COVID death rate

[i am herdman]

We should have just asked those over 70 to quarantine and those with underlying conditions. Then moved on.

I will never forgive some of the politicians for what they did with lockdowns and such. And some of the American people for their

 

[extragreen]

We should have just asked those over 70 to quarantine and those with underlying conditions.

That would have been about half of all Americans. Idiot.

 

[i am herdman]

That would have been about half of all Americans. Idiot.

Yehh and not everybody, idiot. Plus, you can't actually make them do it. So, not all would. But, you leave the young and working folks working and business open.

The whole quarantine shut down thing was never going to work, Country was heading to ruination. That is why we had to stop it.

 

[extragreen]

Yehh and not everybody, idiot. Plus, you can't actually make them do it. So, not all would. But, you leave the young and working folks working and business open.

The whole quarantine shut down thing was never going to work, Country was heading to ruination. That is why we had to stop it.

60% of americans have an underlying condition. moron.

 

[mlblack16.]

That would have been about half of all Americans. Idiot.

Yeah, when you include criteria such as obesity, and I'm talking anyone who doesn't have a BMI below 25, so you're going to catch a massive amount in that risk category. However, it's not that simple. You have to look at the entire picture, including the amount one is overweight, along with age and other serious comorbidities, which are far more relevant than just someone triggering at risk due to an elevated BMI.

You would know this if you were something more than a hillbilly cabinet maker.

 

[extragreen]

Yeah

You should have stopped there. Idiot....and coward.

 

[mlblack16.]

You should have stopped there. Idiot....and coward.

Which means you got your ass beat, yet again, and have no comeback.

 

[i am herdman]

60% of americans have an underlying condition. moron.

OK, yehh right 60% are not at high risk

 

[extragreen]

Which means you got your ass beat, yet again, and have no comeback.

You're an idiot....and coward.

In the United States, 6 out of 10 adults have a chronic disease that increases their risk of severe COVID-19. Also, 4 out of 10 people have two or more of these chronic conditions. That alone gets up to 40%. Since it's 2 or more, it can't be obesity and obesity. So 40% of Americans under herodman's criteria would be quarantined just from underlying conditions. Add to that 43 million Americans are age 70 or over and 15% of them work into their 70's. You and herodman are both idiots....and cowards.

 

[extragreen]

OK, yehh right 60% are not at high risk

Did you mention "high risk" or "those with underlying conditions" Idiot.

 

[i am herdman]

Did you mention "high risk" or "those with underlying conditions" Idiot.

mr semantic,

 

[extragreen]

mr semantic,

Coward....liar....idiot.^^^

 

[i am herdman]

Coward....liar....idiot.^^^

hide in a storm shelter

 

[extragreen]

hide in a storm shelter

Do everyone a favor and breathe deeply when in highly populated small areas.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Yeah, the CDC division he linked plays more word games than he tries. If you look toward the bottom of that link, where the title is “how we help”, one of the things they “brag” about is that teen birth rates have fallen 60% since 2007. Just how much bullchit is in that comment/attempted flex?

I would say exactly what the issues are, but want Extra to have to think without being given a talking point to lap up and spit back out.
That site is a “look how bad everything is, look how much you need us, please don’t cut our funding” government website.

 

[extragreen]

one of the things they “brag” about is that teen birth rates have fallen 60% since 2007. Just how much bullchit is in that comment/attempted flex?

You're an idiot.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Again, this is a great example of your inability to reason beyond the headline.

how about this, I can honestly tell you that I know, beyond any scientific doubt, how to decrease lung cancer deaths by 95% in the next 12 months. I can also tell you that it would save 100s of millions, likely billions, in health care costs. Do you believe me?

 

[extragreen]

Again, this is a great example of your inability to reason beyond the headline.

Again, you're an idiot.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Not surprisingly, you failed to answer the question. Hiding ignorance isn’t the same as being smart.

 

[riflearm2]

Yeah, the CDC division he linked plays more word games than he tries. If you look toward the bottom of that link, where the title is “how we help”, one of the things they “brag” about is that teen birth rates have fallen 60% since 2007. Just how much bullchit is in that comment/attempted flex?

I would say exactly what the issues are, but want Extra to have to think without being given a talking point to lap up and spit back out.
That site is a “look how bad everything is, look how much you need us, please don’t cut our funding” government website.

Are you denying the legitimacy of the statistics they are presenting or their impact on those statistics?

 

[extragreen]

Not surprisingly, you failed to answer the question. Hiding ignorance isn’t the same as being smart.

Again. You're an idiot.

 

[Rock98Dog]

Are you denying the legitimacy of the statistics they are presenting or their impact on those statistics?

mainly their impact on them. Statistics can be made to fit almost any argument,’so I won’t blame them too much for that. An example would be Extra’s posted graph of the decline in teen pregnancy. If, for example, you look at today versus the 50s you would think teen pregnancy rates were horrible back then. Of course when one takes into consideration that 85% of all teen births then were in marriage and only 11% are today, the meaning and impact of the graph. Also, the quality of birth control, chemical abortion, and good ol regular abortion was not what it is today. So people wait much later to get married and have better options to prevent and terminate pregnancy. I’m not exactly sure some group within the CDC can establish they are the driving force behind those things.

