/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11841967

Yes?

>>11842116
it means that increased testing cannot account for the current wave of new cases

>>11842120
and if it wasn't obvious, that should be a warning sign for the whole world: another wave is not inconceivable, even if testing is ramped up substantially, because it implies that trace and isolate measures alone are insufficient to keep the virus at bay.

>>11841967
meanwhile covid deaths go up as well

>>11841967
and thats a good thing!

>>11842194
they're going up but not by a lot yet, give it 2-3 weeks, you'll see bigger numbers

>>11842195
???

>>11842194
so?

>>11841967
>our wirld in data
>wirld

>>11842974
should be "world", obviously, just a typo

>>11842974
Thanks for spotting that, fixed it. I've also added a temporal derivative to the regression model so that we can simply interpret the bottom panel as the absolute number of cases that are unaccounted for by testing, rather than number of cases relative to preceding samples.

One thing I find strickingly alarming is the rate at which case numbers are currently increasing, even after accounting for any effect of increases in the number of conducted tests.

The number of cases is climbing faster than it has ever done before.

>>11843069
this implies that, even with stay at home orders in place again, for at least the next two weeks we're going to see numbers climbing up at speeds that we haven't seen before.

>>11843069
so if we just extrapolate, by mid to end of next week the US will see 50000+ new cases daily. Is that not alarming to anyone?

>>11843130
The states that were hit the hardest (mostly in the NE) seem to be continuing on a downward trend despite opening up. Maybe Norway had it right. Perhaps those states had enough people exposed to the virus that they're not going to experience the same kind of rise in cases that other states will go through.

It's pretty obvious we're heading up to a second wave, but I will refuse to do a second confinement. I will maintain appropriate safety measures, but I plainly refuse to give up my freedom indefinitely. I'm not american, by the way.

>>11843201
*Sweden, not Norway

>>11843022
No problem. Thanks for the effort.
This is seriously fucked up.

I really hope you guys will receiver from this fully. We really need an intact west right now.

>>11842123
without strong public cooperation tracing and quarantine measures won’t work anyway. We can see what’s happened america where half the population will predictably do the opposite of what the government asks, even when it’s suicidal

>>11843201
It’s not because of ‘herd immunity’ at this point, more like people being directly aware of the virus and being more careful. America shut down hard and it causes many people to never know anyone who got sick, so millions of people still don’t think the virus is dangerous

>>11843391
>‘herd immunity’
I mean yeah even if the number of infections in the US is underestimated by a factor of 10, then 92% of the population is still not immune

>>11841967
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1275918237218353154
kek

Well I test at home with my in home delivered medicine form my in home telecommuted doctor.

Don't see how those two things are correlated.

>>11843776
fucking hell

>>11843776
humanity is fucked. as internet proliferation continues people are becoming further removed from reality. eventually nobody will even know what's real

>>11841967
The massive spike in Houston has nothing to do with the George Floyd protests

>>11843819
Depends on the social media platforms (design) and their use (alternatives, education).
E.g. filter bubbles.

>>11843380
The government has no credibility. The medical establishment had some credibility but blew it at the start of the pandemic with their ever changing directives on mask usage. Changing again during the protests, with mask usage depending on the topic of the protests, destroyed what credibility they had left. One clear consistent message would have seen them through but they're political animals first so they're now lumped in with the government as untrustworthy. They only have themselves to blame. If people die due to not following the directives of the medical community, that's on the medical community for engaging in politics.

>>11843988
Also the much stronger emphasis on masks over social distancing shows a heavy bias towards solutions most appropriate for population dense urban areas. Different areas and different lifestyle have different solutions and due to different infection vectors. The medical community is pushing urban solutions on rural areas. This further undermines their credibility as a source of good solutions.

>>11843752
If you go by the antibody studies claiming infection rates are 40x higher than positive tests (which sounds high to me), then NYC should have hit herd immunity over a month ago, and since June 1st, they've been under 500 new cases per day the majority of days compared to over 6k during their peak. They've opened things up some and new cases are still trending toward falling under 100 per day. Trains have been running during the entire pandemic, so NYC was never under a true quarantine.

>>11843391
You could be correct, S. Korea's kept new cases extremely low after their initial surge, so protective measures have the potential to be very effective when applied properly.

>>11843999
>antibody studies claiming infection rates are 40x higher than positive tests
you're welcome to post a source

>>11844002
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-serology/los-angeles-coronavirus-infections-40-times-greater-than-known-cases-antibody-tests-suggest-idUSKBN22234S

Other countries have also run antibody studies, leading to similar results. Like I said, it sounds high to me, and there's some questions to the efficacy of the antibody tests, but it should be pretty clear that the number of cases is well beyond what the PCR tests are revealing. Then there's Iceland, which has tested out the wazoo, including entire towns, and found that certain towns had already surpassed the percentages needed for herd immunity.

>>11843988
You're confusing the media and the public health officials with the medical community. From January, the medical community has said masks are important. Western officials are too dense to understand medical guidance so they blew it. And the media has alternated between narratives because they too are dense careerists who don't know shit

>>11844016
The CDC and Surgeon General recommended against mask you for those without symptoms all the way into April.

>>11844013
It also seems high to me but fair enough, thanks for posting the link.

>>11844024
Probably because they were afraid to admit material shortages for medical workers. Once supplies were stocked again (too late), recommendations changed. That happened in many European countries too.

>>11844049
>Probably because they were afraid to admit material shortages for medical workers.
I think that's why as well, but it served to make the public distrustful in the process. I had already conducted my own research in February, so I found it really frustrating to feel like I was being lied to because officials hadn't properly secured enough PPE in case of a pandemic.

>>11844062
I've been frustrated since february as well. anybody who did 45 minutes of internet research would know what was what, but the government and media failed so hard. it goes to show how rotten our bureaucracies have become. none of these people are qualified

>>11844072
>I've been frustrated since february as well. anybody who did 45 minutes of internet research would know what was what
I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one. I feel like this whole thing ended up being 10x worse than it had to be, and I also think the backlash by many against masks is due to the inconsistent messages that were put out early on. The worst part is the people who lied won't be the ones losing their lives or jobs, they'll most likely come out of this unscathed.

>>11844016
what the fuck is "the medical community"?
who is considered to be a member and who speaks for them?

>>11844049
>Probably because they were afraid to admit material shortages for medical workers.
So they intentionally lied and now the public thinks they're liars, which they are. How can the public trust what they are saying now is the truth instead of serving a different purpose?

