Rants Raves and Stupid Shit in Seattle.

Thread starter.

[QUOTE=RumHams;4727714]See, I thought you meant something else. It's fine to use some abbreviation for whatever weird reason you feel you need to, but it's points like this when it gets needlessly confusing. $ is not necessarily synonymous with "1", and especially not when you put it in front of a whole number with no decimal or spacing or anything to indicate it's representative of a numerical value as opposed to a symbol designating a nation's currency standard. Just put a damn "1" instead. If we were talking about some in-shape 20-ish, then hell yeah, I'm all in. But 160 in itself is nothing special (unless it's an open menu). Especially when the the referenced girls themselves are far from special. Willing to wager you could get that even outside the COVID season we find ourselves in, and honestly I'm surprised it's not lower for them right now.

FWIW, I'm not displeased you shared. Just a little disappointed the rates weren't what I was anticipating them to be. That said, desperate times call for desperate rates from desperate women. If anyone does have any fantastic deals, no matter how sad, I'm all ears. Sometimes you got to do what you got to do.[/QUOTE]From a true "mathematical" sense, you are correct. But within the hobby, something like $$. 50 is "usual / acceptable", and it means $250. Another pooner used a notation I had never seen before, and when I questioned him on it, he got all bent out of shape.

So, for $160, an acceptable notation within the hobby is $. 60, or as you said, one can just say $160.

And as for that being a "special" rate, in these economically depressed days, as I have mentioned, for an all inclusive hour, the most it should be is $$. 0, ie, $200. And for me, all inclusive would need to include BBBJ, DATY, DATO, and BBFS. Rimming would be good also, but not necessarily a requirement.

[QUOTE=MartyByrde;4727981]Another pooner used a notation I had never seen before, and when I questioned him on it, he got all bent out of shape.[/QUOTE]No, you couldn't grasp the concept of "$x4". $60 is very different than $160 or $. 60.

[QUOTE=RumHams;4728319]No, you couldn't grasp the concept of "$x4". $60 is very different than $160 or $. 60.[/QUOTE]What is "$x4"? Definitely a new notation for me.

I read it as $400, or possibly $140 (similar to ' 4'.

Have to admit that I've never quite understood the reason for these abbreviations. Presumably it's to protect against LE action, but any code that you and I understand, they will too, and certainly a jury would.

I highly doubt that "I had a dream that I had FS for $$" is much less incriminating than "I paid $200 for sex" (but maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have evidence that this "code" actually protects anyone?

[QUOTE=Efurufe;4730092]Have to admit that I've never quite understood the reason for these abbreviations. Presumably it's to protect against LE action, but any code that you and I understand, they will too, and certainly a jury would.

I highly doubt that "I had a dream that I had FS for $$" is much less incriminating than "I paid $200 for sex" (but maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have evidence that this "code" actually protects anyone?[/QUOTE]I tend to agree but cases are often won by technicalities. Does using the 'dream' format create enough plausible deniability that something is 'for entertainment purposes only?' Don't know, but that would be decided as part of any pre-trial motions to expunge vs having a jury decide it. If it reaches that point and your forum history is admissible you're already fucked. There are plenty of sites that translate mongering 'code' so I see it more as habit than having any protective effect. The real trick is to make it as difficult as possible to figure out who you really are from your online presence.

I feel confident enough in the barriers I have in place to go over some of them.

1- I never access this or other mongering sites without using a VPN that has a proven track record of not logging sessions and not cooperating with LEO.

2- I sign up for these forums with emails I use for no other purpose than to create accounts on the forums.

3- I never log into those emails without using my VPN.

4- I never reference this forum anywhere save on this forum, same goes for other sites.

5- I never reference any personally identifying information from the forum or those email accounts.

I try and make a barrier with enough technical doubt as to my real identity as possible. You want an air gap between your recorded activity online that could be incriminating and your true identity. Could someone find out who I am if they tried hard enough,? Probably. But with a few simple steps I've made it so hard and inserted enough doubt using those 5 steps (and others I won't reveal) that I feel confident the effort isn't worth it.

[QUOTE=Efurufe;4730092]Anyone have evidence that this "code" actually protects anyone?[/QUOTE]I have evidence to the contrary. In a Bellevue promotion case a couple years back, the jury had no problem at all "decoding" the masterful encryption of "one dollar sign equals one hundred dollars. " It wasn't even questioned by the defense. I mean, what's a defense atty supposed to say in a closing argument? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: yes, my client said "$$" on a hobby board when writing about how much he paid the hooker, and even though everyone reading it understood that $$ means two-hundred dollars, he technically didn't say "two-hundred dollars" so you must acquit!

$$ and $$$ aren't code for $200 and $300. They're shorthand. Abbreviations. Let's all just use numbers.

