Originally Posted by dwai
cdc.gov
Just checked. My numbers were waaaaay closer than your numbers.
cdc.gov
Just checked. My numbers were waaaaay closer than your numbers.
I didn’t mind masks when jumping in and out of stores, but found it annoying for prolonged periods. The little x’s on the ground I hope never go away. It’s nice to have a little space as opposed to some fat chick talking on her phone bumping into you in line.
I'll send you a pm with a link in the morning. If you don't hear from me, please remind me.Where does one get legit KN95 which aren't Chinese counterfeits?
Ben obv isn't vaccinated and I don't even love the idea of vaccinating a 10-year-old anyway with something like this. I was thinking of getting a KN95 for him for the most dangerous situations, such as super crowded spaces indoors.
Personally I am done wearing masks unless I'm required to.
Well there you go.You’re actually low. 40% of deaths occurred in people 74 and under. The breakdowns are 65-74/75-84
So it’s 40% of all deaths in 74 and under groups. When you add in the adults between 75-79 of 75-84 demo, it’s probably closer to 45-50% of all deaths are those below 80.
As of early May, it was a little over 230k of 568k under 74, or a little above 40% of all death. Then add in 75-79 deaths and add it to that and it approaches half.
Under 65 is around 20% of all deaths.
But the death rate actually surprises some people, especially libs who were brainwahsed by CNN to believe "it could happen to anyone".
Most striking is the death rate for kids under 18. Only 295 deaths occurred to kids aged 0-17, and 74 of those were infants under 1. That leaves just 221 deaths of kids who aren't infants, and almost all of them had major preexisting conditions.
Over 44,000 kids died in that same time period of other causes, though more than half (25,000+) were infants.
There are about 80 million kids under 18 in the US. The teachers union was straight up lying when they said this was about safety of kids. The flu kills far more kids in a typical year.
Why do I want a KN95 for Benjamin, then? Just so he doesn't get sick, and only for the most dangerous situations. I am not afraid of him dying of COVID.
Even young adults fared well. A total of 2204 people from 18-29 in the US died of COVID, out of a population of close to 50 million. Over 81,000 people in that age group died of other causes in that time period.
In the 30-39 group, the risk about tripled, but still wasn't horrible. 6403 people died, out of a popiulation of about 45 million. About 113,000 people in that group died from other causes.
Under 40 saw about 9,000 deaths total, out of a population of 175 million -- over half the US population! Those over 40 had 565,000 deaths (98.4%), despite being less than half the population. Will you hear this stat on CNN or MSNBC? Of course not. This is also why I tell people under 40 that vaccine hestitancy is reasonable, but that people over 40 are making a big mistake.
In the 40s, your death rate triples again compared to 30s. 17,271 died in that group, out of a population of 40 million. This was also the point where people started dying despite being completely healthy beforehand, which becomes a lot more scary to those who typically don't fear illness in middle age.
50-54 (note only a 5-year range) doubles over the 40s, with about 17,500 deaths, out of a population of 20 million. So it starts to get a lot worse for the age of a lot of posters here, including me.
55-64 doubles again, with 71k deaths out of a population of about 41 million.
65-74 had 127k deaths out of a population of 31.5 miillion (again, note the smaller population, too).
75-84 saw 158k deaths out of a population of just 16 million.
There are only 6.6 million people left over 85, but there were still 173k COVID deaths.
The bottom line?
If you were under 40, your chance of dying of COVID in the past 15 months was 0.0005% overall, and far LESS than that if you didn't have a known major preexisting condition.
Stats: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisiona...-Age/9bhg-hcku
Population: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-sex-and-age/
whats the death rate for san diego cucks who whine about isreal and wear masks in the car cuz fingers crossed people FINGERS CROSSED
I moderately knew three people who died of COVID, all of whom were middle aged.
One was a 45-year-old with sleep apnea, who was COVID-positive, and was found dead in the morning. The death was likely COVID-related, but probably had to do with the sleep apnea preexisting condition (though that's not a common one which kills people via COVID).
One was a 50-year-old with unknown overall health (I knew him from Facebook), but I know he was healthy enough to hold a regular job and generally live a normal life. He was not overweight. This was definitely a COVID death, as he caught it, and it just got worse and worse to where he had breathing issues, and then died.
The other, a 56-year-old I knew from Facebook, was the one I knew least about. He also clearly died of COVID, complaining about it worsening. However, he never posted a picture there, so I suppose it's possible he was very overweight or had some other health condition.
I do know several people who suffered from permanent lung damage. They were all over 40, with one exception -- our own Sloppy Joe, who is 34.
skatz todge the angel of death
Do you think we can really call anyone’s lungs permanently damaged at this point? I am not asking a rhetorical question, I don’t know the answer. I know the lungs are amazingly regenerative. I’ve seen doctors encourage people to quit smoking after 25 years, and while they generally add the caveat that their lungs will never be the same as if they’ve never smoked, they can almost heal to that state. But that’s smoking and decades of it.
Like fifteen months out, and more like a year from the vast majority of Covid cases, I would hope many who have had long term issues are still in the healing process. I know that somewhere like seven years out from quitting smoking, your chances of lung cancer get very close to a person who has never smoked. If I was relatively young, even if I was still struggling after a year to return to fully normal, I wouldn’t be prepared to consider my lungs permanently damaged.
But before COVID, such events were like some of the most intimate non-transactional interactions I’ve had with women for some years now.I didn’t mind masks when jumping in and out of stores, but found it annoying for prolonged periods. The little x’s on the ground I hope never go away. It’s nice to have a little space as opposed to some fat chick talking on her phone bumping into you in line.
