• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories....

Status
Not open for further replies.
18,503,154 Confirmed cases (+29,438 new cases)

minus

10,808,834 Recovered

Minus

327,313 Deaths

= how many still currently infected? Roughly 7 million.
 
smartcooky said:
I have an issue with the data given on this website, and I would appreciate any comment as to whether or not I have this wrong... i.e. am I missing something here?

https://www.coronatracker.com/country/united-states/

This data changes daily, but at the time of posting

18,503,154 Confirmed cases (+29,438 new cases)

10,808,834 Recovered

327,313 Deaths

1.8% Fatality Rate (of total cases)

58.4% Recovery Rate (of total cases)​

... in particular, its the significance of the last two figures I am questioning. Even though it clearly states "of total cases" people who don't understand the maths here, or look only at the percentages, could still come away with the wrong impression.

For mine, those rates should be calculated by looking at the total number of people who have had the disease, and either recovered or died, i.e. the total number of concluded cases (recovered + deaths) with the death rate being the latter as a percentage of the concluded cases, and the recovery rate being the former as a percentage of them.

The total number of concluded cases is 11,156,147 (10,808,834 + 327,313)

Of these

327,313 have died, so the death rate is really 327,313/11,156,147 * 100 = 2.93%

10,808,834 have recovered so the recovery rate is really 10,808,834/11,156,147 * 100 = 97.07%

If this is correct, then to me it looks like the number of deaths is heading for a huge total. The number of unconcluded cases is 7347007 (18,503,154 - 11,156,147) and statistically, 2.93% of those will die - that's 215,267.

If we imagined no new cases from today onwards then the total death toll would be over 552,000, but in reality the new cases each day adds even more.
Click to expand...

I think it deserves a deeper dive into why "recovered cases" is so low, what it means and how it's gathered.

Your link doesn't give a definition of recovered and it looks like each state has their own, inconsistent standard, some being "A certain amount of time has elapsed and you haven't dies yet".

I can think of a few scenarios of how recovery is measured that would make your estimate very low or very high.

For instance, I find it likely that it's easier to record someone as infected when they get a test, than it is to follow up and know how they're doing later, especially if they were asymptomatic. Just making a guess here, but I suspect some substantial number of those infected but not listed as recovered simply didn't make data available to collectors about their ongoing state and are doing fine.

On the other side, it looks like at least some states consider you "recovered" if you survive past a certain time frame. But given the massive clotting found in some patients due to covid attacks on blood vessels, I suspect some of those listed as "recovered" may have strokes or other clot related events or fatalities at some point after they're considered "recovered". And that for all practical intents should be seen as part of the virus's death toll.

Bottom line, almost impossible to say without a better consistent metric of recovery.
 
Cavemonster said:
I think it deserves a deeper dive into why "recovered cases" is so low, what it means and how it's gathered.

Your link doesn't give a definition of recovered and it looks like each state has their own, inconsistent standard, some being "A certain amount of time has elapsed and you haven't dies yet".

I can think of a few scenarios of how recovery is measured that would make your estimate very low or very high.

For instance, I find it likely that it's easier to record someone as infected when they get a test, than it is to follow up and know how they're doing later, especially if they were asymptomatic. Just making a guess here, but I suspect some substantial number of those infected but not listed as recovered simply didn't make data available to collectors about their ongoing state and are doing fine.

On the other side, it looks like at least some states consider you "recovered" if you survive past a certain time frame. But given the massive clotting found in some patients due to covid attacks on blood vessels, I suspect some of those listed as "recovered" may have strokes or other clot related events or fatalities at some point after they're considered "recovered". And that for all practical intents should be seen as part of the virus's death toll.

Bottom line, almost impossible to say without a better consistent metric of recovery.
Click to expand...


Not sure how "Recovered Cases" are defined in the US. Here , this is from the the Health Dept

"Recovered cases are people who had the virus, where at least 10 days have passed since their symptoms started and they have not had symptoms for 72 hours, and they have been cleared by the health professional responsible for their monitoring."​

As far as I have been able to ascertain, "cleared by the health professional" means two consecutive negative tests four days apart.
 
In the DC area, the local governments more or less agree on two negative tests two days apart. We would probably have more recovered cases but people tend to only get one test. It might be nice if we had a national strategy and standards on what "recovered" means but I suspect that will have to wait until after January 20th.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
But, yes, it is stupid scaremongering from a government. It is intended to get people to follow the rules. Not for any health/safety reasons but merely to exert control and determine exactly how much ******** the public will submit to before they revolt.
Click to expand...
Right....
:rolleyes:
 
It seems WHO has descended fully into madness. Herd immunity seems to have shifted from being acquired to being delivered by Big Pharma.


…This strange institution called the World Health Organization – once glorious because it was mainly responsible for the eradication of smallpox – has suddenly decided to delete everything I just wrote from cell biology basics. It has literally changed the science in a Soviet-like way. It has removed with the delete key any mention of natural immunities from its website. It has taken the additional step of actually mischaracterizing the structure and functioning of vaccines.
Click to expand...

https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-immunity-from-its-website/



WHO Quietly Changes "Herd Immunity" Definition In Stunning Display Of Orwellian Social Engineering

https://www.bitchute.com/video/jiynrGjT7evp/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anyone with the slightest understanding of how diseases and vaccines work has known from the start that the only practical way of achieving herd immunity for Covid-19 was with a vaccine. Our own Rolfe has been educating us about this since day one. That's why the (now discredited) Swedish strategy horrified so many people. Now that we have effective vaccines there's no longer any need to think or talk about doing it any other way.
 
