UJRefugees.net

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 pm I extremely skeptical of any numbers I read, including from the US. There's obviously a exponential amount of people who are infected compared to documented cases. The death numbers are likely closer to the truth, although likely still skewed.

how can you have exponential number of cases that are not reported (tested) and then trust the death numbers? The two numbers are tracking at about the expected rate in relation to each other.

If we had an exponential number of cases that are unreported, then our death numbers would be stupidly low.

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:33 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 pm I extremely skeptical of any numbers I read, including from the US. There's obviously a exponential amount of people who are infected compared to documented cases. The death numbers are likely closer to the truth, although likely still skewed.

how can you have exponential number of cases that are not reported (tested) and then trust the death numbers? The two numbers are tracking at about the expected rate in relation to each other.

If we had an exponential number of cases that are unreported, then our death numbers would be stupidly low.

I think only the most severe cases are being documented.

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:38 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:33 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 pm I extremely skeptical of any numbers I read, including from the US. There's obviously a exponential amount of people who are infected compared to documented cases. The death numbers are likely closer to the truth, although likely still skewed.

how can you have exponential number of cases that are not reported (tested) and then trust the death numbers? The two numbers are tracking at about the expected rate in relation to each other.

If we had an exponential number of cases that are unreported, then our death numbers would be stupidly low.

I think only the most severe cases are being documented.

well, you would be mistaken, but... everyone has what they want to believe.

Trending...

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:33 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 pm I extremely skeptical of any numbers I read, including from the US. There's obviously a exponential amount of people who are infected compared to documented cases. The death numbers are likely closer to the truth, although likely still skewed.

how can you have exponential number of cases that are not reported (tested) and then trust the death numbers? The two numbers are tracking at about the expected rate in relation to each other.

If we had an exponential number of cases that are unreported, then our death numbers would be stupidly low.

There are reports of people testing positive who have no symptoms or have minor symptoms. Given the limited availability of tests, there are likely people who had corona but were never confirmed, thus the significant under reporting of infections. The death numbers are going to be more accurate because a death is much more likely to be reported since someone will notice and report that someone is dead.

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:06 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:33 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 pm I extremely skeptical of any numbers I read, including from the US. There's obviously a exponential amount of people who are infected compared to documented cases. The death numbers are likely closer to the truth, although likely still skewed.

how can you have exponential number of cases that are not reported (tested) and then trust the death numbers? The two numbers are tracking at about the expected rate in relation to each other.

If we had an exponential number of cases that are unreported, then our death numbers would be stupidly low.

There are reports of people testing positive who have no symptoms or have minor symptoms. Given the limited availability of tests, there are likely people who had corona but were never confirmed, thus the significant under reporting of infections. The death numbers are going to be more accurate because a death is much more likely to be reported since someone will notice and report that someone is dead.

wow, really?

I get it. The death numbers are accurate because dead people are easy to spot.

the thing is, the number of active cases are pretty accurate because we know what the death rate is and we know the number of dead people and fortunately there are people that know how to do math.

So, if the death rate is around 1.3% and you have 1,000 people dead, then you would expect to have around 77,000 people that are infected.

If, on the otherhand, you have 1400 people dead (like we do in the united states) then you would expect to have around 107,000 people infected. Now, you tell me what you think the number of infected people probably is?

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:10 pm

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:06 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:33 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 pm I extremely skeptical of any numbers I read, including from the US. There's obviously a exponential amount of people who are infected compared to documented cases. The death numbers are likely closer to the truth, although likely still skewed.

how can you have exponential number of cases that are not reported (tested) and then trust the death numbers? The two numbers are tracking at about the expected rate in relation to each other.

If we had an exponential number of cases that are unreported, then our death numbers would be stupidly low.

There are reports of people testing positive who have no symptoms or have minor symptoms. Given the limited availability of tests, there are likely people who had corona but were never confirmed, thus the significant under reporting of infections. The death numbers are going to be more accurate because a death is much more likely to be reported since someone will notice and report that someone is dead.

wow, really?

I get it. The death numbers are accurate because dead people are easy to spot.

the thing is, the number of active cases are pretty accurate because we know what the death rate is and we know the number of dead people and fortunately there are people that know how to do math.

So, if the death rate is around 1.3% and you have 1,000 people dead, then you would expect to have around 77,000 people that are infected.

If, on the otherhand, you have 1400 people dead (like we do in the united states) then you would expect to have around 107,000 people infected. Now, you tell me what you think the number of infected people probably is?

But we don’t know what the death rate is, we know what the rate of deaths are compared to the reported cases. Without knowing an accurate infection rate, we can’t have an accurate death rate.

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:14 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:10 pm

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:06 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:33 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 pm I extremely skeptical of any numbers I read, including from the US. There's obviously a exponential amount of people who are infected compared to documented cases. The death numbers are likely closer to the truth, although likely still skewed.

how can you have exponential number of cases that are not reported (tested) and then trust the death numbers? The two numbers are tracking at about the expected rate in relation to each other.

