brabus

To be fair, that applies to a lot of politicians from both parties. But yes, Newsom is tied for worst governor with several others...can’t decide who’s a bigger POS, but there’s several who keep trying to out-do each other for that coveted title.

Yep, I think I misunderstood a CDC chart on total hospitalizations. The math process was sound, but an input variable was not. Chart below. I still don’t understand how they’re presenting the data in this chart, but it’s clearly not 74,573 cumulative total. My bad. FWIW, the cumulative figure I could find is 555k total hospitalization, making it 4.4% hospitalization rate amongst cases. So, 95.6% of cases aren’t hospitalized, which is still a very high number (in a good way). That also is for all ages, so rate obviously goes down significantly when you get to the under 70 bracket. Cool, I think we’re mostly on the same page. The hard part about conversations over the internet: easy to misinterpret other’s. The overall point is 90% of the population has a 99+% survival rate (with 88% testing negative). Those numbers should be the bedrock on which we make large scale decisions, yet the media, social media, and govt officials are peddling fear to the masses built up to a point that is completely counter to those numbers. Don’t tell me there’s a CAT 5 hurricane literally hitting my house when it’s a light rain. Don’t tell me I must board up my windows and hoard supplies when all I need to do is shut the windows and wear a raincoat when I go outside. Hopefully that analogy makes sense. There’s a spectrum, and no I don’t side with the “full libertarian” we should do absolutely nothing crowd, but there’s a middle ground, and many governors have gone 90 right off the tracks from the middle ground. The widespread destruction of so many portions of our lives is not rationally supported by the data. Why we can’t find reasonable middle grounds in this country on anything is going to be our downfall if we don’t get our shit together.

Seriously? Is this a Neil trap? Because if so, you totally got me. You just mixed two completely different data points (took the numerator from one and the denominator from the other) to generate a meaningless and irrelevant number. Data point 1: Rate per total population. This is all people, not just those who have/had COVID...so 330M total population is the denominator, not 12.7M cases. 228.7/100K means 0.23% of the population is/will be hospitalized for COVID over the course of the virus (and of course this is subject to change, but that’s what the data from the last 8 months shows). Go ahead and expand it out like you did, but 745,710 out of 330M is still 0.23%. Using the correct denominator for the dataset makes quite a difference. Data point 2: Rate amongst COVID cases 74,573 hospitalizations resulted from 12.7M COVID cases = 0.59% of COVID cases result in hospitalization. If I did what you did, then I could have used 330M for this data point’s denominator and claimed the hospitalization rate for people who had/have COVID is 0.022%...which is clearly incorrect. I’m good with that. But to go one more level for full “genuine-off,” let’s add that under 70 = 90% of the population. Let’s also not leave off that 10% of 70+ isn’t going to die because 100% of them aren’t going to get COVID. I can’t find the positivity rate broken down in age groups for national data, but if the national average is 12%, well I don’t imagine the rate for 70+ is as high as you may think. Data shows the positivity rate is higher among younger age groups, which makes sense based on the difference in lifestyles, social interaction, etc. For example, the latest data from NYC shows 18-24 have a 1.5% higher positive rate than 65-74 and 2% higher than 75+ (source:https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#perpos). I use NYC as an example because it’s on the higher end of the scale (worst? Haven’t looked at that comparison in a while). So that tells me the older groups have a lower national positivity rate than 12% because they’re not the demographic on the high end pulling the average up. So, let use 12% (generous) of the oldest 10% of the population will get COVID. Of that group, 10% will die (using your mortality rate form this post). Let’s say 30M in the 70+ group...360k deaths. But that’s likely too high due to using a 12% positivity rate. For reference my state (which has done well) has a 0.04% death rate for 70-79 and 0.09% for 80+...so let’s not gloss over the relatively “good news” while solely highlighting the specific dumpster fires. Either way, it still sucks, but it’s certainly not the 2.2M figure you threw out for this age group a page or two back. You’re misunderstanding my point then. I have never said this isn’t a big deal or not important enough to deal with, but we must make data-driven, unemotional decisions when it comes to wide scale public policy. I even concurred with your idea on financially supporting 70+ to enable self-quarantine, etc. Social distance, fine. Masks when meeting close contact definition, fine. Those are reasonable solutions. Destroying people’s livelihoods, putting education on pause, exacerbating/creating more mental health problems, telling people they can’t have grandma to their house for thanksgiving, and a long list of ludicrously illogical edicts are not reasonable solutions, especially when considering the unemotional data. If this was Ebola with a 50% death rate, well maybe this crazy shit would have to happen...but we’re not there, not even in the slightest. So yeah, we should care and do what we can to help others, but it’s pure ignorance, fear/other emotion, and/or thirst for power/gov control that is driving these bigger things I mention. The data alone does not lead a rational person to conclude these things are required/OK. The data does support things like social distancing, improved hygiene, quarantine when you don’t feel well/have been in close contact with someone who’s sick, etc.

