So coronavirus is definitely going to kill a few of us.

[Dan Druff]

I hope you're ok, ftpjesus.

I know you've had a lot of health problems over the years, despite being a little bit younger than me. I've felt bad for you as you've explained them all.

However, two separate COVID infections in the same person are rare. Not impossible, but rare. I know it's difficult for them to test for this, unless they put in a lot of effort, but I'm really curious if you got a new infection or simply are a COVID long-hauler and don't realize it.

I also wonder if your other health conditions have to do with this. Perhaps COVID hangs out in your body and never completely goes away (like chicken pocks), and it had an easier time presenting itself again due to strains on your immune system. It would be an interesting study, for sure. We still have a lot to learn about this disease. It's not even understood yet why almost all kids are immune to its harmful effects, or why young people have such a better time with it than middle-aged people. Both of those are unusual, especially the young-versus-middle-aged thing.

[Dan Druff]

By the way, here's a fun exercise.

Go to a Democrat you know, and tell them that 39% of people in the US are under 30 (which is true).

Then ask them that, based upon that number, what percentage of COVID deaths were people under 30? Make sure they understand you're not asking the COVID death rate of that age group, but the percentage of total COVID deaths for people 0-29.

I bet you'll get answers like "10%" and "15%".

The answer?

0.4%

Yes, 39% of the population makes up just 0.4% of all COVID deaths. The media has done a piss-poor job of communicating the real risk of this virus to the various age groups.

[Dan Druff]

Bonus question:

"What percentage of the deaths have been people under 18?"

Answer:

0.04%

Not 4%, not 0.4%, but 0.04%. As in, for every 10,000 COVID deaths, there have been just 4 deaths of minors -- almost all of whom had known preexisting conditions. In a typical year, flu deaths in this age group far exceed that.

[ftpjesus]

I hope you're ok, ftpjesus.

I know you've had a lot of health problems over the years, despite being a little bit younger than me. I've felt bad for you as you've explained them all.

However, two separate COVID infections in the same person are rare. Not impossible, but rare. I know it's difficult for them to test for this, unless they put in a lot of effort, but I'm really curious if you got a new infection or simply are a COVID long-hauler and don't realize it.

I also wonder if your other health conditions have to do with this. Perhaps COVID hangs out in your body and never completely goes away (like chicken pocks), and it had an easier time presenting itself again due to strains on your immune system. It would be an interesting study, for sure. We still have a lot to learn about this disease. It's not even understood yet why almost all kids are immune to its harmful effects, or why young people have such a better time with it than middle-aged people. Both of those are unusual, especially the young-versus-middle-aged thing.

County health confirmed it was a variant Covid infection which I’ve got now. I really had no issues after getting sick last March for the two weeks. This version is definitely much nastier for sure. And yeah I’m not that much younger born in 73 graduated HS in 91. Part of my issues trace back to an autoimmune issue I had as a preteen which never really totally went away. That was rough I was sick on and off for 9-10 months my 7th grade year of HS. My endocrine now thinks it’s why I’m a hybrid diabetic not just a true Type 1 or 2. The cardiac tachycardia has been with me since I was a teenager thought I’d outgrown it but came back out of the blue about 10-11yrs ago and landed me on meds for rate control. Same with my GERD developed it young had an ulcer diagnosed at 16. How much of it is due to the fact I was a preemie and care 40yrs ago isn’t what it has advanced in the last 10-15yrs may explain some of it. I just manage best I can and know one day it’s gonna all come crashing down and land me 6ft under. I don’t know when that’ll be hopefully no time soon but I will say this time around has made me reevaluate some things in my life now that I had ignored previously. Nothing like getting severely ill to remind you of your own mortality (not going to lie the fear of ending up in the hospital because this progressed scares the shit out of me I’m under 50 but I’ve got those nasty comorbodites bht ironic my diabetes has actually been oddly decent controlled for being this sick. Sugars have been in range 1/3 of the time usually I have to fight to keep them under 300 when I’m sick.

[FRANKRIZZO]

Rutgers college requiring students to be vaccinated before returning to school. Hope this isn't the case.

[splitthis]

Rutgers college requiring students to be vaccinated before returning to school. Hope this isn't the case.

Quit going to that school, they have no right, SHUT THEM DOWN.

[FRANKRIZZO]

Rutgers college requiring students to be vaccinated before returning to school. Hope this isn't the case.

Quit going to that school, they have no right, SHUT THEM DOWN.

