Nine States Refuse to Issue Stay-At-Home Orders, South Dakota's Governor Says They're 'Draconian Measures' Like the 'Chinese Government Has Done'

submitted by RickC-137 from thegatewaypundit.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why don't you show me what you mean? Put up some numbers yourself?

You are being dishonest by going around in circles.

[–]astronautrob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It seems your reading comprehension skills are below normal levels. Be that as it may, I'll try to work with you a bit longer but I can't spend my free time and energy trying to educate someone who doesn't seem to have the intelligence to comprehend what he is reading. There are tons of sources that you can look at yourself.

Now with that being said, what numbers would you like me to put up my friend? You keep asking me to "put my data up", what data are you specifically looking for? You want data to show the mortality rate of COVID? You've already got that my friend. That's the only data I've spoke about throughout this whole conversation. Mortality rate, mortality rate, mortality rate. What other data would you like me to provide you? I'm asking you to validate the claim that "getting COVID makes you 54% more likely to die", which you have yet to do. All you keep asking for is data from me, why? You put up the arbitrary number, that means you have to come up with with data that isn't arbitrary to back it up. Which you haven't. The only thing I want from you is for you to tell me the "rate of dying" or w.e that is BASED ON WORLDWIDE DATA, not data just from Italy. Can you give me that? If not then we have no further discussion as your debate style is to deflect and then reposition your argument. Not a very good conversation style to have my friend. It's like talking to my wife....

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Let me recap.

Italy

I got the 54% higher risk of death due to COVID, compared to regular death by dividing COVID deaths in a day by typical daily deaths.

Question 1 for you. Do you not agree that the risk of death in Italy was 54% higher in that 24-hour period?

World Yesterday

I updated to the newest complete data. Deaths due to COVID yesterday: 5229 as per here Deaths in general yesterday: 55.95 million as per here divided by 365.25 = 153182.

5229/153182 = 3.4%

Question 2 for you. Is this not the same computation as above, but for the world instead of Italy?

Question 3. Was this what you wanted to know?

[–]astronautrob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No that isn't what I wanted to know, I know mortality rate we've now calculated it twice in addition to me knowing the information beforehand. Talk about going in circles. What I was asking if for your "risk of death" percentage for the whole world in say the last 24hrs, right? It seems like your risk of death percentage factors in time, so wouldn't mortality rate have the same limits imposed? Now, are you trying to say that the mortality rate and this "risk of death" are interchangeable? Idt that's true from what I meantime do above, mortality rate is deaths over cases by 100, no time factor involved here, and your "risk of death" rate is the same but over a 24hr period am I right? So those wouldn't be the same, right? This seems so elementary but please if you can explain to me how I am getting this wrong...?

it's definitely not true the way you portrayed it in your first post. So while the computation may be the same it'd the flawed way you are using or looking at the data. Taking a 24hr period, the worst 24hr period in the country hit the hardest, does not give an accurate picture of a mortality rate. What does give you a more accurate picture is the second computation you did, using worldwide data over the course of the whole pandemic. You wrote in your first comment that the flu doesn't increase your risk of death 54%. That's it. You didn't say this was in a 24hr period using just Italys numbers and that it probably doesn't apply to most places or cases. See what I'm getting at here? If you are saying the two computations are the same then you should of original posted that COVID would raise you "risk of death" or tf you want to call it, 3.5% right? But then aren't we also talk about mortality rate? So isn't your risk of death computation just mortality rate for a given time period in a given area? and then you try to apply that to everyone, because in your opinion Italy is not an isolated situation and this situation will happen other places, right? All that is conjecture. I hope you're still following along. This calculation you are doing is flawed. For instance, say we took the worst 24hr period of idk something like mers or sars. Think mers had a 30% mortality rate or something. Idk for fact don't quote me, but my point is you could take pandemics, truncate the data set to worst case senior, and probably come up with all crazy numbers. Again, see what I'm getting at?