[QUOTE=MorganCreamin;4730351]I tend to agree but cases are often won by technicalities. Does using the 'dream' format create enough plausible deniability that something is 'for entertainment purposes only?' Don't know, but that would be decided as part of any pre-trial motions to expunge vs having a jury decide it. If it reaches that point and your forum history is admissible you're already fucked. There are plenty of sites that translate mongering 'code' so I see it more as habit than having any protective effect. The real trick is to make it as difficult as possible to figure out who you really are from your online presence.

I feel confident enough in the barriers I have in place to go over some of them.

1- I never access this or other mongering sites without using a VPN that has a proven track record of not logging sessions and not cooperating with LEO.

2- I sign up for these forums with emails I use for no other purpose than to create accounts on the forums.

3- I never log into those emails without using my VPN.

4- I never reference this forum anywhere save on this forum, same goes for other sites.

5- I never reference any personally identifying information from the forum or those email accounts.

I try and make a barrier with enough technical doubt as to my real identity as possible. You want an air gap between your recorded activity online that could be incriminating and your true identity. Could someone find out who I am if they tried hard enough,? Probably. But with a few simple steps I've made it so hard and inserted enough doubt using those 5 steps (and others I won't reveal) that I feel confident the effort isn't worth it.[/QUOTE]You make sure to avail yourself of the anonymity we intended you to have when we started the forum.

Smart move.

A2.

[QUOTE=MorganCreamin;4730351].

1- I never access this or other mongering sites without using a VPN that has a proven track record of not logging sessions and not cooperating with LEO.

2- I sign up for these forums with emails I use for no other purpose than to create accounts on the forums.

3- I never log into those emails without using my VPN.

[/QUOTE]Keep in mind that the VPN does not cover your session end to end. It's between you and the portal. From there onward you're out in the open Internet. SSL / TLS is the next piece to utilize.

FYI.

TT.

RANT

- People paying stupid ridiculous TNA pricing. WHY ?! for crying out loud are you paying some of these insanely high prices?
- Providers you can see on TNA who apparently only will let you contact them if you are a TNA member.
- Women with ugly huge tattoos covering huge parts of their body who somehow think this is attractive.

RAVE

- Massage parlor girls who right away let you know from the get go by how they do their massage and how they touch that you'll be leaving happy and satisfied and that you'll get your money worth.

- When you can understand what the hell they are saying on the phone haha.

If the session is not logged that's immaterial. My VPN provider has been subpoenaed in the past by LEO. Not for me, LOL. And they turned over everything they had, which was nothing. They have lists of all their customers but do not log individual sessions so you can't prove any user is associated with any session. TLS will cover being snooped on once the traffic leaves the VPN, of course but then it's public wires with nothing to say it's my system unless the end site is tracking, which is possible. Again, not saying it's 100% but it's enough to make it quite difficult to track who I am.

[QUOTE=TheTanuki;4732544]Keep in mind that the VPN does not cover your session end to end. It's between you and the portal. From there onward you're out in the open Internet. SSL / TLS is the next piece to utilize.

FYI.

TT.[/QUOTE]

The incredibly intelligent Governor of GA announced the re-opening of massage parlors as one of the types of businesses that can be re-opened as long as social distancing can be followed. Tell me genius. How do you get a massage while maintaining social distancing?

[QUOTE=DrtyHarry;4752938]The incredibly intelligent Governor of GA announced the re-opening of massage parlors as one of the types of businesses that can be re-opened as long as social distancing can be followed. Tell me genius. How do you get a massage while maintaining social distancing?[/QUOTE]I have no problem. You just need to reel out more hose. .

[QUOTE=DrtyHarry;4752938]The incredibly intelligent Governor of GA announced the re-opening of massage parlors as one of the types of businesses that can be re-opened as long as social distancing can be followed. Tell me genius. How do you get a massage while maintaining social distancing?[/QUOTE]Yeah, that would be a ticik!

As I posted before, this AMP is still open:

[URL]https://www.rubmaps.ch/erotic-massage-oasis-massage-spa-des-moines-wa-39389[/URL]#rubmaps.

When I visited the other day, she definitely touched me!

Also, just out of curiosity, called these 2 places yesterday:

[URL]https://www.rubmaps.ch/erotic-massage-happy-foot-massage-covington-wa-14168[/URL]#rubmaps.