 

[riflearm2]

An example would be Extra’s posted graph of the decline in teen pregnancy. If, for example, you look at today versus the 50s you would think teen pregnancy rates were horrible back then. Of course when one takes into consideration that 85% of all teen births then were in marriage and only 11% are today, the meaning and impact of the graph. Also, the quality of birth control, chemical abortion, and good ol regular abortion was not what it is today. So people wait much later to get married and have better options to prevent and terminate pregnancy. I’m not exactly sure some group within the CDC can establish they are the driving force behind those things.

The original point you contested was the CDC's claim that they've helped reduce the teen birth rate by 60% since 2007. So your entire comment about the '50s is hollow, as that wasn't your original contention with the CDC and has nothing to do with the organization's 2007 claim.

You've now said that your issue is more of the CDC's claim that they impacted that birth rate than the statistics themselves, which means your excuses about "people wait much later to get married," having better options to prevent and terminate pregnancy, etc. also rings hollow, as there hasn't been a huge change in those things from 2007 to today.

You're not doing well in this thread.

 

[Marc22]

The original point you contested was the CDC's claim that they've helped reduce the teen birth rate by 60% since 2007. So your entire comment about the '50s is hollow, as that wasn't your original contention with the CDC and has nothing to do with the organization's 2007 claim.

You've now said that your issue is more of the CDC's claim that they impacted that birth rate than the statistics themselves, which means your excuses about "people wait much later to get married," having better options to prevent and terminate pregnancy, etc. also rings hollow, as there hasn't been a huge change in those things from 2007 to today.

You're not doing well in this thread.

Shouldn’t you be concentrating on how to reduce your global carbon footprint? Durham knows!

 

[extragreen]

Shouldn’t you be concentrating on how to reduce your global carbon footprint? Durham knows!

We're getting ready to eliminate your Pullman Square footprint. Extra knows!

 

[riflearm2]

Shouldn’t you be concentrating on how to reduce your global carbon footprint? Durham knows!

I’m about to board a commercial flight right now. Now, try to stop reducing the quality of this board and stop posting.

 

[extragreen]

Soon.

 

[riflearm2]

What is the source for the information you try to present as fact? Sweden has had a significant and steady increase in new cases for about 1.5 months. They are definitely not on the back end of anything. And the two deplorables (@ohio herd @ThunderCat98 ) who liked your post should be forced to explain why they supported your inaccurate claim.



Again, where the fvck do you deplorables get your data from? CA has had a steady decline in new cases for about 1.5 months. It's the complete opposite of what is happening in Sweden. And the two other deplorables (@mlblack16. and @ThunderCat98 ) should be forced to explain why they supported such an inaccurate post.

There are five cowards who have all refused to support these claims and ran from these comments.

 

[Rock98Dog]

The original point you contested was the CDC's claim that they've helped reduce the teen birth rate by 60% since 2007. So your entire comment about the '50s is hollow, as that wasn't your original contention with the CDC and has nothing to do with the organization's 2007 claim.

You've now said that your issue is more of the CDC's claim that they impacted that birth rate than the statistics themselves, which means your excuses about "people wait much later to get married," having better options to prevent and terminate pregnancy, etc. also rings hollow, as there hasn't been a huge change in those things from 2007 to today.

You're not doing well in this thread.

I knew I should made it easier for you.

You asked if I was disputing the stats or their impact. I clearly stated, first thing, the answer to your question - their impact. I then went on to say that stats can be manipulated to support about anything, so I wasn’t faulting them for that.

That was a complete and full answer to your question. I should have stopped there since trying to add color to my comment clearly confused you and allowed for your useless reply taking the conversation in a different direction.

The rest of the reply was in support of my statement that stats don’t mean much without context, and I used Extra’s graph as an example.

The original point I was contesting had nothing to do with teen birth rates, this thread is about Covid death rates. Extra used a CDC site to back his claim that 60% of the population is at risk for Covid. I pointed out that info was hard to accept because there is other misleading info on the same link.

Please try to keep up, you are killing the thread and embarrassing yourself by not properly following along.

 

[riflearm2]

I knew I should made it easier for you.

Just a coherent sentence would be great. You just showed in your very first sentence that is a tough task for you.

The original point I was contesting had nothing to do with teen birth rates, this thread is about Covid death rates. Extra used a CDC site to back his claim that 60% of the population is at risk for Covid. I pointed out that info was hard to accept because there is other misleading info on the same link.

You’re the one who wanted to contest the teen birth rate claim. In fact, you attempted to argue fairly in-depth about it. This is what you posted:

“An example would be Extra’s posted graph of the decline in teen pregnancy. If, for example, you look at today versus the 50s you would think teen pregnancy rates were horrible back then. Of course when one takes into consideration that 85% of all teen births then were in marriage and only 11% are today, the meaning and impact of the graph. Also, the quality of birth control, chemical abortion, and good ol regular abortion was not what it is today. So people wait much later to get married and have better options to prevent and terminate pregnancy. I’m not exactly sure some group within the CDC can establish they are the driving force behind those things.”