_____________________________________________
Speaking of What About Bob...
Big fan of that movie, so I wore that shirt to a WSOP event 5 years ago.
this is some other shit - so for smoking which is a great example, you could smoke for years and years and then quit. After about 15 years your lungs would be more or less the same as a non-smokers and your health risks chance of stroke etc would all drop to the level of a non-smoker.Do you think we can really call anyone’s lungs permanently damaged at this point? I am not asking a rhetorical question, I don’t know the answer. I know the lungs are amazingly regenerative. I’ve seen doctors encourage people to quit smoking after 25 years, and while they generally add the caveat that their lungs will never be the same as if they’ve never smoked, they can almost heal to that state. But that’s smoking and decades of it.
Like fifteen months out, and more like a year from the vast majority of Covid cases, I would hope many who have had long term issues are still in the healing process. I know that somewhere like seven years out from quitting smoking, your chances of lung cancer get very close to a person who has never smoked. If I was relatively young, even if I was still struggling after a year to return to fully normal, I wouldn’t be prepared to consider my lungs permanently damaged.
covid is scarring the fuck out of people's lungs. not sure if they can regenerate, hopefully they can, anecdotally I know a couple people that had covid months ago and they still have lung issues.
this is some other shit - so for smoking which is a great example, you could smoke for years and years and then quit. After about 15 years your lungs would be more or less the same as a non-smokers and your health risks chance of stroke etc would all drop to the level of a non-smoker.
covid is scarring the fuck out of people's lungs. not sure if they can regenerate, hopefully they can, anecdotally I know a couple people that had covid months ago and they still have lung issues.
none of this is verified or true, you sound like Druff
SCIENCE!
I think youre not taking into effect Ben's way of life into consideration if youre forcing him to wear a mask.
Its really like when those special kids go out in public wearing a helmet.
this is some other shit - so for smoking which is a great example, you could smoke for years and years and then quit. After about 15 years your lungs would be more or less the same as a non-smokers and your health risks chance of stroke etc would all drop to the level of a non-smoker.
covid is scarring the fuck out of people's lungs. not sure if they can regenerate, hopefully they can, anecdotally I know a couple people that had covid months ago and they still have lung issues.
Yeah, good answer, that’s why I asked as I knew it was primarily scarring. Even back 20 years ago, I had so many abdominal surgeries after cancer that from strictly a pain point of view, I got more pain and discomfort from the internal scarring than cancer or surgeries themselves.
Eventually I had an adhesiolysis procedure done after I sought out the best guy, and it was a miracle. I went from a 24/7 sensation like a stitch you get from running on my right side to 100% pain free after it healed, so I grasp what a bitch scarring is.
Even then, there were medications to be tried, and since then, things they can apply during surgery that are successful for preventing the level of internal scarring. It’s a bigger problem for women with many female procedures causing adhesions.
Obviously you’re likely fucked if you’re 70 and have a bad issue. I would hope young people suffering internal scarring might find some remedy or their lungs might regenerate enough to where it’s minor. Obviously sloppy is a serious runner, so his damage finds him more fit than 98% of the population even after. His lung damage and lung capacity is damaged for him, but from what I can tell from his comments, I’d trade him lung capacity straight up and I’m fit for my age. It sounds like the difference between being able to casually knock of a fifteen mile run versus five. I’d happily take the latter at my age.
Sorry Gare but I survived getting covid and I'm now fully vaccinated. You're stuck with me for the next 5-10 years until my liver gives out.
Feel like there's been some improvement hopefully. My endurance feels up somewhat from training to climb Mt. Hood, but still not fully there. How I fare at altitude will be telling.
Still get randomly gassed after runs, sometimes but not always. If I could play it over I would have been super cautious with getting back up to speed.
PokerFraudAlert...will never censor your claims, even if they're against one of our sponsors. In addition to providing you an open forum report fraud within the poker community, we will also analyze your claims with a clear head an unbiased point of view. And, of course, the accused will always have the floor to defend themselves.-Dan Druff
so looks like it was a manmade virus which was obvious imo as it was the weirdest, weakest cold i ever had. so how bout any mention of that being censored for the past year plus? how much of history is fake
EXCLUSIVE: COVID-19 'has NO credible natural ancestor' and WAS created by Chinese scientists who then tried to cover their tracks with 'retro-engineering' to make it seem like it naturally arose from bats, explosive new study claims
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dy-claims.html
An explosive new study claims researchers found 'unique fingerprints' in COVID-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory
DailyMail.com exclusively obtained the new 22-page paper authored by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen set to be published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery
The study showed there's evidence to suggest Chinese scientists created the virus while working on a Gain of Function project in a Wuhan lab
Gain of Function research, which was temporarily outlawed in the US, involves altering naturally-occurring viruses to make them more infectious in order to study their potential effects on humans
According to the paper, Chinese scientists took a natural coronavirus 'backbone' found in Chinese cave bats and spliced onto it a new 'spike', turning it into the deadly and highly transmissible COVID-19
The researchers, who concluded that COVID-19 'has no credible natural ancestor', also believe scientists reverse-engineered versions of the virus to cover up their tracks
'We think that there have been retro-engineered viruses created,' Dalgleish told DailyMail.com. 'They've changed the virus, then tried to make out it was in a sequence years ago.'
The study also points to 'deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data' in Chinese labs and notes that 'scientists who wished to share their findings haven't been able to do so or have disappeared'
Until recently, most experts had staunchly denied the origins of the virus were anything other than a natural infection leaping from animals to humans
Earlier this week, Dr. Anthony Fauci defended US funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, saying the $600,000 grant was not approved for Gain of Function research
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Reply With Quote
