thebigt
Legend
talk about deflecting...your hate for trump rules you-try and deny it!!!
trump is in your head 24/7..he owns you, lol.
Anyone worried if Corona virus keeps spreading the gyms will shut down?
- Thread starter JoePaul39
- Start date
trump is in your head 24/7..he owns you, lol.
justhere4comm
Banned
So, you can't explain anything I asked to defend your incredibly self-damaging uneducated post.
thebigt
Legend
lol...you hate trump. don't you? I think you would do almost anything to hurt trump...you are the most biased person on this forum=TRUTH!!!
anyone who doesn't believe this can go look at your posts in the trump is running thread.
justhere4comm
Banned
Not sure what you hope to accomplish with this.
Character assassination by gathering those that agree with you about something to attack me maybe?
Want to try and answer my questions above as they relate to Covid-19 or at least defend your assertions about it backed by actual valid information?
thebigt
Legend
lol...now you are accusing me of conspiring against you? no need to do that, your posts speak for themselves-anyone who has seen your posts in the trump thread knows how biased you are.
what a child, now you are down voting my posts, lol.
justhere4comm
Banned
You have nothing to offer this conversation except personal attacks.
What a shame.
What a shame.
thebigt
Legend
lol...this coming from the most biased person on this forum...no need to attack you-all anyone needs to do is read your posts in trump thread. its a shame for anyone to be that ate up with hate-I actually pity you!!!
may God grant you some serenity in your life.
justhere4comm
Banned
Like I stated.
You can’t defend your false statements so you fall back on personal attacks.
Not much else going on there.
As long as it's obvious you can't defend your unsubstantiated posts regarding COVID-19.
You have a nice day.
You can’t defend your false statements so you fall back on personal attacks.
Not much else going on there.
As long as it's obvious you can't defend your unsubstantiated posts regarding COVID-19.
You have a nice day.
Last edited:
jswain34
Well-known member
Id argue you have the same degree of hate for all democrats, based on your comments in the same thread
thebigt
Legend
lol...that is why you congratulated me and liked my comment about not agreeing with trump-right?Id argue you have the same degree of hate for all democrats, based on your comments in the same thread
I actually encouraged democrats to push for more oversight on the SB loans.
i am for trump but will call him out when I disagree.
Last edited:
xR1pp3Rx
Legend
well to be fair... not many of us respect each others opinions. I am in one camp and others in another camp. its good to disagree. the problem is … none of us are willing to accept each others scientific posts and we most certainly cant agree on math problems. Just like in day to day life, conservatives get analyzed by liberals who think that they know everything and in our eyes know nothing. you like bought and paid for science and care little about freedom or the constitution. people like me don't give two fucks of your opinion, because you don't give two fucks about ours. its literally a soft civil war at this point and IMO its the democrats fault because they operate under their own set of laws and torch the republic at every turn. yes this is political its been political for 20 fucking yrs. or more.. wake the 4ck up. if you cant see there is something insidious behind all the misdirection, well god help you. I would rather die a free man with the Wuhan flu than watch my beloved country fall to the hands of something far worse than trump.
freedom and liberty are only a generation away from being lost, forever and always.
freedom and liberty are only a generation away from being lost, forever and always.
justhere4comm
Banned
Nothing I stated was political.
Defend your answer with facts not personal attacks if you can.
Defend your answer with facts not personal attacks if you can.
thebigt
Legend
your whole life is tainted by your hatred of trump!!!
I truly pity you, what a miserable way to go through life.
justhere4comm
Banned
You can’t discuss the topic appropriately without resorting to personal attacks.
I may suggest avoiding the topic.
Last edited:
thebigt
Legend
you can't discuss anything without your hatred of trump being foremost in your mind--TRUTH!!!
justhere4comm
Banned
Last check on trump was he’s against Georgia opening this soon so. Your suggestion is contrary to reality.
That said. He’s only thinking of getting re elected. Sad really.
So. Back to your not knowing the difference between a viral contagion and unrelated nonsense you posted.
Last edited:
thebigt
Legend
I have personally known victims of drunk driving, I don't know anyone who has died from coronavirus.
is this the nonsense you are talking about? everyone reacts to things differently depending on how it affects them personally.
I can't help but think you are talking about coronavirus because you somehow blame it on trump.
Last edited:
JoePaul39
Well-known member
Sure I will give you reputable sources. Here is the source of European death rates per one million of population that shows Sweden that did not go on lock down has a lower death rate compared to many European counties that did go into lockdown (including Italy, Spain, France, UK, Belgium, and Netherlands, Sweden is lower than all of them). SOURCE- Invalid Link Removed
States that did not go on lockdown have far below the US average of deaths per million of population. The US average per million is 327 (SOURCE Invalid Link Removed ).
