COVID-19 Math Problem - please solve

[AzogtheDefiler]

Deaths: 61,200 - of which, btw 29% is in NY (I believe those numbers include the Flu deaths and NY didn't allocated correctly as they are such an outlier but let's assume 61,200 is accurate).

Population: 330mil. Probably more due to the non documented but we will go with that #.

Deaths per 1000: Less than 2.

Let's say I assume 2.5x the deaths or 154,250. That number moves to less than 5 deaths per 1000 persons. We all agree it is a war and in war unfortunately you sacrifice the few to save the many. Why are we sacrificing 900+ people to save 2 or at worst 5?

Where is the logic?

Thanks

I gotta question your math my friend. I'm coming up with a mortality rate of .057 or 57 times deadlier than the flu.
IOW 5.7 deaths per ONE HUNDRED - Hey, I'm not great at math, but yours does appear suspicious.

United States
Coronavirus Cases:
1,075,643
Deaths:
62,319
Recovered:
149,686

the population is 300,000,000

330mil but yeah...likely more if you count undocumented persons.

 

[XponentialChaos]

How many deaths are needed, in your opinion, for these measures to be justified?

Where exactly is that boundary number for you?

At least 1%. You’re the genius who doesn’t believe having the disease gives one immunity and then cannot explain if that’s the case why 100+ companies are working on a vaccine.

Why 1%? That's 3.3 million people. You don't see the use in doing anything unless at least 3.3 million people die from it?

You want to bring up the old argument again? You already stumbled through multiple sources that only confirmed what I told you, you gave up and admitted that you couldn't find sources that confirmed your argument, and then changed your argument.

Fine with me. Show me a source that confirms immunity. Show me the quote. Or shut the **** up. I'm making it as simple as I can for you.

Don’t need a source. If there was no immunity then companies would not try to create a vaccine as it is the same science. One percent means 10 people out of 1000 die. Right now we have 1. Of the people who die, 82% are over 65. They may social distance, the rest should be free to do as they please.

So you admit that you don't have a source verifying what you say.

Thanks. You're excused now.

Don't need a source if one understands how vaccines work. So you admit you don't know how vaccines work. Get out of my thread. This is for logical people.

Funny how you now claim that you don't need a source after you already provided me with three of them that disproved your own argument because you were too stupid to actually read them.

Oh, but now you don't need a source. Kind of funny how that happens, isn't it?

The need for sources conveniently seems to have disappeared now that you realize you can't actually support your own argument.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How many deaths are needed, in your opinion, for these measures to be justified?

Where exactly is that boundary number for you?

At least 1%. You’re the genius who doesn’t believe having the disease gives one immunity and then cannot explain if that’s the case why 100+ companies are working on a vaccine.

Why 1%? That's 3.3 million people. You don't see the use in doing anything unless at least 3.3 million people die from it?

You want to bring up the old argument again? You already stumbled through multiple sources that only confirmed what I told you, you gave up and admitted that you couldn't find sources that confirmed your argument, and then changed your argument.

Fine with me. Show me a source that confirms immunity. Show me the quote. Or shut the **** up. I'm making it as simple as I can for you.

Don’t need a source. If there was no immunity then companies would not try to create a vaccine as it is the same science. One percent means 10 people out of 1000 die. Right now we have 1. Of the people who die, 82% are over 65. They may social distance, the rest should be free to do as they please.

So you admit that you don't have a source verifying what you say.

Thanks. You're excused now.

Don't need a source if one understands how vaccines work. So you admit you don't know how vaccines work. Get out of my thread. This is for logical people.

Funny how you now claim that you don't need a source after you already provided me with three of them that disproved your own argument because you were too stupid to actually read them.

Oh, but now you don't need a source. Kind of funny how that happens, isn't it?

The need for sources conveniently seems to have disappeared now that you realize you can't actually support your own argument.

I tried to show you logic.

Answer my question, Leftist. Why would companies try to produce a vaccine if you cannot garner immunity to the COVID-19? You conveniently avoid it just like you avoided the OP. You're embarrassing yourself, again.

 

[XponentialChaos]

How many deaths are needed, in your opinion, for these measures to be justified?

Where exactly is that boundary number for you?

