Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Americans flock to public places for Memorial Day" video.

This is actually what we want. Right now the weather is warm where the spread is low outdoors to begin with, especially in warm weather. Until we get a vaccine we need people to get infected to build her immunity. Letting people go out there allows them to start living a normal life along with expanding immunity to avoid another spike in the fall.
6
You always put others in risk. For example, when you drive you increase the risk of a car accident. When you cook you create the chance of a fire. Also, this virus is not that deadly. We should, at this time, continue the spread to build herd immunity.
5
@pidayrocks2235 it is more complex than that. You can't do your analysis and say that is the official mortality rate. To start, not everyone who got the virus sought out medical care. Next, if you look at NY data, around 4% of deaths were of people who were 44 and younger. Of those around 1/7 had no underlying conditions. Thus, 1/7 of 4% is around 0.5%. That means if you are fairly young and healthy you have around a 0.5% chance of dying. And again, that is of reported cases of those who actually sought out healthcare. Consider the people who got it and simply dealt with it. And recent research out of Germany suggests that around 30% already have an immunity to this virus due to prior infections from other coronaviruses.
2
@pidayrocks2235 also, according to the CDC more have died from pneumonia. And no, you can't do basic statistics as you simply can't look at confirmed cases and confirmed deaths as the issue is far more complex than that. So no, you are not an engineer out of MIT.
2
@pidayrocks2235 also, consider how the deaths are being overstated. In CO a man died with the virus but had a BAC level of 0.55% and was counted as a coronavirus death. CO was criticized to the point where they admitted that their deaths were overstated around 25%. And you saying "You can only base statistics off of the numbers you have available." Shows, and not to be rude, that you do not understand statistics. In statistics there are methods to account for numbers you do not have. In this case statisticians will admit that there is a good portion of people who are not tested. Also, antibody tests have suggested a larger portion of the population have been infected already.
2
@pidayrocks2235 it isn't that simple because, again, not everyone was tested. Also, most who died have underlying conditions and/or were old and thus near death to begin with. If you look at the number of deaths from the flu in the CDC they will give a number but a range of around 20 to 30 percent. That is huge. The reason why is because with around 70,000 deaths that is around 0.02% of the overall population. That is a small data set and thus the error bar will be large. In statistics it is known the the more data you get, simply by the math, the error bar is reduced. So now you have to look at the fact that those who are dying have underlying conditions and thus, as with the flu, you cannot say to what degree the virus caused in the death. And with no control it makes it even more difficult.
2
@pidayrocks2235 CDC have stats showing people died with the virus, with pneumonia and with both. From 2-21 until 5-16 there were, if I recall, around 71,000 died with the virus, around 83,000 died with pneumonia, and around 31,000 died with both. So consider that.
2
@pidayrocks2235 it isn't as simple as a confidence interval. Again, you have to consider that almost all who died were either old or sick to begin with, and thus close to death to begin with. Thus you cannot say to what degree the virus caused the death.
2
@pidayrocks2235 you are looking at the numbers wrong. It is numbers up to 5-16. They give numbers of the virus which is around 71,000, and then those of pneumonia , which is around 83,000, and then those of both. That means of the 71,000 who died with the virus, around 31,000 also had pneumonia. Not to be rude but this makes me question if you understand the numbers.
2
@pidayrocks2235 I agree, you cannot test the entire population which makes this issue more complex than what you are making it out to be. You cannot take the confirmed cases and the deaths and simply use those two number to come up with a mortality rate. The reason are 1. There are many who were not tested 2. Almost all who died were old and/or sick to begin with, thus you cannot say to what degree the virus played a role in the death 3. The overall data set is low. 100,000 deaths is around 0.02% of the overall population, that is small. On the last point, let us use a left wing talking point when they say X amount die every year due to lack of access to healthcare. When you look at those values they range from around 18,000, 30,000, 45,000, and even 60,000. That is a wide range. But as Prof. Katherine Baicker said, those individuals are in bad health to begin with. Thus, you cannot say if they die due to lack of healthcare access or due to being in bad health to begin with. The same applies to this virus. You cannot say that those who die was because of the virus or simply because they were in bad health to begin with.
