Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Martin Weidmann]

I can tell that my mind is at least far superior to yours. I'll say that much.

Did you miss, or just choose to ignore, the part where I said that the statistics that I've read show that very few, only a small percentage, of survivors suffer serious health issues afterward?

Can a sample size of 22 people tell us "anything" about global numbers? Well, of these 22 people whom I know, four are over 65; one is 21; and the rest are between 21 and 64. I would never claim that my personal experience is scientific, but 22 people whose ages vary widely is not a meaningless number.

"Massive conspiracy to take away your liberty"?! What a juvenile comment. Again, are you in high school? Does your mom know you're using her computer?

Now, I can't comment on sources that you guys don't/can't/won't produce. It is way too early to be claiming that "many" COVID-19 survivors suffer long-term health issues. The stats that I've seen do not support such a claim, at least not yet anyway. Here is what the CDC says on this issue:

"While most persons with COVID-19 recover and return to normal health, some patients can have symptoms that can last for weeks or even months after recovery from acute illness. Even people who are not hospitalized and who have mild illness can experience persistent or late symptoms. Multi-year studies are underway to further investigate. CDC continues to work to identify how common these symptoms are, who is most likely to get them, and whether these symptoms eventually resolve." (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html)

The CDC then discusses "serious long-term complications," such as heart muscle inflammation, lung function problems, and acute kidney injury, and notes that such problems are "less common" than the mild symptoms that many people experience. The article adds that more study is needed to determine their significance.

So, let's see your sources for claiming that "many" survivors suffer "extensive damage." Let's see them.

And I'm just curious: What will you panic peddlers say if the case death rate drops below 2%?

I can tell that my mind is at least far superior to yours. I'll say that much.

The mere fact that your ego drove you to make this pathetic statement justifies serious doubts about it's veracity. It's just too easy to provoke you for it to be true.

Did you miss, or just choose to ignore, the part where I said that the statistics that I've read show that very few, only a small percentage, of survivors suffer serious health issues afterward?

No, I didn't miss that. It's a statement that has no significance as your vague claim is only based on some statistics that you claim to have read (and have chosen to believe), which is nothing more than a shallow appeal to authority and thus a pretty common fallacy. All it really tells me is that you agree with anything you read that supports your predetermined opinion.

"Massive conspiracy to take away your liberty"?! What a juvenile comment. Again, are you in high school? Does your mom know you're using her computer? 

You really need to get a grip on that superiority complex of yours. You can do a song and dance all you want, but your entire opposition to covid-19 measures can only be explained by some selfserving interest you have in doing away with those measures.

What I really don't understand is that people like you would prefer to question and debate the seriousness of this pandemic and advocate the lifting of measures which would only facilitate the spreading of the virus and thus more infections instead of being willing to collectively do whatever is necessary to get the virus under control as quickly as possible.

Now, I can't comment on sources that you guys don't/can't/won't produce. It is way too early to be claiming that "many" COVID-19 survivors suffer long-term health issues. The stats that I've seen do not support such a claim, at least not yet anyway.

Are you really so dumb that you don't understand that when it is way too early to be claiming that "many" COVID-19 survivors suffer long-term health issues" it is also way too early to be claiming that they won't suffer long-term health issues, yet that's exactly what you are doing.

And I'm just curious: What will you panic peddlers say if the case death rate drops below 2%?

You can't figure this out by yourself? It still means that out of every 100.000 people infected with covid-19 2.000 will die!
At present the infection rate lies at around 180.000 people per day. Do the math, genius!

[John Tonkovich]

Mr Griffith:
The Titanic is sinking.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I can tell that my mind is at least far superior to yours. I'll say that much.

The mere fact that your ego drove you to make this pathetic statement confirms that it is not.

Did you miss, or just choose to ignore, the part where I said that the statistics that I've read show that very few, only a small percentage, of survivors suffer serious health issues afterward?

No, I didn't miss that. It's a statement that has no significance as your vague claim is only based on some statistics that you claim to have read (and have chosen to believe), which is nothing more than a shallow appeal to authority and thus a pretty common fallacy. All it really tells me is that you agree with anything you read that supports your predetermined opinion.