The CDC has shit tons of data, way more than the planning estimates. I’ve probably spent way too much time digging through it, but on the other hand apparently a lot of people should spend more (or even some) time looking through it, vs. taking numbers from social media/MSM. But, your statement of “I don’t really care about the numbers” tells me you don’t care about the unemotional data and prefer emotion (also an extension of politics much of the time) to drive policy decisions. It also tells me you will not spend time doing real research on the CDC website either out of apathy, or fear you will only see numbers that do not support your current conclusion on this subject. Here’s my direct quote: “ yet here we are pretending 12% positive rate and 99.86% survival rates (US under 70) are Ebola reincarnated. For comparison, last year the positive test rate for the flu was 52% and death rate was ~ .02% for under 70. So quite literally, the risk to your average, healthy person under 70 is .12% higher than the flu. Clearly risk goes exponentially up or down to age groups above and below the 70 line.” I think I made it abundantly clear which age demographic I was talking about, including acknowledging said percentages change for going outside that demographic. So no, I did not exclude the acknowledgment of it impacting the 70+ crowd worse (in fact, I even used the word exponentially to describe the increased threat). In early summer did you also say we’d have 3+ million US deaths by end of the year? Because lots of people did, including several of my intelligent friends who said I was out of my mind to think we wouldn’t, “because science.” Your doomsday math is not steeped in fact and serves more for hyperbole purposes than anything. However, through the hyperbole I do understand your point that lives matter to some unmeasurable extent and you can’t just disregard an entire age demographic. I agree with you and others on that point. To that point.... Very interesting and I am not at all opposed to an idea like this, provided obviously the details are well researched/supported and we can find a smart way to fund it. I think it makes general sense though. I think something like this is certainly better than a lot of other garbage projects/programs the gov spends money on. And I haven’t done the financial research on the $3T you mentioned, but I have to imagine something like your idea could have been funded out of that 3T in place of some bullshit that happened instead. No, I’m correct, but here’s the explanation... 228.7/100k is number of hospitalizations per population value, NOT per number of COVID cases. The .59% comes from 74,573 COVID hospitalizations out of a total of 12.7M COVID cases.

Source for all past, present, and future data: CDC. I will state if different, but prefer to stick with CDC because that’s likely the most accurate/apolitical data we have. Since you clearly didn’t read everything I wrote, I’ll reiterate that I said multiple times these numbers are nationwide average for under 70, which makes up the vast majority of our population (~90%...technically 87% up to age 64, 2010 census brackets 65+ into one group; so clearly 69 and under accounts for more than 87%). So yes, “disclaimer” clearly stated, and you are being deceptive/attempting to discredit data because it doesn’t fit your opinion, and hoping others haven’t actually read my posts and just assume your misrepresentation of such is accurate. Absolutely none of this is misleading or inaccurate, it is 100% factual straight from the CDC. I can’t help that you don’t like the numbers, but they are quite literally unemotional, apolitical, and as accurate as the CDC is capable of producing. Now, to your age group point: making public policy and systemic level decisions based on 10% of the population is unsound my opinion. Why would you not make decisions based on how it affects the majority (in this specific case, we’re talking data points that represent a MASSIVE majority: ~90%). The 2019 average life expectancy was 78.8, so dying beyond that, regardless of cause, is beating life expectancy. That doesn’t mean their lives weren’t important to others, but unemotionally they have done better than average. Got it, cue bleeding heart; my point is emotional decision making is an awful failure when exercised at state and federal levels (and still usually bad even at a personal level). To make public policy based on 10% of the population who are already above average age, that negatively impacts the rest of the population, is emotional decision making at its worst and terribly short-sighted. Since you’ll probably respond with a demand for how I’d solve it - well, we should look at policy that aims to provide isolation OPTIONS for that age group, while allowing the other 90% access to the things they need to live life (and that includes things that contribute to mental well being). Let the 70+ demographic choose how to proceed - it’s their life and they should make the call, not the government. Maybe you don’t talk to enough 70+ year olds, because all of my family and friend’s families who are in that bracket are pissed and just want to be the ones who decide for themselves. Stop treating them like children who can’t make adult decisions. But what about the hospitals? I agree, that’s an important question to ask/valid data point to take into account when making decisions. As of 14 Nov, COVID hospitalization rate is 228.7 per 100k population. Breaking it down to specifically COVID cases relative to number of those that end in hospitalization - 0.59%. All from the CDC, covering the entire age range. I get it that in city X it is way worse than that, but its disingenuous to yell about that city while ignoring city Y that isn’t overrun at all. We’re talking state/federal level policy here, or at least I am.

Drifting off the two major, recent points down the “yeah, but...” road; to bring it back: - Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on? Is that our threshold for destroying businesses and the economic reliance owners and employees have on them? Is that our threshold for putting children’s education on pause for what will amount to at least a year for many? Is that our threshold that makes all the mental health decline worth it? - Is it rational/logical to take your .14% chance of death if you get covid, and skip the vaccine until there is more time, trials, testing, etc. under its belt?

Last year 62% got the flu vaccine with an effectiveness rate of 29%. The 10 year average is 57.3% getting it and 42.4% effectiveness. So, even with a flu vaccine and 62% of the population getting it last year, it was still only .12% less deadly than covid with zero vaccine for the under 70 population. What does that say? Lots of future speculation, so I can speculate as accurately that if you show me one person with longterm can’t-workout problems, I’ll show you substantially more who got over it in a week or less and are fine (or were so unaffected they didn’t even know they had it). Both groups exist, but let’s not pretend we actually have statistically relevant data to make claims there are meaningful probabilities of long term effects in substantial numbers. I believe it is completely possible that could become an accurate statement in the future, but for now it’s almost purely speculation based on statistically irrelevant numbers, outliers, etc.

There hasn’t been your entire life, if we’re defining unsafe as risk of catching respiratory viruses in a public setting exists. The flu, pneumonia, etc. didn’t make people not want to eat out, yet here we are pretending 12% positive rate and 99.86% survival rates (US under 70) are Ebola reincarnated. For comparison, last year the positive test rate for the flu was 52% and death rate was ~ .02% for under 70. So quite literally, the risk to your average, healthy person under 70 is .12% higher than the flu. Clearly risk goes exponentially up or down to age groups above and below the 70 line. People spent 2018 cool with a 52% chance of catching a virus followed by a 99.98% survival rate, yet are incredibly concerned in 2020 over a 12% chance of catching a different virus followed by a 99.86% survival rate. I get it this doesn’t encompass specific scenarios like elderly family with health issues, the individuals with compromised immune systems, healthcare workers in close proximity to high risk patients, etc. But, it does encapsulate the vast majority of our demographics.

You can tell who’s in the guard and who’s on AD by the responses. One side doesn’t give a shit, and the other is worried about getting their next assignment changed to Laughlin if they dare speak against the man. Funny and sad at the same time.

Impressive, ridiculously dangerous? I don’t know, but those dudes have some balls, I’ll give them that. Now I’ve seen everything...

