Were/are we being lied to?

[PayrollHRGuy]

We were and still are being told that crowds will spread the virus. We have also been told that blacks and other people of color are "the hardest hit." And we have certainly seen some crowds with lots of blacks in attendance.

But this expert says a study shows that those that took part in the rallies have the same positive rate as the population in general.

 

[adjusterjack]

We have also been told that blacks and other people of color are "the hardest hit."

That's true, when you look at deaths per 100,000. See:

COVID-19 deaths analyzed by race and ethnicity — APM Research Lab

As for the virus proliferating among the young, that's at least true in AZ.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

But I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the method of transference. If everything they have said about the method of transference is correct there should be a LOT higher rate of people, both black and white, who attended the rallies with the virus now.

As far as blacks dying at close to twice the rate as whites it doesn't surprise me at all. I think we would see the same rate for any other potentially deadly medical problem as there are about twice as many blacks in poverty as there are whites. Poverty is the problem, not race.

 

[adjusterjack]

The rallies were relatively recent. Maybe all the reports aren't in.

I wouldn't go so far as saying we are being lied to. There's just so much that it not known about the virus that misinformation abounds.

 

[hrforme]

But I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the method of transference. If everything they have said about the method of transference is correct there should be a LOT higher rate of people, both black and white, who attended the rallies with the virus now.

As far as blacks dying at close to twice the rate as whites it doesn't surprise me at all. I think we would see the same rate for any other potentially deadly medical problem as there are about twice as many blacks in poverty as there are whites. Poverty is the problem, not race.

listened to a systemic racism webinar that Cigna put on last week and the medical doctor on there talked a bit about why this is a problem for the black community -- her biggest point was lack of medical care (either due to cultural issues of not trusting doctors OR socioeconomic issues) and comorbity in the black community that would make them more susceptible.

and I think there are a lot of unknowns to the whole thing .... a large group isn't bad until one person in the group is a carrier/sick (such as the 18 member family that got sick from one birthday party)......

But I do agree that I expected a spike from those that attended rallies/protests....where chanting/singing, etc was happening (more things coming out of mouths -- spit, particles, etc)

 

[Tax Counsel]

Being lied to? No, I don't think so, though I know some people, particularly some conservatives, jump on that kind of narrative (which as a conservative myself I find a bit embarrassing) when the reality is that the the way the virus spreads is still not well enough known to make accurate predictions of the spread. Having large groups can of course enable greater spread of the disease if at least one infected person is there. That's not rocket science and doesn't take a degree in medicine to understand. People have understood for centuries that when a person is infected with a disease that spreads from person to person the more people the infected person comes in contact with the more people may get the disease. With respect to the rallies, you'd first have to know if there was in fact anyone present at a particular rally who was infected to start analyzing how that impacts the spread. After all, it is also not rocket science that if no one there was infected then of course no one else will get the disease at the rally.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I'm sorry I simply can't buy that there no more infection of those that attended the BLM rallies than there are in the general population. You are talking about two groups that are least likely to have been tested before the rallies. Black and young.

Now keep in mind that had there not been a specific study quoted that makes this claim I would have simply assumed that it was the fact that the protestors were young that didn't cause an increase.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I'm sorry I simply can't buy that there no more infection of those that attended the BLM rallies than there are in the general population. You are talking about two groups that are least likely to have been tested before the rallies. Black and young.

But you asked if we are being lied to. The answer to that depends on getting inside the heads of the people who are making the statements. The statement may well be true given the limited set of data we have but the problem may be that because the data set is limited it may not accurately convey what the real risk was.

I will say that I won't buy the the BLM protests put people more at risk than the protests against the corona virus lock down did. So anyone who didn't see a problem with the lockdown protests spreading the disease should not now claim that the BLM protests are a problem in spreading the disease. To me, doing do would smack of at least hypocrisy and very likely racism.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

My point isn't really that the government is lying it is that the media is. The media and many of those whose political point of view is to the left were all up in arms about the protests about the lockdown. But those same people didn't say "boo" regarding the virus when the BLM protests started. And the BLM protests were much more rambunctious than any of the lockdown protests were.

 

[army judge]

But I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the method of transference. If everything they have said about the method of transference is correct there should be a LOT higher rate of people, both black and white, who attended the rallies with the virus now.

At this point, assuming the numbers released are correct, let's take a look at what the numbers reveal.



The population of planet earth approximates 7,800,000,000.

On planet earth, 10,200,000 acquired the disease.

The infection rate approximates .001%.

On planet earth, 5,200,200 recovered from the disease.

On planet earth, 505,000 died after acquiring the disease.




The population of the USA approximates 330,000,000.

In the US, 2,600,000 acquired the disease.

In the US, 800,000 recovered from the disease.

In the US, 130,000 died after acquiring the disease.

The infection rate approximates .001%.


The population of the TX approximates 30,000,000.

In TX, 150,000 acquired the disease.

In TX, 75,000 have recovered from the disease.

In TX, 2,400 have died after acquiring the disease.

The infection rate approximates .005%.



During the Spanish Flu outbreak (1918-1920) 500,000,000 contracted the disease, and 50,000,000 died of the disease.

The death rate approximated .1%.

The reader can gather her/his data and do the calculations.

The Spanish Flu outbreak (pandemic) of the 20th century, was far more devastating than the current "scamdemic"/"condemic".

 

[army judge]

But I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the method of transference. If everything they have said about the method of transference is correct there should be a LOT higher rate of people, both black and white, who attended the rallies with the virus now.

As far as blacks dying at close to twice the rate as whites it doesn't surprise me at all. I think we would see the same rate for any other potentially deadly medical problem as there are about twice as many blacks in poverty as there are whites. Poverty is the problem, not race.

You are thinking, mate.

Our betters, our overlords DISCOURAGE such behavior.

We, of the underclass, the unwashed masses, mustn't ever think.

Our overlords only wish us to do as THEY instruct.

We, the underclass, must fear, never think for ourselves.

 

[justblue]

I'm sorry I simply can't buy that there no more infection of those that attended the BLM rallies than there are in the general population. You are talking about two groups that are least likely to have been tested before the rallies. Black and young.

Now keep in mind that had there not been a specific study quoted that makes this claim I would have simply assumed that it was the fact that the protestors were young that didn't cause an increase.

The protesters were, for the most part, wearing masks. They were also outside. These two factors may have lessened/prevented infection.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The protesters were, for the most part, wearing masks. They were also outside. These two factors may have lessened/prevented infection.

Literally the first random BLM protest photo that came up on a Google Image search for "BLM 2020 Protest."

Restaurants Must Use This Moment to Change, Too

I see lots of noses and mouths and a lot of people touching one another.

 

[army judge]

The protesters were, for the most part, wearing masks. They were also outside. These two factors may have lessened/prevented infection.

Typing with my DO degree, and not with my JD degree in mind:

Being outdoors, rather than indoors does provide an extra layer (or two) of protection, not offered in most indoor settings.

Many large buildings, today, do a good job of exchanging/refreshing the air supply frequently.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The Spanish Flu outbreak (pandemic) of the 20th century, was far more devastating than the current "scamdemic"/"condemic".

In part because 100 years ago there were two striking differences in handling such things: (1) our medical knowledge was much more rudimentary and (2) our communications systems were much slower. As a result little was done to halt the spread of the disease before it got out of hand. You are entitled to your opinion, mate, but mine is strikingly different in that I don't regard this current disease situation as anything close to a scamdemic or condemic.

 

[cbg]

It is a sad commentary on this country (and I am not talking solely about this thread but a trend that I have seen for a number of years, particularly on this and other like boards) where any time A says something that B disagrees with, it MUST be that A is lying. It cannot be that A is mistaken; that A is making an assumption based on incomplete data; that A simply has a different opinion than B; that A is honestly in error but is speaking the truth as s/he sees it; none of these are seen as available options. No, if B disagrees with A the ONLY possible reason is that A is lying, deliberately and probably maliciously.

 

[army judge]

The population of planet earth approximates 7,800,000,000.

On planet earth, 10,200,000 acquired the disease.

The infection rate approximates .001%.

On planet earth, 5,200,200 recovered from the disease.

On planet earth, 505,000 died after acquiring the disease.

The population of the USA approximates 330,000,000.

In the US, 2,600,000 acquired the disease.

In the US, 800,000 recovered from the disease.

In the US, 130,000 died after acquiring the disease.

The infection rate approximates .001%.

The population of the TX approximates 30,000,000.

In TX, 150,000 acquired the disease.

In TX, 75,000 have recovered from the disease.

In TX, 2,400 have died after acquiring the disease.

The infection rate approximates .005%.

Using the numbers supplied by those who are doing the tabulating, in TX we're told that 150K got the disease.

We're also told that 75K recovered from the disease.

We're also told that 2,400 died after contracting the disease.

If we add 75K + 2.4K, we get 77.4K (dead or recovered).

If we subtract 77.4K from 150K, what is the status of the remaining/missing/unaccounted for 72.6K?

If you do the calculations for the planet and the USA, you'll discover the same deltas, all without explanation by those who capture and report on SOME of the "data".

Data doesn't lie.
Data can be manipulated.
My grandfather was fond of saying, "Never trust a person that figures with a crooked pencil."

Raw data is meaningless absent explanation, and as my calculus professor would always admonish the class, "Prove your work."

 

[cbg]

A major part of my husband's job is to take the role of a statistician. He will be the first to tell you that numbers can be made to say anything you want them to say.

 

[adjusterjack]

It is a sad commentary on this country (and I am not talking solely about this thread but a trend that I have seen for a number of years, particularly on this and other like boards) where any time A says something that B disagrees with, it MUST be that A is lying. It cannot be that A is mistaken; that A is making an assumption based on incomplete data; that A simply has a different opinion than B; that A is honestly in error but is speaking the truth as s/he sees it; none of these are seen as available options. No, if B disagrees with A the ONLY possible reason is that A is lying, deliberately and probably maliciously.

You left out a possibility. A could be right and B could be wrong.

 

[cbg]

There are probably a dozen or more options that I left out. But my point, and I'm sure you realize this and are trying to yank my chain, is that there are those people who automatically assume that anyone who doesn't see things exactly as they do must be deliberately lying; they don't recognize any other possibility but deliberate falsehood.