ADVERTISEMENT

OT 100% NOT the Official Off-Topic/Politics/Corona Thread

The centrist democrats are the reason the democrats won back the house. Everyone focuses on the looney left bc 1) they are the loudest and 2) it is in the best interest of the right to portray democrats like the far left of the party.
centrist Dems are flying pigs, there are none. A politician will tell u anything to get power. These “centrist” didn’t do anything Pelosi didn’t tell them to. Next Dems gunna tell us how much they care about the black community cause nov is coming. Thankfully I now see thru the lies cause they don’t do shit. Trump is the only one I’ve seen do anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HTHog
I’m struggling to follow your comments. Let’s imagine 2 groups:

1) 100 people (50 people >65 y/o with COPD or diseases impacting the immune system and 50 healthy college students) were infected.

2) Another group of 100, all under 50 years old without chronic conditions were infected.

Which of these groups would have a higher rate of death among the 100 infected if you had to guess?
Well obviously Group 1 but I fail to see how that is relative.

This all started when I originally quoted a fatality rate of 0.1%. LEts recap the exchange.
What they don't even realize is that those are the numbers for NY, the absolute worst place in the country. As mentioned earlier, for the whole country the extrapolated rate is 0.1%..........the same as the regular flu. Remember when people here were making fun of other people for saying "this is just like the regular flu"?

Yeah, good times.......

So you don't think stay at home orders for the past month have had any effect on the mortality rate?

Ummmm no. Why in the world would a stay at home order effect the mortality rate? The mortality rate in the percentage of people that die after they get it. If might effect the totals but not the rate.

The rate is the rate regardless of the numbers involved.

Fatality rate = Those infected that die / those infected. For example, a 0.1% fatality rate among 1000 infected people looks like this 1/1000 = 0.1%. If 10,000 people get it then there will be 10 deaths. 10/10000.

The rate is the rate. Whether people stayed at home and didn't get it or whether they all went out and got it, the rate is the rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wwatkins123
Well obviously Group 1 but I fail to see how that is relative.

This all started when I originally quoted a fatality rate of 0.1%. LEts recap the exchange.






The rate is the rate regardless of the numbers involved.

Fatality rate = Those infected that die / those infected. For example, a 0.1% fatality rate among 1000 infected people looks like this 1/1000 = 0.1%. If 10,000 people get it then there will be 10 deaths. 10/10000.

The rate is the rate. Whether people stayed at home and didn't get it or whether they all went out and got it, the rate is the rate.
In reference to your statement, "Why in the world would a stay at home order effect the mortality rate?".

So, in a given 1000 people, if we can decrease the number of those who are high risk for dying getting it at all, it absolutely would decrease the number of deaths in that 1000.

If we are/were able (through a stay at home order, mass education, or whatever other means) to make the infected part of the population look more like group 2 than group 1, it can absolutely impact the percentage of those infected that would die. There is no way that group 2 (particularly if we added a few zeros to my example) would have the same rate as group 1.

For instance, I work in a large healthcare system and when this all started they almost immediately pushed for older employees or those that self-identified having respiratory or conditions that impact the immune system to be able to work from home and self-quarantine. Additionally, there were a number of people who knew they were higher risk that chose to stay home, rather than work (I think of a courier I interact with daily that is 85 y/o who chose to use a ton of PTO). These things do not happen during a regular flu season and (at least in my case) wouldn't have happened without a shutdown of portions of our work. If those same type of people had been out and got the virus, it would have increased the percentage/rate of infected who died. Obviously, we will never know how much.
 
In reference to your statement, "Why in the world would a stay at home order effect the mortality rate?".

So, in a given 1000 people, if we can decrease the number of those who are high risk for dying getting it at all, it absolutely would decrease the number of deaths in that 1000.

If we are/were able (through a stay at home order, mass education, or whatever other means) to make the infected part of the population look more like group 2 than group 1, it can absolutely impact the percentage of those infected that would die. There is no way that group 2 (particularly if we added a few zeros to my example) would have the same rate as group 1.

