Discussion:2019 Novel Corona Virus (Covid19) and It's Political Ramifications #3

[Alladino]

Just now, Ridgerunner said:

I wasn't talking about Europe. I was talking about the U.S.  Both Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx cited those models numerous times when setting government policy to combat the coronavirus.

You realize we're talking about the same virus, right? 

Anyway, Listen carefully to what Dr. Fauci actually said:

 

 

The fact that the USA can hope for numbers below 100.000 death is a success of these measures. They work as intended. 

[Ridgerunner]

6 minutes ago, Alladino said:

You realize we're talking about the same virus, right? 

Anyway, Listen carefully to what Dr. Fauci actually said:

 

 

The fact that the USA can hope for numbers below 100.000 death is a success of these measures. They work as intended. 

Previously the model was predicting as many as 240,000 deaths with the mitigation measures that Dr. Fauci was talking about. With no mitigation the British model had predicted 2.2 million deaths in the U.S.

[letsdothis]

4 hours ago, happyone said:

The thing is you are assuming that the 115,000 people who have the virus is an accurate figure.  ...and therefore your mortality % would be a lot less.

I agree, the numbers being reported by any country, especially the US,
are most likely not as accurate as they should be, even based on
current testing. But, using that model, if you say that the number of
cases is lower than what is actually true, then it also follows that the
number of deaths is also lower.

[letsdothis]

2 hours ago, Ridgerunner said:

Who? You?

Seriously?? Really?? You know, I think I read somewhere on this site
at sometime, that you are in your mid-70s, but you act and speak as
if you're six.

[letsdothis]

2 hours ago, Ridgerunner said:

I thought we weren't suppose to talk politics here.

Here we go again. Why is it not OK for a non-Trump supporter to talk
politics, but when you and your fellow comrades spout political, it's
perfectly permissible and you say nothing? Once again, the hypocrite.

[letsdothis]

5 hours ago, Ridgerunner said:

The same statisticians who said with the lock down 240,000 people in the U.S. would die from the first wave of the coronavirius, and without the lock down 2.2 million would die ? Their projections were ridiculous.

 

2 hours ago, Ridgerunner said:

What I am saying is that major medical and economic decisions were made in the U.S. based upon computer models that were grossly inaccurate. With more accurate models maybe we could have taken more appropriate actions that would not have caused so much panic and not done so much damage to our economy. 

As I and others in this topic have said previously, the first models
were not ridiculous or wrong or even inaccurate. They were based
on the data available at the time it was calculated. As the data
changed and became more accurate, so the results changed, as
well. The results of the more recent models do not mean that the
first models were wrong, inaccurate or ridiculous, as you put it.

[Thestarider]

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE: Texas trial on NURSING HOME coronavirus patients finds near PERFECT success rate

The mainstream media desperately wants Americans to know how dangerous the Trump-touted hydroxychloroquine can be for coronavirus patients. But, in actuality, more and more anecdotal evidence shows the opposite about the medicine. In fact, a trial done on nursing home residents in Texas is finding near-perfect success: out of 39 patients, one passed away from non COVID-19 causes. The others are doing well, experienced no serious side effects, did not need hospitalization, and will be re-tested on Tuesday. AND, the vast majority of them were over the age of 70. So...why the hydroxychloroquine hate?

[letsdothis]

1 hour ago, Ridgerunner said:

No. That's what you call it. 

Notice the word in the middle of the row of similar words.

[Ridgerunner]

1 hour ago, letsdothis said:

 

As I and others in this topic have said previously, the first models
were not ridiculous or wrong or even inaccurate. They were based
on the data available at the time it was calculated. As the data
changed and became more accurate, so the results changed, as
well. The results of the more recent models do not mean that the
first models were wrong, inaccurate or ridiculous, as you put it.

What good is a model for setting medical and economic policies if it's numbers are no where close to being accurate? I live in the real world, not the  hypothetical world of some computer geeks. When a model predicts 240,000 deaths in the U.S. with mitigation, and the actual number is only somewhere between 50-60 thousand; how can you call that a reliable model? 

[Robwin]

34 minutes ago, Ridgerunner said:

What good is a model for setting medical and economic policies if it's numbers are no where close to being accurate? I live in the real world, not the  hypothetical world of some computer geeks. When a model predicts 240,000 deaths in the U.S. with mitigation, and the actual number is only somewhere between 50-60 thousand; how can you call that a reliable model? 

What is a model? it is simply a computer programme designed by one or a group of humans therefore the model will have a leaning somewhat towards the opinons of the humans that wrote it. Therefore any model from where ever is only the views of the particular people/person who designed it. Therefore models are only extensions of their views. This is why different models produce varying results. Which one can be relied upon? God knows.

[Ridgerunner]

1 hour ago, letsdothis said:

Here we go again. Why is it not OK for a non-Trump supporter to talk
politics, but when you and your fellow comrades spout political, it's
perfectly permissible and you say nothing? Once again, the hypocrite.

I'm talking about now, not the past. And in the past almost all my comments about Trump were in response to attacks on him. I didn't originate the conversations. In the future on this thread I intend to be quiet about Trump. I hope everyone else will too.

[happyone]

21 minutes ago, Robwin said:

What is a model? it is simply a computer programme designed by one or a group of humans therefore the model will have a leaning somewhat towards the opinons of the humans that wrote it. Therefore any model from where ever is only the views of the particular people/person who designed it. Therefore models are only extensions of their views. This is why different models produce varying results. Which one can be relied upon? Gods knows.

Based on this opinion, to which I agree, then obviously the person or persons who designed the model wanted to show the worst possible outcome, which then would make those in power or those using those models to assert the most drastic measures possible--which they did--a lock down of the world. But as the models numbers projections decreased, as data improved as some would advocate, the question then should be asked:

as the numbers project a marked decrease of death based on our new model, then why were not the strictest confinement measures also relaxed and new measures adopted to protect those most at risk and allow the world to begin to rebuild the economies that were being destroyed????  Why keep up the fear rhetoric???