Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: How many deaths?

  1. #1
    *** NOTE FROM DAN DRUFF *** This discussion was moved from another thread where it was off-topic.

    ---

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Shouldn’t you be out protesting Tennessee starting to open up Red? And warning people we will have 18 more months of this coming? And that enjoying a Hamburger shouldn’t be the death of them?


    https://fox17.com/news/local/many-te...aurant-waiting

    And on topic, tell us any legitimate reason why you are taking a losing side trying to defend someone who won’t even admit who is. And lies to you and everyone daily?

    You come off as what many of accusing Coach of, taking a position just for arguments sake.

    We'll be lucky if we have just 18 more months of this coming. But you don't have to worry. The president explained on April 20 that the total deaths from the pandemic will be 60,000. So by Friday, all the dying should stop cold.

    Meanwhile, it speaks to the juvenile nature of this site that I have to point out the utter stupidity of making an argument that someone is an addict based on seeing them play video poker once in, what, 10 years? Mendelson could be the worst addict on the planet, but watching him play video poker once in a decade actually is evidence that he's not.

    You are right for once, I NEVER had to worry about this. I was at no more of a risk of dying from CV as I am from driving to the grocery store. It’s a hoax to the vast majority of us. You never seem to debate that, because it never fit your agenda.

    18 months of what? Businesses being crushed, handouts being exploited, liberals praying for more death and destruction?

    Here’s a thought, never leave your house again and you will be fine. While the rest of us make the decision to live our lives, or not and become a hermit like you.

  2. #2
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Shouldn’t you be out protesting Tennessee starting to open up Red? And warning people we will have 18 more months of this coming? And that enjoying a Hamburger shouldn’t be the death of them?


    https://fox17.com/news/local/many-te...aurant-waiting

    And on topic, tell us any legitimate reason why you are taking a losing side trying to defend someone who won’t even admit who is. And lies to you and everyone daily?

    You come off as what many of accusing Coach of, taking a position just for arguments sake.

    We'll be lucky if we have just 18 more months of this coming. But you don't have to worry. The president explained on April 20 that the total deaths from the pandemic will be 60,000. So by Friday, all the dying should stop cold.

    Meanwhile, it speaks to the juvenile nature of this site that I have to point out the utter stupidity of making an argument that someone is an addict based on seeing them play video poker once in, what, 10 years? Mendelson could be the worst addict on the planet, but watching him play video poker once in a decade actually is evidence that he's not.

    You are right for once, I NEVER had to worry about this. I was at no more of a risk of dying from CV as I am from driving to the grocery store. It’s a hoax to the vast majority of us. You never seem to debate that, because it never fit your agenda.

    18 months of what? Businesses being crushed, handouts being exploited, liberals praying for more death and destruction?

    Here’s a thought, never leave your house again and you will be fine. While the rest of us make the decision to live our lives, or not and become a hermit like you.
    I'm sure there were a few folks for whom the 1918 pandemic was a hoax. More power to them.

    Let me know when (1) I get something wrong and (2) you come up with a mortality figure at which you believe people should have behaved differently to have saved lives. If you don't have a figure, well, I salute your sadism.

    You do understand that you are arguing that liberals simply want people to die, and that it's a better thing to actively add to the total? Can't argue with that. I always wanted an 18-month span of playing Dexter. I guess many people have that psychotic side to them, including me, but I read enough Spider-Man comics as a kid to believe that with power comes responsibility, so I rein Dexter in whenever I can.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post


    We'll be lucky if we have just 18 more months of this coming. But you don't have to worry. The president explained on April 20 that the total deaths from the pandemic will be 60,000. So by Friday, all the dying should stop cold.

    Meanwhile, it speaks to the juvenile nature of this site that I have to point out the utter stupidity of making an argument that someone is an addict based on seeing them play video poker once in, what, 10 years? Mendelson could be the worst addict on the planet, but watching him play video poker once in a decade actually is evidence that he's not.

