[W:122]What did I tell you all about herd immunity??

[Paradoxical]

Yep. Never mind those states still have restrictions in place which reduce exposure.

Never mind that the states that are NOW having high death rates whereas they didn't before are doing the SAME thing as New York, New Jersey, Conn ad Mass. Just ignore that.

 

[Paradoxical]

srsly?

you want tot start a thread about your credibility?

after all the posts you've made in public?

Being wrong on an estimate made early on is hardly a big deal.Unless you want to also say the doctors were wrong who predicted deaths in the US of 1=2 million WITH masks and distancing were not credible.

 

[Paradoxical]

No immunity in the northeast. Dedicated mask wearing. Limited and controlled openings. All of this is resulting in a positivity rate of about 0.5%. Even under these conditions, the reopening of schools and fall sports is showing the beginnings of an upward trend.

All because there are people poo pooing the virus and pretending that they know what they are talking about.

Like you, I imagine

 

[Paradoxical]

yeah, what were the titles to those threads early on. we all need to go find them and bump them.

So, giving a prediction at the outset of the virus of a low number means just what? That negates the article in the OP? LOL

 

[What if...?]

Nowhere near 60-70% of the population is infected, and no, Paradoxical did not invent the concept of herd immunity. All one had to do is listen to Fauci's various speculations or do a bit of reading.

I'm not sure what the rest of his derpulence is supposed to be about. If you don't mass test you don't have a clue how much of your population has been exposed, aka, where you stand in terms of herd immunity.

He actually argued with me about what herd immunity actually means the other day.

He thought that if 60-70% of the population had had the virus that it would be done and the other 30-40% couldn't catch it anymore.

And here he is again with the same schtick.

 

[Paradoxical]

ElChupacabra;1072519554]That's your assertion, because everyone who has been following the recommendations knows it is a combination of social distancing and usage of masks that help reduce transmission. Thus far, you've only been a contrarian and have not provided anything other than assumptions.

No scientific basis for distancing OR masks. ALL of America excpet for South Dakota is wearing masks and have been almost since the outset. Doing it means Zilch.If it did, then California and other states would nOT still be having people die.

You continue to ignore that while Sweden didn't have a government mandated shutdown, people still reduced their activities and followed social distancing guidelines. The northeastern US took more aggressive measures which reduced the exposure by mandating people not go about their normal business. I'm not sure how you can conclude everyone who is going to die has already done so when those restrictions prevented mass spread.

There was No shutdown, no masks and NO evidence that society practiced social distancing on their own. Give me some pictures or other evidence of your claim. What it is is that Sweden blows your Goebbelsian lie out of the water so you NEED to claim they stayed away from each other because you know they did NOT wear masks or shut down. Now we have Brazil and your brain just can't handle the truth because the Goebbelsian lie is too embedded in your brain.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Being wrong on an estimate made early on is hardly a big deal.Unless you want to also say the doctors were wrong who predicted deaths in the US of 1=2 million WITH masks and distancing were not credible.

If you admit you were wrong, then you should do what you said you would do if you were wrong and leave the forum.
You said you would if you were wrong.
Not leaving the forum is a self-inflicted ding on your credibility.
:shrug:

 

[What if...?]

The link that I posted suggests the same thing I said a few weeks back. The four states that WERE the highest BY FAR in deaths per million are now having almost none. I guess the article is idiotic too? Do you have any evidence that NY hasn't reached immunity?

It hasn't.

FFS, you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of "herd immunity".

The lowering death rate is a function of science and medicine getting a handle on treating the infected.

By your understanding there shouldn't be any new cases in NY, as everybody is immune.

Let me Google that...

Nope.

4100 new cases in the last seven days:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BRAL&usg=AOvVaw0ICtmRdMdeA_JdrHEGPhVO&ampcf=1

How is that possible when everybody is now immune?

Hell, how is that possible when enough have immunity that there isn't enough virus present to result in new infections? (Which is what "herd immunity" actually means.)

You are wrong regardless of what definition you use.

(Well, I guess a case could be made that your herd is immune to any information that comes from anywhere but conservative media.)

 

[Paradoxical]

If you admit you were wrong, then you should do what you said you would do if you were wrong and leave the forum.
You said you would if you were wrong.
Not leaving the forum is a self-inflicted ding on your credibility.
:shrug:

I decided that you guys need me here because you are all woefully uninformed because you listen to and read the Goebbelsian news. I am doing you all a public service.

 

[Paradoxical]

It hasn't.

FFS, you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of "herd immunity".

The lowering death rate is a function of science and medicine getting a handle on treating the infected.

By your understanding there shouldn't be any new cases in NY, as everybody is immune.

Let me Google that...

Nope.

4100 new cases in the last seven days:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQIBRAL&usg=AOvVaw0ICtmRdMdeA_JdrHEGPhVO&cf=1

How is that possible when everybody is now immune?

Hell, how is that possible when enough have immunity that there isn't enough virus present to result in new infections? (Which is what "herd immunity" actually means.)

You are wrong regardless of what definition you use.

(Well, I guess a case could be made that your herd is immune to any information that comes from anywhere but conservative media.)

What is a "case"?

 

[CaughtInThe]

So, giving a prediction at the outset of the virus of a low number means just what?

that you suck at math.

 

[Paradoxical]

that you suck at math.

I guess those doctors that predicted in the millions do, too, then.

 

[What if...?]

What is a "case"?

That isn't gonna give you a way to wriggle out

Your claim, at least the other day, was that herd immunity had been reached in New York so everybody was immune.

Now you want to parse "case".

4100 new infections in seven days means that enough of the herd doesn't have immunity yet to end the spread by providing no new hosts.

You are wrong.

And won't admit it.