Could set a precedence, pretty soon going to be mandatory to get vaccinated everywhere .

[splitthis]

Quit going to that school, they have no right, SHUT THEM DOWN.

Could set a precedence, pretty soon going to be mandatory to get vaccinated everywhere .

You can’t be twisted enough to believe this.

[splitthis]

You have the right to accept or refuse any medical interventions.

[mickeycrimm]

By the way, here's a fun exercise.

Go to a Democrat you know, and tell them that 39% of people in the US are under 30 (which is true).

Then ask them that, based upon that number, what percentage of COVID deaths were people under 30? Make sure they understand you're not asking the COVID death rate of that age group, but the percentage of total COVID deaths for people 0-29.

I bet you'll get answers like "10%" and "15%".

The answer?

0.4%

Yes, 39% of the population makes up just 0.4% of all COVID deaths. The media has done a piss-poor job of communicating the real risk of this virus to the various age groups.

I seen the stats for the first 500 covid deaths in Montana. Not one covid death for those under the age of 30.

[mickeycrimm]

The White Wokes: We must give the vaccine to minorities first.

Blacks: Git yo momma to take the vaccine first! We ain't no guinea pigs!

[BCR]

By the way, here's a fun exercise.

Go to a Democrat you know, and tell them that 39% of people in the US are under 30 (which is true).

Then ask them that, based upon that number, what percentage of COVID deaths were people under 30? Make sure they understand you're not asking the COVID death rate of that age group, but the percentage of total COVID deaths for people 0-29.

I bet you'll get answers like "10%" and "15%".

The answer?

0.4%

Yes, 39% of the population makes up just 0.4% of all COVID deaths. The media has done a piss-poor job of communicating the real risk of this virus to the various age groups.

This is because people are stupid, not because the information wasn’t always readily available from the onset of the pandemic.

Ninety percent of the population doesn’t know who their house rep is. Most couldn’t tell you the Vice President two presidents ago.

Everyone knew what their personal chances of dying were based on their age. That’s where their interest ended

You’re asking them to extrapolate that to the entirety of the population when your average person has no clue what the median age of the US is, and why certain countries in Europe were hit harder than us because theirs is a decade older. Most people can’t figure out they’re giving .50 of every dollar to the state when they buy a scratch off. That’s not a bipartisan issue. That’s just general stupidity.

It’s not a failure to communicate the risk, because people had a good accurate idea what the chances were for them personally to die, just not how that relates to the country as a whole. This is why you made millions of dollars playing poker. Poker got harder, but the general public is always poker in 2002.

[dwai]

By the way, here's a fun exercise.

Go to a Democrat you know, and tell them that 39% of people in the US are under 30 (which is true).

Then ask them that, based upon that number, what percentage of COVID deaths were people under 30? Make sure they understand you're not asking the COVID death rate of that age group, but the percentage of total COVID deaths for people 0-29.

I bet you'll get answers like "10%" and "15%".

The answer?

0.4%

Yes, 39% of the population makes up just 0.4% of all COVID deaths. The media has done a piss-poor job of communicating the real risk of this virus to the various age groups.

This is because people are stupid, not because the information wasn’t always readily available from the onset of the pandemic.

Ninety percent of the population doesn’t know who their house rep is. Most couldn’t tell you the Vice President two presidents ago.

Everyone knew what their personal chances of dying were based on their age. That’s where their interest ended

You’re asking them to extrapolate that to the entirety of the population when your average person has no clue what the median age of the US is, and why certain countries in Europe were hit harder than us because theirs is a decade older. Most people can’t figure out they’re giving .50 of every dollar to the state when they buy a scratch off. That’s not a bipartisan issue. That’s just general stupidity.

It’s not a failure to communicate the risk, because people had a good accurate idea what the chances were for them personally to die, just not how that relates to the country as a whole. This is why you made millions of dollars playing poker. Poker got harder, but the general public is always poker in 2002.

this is 4 paragraphs of bullshit

the liberal MSM TDS infected media played this virus up and scared the shit out of you stupid, dumbass, incapable of critical thought liberal drones and you idiots thought if you caught covid it means it was a death sentence, hence when Trump caught it you idiots were dancing in the streets thinking he would die, rofl

you are a bullshit artist.

[Dan Druff]

By the way, here's a fun exercise.

Go to a Democrat you know, and tell them that 39% of people in the US are under 30 (which is true).

Then ask them that, based upon that number, what percentage of COVID deaths were people under 30? Make sure they understand you're not asking the COVID death rate of that age group, but the percentage of total COVID deaths for people 0-29.

