Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

charlie14 wrote: »

Very vague. Care to elaborate ?

No.

If you don’t see your misunderstanding of the figures to get to your 3% death rate, me teaching you here won’t do anything as you probably still won’t believe me and will keep spouting that Covid has a 3% death rate.

charlie14 wrote: »

Very vague. Care to elaborate ?

Your calculating deaths v confirmed cases, confirmed cases of covid are ~40M, but the WHO estimate total number of covid cases at around 780M.

Do your maths based off the estimate total cases (which although an estimate, is not disputed by anyone of any note) and you’ll find the death rate is very very different. I think your intentionally being obtuse with numbers here and understand completely what others are saying... just refusing to acknowledge it because it doesn’t fit your view

3xh wrote: »

No.

If you don’t see your misunderstanding of the figures to get to your 3% death rate, me teaching you here won’t do anything as you probably still won’t believe me and will keep spouting that Covid has a 3% death rate.

So, you admit my figures are correct on the ratio of Covid-19 deaths to confirmed cases, yet somehow they are incorrect.



Thanks for clearing that up.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Unless Tony comes up with a plan not to get to level 5 again I can't see them buying into it, border with the north is being used as an excuse time after time, there playing politics, they can stop people travelling around the rest of the country but can't stop the northerners coming down, pull the other one.

He could do that go into level 5 but then he retracts the plan when we're still in the ****

walus wrote: »

Why? Because I assumed that everyone has some expectations with regard to returning to normal. You don’t? That is fine. My assumption was wrong. Let’s make it - most people - then. Does this make more sense for you? Or you just nitpicking?

It still doesn’t make sense.
Can you go straight to your point?
Someone replied and gave you her/his expected timeline for a vaccine.

charlie14 wrote: »

What is being obtuse about using actual confirmed figures for both cases and deaths rather than guesswork ?
Ratios are not about guesswork. They are based on relationship between verifiable numbers.
If you want to rewrite the basis laws of mathematics, good for you.
I`ll stick to the tried and trusted.

Ok, take your number 3% and tell me what it represents, please.

PTH2009 wrote: »

He could do that go into level 5 but then he retracts the plan when we're still in the ****

Level 5 will work no doubt about it, your right were still in the **** even at level 5, it'll put pressure on the Arleen though, At this stage we nearly need to accept were an island and start behaving as one.

PTH2009 wrote: »

The scary thing about the meeting is that he will persuade the leaders to accept level 5

Just like he did two weeks ago?

Deub wrote: »

Weird point. Because some people are for vaccines they should know when it will be available?
It doesn’t make any sense.

In fairness, some people in here are making arguments that are predicated on a vaccine being available sooner rather than later.

Its existence is a fundamental factor in how they think we should be dealing with this situation, as such I don't think it is unreasonable that they be able to explain that part of the equation.

"We need to do X until we get a vaccine and then we will be able to do Y"
"Ok, when will we be getting this vaccine?"
"I'm not answering that".

Deub wrote: »

No expectation but I will play along to see where you are going:
Septembre 2021

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Again your intentionally not accepting the explanation of the death rate! Not a government or health service on the planet accepts that only 40M have had covid. As such, this the 3% you come up with can be disregarded as we know as a fact, more than 40M people have had it meaning the base number you are using is knowingly inaccurate!

I could also speculate on the numbers of deaths due to Civid-19.
In which case it would be the mathematical equvalent of two bald men arguing over a comb.


As I said already ratios are the relationship between verifiable numbers. Not guesswork.
Unless you can come up with those, then discussing ratios based on nothing but guesswork is nonsense

bucketybuck wrote: »

In fairness, some people in here are making arguments that are predicated on a vaccine being available sooner rather than later.

Its existence is a fundamental factor in how they think we should be dealing with this situation, as such I don't think it is unreasonable that they be able to explain that part of the equation.

"We need to do X until we get a vaccine and then we will be able to do Y"
"Ok, when will we be getting this vaccine?"
"I'm not answering that".

Loads of people have given estimates, it's all over the media. Obviously nobody knows the exact date but it'll probably be late next year for most of us.

charlie14 wrote: »

Stop the nonsense and wasting peoples time. It`s clear in my posts what the 3% represents.
You might also consider the nonsense of asking a specific time when people were expecting to get their vaccination when you have no viable alternative to offer yourself.

It is clear how you calculated this 3%, the only thing I don’t know is what for? It is a ratio that has virtually no meaningful sense.

As with regard to other issue what is wrong with that question? I really don’t understand. You seem anxious to keep it a secret so be it.

Vestiapx wrote: »

In 2008-2009 1000 people died of flu in Ireland
1800 have died of covid so far so it's about twice as bad is it not? And that's without Maxing out the care options which would mean more deaths.

If you compare the excess deaths figures for the same period with previous couple of years you will find out that the actual number will be bellow 1000. It is the death from and death with covid semantics. Which will make it on par with number of deaths from flu in the period mentioned.

bucketybuck wrote: »

In fairness, some people in here are making arguments that are predicated on a vaccine being available sooner rather than later.

Its existence is a fundamental factor in how they think we should be dealing with this situation, as such I don't think it is unreasonable that they be able to explain that part of the equation.

"We need to do X until we get a vaccine and then we will be able to do Y"
"Ok, when will we be getting this vaccine?"
"I'm not answering that".

A bit childish is it not when those here who are looking for an exact date from others on vaccines, have not put forward a single credible alternative to vaccines for a time anywhere in the future.