"Massive conspiracy to take away your liberty"?! What a juvenile comment. Again, are you in high school? Does your mom know you're using her computer? 

You really need to get a grip on that superiority complex of yours. You can do a song and dance all you want, but your entire opposition to covid-19 measures can only be explained by some selfserving interest you have in doing away with those measures.

Now, I can't comment on sources that you guys don't/can't/won't produce. It is way too early to be claiming that "many" COVID-19 survivors suffer long-term health issues. The stats that I've seen do not support such a claim, at least not yet anyway.

Are you really so dumb that you don't understand that when it is way too early to be claiming that "many" COVID-19 survivors suffer long-term health issues" it is also way too early to be claiming that they won't suffer long-term health issues, yet that's exactly what you are constantly doing.

Are you really so dumb that you can't understand English? I did not say that "many" survivors will not suffer long-term health issues. I said that so far we have no evidence that "many" survivors are suffering serious health issues and no evidence that they will do so in the future. I guess you're never going to get around to dealing with my request that you cite some sources for Jack's claim.

According to the latest CDC report on COVID-19 hospitalizations, only 217.2 out of every 100,000 cases result in hospitalization (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html#:~:text=The%20overall%20cumulative%20COVID%2D19,217.2%20hospitalizations%20per%20100%2C000%20population.). The latest John Hopkins University statistics on COVID-19 hospitalizations at hospitals affiliated with the Johns Hopkins medical system tell us that 132 out of 10,583 cases have resulted in hospitalization (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/coronavirus/covid-19-daily-report.html). So we are talking about a very small percentage of people who are experiencing serious health issues from the virus--again, at least so far.

My superiority complex?! Wow. You and your fellow leftists here have frequently questioned the intelligence and education of anyone who disagrees with you, especially conservatives. But you boo-hoo when someone questions your intelligence and education. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

And I'm just curious: What will you panic peddlers say if the case death rate drops below 2%?

You can't figure this out by yourself? It still means that out of every 100.000 people infected with covid-19 2.000 will die! At present the infection rate lies at around 180.000 people per day. Do the math, genius!

Boy this is dumb. This is exactly the kind of backward, unscientific thinking that has driven these senseless lockdowns. Let's back up a second and lay out a few facts:

* Not everyone who is exposed to COVID-19 will catch it. Just like with most other viruses, the transmission rate is not 100%. Many people's immune systems will keep them from catching the virus in the first place, just as has happened throughout history with other viruses. I am not saying they will catch it but have no symptoms--I am saying they will not catch it because their immune system will prevent the virus from being transmitted to them. Based on all available data, the COVID-19 transmission rate appears to be lower than 50%.

In the early cases of cruise ships, when the pandemic was just getting started, no one knew that some passengers were infected and no precautions were taken, yet fewer than 60% of the passengers caught the virus, even though the majority of the passengers were over 50 and many of those were over 65.

At other events that should have been "super spreaders," such as the choir incident in Skagit County, Washington, fewer than 40% of those in attendance caught the virus, even though they were within close distances of each other for nearly three hours.

* All experts agree that our case numbers do not reflect the true number of people who have caught COVID-19, because we have tested less than half the population. But, this is not the case with our death numbers, since virtually everyone who has died in the last eight months has been tested for COVID-19.

* Three separate anti-body studies done in large areas (LA, San Jose, and Miami) indicated that as many as 20 times more people may have caught the virus than the then-current case numbers for those areas indicated, which in turn meant that the case death rate was 20 times lower than the then-current rate.

[Jack Trojan]

Very few people who survive COVID-19 suffer "extensive damage." What source is telling you that "many" people who survive the virus--which, BTW, is about 97% of those who catch it--subsequently suffer "extensive damage"? Where are you getting that? The stats I've seen show that only a very small percentage of people experience any serious health issues after they catch and survive COVID-19.

I know 22 people who caught COVID-19, including two people in my immediate and extended family, and not one of them has experienced any unusual health issues after they caught it. In fact, ALL of them either had no symptoms or mild symptoms.

So, again, what is your source for claiming that "many" survivors suffer "extensive damage"?