[URL]https://www.rubmaps.ch/erotic-massage-dream-of-china-spa-auburn-wa-4674[/URL]#rubmaps.

For the first one, a woman answered, but said (politely) that they were closed. For the second one, a woman answered and said they would be open today.

[QUOTE=DrtyHarry;4752938]The incredibly intelligent Governor of GA announced the re-opening of massage parlors as one of the types of businesses that can be re-opened as long as social distancing can be followed. Tell me genius. How do you get a massage while maintaining social distancing?[/QUOTE]Well that's good maybe that trend will head this way. But, on another note. All the AMP that I visited in the Augusta area had old old women with a Kong Foo grip that I was afraid my little buddy would be detached before reaching a happy ending.

[QUOTE=DrtyHarry;4752938]The incredibly intelligent Governor of GA announced the re-opening of massage parlors as one of the types of businesses that can be re-opened as long as social distancing can be followed. Tell me genius. How do you get a massage while maintaining social distancing?[/QUOTE]Yeah, somehow it's become a partisan issue whether or not we should go back to work. Decisions based on polling rather than science. I understand mistrust of government, but when the ENTIRE WORLD is shut down, how does anyone think it's a liberal ploy?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens in Georgia and South Carolina when they open earlier than recommended. Glad we're not experimenting with that here, though. As much as I'm ready for parlors to open again, I have some good friends in the healthcare field who I care about more than getting an HE.

[QUOTE=Efurufe;4755175]Yeah, somehow it's become a partisan issue whether or not we should go back to work. Decisions based on polling rather than science. I understand mistrust of government, but when the ENTIRE WORLD is shut down, how does anyone think it's a liberal ploy?[/QUOTE]The decisions to stay closed are not based on science. All their "models" have proven incredibly pessimistic. All the actual field data, e. G. The Princess Diamond, actual random antibody tests in various places, show that the virus and antibodies are already widespread. And actual data tells us the hospitals haven't filled up (outside of NYC, which partied long and has subways) and the ventilators weren't needed.

The word "science" has a meaning. That your hypothesis is "falsifiable", meaning you can prove it wrong. The models that the shutdown were based on have all been proven wrong. Ergo, and this is the actual use of the word "ergo", continuing the shutdowns is the anti-scientific side.

[QUOTE=Efurufe;4755175]Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens in Georgia and South Carolina when they open earlier than recommended.[/QUOTE]Of course everyone else will be opening far later than recommended too, especially those looking at economics, etc. Just depends on whose recommendations you're listening to.

[QUOTE=DrtyHarry;4752938]The incredibly intelligent Governor of GA announced the re-opening of massage parlors as one of the types of businesses that can be re-opened as long as social distancing can be followed. Tell me genius. How do you get a massage while maintaining social distancing?[/QUOTE][BLUE]Please don't post partisan stupidity like this on review threads. And before you insult my intelligence by saying "what, I called him intelligent." Don't.

I don't care who you prefer to fuck you up the ass with a giant red, white, and blue dildo just keep it off the review threads.

A2[/BLUE]

What you're doing is conflating current evidence with evidence of 6 weeks ago. We knew less about the virus back then and so models from then are bound to have a certain amount inaccuracy. That's to be expected. You seem to be implying that because we know more than we did 6 weeks ago that we know 'enough' to make decisions that affect millions of people. That's fairly cavalier and not very scientific at all. Given the continued large gaps in our understanding of the behavior of the virus a certain amount of caution in reversing prophylactic social interventions seems warranted until either the knowledge base increases to a higher level of certainty or the evidence regarding infections rates, hospitalizations, etc becomes clear past the point of doubt.

Science does have a meaning and it also has well defined processes and logic. Looking at the latest numbers and thinking that's all you need to know without deeper analysis of larger trendlines and incorporating other data is not a scientific modality.

[QUOTE=Rousse;4755565]The decisions to stay closed are not based on science. All their "models" have proven incredibly pessimistic. All the actual field data, e. G. The Princess Diamond, actual random antibody tests in various places, show that the virus and antibodies are already widespread. And actual data tells us the hospitals haven't filled up (outside of NYC, which partied long and has subways) and the ventilators weren't needed.

The word "science" has a meaning. That your hypothesis is "falsifiable", meaning you can prove it wrong. The models that the shutdown were based on have all been proven wrong. Ergo, and this is the actual use of the word "ergo", continuing the shutdowns is the anti-scientific side.

Of course everyone else will be opening far later than recommended too, especially those looking at economics, etc. Just depends on whose recommendations you're listening to.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Admin2;4758002][BLUE]Please don't post partisan stupidity like this on review threads. And before you insult my intelligence by saying "what, I called him intelligent." Don't.

I don't care who you prefer to fuck you up the ass with a giant red, white, and blue dildo just keep it off the review threads.

A2[/BLUE][/QUOTE]Easy now. The Title of this thread is Rants Raves and Stupid Shit in Seattle.

I think his comments do qualify under one of those headings.

[QUOTE=GangBangLeader;4758267]Easy now. The Title of this thread is Rants Raves and Stupid Shit in Seattle.

I think his comments do qualify under one of those headings.[/QUOTE]Careful GBL. Only admin2 gets to Rant, Rave & stupid shit. It is his thread.

I'm still on the fence on the whole thing. I think the whole thing is way overblown, but I'm not stupid enough to say it publicly and be one of those people being laughed at on in social media that disputed the evidence surrounding the virus and ended up dead from it. So, I will impart some wisdom I was taught from a business owner 25 years ago.

He said, "If you allow your accountants to make all of your business decisions, then your business will ultimately fail. " I originally thought this was a stab at me, because this guy's business was going bankrupt. I came in made major adjustments and his business was thriving. He then wanted to remodel the facility and expand. I ran the numbers and told him that he would go bankrupt if he did this. He said that if he didn't do it, no one would be interested in his business in a few years. I quit. 20+ years later, his little business has expanded to several branches and he's a major player in the market. An accountant's job is NOT to take risk; an entrepreneur's job is to take risk and I stepped out of my lane. Stay with me, this is an important point.

Over time I realized that you can't allow an expert in a specific field to make decisions for the common good. They will fix the problem at hand, but in fixing that problem they will cause more problems outside of their expertise than they can fix. As an example, you can't allow an environmentalist full control on cleaning up the environment. You would end up with a clean environment, but it would basically kill most industries. You can't put a successful business person in charge of an economy. You would end up with a great economy, but many workers and the environment would be severely hurt.

In one month, we just added 4 trillion dollars to our national debt, we have destroyed thousands (if not millions) of small businesses, people that were self-sufficient may be homeless in several months. Because of this virus, we allowed doctors / scientists a substantial voice in creating public policy. They may eradicate or limit the deaths from this virus, but in the end, they may have destroyed the quality of life of 300 million people for the next 20 years.

[QUOTE=Michael1967;4758740]I'm still on the fence on the whole thing. I think the whole thing is way overblown, but I'm not stupid enough to say it publicly and be one of those people being laughed at on in social media that disputed the evidence surrounding the virus and ended up dead from it. [/QUOTE]And yeah, I also agree that you can't say anything contrary. That's sort of the current social meta though -- whatever is currently "in", drowns out any opposing ideas or thoughts. Yes, the virus is real and it's not a hoax, but it's also clearly not that dangerous. Even those who acknowledge this use the argument that human life is more valuable than the economy. And how much is a human life worth? Well, shit it's priceless right? But even that argument is dishonest. It's very clear at this point that more people will die from automobile accidents worldwide than will EVER die from COVID-19 worldwide. The vast majority of car accidents involve other people (I. E. Are not single car accidents). Should we stop driving all cars? Stay at home, save lives, right? Or are all your car drivers so selfish that you're willing to sacrifice a million lives per year for "convenience" or "entertainment" reasons. You car drivers should all be ashamed!

There are valid arguments and bullshit arguments on both sides.

Disagreeing with the balance of economic impact and loss of life is a valid argument from my perspective, with a few caveats. We clearly can't stay locked down forever, or every year during flu season, so we're going to have to figure out how to get to work while reducing risk.

Comparison to other causes of death is a bullshit argument as it discounts how contagious this stuff is. Just by death rate, this isn't even a bad flu year. But my HCA friend in New York spends a good part of his day moving bodies into refrigerated 18 wheelers, and that ain't normal.

As for the deficit, maybe Congress shouldn't have passed a $1 T tax cut during economic prosperity, and shouldn't have been running a deficit since 1790. I don't get to spend endlessly beyond my means; why do we elect people (of both parties) that think that's OK?

[QUOTE=MorganCreamin;4758115]What you're doing is conflating current evidence with evidence of 6 weeks ago. We knew less about the virus back then and so models from then are bound to have a certain amount inaccuracy. That's to be expected.[/QUOTE]It is to be expected, but one should [I]learn and adjust[/I]. They haven't. And, since you apparently missed it, the Princess, for example, is not "current evidence. " You can "prove" anything if, as you seem to, you simply exclude all the inconvenient data.