Craig4 said:
Haven't you learned yet? We're in charge. You can't win against us. Be as woke as you want, we'll still crush you in the end. You'll never win against us.
Click to expand...



Did they hold a coming out ceremony for you ?
 
Bubba said:
It seems WHO has descended fully into madness. Herd immunity seems to have shifted from being acquired to being delivered by Big Pharma.




https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-immunity-from-its-website/
Click to expand...

Right... an economist pontificating on virology and medical science :rolleyes:

Science is an evolving thing Bubba, as we learn things we add to our knowledge and so people who deal in science will change definitions. Gravity is a good example of this.

Not only does this economist you have quoted know nothing about science and medicine, he does not seem to know how to use a scroll bar, because lower on the page where he copied his definition from, is this...

What is WHO’s position on ‘herd immunity’ as a way of fighting COVID-19?

Attempts to reach ‘herd immunity’ through exposing people to a virus are scientifically problematic and unethical. Letting COVID-19 spread through populations, of any age or health status will lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death. ​

Neither does he seem to understand how to use Google. It took me less than two minutes to find this... on the WHO website!

"....with a vaccine you can achieve immunity and herd immunity safely. Through natural infection, we could also achieve it at some point, but it would be at great human cost. And so naturally, the better choice is doing it through a vaccine.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/dis...s-2019/media-resources/science-in-5/episode-1

Perhaps you need this explained to you.

1. In order to attain herd immunity through natural means, a very large percentage of a given population has to become immune. That percentage varies from disease to disease, but its typically 60% to 72%. It seems that herd immunisation against Covid-19 is no different, and the general consensus is that it will require at least 70% of the population to be immune - so to obtain herd immunity without a vaccine, at least 70% of the population will have to become infected.

2. Earlier, in this post I explained how the death rate from Covid-19 in the USA seems to be around 2.93%.

3. the Population of the USA is around 331 million, so 70% of them will need to be infected. Thats 232 million. Now, 2.93% of them will die... that is 6.8 million - let that sink in for a moment..... 6.8 million. In order to obtain natural herd immunity for the USA, 6.8 million people will die.

4. In reality it would probably worse than that. Covid-19 seems to have a 2.93% kill rate in the USA, but that is with medical care of patients being treated for symptoms to try to keep them alive. The US hospital system is near breaking point how with over 7 million current infections... 232 million infections would bust the system completely, and the vast majority of infected people would go untreated... they would be left for dead, and the 2.93% will go up as people die not just from the virus, but from untreated underlying conditions and side effects.

This is why the WHO considers any attempt at naturally obtained herd immunity as problematic and unethical. What Sweden did was totally unethical and amounted to government approved murder.


.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It's the only way it is acquired!
Click to expand...

If 95% of the population gets the disease, recovers and thereby acquires immunity, you would have herd immunity once it has spread wide enought

When the disease in question is fatal for less than 1% of the people who catch it and most people don't know they have it unless they are tested, herd immunity could be acquired without anybody being vaccinated.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
If 95% of the population gets the disease, recovers and thereby acquires immunity, you would have herd immunity once it has spread wide enought



When the disease in question is fatal for less than 1% of the people who catch it and most people don't know they have it unless they are tested, herd immunity could be acquired without anybody being vaccinated.
Click to expand...
Will you write the 76 million condolence letters or...?

But that's not it, anyways.

That's how to make it endemic.

It will hide in pockets or below detection at rates that will soon have other headlines draw our attention away and a couple of times every generation, it will come by (with a new supply of hosts not immune) to remind us to always tell grandpa and grandma you love them because they can be taken away so quickly, but not quickly enough to avoid drowning in their own liquifying lung tissues after a frightening week of tubes and beeping machines all alone in a CICU room.

ETA: or we could have a robust vaccination program and vastly increase our odds of exhausting vectors of propogation, at a faster pace, and with fewer deaths.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the long-term health issues from contracting the virus that we know occur, but do not yet fully understand.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
If 95% of the population gets the disease, recovers and thereby acquires immunity, you would have herd immunity once it has spread wide enought

When the disease in question is fatal for less than 1% of the people who catch it and most people don't know they have it unless they are tested, herd immunity could be acquired without anybody being vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're just going to go with the vaccine route. Thanks for the suggestion though.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
If 95% of the population gets the disease, recovers and thereby acquires immunity, you would have herd immunity once it has spread wide enough
Click to expand...

As I said, that "wide enough" you're talking about is about 70%

CaptainHowdy said:
When the disease in question is fatal for less than 1% of the people who catch it and most people don't know they have it unless they are tested
Click to expand...

The US figure is closer 3% than to 1%

CaptainHowdy said:
herd immunity could be acquired without anybody being vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Yep, but your brilliant plan will cost about 7 million lives in the US alone, over 200 million world-wide. But, I guess as along as they are mostly black, Muslims and/or from "****-hole countries" you probably don't give a rats arse!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom