OAK in January - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through OAK in February - No mask or protection
452,000 people traveled trough OAK in March - No mask or protection
Those numbers are not an accurate count of the number of people who came into the Bay Area by plane. Enplaned and deplaned passenger numbers don’t separate transfer passengers from those with a final local destination or local origin. As a major hub SFO, has a significant percentage of passengers just transferring planes. Of course, transferring passengers can still spread a virus to other local passengers, airport workers, etc., but it’s not the same as someone returning home and interacting with people in the community.
Secondly, there is double counting. For years I flew in and out of SFO almost every week so frequent flyers will be counted multiple times. Also, people coming from China didn’t necessarily start their trip there. I have transferred flights in PEK and in HK (I’m assuming these are included in the China numbers) many time after starting a trip in a different country, without technically entering China.
None of these points invalidate your assertion that social distancing has not been effective in slowing the spread – but that is another topic.
Ciro wrote:
Why is the number 61,001 so significant to this discussion?
Early on, Facts Matter stated he believed 61,000 deaths was such an unimaginably high number that he would stop posting here if it came true.
Unfortunately only one of those things came to light :(
To the other rational people continuing to "debate" FM: why? Why waste your mental energy here? Go outside, enjoy the sun, hug your pets, be productive.
It was clear from the beginning that Facts Matter was either a troll or so unimaginably stupid that there was no use engaging with him.
His original argument was that on March 12th, there had been fewer deaths due to coronavirus than the flu, ergo coronavirus was "less deadly" than the flu and we needed to "calm the f*ck down."
Any sixth grader with more than two neurons could see how unfathomably stupid this argument is.
ua2k wrote:
Consider this data from the 3 airports that serve the SF Bay Area:
First death in California Bay Area in early February
Virus was spreading in January February and March with no lockdown or social distancing
1.5 million people arrived by Plane at SFO in January Domestically - No mask or protection
1.4 million people departed SFO in January to domestic locations - No mask or protection
637,000 people arrived at SFO in January from international cities - No mask or protection
1.8 million people arrived by plane at SFO in February domestically - No mask or protection
1.8 people left SFO in February to domestic locations - No mask or protection
1.4 million arrived in February from international cities - No mask or protection
930,000 people arrived in March at SFO from domestic locations - No mask or protection
930,000 left SFO in March to domestic locations - No mask or protection
From January 1 to the lockdown from Trump on incoming China travel, 390,000 traveled from China to SFO - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through SJC in January - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through SJC in February - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through OAK in January - No mask or protection
More than 1 million people traveled through OAK in February - No mask or protection
452,000 people traveled trough OAK in March - No mask or protection
Those numbers are not an accurate count of the number of people who came into the Bay Area by plane. Enplaned and deplaned passenger numbers don’t separate transfer passengers from those with a final local destination or local origin. As a major hub SFO, has a significant percentage of passengers just transferring planes. Of course, transferring passengers can still spread a virus to other local passengers, airport workers, etc., but it’s not the same as someone returning home and interacting with people in the community.
Secondly, there is double counting. For years I flew in and out of SFO almost every week so frequent flyers will be counted multiple times. Also, people coming from China didn’t necessarily start their trip there. I have transferred flights in PEK and in HK (I’m assuming these are included in the China numbers) many time after starting a trip in a different country, without technically entering China.
None of these points invalidate your assertion that social distancing has not been effective in slowing the spread – but that is another topic.
Valuable points, thanks for adding context to the numbers. Let's just say that a whole sh!tload of people traveled through the area in the 6 weeks between the patient dying on Feb and he lockdown on March 19. I think millions is still a safe bet.
Facts Matter? wrote:
ua2k wrote:
Those numbers are not an accurate count of the number of people who came into the Bay Area by plane. Enplaned and deplaned passenger numbers don’t separate transfer passengers from those with a final local destination or local origin. As a major hub SFO, has a significant percentage of passengers just transferring planes. Of course, transferring passengers can still spread a virus to other local passengers, airport workers, etc., but it’s not the same as someone returning home and interacting with people in the community.
Secondly, there is double counting. For years I flew in and out of SFO almost every week so frequent flyers will be counted multiple times. Also, people coming from China didn’t necessarily start their trip there. I have transferred flights in PEK and in HK (I’m assuming these are included in the China numbers) many time after starting a trip in a different country, without technically entering China.
None of these points invalidate your assertion that social distancing has not been effective in slowing the spread – but that is another topic.
Valuable points, thanks for adding context to the numbers. Let's just say that a whole sh!tload of people traveled through the area in the 6 weeks between the patient dying on Feb and he lockdown on March 19. I think millions is still a safe bet.
That's more than a fair assumption. Plus there are cars, trains, buses, long distance truckers, ships...