    You are right for once, I NEVER had to worry about this. I was at no more of a risk of dying from CV as I am from driving to the grocery store. It’s a hoax to the vast majority of us. You never seem to debate that, because it never fit your agenda.

    18 months of what? Businesses being crushed, handouts being exploited, liberals praying for more death and destruction?

    Here’s a thought, never leave your house again and you will be fine. While the rest of us make the decision to live our lives, or not and become a hermit like you.
    I'm sure there were a few folks for whom the 1918 pandemic was a hoax. More power to them.

    Let me know when (1) I get something wrong and (2) you come up with a mortality figure at which you believe people should have behaved differently to have saved lives. If you don't have a figure, well, I salute your sadism.

    You do understand that you are arguing that liberals simply want people to die, and that it's a better thing to actively add to the total? Can't argue with that. I always wanted an 18-month span of playing Dexter. I guess many people have that psychotic side to them, including me, but I read enough Spider-Man comics as a kid to believe that with power comes responsibility, so I rein Dexter in whenever I can.

    You still won’t get over that 1918 thing will you? There is no figure, we know that any high risk person who leaves these house or invites others over is at risk. It’s their choice, period. They could die if they make the decision. As for the other 99.9% of us, there is next to ZERO risk other than getting stuck on the toilet using their “investments” in TP. What am I saying that is wrong? When were you Right?

    As for the rest, Weird, Just Weird.

    Remember, most people can’t run their business from their home like you can. And you never answered how much money your different companies and you personally have gotten from the various packages out there for the Unemployed and for struggling businesses. Also goes to credibility if you have a financial interest in this continuing.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I'm sure there were a few folks for whom the 1918 pandemic was a hoax. More power to them.

    Let me know when (1) I get something wrong and (2) you come up with a mortality figure at which you believe people should have behaved differently to have saved lives. If you don't have a figure, well, I salute your sadism.

    You do understand that you are arguing that liberals simply want people to die, and that it's a better thing to actively add to the total? Can't argue with that. I always wanted an 18-month span of playing Dexter. I guess many people have that psychotic side to them, including me, but I read enough Spider-Man comics as a kid to believe that with power comes responsibility, so I rein Dexter in whenever I can.
    The figure I've seen for number of deaths per day in U.S. is 8700. That's 3 million people a year. Because of the shutdown the Covid19 deaths are offset by lower hwy. fatalities, workplace accidents, and even the regular flu.

    Okay, for your getting something wrong. Your original predictions based on the early models was over 10 million cases and 2.2 million deaths. We've been through the worst of it and there are 3 million cases worldwide. So you are about 7 million shy. Of course the number will continue to climb but it looks to fall far short of 10 million.

    Your 2.2 million number is off by at least 2.1 million.

    Now, you said Montana would be peaking in June or July I can't remember which. We have had 449 cases since March 13. Thats an average of 10 new cases per day. I started keeping daily stats on April 1. Our first case was March 13 and by April 1 we had 204 cases. That was an average of 10.7 new cases per day. From April 1 to April 27 there were 245 new cases. That's an average of 9 new cases per day. But if you look at new cases for the last two weeks, just 150, that's an average of just 7 new cases per day. For the past week we have had just 12 new cases. That's an average of just 1.7 new cases per day. For the past 2 days we have had just 2 new cases. That's an average of 1 per day. As you can see the daily average has been steadily falling.

    On Worldometers they also track the number of tests given in each state. On April 1 I divided the number of tests by the number of cases and it was 1 in 23. Yesterday, April 27, there was 1 new case in 253 tests.

    So I think your prediction, redietz, that Montana would peak a month or so after New York is a little off. I think we peaked in late March/early April at 10.7 new cases per day. We are down to a dribble now.

    The people of Montana are tired of the shutdown. We started opening back up on the 24th of April. On May 4th the bars and restaurants will reopen. Will we see an uptick in the number of new coronavirus cases? Maybe so.