For instance, I work in a large healthcare system and when this all started they almost immediately pushed for older employees or those that self-identified having respiratory or conditions that impact the immune system to be able to work from home and self-quarantine. Additionally, there were a number of people who knew they were higher risk that chose to stay home, rather than work (I think of a courier I interact with daily that is 85 y/o who chose to use a ton of PTO). These things do not happen during a regular flu season and (at least in my case) wouldn't have happened without a shutdown of portions of our work. If those same type of people had been out and got the virus, it would have increased the percentage/rate of infected who died. Obviously, we will never know how much.
High risk, low risk, no risk............... they are all already in the current fatality rate and they are all under the stay at home orders. You can't pick and choose who is going to be added to the total. The rate is the rate.
 
The only way the stay at home order affects mortality rate is when there is a shortage of care. Rate goes up. Stay at home slows the speed of infection and prevents the shortage of care. It is pretty simple.....
 
High risk, low risk, no risk............... they are all already in the current fatality rate and they are all under the stay at home orders. You can't pick and choose who is going to be added to the total. The rate is the rate.
The elderly or higher risk people I referenced being able to immediately work or quarantine at home likely did not get sick, and therefore are not counted in the current fatality rate. If they had gone about business as usual (or a stay at home order didn’t allow them to stay home), they would have been more likely to be infected and would have had a higher risk of dying (and therefore a higher risk of being in the numerator of the rate than a random healthy college student if either were added to the denominator). Do you think “the rate is the rate” would apply if hospital visitors would have been allowed on all chemo floors through all of this? What about all nursing homes that didn’t allow visitors due to the orders? Again, more people added to the denominator that would be more likely to add to the numerator than a young/healthy person.
 
The only way the stay at home order affects mortality rate is when there is a shortage of care. Rate goes up. Stay at home slows the speed of infection and prevents the shortage of care. It is pretty simple.....
I guess if you mean the fatality rate over a period of years and assume that everyone ends up getting it then I would agree with you. I don’t think it is that simple, but agree that would have made an even bigger difference in our short term fatality rate. At present, I don’t think that the entire population is at equal chance to have been exposed to it (thinking people on oncology floors or nursing homes that have strict visitor policies) at this point.
 
The elderly or higher risk people I referenced being able to immediately work or quarantine at home likely did not get sick, and therefore are not counted in the current fatality rate. If they had gone about business as usual (or a stay at home order didn’t allow them to stay home), they would have been more likely to be infected and would have had a higher risk of dying (and therefore a higher risk of being in the numerator of the rate than a random healthy college student if either were added to the denominator). Do you think “the rate is the rate” would apply if hospital visitors would have been allowed on all chemo floors through all of this? What about all nursing homes that didn’t allow visitors due to the orders? Again, more people added to the denominator that would be more likely to add to the numerator than a young/healthy person.
8BMCFk.gif
 
And the hits keep coming................ damn conspiracy theorists thinking that this was all a sham. Where are the detractors now? They've all but disappeared from this thread! Lol...


These stories coming out lately indicate those guys got it wrong, and all the people on here who thought deaths were being over-reported as covid deaths. Apparently, just the opposite, in the U.S. and worldwide. Excess deaths have been significantly more in all countries than the reported covid deaths.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...tal-death-rate-spiked-above-coronavirus-death
 
lol that's a very specific thing to re-open. If those things are hopeful to open on May 15th, the higher traffic stuff will surely be after. We are looking at a June re-open at the latest if my assumption is correct.

Even if he comes out tomorrow and announces that dine in restaurants can reopen, they'll still be subject to restrictions including one that limits the amount of customers you can have inside at any one time. If your max occupancy 75 patrons, you still won't be able to have that many inside.
 
Even if he comes out tomorrow and announces that dine in restaurants can reopen, they'll still be subject to restrictions including one that limits the amount of customers you can have inside at any one time. If your max occupancy 75 patrons, you still won't be able to have that many inside.

IDGAF. I will be the first mf in line at Cracker Barrel with everyone's grandma/grandpa. So early that capacity limits don't mean a thang to me.
 
Who the freek has stayed at
He’s not wrong. Sure, it would have spread a little more if there wasn’t a stay at home thing for Arkansas, but the deaths would have maybe tripled to 180 deaths. Now you’re looking at .0058% of Arkansas population.
Who the freek has stayed at home? Everyone is around someone that has stood in line at a packed wal mart or lowes or have been working. Who has isolated completely?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jegreenwood
It will be interesting to see how the government handles a second wave of the roni. I bet they aren't nearly as strict.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT