How will we know...?

If we're lucky!

But what's the survival rate going to be for those who are being vaccinated?
There hasn't been time to do long term studies.
The long term study is "take it and find out".

Nah! We are living in 2020, we don't need long term studies to know if something is safe or not... just pump it into the liberals first.

“You do know this meme is not mine right?”

Why do you keep asking questions at the end of a comment chain?

Where are you getting your source that the virus has a survival rate that high?

Please show your work.

17,900,000 cases in the USA, 318,000 deaths in the USA. 1.7% death rate... meaning 98.3% survival rate... same sources.

Correct. That is a closer approximation.

The CDC, the OHA, the WOW... where are your getting your data that it does not have a high survival rate?

The CDC, primarily.

Then we are using the same source... what more do you want from me?

Is this taxing for you?

103000 cases, 1341 deaths (without autopsy to verify actual cause of death, they just died with COVID-19 in their system, therefor it "could have" been the cause). That would be a 1.3% death rate or a 98.7% survivability rate at the worst... This is according to the daily Coronavirus disease daily change data base and the New York Times... so, meh... maybe you are right. the numbers could be off just like the election data. What do we believe these days... right?

There is a huge difference between 99.8% and 98.7%

Roughly by 600 deaths.

That is no small number.

Going by the number of deaths, Covid is the third most deadly thing to die from in the US behind heart disease and cancer.

600 people across the nation is not a huge number... none the less it is still tragic for people to die.

Across a state it is. Which was the context with which we’re talking.

If you remove an entire percent across the country then we’re only talking about 150,000.

Percentages matter.

Do you know how to compute math at all? 1.1% of the death total in Oregon is 14 people. Not 600. Oregon had 1341 deaths at that time. 10% would be 134.1 and 1% would be 13.41. That is how math world. No wonder you idiots are so freaked out by the data, you have no clue how to read it. You do the same thing with the nation wide data, move the decimal point like your middle school math teacher taught you.

You're not following my train of thought exactly. You were the one that stated a state statistic and then compared it nationally. The national fatality rate is 1.7%, or roughly 2%, while Oregon's case fatality rate was 1.3%, or roughly 1%, with 1,341 deaths to 103,000 cases. Half of 2% is 1%... which means when you say the survival rate is 99% instead of 98%, you're essentially omitting about half of the deaths.

I'll admit, it was murky work with the numbers. As eliminating 600 deaths in Oregon (or 0.6% of the total fatality rate) would make up the difference of 741 deaths. This would reduce the fatality rate to 0.7%.

Perhaps it would've been better to illustrate my point like this...

The current death toll in the US is at 321,734 with 18,170,062 cases. That is a fatality rate of 1.8%. When you say the survival rate is 99.8%; you're reducing the fatality rate from 1.8% to 0.2%... Meaning you're only counting 31,013 deaths and leaving out the difference of 290,721 deaths. As if 290,721 people do not matter.

When did I say the survival rate was 99.8%? That was not me. I presented data because the meme was not fully accurate and people wanted to know where the data was from. Thus my post, to which you attacked my data and attempted to discredit what I was saying. All I said I said truly and with data to support it. Whatever you are trying to convince me of now is pointless.

But I didn't attack your data.

I said there was a huge difference between 99.8% and 98.7%.

I went on to say...

Roughly by 600 deaths.

That is no small number.

Which you took as the national number despite the fact we were discussing a single state.

You do know this meme is not mine right?

You and I are on the same side of this issue here. It is a problem...

My misunderstanding of your number 600 caused me to question where you got it from. In my mind, I could not construct where you got your number from. I thought this... If 98.7% was 1341, then 99.8% would only be 206. That is a difference of 1,135 deaths... Not 600 so you couldn't have been talking about Oregon numbers. Then I assumed you were talking about the national numbers which were not relevant to your 600. It was after your explanation that I was aware of your error. Your number is rounded incorrectly. It is a common error I dealt with while teaching middle school math and decimals. When dealing with decimals, one must always round the number to the nearest "0", ".5", or "1"... 98.7% would round to 98.5% and 99.8% would round to 100%. Your rough number should have been 0 deaths as 99.8% would round to 100% making your statement more correctly state, "There is a huge difference between 99.8% and 98.7%, Roughly 1341 deaths!, That is no small number." And I would have agreed with you.

"I'm very happy to correct or educate people who are wrong. Whether or not they're intelligent enough to participate in a constructive manner is entirely up to them."
In the future, I would add, "whether or not they are to full of themselves to listen or not..." It gives a more nicely rounded insult to the reader.