[QUOTE=MorganCreamin;4758115] You seem to be implying that because we know more than we did 6 weeks ago that we know 'enough' to make decisions that affect millions of people. That's fairly cavalier and not very scientific at all.[/QUOTE]You ignore that they've already [I]made decisions affecting millions of people[/I]. On bad guesses. Those should be reversed and a new course, based on better data, created.

Your mindset, that you should double-down even after your initial estimates were proven to be way off, just in case your new guesses from the same losers who are invested in maintaining some shred of credibility, is bizarre. Don't modify the broken models to try to fix them, but rather build a [I]new[/I] hypothesis. You understand neither science, logic nor politics.

[QUOTE=MorganCreamin;4758115]Science does have a meaning and it also has well defined processes and logic. Looking at the latest numbers and thinking that's all you need to know without deeper analysis of larger trendlines and incorporating other data is not a scientific modality.[/QUOTE]Latest numbers? Project much? You're the one ignoring the past and the resulting trendlines. While parroting the talking heads you so desperately want to believe.

You apparently have quickly googled "science" and come up with some terms. Come back when you have a degree and decades actually doing it.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4759438]Comparison to other causes of death is a bullshit argument as it discounts how contagious this stuff is. [/QUOTE]No, it doesn't discount it at all. I don't see how you can just say something like that without even attempting to explain it. If something was highly contagious and killed 1 in a billion people, would comparing it to other forms of deaths also discount how contagious it was? Stating that makes zero sense.

Over 1 million people die every year from automobile accidents. What will coronavirus reach? 1/8th that? 1/12th that if we used Germany's standards for declaring Coronavirus deaths?

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4759438]Comparison to other causes of death is a bullshit argument as it discounts how contagious this stuff is.[/QUOTE]That doesn't make any sense. Something like 80% of the population has Herpes I, what people think of as the coldsore virus. Super contagious. Not deadly. Most get it from their mothers. We don't quarantine anyone over it.

This looks similar, unless you're elderly and co-morbid with diabetes or a few other pre-existing issues. Those are the people we should be quarantining.

The reason shallow-thinkers don't grasp this is that they forget how limited testing was. Until recently, only people with known contacts with other infected persons could be tested. That's how it went so far in Life Care Center. They weren't even test candidates despite the symptoms.

With more [I]random[/I] testing, we see it's quite wide-spread, and that most under-50-year-olds with antibodies don't even know they'd been sick, and many of the rest just assumed they had the flu.

Perhaps put your hyperbole and your tin hat away, and look around. The sky isn't falling. There's a virus that targets a specific group. We should help them protect themselves, but most people are not threatened. Sounds a bit like a virus from 40 years ago.

[blue]No, we have to all go crawl into a hole, pull it in behind us, and never go outside again or we will all die immediatly.

If killing 5,000,000 people around the world saves just 1 person that might have died from C-19 it will all be worth it.

A2[/blue]

[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4759686]No, it doesn't discount it at all. I don't see how you can just say something like that without even attempting to explain it. If something was highly contagious and killed 1 in a billion people, would comparing it to other forms of deaths also discount how contagious it was? Stating that makes zero sense.

Over 1 million people die every year from automobile accidents. What will coronavirus reach? 1/8th that? 1/12th that if we used Germany's standards for declaring Coronavirus deaths?[/QUOTE]I shouldn't have to explain it, but here's the "crayons" view: if every automobile accident had the potential to spawn 10-20 more accidents, and each of those had the potential to spawn 10-20 each, you don't see that as being different, nor see how that exponential growth is a highly more dangerous situation? If not, then. You are bad at maths.

[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4759686]No, it doesn't discount it at all. I don't see how you can just say something like that without even attempting to explain it. If something was highly contagious and killed 1 in a billion people, would comparing it to other forms of deaths also discount how contagious it was? Stating that makes zero sense.

Over 1 million people die every year from automobile accidents. What will coronavirus reach? 1/8th that? 1/12th that if we used Germany's standards for declaring Coronavirus deaths?[/QUOTE]Virus deaths to automobile deaths is a faulty comparison which renders your argument invalid.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4759438]As for the deficit, maybe Congress shouldn't have passed a $1 T tax cut during economic prosperity[/QUOTE]There is no correlation between tax cuts and deficits. In otherwords, you can't find one year following a tax cut where the total reciepts were less than before the cuts (causing a budget deficit). Spending, however, is out of control.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4759787]I shouldn't have to explain it, but here's the "crayons" view: if every automobile accident had the potential to spawn 10-20 more accidents, and each of those had the potential to spawn 10-20 each, you don't see that as being different, nor see how that exponential growth is a highly more dangerous situation? If not, then. You are bad at maths.[/QUOTE]If you want to make this accurate then it's like this, and I don't know why I have to keep explaining it either.