>>11843999
>protective measures have the potential to be very effective when applied properly.
That only works in societies with high social trust. You cannot have high social trust when you already know the medical establishment is willing to lie for their own purposes that are not for your benefit. Also studies done by Robert Putnam, the subject matter expert on social trust, has found that diversity destroys social cohesion and trust. South Korea can get high compliance because South Korea is full of South Koreans.

>>11844788
Their public faces: WHO, CDC, the Surgeon General, Drs Brix and Fouche.

>>11844796
No anon, I don't think they lied. It took a while for studies to become available that showed the efficacy of masks. They go by the latest scientific findings and as we know science doesn't work very quickly.

"USA has the most!"
G-go inside

>>11845606
You think that because you're gullible and dumb.

>>11843776
>When the /pol/ kool aid hits
Sad.

>>11843380
I know, these BLM protesters completely ignore social distancing while gathering in the thousands. Furthermore they, and their obviously retarded couch supporters, think masks are a magical anti-sickness artifact from Harry Potter.

>>11846105
Too bad most of the spikes are happening in states that pushed the ""virus hoax""" angle and opened too fast, not one where large protests happened, like new york.

>>11846092
>no argument
leave

>>11845606
>It took a while for studies to become available that showed the efficacy of masks.
There were studies dating back to 2003 SARS showing masks worked during an epidemic.

>>11846443
would you care to cite them for us here?

>>11846443
Even if that is true, which I doubt, the vector of transmission for the current virus had substantial uncertainty associated with it. Giving advice for protective measures that later turn out to be useless is a pretty guaranteed way of destroying any public trust, and a good way to lull people into a false sense of security that could actually worsen the situation. It is important to base policy decisions on solid evidence because of it.

>>11841967
Now post deaths and recoveries.

>>11846452
No, because they show the exact opposite.

>>11846546
I'd still like to read them.

>>11843902
This has been bugging me. I think the virus is real, and regardless of my opinion on what happened with floyd, it's clear enough that americans have a bit of a police state issue (couldn't say whether it's racial or not, hard to find data I trust), so IMO protests are justified to some degree. (if you disagree, I understand completely, that thing with the Grant statue really has my ass on the fence)

But where the fuck are the health officials to condemn protests as spreading Covid? If it's real it'll spread from BLM protests just as much as partying on the beach and packing into bars. Why aren't scientists speaking up more about it? It's lending credence to this kind of asinine belief system:
>>11843776

>>11843776
wew lad

these people have voting rights

>>11843776
humanity deserves COVID

>>11842120
>increased testing cannot account for the current wave of new cases
Then how do they know there are new cases?

>>11846452
From 2003:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13168-6/fulltext

>>11846501
>Giving advice for protective measures that later turn out to be useless is a pretty guaranteed way of destroying any public trust
So is giving advice (don't wear masks!) that turned out to be pretty useless. I wonder why there's so many people that are convinced masks don't work, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the CDC's earlier advice.

>and a good way to lull people into a false sense of security that could actually worsen the situation.
If you want to talk about evidence, I've yet to see any valid evidence of mask use potentially making a situation worse. This argument is totally unfounded and not born out by real world examples.

>the vector of transmission for the current virus had substantial uncertainty associated with it.
Not only do we have examples from SARS in 2003, we can also look at examples of influenza and mask use (which can spread via aerosols), which was studied prior to 2019. The fact is there were dozens of studies available showing the efficacy of masks in preventing or reducing respiratory infections. Am I supposed to believe the CDC did no research whatsoever? By the way, there weren't a lot of studies between February and April when the CDC shifted their opinion. They must have been looking at older evidence. That leads us to two scenarios, either the CDC did no research whatsoever (which would be shockingly incompetent) or they offered their earlier advice based on a lack of supplies and the belief that it was better for medical professionals to have access to masks. I believe it's the latter, but I also think the CDC could have handled it much better which didn't involve outright lying.

>>11846633
>I wonder why there's so many people that are convinced masks don't work
Because people are either using them when walking alone on the sidewalk (what is it supposed to do?), or inside a room with recirculating air conditioning (e.g: train carts), so you get covidded anyway

TWO
MORE
WEEKS!!!!!

>>11846633
>is giving advice (don't wear masks!)
lol, who gave this advice? I've never heard it at least.

>>11846685
Are you in the USA? The CDC and Surgeon General repeatedly told the public not to wear masks unless they were actively battling an infection.

>>11842120
Yes, maybe you should stop congregating at "protests".
That would be a good start.

>>11846712
>Yes, maybe you should stop congregating at "protests".
Protests only spread infection in certain states? NY is still in decline despite plenty of protests.

>>11846627
it's all about *change* in testing anon

Let's say from one day to the next you find a 10% increase in the number of infections. But you've only increased testing by 6%. So that means that 4% of the increased case numbers cannot be accounted for by a ramp up in testing. In other words, there is a 4% residual increase.

You can do this calculation for every day, going by a change in case numbers and a change in testing, and you get what this figure shows. It's pretty straightforward to do.

>>11846712
>you
making quite the assumption there anon

>>11846701
>Are you in the USA?
I'm not. But what I'm seeing is Trump still refusing to wear a mask. How good of an example do you think that sets?

>>11846606
They actually did despite the Trump admin having lost interest in covid and were opening up the country. They even stopped having covid press conferences.

>>11846742
>How good of an example do you think that sets?
To be fair, he doesn't want to look dumb. Looking cool > getting sick.

>>11846783
>he doesn't want to look dumb
kek, he should have thought of that a little earlier.

for example, 30 years ago.

>>11846606
>But where the fuck are the health officials to condemn protests as spreading Covid? If it's real it'll spread from BLM protests just as much as partying on the beach and packing into bars. Why aren't scientists speaking up more about it? It's lending credence to this kind of asinine belief system:
Because while it's one thing to tell people not to go out and have fun, it's another to say they shouldn't stand up against systemic racism. Basically, they don't want to look like insensitive asses, which is why they're not being more vocal (I'm not saying they're taking the right approach, just what I believe their mindset to be). However, they released a public statement which included something like "be prepared for an increased number of infections after a protest," so they're not exonerating protests from accelerating the spread, and they've encouraged safe practices during protests.

>>11843201 >>11843296
>Maybe Norway had it right.
*Sweden, not Norway

When will this meme end. Sweden is the most fucked country in their region right now regarding Covid and is a pariah among those countries. Their cases have skyrocketed, deaths have spiked, and citizens are calling for their top political officials to step down. Top officials have even admitted that their plan of action was not a good one, and surrounding countries are barring Swedes from entering.