Which at the end of the day is why our country is such a mess.

 

[What if...?]

I guess those doctors that predicted in the millions do, too, then.

You write too well to play dumb.

All of those super high estimates presumed no mitigation whatsoever.

And I remind you of trump saying that if we keep the deaths down to 100k or 200k we'll have down a good job.

So we're a week or two away from us NOT doing a "good job" by trumps own metric.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I guess those doctors that predicted in the millions do, too, then.

i don't know about them but i've read your posts enough to know that you suck at math.


did you graduate high school? public school?

 

[Paradoxical]

That isn't gonna give you a way to wriggle out

Your claim, at least the other day, was that herd immunity had been reached in New York so everybody was immune.

Now you want to parse "case".

4100 new infections in seven days means that enough of the herd doesn't have immunity yet to end the spread by providing no new hosts.

You are wrong.

And won't admit it.

Which at the end of the day is why our country is such a mess.

the 4100 means they are infected and need to be in the hospital or ?

Also, could you lookup for me the amount of new cases in California, Texas and Florida for the same period? Thanks. Appreciate it.

 

[Paradoxical]

You write too well to play dumb.

All of those super high estimates presumed no mitigation whatsoever.

And I remind you of trump saying that if we keep the deaths down to 100k or 200k we'll have down a good job.

So we're a week or two away from us NOT doing a "good job" by trumps own metric.

and..............???

 

[Paradoxical]

i don't know about them but i've read your posts enough to know that you suck at math.


did you graduate high school? public school?

So, the doctors were wrong, right?

 

[What if...?]

the 4100 means they are infected and need to be in the hospital or ?

Also, could you lookup for me the amount of new cases in California, Texas and Florida for the same period? Thanks. Appreciate it.

You're still wriggling.

4100 new cases in seven days means more than that are running around contagious.

Which means enough of the virus is still present in the population in question to be spreading in the community.

And what is happening elsewhere has no bearing on your claim of herd immunity in NY.

It has not been attained there.

It will be eventually, when vaccines become available.

But it absolutely has not been achieved anywhere in the US as yet.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Never mind that the states that are NOW having high death rates whereas they didn't before are doing the SAME thing as New York, New Jersey, Conn ad Mass. Just ignore that.

No need to ignore that. Isn't it oddly coincidental the surges started when those states reopened with less restrictions than northeastern states? Isn't it also odd that cases have been dropping after some of those states rolled back their reopening plans?

 

[Casper]

yeah, what were the titles to those threads early on. we all need to go find them and bump them.

You will have to go back to March and April to dig them up, when I have some time I will do some back tracking.....

 

[Luce]

No need to ignore that. Isn't it oddly coincidental the surges started when those states reopened with less restrictions than northeastern states? Isn't it also odd that cases have been dropping after some of those states rolled back their reopening plans?

You are going to have to explain an infinite number of times, because OP believes that you can get herd immunity with a .16 infection rate.

 

[Paradoxical]

You're still wriggling.

4100 new cases in seven days means more than that are running around contagious.

Which means enough of the virus is still present in the population in question to be spreading in the community.

And what is happening elsewhere has no bearing on your claim of herd immunity in NY.

It has not been attained there.

It will be eventually, when vaccines become available.

But it absolutely has not been achieved anywhere in the US as yet.

You know full well that MANY more people are being tested and "cases" mean NOTHING as I have said in many previous posts. Particularly since testing has increased dramatically. It is a GOOD thing that people test positive as that means they have it and are immune. That being said, in one day yesterday California, Texas and Florida had 15,338 "cases".

Yesterday, New York had EIGHT deaths and California had 150, Texas had 206 and Florida had 186!!!

Are you REALLY suggesting that when I say New York is "immune" now that no one is dying? It means that the deaths are diminishing at such a rapid clip from before that it is essentially OVER! The virus has done what it was gonna do, masks or no masks.

You guys KNOW that the other states have been wearing masks since day 1 and lie that they aren't or weren't only so you can maintain the Goebbelsian lies. You don't want there to be immunity until AFTER the election.

 

[Paradoxical]

No need to ignore that. Isn't it oddly coincidental the surges started when those states reopened with less restrictions than northeastern states? Isn't it also odd that cases have been dropping after some of those states rolled back their reopening plans?

California has the same restrictions as does New York and has had from day 1.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You are going to have to explain an infinite number of times, because OP believes that you can get herd immunity with a .16 infection rate.

Well he also mentions Brazil despite the country's health ministry also recommending social distancing measures:

In Brazil, the Ministry of Health recommended measures of social distancing, respiratory etiquette, and hand hygiene.3 Social distancing measures included the closing of schools, universities, and almost all shops, except food stores and pharmacies. In addition, cafes, restaurants, clubs, gyms, museums, and other institutions across the country have closed. Public gatherings, religious services, and social and sporting events have been cancelled. Nonetheless, the number of cases for COVID-19 has continued to grow exponentially due to difficulties in establishing true and effective social distancing. In the real Brazilian context, a large number of informal workers are still working normally and there is a lack of access to information for a large part of the population regarding minimum infection prevention and control measures, including hand washing and respiratory etiquette.

What I haven't seen is data on general compliance by Brazil's citizenry. Poverty impacts the ability of people to social distance and earn a living under the circumstances mandated by governments. Obviously places like the favelas are going to pose problems since those living conditions feature people living in close proximity, and who cannot work from home. India is another country I was worried about early on for very similar reasons. For the record, I'm not discounting the possibility of immunity playing a part on the transmission efficacy, there just isn't enough information to make that kind of conclusion yet. Clearly not everyone is impacted severely, but enough are that can pose a threat to our ability to treat them all, which is why reducing exposure makes sense.