Candace Owens #Reopen America

Candace Owens #Reopen America |  THIS  IS  YOUR  DAILY  REMINDER  THAT  WE 
SHUT  DOWN  AMERICA,  IMPOVERISHED 
MILLIONS,  FORCED  BUSINESSES  TO  FAIL 
  AND  HOMEOWNERS  TO  FORCLOSE,  OVER A  VIRUS 
THAT  HAS  A  99.96%  SURVIVAL  RATE. AND  THE  DEMOCRATS  ARE  DEMANDING  
WE  CONTINUE  
THE  LOCKDOWNS  FOR  EVERYONE 
 BUT  THEIR  PROTESTERS. | image tagged in trump,current events,reopen america,memes,candace owens,covid-19 | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
3,078 views 67 upvotes Made by IMGerS 2 months ago in politics
Add Meme
Add Image
Post Comment
Best first
60 Comments
reply
4 ups, 2m,
1 reply
😍
reply
3 ups, 2m
Smart lady!
reply
2 ups, 2m,
1 reply
VOTE TRUMP 2020 | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Great meme! UPVOTED bigly
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
Lame. #CovidHoax was because the Democrats couldn't impeach Trump
reply
0 ups, 2m
Calling Covid a hoax when there is astounding evidence it exists is rather silly.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
Time to end #CovidHoax
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
Are we back to calling it a hoax now?
reply
0 ups, 2m
🎭 Hoax hoax hoax hoax, hoax hoax hoax hoax, Hoaxey-hoax a hoaxity hoax, la-Dee-da, hoax hoax...🎭
reply
3 ups, 2m,
2 replies
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
99+ but close enough. Lol
reply
0 ups, 2m
Not to anyone who knows math.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
I can only assume the % they're talking about in the OP meme is regarding the ENTIRE POPULATION
....... not the "survival rate" of people who have actually caught covid.

140,000(deaths) ÷ 330,000,000 (US population)
=
0.00042
which means ~ 0.04% death rate or 99.96% "survival rate".
reply
2 ups, 2m,
2 replies
And that is not how you calculate survival rates, obviously.

Well, unless you want to be very wrong.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
Yeah that's how you calculated with a pandemic.
reply
0 ups, 2m
No, it isn’t. Fatality rate is determined by number of deaths divided by the number of infected, then multiply by 100 to get the percentile.

Right now the US’s fatality rate has lowered to about 3 or 4%. But we’ve seen large increases of infected in the last week and those deaths may start rising sometime this week or next. Hopefully not.
reply
1 up, 2m,
2 replies
Depends if you're looking at it in terms of how much of the entire population will survive or in terms of how many of those who catch it will survive.

But their specific wording "over a virus that has a 99.96% survival rate" does seem to imply that the number is regarding those infected by the virus.... not the general population. So it is kind of misleading.
reply
2 ups, 2m,
3 replies
It isn’t kinda misleading.

It simply is misleading.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
Another DemoRat sheep
reply
0 ups, 2m
Calling out misleading informations and quoting facts is usually not the arena of a single political party.
reply
1 up, 2m,
2 replies
There was a study by a Stanford professor of epidemiology, John Ioannidis, that stated the "infection fatality rate" was below 1%. This was reported in a some conservative and libertarian media outlets. I believe that is where the 99% survival rate came from
reply
1 up, 2m
I think it's pretty clear that is because 99% of the population will not die from this. Duh
reply
1 up, 2m,
2 replies
Yes, and he was giving a ballpark number of the fatality rate based on the sample of people in his study.

It is true that it’s entirely possible the final fatality rate will be below 1%, and I hope that is true, but that is no justification to throw all precaution aside.

Which he now claims that it is above 1% but only among those above the age of 70.
reply
1 up, 2m,
4 replies
As of June the CDC published estimates as a range. Everything is an estimate as no one knows for sure how many actually died of it and were or were not properly identified, nor how many people actually have it but are not tested.

The range of estimates put the fatality rate for those showing symptoms between 0.2%-1%, with a "best estimate" of 0.4%.

It also places the number of asymptomatic cases between 20%-50%, with a "best estimate" of 35%.

By combining the two estimates, the estimated overall fatality rate of those infected with the virus – with and without symptoms – would be 0.26%.
reply
2 ups, 2m,
1 reply
reply
1 up, 2m
Exactly.
reply
1 up, 2m
With the exception of the first paragraph this is from a fact check widely published in USA Today On 6/5/20 in response to claims the number was too low.
reply
1 up, 2m
And we shut down the entire world for this? The starvation that results will be worse than the disease
reply
0 ups, 2m,
2 replies
Wrong again. Please show where the CDC is publishing the range. I would love to see where you're getting that specifically from the CDC.

I could only find a list of confirmed and probable cases. The CDC is only tallying the probable cases, and not in a range at:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

But, lets just count the confirmed cases. I tallied (because it did not total them, so yes, I counted all 50 states and our territories) and concluded that we have 86,062 confirmed deaths by Covid-19 and 1,456,009 confirmed cases. To calculate fatality rate...

86,062 dead ÷ 1,456,009 cases = 0.0591081511171978. Converting into percentile, that's 0.0591081511171978 x 100 = 5.91%

5.91% fatality rate. With the probable cases, it's actually lower. With 3.64% Which, hot dog, that's been the lowest it's been in the US since February.

Now, I showed my work. Can you do the same, please? And I don't mean the fatality rate formula. I mean the source.
reply
2 ups, 2m,
2 replies
Not hiding anything the source is listed In the first sentence. I assumed you would be able to find it with that and felt the explanation was helpful.
1 up, 2m
Since you already posted the link here is the link to the pdf. I could print and mail this to you as well. But I won’t. I will note your complaint and file with the proper customer service departments.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios-h.pdf
0 ups, 2m
Listing the source, which you already did, but not linking it is rather convenient. I was very happy to give you a link. Odd you could not do the same.