They did a shit job.

>>11844013
those tests, by vendor admission, do not have high accuracy
however it's still in line with the evidence:
genetic analysis shows viral spread had been occurring long before anyone noticed
nyc had probably the highest rate of known positive cases per capita (2.5%)

meanwhile

>>11846855

>>11846794

Not to mention that a much larger percentage of people at those protests are wearing masks than those that are going out to the beach. Generally, the people at the protests are those that consider Covid to be a real thing. Whereas those people that consider Covid to not be a real thing will be the first to go to the beach, and also be the ones to not wear a mask.

Not saying that a mask is the be-all-end-all of preventing transmission, but it will decrease transmission rates.

>>11846855
here in chile we went through the same shit recently. our health minister thought they had everything under control and ignored any advice. faggot didn't even look at what had happened in europe and kept imposing "partial lockdowns". cases suddenly rose in may, and now it's normal to see high numbers of daily deaths. he left as soon as shit hit the fan.
it's sad how people deny reality and won't even look at what other countries suffered. and while I've never been in the US, I'm sure US people aren't prepared for what is coming.

>>11846867
>Generally, the people at the protests are those that consider Covid to be a real thing.
Plenty of them do take it seriously, but there's been a consistent rejection of the idea across demographics.
From what I've seen it's mainly middle class liberals who are most diligent with masks or social distancing while other groups don't respect the risks unless they're coerced.

>>11846856
When were the race riots?

>>11846934
just after the conservative riots

>>11846820
>Sweden is the most fucked country in their region right now
That's the key. Will they be the most fucked during flu season? If they can avoid a second wave then essentially they'll have frontloaded their deaths, whereas other countries will have influenza to deal with on top of SARS-CoV-2, which could potentially make the second wave even worse than the first.

Sweden may or may not have taken the right approach. It looks bad right now, but a vaccine won't be available until at least the start of 2021, and a lot could change in the next 6-8 months.

Your point about the region is well noted, though. Sweden's numbers are far worse than those of their immediate neighbors, even if they're not terrible compared to the U.K., France, Italy, Spain, and the USA.

>>11846905
As an american I can tell you that the vast majority here don't consider the virus to be anything more than a news event that has no real impact on anyone's decision making. People are leaving for the beach in droves and still heading out to bars and parties. Most people in my area here in the south are refusing to wear masks also.

>>11846962
>Most people in my area here in the south are refusing to wear masks also.
My family in Arkansas said many people aren't wearing masks. In Maryland, nearly everyone is. Someone mentioned earlier, and they may have a point, that the regions hit hardest may have scared enough people into take proper precautions.

>>11847016
I have a feeling that people will start to wear them as more people know people who get sick. Many people here think it's some sort of hoax and will scowl at you for wearing one. Rural people get sucked into facebook conspiracies worse than anyone I swear

>>11846962
The virus has become impossible to catch outdoors since the riots began.

>>11847067
Rural people don't cram together on subways. Why do city dwellers think masks are better than distancing?

>>11847295
They're not mutually exclusive, both is better than either alone

>>11847295
>Why do city dwellers think masks are better than distancing?
Why do you believe they think that? Some people had to use public transportation, it wasn't necessarily because they felt it was safe.

>>11847295
They cram together in workplaces, bars, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. just the same as anywhere else. The difference in population density is what makes the biggest difference in transmission. Rural areas still need masks

>>11846113
Yeah Houston, Austin and Dallas didn't have large protests.

>>11847317
Take a took at the dozen or so COVID19 threads on here or on just about any social media platform. They full of complaints about "rednecks" not wanting to wear masks and next to none about urbanites refusing to social distant properly.
>Some people had to use public transportation
Why should rural people pay the price for the lifestyles of urbanites? Especially when urbanites are shaming rural folks for not masking up while at the same time they refuse to social distance. Urban people act like their way of life is the proper way of life and must be conformed to by everyone else. Without urbanites, this virus couldn't spread very fast or far. It's their hive living that has caused it to explode. They won't give up their disease passing ways but want to force everyone else to change their lives to accommodate the urbanite high population disease spreading paradigm. And you still can't see why rural folks might not want to do what the urbanites tell them to do especially when delivered with heavy does of condensation and hypocrisy.
The day the urbanites shutdown public transportation is the day they can suggest rural people wear masks. Until then, they should accept this is their disease and shut up about how rural people live. Rural people's social distancing is far more effective than urbanite's heavy breathing on each other with some strips of flimsy cotton between them.

>>11847495
No, they don't. Go to a rural grocery store. You'll never find someone pushing past you to get something off the shelf next to you like they do in cities. Go to a rural restaurant. The tables are spaced nowhere near as close as they are in city restaurants where high rents make every square foot valuable. Bars in rural areas aren't going to be wall to wall people pushed up against each other for the same reason as at restaurants. Square footage is cheap in rural areas and social convention dictates that you don't encroach on each other's personal space without permission.
It's telling that you didn't mention the one place in rural society where they do bunch together like city folks: churches, which is a big part of their culture. That you're blind to this shows just how little understanding you have of the rural lifestyle and see everything through an urban lens.
Like all self centered urbanites, the urban lifestyle is the default and must be protected at all costs. All others in the country must be willing to sacrifice so urbanites aren't inconvenienced. Shut down public transportation and you'll start to have enough skin in the game to start a conversation. Until then, this is just more haughty city folks telling everyone else what's best for them.

>>11843084
>even with stay at home orders in place again
that's not even happening for all purposes

>>11843201
>seem to be continuing on a downward trend despite opening up
as of this week, all the reopened states are back on an upwards trend again, I think only RI is staying downwards

>>11847879
I live in a rural area you moron. My county has less than 8 thousand people. The walmarts here are the same as anywhere else. The bars are the same. The restaurants are exactly the same. The only difference is that people drive an extra 45 minutes to get anywhere. Churches are probably the most concerning virus hotspot in the south and midwest as it's mostly old people that go to them

>>11846945
Genuinely curious, what conservative riots?

>>11847495 two things determine how fast the virus spreads - 1, how dense is your population and 2, how dense is your population

>>11846719
>Protests only spread infection in certain states?

Using this logic, if I simply identify as a protestor in NY then I become immune to a virus. That's why this virus is fucking bullshit, world reclaimed organizations are literally making the same argument. Not one of them has the decency to admit that a mask is the equivalent of installing a screendoor on a submarine.