The states that did not go on lockdown have far lower death rates than the US average. Below are the states with their death rates per million - US Average 327, Arkansa 14.6, Iowa 30.4, North Dakota 19.7, South Dakota 10.2, Oklahoma 45.2, Nebraska 23.3, Utah 10.6, and Wyoming 10.4. (SOURCE Invalid Link Removed )
One can try to argue it isn’t a fair comparison to compare these stares to the US average because these states are more spread out and less populated, but even when you look at the chart and compare them to SIMILAR other rural states that DID go on lockdown there’re is not much of a statistical difference. Based on the statistics I have outlined it is proven there is no statistical evidence to support that lockdown quarantines produce less death rates than non lockdown states for the Corona virus and that the lockdown European counties have mostly lower death rates than Sweden which did not lock down. It is a false assumption most leaders bought into that lockdowns produce less death and they used that assumption to shut down and depress an entire economy.
Whisky
Well-known member
here’s a potential problem with that statement (I’m not targeting this just at you bro, people in the UK saying similar stuff)......a lot of the people making this statement are the least likely to actually die from Covid this imo making it a much easier statement to make.
Certainly the people I know making comments like this are not BAME, elderly or suffering with the risk factors we know make it more fatal (no idea on your ethnicity but I’m assuming your probably not over 60 and your probably in pretty good health, not obese etc).
it’s a bit like me saying that I think the welfare state in the UK is too generous and should be reduced. I’m really unlikely to have to rely on it (I have a good job, wife has a good job, we have savings, houses etc, we are very fortunate) so easy for me to make the statement from that position.
imagine you were black or Asian, over 60, obese and with high blood pressure. I’m pretty confident you’d at least think twice before saying ‘**** it, the economy is more important than the risk of me dying, end the lockdown’.
just a thought.
justhere4comm
Banned
I encourage freedom too. I think anyone that wants to gather in protest should.
I’ve been clear about that.
Also. If you get Covid. Do not seek medical attention. You were reckless and you own that. Nobody should have to deal with your choice when you can infect them or others in healthcare.
That’s the price if freedom. I respect your decision to do so.
I’ve been clear about that.
Also. If you get Covid. Do not seek medical attention. You were reckless and you own that. Nobody should have to deal with your choice when you can infect them or others in healthcare.
That’s the price if freedom. I respect your decision to do so.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
You don’t post scientific things... I’ve pointed out that you’ve made explicitly incorrect claims multiple times...
And the number of times you and other people have f**ked up basic division to claim incorrectly low death rates is also more than one...
Not to mention that multiple people ITT have displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of “the Constitution” and the first Amendment and “separation of church and state,” which doesn’t give churches carte Blanche freedom to do whatever they want, unless you think fire and building codes that establish maximum building occupancy also violate the first amendment and separation of church and state.
And I’m not even a liberal... I’m a registered Republican and a self-proclaimed small-l libertarian.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Didn’t Italy only go into lockdown once they already got hit hard? By then, it was too late, no?
muscleupcrohn
Legend
I don’t. Because if you are a moron and gather with hundreds of people, and get sick, even if you refuse treatment, when you go to the grocery store the next day, you may well infect a poor old lady shopping, or the cashier, etc. before you even know you’re sick.
You have a right to harm yourself, but not harm others.
JoePaul39
Well-known member
Even still they did go into lockdown that was even more strict than what we had in the USA and Sweden did not. Care to address and explain the NUMEROUS other European counties I listed that all went into lockdown and have higher death rates than Sweden that did not? What statistical evidence do you have that would show me that lockdowns save more lives than not having any? Please post the data.
justhere4comm
Banned
You’re right.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
My point regarding Italy was that by the time the decision was made, either to go into lockdown or not, they already were overwhelmed with cases, so they would have had “bad” stats regardless of if they went into lockdown or not, and we really have no way of knowing how much worse, it at all, etc. it would have been if they didn’t go into a stricter lockdown. So I’d be weary of using Italy as an example either way TBH.
As for Sweden, are you really resting your entire argument on one country? I can cherry-pick an n=1 country too. South Korea has less cars per capita than the US, and they enacted restrictions sooner than the US. So by that logic, they do work.
It’s a counter-argument to Sweden, so, honestly, nothing can be said with absolute certainty here.
At the least, let’s agree that protests with a TON of people in VERY close proximity are stupid, right? It’s one thing to suggest opening some things with some social distancing measures in place, but these protests are going to spread the virus a lot. I read that Kentucky noticed an increase in cases after their protests.
justhere4comm
Banned
I already presented the timeline of South Korea which matches ours. Their first instance and shut down... then ours 2 weeks later causing 90 percent of the mortalities here. If only we shut down sooner...
thebigt
Legend
cop killers still get medical care if they are injured...drunk drivers can kill a whole family and get medical care...why single out protesters? how about morons who go hiking in bad conditions and risk 1st responders lives saving them. the list is long of people doing stupid stuff that endangers others and still receive medical care.