The math is still murky as we’re comparing a state average and comparing it a national one. I believe my corrected statement should suffice.

The current death toll in the US is at 321,734 with 18,170,062 cases. That is a fatality rate of 1.8%. When you say the survival rate is 99.8%; you're reducing the fatality rate from 1.8% to 0.2%... Meaning you're only counting 31,013 deaths and leaving out the difference of 290,721 deaths. As if 290,721 people do not matter.

My intention isn’t to insult. So, you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your advice. I think it always best to explain why someone is wrong rather than simply saying they are. It gives them a chance to see the error of their ways if they choose to do so. Or sometimes, give them an opportunity to correct me.

My math is not murky. When shoepimp said, "from 99.7% to 99.8%", HE was reducing the fatality rate from 1.8% to 0.2%. Meaning HE was only counting 31,013 deaths and leaving out the difference of 290,721 deaths. I provided data from CDC which was accurate. Your ignorance of that fact is apparent.

Except I said it was accurate. You’re the one pretending I challenged your sources and not Shoepimp. Maybe don’t get so defensive when I ask people who are wrong, like Shoepimp, to provide sources so I can double check their work and see where they erred?

He never did provide a source, did he... hmm...

How did you get 600? Did you pick that number out of your butt?

600 is nearly 50% of the deaths!

600 is nearly 50% of the deaths in Oregon due to Covid. Correct.

lol.

data for Oregon...

I showed work... what else do you want?

I’ve never seen someone so belligerent about me complimenting them when they got it right.

Please show that sars-cov-2 exists.

Or is this a case of poor meme wording? Is it the virus that has the high survival rate or the people who contract the virus? 🤷🏼‍♂️🤣

You can’t measure the survival rate of people who don’t have the virus.

Sure you can. They survived.

What a flippant response.

By your logic, those who have not jumped off a cliff have survived it. This is pure nonsense.

Data is measured by relevant factors. Only the people who've had the virus and survived factor into the survival rate. People who don't have the virus are not a factor.

Yes, I was flippant by intention.

A relevant factor is natural immunity which is unknown at this point. Even the black plague had people with natural immunity to it. By your logic, there is not a single person with natural immunity to Covid-19! You should replace all the experts to make such a claim.

I state my data as a point, if a person didn't get it, they were either immune or never in contact with the virus. As my liberal friends are quick to blame people for not wearing masks correctly and not social distancing, thus the virus would be under control by now because masks work... oof!

If it is that out of control and it has been nearly a year, there must be a population of people who are immune to it... logically. I could be wrong, but you must be very confident in your complete knowledge of the virus to discredit that point.

We literally cannot measure unknown factors. So, we cannot assume until we know. By your logic, we should assume things before we know them. That is less logical than my position and the position of most scientists.

The fact that you're still arguing on whether or not masks work still proves that there are people who doubt the need for them and may not be wearing them at all. Masks are not the only requirement to contain the virus. Patience and compromise are also required, and I believe many are running out of the former and are no longer willing to make the latter.

One of the primary issues with COVID is that there are people who were asymptomatic or low symptomatic. Some people handled the virus better than others. That does seem to indicate immunity but it doesn't mean that just because some people are immune that herd immunity will instantly come into play. That isn't how herd immunity works. It takes years for a new virus to build a reliable herd immunity symptom. One of the ways to speed that process up is through vaccines and we're just now getting to that point.

"We literally cannot measure unknown factors"
Yes we can, and we do. It is called algebra and the unknowns are, but not limited to, "X" is <, >, or = to "98.3%". Higher mathematics uses it regularly, science has "uncertainties" in scientific measurements. Not everything known is observable. Take evolution for example... we can not observe it but we teach it. It is not unheard of in math or science and I think it is not unreasonable to consider this unknown variable in Covid-19. Also, consider that a Hypothesis is an assumption before one knows something. It is part of science and performed daily. I don't see anything wrong with the hypothesis of natural (NOT HERD) immunity of a portion of the population? I don't think you will find one scientist that will dispute natural immunity of a portion of the population to every virus known to man.

I said, "As my liberal friends are quick to point out..." I myself don't blame the spread of Covid on the singularity of masks or no masks.

On masks: I do doubt the effectiveness of "masks over beards, home-made masks, neck gators, masks not over noses, face shields, bandanas, and surgical masks (does little to protect the wearer.)