>here's a mask that will block/stop/slow down everything EXCEPT the virus which is small enough to blow right through an n95 nose yamaka
>look everyone I am now wearing a device that will make it so that only the virus spreads and not other bacteria/contagions that build up and train your immune system.

Not only does it not work, it is worse in the long run. On top of sterilizing everything, we are going to get fucked royally because now our immune systems have lost adaptability. It is the equivalent of training bacteria to adapt and live through penicillin. All for a virus that kills old people, just like pretty much every other virus you can name that kills old people.

>>11842120
>increased testing cannot account for the current wave of new cases
Well last time I checked, you actually have to verify those cases by testing the individual in the first place.

>The cases increase!
>We know this because of the people we didn't test
>We're verifying an increase based on the absence of evidence.
Where is this information coming from? Math magic I'm sure

>>11842120
>Let's say from one day to the next you find a 10% increase in the number of infections
>But you've only increased testing by 6%
So which is it? How did you come up with that 10%?

>So that means that 4% of the increased case numbers cannot be accounted for by a ramp up in testing. In other words, there is a 4% residual increase.
How did you come up with this?

>You can do this calculation for every day, going by a change in case numbers and a change in testing, and you get what this figure shows.
So it's made up?

>>11847905
>as of this week, all the reopened states are back on an upwards trend again, I think only RI is staying downwards
New York, NJ, and Maryland all look to be remaining steady in terms of daily new cases, which could change of course, but they haven't seen the huge rise that some other states have.

>Especially when urbanites are shaming rural folks for not masking up while at the same time they refuse to social distance.
You realize even as states closed down, essential workers didn't have the luxury of not working, and many had no choice but to use public transportation, right? NYC made it even worse by limiting the number of trains running, which meant people had to cram into fewer subway cars, which made socially distancing even more difficult. They had to use public transportation out of necessity. Unless you can come up with a necessary reason to not wear a mask, it's not a comparable argument.

>The day the urbanites shutdown public transportation is the day they can suggest rural people wear masks.
So now you're blaming urban citizens for the decisions of their politicians, but the dumb shits who aren't wearing masks for no good reason don't deserve any blame?

>Rural people's social distancing is far more effective than urbanite's heavy breathing on each other with some strips of flimsy cotton between them.
Ideally people will do both when possible. With states opening up, the more rural states are experiencing a significant rise in cases. Social distancing only works when people are willing to do it, and they appear to be getting fed up. You can stay away from people 167 hours in a 168 hour week, but that other hour is enough time to contract and spread the virus without a mask.

>>11848438
>here's a mask that will block/stop/slow down everything EXCEPT the virus which is small enough to blow right through an n95 nose yamaka
This is totally wrong.

>>11848760
Some of this was meant for >>11847859.

>>11848438
>How did you come up with this?
>so it's made up
It's basic linear regression. Not everything you don't understand is magic or made up.

Are you the type of person when gets angry at a calculator for showing the 'wrong' number?

>but the protests

>>11847808
lol, classic confirmation bias

>>11848001
You're quite simply a liar. Your urbanite myopia is so strong that you can't see the difference. No, Wal-Marts in rural areas are not the same as in urban areas. Your imagination of what "fly over country" looks like comes from movies. You're making a fool out of yourself and might as well claim the sun rises in the west and the moon is made of cheese. Rural areas function differently than disease filled dense cities. That's reality. Go to one of your dungeon sex clubs if you need your fetish for masks satisfied. In rural areas, you're going to end up getting shot if you try to impose your city lifestyle on everyone due to your oversocialized hive living.

>>11848001
>The bars are the same. The restaurants are exactly the same
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>11849291
I'm not the guy you're replying to but you sound like an obnoxious asshole with an inferiority complex.

>>11849291
What's so fucking difficult about wearing a fucking mask when you approach people Jesus

You don't have to wear masks all the time, just when you go into a shop or when near people what the fuck is so difficult to comprehend about that? And no, masks won't protect you, you wear them out of RESPECT for the other people around you because they reduce the chance that YOU infect them.

You idiots are so dense it's unbelievable.

>>11849291
>Go to one of your dungeon sex clubs
Is this the new GOP talking point? Did I miss a memo?

You faggots do realize that forced vaccination for covid is going to be the end of civil order as we know it, right? It's going to be pandemonium

Imagine rioting in the middle of an epidemic

>>11849319
>literal anti vaxxer
why are you on the science board?

>>11849323
Imagine starting every second post with the word "imagine". Imagine confusing a pandemic with an epidemic.

>>11849265
Do you actually think having large protesting crowds does not contribute to an increase in covid cases? Please do tell me how that works you fucking moron.

>>11848438
>Math magic
Fucking Kek, this is why the US is doing fucking terrible. People like this.

>>11849324
I'm not getting vaccinated for a recurring virus retard, and I already have the antibodies. Foh

>>11849327
Imagine making excuses for dumb nogs and fake woke whitoids

>>11849324
If you actually support forced vaccination for this thing you are my enemy and I will kill you in the coming civil war.

>>11849347
I don't support forced vaccination. But you're a fucking retard for thinking this would happen.
>I will kill you
OK edgelord, try getting out of your parents' basement first you little shit stain

>>11849347

>>11849345
I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm just pointing out that you're retarded. Because you're retarded.

>>11849316
kek

>>11849328
-outside
-wearing masks
-protests all over the u.s.
-covid exploded in sunset states that relaxed restrictions

>>11849328
-outside
-wearing masks
-protests all over the u.s.
-covid exploded in sunbelt states that relaxed restrictions

>>11849378
Soory pal, but if you actually support protesting during a global pandemic you are a useful idiot being fed a line. If this thing is as bad as they are saying it it both protesting and restriction loosening too soon should be met with equal criticism. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

>>11849328
They certainly didn't help but the explosion in cases is in states that opened up prematurely. Mainly bars.
>>11849264

>>11848438
>>We're verifying an increase based on the absence of evidence.
are you really this retarded?

>>11849383
Racism kills more people than Covid ever could

>>11846911
>From what I've seen it's mainly middle class liberals who are most diligent with masks or social distancing
Years from now, people will claim that we died less often because of white privilege

>>11848438
>So which is it? How did you come up with that 10%?

>>11849383
yeah yeah never the right time said the whitey
just remember, floyd died from cop, not covid.

>>11849308
>you wear them out of RESPECT for the other people around you because they reduce the chance that YOU infect them.
do they do anything at all if you
>dont talk
>dont cough
>breathe calmly through your nose
>do not face people directly

>>11846627
Test 100 people every day last week and an average of 3 people a day are infected - > 3%infection rate.

Next week test 1000 people a day and on average 40 people are infected - > 4% infection rate - > people being infected faster.

>>11849507
In a magic fairytale land of imagination where rivers are made of chocolate and people don't cough ever, of course we wouldn't need masks. But that's not the world we live in.

>>11849291
Hey numbnuts, if rural life is such that no protective measures are needed, how the fuck are cases spiking in the rural states?

>>11849492
The autopsy did reveal COVID in his system though, so if the cop hadn't done him in first I'm sure it would have gotten him eventually

>>11849531
if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle

>>11849537
that all depends on what gender your aunt would identify with

America is a fucking meme and a failure. Holy fuck.

>>11846627
hospitals getting full.
In texas the ICUs fill up, so of course they stopped reporting.
after all that's what north korea does so sure, great solution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il-22Q8mECc

>>11849531
>The autopsy did reveal COVID in his system though
[citation needed]

>>11843069
this is nuts

>>11848438
>Math magic I'm sure
>So which is it? How did you come up with that 10%?
>How did you come up with this?
>So it's made up?
This is the state of Trumptards. They are not here to discuss in good faith, they are here to respond with hostility to things they don't understand and to numbers that are counter to their interests. The OP gave an explanation in terms that are simple enough for anyone with a high school diploma to understand, yet the Trumptards disregard it literally as "magic". Why? Is it because they don't understand? Is it because they're afraid? Or is it because they're just assholes? Probably all three.

>>11849596
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-autopsy/george-floyd-was-infected-with-covid-19-autopsy-reveals-idUSKBN23B1HX

>>11846113
but they were saying that corona was worse for black people, apparently "peaceful protesting" is the vaccine.

>>11849507
Yeah, since SARS-CoV-2 travels as an aerosol, you're breathing it out. Wearing a mask doesn't help a lot in your scenario, but it's reasonably better than nothing.

>>11849918
equality is the vaccine.
if you don't like protesting, maybe next time you fucking pay attention when the next kaepernick does something nice & quiet & symbolic

>>11843776
lel

>>11846606
They're more concerned with being called racist than protecting human life. America is a tragic joke.

>>11850541
These protests happened in a bunch of European countries too

>>11850581
Not at the same scale

>>11850952
move those goalposts

>>11850952
>Not at the same scale
it's not uniquely an american problem b

>>11843130
>by mid to end of next week the US will see 50000+ new cases daily
Cases have stayed above 40k per day over the weekend so this could be right, unfortunately

>>11850952

>>11848001
That you know what the state of Walmarts are invalidates your opinion.

>>11843130
no, my state is still below 300 cases per day
This is just dixietards and californians who are gonna die

>>11853647
It'd be pretty stupid to think that just because your state still sees low numbers, an explosion of cases in other states couldn't spread to where you are, fast. That kind of mentality is how it got to this point in the first place.

>>11841967
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states

This shows testing rate and positive rate. It's perhaps the simplest way to see what's going on. If the spread wasn't increasing, one would expect that with increased testing would come a slight decrease in the rate of positive tests. Positive tests are actually increasing. You can dig down into it by state level. The north east is showing no rise in positive test rate despite testing levels remaining about the same. Florida increased testing and showed a dramatic increase in positive rate (this shows they're still undertesting and there's a surge happening). Texas increased testing and showed a moderate increase in positive rate. Increases in both categories implies that the rate of spread has sped up and that increased testing alone isn't the cause for the rise in new cases.

>>11848760
>essential workers
>essential humans
fuck off religious nut.

>Unless you can come up with a necessary reason to not wear a mask
Eliminate Illegal immigration completely, screen legal immigrants for the virus. Doing this will completely eliminate the threat in your nation.

>This is totally wrong.
Tell me how big of a particulate the n95 mask can block. Tell me how big the virus is.

>>11849256
>Not everything you don't understand is magic or made up.
>which still doesn't explain "it"

>>11849432
>the cases increased even though we had no actual evidence of it
Are you so unscientific that you accept such poppycock?

>>11849480
>>11849726
How the fuck can you have a confirmed case without even testing for the virus is what I'm asking. Are they just assuming the person has corona based on the symptoms alone? It doesn't make sense to me, explain it. Why do you think I'm dumb for asking a question?

>hurr durr Trumptard

I never mentioned him whatsoever. I say you're more of a Trumptard since you seem to talk and think about them more than me.

>>11853777
>How the fuck can you have a confirmed case without even testing for the virus is what I'm asking.
You can't. And you don't need to either in order to calculate what proportion of daily cases can be attributed a change in teasing.

>Why do you think I'm dumb for asking a question?
Because someone already answered it and you called it math magic.

Re-read this post >>11846733
If after reading it you still don't understand and honestly just want to know how it works, we can go through the math together until you understand. But if you're gonna through a tantrum again and act like a toddler, then I'm out of here and you can fuck right off too.

>>11853777
>fuck off religious nut.
What are you getting bent out of shape over?

>Eliminate Illegal immigration completely, screen legal immigrants for the virus. Doing this will completely eliminate the threat in your nation.
I hope you have some evidence besides anecdotes.

>Tell me how big of a particulate the n95 mask can block. Tell me how big the virus is.
N-95s filter over 95% of particles down to 7 nm. SARS-CoV-2 is 120 nm in diameter.

>>11853802
>teasing
testing*

>>11848438
>So it's made up?
Positive test rate is rising. Increased testing should lower the positive rate. Increased testing AND a rising positive rate implies an acceleration of spread.

>>11853802
>You can't.
So you make it up.
>And you don't need to either in order to calculate what proportion of daily cases can be attributed a change in teasing.
You're making it up.

>Because someone already answered it and you called it math magic.
Where does the math come from? As you say it's made up based on literally no evidence. It's being used to count what isn't actually there which makes it useless.

Re-read this post >>11846733
>Let's say from one day to the next you find a 10% increase in the number of infections.
Which you can only do if you test for them in the first place....
>But you've only increased testing by 6%
Which literally makes no sense because you've found a "10% increase in the number of infections. So which is it?
>So that means that 4% of the increased case numbers cannot be accounted for by a ramp up in testing
And this goes where?
>You can do this calculation for every day, going by a change in case numbers and a change in testing, and you get what this figure shows. It's pretty straightforward to do.
Oh so it's just completely forgotten and calculated/factored in anyway. This 4% is just there for no reason whatsoever. It's literally magically there for no reason.