At least 1%. You’re the genius who doesn’t believe having the disease gives one immunity and then cannot explain if that’s the case why 100+ companies are working on a vaccine.

Why 1%? That's 3.3 million people. You don't see the use in doing anything unless at least 3.3 million people die from it?

You want to bring up the old argument again? You already stumbled through multiple sources that only confirmed what I told you, you gave up and admitted that you couldn't find sources that confirmed your argument, and then changed your argument.

Fine with me. Show me a source that confirms immunity. Show me the quote. Or shut the **** up. I'm making it as simple as I can for you.

Don’t need a source. If there was no immunity then companies would not try to create a vaccine as it is the same science. One percent means 10 people out of 1000 die. Right now we have 1. Of the people who die, 82% are over 65. They may social distance, the rest should be free to do as they please.

So you admit that you don't have a source verifying what you say.

Thanks. You're excused now.

Don't need a source if one understands how vaccines work. So you admit you don't know how vaccines work. Get out of my thread. This is for logical people.

Funny how you now claim that you don't need a source after you already provided me with three of them that disproved your own argument because you were too stupid to actually read them.

Oh, but now you don't need a source. Kind of funny how that happens, isn't it?

The need for sources conveniently seems to have disappeared now that you realize you can't actually support your own argument.

I tried to show you logic.

Answer my question, Leftist. Why would companies try to produce a vaccine if you cannot garner immunity to the COVID-19? You conveniently avoid it just like you avoided the OP. You're embarrassing yourself, again.

Show me a source that confirms your argument. Or shut the **** up.

You keep avoiding that, don't you? Why is that? Oh, right. It's because after you tried, and failed three ******* times, you now realize that you can't support your argument. Go ahead and try to squirm out of it, but I'm going to keep bringing you right back to this.

Either support your argument. Or shut the **** up. Simple.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How many deaths are needed, in your opinion, for these measures to be justified?

Where exactly is that boundary number for you?

At least 1%. You’re the genius who doesn’t believe having the disease gives one immunity and then cannot explain if that’s the case why 100+ companies are working on a vaccine.

Why 1%? That's 3.3 million people. You don't see the use in doing anything unless at least 3.3 million people die from it?

You want to bring up the old argument again? You already stumbled through multiple sources that only confirmed what I told you, you gave up and admitted that you couldn't find sources that confirmed your argument, and then changed your argument.

Fine with me. Show me a source that confirms immunity. Show me the quote. Or shut the **** up. I'm making it as simple as I can for you.

Don’t need a source. If there was no immunity then companies would not try to create a vaccine as it is the same science. One percent means 10 people out of 1000 die. Right now we have 1. Of the people who die, 82% are over 65. They may social distance, the rest should be free to do as they please.

So you admit that you don't have a source verifying what you say.

Thanks. You're excused now.

Don't need a source if one understands how vaccines work. So you admit you don't know how vaccines work. Get out of my thread. This is for logical people.

I wonder why it’s only RW snowflakes who claim personal possession of threads and say things like “get out of my thread”.?

Is it a birth defect?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How many deaths are needed, in your opinion, for these measures to be justified?

Where exactly is that boundary number for you?

At least 1%. You’re the genius who doesn’t believe having the disease gives one immunity and then cannot explain if that’s the case why 100+ companies are working on a vaccine.

Why 1%? That's 3.3 million people. You don't see the use in doing anything unless at least 3.3 million people die from it?

You want to bring up the old argument again? You already stumbled through multiple sources that only confirmed what I told you, you gave up and admitted that you couldn't find sources that confirmed your argument, and then changed your argument.

Fine with me. Show me a source that confirms immunity. Show me the quote. Or shut the **** up. I'm making it as simple as I can for you.

Don’t need a source. If there was no immunity then companies would not try to create a vaccine as it is the same science. One percent means 10 people out of 1000 die. Right now we have 1. Of the people who die, 82% are over 65. They may social distance, the rest should be free to do as they please.

So you admit that you don't have a source verifying what you say.

Thanks. You're excused now.

Don't need a source if one understands how vaccines work. So you admit you don't know how vaccines work. Get out of my thread. This is for logical people.

Funny how you now claim that you don't need a source after you already provided me with three of them that disproved your own argument because you were too stupid to actually read them.

Oh, but now you don't need a source. Kind of funny how that happens, isn't it?

The need for sources conveniently seems to have disappeared now that you realize you can't actually support your own argument.

I tried to show you logic.

Answer my question, Leftist. Why would companies try to produce a vaccine if you cannot garner immunity to the COVID-19? You conveniently avoid it just like you avoided the OP. You're embarrassing yourself, again.

Show me a source that confirms your argument. Or shut the **** up.

You keep avoiding that, don't you? Why is that? Oh, right. It's because after you tried, and failed three ******* times, you now realize that you can't support your argument. Go ahead and try to squirm out of it, but I'm going to keep bringing you right back to this.

Either support your argument. Or shut the **** up. Simple.

Again, answer my question or leave the thread. Simple.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How many deaths are needed, in your opinion, for these measures to be justified?

Where exactly is that boundary number for you?

At least 1%. You’re the genius who doesn’t believe having the disease gives one immunity and then cannot explain if that’s the case why 100+ companies are working on a vaccine.

Why 1%? That's 3.3 million people. You don't see the use in doing anything unless at least 3.3 million people die from it?

You want to bring up the old argument again? You already stumbled through multiple sources that only confirmed what I told you, you gave up and admitted that you couldn't find sources that confirmed your argument, and then changed your argument.

Fine with me. Show me a source that confirms immunity. Show me the quote. Or shut the **** up. I'm making it as simple as I can for you.

Don’t need a source. If there was no immunity then companies would not try to create a vaccine as it is the same science. One percent means 10 people out of 1000 die. Right now we have 1. Of the people who die, 82% are over 65. They may social distance, the rest should be free to do as they please.

So you admit that you don't have a source verifying what you say.

Thanks. You're excused now.

Don't need a source if one understands how vaccines work. So you admit you don't know how vaccines work. Get out of my thread. This is for logical people.

I wonder why it’s only RW snowflakes who claim personal possession of threads and say things like “get out of my thread”.?

Is it a birth defect?

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

 

[XponentialChaos]

How many deaths are needed, in your opinion, for these measures to be justified?

Where exactly is that boundary number for you?

At least 1%. You’re the genius who doesn’t believe having the disease gives one immunity and then cannot explain if that’s the case why 100+ companies are working on a vaccine.

Why 1%? That's 3.3 million people. You don't see the use in doing anything unless at least 3.3 million people die from it?

You want to bring up the old argument again? You already stumbled through multiple sources that only confirmed what I told you, you gave up and admitted that you couldn't find sources that confirmed your argument, and then changed your argument.

Fine with me. Show me a source that confirms immunity. Show me the quote. Or shut the **** up. I'm making it as simple as I can for you.

Don’t need a source. If there was no immunity then companies would not try to create a vaccine as it is the same science. One percent means 10 people out of 1000 die. Right now we have 1. Of the people who die, 82% are over 65. They may social distance, the rest should be free to do as they please.

So you admit that you don't have a source verifying what you say.

Thanks. You're excused now.

Don't need a source if one understands how vaccines work. So you admit you don't know how vaccines work. Get out of my thread. This is for logical people.

Funny how you now claim that you don't need a source after you already provided me with three of them that disproved your own argument because you were too stupid to actually read them.

Oh, but now you don't need a source. Kind of funny how that happens, isn't it?

The need for sources conveniently seems to have disappeared now that you realize you can't actually support your own argument.

I tried to show you logic.

Answer my question, Leftist. Why would companies try to produce a vaccine if you cannot garner immunity to the COVID-19? You conveniently avoid it just like you avoided the OP. You're embarrassing yourself, again.

Show me a source that confirms your argument. Or shut the **** up.

You keep avoiding that, don't you? Why is that? Oh, right. It's because after you tried, and failed three ******* times, you now realize that you can't support your argument. Go ahead and try to squirm out of it, but I'm going to keep bringing you right back to this.

Either support your argument. Or shut the **** up. Simple.

Again, answer my question or leave the thread. Simple.

You're not a medical expert and I'm not interested in your opinions. The people who do know what they're talking about seem to agree with me.