I doubt the need to wear a mask that does not protect oneself because most people do not wear the proper mask to protect others. I believe the only masks that offer protection are the 95 masks... KN95, M95i, and the like. If everyone wore the proper mask of 95 rating then people could wear masks with valves which would no-longer be an issue. I believe the contamination is already in the air and people are not protected from it because surgical masks do not protect the wearer. Most of the spread of Covid is through aerosols which are in the air.

I would agree with you that people are running our of patience. Also, many people do not fully appreciate the full sacrifices demanded by the shut-down because they are not impacted beyond the social impact. These people need to shut up. People are broken by the shutdown. What they have lost is not fully appreciated nor sympathized with.

You nailed it, asymptomatic or low symptomatic are not properly protecting others. Any mask that does not protect the wearer will not prevent the spread of Covid.

There is a very important distinction between measuring and estimating. Sure, we can still estimate but we’re still dealing largely with unknowns. That is why we bother with the fatality rate to get a very rough estimate as to how dangerous the virus is. But we’re still dealing with known factors to make that calculation.

We won’t find many scientists that dispute herd immunity but many will also agree that natural herd immunity takes years, if not decades.

Masks with valves actually are not useful at all in containing the spread. I suggest you have a look at this...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

The valves allow potential infected water droplets to be expelled from the mask, further potentially infecting people more susceptible to the virus.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/18/sars-cov-2-has-not-been-proven-to-exist/

Very interesting reads and obviously coming from a place of bias so the credibility is questionable. From what I understand, and they’re doing this in the US too, anti-vaxxers are misrepresenting testing data with either the intention to deceive or genuine ignorance to how experiments are performed. During experiments, there is always a second test run that is called the control group. It replicates the conditions of the first data in order to better measure the results. And people take these parts of the report where they had no sample or replicated a sample as proof the virus doesn’t exist. Which just isn’t true.

I wouldn’t put any stock in what you understand after claiming that 1.1% of 1341 deaths would increase the number by 600. Stop meme if and pay attention to your schooling. If you are out of school, OOOOOOOOF!

Except, I never said that.

Lol all his references come directly from the so-called "authorities". Nice attempt at a limited hangout and poisoning the well.

Yes, and if you read what I said, I’m saying they are misrepresenting the data from official sources. It isn’t proof that it doesn’t exist. It’s proof they don’t know what they’re reading.

You misrepresent data on a daily basis.

Whether I do is inconsequential to the argument. Whether you can prove it within the context of this argument is more important. If you can't, then you're just blowing hot air.

I should have listened to Greg King, "Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Whether I do is inconsequential to the argument. Whether you can prove it within the context of this argument is more important. If you can't, then you're just blowing hot air.

"I should have listened to Greg King, "Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.""

So, hot air.

I'm very happy to correct or educate people who are wrong. Whether or not they're intelligent enough to participate in a constructive manner is entirely up to them.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
- Mark Twain

re: "Where are you getting your source that the virus has a survival rate that high?"

I went to government run public schools, so my math skills may be suspect.

As for covid deaths, using the CDC link that you posted in another comment:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

The link (at this moment) reveals 315,000+ deaths.

Whether all of those deaths were actually covid related is subject to some debate.

Whatever the actual number, you can be sure that this 315,000+ death number will be prominently featured in this evening's episode of the NBC Nightly "We're All Going To Die!" News.

Moving along to something more factual, let's go here:

U.S. and World Population Clock

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

We see that the US population is over 330,000,000.

To make the math simpler, round up the alleged covid death count from 315,000+ to a nice round 330,000.

Now go here:

Percentage Calculator

https://percentagecalculator.net/

What percentage of 330,000,000 is 330,000?

It would appear that .1 % have (allegedly) died from covid in this country in this year.
(Please check the math!)

Continuing:

99.9% of the US population seems to have survived "The Worst Pandemic Since 1918", probably due to the better medical care available. That's even before the arrival of the vaccines, whose effectiveness and safety have yet to be determined.

"Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!"

Of the low fatality disease, for those without comorbidities or other issues, advanced age, etc.?

Or of the cures? The lockdowns? The Idiocracy running things?

Idiocracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

.

why have a memorial on 9/11 then? covid has killed more people than that in the us

So you’re measuring the survival rate based on population. In that case, Covid is the third most deadly killer of the US population in regards to the top ten. Just behind heart disease and cancer.

The actual survival rate is actually the difference of the fatality rate which is 1.8% minus the total percentage of infected.