>>11853808

>What are you getting bent out of shape over?
Who decides who's essential?
>I hope you have some evidence besides anecdotes.
All things have an origin, including diseases and viruses. If you eliminate the primary methods for the virus to travel to your country, then it won't travel there. It kinda goes without saying really. That's why places that have strong immigration/customs laws such as Japan has low cases/deaths despite no mask law being in place.

>N-95s filter over 95% of particles down to 7 nm. SARS-CoV-2 is 120 nm in diameter.
*Up to 120 nm in diameter. And yes a certain percentage will be filtered, just as a screen door will hold back a certain percentage of water on a submarine.

>>11853818
>Increased testing should lower the positive rate
"No"

>>11853729
Thanks, yes, that's a good way to look at it too. If we compare the curves of positivity rate and residualized case numbers, they're very comparable.

>>11853930
>You're making it up.
Like I said, if you're gonna through a tantrum I'm out of here, and you can fuck right off.

>>11853930
I'll rate this post a 0/10 for trolling effort. No one can be this stupid.

>>11853942
You won't be missed.

>>11853930
>"No"
"Yes."

>>11853942
>I'm out of here
You're not really saying anything of use anyway.
>>11853973
>>11854014
You would have points if people such as George Floyd wouldn't classify as a death from covid. Also:
>false positives
Which also happen more often when you used less accurate tests. Now why would you use a less accurate test in the first place?
>because it's cheaper, easier to distribute, use, and produce
That way you can quickly test all the paranoid hypochondriacs who believe they have it.

>>11853930
>Who decides who's essential?
What does that have to do with religion?

>That's why places that have strong immigration/customs laws such as Japan has low cases/deaths despite no mask law being in place.
They're wearing masks, they do so even when they're not asked to. That's common in many Asian countries, it's considered a courtesy.

>*Up to 120 nm in diameter.
No, that's the average, it doesn't get much smaller. SARS-CoV-2 is not a small virus particle.

>And yes a certain percentage will be filtered, just as a screen door will hold back a certain percentage of water on a submarine.
So you consider 95% filtration of particles over 10x the size of the virus to be equivalent to a screen door filtering less than 1% of water? That's a terrible comparison. There's a minimal infectious dose for all viruses, 100% filtration isn't necessarily needed. But we don't need to assume here, in real world settings, N-95 masks reduce respiratory infections to a very high degree even with direct exposure, and that includes influenza, rhinoviruses, and coronaviruses. The immune system is quite capable of dealing with a few viral particles that sneak through, preventing an infection from taking hold. It's large exposures or many exposures over time that lead to infection.

>"No"
Yes. That's how it works. Assuming testing rates remain the same, a falling positive rate implies slowed transmission, and a rising positive rate implies an increased rate of transmission. When you have increased testing and an increased positive rate, you're looking at a substantial rise in spread.

>>11853933
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states

You can filter down to the state level. It's obvious that the spread is exploding in certain states, Florida in particular. The originally hardest hit states, New York and New Jersey, have shown no rise in positive test rate.

>>11854074
>You would have points if people such as George Floyd wouldn't classify as a death from covid
kek, cause of death was homicide you retard

>>11853930
>>N-95s filter over 95% of particles down to 7 nm. SARS-CoV-2 is 120 nm in diameter.
>*Up to 120 nm in diameter.
*approximately

>And yes a certain percentage will be filtered, just as a screen door will hold back a certain percentage of water on a submarine.
more like a screen door holding back a certain percentage of basketballs.

the main reason masks leak is that they aren't airtight

>>11854077
>What does that have to do with religion?
You're putting your faith in a power you believe to be higher than yourself.

>They're wearing masks, they do so even when they're not asked to.
Lolno, pozzed places like tokyo maybe but your average japanese chainsmoker?

>That's common in many Asian countries, it's considered a courtesy.
LOL, no you only see it in dense populated areas and they wear them because it's literally so unsanitary and full of smog. That was a thing far before Covid.

>No, that's the average, it doesn't get much smaller. SARS-CoV-2 is not a small virus particle.
We all die in the screendoor-submarine, the screendoor-submarine, the screendoor-submarine!

>The immune system is quite capable of dealing with a few viral particles that sneak through, preventing an infection from taking hold. It's large exposures or many exposures over time that lead to infection.

So then just eliminate illegal immigration and quarantine/screen legal immigration so that we get less of the virus that way. It works better and costs far less money than masks. Also it keeps the country safe from all the other contagions you don't care about at the present time because they aren't popular.

>a falling positive rate implies slowed transmission
>or better testing equipment

>and a rising positive rate implies an increased rate of transmission.
>or an increased rate of false positives from an increased number of easy to produce, less accurate testing equipment.

>>11854095
>kek, cause of death was homicide you retard
Don't tell that to me, tell that to the hospital that gets a government stipend for each "covid related death".

>>11854074
>Which also happen more often when you used less accurate tests. Now why would you use a less accurate test in the first place?
Where's your evidence that less accurate tests are being used? Why are only some states using these inaccurate tests? Besides that, false negatives are a higher risk than false positives.

>That way you can quickly test all the paranoid hypochondriacs who believe they have it.
Which should actually result in more negative tests. Most tests error toward false negatives, so if you're testing a bunch of people for every minor symptom, you should see a very high rate of negative tests. Positive rate goes down. That's why positive rate is used as a way to measure community outbreaks, because 100% population testing is impossible, but as testing capacity increases and you're able to start testing even for minor symptoms, you're going to find more people who aren't infected. A very high positive rate is a sign that current testing levels are inadequate, which is why the positive rate was so high early on. The positive rate steadily declined as testing was ramped up.

>>11854108
>Don't tell that to me
why not? because you don't like hearing the truth?

>>11854108
>a falling positive rate implies slowed transmission
>or better testing equipment
>and a rising positive rate implies an increased rate of transmission.
>or an increased rate of false positives from an increased number of easy to produce, less accurate testing equipment.
You have it perfectly backwards, but even so, unless you actually have evidence that states started relying on cheaper tests starting two weeks ago, and only some states at that, I'll just assume you're making things up.

>>11853930
>Which literally makes no sense because you've found a "10% increase in the number of infections. So which is it?
fucking kek, this retard doesn't seem to get that not all tests are positive in the first place

if you test on one day 1000 people, and 200 people are positive, and the day after you ramp up testing by 6% (so you test 1060 people), but 233 people are sick (10% increase in positivity rate), then you found 22 more sick people then if the true infection rate had stayed the same. So you know for sure that your increase in testing alone can't explain why you found more sick people. The rate is going up.