    But we will also see an uptick in hwy. fatalities, workplace accidents and cases of the common flu. For some reason those stats are not used for the case to continue the shutdown. Only the coronavirus is used. Whats up with that? We don't shut the country down because of hwy. deaths, workplace accidents, or the common flu.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 04-28-2020 at 04:42 AM.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I'm sure there were a few folks for whom the 1918 pandemic was a hoax. More power to them.

    Let me know when (1) I get something wrong and (2) you come up with a mortality figure at which you believe people should have behaved differently to have saved lives. If you don't have a figure, well, I salute your sadism.

    You do understand that you are arguing that liberals simply want people to die, and that it's a better thing to actively add to the total? Can't argue with that. I always wanted an 18-month span of playing Dexter. I guess many people have that psychotic side to them, including me, but I read enough Spider-Man comics as a kid to believe that with power comes responsibility, so I rein Dexter in whenever I can.
    The figure I've seen for number of deaths per day in U.S. is 8700. That's 3 million people a year. Because of the shutdown the Covid19 deaths are offset by lower hwy. fatalities, workplace accidents, and even the regular flu.

    Okay, for your getting something wrong. Your original predictions based on the early models was over 10 million cases and 2.2 million deaths. We've been through the worst of it and there are 3 million cases worldwide. So you are about 7 million shy. Of course the number will continue to climb but it looks to fall far short of 10 million.

    Your 2.2 million number is off by at least 2.1 million.

    Now, you said Montana would be peaking in June or July I can't remember which. We have had 449 cases since March 13. Thats an average of 10 new cases per day. I started keeping daily stats on April 1. Our first case was March 13 and by April 1 we had 204 cases. That was an average of 10.7 new cases per day. From April 1 to April 27 there were 245 new cases. That's an average of 9 new cases per day. But if you look at new cases for the last two weeks, just 50, that's an average of just 3.57 new cases per day. For the past 2 days we have had just 2 new cases. That's an average of 1 per day.

    On Worldometers they also track the number of tests given in each state. On April 1 I divided the number of tests by the number of cases it was 1 in 23. Yesterday, April 27, there was 1 new case in 253 tests.

    So I think your prediction, redietz, that Montana would peak a month or so after New York is a little off. I think we peaked in late March/early April at 10.7 new cases per day.

    The people of Montana are tired of the shutdown. We started opening back up on the 24th of April. On May 4th the bars and restaurants will reopen. Will we see an uptick in the number of new coronavirus cases. Maybe so.

    But we will also see an uptick in hwy. fatalities, workplace accidents and cases of the common flu. For some reason those stats are not used for the case to continue the shutdown. Only the coronavirus is used. Whats up with that? We don't shut the country down because of hwy. deaths, workplace accidents, or the common flu.
    Great logical post Mick! Will go right over Red’s head, doesn’t fit his agenda. While you don’t drink, this ones for you as I enjoy some American Freedom this morning.

    Name:  2D0420EC-065B-4E6B-82B3-E0C08D2E6502.jpg
Views: 592
Size:  39.5 KB


    And it didn’t spill!

  6. #6
    Looks like a pretty good beer. And it looks like you are in an airport.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Your 2.2 million number is off by at least 2.1 million.
    Mickey are you intentionally being misleading or failing to understand what occurred and what the options are? I hope it is the latter. We don't need another person intentionally misleading and twisting the facts.

    Back in early March the model that is being used by Trump and the government showed 2 choices.

    1.) we do nothing and 2.2 million people die.

    2.) we shutdown and 60,000 to $100,000 people die. (the number was initially 100k and later revised to 60k)

    So the decision (right or wrong) was to shut down. And having done so, the death rate slowed and it looks like it will come in right were projected between 60k and 100k, if we stay the course.

    What you are doing is saying "see the model was wrong. It said 2.2 million deaths and we are only going to have 60-100k" The models were not wrong...they have been spot on. 2.2 million deaths if we did nothing! 60-100k if we shutdown.

    Now it is more that fair to argue that we should not have shut down. That was my initial argument. You can say 2.2 million death is for lack of a better term "acceptable losses". But you can't take the reduced losses from shutting down and say that is why we shouldn't have shut down.

  8. #8
    So by the way, I started a thread a while ago entitled "how does this end". I can't seem to find that thread. But it was after the decision to shutdown had been made and the premise was what then?

    And that is where we are now....at the what now part.

    again the initial choices were
    1.) shut down and have 60-100k deaths or 2.) stay open and have 2.2 million deaths.

    We chose the first and achieved or will achieve the results the model projected. But the question remains what now? How does this end? because unless I am missing something if you open up to as things were before the shutdown, you are right back tp the first model of 2.2 projected deaths. And maybe that is where we should have been all along, just accepting that is the outcome until we have a vaccine.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Your 2.2 million number is off by at least 2.1 million.
    Mickey are you intentionally being misleading or failing to understand what occurred and what the options are? I hope it is the latter. We don't need another person intentionally misleading and twisting the facts.

    Back in early March the model that is being used by Trump and the government showed 2 choices.

    1.) we do nothing and 2.2 million people die.

    2.) we shutdown and 60,000 to $100,000 people die. (the number was initially 100k and later revised to 60k)

    So the decision (right or wrong) was to shut down. And having done so, the death rate slowed and it looks like it will come in right were projected between 60k and 100k, if we stay the course.

    What you are doing is saying "see the model was wrong. It said 2.2 million deaths and we are only going to have 60-100k" The models were not wrong...they have been spot on. 2.2 million deaths if we did nothing! 60-100k if we shutdown.

    Now it is more that fair to argue that we should not have shut down. That was my initial argument. You can say 2.2 million death is for lack of a better term "acceptable losses". But you can't take the reduced losses from shutting down and say that is why we shouldn't have shut down.
    KJ, you are the one that is intentionally misleading. Knock it off. You got your facts all twisted up. Par for the course. The number was reduced to 800K then later down to 200K then later down to 100K then later down to 60K.

    Now, answer this question, KJ. The shutdown didn't save just lives from coronavirus. It lowered deaths from driving, workplace accidents, and the common flu and a host of other things. Redietz kept saying do the math. But he wasn't doing the math correctly and neither are you.

    WHAT WAS THE NET LOSS OF LIVES DURING THE SHUTDOWN WHEN ALL THINGS ARE CONSIDERED, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE NOT KILLED DRIVING, NOT KILLED IN WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS OR KILLED FROM THE COMMON FLU, OR FROM OTHER THINGS THAT OCCUR WHEN THE ECONOMY IS GOING STRONG?

    The 60K deaths we are at now is an inflated number. Drug overdoses have even been recorded as coronavirus deaths because of people who were positive for coronavisus when they overdosed.

    NOT ONLY IS 60K DEATHS AN INFLATED NUMBER BECAUSE OF DEATHS FROM OTHER CAUSES BEING RECORDED AS CORONAVIRUS DEATHS IT ALSO DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LIVES SAVED BECAUSE OF LOWER HIGHWAY DEATHS, WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS, COMMON FLU, ETC., DURING THE SHUTDOWN.

    You and redietz need to learn how to do the entire math, not just part of it....which is the part that fits your narrative.

    When all is taken into consideration the 60K number is far to high.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    Now, answer this question, KJ. The shutdown didn't save just lives from coronavirus. It lowered deaths from driving, workplace accidents, and the common flu and a host of other things. Redietz kept saying do the math. But he wasn't doing the math correctly and neither are you.

    WHAT WAS THE NET LOSS OF LIVES DURING THE SHUTDOWN WHEN ALL THINGS ARE CONSIDERED, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE NOT KILLED DRIVING, NOT KILLED IN WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS OR KILLED FROM THE COMMON FLU, OR FROM OTHER THINGS THAT OCCUR WHEN THE ECONOMY IS GOING STRONG?

    The 60K deaths we are at now is an inflated number. Drug overdoses have even been recorded as coronavirus deaths because of people who were positive for coronavisus when they overdosed.

    NOT ONLY IS 60K DEATHS AN INFLATED NUMBER IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LIVES SAVED BECAUSE OF LOWER HIGHWAY DEATHS, WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS, COMMON FLU, ETC.

    When all is taken into consideration the 60K number is far to high.
    You are being ridiculous mickey. People that die from a drug overdose or a car accident are not being included in coronavirus deaths. That kind of talk is conspiracy theory stuff, just like the moon landing occurred in a studio in California.

    BUT, whether intentional or not, you seem to fail to realize just what this virus does and how devastating it can be. It attacks different people in different ways. The common things are fever, and respiratory issues. But it can and does cause heart attacks by causing inflammation in the heart. It can cause strokes because covid-19 causes blood clots. It can cause liver and kidney conditions. And any of these organ failures can lead to death. So if someone dies of a heart attack or stroke or kidney failure caused by the virus, they should absolutely be counted as a covid-19 related death.

    I mean technically every single death is heart failure. A persons heart stops beating and they die. But if a person shoots themselves in the head, causing the heart to stop, we don't call that heart failure do we? And if this virus causes a heart attack or a stroke, it is still the virus that killed them.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    While you don’t drink, this ones for you
    What a tiny little hand you have, matches your tiny little...brain.

    What's that a 10oz cup?

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Your 2.2 million number is off by at least 2.1 million.
    Mickey are you intentionally being misleading or failing to understand what occurred and what the options are? I hope it is the latter. We don't need another person intentionally misleading and twisting the facts.

    Back in early March the model that is being used by Trump and the government showed 2 choices.

    1.) we do nothing and 2.2 million people die.

    2.) we shutdown and 60,000 to $100,000 people die. (the number was initially 100k and later revised to 60k)

    So the decision (right or wrong) was to shut down. And having done so, the death rate slowed and it looks like it will come in right were projected between 60k and 100k, if we stay the course.

    What you are doing is saying "see the model was wrong. It said 2.2 million deaths and we are only going to have 60-100k" The models were not wrong...they have been spot on. 2.2 million deaths if we did nothing! 60-100k if we shutdown.

    Now it is more that fair to argue that we should not have shut down. That was my initial argument. You can say 2.2 million death is for lack of a better term "acceptable losses". But you can't take the reduced losses from shutting down and say that is why we shouldn't have shut down.

    If you'll note, kewlj, mickey didn't quote me as having said that because he couldn't find anywhere where I actually said it. He has repeated this several times, but it was THE PRESIDENT who used the 2.2 million figure, not me.

    Mickey been doing this kind of stuff for awhile now.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Your 2.2 million number is off by at least 2.1 million.
    Mickey are you intentionally being misleading or failing to understand what occurred and what the options are? I hope it is the latter. We don't need another person intentionally misleading and twisting the facts.

    Back in early March the model that is being used by Trump and the government showed 2 choices.

    1.) we do nothing and 2.2 million people die.

    2.) we shutdown and 60,000 to $100,000 people die. (the number was initially 100k and later revised to 60k)

    So the decision (right or wrong) was to shut down. And having done so, the death rate slowed and it looks like it will come in right were projected between 60k and 100k, if we stay the course.

    What you are doing is saying "see the model was wrong. It said 2.2 million deaths and we are only going to have 60-100k" The models were not wrong...they have been spot on. 2.2 million deaths if we did nothing! 60-100k if we shutdown.

    Now it is more that fair to argue that we should not have shut down. That was my initial argument. You can say 2.2 million death is for lack of a better term "acceptable losses". But you can't take the reduced losses from shutting down and say that is why we shouldn't have shut down.
    KJ, you are the one that is intentionally misleading. Knock it off. You got your facts all twisted up. Par for the course. The number was reduced to 800K then later down to 200K then later down to 100K then later down to 60K.

    Now, answer this question, KJ. The shutdown didn't save just lives from coronavirus. It lowered deaths from driving, workplace accidents, and the common flu and a host of other things. Redietz kept saying do the math. But he wasn't doing the math correctly and neither are you.

    WHAT WAS THE NET LOSS OF LIVES DURING THE SHUTDOWN WHEN ALL THINGS ARE CONSIDERED, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE NOT KILLED DRIVING, NOT KILLED IN WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS OR KILLED FROM THE COMMON FLU, OR FROM OTHER THINGS THAT OCCUR WHEN THE ECONOMY IS GOING STRONG?

    The 60K deaths we are at now is an inflated number. Drug overdoses have even been recorded as coronavirus deaths because of people who were positive for coronavisus when they overdosed.

    NOT ONLY IS 60K DEATHS AN INFLATED NUMBER BECAUSE OF DEATHS FROM OTHER CAUSES BEING RECORDED AS CORONAVIRUS DEATHS IT ALSO DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LIVES SAVED BECAUSE OF LOWER HIGHWAY DEATHS, WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS, COMMON FLU, ETC., DURING THE SHUTDOWN.

    You and redietz need to learn how to do the entire math, not just part of it....which is the part that fits your narrative.

    When all is taken into consideration the 60K number is far to high.

    Mickey, get real, dude. You're so far out in fantasyland, and you don't even realize how much of a whack job you're being.

    The 60K is undoubtedly a significant undercount. It'll be easy to figure it out when we're clear of this. You take the normal death tolls for the previous four or five years, and then look at the spike, and the sleeper deaths due to COVID-19 will be evident. If any particular location has an established, consistent mortality going back several years, and almost all do, then the differences this year will be due to the virus.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Holy hell.

    Jesus, mickey, the data is clear from other countries that the death toll "official count thus far" is a significant undercount. I'll dig up some links. There was an article about a week ago, and another one this week about how the international counts have spiked well beyond what is attributed officially to the virus. This stuff is done by medical demographers all the time; it's not new. Coroners usually have a sense of it, but the medical demographers will have it pinned down when this finished.

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...ross-countries

    The Economist is not exactly a lefty publication, by the way.
    Last edited by redietz; 04-28-2020 at 12:10 PM.

  14. #14
    What if there never is an effective vaccine? There never has been one for past viruses of the coronavirus family or the common cold. What about the more likely scenario that a vaccine is only moderately effective like the 50% rate of the flu vaccine? Is everyone supposed to not be allowed to live their lives as they choose within reason for eternity?

    The erosion of freedoms and basic rights from this mess without consent have been absolutely fucking ridiculous no matter how you want to try to justify it. With how many people willingly sign up to give it away without any concern for the future after this ends, it’s pretty clear America and it’s freedoms just ain’t what they used to be.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post

    Mickey are you intentionally being misleading or failing to understand what occurred and what the options are? I hope it is the latter. We don't need another person intentionally misleading and twisting the facts.

    Back in early March the model that is being used by Trump and the government showed 2 choices.

    1.) we do nothing and 2.2 million people die.

    2.) we shutdown and 60,000 to $100,000 people die. (the number was initially 100k and later revised to 60k)

    So the decision (right or wrong) was to shut down. And having done so, the death rate slowed and it looks like it will come in right were projected between 60k and 100k, if we stay the course.

    What you are doing is saying "see the model was wrong. It said 2.2 million deaths and we are only going to have 60-100k" The models were not wrong...they have been spot on. 2.2 million deaths if we did nothing! 60-100k if we shutdown.

    Now it is more that fair to argue that we should not have shut down. That was my initial argument. You can say 2.2 million death is for lack of a better term "acceptable losses". But you can't take the reduced losses from shutting down and say that is why we shouldn't have shut down.
    KJ, you are the one that is intentionally misleading. Knock it off. You got your facts all twisted up. Par for the course. The number was reduced to 800K then later down to 200K then later down to 100K then later down to 60K.

    Now, answer this question, KJ. The shutdown didn't save just lives from coronavirus. It lowered deaths from driving, workplace accidents, and the common flu and a host of other things. Redietz kept saying do the math. But he wasn't doing the math correctly and neither are you.

