Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[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.

[Jack Trojan]

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.

Herd immunity? Dr. Atlas, you are one sick puppy. If your ilk took the virus seriously, didn't play it down and didn't think that wearing a mask somehow infringed on your rights we wouldn't be in this pickle. Drumpf would have been deemed a hero and got re-elected in a landslide. The irony is particularly delicious.

If Drumpf had a dollar for every time he hoisted himself on his own petard, he would be able to pay off his debt to the Rooskies.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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

What cold, hard facts would that be? All you have presented so far is a lot of bogus selfserving rhetoric.

"2,000 to 4,000 people will die with current infection rates"?

Sure... based on the calculation of the numbers you have used. 180.000 infections x 2% mortality rate = 3600 deaths per day!

Not if we adopt a sensible targeted strategy.

Like what? Opening up states, allow mass gatherings and do away with masks and social distancing? What.... do tell?

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.

Are you sure your crystal ball isn't defective, mr Science guy?

The cure cannot be worse than the disease.

Now we are getting somewhere.... The first admission that for you economics are more important than people's lives.
My answer to that is; an economy can be rebuild. Money lost can be made again but there is no way back from being dead!

No one is saying do nothing.

Of course that's what you are saying. So far, you and your orange führer haven't made one proposal to get the virus under control. In fact, the White House Chief of Staff is on record saying they are not even going to try to contain or control the spread of the virus.

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.

Yeah, that'll work.... Are you for real? Locking away the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions isn't going to solve anything. As long as the virus is out there, nobody will ever be able to resume their normal life. You don't live in a bubble. Return to normal life (i.e.  opening up the economy) means movement of people, which in turn means a faster spreading of the virus. Experience shows that no matter how many precautions you have in place, there is always possibility of an infection. Your best example is Trump and the White House staff. Tested and monitored every day, yet just about everybody who got on with their "normal" life got infected nevertheless. Do you really want to come home one day, being infected without knowing it, and infecting somebody who subsequently dies from covid-19?

Do you really want that on your conscience? And for what? You selfish desire to resume your "normal" life and f*ck everybody else? Is that who you are?

You really need to stop making emotional arguments instead of rational ones.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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;

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.

Yes, it is called SCIENCE.

I am still waiting for any of you to supply a single source to back up the claim that "many" survivors are going to suffer serious health issues. So far, this has not been the case, as I have documented with CDC and Johns Hopkins links.

"So, it doesn't matter that not everyone who is exposed to COVID-19 will catch it."

Phew! What?! That is beyond stupid. Yes, the transmission rate of a virus most certainly does matter, for obvious reasons. If only, say, 40% of the U.S. population would ever catch COVID-19, then it makes no sense to base your response policy on models that assume that 330 million Americans could get infected and that therefore project wild death numbers based on that false assumption, right? Right? You understand why this is self-evidently true, right?

"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."

180,000 infections and 3600 deaths per day? WHERE? If you're talking about the entire planet/worldwide, then 3,600 deaths per day, which equals 432K deaths per year, would put COVID-19 on the same level as the common flu (400K-500K deaths per year), and far, far behind diabetes (4 million deaths per year), road accidents (800K deaths per year), Alzheimer's (2.2 million deaths per year), stroke (5.8 million deaths per year), and heart disease (9.8 million deaths per year), among several other leading worldwide causes of death.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death

We, the U.S., have been averaging about 800 deaths per day since mid-July. If that rate were to continue to the end of the year, that would be an additional 37,600 deaths in the U.S., plus the 245K who have already died, giving us a grand total of 282,600 deaths for the year. That is not terribly more than the number of Americans who died from the Asian Flu in 1958 (216,000 adjusted for current population), during which we did not close schools, or businesses, or churches, etc., and therefore did not cause tens of millions of people to lose their jobs, did not cause tens of thousands of people to wipe out their life savings waiting for restrictions to end, did not cause tens of thousands of businesses to shut down (about 30% of which would never come back), and did not senselessly force tens of millions of school kids to stay home.

"Like what? Opening up states, allow mass gatherings and do away with masks and social distancing? What.... do tell?"

Well, first of all, let's remember that states that opted for no lockdowns or only mild lockdowns did just as well as, or better than, states that opted for harsh lockdowns. So your assumption that lockdowns were the correct approach is flawed from the outset. I have asked you guys several times to address this fact, but you keep ignoring it.

Florida (21M) -- 17.5K deaths/875K cases // MILD LOCKDOWN
New York (19.4M) -- 33.5K deaths/561K cases // HARSH LOCKDOWN
Georgia (10.6M) -- 8.7K deaths/408K cases // MILD LOCKDOWN
Michigan (10M) -- 8.3K deaths/275K cases // HARSH LOCKDOWN

A rational person willing to be honest would look at these numbers and conclude that the harsh lockdowns were not necessary to combat the virus.

Here is the approach that many disease experts and other scholars have suggested:

Focus protective measures on the two high-risk groups: the elderly and the medically ill.

Reopen schools, since people aged 1-24 face a much lower risk of death from COVID-19 than they do from the common flu. Require teachers over the age of 35, or those who are medically ill regardless of age, to wear masks at school. Require teachers who are over 65 to both mask and social distance.

Allow mass gatherings but require the elderly and the medically ill to mask and to social distance, until they can be vaccinated. For sporting events, we could even designate a reasonably sized section of seating for the elderly and the medically ill, and still require them to mask--again, until they can be vaccinated.

Allow "non-essential" businesses (they're surely essential for those who own them and who depend on them for income) to operate at full capacity, but require elderly and medically ill customers to mask, and require workers who serve/interact with them to mask during service/interaction.

If we had followed this approach from the beginning, we would have suffered far, far less economic damage, both as a nation and in many cases as individuals, and our death numbers would probably be lower than they are now, or at least no worse.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, it is called SCIENCE.

Which only shows that you haven't got a clue what science is.

I am still waiting for any of you to supply a single source to back up the claim that "many" survivors are going to suffer serious health issues. So far, this has not been the case, as I have documented with CDC and Johns Hopkins links.

Well, you can keep on waiting as far as I am concerned, because all I said on that subject is (1) the European media have reported on it and (2) that the mere fact that so far not many survivors suffer from serious health issues (if true) that still doesn't mean it isn't true.

"So, it doesn't matter that not everyone who is exposed to COVID-19 will catch it."

Phew! What?! That is beyond stupid. Yes, the transmission rate of a virus most certainly does matter, for obvious reasons. If only, say, 40% of the U.S. population would ever catch COVID-19, then it makes no sense to base your response policy on models that assume that 330 million Americans could get infected and that therefore project wild death numbers based on that false assumption, right? Right? You understand why this is self-evidently true, right?

We were talking about the mortality rate of 2% of those infected. The argument you are making now is an entirely different one. The flaw in your reasoning is that you can not predict with any kind of certainty who will fall in that 40% group, so it makes complete sense to assume that everybody could get infected.

"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."

180,000 infections and 3600 deaths per day? WHERE? If you're talking about the entire planet/worldwide, then 3,600 deaths per day, which equals 432K deaths per year, would put COVID-19 on the same level as the common flu (400K-500K deaths per year), and far, far behind diabetes (4 million deaths per year), road accidents (800K deaths per year), Alzheimer's (2.2 million deaths per year), stroke (5.8 million deaths per year), and heart disease (9.8 million deaths per year), among several other leading worldwide causes of death.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death

Oh boy. Let's try baby steps.... You argued that with a mortality rate of a little more than 2% would mean that a little more than 97% of those infected would survive. I merely pointed out that the current daily infection rate in the entire country is 180.000 cases per day, which means that, with a mortality rate of 2%, every day 3600 people will still die. It's a simple calculation to make. If you have to, you can use a calculator. And btw I can't help it that you don't understand this was merely a theoretical calculation based on your information to counter one of your bogus arguments.

We, the U.S., have been averaging about 800 deaths per day since mid-July. If that rate were to continue to the end of year, that would be an additional 37,600 deaths in the U.S., plus the 245K who have already died, giving us a grand total of 282,600 deaths for the year. That is not terribly more than the number of Americans who died from the Asian Flu in 1958 (216,000 adjusted for current population), during which we did not close schools, or businesses, or churches, etc., and therefore did not cause tens of millions of people to lose their jobs, did not cause tens of thousands of people to wipe out their life savings waiting for restrictions to end, did not cause tens of thousands of shut down (about 30% of which would never come back), and did not senselessly force tens of millions of school kids to stay home.

There he goes again with his averages.... As for the rest; apples and oranges.

"Like what? Opening up states, allow mass gatherings and do away with masks and social distancing? What.... do tell?"

Well, first of all, let's remember that states that opted for no lockdowns or only mild lockdowns did just as well as, or better than, states that opted for harsh lockdowns. So your assumption that lockdowns were the correct approach is flawed from the outset. I have asked you guys several times to address this fact, but you keep ignoring it.

Florida (21M) -- 17.5K deaths/875K cases // MILD LOCKDOWN
New York (19.4M) -- 33.5K deaths/561K cases // HARSH LOCKDOWN
Georgia (10.6M) -- 8.7K deaths/408K cases // MILD LOCKDOWN
Michigan (10M) -- 8.3K deaths/275K cases // HARSH LOCKDOWN

A rational person willing to be honest would look at these numbers and conclude that the harsh lockdowns were not necessary to combat the virus.

Another non sequitur.

Here is the approach that many disease experts and other scholars have suggested:

Focus protective measures on the two high-risk groups: the elderly and the medically ill.

Reopen schools, since people aged 1-24 face a much lower risk of death from COVID-19 than they do from the common flu. Require teachers over the age of 35, or those who are medically ill regardless of age, to wear masks at school. Require teachers who are over 65 to both mask and social distance.

Allow mass gatherings but require the elderly and the medically ill to mask and to social distance, until they can be vaccinated. For sporting events, we could even designate a reasonably sized section of seating for the elderly and the medically ill, and still require them to mask--again, until they can be vaccinated.

Allow "non-essential" businesses (they're surely essential for those who own them and who depend on them for income) to operate at full capacity, but require elderly and medically ill customers to mask, and require workers who serve/interact with them to mask during service/interaction.

If we had followed this approach from the beginning, we would have suffered far, far less economic damage, both as a nation and in many cases as individuals, and our death numbers would probably be lower than they are now, or at least no worse.

many disease experts and other scholars

Another appeal to authority? Really? Who are these experts and scholars? It sounds like Trump's talking points to me.

It seems to me that real experts would know and understand that you simply can not prevent the spread of the virus with those measures. In fact, anybody with a functional brain should be able to understand that.

If we had followed this approach from the beginning, we would have suffered far, far less economic damage, both as a nation and in many cases as individuals,

There is the "money over people" argument again.... and it's still pure speculation!

In your favorite country, Sweden, there was no formal lock down, yet there are still more people out of work and more businesses closing down than normal, simply because most people decided to stay home as much as possible anyway.

What does it take for you to understand that there is no return to normal life as long as the virus is not under control?

and our death numbers would probably be lower than they are now, or at least no worse.

Pure selfserving speculation. The whole notion that by opening everything up you could reduce the rate of infections and/or deaths is outright silly.

You use way too many words to say what you are actually saying. You want everything to open up and, self absorbed as you clearly are, you want to go back to your normal life. If somebody else gets infected with the virus and/or dies from it, that's simply too bad, as long as it isn't you.

That, and nothing else, is what this is all about for you, so why not simply come out and say that instead of doing this pathetic song and dance. You have your opinion and are convinced that you are right. You will never understand or accept that your way means that this crisis drags on for much longer than it needs to.

That makes you, just like others like you, part of the problem.