Finally, as of this morning, the COVID-19 death rate has dropped again. It is now down to 2.23% (245K deaths/11 million cases). If your liberal brain can't process this fact, do the math yourself. 245K deaths out of 11 million cases equals a case death rate of 2.23% and a survival rate of 97.77%. Why do you people insist on panicking over a virus that has an average survival rate of 97.77%?

The death rate from Covid has dropped because we now have therapeutics that mitigate the severity of the symptoms. And yes, there are many cases where the virus damages organs including your brain. Drumpf himself admitted it to Bob Woodward:

Recounting a conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump told Woodward on Feb. 7 that the coronavirus is “more deadly than your, you know, your — even your strenuous flus. This is more deadly,” he said. “This is five per — you know, this is 5 percent versus 1 percent and less than 1 percent, you know. So, this is deadly stuff.”

Face it, Covid does much more damage than the flu. And for you to pull a Drumpf and "play it down" is on par with his bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns philosophy thinking it will help him get re-elected. And we were never "rounding the corner" and we didn't "stop talking about it Nov 4th".

BTW, Drumpf lost the election and there is a new sheriff in town. Get over it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The death rate from Covid has dropped because we now have therapeutics that mitigate the severity of the symptoms. And yes, there are many cases where the virus damages organs including your brain. Drumpf himself admitted it to Bob Woodward:

Recounting a conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump told Woodward on Feb. 7 that the coronavirus is “more deadly than your, you know, your — even your strenuous flus. This is more deadly,” he said. “This is five per — you know, this is 5 percent versus 1 percent and less than 1 percent, you know. So, this is deadly stuff.”

Face it, Covid does much more damage than the flu. And for you to pull a Drumpf and "play it down" is on par with his bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns philosophy thinking it will help him get re-elected. And we were never "rounding the corner" and we didn't "stop talking about it Nov 4th".

BTW, Drumpf lost the election and there is a new sheriff in town. Get over it.

One, see my previous reply. You are several replies behind.

Two, the death rate began to drop sharply about 2 weeks after states began to reopen, and the therapeutics you're talking about were not approved for general use until three weeks ago. So your argument is invalid.

[Martin Weidmann]

Are you really so dumb that you can't understand English? I did not say that "many" survivors will not suffer long-term health issues. I said that so far we have no evidence that "many" survivors are suffering serious health issues and no evidence that they will do so in the future.

According to the latest CDC report on COVID-19 hospitalizations, only 217.2 out of every 100,000 cases result in hospitalization (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html#:~:text=The%20overall%20cumulative%20COVID%2D19,217.2%20hospitalizations%20per%20100%2C000%20population.). The latest John Hopkins University statistics on COVID-19 hospitalizations at hospitals affiliated with the Johns Hopkins medical system tell us that 132 out of 10,583 cases have resulted in hospitalization (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/coronavirus/covid-19-daily-report.html). So we are talking about a very small percentage of people who are experiencing serious health issues from the virus--again, at least so far.

My superiority complex?! Wow. You and your fellow leftists here have frequently questioned the intelligence and education of anyone who disagrees with you, especially conservatives. But you boo-hoo when someone questions your intelligence and education. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I did not say that "many" survivors will not suffer long-term health issues.

That's exactly what you were saying implictly, because if you weren't your entire argument would be a complete waste of time.

I said that so far we have no evidence that "many" survivors are suffering serious health issues and no evidence that they will do so in the future.

So we are talking about a very small percentage of people who are experiencing serious health issues from the virus--again, at least so far.

Isn't it fun when people destroy their own claims in the same post. Again, when there is no evidence for something it's way to early to make claims either way, regardless of how you word them. Your entire argument is a bogus one. You dismiss out of hand the possibility that people will suffer long term health issues by claiming that so far (and thus short term) only a small percentage of people are experiencing those serious health issues.