JoePaul39
Well-known member
Sweden was the only country to not lock down, thus the only one available to compare. Am I resting my entire argument on one country? Absolutely not. Below is the rest of my statistical evidence from my previous post comparing US state death rates of states that did and didn’t lock down to further prove my points. You either ignored and didn’t address it or didn’t read it apparently. Care to give it a
stab to rebut it?
States that did not go on lockdown have far below the US average of deaths per million of population. The US average per million is 327 (SOURCE Invalid Link Removed ).
The states that did not go on lockdown have far lower death rates than the US average. Below are the states with their death rates per million - US Average 327, Arkansa 14.6, Iowa 30.4, North Dakota 19.7, South Dakota 10.2, Oklahoma 45.2, Nebraska 23.3, Utah 10.6, and Wyoming 10.4. (SOURCE Invalid Link Removed )
One can try to argue it isn’t a fair comparison to compare these stares to the US average because these states are more spread out and less populated, but even when you look at the chart and compare them to SIMILAR other rural states that DID go on lockdown there’re is not much of a statistical difference.
Also, I asked for you to provide me statistical evidence in my prior post to support your position that lockdowns save more lives than nonlockdown places during the coronavirus, do you have any or is your position just based on the commonly accepted widely believed assumptions that most of our leaders take for fact??
JoePaul39
Well-known member
A valid arguement to rebut my point that lockdowns don’t statistically save more lives than non lock down areas cannot be made by comparing two countries that BOTH locked down (albeit at different times) like you just did. Rather you need to compare counties that did and didn’t lock down in a similar geographic region or states that did lock down to states that didn’t lock down in the same country as I have done to support my position.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
So break it down for me. Show me rural states that did lockdown and that didn’t. Also, don’t forget to show me what the rates were before the states went into lockdown too, for the states that did.
For example, if State A and B are both rural, and on March 1, State A has 1000 cases so went into lockdown, and State B had 100 and didn’t, you surely have to account for their initial starting point being much higher. If you have 1000 cases one day, and 500 the next day, you cut the increase in half. If you had 100 cases one day and 200 the next, you doubled the increase. But you can isolate the data out of context and say 200 < 500, so the second case “worked better,” even though the growth rate is increasing faster, and may overtake the other one in a day or two. We have to look at what made states go into lockdown/restriction. Did they go into lockdown before a ton of cases, or in REACTION to the cases, meaning that states that never locked down of course have lower rates BECAUSE, for any number of reasons, they never got hit with that initial spike?
I’d be very curious to see what the curves and growth rates look like in different states with different practices and restrictions at X number of confirmed cases.
JoePaul39
Well-known member
I did break it down. Look at the link I provided that has ALL US States with their death rates and you will notice there is not much of a statistical difference between the rural states that locked down and those that didn’t in terms of the death rates! I’m not going to go state by state. I already gave the individual data for all the states and named all 8 states that did lock down and put their death rates so it would be easy for you to look. How many examples do you want ? Also the states that didn’t lock down have a far lower death rate than the US average as a whole as I showed.
Now where is your statistical evidence to support your position that lock downs save more lives than not doing so? This is the third time I have asked...crickets.
Carnivorecon
Well-known member
Why do people talk ridiculous shyte like this ffs, doesn't like every second person in 'murica own a flag anywayI agree .
Governor of Michigan banned the purchase of American flags apparently ....
"oh no , bro. No agenda at all. Insert condescending response"
Non essential , but I can use a small American flag as a mask
The virus exists but some of the stats are really not making sense and to what degree are politicians using this virus to push another agenda?
thebigt
Legend
you would be surprised...
Whisky
Well-known member
I get the logic of where you are coming from (I.e compare rural states to rural states and show no statistical difference.....but surely that needs to be reviewed in 6 months or a year......
my reason being that we know the virus (any virus) will obviously spread quicker in more populated areas. We also know that lots of people aren’t badly affected (the majority) and therefore many cases are unreported.
so, if the spread would be much slower in rural areas plus the knowledge of the spread limited to just those cases reported or hospitalised then surely at this stage it’s simply too early to know?
the ‘peak’ would come much later (look at the geographic difference in the uk, London (massive city region) has already peaked and was declining a week ago. Rest of the country is still on the increase in most areas.
likewise with Sweden. We simply don’t know yet. Their demographic is different (plus they do have measures in place) so the spread is slower, doesn’t mean it won’t get to the same levels as the rest, it’s just gonna take longer.
far too early to make a statement like that especially when we have no metropolitan area anywhere (that didnt lock down) to compare it too)
JoePaul39
Well-known member
We have to go by the statistics we have not wish for those that we don’t hoping they can prove our hypothesis. You want a break down of dense rural states death rates for those states that did lock down verse those that didn’t? Ask no further! Below you will see states that didn’t lock down have a similar (AND OFTEN LOWER) death rate compared to those that did lock down....