>>11854102
>the main reason masks leak is that they aren't airtight

So why didn't the CDC tall us to get better masks?

>>11854109

>Where's your evidence that less accurate tests are being used?
Oh now you ask for real evidence.

>Besides that, false negatives are a higher risk than false positives.
You're not wrong, I agree.

>>11854115
>why not? because you don't like hearing the truth?
>homicide
>truth

You're trying too hard lol. Well I say it was a drug overdose since you literally cannot say "I can't breathe" while not being able to breathe. And given that every drug that was in his system can literally result in your death the evidence supports my theory. What say you?

>>11854121
>I'll just assume
It's working wonders for you isn't it?
>Brand new virus comes out
>We somehow know everything about it and can accurately test for it.
Shit was implemented so fast there isn't even followups available, FDA just wanted them on the market. Most tests don't even give data on real-world performance.

>>11854190
>What say you?
I say you're fucking retarded and should get your facts straight.

>>11853777
>I never mentioned him whatsoever.
You didn't need to. You're obviously a Trumptard. Or maybe you're still too young to vote.

>>11854199
>breathes in "i can't breathe"
learn how a larynx and trachea work, kthx.

>>11854205
>You didn't need to.
Systemic politician mentioning? You're delusional.

>You're obviously a Trumptard.
>when you view the world in my eyes that is.
You really need to stop giving him rent free space in your head man.

>Or maybe you're still too young to vote.
Or maybe you can keep listing some more assumptions...

>>11854190
>Shit was implemented so fast there isn't even followups available, FDA just wanted them on the market. Most tests don't even give data on real-world performance.
I'm not against you questioning the accuracy of the tests in general, but to suggest that the rise in new cases in only the last two weeks, and in only particular states, requires some evidence that new tests are being used and that they have a higher false positive rate than previous tests. From what I've read, the newer, rapid tests are being criticized not for false positives, but for false negatives that were shown to be positive with the older PCR test. If more rapid tests are being used, then that should actually be lowering the positive test rate, not raising it.

>>11854238
so what do you vote? are you allowed to vote yet?

>>11854238
>learn how a larynx and trachea work, kthx.
You said his death was classified as covid related. How the fuck is this relevant

>>11854246
Some retard claimed he died of a homicide. I said he had covid, which he tested positive for and could have very well contributed to his death. In other words under the same logic used to classify covid deaths I have classified George Floyd as a covid death.
If you have any problem with that logic then congratulations, you're a sane human being and can potentially be convinced that the covid cases are blown out of proportion. Just because "the math" is behind it doesn't mean the explanation to what is being counted is. There is not enough info to make conclusions more or less.

In reality George Floyd died from a combination of having a shit lifestyle which led to him being unfit and unhealthy. He took a plethora of heinous drugs, which would have eventually killed him regardless of the events that occurred during his death. At no point was George Floyd asphyxiated by the weight of the officer alone, it has been proven that the tactics of applying a pin such as the one the officer used does not choke. At several points in the video George Floyd is literally shouting, breathing and moving his head under the knee of the officer. You can visibly and audibly tell that he is tweaking from the drugs and they had every right to pin him down given that shit can hit the fan in so many retarded ways when dealing with a drug addict. All this blew his heart and arteries out like a weasel chasing a rabbit too long, shit fucking sucks but that's what happens when you're a drugged out piece of shit.

>>11854243
>so what do you vote?
>s-so which mode of programming did you go with?

I'm not playing your stupid game. Unlike some uneducated people, I don't want to bring politics into science.

>>11854296
>Some retard claimed he died of a homicide.
no, someone claimed his death had been ruled a homicide, which it has

>I have classified George Floyd as a covid death.
it doesn't matter what you say or do, you're irrelevant

>>11854296
>I'm not playing your stupid game.
no you're playing a whole nother league of stupid

>>11854296
>Unlike some uneducated people, I don't want to bring politics into science.
>Saying that after a character limit rant about George Floyd
You have to try harder, your trolling is way too obvious m8

>>11854296
>"the math"
here we go again

buddy you should really take a highschool math class, it'll be good for you when you have to calculate how much change to give back at your mcdonalds job

>>11854311
>no, someone claimed his death had been ruled a homicide
you misquoted the post
>which it has
>regardless of real world evidence
yeah, some lawyer made an appeal to emotion. Happens everyday

>it doesn't matter what you say or do, you're irrelevant
Well back at you? Who is relevant to you? The people you worship?

>>11854318
Good one, how about an actual rebuttal?

>>11854321
I could rant more about all the crimes and virtuous actions of George Floyd all of which have nothing to do with politics, but I shouldn't even have to go there because that is irrelevant to his death. I'm just providing actual evidence as to how his death was labelled as a homicide incorrectly and does not actually explain how or why he died. Also using him as a segue into how inaccurate the covid deaths count can be given on how they classify covid deaths.
Nothing political about it, I would prefer you stop trying to make it though.

>>11854334
>buddy you should really take a highschool math class,
To count shadows like you? How about you actually use it for something useful that produces results.

>>11854356
>Good one, how about an actual rebuttal?
a rebuttal of what? you haven't even considered the actual posts that make arguments, so how about you do that first and then we'll talk?

>>11854356
>How about you actually use it for something useful that produces results.
kek who the fuck are you to decide that? you don't even understand simple arithmetic here and you think you get to say what are and what aren't useful results?

>>11854356
>Who is relevant to you?
scientists, doctors, you know, the people who actually know shit about how to handle a pandemic

not shitheels like you. you are irrelevant

>>11854356
>I would prefer you stop trying to make it though.
why? you're afraid to admit it aren't you? who do you vote for if not trump?

>All these autists circle jerking about increased cases vs increased testing when you can just look at the number of people actually hospitalized

>>11854409
these stats aren't so widely available anon, and besides, there's a substantial lab between being infected and being hospitalized, so you'd be looking at the rate of spread some time back, which is sub-optimal if you want to be preemptive

>>11854368
>you haven't even considered the actual posts that make arguments, so how about you do that first and then we'll talk?
Lol, I have and then you proceeded to ask me who i vote for. I should have ignored you from that point on
>>11854372
>kek who the fuck are you to decide that?
Am I supposed to say "Apollo" or something? Who is this magical deity you believe in that you think has to make this sort of "use of math decision"? Math is a language, idiot.
>You don't even understand simple arithmetic here and you think you get to say what are and what aren't useful results?
Not when you're counting something that doesn't exist then no.

