Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1219009)	4/10/2020 2:43:39 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By pocotrader Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576602

"Any scientist or statistician will tell you that this estimate is very wrong" We won't know it's wrong until testing proves it. That won't happen until antibody testing finds people who were asymptomatic. In the meantime, if we don't add any more cases, the MR will go up as current patients die. "There may be 900,000 other people out there who got COVID, " I know. As a wise lady once said, "Testing, testing, testing." "Now that is less of a mortality rate than the flu" Yeah, except we also don't know who got the flu, but were asymptomatic. You have to calculate the MR the same way you do for all other infectious diseases. The flu might actually have a 0.001 rate. #Can'tMoveTheGoalPosts #ThatWhineIsVinegar

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1219009)	4/13/2020 3:14:34 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1576602

Mindmeld, Except for one problem. *There may be 900,000* other people out there who got COVID Do you see the flaw in your own argument? So far, I've only seen one study that hints that the actual infection rates are far higher than what's being reported. And that study assumes that the presence of a certain antibody necessarily correlates to an unreported coronavirus infection. That assumption needs much more testing before it can be confirmed as valid. But that's the nature of science. Consistency of objective, observable results is the way to confirm hypotheses and assumptions. The wilder the conclusion, namely the notion that the reported infection rates of COVID-19 are much lower than reality, the more data I require before I accept that conclusion as valid. What I see too often in this day and age are people who start with a preconceived notion, no matter how wrong it may be. Then said people will scour the Internet until they find some "scientific study" that confirms what they believe. They will post that "study," where it goes viral because there are many other people who want to believe the same thing. I've seen this happen with anti-vaxxers. I've seen this happen with climate change fanatics. I've seen this happen with politicians who try and force draconian solutiions to problems that simply don't exist, all on the basis of one or two "scientific studies." I have no desire to repeat these same mistakes when it comes to COVID-19. This disease really is a Big Fuckin' Deal, and I hate it when people try and downplay the severity of it, even in the name of libertarianism. Tenchusatsu