The things you mentioned (quality of birth control, chemical abortion, “regular abortion,” people waiting much later to get married, etc.) are not drastically different between 2007 to today. You tried arguing that the teen birth rate is drastically different than today due to culture being different in the ‘50s, but that wasn’t the specific issue you contested regarding the CDC numbers. You contested the claim about teen birth rate being 60% lower today compared to 2007. So your entire ‘50s bullshit is just that; bullshit. It had nothing to do with your claim that the 2007 to current statistic was bullshit.


You’ve bombed miserably in this thread. The specific claim you contested was about the teen birth rate that the CDC quoted from 2007 to today. To support your claim that they manipulated the data to fit their agenda and unfairly took credit for the drop, you argued that culture has changed from the 1950s to today. But that’s not what you contested- you contested, specifically, their 2007 to today claim.

 

[19MU88]

You're an idiot....and coward.

In the United States, 6 out of 10 adults have a chronic disease that increases their risk of severe COVID-19. Also, 4 out of 10 people have two or more of these chronic conditions. That alone gets up to 40%. Since it's 2 or more, it can't be obesity and obesity. So 40% of Americans under herodman's criteria would be quarantined just from underlying conditions. Add to that 43 million Americans are age 70 or over and 15% of them work into their 70's. You and herodman are both idiots....and cowards.

the information you provided should lead to higher death rates. it does not. you are an idiot.

 

[extragreen]

the information you provided should lead to higher death rates. it does not. you are an idiot.

Idiot. Are you saying that underlying health conditions don't effect death rates?

 

[19MU88]

Idiot. Are you saying that underlying health conditions don't effect death rates?

no. try again and read slowly.

 

[extragreen]

no. try again and read slowly.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[19MU88]

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.

you should keep it simple and just follow the science...no more lock downs....per the WHO!!

 

[extragreen]

you should keep it simple and just follow the science...no more lock downs....per the WHO!!

That ^^^^is part of your problem. You don't understand what you read....or say.

 

[riflearm2]

@ohio herd @ThunderCat98 @big_country90 @mlblack16. @herdfan429 all continue to hide from this thread and their bogus claims.

 

[19MU88]

@ohio herd @ThunderCat98 @big_country90 @mlblack16. @herdfan429 all continue to hide from this thread and their bogus claims.

******desperate for your attention^^^^^^

 

[big_country90]

@ohio herd @ThunderCat98 @big_country90 @mlblack16. @herdfan429 all continue to hide from this thread and their bogus claims.

What, exactly, am I running from? Sweden has developed herd immunity because they never locked down. COVID related deaths in Sweden have been virtually non-existent since early July. No masks, no lockdowns. Sweden is over this. That doesn’t mean they won’t get new cases. It just means they have accepted it for what it is, have chosen to live their lives, and know the chances of dying from this are minuscule unless you already have a condition that would have caused you to die the same as it would
if you had contracted pneumonia instead.

You see, rifle, people are realizing that COVID isn’t the death sentence it was made out to be by alarmists 6 months ago. People who choose to live their lives understand that the small risk of contracting it is worth it in order not to lose their livelihoods, because, in most cases, you’re going to get a low grade fever, and maybe some cold or flu-like symptoms.

The average age of COVID death is higher than the actual age of death. That alone should cause people to go about their lives and end these lockdowns. But, you know, politics.

 

[riflearm2]

What, exactly, am I running from? Sweden has developed herd immunity because they never locked down. COVID related deaths in Sweden have been virtually non-existent since early July. No masks, no lockdowns. Sweden is over this. That doesn’t mean they won’t get new cases. It just means they have accepted it for what it is, have chosen to live their lives, and know the chances of dying from this are minuscule unless you already have a condition that would have caused you to die the same as it would
if you had contracted pneumonia instead.

You see, rifle, people are realizing that COVID isn’t the death sentence it was made out to be by alarmists 6 months ago. People who choose to live their lives understand that the small risk of contracting it is worth it in order not to lose their livelihoods, because, in most cases, you’re going to get a low grade fever, and maybe some cold or flu-like symptoms.

The average age of COVID death is higher than the actual age of death. That alone should cause people to go about their lives and end these lockdowns. But, you know, politics.

Stick to what your claim was and stop trying to deflect to other topics.

You claimed that Sweden was on the back end of this [Covid]. That's completely false. The worst infection period for Sweden was June 1 - June 30. Approximately 28K people were infected. Then, there was a month of almost being successful flattening with "only" approximately 6K people being infected from July 1 - July 30.

That flattening (even though it wasn't flat but just a lower rate) has quickly changed. Over the last 30 day reporting period (September 13 - October 12), the number of infections has skyrocketed to approximately 14K. That means, since their closest attempt at flattening it, infections have more than doubled. That's the complete opposite of being "on the back end of it."