My superiority complex?! Wow. You and your fellow leftists here have frequently questioned the intelligence and education of anyone who disagrees with you, especially conservatives. But you boo-hoo when someone questions your intelligence and education. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Pathetic. First of all, I never questioned anybody's intelligence and education. I merely asked you just how superior you think you are. Secondly, you didn't dish out anything. Instead, you displayed massive stupidity by making a claim you could not possibly make without knowing more about me than you ever will. It fits in perfectly with your superiority complex! You seem to respond in an emotional way rather than a rational one.... That's your ego coming into play.

Boy this is dumb. This is exactly the kind of backward, unscientific thinking that has driven these senseless lockdowns. Let's back up a second and lay out a few facts:

* Not everyone who is exposed to COVID-19 will catch it. Just like with most other viruses, the transmission rate is not 100%. Many people's immune systems will keep them from catching the virus, just as has happened throughout history with other viruses. Based on all available data, the COVID-19 transmission rate appears to be lower than 50%.

In the early cases of cruise ships, when the pandemic was just getting started, no one knew that some passengers were infected and no precautions were taken, yet fewer than 60% of the passengers caught the virus, even though the majority of the passengers were over 50 and many of those were over 65.

At other events that should have been "super spreaders," such as the choir incident in Skagit County, Washington, fewer than 40% of those in attendance caught the virus, even though they were within close distances of each other for nearly three hours.

* All experts agree that our case numbers do not reflect the true number of people who have caught COVID-19, because we have tested less than half the population. But, this is not the case with our death numbers, since virtually everyone who has died in the last eight months has been tested for COVID-19.

* Three separate anti-body studies done in large areas (LA, San Jose, and Miami) indicated that as many as 20 times more people may have caught the virus than the then-current case numbers for those areas indicated, which in turn meant that the case death rate was 20 times lower than the then-current rate.

Bla bla bla..... Why are you trying to pivot away from a very simple point; If the mortality rate of covid-19 is 2%, every day anywhere between 2000 and 4000 people will die with the current infection rates.

That's the bottom line which you seem willing to ignore.... the question is; for what?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Bla bla bla..... Why are you trying to pivot away from a very simple point; If the mortality rate of covid-19 is 2%, every day anywhere between 2000 and 4000 people will die with the current infection rates.

That's the bottom line which you seem willing to ignore.... the question is; for what?

That "bla bla bla" is called SCIENCE.

You simply ignored every fact I pointed out about the transmission rate, the case numbers, and the anti-body studies, and just repeated your panic-party posturing.

The real question is, Why do you keep ignoring cold, hard facts that disprove your panic party?

"2,000 to 4,000 people will die with current infection rates"? Not if we adopt a sensible targeted strategy. And 2K to 4K more people dying from COVID-19 by the end of year would be fewer people than will die from medical errors, from diabetes, from accidents, etc., etc., in the same time frame.

The cure cannot be worse than the disease. No one is saying do nothing. We are saying stop the senseless one-size-fits-all approach and target the two groups that we know are by far the most vulnerable, and let everyone else resume normal life.

[Martin Weidmann]

That "bla bla bla" is called SCIENCE.

You simply ignored every fact I pointed out about the transmission rate, the case numbers, and the anti-body studies, and just repeated your panic-party posturing.

You can't be this dumb, can you? Science.... yeah right.

The death rate is calculated based on the known figures of infections and deaths. You did it yourself in an earlier post;

Finally, as of this morning, the COVID-19 death rate has dropped again. It is now down to 2.23% (245K deaths/11 million cases). If your liberal brain can't process this fact, do the math yourself. 245K deaths out of 11 million cases equals a case death rate of 2.23% and a survival rate of 97.77%. Why do you people insist on panicking over a virus that has an average survival rate of 97.77%?

So, it doesn't matter that not everyone who is exposed to COVID-19 will catch it, nor does it matter that, in the early days, fewer than 60% of cruise ship passengers and/or fewer than 40% of a choir caught the virus.

We're only dealing with known cases, so as long as there are 180.000 known infections a day, with a mortality rate of 2%, 3600 people will still die from covid-19 every day, notwithstanding your pathetic attempt to argue that the actual infection rate is much higher and thus the mortality rate much lower. That's not science, that's a mumbo jumbo argument for argument's sake.

The bottom line in all of this is simply that you don't like lockdowns and you will say anything to rationalize your opposition to them.