KCLarkin

The protesters seem to be wearing masks and using hand sanitizer, so not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting we continue to tolerate violent, systematic racism? Or are you just advocating for us to "let 'er rip"? Let 'er rip has failed in every country that has tried it: Sweden, UK, Brazil, US (unintentionally). Not sure what my point is? Were you not just arguing that the virus is a minimum 4x deadlier then the flu and that any narrative otherwise is dangerous? You have to be angry as hell these people are playing with fire like this. Secondly what does racism have to do with a pandemic? This thread has been about the pandemic and you have argued very heavily in favor of great caution and the severity of the disease. Not going to engage in your bad faith arguments. IMO, your opinions have been definitively disproved in Milan, NY, London, Stockholm, Brazil.

I won't engage in your bad faith arguments. I never said masks and hand sanitizer make mass protests safe*. * Though it is a bit insane that the U.S. and Canada refuse to mandate masks, when every country that with mandatory masking has controlled the pandemic.

The protesters seem to be wearing masks and using hand sanitizer, so not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting we continue to tolerate violent, systematic racism? Or are you just advocating for us to "let 'er rip"? Let 'er rip has failed in every country that has tried it: Sweden, UK, Brazil, US (unintentionally).

Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means. It's not just this source. This news have been reported by multiple sources. After all, these estimates are from CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html I am aware. This was already discussed upthread. My point is the complete lack of "data" to support these estimates. Presumably, the CDC used published research to arrive at these estimates. But they didn't share the sources. Are they relying on deeply flawed serology studies? Edit: Here the National Review asks a similar question: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-does-the-cdc-think-the-covid-19-fatality-rate-is-so-low-and-why-wont-it-tell-anyone/ --- P.s. I choose not to go down this particular rabbit hole, but there is some indication of political interference. Like many Trump appointees, the CDC director is controversial: "His nomination was considered controversial, and was opposed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which cited Redfield's lack of experience administering a public health agency, his history of scientific misconduct, and his religious advocacy in response to a public health crisis." -- Wikipedia

Probably shouldn’t trust a source that doesn’t know what “data” means.

Even blindly accepting the CDC 4x number, that is the IFR. Given the lack of a vaccine or partial herd immunity, the attack rate would be much higher too. Maybe 4x? So the total mortality would be ~16 times higher? Okay. I understand now. Covid = flu. We just need a vaccine and effective treatments?

4x isn't close**. It is a dangerous, BS narrative. CDC "best estimate" of Covid IFR-S = 0.4 CDC estimate of flu IFR-S last year (my calculations)* = 0.095 * 2018/2019 Estimated deaths / est. symptomatic illness = 34,000 / 35,000,000 = 0.095 Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html ** And the CDC estimate is low compared to other experts. For example, Dr. Fauci estimates 10x. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/11/top-federal-health-official-says-coronavirus-outbreak-is-going-to-get-worse-in-the-us.html

Then please cite the actual CDC best estimate and leave the other extrapolations out of it. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Scroll down to: Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate Thanks!

Then please cite the actual CDC best estimate and leave the other extrapolations out of it.

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Sorry I missed this the first time. There is pretty strong evidence that IFR is much higher for the elderly, obese, blacks, and hispanics. IFR estimates from Asia populations probably not relevant here.

See my edits above. AFAIK, the CDC never said 0.27%. Someone else made that inference based on CDC estimated IFR-S of 0.4%. Yup. So 0.4% IFR for symptomatic and 35% asymmptomatic mix gets u 0.27%. Um...sure... let's multiply a highly uncertain IFR-S estimate with a highly uncertain asymptomatic rate to get a very precise IFR. And then compare to a highly uncertain "commonly accepted" estimate of the IFR-S for flu. Sounds rigorous. Sorry that the 10x number I pulled out of my keister isn't rigorous enough for you.

See my edits above. AFAIK, the CDC never said 0.27%. Someone else made that inference based on CDC estimated IFR-S of 0.4%.

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc. Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu. I"m always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. The CDC just revised their estimates down to an COVID IFR of 0.27%. If IFR for the flu is the commonly accepted 0.1%, that'd make it 2.7x not 10x. I'm always skeptical when people answer so definitely to questions for which the answer is still very much in doubt. If you believe that the IFR of Covid is precisely 0.27%, then why shouldn't you believe that Covid is precisely 9.76x as deadly as the flu? -- Edit to add: Your gullibility is obvious: the CDC only gave an "estimate" for IFR-S and that number was 0.4%. Someone else fed you the 0.27% number. But the next question you'd want to ask, is where did the CDC get this number? As far as I can tell, they just made it up. At the very least, any credible estimate of IFR would be a fairly wide range (say 0.3-1.5%) (numbers completely made up). Even the IFR for Flu, which is much better understood, has an enormous estimated range.

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"? I'm just posing the question - not sure if it's deadlier or not deadlier than the flu. Indications in some places (NYC, Italy) says that it is while in other places (Singapore, Japan) says that it isn't. Flu deaths are also highly ambiguous and aren't counted the same as COVID is, so I'm not sure the quoted IFRs here (0.27% vs 0.1%) are even directly comparable, plus there's high degrees of variation between demographics/general health condition in the affected population/quality of health systems/etc. Okay, fine. Then the answer is no. Covid is approximately 10x deadlier than the flu.

Hey! Can people who have no idea what the IFR of the flu is please stop saying Covid "is just as deadly as the flu"?

CVS just reaffirmed.

I can't even give an answer to my wife or parents, so you won't ever have a good answer. I'd just keep it vague: - work from home - when they ask what I am working on, usually "software" is enough to prevent follow-up questions - taking some time off - spending time with kids while they are young You'd be surprised how long you can get by with "taking some time off". Or maybe find an interesting hobby that you can pivot to? More important, what are you going to tell yourself? A few years in, you will likely have an identity crisis.

I'm not ignoring the WHO "guidelines" (spoiler: not guidelines) from April 2nd. I am saying you have either not read it or don't understand it. They do not say what you claim they say. It is very easy to take a few words out of context to give them a different meaning: See how easy this is? You are either easily fooled or you are trying to fool us. Either way, you don't have any credibility on this subject so I will ignore any future replies.

Wow! Who knew? No, I mean literally WHO knew. Here is video from a WHO briefing on February 4th discussing asymptomatic transmission: Can I suggest you save your efforts to scapegoat WHO for your Facebook friends? You do realize that WHO has the budget of one large U.S. hospital? It is a small group of underfunded bureaucrats not a wealthy gang of super-villians?

Yes, but the exchange doesn't need to facilitate that transaction. And can I suggest that if you don't have access to storage, you shouldn't be allowed to trade physically-settled futures!

I don't understand why these futures contracts are allowed to trade negative, especially the cash settled ones. I understand why the price of Oil might go negative. But why not set the floor at $0 for the exchange traded futures? Someone might get stuck with physical delivery of oil they don't want, but that's the risk in playing the game. If you allow negative futures, brokers can't require adequate margin. If you want to buy a June contract at $12, what is a safe level of margin? 500%? Should brokers require $60 in cash to buy $12 of oil? Even $60 doesn't seem safe right now. Maybe $100 or $1000?

Did you actually read any of these "reports"? (WHO means published research studies not popular press clippings. Posting multiple articles that discuss the same case doesn't bolster your argument.) Referencing a Chinese case (edit: this is actually the same case as the german case below): Referencing a German case: Referencing a Taiwan case: So most of the cases mentioned were actually mildly symptomatic or presymptomatic, not "truly asymptomatic". In that bulletin, WHO clearly stated that presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission was possible.

APRIL 2 WHO report: "There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission." https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf Why is WHO so wrong on everything? Can I suggest that the problem isn't WHO, but your inability to read or think for yourself? The WHO bulletin you posted says: They are summarizing the reports that were available on April 2nd. Most of the studies showing asymptomatics were published after April 2nd. The author likely didn't read the reuters article from April 24th because time machines are so expensive. -- This is probably too subtle for you to comprehend, but few of the reports you are referring (including this prisons report) are even capable of determining whether someone is truly asymptomatic (as defined in that WHO bulletin). The researchers would need to monitor for 14 days to determine whether symptoms later develop. There are a couple studies that have done this, but most, if not all, published after April 2nd. There are really three categories of "silent spreaders": Presymptomatic - no symptoms at time of test, but will go on to develop symptoms. Subclinical - symptoms are so mild or atypical, that patient or doctor doesn't notice them or consider them COVID symptoms (perhaps a slight change in pulse or breathing). Truly asymptomatic There isn't any clear answer on what the relative proportions are. Even some people who think they have no symptoms show significant lung damage on CT scans.

I won't go through all the reasons why you are wrong, but this is a pretty blatant falsehood. They weren't even able to test all the dying and dead in NY, let alone test people who had mild symptoms.

Here is a pre-print journal article that helps give some more context on why that WHO quote is accurate: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article In this outbreak in SK, only 4% of COVID-positive patients were "truly asymptomatic". And they were only laboratory-confirmed as part of an aggressive test-and-trace regime. In most countries where testing is rationed, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic is probably a rounding error. Likely you are confusing presymptomatic with asymptomatic. Which is understandable since you are a layperson. But don't blame the experts for your lack of knowledge!