Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


297 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Also, this German study has it at about .4% - https://reason.com/2020/04/09/preliminary-german-study-shows-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-of-about-0-4-percent/ The California studies put it well below that as well: https://reason.com/2020/04/21/if-covid-19-has-a-low-infection-fatality-rate-how-many-will-die/ So even if 100% of people got it (which probably wouldn't happen), it's still gonna be hard pressed to hit 2 million, like I said. And from what I've been reading the fatality rates tend to be higher where there's heavy pollution. https://www.sciencealert.com/two-new-studies-provides-evidence-that-air-pollution-is-increasing-risk-of-death-from-coronavirus So New Yorkers not having any clean air to breathe could push their numbers up.
  2. Well, it's probably higher in heavily polluted trash dumps.
  3. Yes, a radiologist. A guy that went to medical school far longer than you, I'm sure. And there are plenty of others...the guy that shared the article with me was also a radiologist for example. And one only needs a small measure of common sense to see through the crap you guys are spewing.
  4. There's plenty of doctors that say this was a ridiculous overreaction. This one was written by a radiologist. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation?fbclid=IwAR0v3YF87K-upxDjJUNqte9KKrebXsHh3Mas7MxW_4o1Gazkj2AK-XWILKc Stop acting like there's universal agreement. A bunch of smart, educated people think most of you are lunatics. I'm one of them.
  5. Nah, even if everyone in the country got it it would still be hard pressed to hit 2 million because it's simply not that dangerous.
  6. What's worse is that our ridiculous overreaction to this one is actually going to cause more people to ignore that one.... kind of like how a bunch of people stick around during the mother of all hurricanes because everyone told them the 5 before that were gonna be the mother of all hurricanes and nothing happened.
  7. Any figure that revolves around "tested" is cherry picking. When you expand those to infected, it's significantly lower, since there's a massive number of people infected that have never been identified. From what I understand the testing guidelines, especially when tests were more sparse (they're still sparse), was something like "only test this person for covid if knowing they had covid would alter their treatment. And if someone dies and they had covid symptoms we'll test them too". So obviously you're gonna end up with heavily bloated mortality rates using those guidelines.
  8. Yeah for me I'm a semi sooner.... my job allows me to easily work from home and I'll protest some if they make me start going back in since I didn't want to before all of this. And we will continue limiting our contact while we are probably in a high risk group for exposure with my daughter working - for the benefit of others. We did hire a guy to do some work around the house though because he was looking for work and we were looking to blow a stimulus check helping people work.... so kind of a middle ground.
  9. Kinda strange none of them showed any symptoms too, I'd figure the average homeless person is in below average health. But maybe the ones that survive a while a fairly hardened and can take a lot.
  10. Yeah, I'd agree with him. This stuff spreads crazy aggressively, and I don't see any way they are going to contain this long term. Especially if it can hop to animals, like the 2 cats that tested positive, and mostly likely right back to humans. Plus it mutates aggressively based on what we've been told. So it's likely that any antibody protection might only be temporary and we'll be getting hit with new strains in 2030, 2040... People are just gonna have to go out and face the corona... sooner or later.
  11. Personally I doubt his study. The NY infection rate is probably way higher than that.
  12. Well, mostly that was a snarky response since him asking me "to talk to the kids" is rather snarky. Either way, thank you very much for confirming my numbers. It's good to see them from more sources.
  13. He was responding to me saying that this age group has near zero chance of dying, and said that this hospitalized person now has a much greater than 0% chance. Really at 3% the hospitalization itself is just simply improbable. And a death would be "extremely improbable". Nothing you have posted changes this...and only confirms it further.
  14. I never even argued about hospitalization figures, I only referenced deaths in these age groups which I said are close to 0. And the stuff he posted confirms exactly what I said.
  15. Also from that article - "As for the death rate, the risk was near zero for people under 40." Gee, it gave the EXACT figure I did...
  • Create New...