500,000 Americans Have Died of COVID

2600 bro wrote:

LRC is going to ban 55+ boomers before they ban anyone else. Be careful!

55YO wrote:

These threads are all they post on, so it would make sense to ban these bots.

55 is not a boomer. Boomers are turning 57 this year. Try to keep up, moron

Harambe wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

LRC is going to ban 55+ boomers before they ban anyone else. Be careful!

And nobody has answered 2600's question yet. At least 2 trolls just left this thread when faced with that task....

What is his moronic question? A strawman argument?

more libertarian than the guy who claims to be one. wrote:

I am no denier, but I know these numbers are inflated. Covid is a real virus, and it can wreck a person like very few other diseases. However, anyone who thinks all of the deaths attributed to it are loco. How stupid can people be? It has to be a mental illness.

This is true. I have had coworkers and athletes get destroyed by this virus for a short time, and I know a few people who were bad sick and COVID finished them off. However, they act like COVID is a killer without any help from pre-existing conditions. The data is just not on their side, no matter how loudly they yell, nor how much they try the method of putting down those who disagree. It is a high school group bullying technique. I am not susceptible to that sort of stuff because I was taught critical thinking as a child, and that training has never left me.

Since you aren't a boomer :) I figured you could at least read the question I've posted 15 times. Here:If COVID-19 tests are "useless," why are they so tightly correlated with excess deaths through space and time?

55YO wrote:

Harambe wrote:

And nobody has answered 2600's question yet. At least 2 trolls just left this thread when faced with that task....

What is his moronic question? A strawman argument?

I am open to examining data that confirms your assertions. But, until you provide it - I will believe the simple explanation for 500k excess deaths in the US (novel, pandemic respiratory virus).

2600 bro wrote:

Since you aren't a boomer :) I figured you could at least read the question I've posted 15 times.

Here:

If COVID-19 tests are "useless," why are they so tightly correlated with excess deaths through space and time?

55YO wrote:

What is his moronic question? A strawman argument?

Well, I have not made that claim that the tests are useless, so I cannot answer for those who have.

2600 bro wrote:

I am open to examining data that confirms your assertions.

But, until you provide it - I will believe the simple explanation for 500k excess deaths in the US (novel, pandemic respiratory virus).

55YO wrote:

This is true. I have had coworkers and athletes get destroyed by this virus for a short time, and I know a few people who were bad sick and COVID finished them off. However, they act like COVID is a killer without any help from pre-existing conditions. The data is just not on their side, no matter how loudly they yell, nor how much they try the method of putting down those who disagree. It is a high school group bullying technique. I am not susceptible to that sort of stuff because I was taught critical thinking as a child, and that training has never left me.

I have read your posts. You are not a good example of someone who has an open mind.

of the 500,00, all 500,000 were going to die someday, anyways. So what's the big deal?

By the way, the latest tactic of the left is to try to make their voice the only voice on every issue. This is why I argue with them, even though I will never get through to them. I do not want their lunacy to be the only voice heard. Their groupthink bullying is childish, and must be rejected outright.

On another note, how do you lefties have time to post on here 24/7? Maybe because you are paid bots whose job is to post the drivel?

Well then it's really hard to downplay the severity of the virus if you believe testing data showing: 1) High infectivity and transmissability 2) High IFR in older populations 3) Effect of mitigation measures on spread of the virus I am unsure the point you are arguing aside from just being "mad online." If you accept testing and excess death numbers - the case for severity and thus some forms of mitigation naturally follow. We can argue about mitigation implementations all you want. The US has tried many many kinds, but in my view there are only two strategies that work: 1) Chinese style lockdown - basically impossible in the US 2) Expansive testing and contact tracing (see SK, Japan, HK, NZ, AUS) - this could have been spun up by a competent federal government in late Jan, early Feb, but we dropped the ball and never had enough tests online until early summer when it was already too late. Since then we've just been playing whackamole and resorting to worst-case methods like school closures and shelter-in-place orders.

55YO wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Since you aren't a boomer :) I figured you could at least read the question I've posted 15 times.

Here:

If COVID-19 tests are "useless," why are they so tightly correlated with excess deaths through space and time?

Well, I have not made that claim that the tests are useless, so I cannot answer for those who have.

It's funny you think I am a lefty because I believe COVID-19 is serious :) Hint: I am not.

55YO wrote:

By the way, the latest tactic of the left is to try to make their voice the only voice on every issue. This is why I argue with them, even though I will never get through to them. I do not want their lunacy to be the only voice heard. Their groupthink bullying is childish, and must be rejected outright.

Soros pays minimum wage ($15/hr)

55YO wrote:

On another note, how do you lefties have time to post on here 24/7? Maybe because you are paid bots whose job is to post the drivel?

Of course you are. You might be in the closet still but def not a conservative. You can’t hate Trump as President and be Conservative. Impossible. (3) on SCOTUS rules that out.

Not really the point of this thread - but Trump deviated significantly from traditional conservative ideals. I am more on the libertarian side anyway. Neocons, populists, and nationalists all aren't my cup of tea.

#LHRC wrote:

Of course you are. You might be in the closet still but def not a conservative. You can’t hate Trump as President and be Conservative. Impossible. (3) on SCOTUS rules that out.

Gorsuch is good justice. Kavanaugh pretty good. Barrett is too wacky... I think. All TBD.

#LHRC wrote:

Of course you are. You might be in the closet still but def not a conservative. You can’t hate Trump as President and be Conservative. Impossible. (3) on SCOTUS rules that out.

trashcan wrote:

knee jerk reactivity metric wrote:

Modern medical science and pharmacology is built on statistics. Every aspect of our lives is controlled by statistics. Also is is bad science to look for proof, that is only possible in pure mathematics.

That is an odd statement coming from you, as I provided the statistics and you appear to be looking for proof based on mechanism.

I'm not looking for proof, that's the point. Tell me, is medical science supposed to follow scientific methodology or not? Is there an inherent danger in using statistics to support or confirm your hypotheses or not?

If you are not looking for proof, then it seems like you are unwilling to accept data that contradicts your beliefs. I hope that is not the case. It is very hard to learn and grow that way, and that is fundamental to the scientific method as well.

For everyone else though, We have seen throughout the world that m, as used in practice, PCR has demonstrated and extremely low false positive testr percentage when used to test Covid. Multiple countries have fewer than 0.2% of their tests returning positive results.

Finally:

A) is a tautology. You seem to imply that scientific methodology is not being followed. Your justification for this notion is a video. A proper scientific argument would reference journal articles. Videos are generally a waste of time for someone who is familiar with medical research, and I’m not even going into level of credentials

B) statistics are fundamental to medical science

C) there is an inherent risk to everything. The goal is to minimize (% risk with intervention) x (size of consequence of risk with intervention) as compared to (size of risk without intervention) x (size of consequences of no intervention )

Even without delving into the biochemistry of RT-qPCR tests and the biology of RNA virus infection you can see that the vast majority of tests provide useful data - just based on the correlation between positive tests, hospitalizations, and excess deaths.