Great news! Sturgis Motorcycle Rally still happening as scheduled

I gave the figures I used in a prior post - real figures of cases and deaths. Not supposed ifrs like you have used. Again, if you use whatever inputs you want of course you can get whatever fake output you want.

And I still maintain that average life lost per infection is not a very useful argument point.

I saw those figures and they some of them are either incorrect or the wrong numbers to be used.

10 year loss of life of those who die from Covid is false other scientists and Nobel prize winners have determined it to be much lower. It doesn't even pass the smell test. 45% of US Covid deaths are over 80. about 70% are over 70, only about 13-14% are under 60. Life expectancy in the US is 78 so that right there makes it seem pretty 10 years of life is taken from those who die of COVID. Add in that it is generally very unhealthy people dieing. Over 80% of Covid deaths have an underlying condition or co-morbidity. The people dying are less healthy than the average person in their age range.

This is without getting into the inappropriate ways we recorded COVID deaths. If you look the US is a huge outlier in the population under 60 dying compared to Europe.

Using the 5 million cases as a basis is ridiculous. It has been debunked over and over that the total number of COVID infections is anywhere close to that number. There are so many people who are asymptomatic or have very minor symptoms that don't get a test. This obsession with cases and tests is absurd. It should be a data point kept in perspective. We have never obsessed over a virus and done testing like this in the course of human history.

Looking at the life lost is actually a reasonable thing to do. Everyone pushing for these shutdowns has tunnel vision on the virus and has buried their heads in the sand on the cost of the shutdowns. The cost of the shutdowns from a health a wellness standpoint has to be measured against what they are really saving. Right now we're nowhere close to stopping the virus, so what are we actually saving? We're just destroying the economy and causing people high levels of anxiety to spread viral infections out over a 9-12 month period rather than getting it mostly over with in 3-4months.

I’ll take actual studies over some loser’s “smell test”.

baa baa wool wrote:

I’ll take actual studies over some loser’s “smell test”.

I do wish we could have a real discussion on COVID. But every time someone sees an argument they don't like it devolves into exactly this reaction. Both sides of the debate are guilty of this. It's ok to have some discussion and disagreement on whether the shutdowns are necessary are not. But the numbers and science should not be up for debate.

There is also some much information people are publishing as scientific studies that absolutely not that you can find any data point to support your view. People need to better check the sources these are coming from and also read through it all the way. Outlets tend to put a sensational headline at the top to get clicks then bury the facts way down where you don't get to because you lose interest.

Yes and no. I suppose that there is an argument to made on either side of "borderline overwhelmed hospitals (and increased death)" VERSUS "destroyed economy with destroyed businesses and very high unemployment." In other words, the crux of the "re-opening debate" is difficult.

What ISN'T difficult, and doesn't have two more-or-less equally-to-blame sides is what everyone can do to reduce the spread. Wearing a mask doesn't make anyone unemployed, nor in any real way hurt the wearer. Keeping distant from others whenever possible (and I'll exclude restaurants from this, if anyone would like) - ditto. And no one will be unemployed if an American actually goes 6-12 months greatly reducing their out-of-home social activities. But we have a nation too immature and too selfish to do these things. The exact numbers regarding cases, mortality, etc. don't really matter. We just s***.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

You need to check your math. Even if the average death of Covid is 10 years lost, about 500 weeks. Which by the way is very high but we'll roll with it. Say the IFR is .5%, once again to high but we'll go with it.

The average life expectancy deduction of getting Covid would be 2.5 weeks. 500X.5=2.5.

We've been changing our lives for 5 months and are prepping for 8 more with a rolling recession afterward for something that reduces our life expectancy by days. People should go to Sturgis and enjoy their life.

This person really doesn't understand averages. I'm not sure "it's only reduced your life by a week" is a relevant argument for the 165k who have died.

Also, I don't understand biker rallies. What's the point? Don't grown men have something better to do than polish the throbbing ride between their legs?

You can't have a real discussion when all your responses are claiming that the numbers are fake.

I think this is fair. I think the mask debate is very overhyped and just being used a point to divide. I think it is very questionable how much they slow the spread, they do but how meaningful is that? I don't like wearing one and don't want to wear one but I am complying with the rules at a every public place required in California. Honestly, it is a pretty high level of compliance here, almost everyone wears them and wears them properly indoors and in crowded areas. If wearing the mask was all being asked I think 95% of the population would live with it.

I will disagree that no one would be unemployed if we greatly reduce our out of home social activities. There are a lot of service jobs dependent on that activity and the sudden change in lifestyle definitely hurt jobs in those industries. A lot of restaurants depend on people going out or coming during their lunch break. Those changes in activity along with indoor dining and bars not being allowed in many states have impacted a lot of jobs.

There is a pretty simple solution to this mess. If you want to participate in an event like this, you have to volunteer for a vaccine study.

It will be very interesting to see what happens after Sturgis. The testing and tracing infrastructure in the US is probably too inefficient to be able to see the impact of COVID transmission at this event. But there may be measurable impacts in ND. Otherwise, given the high transmission rates across the US, this will probably just get absorbed into the giant washing machine of our high COVID rates.

Samuel Colt wrote:

This is Darwinism in the making.

No. There is nothing less relevant to Darwinism than a disease that primarily kills old people. A true "Darwin award" is someone who dies before passing on their genes to offspring. A consolation prize could be awarded to someone who dies young enough that they are not able to help their offspring be successful enough to pass on their genes in turn. But there is nothing further away from a Darwin prize of any kind than old people dying of covid19.