I bet you'll get answers like "10%" and "15%".

The answer?

0.4%

Yes, 39% of the population makes up just 0.4% of all COVID deaths. The media has done a piss-poor job of communicating the real risk of this virus to the various age groups.

This is because people are stupid, not because the information wasn’t always readily available from the onset of the pandemic.

Ninety percent of the population doesn’t know who their house rep is. Most couldn’t tell you the Vice President two presidents ago.

Everyone knew what their personal chances of dying were based on their age. That’s where their interest ended

You’re asking them to extrapolate that to the entirety of the population when your average person has no clue what the median age of the US is, and why certain countries in Europe were hit harder than us because theirs is a decade older. Most people can’t figure out they’re giving .50 of every dollar to the state when they buy a scratch off. That’s not a bipartisan issue. That’s just general stupidity.

It’s not a failure to communicate the risk, because people had a good accurate idea what the chances were for them personally to die, just not how that relates to the country as a whole. This is why you made millions of dollars playing poker. Poker got harder, but the general public is always poker in 2002.

"Readily available" doesn't mean "widely disseminated", though.

The media tried to mislead everyone, and it seemed to work. I saw tons of CNN articles with headlines such as, "This 22-year-old was completely healthy. Now she's on a ventilator with COVID."

When I clicked through to the article, it glossed over how unusual this was, and instead I'd read a sentence like, "While the overall risk of death from COVID is higher for elderly people, there remains a substantial risk for all age groups."

The age risk factor should have been hammered into everyone's heads repeatedly. The opposite was done. People were misled. Some was for political reasons (so Democrats could get broader support for lockdowns, which in turn would get broader support for long-term policy changes they want, which spawn from COVID-changes). Some was well-meaning but wrongheaded deception, to where it was assumed that young people had to be scared into taking COVID seriously, and that they'd be more reckless if their true (low) risk was well publicized.

The nearly nonexistent risk to children was also played down, so the teachers' unions could experience less pushback. If it's about keeping the kids safe, great. If it's about keeping only the teachers safe... well, many aren't going to be on board for that, because everyone else has to go to work and deal with it, so why not teachers?

You'd think that kids under 18 comprising just 0.04% of COVID deaths would be great and relevant news, but we almost never hear about it in the media. We just hear that their risk is "lower" and that they "usually aren't hospitalized".

It saddened me to see how politicized this virus became -- and still is.

[BCR]

This is because people are stupid, not because the information wasn’t always readily available from the onset of the pandemic.

Ninety percent of the population doesn’t know who their house rep is. Most couldn’t tell you the Vice President two presidents ago.

Everyone knew what their personal chances of dying were based on their age. That’s where their interest ended

You’re asking them to extrapolate that to the entirety of the population when your average person has no clue what the median age of the US is, and why certain countries in Europe were hit harder than us because theirs is a decade older. Most people can’t figure out they’re giving .50 of every dollar to the state when they buy a scratch off. That’s not a bipartisan issue. That’s just general stupidity.

It’s not a failure to communicate the risk, because people had a good accurate idea what the chances were for them personally to die, just not how that relates to the country as a whole. This is why you made millions of dollars playing poker. Poker got harder, but the general public is always poker in 2002.

"Readily available" doesn't mean "widely disseminated", though.

The media tried to mislead everyone, and it seemed to work. I saw tons of CNN articles with headlines such as, "This 22-year-old was completely healthy. Now she's on a ventilator with COVID."

When I clicked through to the article, it glossed over how unusual this was, and instead I'd read a sentence like, "While the overall risk of death from COVID is higher for elderly people, there remains a substantial risk for all age groups."

The age risk factor should have been hammered into everyone's heads repeatedly. The opposite was done. People were misled. Some was for political reasons (so Democrats could get broader support for lockdowns, which in turn would get broader support for long-term policy changes they want, which spawn from COVID-changes). Some was well-meaning but wrongheaded deception, to where it was assumed that young people had to be scared into taking COVID seriously, and that they'd be more reckless if their true (low) risk was well publicized.

The nearly nonexistent risk to children was also played down, so the teachers' unions could experience less pushback. If it's about keeping the kids safe, great. If it's about keeping only the teachers safe... well, many aren't going to be on board for that, because everyone else has to go to work and deal with it, so why not teachers?

You'd think that kids under 18 comprising just 0.04% of COVID deaths would be great and relevant news, but we almost never hear about it in the media. We just hear that their risk is "lower" and that they "usually aren't hospitalized".