If we had an exponential number of cases that are unreported, then our death numbers would be stupidly low.

There are reports of people testing positive who have no symptoms or have minor symptoms. Given the limited availability of tests, there are likely people who had corona but were never confirmed, thus the significant under reporting of infections. The death numbers are going to be more accurate because a death is much more likely to be reported since someone will notice and report that someone is dead.

wow, really?

I get it. The death numbers are accurate because dead people are easy to spot.

the thing is, the number of active cases are pretty accurate because we know what the death rate is and we know the number of dead people and fortunately there are people that know how to do math.

So, if the death rate is around 1.3% and you have 1,000 people dead, then you would expect to have around 77,000 people that are infected.

If, on the otherhand, you have 1400 people dead (like we do in the united states) then you would expect to have around 107,000 people infected. Now, you tell me what you think the number of infected people probably is?

But we don’t know what the death rate is, we know what the rate of deaths are compared to the reported cases. Without knowing an accurate infection rate, we can’t have an accurate death rate.

ok

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:15 pm

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:14 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:10 pm

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:06 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:33 pm

B-Tender wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:07 pm I extremely skeptical of any numbers I read, including from the US. There's obviously a exponential amount of people who are infected compared to documented cases. The death numbers are likely closer to the truth, although likely still skewed.

how can you have exponential number of cases that are not reported (tested) and then trust the death numbers? The two numbers are tracking at about the expected rate in relation to each other.

If we had an exponential number of cases that are unreported, then our death numbers would be stupidly low.

There are reports of people testing positive who have no symptoms or have minor symptoms. Given the limited availability of tests, there are likely people who had corona but were never confirmed, thus the significant under reporting of infections. The death numbers are going to be more accurate because a death is much more likely to be reported since someone will notice and report that someone is dead.

wow, really?

I get it. The death numbers are accurate because dead people are easy to spot.

the thing is, the number of active cases are pretty accurate because we know what the death rate is and we know the number of dead people and fortunately there are people that know how to do math.

So, if the death rate is around 1.3% and you have 1,000 people dead, then you would expect to have around 77,000 people that are infected.

If, on the otherhand, you have 1400 people dead (like we do in the united states) then you would expect to have around 107,000 people infected. Now, you tell me what you think the number of infected people probably is?

But we don’t know what the death rate is, we know what the rate of deaths are compared to the reported cases. Without knowing an accurate infection rate, we can’t have an accurate death rate.

ok

Is that a sarcastic ok or an acknowledgement of understanding, I can’t tell.

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:17 pm
Is that a sarcastic ok or an acknowledgement of understanding, I can’t tell.

its an okay as if to say that you aren't going to listen.

Use S Korea as your example. They have got their spread under control for the most part and the statistics out of there are pretty much complete.

They have a death rate around 1.2%. And they are being heralded as having the best control over the death rate of any country that has faced this disease. I'm guessing that you think that we have somehow surpassed their ability to keep people alive.

Now, this just got real. I've got tickets for 9/16.

RAMMSTEIN Singer TILL LINDEMANN In ICU With COVID-19

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/ramms ... -covid-19/

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:17 pm
Is that a sarcastic ok or an acknowledgement of understanding, I can’t tell.

its an okay as if to say that you aren't going to listen.

Use S Korea as your example. They have got their spread under control for the most part and the statistics out of there are pretty much complete.

They have a death rate around 1.2%. And they are being heralded as having the best control over the death rate of any country that has faced this disease. I'm guessing that you think that we have somehow surpassed their ability to keep people alive.

Not at all, what I am saying is that they can’t know how many people were actually infected there. They have a death rate of 1.2 % of confirmed cases. They have a population of 51 million and have tested 350k. Given that there are asymptomatic people who have the disease, and people who have mild symptoms that may not have been tested, the actual infection rate is not accurate and the actual death rate is therefore not accurate. They may have a better statistical base for projections but they don’t have a reliable statistical foundation for accurate analysis because the total number of infections is unknown.

I also don’t think you can extrapolate the results and in South Korea to the US because of differing testing rates, possibly differing parameters for testing, varying quality of care for those infected, and a different general health of the population. If anything, I’d suspect a higher death rate in the US since we’re a bunch of fat fucks and we have the health issues that make one more at risk for death from corona.

969 deaths in one day in Italy.

I had a feeling Monday that this week would be key. Went to the store today and they were stocked up with TP, eggs, bread, etc. Visitors brought me enough TP for awhile but I'm out of paper towels. Nothing, figures.

Darwinism

Over 300 Killed in Iran After Drinking Industrial Alcohol to Save Themselves from Coronavirus

https://www.news18.com/news/world/over- ... 53437.html

Tehran: Standing over the still body of an intubated 5-year-old boy wearing nothing but a plastic diaper, an Iranian health care worker in a hazmat suit and mask begged the public for just one thing: Stop drinking industrial alcohol over fears about the new coronavirus.

The boy, now blind after his parents gave him toxic methanol in the mistaken belief it protects against the virus, is just one of hundreds of victims of an epidemic inside the pandemic now gripping Iran.

Fucking Trump. Now he's killing people in Iran too.

A long way from contained. I guess trump and WTC were wrong




Confirmed coronavirus cases in U.S. reach 100,000: Reuters tally


(Reuters) - Confirmed coronavirus cases in the United States reached 100,040 on Friday, the highest number in the world, a Reuters tally showed.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:06 pm Fucking Trump. Now he's killing people in Iran too.

Trump hates alcohol, killed his brother

A 2016 New York Times article details Freddy's decline into alcoholism, revealing that the eldest Trump's issues began in his mid-20s, and that by 1968, his drinking started to severely impact his life. "He got divorced, quit flying because he knew his drinking presented a danger and failed at commercial fishing in Florida. By the late 1970s, he was living back in his parents’ house in Jamaica Estates, working on one of his father’s maintenance crews," reads the article.

It also suggests that seeing his brother's suffering inspired Trump's aggressive ambition, and that at the time, it was hard for Trump understand his brother's lack of drive. "Mr. Trump said he had learned by watching his brother how bad choices could drag down even those who seemed destined to rise."


Donald Trump's feelings about his brother had other consequences for the family as well. In 2000, shortly after Fred Trump Sr. died, Fred Jr.'s son contested the will in Queen's court. (Fred Trump's Sr.'s estate, which was valued at somewhere between $100 million and $300 million, had been divided between the living siblings, leaving considerably less to Fred III and his family.) Donald Trump retaliated by cutting off medical benefits for Fred III's critically ill infant son. It was a bitter fight, and like so many Trump family battles, one waged publicly in the tabloids.

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:45 pm

Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:17 pm
Is that a sarcastic ok or an acknowledgement of understanding, I can’t tell.

its an okay as if to say that you aren't going to listen.

Use S Korea as your example. They have got their spread under control for the most part and the statistics out of there are pretty much complete.

They have a death rate around 1.2%. And they are being heralded as having the best control over the death rate of any country that has faced this disease. I'm guessing that you think that we have somehow surpassed their ability to keep people alive.

Not at all, what I am saying is that they can’t know how many people were actually infected there. They have a death rate of 1.2 % of confirmed cases. They have a population of 51 million and have tested 350k. Given that there are asymptomatic people who have the disease, and people who have mild symptoms that may not have been tested, the actual infection rate is not accurate and the actual death rate is therefore not accurate. They may have a better statistical base for projections but they don’t have a reliable statistical foundation for accurate analysis because the total number of infections is unknown.

I also don’t think you can extrapolate the results and in South Korea to the US because of differing testing rates, possibly differing parameters for testing, varying quality of care for those infected, and a different general health of the population. If anything, I’d suspect a higher death rate in the US since we’re a bunch of fat fucks and we have the health issues that make one more at risk for death from corona.

You are correct sir. I think there are a lot more people with the virus than is being reported because so few are actually tested and 9 out of 10 times the symptoms are too minimal to require hospitalization.

Damn. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube are really struggling to continue streaming with 3 Billion people sitting at home wanting their service. First the sound, then video interruptions. Must be a real intense and 24/7 job right now at their home office.

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:04 pm Damn. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube are really struggling to continue streaming with 3 Billion people sitting at home wanting their service. First the sound, then video interruptions. Must be a real intense and 24/7 job right now at their home office.

Season 3 of Ozark today. I shall be the straw that broke the camel's back tonight.

Stapes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:06 pm

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:04 pm Damn. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube are really struggling to continue streaming with 3 Billion people sitting at home wanting their service. First the sound, then video interruptions. Must be a real intense and 24/7 job right now at their home office.

Season 3 of Ozark today. I shall be the straw that broke the camel's back tonight.

Probably. I'm assuming all the streaming services in setting up their parameters for future tech needs never imagined 3 billion people sitting at home demanding their service. Seem to being a damn good job. Too many people on a WiFi kills the sound on some (Solution- shut off some). Biggest feature disruption is the pause. You used to pause for an hour to run errands, etc. You are cut off after a few minutes. Probably a brilliant decision to make sure everybody gets decent coverage.

Whoa, Bill freakin' Gates ova here. You should call your Sister and complain. CQ posting too many gifs.

Smok44 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:56 am

CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:14 am Whoa, Bill freakin' Gates ova here. You should call your Sister and complain. CQ posting too many gifs.

I bet all that rusted steel around his house interferes with his reception

scrap it for beer monies

Smok44 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:01 am

CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:59 am

Smok44 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:56 am

CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:14 am Whoa, Bill freakin' Gates ova here. You should call your Sister and complain. CQ posting too many gifs.

I bet all that rusted steel around his house interferes with his reception

scrap it for beer monies

Think those tires would fit your camaro?

Nah, 20 inch rims were not available in that era