DEATH RATE PER MILLION FOR ALL 8 RURAL STATES THAT DID LOCK DOWN
Arkansa 14.6, Iowa 30.4, North Dakota 19.7, South Dakota 10.2, Oklahoma 45.2, Nebraska 23.3, Utah 10.6, and Wyoming 10.4
DEATH RATE PER MILLION FOR SOME RURAL STATES THAT DID LOCK DOWN COMPARABLE IN SIZE TO THOSE THAT DIDNT
Kentucky 41.4, Alabama 41, Mississippi 67.5, Idaho 30.1, Maine 32.7
Source Invalid Link Removed
JoePaul39
Well-known member
How the hell is a comparison between two states that BOTH shut down (though one shut down later) relevant to the discussion of the hypothesis that locked down states and countries don’t save more lives than nonlock down states? You need to compare a lockdown to a nonlockdown. That is only fair as that is what I gave many examples of and it is also the most logical way to compare as that is the comparison in the hypothesis. I was not arguing states that shut down sooner saved more lives than states that didn’t shut down right away. That is a totally different topic with a completely different set of variables. Your comparison is irrelevant.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
And I’m asking you if the states that did lock down locked down before or after they had a lot of cases, if they had a lot of cases. It seems entirely possible that a lot of states enacted restrictions in response to a rise in cases, which means that, by the time you start to try to evaluate lockdown vs no lockdown, it’s already too late...
jswain34
Well-known member
Because exactly like you just said, one shut down later. How does this not illustrate the point of shut down vs not shut down? That’s exactly whats shown here, in real time. You can see the difference that just a short number of days of shutdown made. Its pretty fukking clear there, bud.
How is shut down sooner vs later not very similar to shut down vs not shut down? I get it isnt ThE SaMe ExaCT ThInG, but it isnt really possible to make an oranges to oranges comparison. Theres no way to get every single variable exactly identical the way youd need it to get a super accurate comparison between countries. Is that the only way youd accept any argument against your statement?
muscleupcrohn
Legend
One locked down later than the other... the time before they locked down can be viewed as a non-lockdown...
JoePaul39
Well-known member
I agree @Whiskey! We won’t truly know for sure till all this is over if lock downs save more lives. I’m just going by what data we have now. What gets me though is this...we don’t know for sure if the lockdown saves more lives and the current data actually seems to suggest otherwise, yet the media or most people for that matter will act like your crazy if you even question the effectiveness or science behind it, you know? I don’t think a decision as important as to shut down the economy should be made on a mere unproven assumption, but that is exactly what happened!
Last edited:
JoePaul39
Well-known member
That’s a real stretch to prove a point since they both eventually locked down. At any rate time will tell like @Whiskey said. The numbers can change for both lockdown and nonlockdown places in either direction till this is all over. At least next time this happens we will have data to base decisions on. It does at make for an interesting discussion or debate for while we are down though doesn’t it?
muscleupcrohn
Legend
If it gets bad enough, every state will lockdown... that’s my point. How many states that locked down did it in response to a high number of cases? If a lockdown is a reactionary action, of course the states that were forced to react will have higher rates...That’s a real stretch to prove a point since they both eventually locked down. At any rate time will tell like @Whiskey said. The numbers can change for both lockdown and nonlockdown places in either direction till this is all over. At least next time this happens we will have data to base decisions on. It does at make for an interesting discussion or debate for while we are down though doesn’t it?
JoePaul39
Well-known member
Shutting down is a human response to so much death so our leaders can’t be faulted completely if they turn out to be wrong. I guess we will find out. I hoped it saved lives and that I am wrong because then it at least means we have a proactive response in our arsenal to save more lives in the future. If the data ends up not supporting lockdowns as effective then likewise hopefully we will learn from that too and not shut the economy down needlessly causing more unnecessary harm to many on top of those hurt or killed by the virus.
jswain34
Well-known member
The other thing to consider is “user error”. Should we consider the idiots going to beaches & attending mass gatherings whether it be church service or protests when considering the efficacy of an action? I think so.
justhere4comm
Banned
Invalid Link Removed
JoePaul39
Well-known member
Ya I don’t condone that behavior unless the people can maintain 6 feet of distance which many protestors have not. User error though would have already been baked into the cake in both lock down and non lock down states death rates.