Either you couldn’t because you didn’t know the source or you didn’t want to link it.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
he CDC offers the new estimates in its "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios," which are meant to guide hospital administrators in "assessing resource needs" and help policy makers "evaluate the potential effects of different community mitigation strategies." It says "the planning scenarios are being used by mathematical modelers throughout the Federal government."

The CDC's five scenarios include one based on "a current best estimate about viral transmission and disease severity in the United States." That scenario assumes a "basic reproduction number" of 2.5, meaning the average carrier can be expected to infect that number of people in a population with no immunity. It assumes an overall symptomatic case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.4 percent, roughly four times the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu. The CDC estimates that the CFR for COVID-19 falls to 0.05 percent among people younger than 50 and rises to 1.3 percent among people 65 and older. For people in the middle (ages 50–64), the estimated CFR is 0.2 percent.
0 ups, 2m
I requested the source.

But I found what you were copy/pasting from Reason.com which was quoting CNN which provided a link to what you’re talking about.

This is the source.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

And I’m very interested in reading this and will get back to you as I don’t just let blogs decide for me what I’m reading.

Next time someone asks for a source, it’d be easier to just send a link. Otherwise someone might think you’re purposely hiding something.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
But how much of the number is inflated by deaths of other causes put down as Covid deaths? I knew of that happening several times just in my small city. Just because someone had Covid near that time.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
We don’t know. And we can’t just throw out the data even if there is a high margin of error. We have to use the best information we got at the time we have it.
reply
0 ups, 2m
But the inflation is still there, and should be taken into account, if not measures taken to stop it.
reply
1 up, 2m
For whatever reason, I was being generous..
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
Let me guess? You're a sheep voting for Biden.
reply
0 ups, 2m
Let me guess. You copied the information in your meme from somewhere else and did zero math.
reply
2 ups, 2m
Here's my math.
During July 22, 3:05 p.m, there have been 3970671 cases and 144173(FYI: A thousand more deaths have been reported today).
If we get 144173/3970671=0.0363094802 or 3.6%.
While there is a point where someone might have got over Covid-19 without official testing, I think only a very small percentage decided not to get tested for some crazy reason. Anyway, the people who didn't get tested are only exposing how republicans have played this virus down.
Is that enough math, Sandy Lindsey.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
where did you get that fact president trump
reply
6 ups, 2m,
1 reply
It's called MATH. And that doesn't take into account all the false positive and fraud from hospitals trying to grab theirr federal $19,000 per patient.
reply
4 ups, 2m
And that doesn't take into account all the false positive and fraud from hospitals trying to grab theirr federal $19,000 per patient.
reply
2 ups, 2m,
2 replies
I don't know why Republicans are saying things like Covid-19 having a mortality rate of less than 1%.
reply
5 ups, 2m,
2 replies
It's called MATH
reply
1 up, 2m
Then show me math.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
Then show me the math.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
2 replies
See dark yolo’s post above
reply
1 up, 2m
That isn’t how you calculate the fatality rate. Nor is the survival rate the remainder of the fatality rate.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
My math there is regarding the entire population... The OP meme's wording implies that they are referring to people who have caught Covid-19. If they wanted to be more accurate they should've said "over a virus that has not killed 99.96% of America.

YaraliXX's math of the mortality rate of those infected with Covid-19 calculated above (3.6%) seems accurate based on the numbers so far... But interestingly enough some people seem to believe that the new cases are being fraudulently over-reported.. I've seen people here claim as many as 16 new cases are being documented for every single person with it.....And IF that was true (I'm not saying it is), the actual number of new cases would be lower than is being reported.. which would in turn make the mortality rate higher.
:o
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
You have to go by the entire population to take infectivity into account.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
"Take infectivity into account". I don't understand what you mean by that. (?)
reply
1 up, 2m,
2 replies
If you're trying to determine the danger of such a disease or virus, you need to consider the total population. (To gauge infectivity and fatality.)
reply
1 up, 2m
Yes!
reply
0 ups, 2m,
2 replies
The mortality rate of those infected and contagiousness both seem more relevant as far as determining danger than how many people are in a given population.

Also if the previous method of using the entire population and number of deaths that I described elsewhere is used, the timing of the calculation would impact the perceived danger... What I mean is, as time goes on and more people die, it would skew the "survival rate" (of the population) so that the virus would appear more and more dangerous as time went on.... (Assuming the population growth and normal deaths of other causes remained constant.).. which means it'd be more like calculating a time capsule vs calculating an actual "rate".
reply
0 ups, 2m
I think the point the OP was trying to make is as any random person in America what is the chance you'll die from Covid.

With a greater population but less infections that would mean X disease isn't as infectious.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Population growth isn't constant though. It's an important variable.
0 ups, 2m
Ok.. Hypothetically let's say virus X typically infects 4 people for every single person who has it and typically kills 20% of those infected. If our population doubled every day would that make the virus less dangerous? Why would population growth matter when determining how dangerous a virus is? Maybe I'm missing something here idk
reply
1 up, 2m
Because it's well.....correct?
Flip Settings
memes
gifs
other
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
THIS IS YOUR DAILY REMINDER THAT WE SHUT DOWN AMERICA, IMPOVERISHED MILLIONS, FORCED BUSINESSES TO FAIL AND HOMEOWNERS TO FORCLOSE, OVER A VIRUS THAT HAS A 99.96% SURVIVAL RATE. AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE DEMANDING WE CONTINUE THE LOCKDOWNS FOR EVERYONE BUT THEIR PROTESTERS.
hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back
Feedback