You are an accident that spawns 10 accidents and of that 10 6 didn't even know they had been in an accident, and the other 4 were a scratch in the paint. Then each of them spawns 10 accidents and for all those 100 60 of them don't know they were in an accident either.

If the cars are between 10 and 40 years old and haven't had a prior accident (co-morbidity) then you need to have 50,000 accidents before the first one dies. (Straight from the Italian Health Ministries web page. . 2% fatality in ages 10-40 with 99% of deaths involving a co-morbidity you can look those numbers up yourself and do the math).

That was before the antibody studies in Santa Clara, LA County and New York let everybody know that 25-50 times more people had the virus than was previously thought so most likely you have to have 500,000 accidents before the first one dies. Yeah it's super contagious but unless you're in a high risk group your chances of dying are minuscule.

Before you say "yeah but the strokes, the strokes" that's 5 out of 250,000 or. 002%.

Exponential growth happens early because it attacks the risk groups horrendously but that red line on the graph doesn't go up until everybody dies. Even in the very worst risks groups 94% of the people who get it survive (more actually after the antibody tests showed that lots more people have it and most don't know it).

You are also bad at maths.

A2.

I'm just going to add this:

Car accident deaths per year in the US: 38,000.

Flu related deaths per year in the US: 61,000 (high estimate).

Confirmed Covid-19 related deaths in the US: 54,000+ in less than 3 months with us all locked in our homes.

As Mr. Mayagi says in part 2, "Danielsan, this not tournament. This for real. ".

[QUOTE=Ljbjarras;4760388]I'm just going to add this:

Car accident deaths per year in the US: 38,000.

Flu related deaths per year in the US: 61,000 (high estimate).

Confirmed Covid-19 related deaths in the US: 54,000+ in less than 3 months with us all locked in our homes.

As Mr. Mayagi says in part 2, "Danielsan, this not tournament. This for real. ".[/QUOTE]Flu season is 5 months long, if the current trend continues maybe 100,000 will die. Heart disease is 600,000 every year. 2,700,000 people die in the USA every year. Now that the CDC is classifying any person who dies as a covid death if you're positive for the virus and any case where corona is suspected, the death count is not really accurate anymore.

From the CDC web page:

"2. As of April 14,2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statementpdf iconexternal icon issued by the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease. ".

20,000 of the deaths were in New York because they didn't isolate the risk groups back in March. It's sad but had we known then what we know now that may have been avoidable.

It's some serious shit, there's no denying it, the effect on risk groups is horrific. Outside of the risk groups not so much.

Before anybody says it, the 5 weird stroke deaths in people under 40 in New York represent. 002% of the reported cases. If you have a big enough sample there are always weird outliers.

A2.

[QUOTE=Admin2;4760241]Exponential growth happens early because it attacks the risk groups horrendously
[/QUOTE]You *almost* had it here and then missed it. You're confusing getting COVID, and getting sick. These are two different things. The core of your contention is that the death rate is relatively low (I agree, not even a bad flu year "by the numbers") but missing the the simple fact that people can be completely asymptomatic and still have COVID, and give it to many people. Additionally, the death rate is directly correlated to the number of people that get the disease, so exponential growth means. Exponential deaths.

So your statement above is fundamentally false, in that exponential growth happens because how contagious the disease is. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with risk groups. In fact, as noted in many articles, the biggest challenge has been young people that show no signs.

Further, the contention that the death rate is statistically insignificant is based on the current infection rate. Which has been blunted by social distancing, and which will explode if it's ended too early.

By your position, social distancing is useless, should have never happened and everyone should go back to work tomorrow. The flu of 1918 showed the folly of that perspective.

[QUOTE=Ljbjarras;4760388]I'm just going to add this:

Car accident deaths per year in the US: 38,000.

Flu related deaths per year in the US: 61,000 (high estimate).

Confirmed Covid-19 related deaths in the US: 54,000+ in less than 3 months with us all locked in our homes.

As Mr. Mayagi says in part 2, "Danielsan, this not tournament. This for real. ".[/QUOTE]Why do you only include the US Why not only include India who has less than 1,000 COVID-19 deaths despite having 4 x the population? There are 1. 2 million auto-related deaths per year and that's not including all the deaths where someone died after being in a car accident at some previous point in their life.

