[equid0x]

Originally Posted by roodd279

I completely agree that flattening the curve was about saving resources, and not (necessarily) about reducing death. As it turned out - it's doing both.
Now we're in a weird spot where we thought all those that were going to die...would be doing so right about now. Turns out, they never got sick - because the lock down worked a little too well. So now what?

Where's the control group for comparison? Without it such claims are entirely baseless.

[cowherjaw]

I don't understand why the medical experts don't seem to know as much as some of the posters on this board. Add in the governors and the white house and it seems we have the wrong people in positions of power and the wrong people trusted to analyze data and the wrong people posting on message boards.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by cowherjaw

I don't understand why the medical experts don't seem to know as much as some of the posters on this board. Add in the governors and the white house and it seems we have the wrong people in positions of power and the wrong people trusted to analyze data and the wrong people posting on message boards.

You just now figured that out?

[ND_Irish]

Everyone should look at the governor's PowerPoint presentation from April 14th. Specifically, look at page 5 and see if you can spot the number which does not seem to make sense.

https://nvhealthresponse.nv.gov/wp-c...Gov-Slides.pdf

I am amazed how so many other states can provide meaningful and relevant data, yet Nevada still is unable or unwilling to provide the citizens with all of the data for those who have tested positive for COVID-19. Specifically, deaths should be grouped by age range just like the CDC provisional death counts, and we should be provided with a percentage of deaths attributable to at least one underlying health condition in each age range. That would provide a much better picture of the actual risk to each segment of the population.

Based on all of the other data I have seen, I strongly believe that it would show that those 65 and over (i.e., those on Medicare), and perhaps 55 and over, as well as those with comorbidities such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity are at the greatest risk and should be the ones who continue to take additional precautions going forward. It makes no sense to be locking down well over 80% of the nation's population when it is the 65 and over age groups which comprise almost 78% of the deaths per the CDC's provisional death counts. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm

[NoMoreRJ]

Originally Posted by equid0x

Where's the control group for comparison? Without it such claims are entirely baseless.

Control group is used in testing efficacy with some getting the drug and others just a placebo. This is not a test it's a world wide pandemic. If a control group can be estimated... it would be similar to the countries that have not had a total lock down such as Brazil and some Scandinavian countries.. But even in Brazil where the president is still walking around shaking hands.. the favelas.. "brazilian hoods" are nearly shut down by the gangs. Can you imagine that.. the gangs are shutting down the neighborhoods to keep people alive and from spreading the disease. Also some Scandinavian countries are doing better than others.

You also can't get a true control group for this like you can in a lab experiment. that's like asking are humans being hurt by global warming? let's get a control group on mars where there is no global warming.. You need to have the same exact planet without carbon pollution.

Can you give me an example of how we could have a control group since you keep pointing to the fact that we have no control group. I don't think it's possible in our current situation. The lack of the control group does not make the results baseless.

[equid0x]

We've covered this already on the big thread. If you accept an uncontrolled study being based on a baseline model then it's already a complete failure because the baseline model was wildly incorrect. You're drawing conclusions from a baseline model that has been proven to be completely incorrect That's psuedoscience.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by equid0x

We've covered this already on the big thread. If you accept an uncontrolled study being based on a baseline model then it's already a complete failure because the baseline model was wildly incorrect. You're drawing conclusions from a baseline model that has been proven to be completely incorrect That's psuedoscience.

You continue to post nonsense. The models involved will continue to be updated to reflect the actual data. That actually is one of the standard problems with most models of such stuff. They end up accurately predicting what happened last time but do badly when projected into the future.

And actual results are always better than model predictions. They reflect the reality. And in this case there will be enough variation in the actual results to give us a pretty good idea of what worked and how well. The comparison of the Scandinavian countries will give us some view of how well their varying plans worked.

[EA]

I can't believe how scientifically illiterate so many people are. Oh wait, yes I can, American schools are awful.


Here is the proposition made by idiots that don't understand liberty, science, reality, or the economy.

"Shutting down the economy and making people social distance will save many many lives by preventing the virus from spreading."

This is a hypothesis at best. You have no idea if it's true. You might as well say "If I throw people into a volcano the gods will reward us. Look outside, we haven't thrown anyone into a volcano in a long time, see how bad it is?"

It's an equally ignorant hypothesis.

To tell if a hypothesis is true you have to test it.
You need a control group and a group that is social distanced to compare the 2 to see if your hypothesis is correct.
This has not been done. You CAN NOT say social distancing is the better option.

Number 1 herd immunity requires the masses to catch and develop antibodies to fight off the virus when it comes back.
Can you prove that social distancing is better than herd immunity?
Do you even understand what this means?

You need to define better. Does better mean "A few less people might catch corona if they stay away from each other." is better than letting everyone go about their business, catch corona, and die at a very slightly higher rate?

Maybe.

Does better mean "Over the course of time less people will suffer and die from corona if we social distance and shut down the economy?"

I can already tell you you're wrong. We have numerous examples of what kind of suffering and deaths come as a result of
A a bad economy
B a totalitarian government

Does better mean "Over the course of time less people will suffer and die from corona than if we let more people catch it and develop antibodies for the next time it rolls through?"


I'd say a test is in order. BUT judging by past illnesses, and the vaccine process I'd say herd immunity is far greater than social distancing. People having the antibodies to fight it means less people get it next time which means it spreads less next time.


Speaking of vaccines, there is no way in hell I'm taking a vaccine for this s#!+
The flu vaccine is equally useless and for the same reason. You can't vaccinate against a rapidly evolving virus. It's not like small pox or polio.
A vaccine is not plausible for this situation.

[Svoboda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDvwN8FIy60

CBS called every state and nursing homes numbers are not being reported in federal numbers. 19 states provided completed data. 35k+ and 5700 deaths not in the national numbers.

[EA]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

They end up accurately predicting what happened last time but do badly when projected into the future.

Holy jesus dumbass christ. Did you really post that just now? Any idiot in the world can predict what already happened.....

OMG the nonsense you come up with is off the charts.