    WHAT WAS THE NET LOSS OF LIVES DURING THE SHUTDOWN WHEN ALL THINGS ARE CONSIDERED, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE NOT KILLED DRIVING, NOT KILLED IN WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS OR KILLED FROM THE COMMON FLU, OR FROM OTHER THINGS THAT OCCUR WHEN THE ECONOMY IS GOING STRONG?

    The 60K deaths we are at now is an inflated number. Drug overdoses have even been recorded as coronavirus deaths because of people who were positive for coronavisus when they overdosed.

    NOT ONLY IS 60K DEATHS AN INFLATED NUMBER BECAUSE OF DEATHS FROM OTHER CAUSES BEING RECORDED AS CORONAVIRUS DEATHS IT ALSO DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LIVES SAVED BECAUSE OF LOWER HIGHWAY DEATHS, WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS, COMMON FLU, ETC., DURING THE SHUTDOWN.

    You and redietz need to learn how to do the entire math, not just part of it....which is the part that fits your narrative.

    When all is taken into consideration the 60K number is far to high.

    Mickey, get real, dude. You're so far out in fantasyland, and you don't even realize how much of a whack job you're being.

    The 60K is undoubtedly a significant undercount. It'll be easy to figure it out when we're clear of this. You take the normal death tolls for the previous four or five years, and then look at the spike, and the sleeper deaths due to COVID-19 will be evident. If any particular location has an established, consistent mortality going back several years, and almost all do, then the differences this year will be due to the virus.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Holy hell.

    Jesus, mickey, the data is clear from other countries that the death toll "official count thus far" is a significant undercount. I'll dig up some links. There was an article about a week ago, and another one this week about how the international counts have spiked well beyond what is attributed officially to the virus. This stuff is done by medical demographers all the time; it's not new. Coroners usually have a sense of it, but the medical demographers will have it pinned down when this finished.

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...ross-countries

    The Economist is not exactly a lefty publication, by the way.
    What is it with your neurosis? Every time kew gets his little pee pee slapped (which, unfortunately, is often) you step in with the weirdest stuff possible trying to look like you know what you're saying. You rarely succeed.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    While you don’t drink, this ones for you
    What a tiny little hand you have, matches your tiny little...brain.

    What's that a 10oz cup?
    I probably shouldn’t even reply to your nonsense Coach but Fuck it, most here understand exactly what you are, and why you are here.

    It was a picture in PERSPECTIVE.

    Since the cup and the beer were 16oz, which is also a Pint if you didn’t know, it must mean I have huge hands.

    Name:  9400DD14-9F25-4492-ABAE-D6AA31A2F440.jpeg
Views: 554
Size:  67.5 KB


    How does it feel to realize the shithole state you are stuck in will be closed most of the summer due to the loser you elected as Governor? How about knowing your highest in the nation property taxes will only go up because of his choices? Your beaches will be closed to tourists and businesses will fail. And your buddy won’t be able to play in AC because Murphy is a pussy. All out of fear. Have a Great Summer Coach!

  17. #17
    I only drink the quart sizes.

  18. #18
    Still no answers from Red on how much government money Bob Dietz’s Integrity Sports applied for in lost business from the CV. Also no answer on if he is collecting Unemployment during this?

    Goes to context on if he has a vested Financial interest in this. Or truly is just rooting for the death count to increase for another reason. Or is just still living in 1918, happy for the boys who survived the Mustard Gas and looking forward to Woodrow Wilson getting a 3rd term.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I only drink the quart sizes.
    Well granted my hands aren’t as large as yours would appear to be based on your claims!

  20. #20
    Gold LMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xA2VqPvBnQ
    Posts
    555
    Originally Posted by monet View Post
    You have a point.
    Oh, wait, let me get out my doily to make a note of it. Hmm, Singer made a point.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. USA: 1,000 Covid-19 related deaths and rising
    By Ex-AP in forum Coronavirus
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2020, 06:13 AM
  2. Reporting deaths after an accident.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Movies, Media, and Television
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-07-2013, 02:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •