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: TopCat who wrote (1223162)	4/21/2020 3:13:16 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577402

I'm surprised you, of all people, are taking the death count so literally. ....he routinely takes literally anything that supports his point of view...........then babbles about objective truth ....and logical thought.....................clearly we can not at this time at least get an accurate death count due to corona virus when criteria is different all over the country...................it seems that in some places, a guy who jumps out of a third floor window after losing his job but passes a tenant on the second floor with the virus will be said to have contracted the virus on the way down......ha LOL.......................did you see where NY added about 3600 deaths in one day?.........seems that a positive corona test at the minimum would be required........even just to differentiate the death from someone with the normal flu.......I never realized how many people died after contracting the conventional flu........although that H1N1 virus I had many years ago was so bad for over two weeks, I now realize how it easily could have killed anyone older with an underlying factor.....................this whole thing is just way too political

To: TopCat who wrote (1223162)	4/21/2020 3:42:19 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577402

TopCat, I'm surprised you, of all people, are taking the death count so literally. I take the numbers for what they're worth at the moment. Yes, I get the fact that the official infection numbers could be wildly inaccurate. There's a lot of studies being done to figure out just how inaccurate they are, but even those studies are proving to be unreliable. That Stanford study, for instance, is being disputed by statisticians who say it's an example of how NOT to do statistics: Feud over Stanford coronavirus study: ‘The authors owe us all an apology’ As for the death rates, however, that's quite a bit harder to fudge. Your article, for example, is only disputing the notion that people with pre-existing conditions who end up dying from COVID-19 should be counted as a COVID-19 death. But to me, that's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, especially since MOST Americans have some sort of "pre-existing" condition like being overweight, or being old, or having diabetes (e.g. African-Americans, just in case you read another news article about how COVID-19 "disproportionately" affects them). Bottom line is that the antidote to bad science is good science, and more good science, not more bad science. Tenchusatsu