I feel the best way to decide whether we support staying indoors or lifting the ban can be determined by thinking the worst case scenario for someone we are very close to.

Essentially, if we were to answer, would we be okay if our closest friend were to die of COVID-19, we would say no. And most of the time, we would do anything to avoid this from happening.

With respect to COVID-19, the one data that is irrefutable is that it spreads very fast. So, when the lockdown gets lifted, there is a very high chance that it is going to spread fast and there is a good chance that someone very close to us will get affected and there is a chance (Even if it might be small), they might not survive through it. So, the question here would be are we okay with taking that chance.

On the other hand, I also understand that the economy and quality of life for many is getting affected and most likely would get worse. And so we cannot keep this lockdown forever. But I feel, in my good conscience, I cannot willingly roll the dice to risk someone's life.

And so, we would have to weigh the risks and lift the ban when we are convinced that the health system can handle the amount of patients that might be added or better the health system fast.

[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4760773]Why do you only include the US Why not only include India who has less than 1,000 COVID-19 deaths despite having 4 x the population? There are 1. 2 million auto-related deaths per year and that's not including all the deaths where someone died after being in a car accident at some previous point in their life.[/QUOTE]We don't live in India and car deaths are not exponentially contagious.

[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4760773]Why do you only include the US Why not only include India who has less than 1,000 COVID-19 deaths despite having 4 x the population? There are 1. 2 million auto-related deaths per year and that's not including all the deaths where someone died after being in a car accident at some previous point in their life.[/QUOTE]India is locked down tighter than we are. My company had to provide laptops for the offshore workers so they can work remotely, what a nightmare week that was.

That is why they are having fewer deaths.

[QUOTE=WillShookSpear;4760755]You *almost* had it here and then missed it. You're confusing getting COVID, and getting sick. These are two different things. The core of your contention is that the death rate is relatively low (I agree, not even a bad flu year "by the numbers") but missing the the simple fact that people can be completely asymptomatic and still have COVID, and give it to many people. Additionally, the death rate is directly correlated to the number of people that get the disease, so exponential growth means. Exponential deaths.

So your statement above is fundamentally false, in that exponential growth happens because how contagious the disease is. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with risk groups. In fact, as noted in many articles, the biggest challenge has been young people that show no signs.

Further, the contention that the death rate is statistically insignificant is based on the current infection rate. Which has been blunted by social distancing, and which will explode if it's ended too early.

By your position, social distancing is useless, should have never happened and everyone should go back to work tomorrow. The flu of 1918 showed the folly of that perspective.[/QUOTE]You seem to not understand the difference between recovering and dying. You almost had it there but missed the important stuff.

I said Covid 19 aggressively attacks risk groups so lets look at a group that couldn't practice social distancing.

The Theodore Roosevelt pulled into DaNang on March 5, on March 9th two people tested positive for corona in a hotel where some of the ships company were staying. The crew was recalled, the 4 guys who stayed in that hotel were put into isolation. On March 20th the first sailor tested positive so for 11 days the crew were onboard an aircraft carrier living in close quarters. By 16 April 95% of the crew had been tested for live cases, of the 4800 on board 600 were positive, of the 600 400 were asymptomatic. I get it you think that the fact that 60% of the were asymptomatic means that they are out there killing people just be breathing on them. Except 60% of the people they breath on will also be asymptomatic and asymptomatic means they don't even know they have it.

So the big question is. What happens to a relatively healthy young (average age 24) group of people who can't practice social distancing with 600 people who are confirmed positive?

7 weeks after first exposure, 4 weeks after the first confirmed positive 6 in hospital, 2 in intensive care of which one (41 year old chief) died.

5000 people, one death. The rest will make a full recovery.

Yes, the death rate is a direct corollary to the number of cases, LA County, Santa Clara, and New York antibody testing has shown that there are a minimum of 25 times the cases that were thought which lowers the death rate (if you add 25 X unknown cases and the body count is the same then the death rate drops by the number of new cases) giving it a death rate of around. 01-. 02% or like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University said "If 50 times more people have had the infection, the death rate could drop by that same factor, putting it "somewhere between 'little worse than the flu' to 'twice as bad as the flu' in terms of case fatality rate.

But what does he know, he only teaches medicine at one of the best medical schools in the country.

Yes, I know, that study was immediately denounced for faulty methodology except those people seemed to stop talking when independent studies in LA County and New York reached essentially the same conclusions.