Polio had a yearly average 11.5% death rate pre-vaccine. From the time Salk created the first version of the vaccine, 5 years elapsed of study, tests, and clinical trials, before there was a nationwide drive for inoculation. Recap: Polio was significantly more deadly and 5 years of clinical testing/data prior to mass release. Apples and oranges.

I didn’t say no testing, I said no longterm data. I’m not an anti-vaxxer, have had just about every vaccine under the sun (thanks 3rd world shitholes). Putting something man made into your body that may have currently unknown side affects just because of something you have nearly no chance of dying from...well, it’s pretty logical to take the known 99.99% chance over the unknown. You do you, no judgement from me. Just saying the numbers support the decision to not get it as a rational one.

Why is that surprising? Get an injection of something that was rammed through testing with no longterm data vs. a 1.8% chance of getting covid, and if losing those odds, have a 99.99% of recovery (numbers derived from my state specifically for anyone under 70). Seems fairly logical for anybody who doesn’t have other health concerns (diabetes, etc.) and don’t have any other circumstances, like immune-compromised family member, healthcare worker, etc. to skip it. At least until there is some long term data.

Wow. Out of curiosity, if his fake degree wasn’t “in the system,” how did he commission in the first place, let alone make it to Capt (assuming)?

Same here, among co workers and neighbors. I’m honestly surprised that high of a percentage is willing to get it.

We had BE at at Eglin all the time...it was awesome. Could call the AC on his cell and work out whatever we wanted for the next day, rest of the week, etc. No bullshit, Bobs, etc. to get in the way of the mission.

I get your point, but it is relevant when people throw out stats like this as supporting points for their argument that our response was subpar. Totally in agreement we’ve had, and continue to see, horrific leadership failures. A large portion of them being at the state level (governors).

It’s not that simple. Reasons (not exhaustive) - We are far more globally connected than many countries, leading to far more exposure (e.g. No shit Afghanistan’s rates are lower) - Were the 3rd largest country in the world (a 1/4 the size of China)...but China only has 86k cases...yeah OK. They alone have likely massively skewed the global data, which is a nice segue for... - It is an invalid assumption that all countries are transparent and truthful of their cases, deaths, hospitalization rates. You think China, Russia, Iran, etc. are all open kimono on their numbers? - We test more than any other country, so obviously our numbers will have the appearance of being drastically higher compared to all the countries that test at a much lower rate than us. What would our share be if every country had conducted tests equaling 50% of their population? This is all not to say we’ve perfectly crushed it, but to say that specific talking point is very misleading when used to generalize America’s response vs. outcome regarding COVID.

Most responses are way out of line, illogical, and many probably illegal. This is 90% emotional/political and 10% about actual public health. Social distancing, mask when you meet the definition of close contact, and improved hygiene (or really what you should have always been doing) is acceptable at this current point. Everything else, especially with the data on hand, is utter bullshit. That’s my somewhat succinct viewpoint.

If you haven’t flown TACAN initial at the Kun after flying “VMC” at Pilsung, you haven’t lived. I did them in UPT and the only times after that were in combat, how’s that for some irony.

The discussion on dominion is pretty alarming, but for now it’s just talk. I’ll care when there’s actually evidence presented to back this talk. However, I do believe it should be looked at. I’m with Tree - how is it we have failed to tighten the system up to the point no side can use it as a reason to sow distrust in the voter ranks? This should be easy, and I do not understand why people are against some of the easy ways to accomplish this.

The funny thing is it’s 2020 and the navy and AF still can’t even agree on which J-series message to use for some things. Hopefully MESH pans out for the DOD sooner rather than later.

The F-35 and its JPO is a textbook example of why this is a horrible idea. It seems good on paper, but it doesn’t work in execution. I can’t wait for the day when the JPO burns to the ground, we tell everyone else to fuck off, and have an AF SPO. The next step is the AF buys the code and we don’t have to rely on Lockheed. I’ll never see it, but I hope the guys in the future do.

Last I knew the reserves at Nellis do have TR aggressor pilots. Another option to explore is Draken, ATAC, etc. Guys I know who do that seem fairly happy with it; no AF bullshit to really deal with (but doesn’t help if you’re trying to get an AF retirement).