Medical expert from your own source: "We don't really know how immunity works with this virus".

Sorry, bud. Your own sources agree with me.

 

[XponentialChaos]

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

I've made one simple request from you. Show me a medical expert who agrees with your statement.

I don't think that's too much to ask. And look how you've responded. You're avoiding that like the plague.

 

[playtime]

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How many deaths are needed, in your opinion, for these measures to be justified?

Where exactly is that boundary number for you?

At least 1%. You’re the genius who doesn’t believe having the disease gives one immunity and then cannot explain if that’s the case why 100+ companies are working on a vaccine.

Why 1%? That's 3.3 million people. You don't see the use in doing anything unless at least 3.3 million people die from it?

You want to bring up the old argument again? You already stumbled through multiple sources that only confirmed what I told you, you gave up and admitted that you couldn't find sources that confirmed your argument, and then changed your argument.

Fine with me. Show me a source that confirms immunity. Show me the quote. Or shut the **** up. I'm making it as simple as I can for you.

Don’t need a source. If there was no immunity then companies would not try to create a vaccine as it is the same science. One percent means 10 people out of 1000 die. Right now we have 1. Of the people who die, 82% are over 65. They may social distance, the rest should be free to do as they please.

So you admit that you don't have a source verifying what you say.

Thanks. You're excused now.

Don't need a source if one understands how vaccines work. So you admit you don't know how vaccines work. Get out of my thread. This is for logical people.

Funny how you now claim that you don't need a source after you already provided me with three of them that disproved your own argument because you were too stupid to actually read them.

Oh, but now you don't need a source. Kind of funny how that happens, isn't it?

The need for sources conveniently seems to have disappeared now that you realize you can't actually support your own argument.

I tried to show you logic.

Answer my question, Leftist. Why would companies try to produce a vaccine if you cannot garner immunity to the COVID-19? You conveniently avoid it just like you avoided the OP. You're embarrassing yourself, again.

Show me a source that confirms your argument. Or shut the **** up.

You keep avoiding that, don't you? Why is that? Oh, right. It's because after you tried, and failed three ******* times, you now realize that you can't support your argument. Go ahead and try to squirm out of it, but I'm going to keep bringing you right back to this.

Either support your argument. Or shut the **** up. Simple.

Again, answer my question or leave the thread. Simple.

You're not a medical expert and I'm not interested in your opinions. The people who do know what they're talking about seem to agree with me.

Medical expert from your own source: "We don't really know how immunity works with this virus".

Sorry, bud. Your own sources agree with me.

Why would companies be developing a vaccine if immunity does not work with COVID-19?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

I've made one simple request from you. Show me a medical expert who agrees with your statement.

I don't think that's too much to ask. And look how you've responded. You're avoiding that like the plague.

Answer my question and I will answer yours. Simple. Why would scientists bother developing a vaccine if there is no immunity.

Coronavirus vaccines: how to choose the best

Developers and funders are laying the groundwork for efficacy trials, but only a handful of vaccines are likely to make the cut.

www.nature.com

 

[XponentialChaos]

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

I've made one simple request from you. Show me a medical expert who agrees with your statement.

I don't think that's too much to ask. And look how you've responded. You're avoiding that like the plague.

Answer my question and I will answer yours. Simple. Why would scientists bother developing a vaccine if there is no immunity.

Coronavirus vaccines: how to choose the best

Developers and funders are laying the groundwork for efficacy trials, but only a handful of vaccines are likely to make the cut.

www.nature.com

Be specific. How exactly are you going to answer my question after I answer yours?

 

[playtime]

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

I've made one simple request from you. Show me a medical expert who agrees with your statement.

I don't think that's too much to ask. And look how you've responded. You're avoiding that like the plague.

Answer my question and I will answer yours. Simple. Why would scientists bother developing a vaccine if there is no immunity.

Coronavirus vaccines: how to choose the best

Developers and funders are laying the groundwork for efficacy trials, but only a handful of vaccines are likely to make the cut.

www.nature.com

Be specific. How exactly are you going to answer my question after I answer yours?

LOL - Answer my question and you will see.

Mine is a simple one. Funny how you avoid answering and I gave you a link. Want a link on how vaccines work? I can provide that too.