It saddened me to see how politicized this virus became -- and still is.

They didn’t want to hammer it home because it was a virus and exaggerating the risk of how sick a young person may get helps reduce the spread. People are selfish. They wanted everyone to stay home who wasn’t an essential worker. Hell, even parents I knew would exaggerate the risk to their kids so they didn’t kill their grandparents.

They exaggerate the risk of everything in life they don’t want you to do because it has a societal impact? In this case there was a political element to it being an election year, but that is always true of everything society doesn’t want you to do.

If you are a drunk and drive drunk almost every single night, it’s still incredibly probable you never die or kill anyone driving, but it isn’t like you’ll ever see that information anywhere. You have to look at alcohol related deaths, percentage of the population who engages in that behavior daily, and do the math.

Do you want them stressing that fact to teenagers who will then plow into your girl when she is on her way home from work if she happens to get unlucky and is the outlier? What value is there in drunks knowing that the risk isn’t as great as advertised to society? Do you exaggerate the risks of strangers to your children or tell them even if they cozy up to anyone that nothing bad likely ever happens to them? Most parents exaggerate the risk. There is no downside to them overestimating the risk of strangers, only if they underestimate it.



I don’t know anyone who didn’t know what their personal odds of dying were in the 20-30/30-40/40-50 sense of it unless they were stone cold stupid.

At that point, if you’re not retarded, it’s a simple math problem as to finding the average age of the population if you care about what percentage of people under x represent in terms of overall death.

Why Dwai is posting about hospitalization I have no idea? I would have guessed close to right, but I was here reading numbers every day, but that wasn’t widely known. That people think it’s higher is an advantage when you’re fighting a virus spread human to human.

People, ime, knew what their odds were to die were, but there isn’t any value to telling kids how low the risk is to them for getting hospitalized when the probable result of them knowing that is they are irresponsible and end up killing their grandparents because they’re irresponsible.

[Dan Druff]

BCR, I'm not sure what type of people you know in Ohio. Maybe most of them are like us, to where they put a lot of effort into being educated about this disease, so therefore they all seem to know their own risk.

I've found just the opposite. I've had radio listeners texting me thank you notes because I brought their attention to the fact that 50-year-olds have a far higher risk than people in their 30s. I've had people on Facebook endlessly debating with me how about "dangerous" COVID is for "everyone", and when I point them to numbers, they backpeddle with, "One avoidable death is still too many!"

People have a general idea that, when it comes to COVID risk, very old > old > middle aged > young adult > kids.

However, that's where it ends for most people. It's widely known that old people are by far the most vulnerable, but many people believe that adults of all ages are at a realistic risk of death or terrible long-haul symptoms. Additionally, very few realize that the chance of a kid under 15 dying of COVID is just about zero unless they have a major preexisting condition, and even then it's low. This has been the laughable justification for keeping schools closed -- "to keep the kids and teachers safe". Even Dr. Fauci, when asked about why it will be okay to reopen schools, blathered on about cleaning and masking, but never once cited that almost no kids die or get serious illness from this.

It's considered heresy on the left to point out these facts in the media, because that is considered "downplaying" COVID, and that's a huge no-no.

To your point to where you feel the public needs to be misled sometimes in order to get them to behave responsibly, I disagree that's a good idea. Look at the fiasco with the masking thing early last year. Fauci came out and stated that masks don't help, and we shouldn't wear them. Then he later admitted that he lied because he didn't want the N-95 masks hoarded away from healthcare workers. The intentions were good, but this just demonstrated that we can't trust government officials, and all of a sudden the COVID deniers had a justifiable excuse as to why they felt the government was lying about everything.

Lying to the people in order to encourage "good" behavior is always bad public policy. It comes back to bite you in the end.

The reason so much irresponsible behavior went on here was due in part to these lies. Nobody knew who to trust anymore.

[v12cl]

"Readily available" doesn't mean "widely disseminated", though.

The media tried to mislead everyone, and it seemed to work. I saw tons of CNN articles with headlines such as, "This 22-year-old was completely healthy. Now she's on a ventilator with COVID."

When I clicked through to the article, it glossed over how unusual this was, and instead I'd read a sentence like, "While the overall risk of death from COVID is higher for elderly people, there remains a substantial risk for all age groups."