The exponential growth happens IN risk groups, people outside of the risk groups are largely unaffected. It's time for intelligent quarantine and time to stop burning down the worlds economy.

I get it, you're going to argue this based on information you decided was correct a month ago, new information is available, science learns. It's a thing, it's a serious thing, it's not ebola, it's not the 1918 influenza. And not only because there has been an advance or two in medical science since 1918, it's nowhere near as lethal as that bug so stop comparing it to that. It's probably going to kill about 1/3 the people that heart disease kills every year. That kills 600,000 by your reasoning why are there still fast food restaurants? If outlawing them saves one person then it was worth the loss of civil liberties right?

And please stop talking about "they go out and kill other people" if you're in a risk group keep your ass at home. You live in a country where everything you need can be dropped off at your door in 24 hours. Make your garage a hot zone and disinfect everything before it comes in. Let the rest of the people who can do math get back to living life.

5800 people, living on an aircraft carrier, one dead. One. Six in hospital, six. They made such a big deal about those 28 spring breakers from Texas going to Mexico and how testing positive was what they deserved. All of them recovered.

Before you tell me again how I'm getting it wrong read "The De-industrialization of America" Barry Bluestone shows that for every 1% increase in joblessness 38,000 people die, it's called 2nd and 3rd order effects. The US jobless rate jumped 9% in April, that's 345,000 dead people. I guess they don't count though because nobody will be posting their names in Facebook to virtue signal.

Oh and before I forget, the idea that the death count went from the 10,000,000 like in the hammer and dance, or from the 1,500,000 on the CDC's page to probably less than 100,000 because 1/3 of the population stayed home is laughable. Either this thing is as blisteringly contagious as you say or it's not. I live in a country on lockdown, we can't cross the fucking street without a piece of paper. My friends in the US are driving all over the place. If you drive your car here without a pass from the government they confiscate your car. They closed restaurants and bars on you guys you can still go to a 7-11 anytime you want. I can go 500 meters from my front door once a day for an hour. The current infection rate in the US exploded this week with the antibody tests and that's great news. So great that the press had to take the news cycle by saying the man boy in the White House suggested that people should be injected with cleaning solution. I can't stand him but he didn't say it and when people should have been talking about how great it is that this is so much less lethal than originally thought they were posting pictures of bleach bottles.

A2.

[QUOTE=TnaPorter;4760773]Why do you only include the US Why not only include India who has less than 1,000 COVID-19 deaths despite having 4 x the population? There are 1. 2 million auto-related deaths per year and that's not including all the deaths where someone died after being in a car accident at some previous point in their life.[/QUOTE]WTF? I don't live in India. And last time I seen a report, the authorities were beating people with sticks to enforce physical distancing. Also, I wouldn't trust reports out of authoritarian governments right now. They don't have the data and they dig have integrity. And there is an estimated 1-2 million car related "injuries" per year. That's because we have a national safety program in place that tracks data for car manufacturers so they can figure out how to innovate and make cars safer. Hence the high injury numbers compared to the relatively low death rate.

Did you watch Pandemic on Netflix? India struggles with the H1 N1 flu virus every year. An article from India News reports in January that there were 884 new cases of H1 N1 with 14 deaths.

This isn't a joke. There is actually a dangerous virus infecting people and killing people. We don't have a tested treatment for people in critical care, and we don't have a vaccine. Those states opening up are opening up to what? Half the country staying at home? Those struggling small businesses are still going to go under.

Our backstop is the Federal government and they are proving to not be up to the task.

[QUOTE=Admin2;4761412]The exponential growth happens IN risk groups, people outside of the risk groups are largely unaffected.[/QUOTE]And this is why you're wrong, and it's the basis of your contention.

Let's take this apart for a minute. Do young people get Covid? Yes, they do. Do they get sick? Often not. Are they then carriers that can affect others? Yes.

Exponential growth happens in all of the population, and in fact asymptomatic young people are among the most dangerous carriers as they are least likely to socially distance. This is why your "if you're at risk, stay home", which translates as "if you're not at risk, I. E. Young, this stuff doesn't matter" is patently, completely and dangerously false.

[URL]https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/03/coronavirus-vunerable-elderly-adults-ageism-younger-people/608224/[/URL]

This is where your focus on point statistics is simply wrong; EVERYONE is at risk. EVERYONE can carry the disease. Exponential growth in cases can affect the ENTIRE population.

I'm out; we're unlikely to reach an accord and in the end the vast majority of guidance says I'm right. And a small smattering of anecdotal situations here and there prove. Nothing.