 

[XponentialChaos]

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

I've made one simple request from you. Show me a medical expert who agrees with your statement.

I don't think that's too much to ask. And look how you've responded. You're avoiding that like the plague.

Answer my question and I will answer yours. Simple. Why would scientists bother developing a vaccine if there is no immunity.

Coronavirus vaccines: how to choose the best

Developers and funders are laying the groundwork for efficacy trials, but only a handful of vaccines are likely to make the cut.

www.nature.com

Be specific. How exactly are you going to answer my question after I answer yours?

LOL - Answer my question and you will see.

Mine is a simple one. Funny how you avoid answering and I gave you a link. Want a link on how vaccines work? I can provide that too.

Do you think the link supports your argument? Because it doesn't. Just like the other three.

Show me a link that supports your argument.

 

[playtime]

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

I've made one simple request from you. Show me a medical expert who agrees with your statement.

I don't think that's too much to ask. And look how you've responded. You're avoiding that like the plague.

Answer my question and I will answer yours. Simple. Why would scientists bother developing a vaccine if there is no immunity.

Coronavirus vaccines: how to choose the best

Developers and funders are laying the groundwork for efficacy trials, but only a handful of vaccines are likely to make the cut.

www.nature.com

Be specific. How exactly are you going to answer my question after I answer yours?

LOL - Answer my question and you will see.

Mine is a simple one. Funny how you avoid answering and I gave you a link. Want a link on how vaccines work? I can provide that too.

Do you think the link supports your argument? Because it doesn't. Just like the other three.

Show me a link that supports your argument.

It supports it.

Vaccines work on the assumption of immunity. There would not all these vaccines in the work if scientists did not believe receiving a tiny dose gives you immunity.

 

[XponentialChaos]

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

I've made one simple request from you. Show me a medical expert who agrees with your statement.

I don't think that's too much to ask. And look how you've responded. You're avoiding that like the plague.

Answer my question and I will answer yours. Simple. Why would scientists bother developing a vaccine if there is no immunity.

Coronavirus vaccines: how to choose the best

Developers and funders are laying the groundwork for efficacy trials, but only a handful of vaccines are likely to make the cut.

www.nature.com

Be specific. How exactly are you going to answer my question after I answer yours?

LOL - Answer my question and you will see.

Mine is a simple one. Funny how you avoid answering and I gave you a link. Want a link on how vaccines work? I can provide that too.

Do you think the link supports your argument? Because it doesn't. Just like the other three.

Show me a link that supports your argument.

It supports it.

Vaccines work on the assumption of immunity. There would not all these vaccines in the work if scientists did not believe receiving a tiny dose gives you immunity.

We still don't know if the vaccines work yet, dumbass. That's why they're going to start testing them.

You claim to know that you're immune. Show me a source that confirms that. You keep ignoring this. I wonder why.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

One way conversations don't work. At least you and I, although we dislike one another, answer each other's questions. I asked him a simple one and he refuses. Only defect is him. And you, Lone Leftists, if you agree with him.

I've made one simple request from you. Show me a medical expert who agrees with your statement.

I don't think that's too much to ask. And look how you've responded. You're avoiding that like the plague.

Answer my question and I will answer yours. Simple. Why would scientists bother developing a vaccine if there is no immunity.

Coronavirus vaccines: how to choose the best

Developers and funders are laying the groundwork for efficacy trials, but only a handful of vaccines are likely to make the cut.

www.nature.com

Be specific. How exactly are you going to answer my question after I answer yours?

LOL - Answer my question and you will see.

Mine is a simple one. Funny how you avoid answering and I gave you a link. Want a link on how vaccines work? I can provide that too.

Do you think the link supports your argument? Because it doesn't. Just like the other three.

Show me a link that supports your argument.

It supports it.

Vaccines work on the assumption of immunity. There would not all these vaccines in the work if scientists did not believe receiving a tiny dose gives you immunity.

We still don't know if the vaccines work yet, dumbass. That's why they're going to start testing them.

You claim to know that you're immune. Show me a source that confirms that. You keep ignoring this. I wonder why.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdf

The theory behind how vaccines work is still the same. Assumption of immunity.