The age risk factor should have been hammered into everyone's heads repeatedly. The opposite was done. People were misled. Some was for political reasons (so Democrats could get broader support for lockdowns, which in turn would get broader support for long-term policy changes they want, which spawn from COVID-changes). Some was well-meaning but wrongheaded deception, to where it was assumed that young people had to be scared into taking COVID seriously, and that they'd be more reckless if their true (low) risk was well publicized.

The nearly nonexistent risk to children was also played down, so the teachers' unions could experience less pushback. If it's about keeping the kids safe, great. If it's about keeping only the teachers safe... well, many aren't going to be on board for that, because everyone else has to go to work and deal with it, so why not teachers?

You'd think that kids under 18 comprising just 0.04% of COVID deaths would be great and relevant news, but we almost never hear about it in the media. We just hear that their risk is "lower" and that they "usually aren't hospitalized".

It saddened me to see how politicized this virus became -- and still is.

They didn’t want to hammer it home because it was a virus and exaggerating the risk of how sick a young person may get helps reduce the spread. People are selfish. They wanted everyone to stay home who wasn’t an essential worker. Hell, even parents I knew would exaggerate the risk to their kids so they didn’t kill their grandparents.

They exaggerate the risk of everything in life they don’t want you to do because it has a societal impact? In this case there was a political element to it being an election year, but that is always true of everything society doesn’t want you to do.

If you are a drunk and drive drunk almost every single night, it’s still incredibly probable you never die or kill anyone driving, but it isn’t like you’ll ever see that information anywhere. You have to look at alcohol related deaths, percentage of the population who engages in that behavior daily, and do the math.

Do you want them stressing that fact to teenagers who will then plow into your girl when she is on her way home from work if she happens to get unlucky and is the outlier? What value is there in drunks knowing that the risk isn’t as great as advertised to society? Do you exaggerate the risks of strangers to your children or tell them even if they cozy up to anyone that nothing bad likely ever happens to them? Most parents exaggerate the risk. There is no downside to them overestimating the risk of strangers, only if they underestimate it.



I don’t know anyone who didn’t know what their personal odds of dying were in the 20-30/30-40/40-50 sense of it unless they were stone cold stupid.

At that point, if you’re not retarded, it’s a simple math problem as to finding the average age of the population if you care about what percentage of people under x represent in terms of overall death.

Why Dwai is posting about hospitalization I have no idea? I would have guessed close to right, but I was here reading numbers every day, but that wasn’t widely known. That people think it’s higher is an advantage when you’re fighting a virus spread human to human.

People, ime, knew what their odds were to die were, but there isn’t any value to telling kids how low the risk is to them for getting hospitalized when the probable result of them knowing that is they are irresponsible and end up killing their grandparents because they’re irresponsible.

It’s been a year and you still buy the “you are going to kill grandma” lie?

The age distribution of Covid deaths lines up with average life expectancy.

More than half the deaths were from nursing homes, people on their last legs.

Even deaths not accounted to nursing homes were patients transferred from nursing homes to the hospital.

2 months ago in CA “ICU capacity” became the only metric that mattered and was used to lock us down for a second time, now it’s not even a factor.

Biggest scam ever, and it’s sad people are still falling for it.

Easier to fool a man than convince a man he has been fooled.

[FRANKRIZZO]

People are overly paranoid. I don't get why people driving by themselves feel the need to have masks. I take my dog without a mask as does my wife. She put on her mask when another dog owner wanted to have the dogs interact. My son is going to school every day, its 3days home 2 school or 2 at school 3 day. He is much happier going to school then staying at home because he couldn't keep up with the amount being doled out in school/home. Hes on vacation next week will go for a couple of walks daily with the dog.

[JACKDANIELS]

You have the right to accept or refuse any medical interventions.

yes you can refuse the vaccine but then businesses can refuse your custom

or rather in many cases be forced to refuse your custom

been plenty of talk of airlines requiring proof of vaccine to travel, seen talk of pubs/restaurants/sporting events wanting proof before you enter

hope it doesnt come to this as dont plan on getting the vaccine but i can see it being very difficult to do many things without one

[gut]

I recently heard stories from my family about people getting covid, and it just adds to the weirdness/randomness of symptoms and outcomes and such.

My 88 year old great-aunt had it a little while back. She apparently wasn't too sick, but was briefly hospitalized as a precaution. She has been having strange after-effects though, including clumps of her hair falling out. I hadn't heard that one yet.

On the other end of the spectrum, my (much younger than me) half-sister got it 3 months ago, she's 26. Never got sick, but did lose taste and smell. It still hasn't fully returned.