The 'argument' to back up my prediction is France's low-availability of ICU beds per capita. The death rate is how that 'argument' is measured.



Yes, that is a fair assessment of his position.



Death rate per million is not an indictment of the healthcare system, but of the social response to the virus. Death rate per case is an indictment of the healthcare system.



Lol, Apples up in here. Fast connections and all that.




But what I'm doing is making a mental note of the growth. I'm not saying "we're better than you NOW, so we'll be better than you IN THE FUTURE." When I first made the comment, the countries were 1.26% vs roughly 4%. As of yesterday - a week later - they're 2.15% vs 6.76%. So if the US is 2 weeks behind France on their infection curve, and we're below 4% death rate in another week as well as below 6.76% a week after that, we'll be on track to validate my prediction.

rates don't lead to actual meaningful conclusions until a the bulk of cases have been resolved and the data is tabulated. That won't happen for many months. Right now, it's largely a function of availability of tests. Depending on what criteria is used to select who gets tested, the rates are going to vary wildly.

That's why South Korea's data s so important right now. They tested early and often. They are well past their peak so the bulk of their data is in. The other countries can use that as a best case scenario.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Apr 1 2020 05:20am

lol, you are just rephrasing what i said, acting like i argued against it. i already pointed out that any metric at this point is flawed, i simply provided SOME methods that would be MORE accurate and meaningful than what sandra did (just comparing death rates from two countries on the same date), because you acted like rejecting that method meant 'just ignoring all data' (which really is just the other stupid extreme, and demonstrates a lack of nuance, logic, and critical thinking).

your 'challenge' is asinine - there obviously is no such metric, and i never suggested there was. that is actually my original point. try to keep up, ok?



not even remotely, and it's funny you claim that in the same post you're quoting my explanation for lazy thinkers, which completely obliterates that assessment and illustrates why your original point deserved to be called out.



yes, i already noticed how you moved the goal post 'adjusted your position' after i mocked you for simplistically comparing death rates on the same date. that's certainly a slightly more meaningful (although still considerably flawed) method. baby steps, i guess.

i still have to point out that it's a petty and ultimately meaningless endeavour as long as developments are still so rapid, and testing (both of active cases, but also deceased with undetermined cause of death - which is a big variable, particularly in countries where tests are scarce) and reporting methods are different.

long story short, you made a pretty big oopsie during an argument, and now you can't admit it, so you resort to #alternative facts.

You are complety out of your mind.
I guess this clearly means you realize the massive amount of deads your costly, inequalitarian, healthcare will do.

I meant if we are at 200k we would have done a very good job as a country, and I think the number will be far higher. Hope I am wrong

The point is you are criticizing others as if your methods are superior but they aren’t. Every metric right now has their pro/con. my "asinine" challenge is a reflection of your flawed stance.

To so blatantly insult someone for using x flawed metric instead of y flawed metric is moronic (this is you). In actuality one should be looking at the lot of these metrics using them all in tandem while acknowledging deficits of each.

This post was edited by Bazi on Apr 1 2020 06:57am

If you can't contain the spread correctly because 60 millions americans citizen are scared to go in debt it will NEVER be a good job "as a country"

One of the point being to go early and not to wait things are going really bad.

Yeah I mean I conceded that I am by no means arguing from a socioeconomic standpoint here. From a financial standpoint I feel for the average American. If loss of wages don’t lead to strife then the multi ten-thousand dollar hospital bill will.

And I also agree it is hard for Americans to stay at home knowing what the financial fall out will be, which is why I would be surprised if we did keep that number to ~200k

They can change that, your government can change that...
Old war law, same than Manhattan Project, forcing all hospitals to take in all patients (c19 only), getting paid by fed but without the hability to make profits over it.
Thus most of US hospitals are not for profit already, so what is needed is a strong one shot statement about all this.
Not sure medical sector lobbyists are interested, this is clearly a threat in the long run for them. So oh yeah 100k+ peeps may die, thoughts and prayers.

condescension without answers is all derpy is capable of.

years back he'd get into these point by point discussions with Cam, me, santara, and many others. but these days its 90% insults and condescension fluff and 10% content. then he has the balls to say shit like "i cant be more clear" or calls our your reading comprehension, as if its you fault you missed the needle in the shitstack.