interesting c****a test results-and conclusions
Aug 4, 2020 10:13:45 #
there have been about 4.7 million positive tests for the v***s, and about 150,000 fatalities. That comes to about a 3% chance of dying if you test positive. There have been about 50 million tests performed. that means thyat if you are tested positive you have about a .O3 % chance of dying or about a 99.7 chance of surviving if you are tested. These numbers put the chance of dying of C***d ** close to the rate of the seasonal flu. So, an interesting question. WHY the panic? WHY the shut downs? Is it medical science or is it political? I have no answers just questions. Opinions???
Aug 4, 2020 10:22:25 #
While you're playing with numbers, try to factor in these effects:
https://www.cdc.gov/c****av***s/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html
https://www.cdc.gov/c****av***s/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html
Aug 4, 2020 10:31:29 #
boberic wrote:
there have been about 4.7 million positive tests f... (show quote)
Shouldn't your second sentence also say 0.03%?
Aug 4, 2020 10:48:31 #
Fotoartist wrote:
Shouldn't your second sentence also say 0.03%?
OOPS my mistake, you are correct. 99.7 chance of survival
Aug 4, 2020 11:03:41 #
DaveO wrote:
While you're playing with numbers, try to factor in these effects:
https://www.cdc.gov/c****av***s/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html
https://www.cdc.gov/c****av***s/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html
There is no way to factor in those numbers in the simple total stats. And it would certainly be a good idea for those with those "underlying conditions" to Be extremely careful about protecting themselves. And perhaps those over about 70 to also be extra careful.. So if you were to exclude those who fit into those categories the risk of fatality would be very close to 0. You would be at more risk of fatality driving to the testing site. As an aside--the single thing that places more Americans it risk of death is driving
Aug 4, 2020 11:12:50 #
boberic wrote:
There is no way to factor in those numbers in the ... (show quote)
Oh, so we'll just ignore that faction because we don't know the numbers and true impact. Many people have no idea that they have certain risk factors. The rationalization presented by some is not at all surprising and likely dangerous. Totally discounting research in uncharted territory is not at all prudent.
Aug 4, 2020 12:56:28 #
boberic wrote:
there have been about 4.7 million positive tests f... (show quote)
Your numbers leave out one important caveat. Unchecked, there is no question that an expotential spread of the v***s would occur. So even at the same percentage of fatalities, the total losses would be far, far more than the flu v***s. How many deaths and complications would be acceptable to preclude the expense and aggravation of the existing precautions? 500,000, or 1,000,000...?
Just a thought.
BTW, wind picking up substantially.
Aug 4, 2020 14:56:34 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
boberic wrote:
there have been about 4.7 million positive tests f... (show quote)
C***d is much more infectious than flu. And we have v*****e for flu that protects 50% or more of the population, which is enough for herd immunity.
If left uncontrolled C***d can k**l millions in a few months.
Thus the justified panic.
Aug 4, 2020 14:59:35 #
Aug 4, 2020 15:00:44 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.