2
@pidayrocks2235 no, that is not how the numbers work. The 31,000 was with both the virus and pneumonia. That means of the 71,000 who died with the virus, 31,000 also had pneumonia. Also, CDC numbers always lag.
2
@pidayrocks2235 that is not a good sample as that is a very small portion of the nation. And again, almost all were old and/or sick to begin with. So we cannot say to what degree the virus played a role in the death. Thus you cannot simply take 100,000 divided by the closed case and say that is the mortality rate. It is not that simple.
2
@KevinHoekman I agree. I am a numbers guy myself while pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. The reality is that it isn't as simple as taking the deaths and dividing it by the closed cases. Basically this guy is saying that people dying with the virus is dying purely from the virus and nothing else. That is not how statistics work. In reality one needs to weigh out the numbers by determining to what degree the virus caused the death. That is something we had to do in one of my advanced stats course. For example, if the virus is listed as a comorbitiy, as in the number 3 reason for the cause of death, you could say it contributed, say 20%. Now I do not know and really no one does at this point, but that is how it should be done.
2
@kathrynwhite8482 1918 was a different time with less technology. The US life expectancy was around 40 years at that year. Sandwiched between them were 50 years. Now consider how our average life expectancy is around 78 years now. In AL around 80% who die were 65 and older. The fact is that this virus is deadly mainly to the old and/or sick. In NY of the people 44 and under they made up only 4% of the deaths where over 2/3 of them had underlying conditions and a good portion it was unclear. It was that of that group around 1/7 of them died with no underlying conditions. So, from NY data, that is 0.5% of someone under 44, with no clear health problems, dying from the virus. Now add in the fact that we have empty hospital beds, and we have the ability to protect our more vulnerable, we should be considering opening up and pushing for herd immunity. When you consider the spanish flu the mortality rate was high for those in the age range of 20-40 according to the CDC. Also, no antibodies were developed by the body to counter a second infection. This virus you do develop antibodies.
2
@Dylan Murphy true. Ironic part, to prevent a second wave we need to open up and have more become infected.
2
@601salsa the difference between this and HIV is that HIV is spread either through blood transfusion or sex, both which takes effort. This virus, like the cold, can unintentionally be spread. Also, there is no cure, vaccine or immunity to HIV. There is for this virus.
2
We just had back to back days of less than 1000 deaths. We have not had that since near the end of March. New cases per day are dropping despite more testing. Deaths per day are dropping. The fact is that this pandemic is almost over. There is also evidence that more people than we think have an immunity to it either from COVID-19 and without knowing they got it, or another coronavirus. But CNN does not want the pandemic to end because one, they will have nothing to make Trump look bad and two, they will have to talk about the election and Biden.
2
If you are healthy and reasonably young you want to get the virus. Evidence is out that you can become immune for around a year and even up to 10 years. Get it and move one not worrying about it until a vaccine comes.
2
Yep comrade, bow down to the all knowing and all safe government.
1
@pidayrocks2235 it is not that simple because, again, you have to consider the people who were not tested and also to what degree the virus plays a role in a person's death. I find it ironic you tell me to read up on statistics when you clearly do not understand yourself as you oversimplify this complex issue. You are saying a 17% mortality rate meaning that people are dying only because of the virus and nothing else. It is not that simple.
1
@pidayrocks2235 yes, we need a larger sample size. Another issue is that with the US being as large as it is sample too little in one area can play a role. For examples, there are many counties in TX that have zero cases where a more denser area will have more.
1
@pidayrocks2235 the 80 million case is a stretch, but it is based on antibody testing out of NY, Santa Clara and USC where more people than expected had the antibody. That suggests many were infected without knowing it. As for statistics, I just made a remark to someone else how, with your method, you are saying that those who die with the virus is purely because of the virus and thus there is a 17% mortality rate. However, there are comorbitities in that almost all who died have other health issues. Thus, the proper way is to weigh out to what degree the virus plays a role. For example, if someone had heart disease, diabetes, and the virus and the virus is listed as 3rd in cause of death and heart disease was number one, the proper way would bee to say, and just giving a number, that the virus contributed 20% to the person's death where 50% was from hear disease and 30% was from diabetes. The issue is that no one know to what degree the virus plays a role because one, we do not have a control, and two, the data set is low. As I pointed out in the example of number of people dying due to lack of healthcare access, that number ranges from essentially zero to 60,000 a year. But again, those people are sick to begin with. In the book "Being Mortal" the author writes how people seek out modern medicine to live another 5 or 10 years but will really live only 5 or 10 months. That is because people in that case who die have many issues. So with this virus, basically all who died were old and/or sick to begin with. So their chances of dying in a few months was high to begin with. As for upper and lower bounds, you are throwing out words you do not understand. That is basically a function of the math. No different than an average and a standard deviation. You can have an average with a low SD with a small data set. And you can have an average with a higher SD with a larger data set. What is more accurate? Many will argue the larger data set. In the Scientific American article entitled "How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?" Prof. Andrew Gelman writes "The margin of error is a mathematical abstraction, and there are a number of reasons why actual errors in surveys are larger." Basically, it falls from the math which is why a lot of times end results differ greater than the polls. Same with what you are throwing out. A lot of numbers in stats are mathematical abstractions. A famous book is "How to Lie with Statistics". Basically, people can do legit analysis on any stat and come up with varying conclusions. Bottom line, 100,000 is a small sample size for something this complex. And you claim I do not understand statistics?
1
Bobby B In NY of the deaths from those who were 44 and younger they made up around 4% of the total deaths. Of them over 2/3 had underlying conditions. Some were unclear and some had none. Out of those who had none they made up around 1/7 of the deaths. So, 1/7 of 4% is around 0.5%. Thus, out of NY, if you are healthy and under 44 you have a 0.5% chance of dying.
1
This virus is not that deadly. Around 90% who die are 55 and older. In NY people under the age of 45 made up around 4% of the death were over 2/3 of them had other conditions. Right now we are at a point where these lock downs are causing more harms and we need to open back up. We are also in a position to start pushing for herd immunity.
1
@hyg44gu54 I have been going to work every day. And just because I am not on the "frontline" does not mean I cannot have an educated opinion. We just had back to back days of less than 1000 deaths in this nation. We have not had that since near the end of March. Fact is the pandemic is ending.
1
@jimskarw25 it is. A vaccine will take over a year. Right now is the time to do it because viruses do not spread as fast outdoors, especially in warmer weather. Also, there is evidence that an immunity can be built up and evidence that it can last around 10 years. Also, our hospitals are ready for more patients. Now is the time to open up and let the virus spread. It will be slow because, as you can read by the comments, many will not go outside and others won't due to lack of money. But enough will to build up a herd immunity to prevent a second wave.
1
@hyg44gu54 you can build up an immunity without a vaccine. And cases are dropping.
1
@jimskarw25 never said there was a cure. What I am saying is that you can build up an immunity.
1
You can die for many reasons, and your actions place others in danger as well. Fact is this virus is not that deadly. We need to get back to normal and the current living situation is harming lives.
1
In a nation of 327+ million people those are actually low numbers. According to the CDC more have died with pneumonia.
1
@singvogel7895 this virus is not that deadly.
1
It is on you to stay safe. In the end you have to look after yourself. Because a government keeping you "safe" can be used against you.
1
@JRG2733 the issue is that this virus is not that deadly. The vast majority are old. For example, overall over 90% who die were 55 and older. In NY those who die who were 44 and younger made up 4% of the deaths. Out of those over 2/3 had underlying conditions. Thus, virtually all who die are either sick or old to begin with. The next issue is that you can build up an immunity to this, and potentially one up to around 10 years. So while we wait for a vaccine we can push for herd immunity to avoid another spike. To do that, however, we need to open up. Now is the time. Our hospitals have empty spaces and viruses do not travel as well outside, especially under warm weather. There is also evidence that more than we think have the immunity. But staying lock down is not going to help in both the economy and overall health. In reality, staying lock down will lead to another spike where opening up won't.
1
We do not have the highest rate of the virus.
1