Precious Roy wrote:

There is a pretty simple solution to this mess. If you want to participate in an event like this, you have to volunteer for a vaccine study.

But we would have to apply that requirement to BLM-type messes, as well. And I don't think pro-BLMers would be willing to accept that.

Precious Roy wrote:

There is a pretty simple solution to this mess. If you want to participate in an event like this, you have to volunteer for a vaccine study.

It will be very interesting to see what happens after Sturgis. The testing and tracing infrastructure in the US is probably too inefficient to be able to see the impact of COVID transmission at this event. But there may be measurable impacts in ND. Otherwise, given the high transmission rates across the US, this will probably just get absorbed into the giant washing machine of our high COVID rates.

This sounds like a free country. In order to get to go to a public event you must "volunteer" for a medical study.

We used to be able to act like adults and decide if we wanted to go to things and evaluate risks for ourselves.

As far as your analysis on being able to see the impact of Sturgis I agree. Someone will find some cases they can link to the event but the ability to track it with all the other spread occurring seems unlikely. The other factor is the demographics of people attending are likely to be in the group that is more likely to have had the virus. They are also likely to be in the group if they get sick they won't go get tested, they'll just stay home, or not stay home.

I have seen a lot of bikers wearing masks long before the pandemic started. So I'm sure they'll be taking some pretty serious steps to prevent the spread in Sturgis.

Embrace the Red Wave wrote:

We used to be able to act like adults and decide if we wanted to go to things and evaluate risks for ourselves.

Yeah! I should be able to decide for myself whether I'm gonna drink & drive! I don't need a nanny-state government making that decision for me! Heck, I actually think I drive *better* when I've had a few: I'm more relaxed and less tentative. But if I'm wrong about that, well, that's my lookout, isn't it?

What's that? My actions might hurt others? Well, if they're so afraid they can just stay home and not drive anywhere, can't they? Why should *my* freedom be curtailed to accommodate *them*?

Typical denier wrote:

Embrace the Red Wave wrote:

We used to be able to act like adults and decide if we wanted to go to things and evaluate risks for ourselves.

Yeah! I should be able to decide for myself whether I'm gonna drink & drive! I don't need a nanny-state government making that decision for me! Heck, I actually think I drive *better* when I've had a few: I'm more relaxed and less tentative. But if I'm wrong about that, well, that's my lookout, isn't it?

What's that? My actions might hurt others? Well, if they're so afraid they can just stay home and not drive anywhere, can't they? Why should *my* freedom be curtailed to accommodate *them*?

It's an okay analogy, but has flaws. Roads are heavily used publicly available areas. Hard for the non-drunk public to avoid them on a continuous basis, and there are no special announcement or provisions that have been made, e.g., that this is "Annual Drunk Driving Weekend."

Large gatherings, on the other hand, like the BLM protests or the Sturgis Rally or the hypothetical Annual Drunk Driving Weekend, are relatively short events, usually with special conditions made for the gathering. The public can avoid much more easily and the temporary risks are much more clear and announced.

There is also significantly more utility in public gatherings - not to mention that it is referenced in the Constitution - than in drunk driving. There is very little utility to drunk driving, and no Constitutional implications to criminalizing it.

Basically, it's easier to tell someone they can decide to attend a short-term, large gathering at their own risk, than it is to say driving down public roads every single day is at your own risk.

Comparing drinking to unknowingly spreading a virus is a terrible analogy. Viruses have been around for as long as mankind has and it is impossible for a civilization living together to not spread them around. I know when I've been drinking. I don't know what virus or number of viruses is circulating in my body at a given time if I'm not sick. People are suddenly aware of an unseen threat and have fixated on this virus. They've created this virtue about when you could unknowingly spread this virus and kill my grandma. Its really just their own projections of their own fear of this new perceived threat. We need to be reasonable. If you're sick, yes take some measures to prevent the spread of your illness. If you're healthy live life as in a way you feel comfortable. If an asymptomatic person unknowingly spreads a virus it makes them a human, not a bad person. There are a certain number of risks you have to accept in life as part of the human condition. I think now that we have data on what COVID is its time to accept it.

old news wrote:

CancelLRC wrote:

Great news! Hopefully all of the attendees will contract COVID and drop dead.

You do realize they have a greater chance of dying in a motorcycle crash than or Covid. Or are you so dillusional to think of you go out you will die of covid?

There's like 5k people a year that die from motorcycle crashes. I don't think this adds up...

under a bridge wrote:

old news wrote:

You do realize they have a greater chance of dying in a motorcycle crash than or Covid. Or are you so dillusional to think of you go out you will die of covid?

There's like 5k people a year that die from motorcycle crashes. I don't think this adds up...

Not to hijack the Sturgis discussion but it could be more dangerous than COVID. Motorcyclists account for what percentage of the vehicles on the roads. I read that per mile driven you are 27 times more likely to die on a motorcycle than in a car. Not sure if that is accurate but sounds reasonable. If all the driving miles were done on motorcycles at that rate we'd see around 800,000 motorcycle deaths a year in the US. I know that's not a perfect method since cars a large cause of motorcyclist deaths. The same goes for where you choose to ride and what protective gear you wear. But it seems like you could make a pretty solid argument that a person whose primary means of travel was motorcycle is at more likely to die on the bike than due to COVID.

No, you couldn’t make a solid argument that “they have a greater chance of dying in a motorcycle crash than or COVID”. The stats don’t back that up.

baa baa wool wrote:

I’ll take actual studies over some loser’s “smell test”.

You'll accept the establishment story without thought is what you are saying.