>>11854379
>scientists, doctors, you know, the people who actually know shit about how to handle a pandemic
>they've done so well, our tiktok dancers

>not shitheels like you. you are irrelevant
Okay, Jesus. I have original sin and am deemed "non essential".

>>11854386
>begging/baiting for answers irrelevant to the discussion.
Pathetic

>>11854467
>Not when you're counting something that doesn't exist then no.
try harder faggot
-> >>11854165

>>11854467
>Lol, I have and then you proceeded to ask me who i vote for. I should have ignored you from that point on
That was not me. I'm the person who made this post: >>11854165
and you ignored it

>>11854467
>Who is this magical deity you believe in that you think has to make this sort of "use of math decision"?
you're the kind of guy who walks up to a chinese person in china and tells them to stop speaking mandarin

how about you shut the fuck up instead of pretending like you are an authority on anything who gets to decide who does what?

>>11854409
Sunlight raises immunity, higher humidity improves cilia function, both should reduce the severity of infection. Given an equal amount of people infected in the middle of winter and the middle of summer, fewer should require hospitalization in the summer.

>>11842021
Looks like America's first again, and I honestly feel sorry for that.

>>11854484
>then you found 22 more sick people then if the true infection rate had stayed the same.
>So you know for sure that your increase in testing alone can't explain why you found more sick people.
The test said there was, the test itself is inaccurate. The inaccuracies the test provide *can* explain why you *found* more sick people.
>Test people with inaccurate test
>cases show up
>test again with more accurate test with even more people and compare your results to the first inaccurate test.
>be amazed that it detects more cases, especially considering the issues with false positives/negatives.

Now although I have no proof they are/aren't using the same type of test, given that it was a brand new virus and far more information is now known about it, I think it's safe to say that they would use a more accurate form of testing at this stage especially given the *dire* circumstances. They also have more information about:
>the true infection rate
Because they now have accurate tests and methods of acquiring that data.

>>11854504
>you're the kind of guy who walks up to a chinese person in china and tells them to stop speaking mandarin
What nation has its national language as "math"?

>how about you shut the fuck up instead of pretending like you are an authority on anything who gets to decide who does what?
The only one who is doing this is you, which is why I am asking why you're doing this. I am asking you who is the authority, not pretending to be one.

>>11854736
>The only one who is doing this
>How about you actually use it for something useful that produces results

>>11843776
>pizzagate
>conspiracy

>>11854736
So now you're shifting goalposts and saying that we can't know anything because the test is inaccurate instead of the math being magic? At least admit your initial position was retarded

>I have no evidence
Obviously you don't. You're just claiming shit. Do we have more accurate tests now compared to two weeks ago? And that account fully for the recent spike in cases? How delusional are you exactly? Probably you're just in denial.

>>11854821
Yeah and? Were you going somewhere with that?
>>11854855
>So now you're shifting goalposts and saying that we can't know anything because the test is inaccurate instead of the math being magic
"Math magic" not "math being magic". You know damn well by that I meant "fudging numbers/altering the stats in a favorable manner", but I can't even say that because I don't understand how it would be favorable to fake it. It's probably just an error, none the less the imaginary errors are counted as real. That's why it's important to not solely rely on it, because even though it counts real things it can also be used to count unreal things. It's a language after all.
>At least admit your initial position was retarded
My initial position was still that the data didn't matter/doesn't explain anything, nor does it indicate a rise in actual cases. You dragged it out so long that you forced more discussion out me. It is "data", and currently it is incomplete. I know you could say the same for any other thing to be analyzed but this is brand new and not enough time has progressed to get hung up on the math and data alone.

>Obviously you don't.
Well at least I don't say I do when I don't. Also I explain why.

>You're just claiming shit
Just like the CDC who has consistently lied about the virus since day one.

>Do we have more accurate tests now compared to two weeks ago?
Do we?

>And that account fully for the recent spike in cases?
All data or selected data from a few cherry picked testing centers? The "second wave of data" which is now more accurate than the first might account for it yes. Or maybe the CDC was wrong and identifying as a protestor/protesting really does help spread the virus. Surely it has nothing to do with all the large scale protests taken place over the last 3 weeks.
>you moved goalpost again!
Well eventually someone will hire a referee to draw the fucking field boundaries.

>>11855100
>Do we?
No, we have a rapid PCR test that's giving negative results compared to the old PCR test. To what degree the rapid test is being utilized is unknown, but it should be pulling down the positive rate compared to the old test.

>All data or selected data from a few cherry picked testing centers?
Cherry picked as in entire states? Every state has many testing centers. Do you have access to that rates of each testing center that we should know about?

>the "second wave of data" which is now more accurate than the first might account for it yes.
If you want to argue that current testing is more accurate, and those "more accurate" tests are actually finding negative cases compared to the old test, then that means this wave is even worse than we realize because the old test would be detecting even more positive cases.

>Or maybe the CDC was wrong and identifying as a protestor/protesting really does help spread the virus.
"Prepare for an increased number of infections in the days following a protest," the letter says. "Provide increased access to testing and care for people in the affected communities, especially when they or their family members put themselves at risk by attending protests."

I don't think many doctors and health experts have said that protests couldn't spread the virus, in fact many have said the opposite, as per the letter I quoted above.

>Surely it has nothing to do with all the large scale protests taken place over the last 3 weeks.
Surely that's a possibility. Surely that isn't the only possibility since several states with large scale protests aren't seeing an increase in cases. Surely it's a coincidence that the states which are being hit the hardest lifted the majority of their restrictions early in June, resulting in many people going out and socializing at beaches, restaurants, and bars.

>>11855446
>Do you have access to that rates of each testing center that we should know about?
Yes we should know about them!
>and those "more accurate" tests are actually finding negative cases compared to the old test,
no, they're answer is more probable to be correct to begin with, positive or negative.

>then that means this wave is even worse than we realize because the old test would be detecting even more positive cases.
>*or not detecting cases at all

>since several states with large scale protests aren't seeing an increase in cases
>Surely it's a coincidence that the states which are being hit the hardest lifted the majority of their restrictions early in June, resulting in many people going out and socializing at beaches, restaurants, and bars.

If only they just rioted, disregarded the 6 foot rule and burned things in those hard hit areas instead then maybe they'd be okay?

>>11855600
>*or not detecting cases at all
No, you're sticking your head in the sand. The old PCR test and the rapid PCR test have been compared using the same samples, the rapid test is registering negative cases where the old PCR test found them to be positive (the rapid test is *not* finding positives where the old test registered negative). The new test has a higher chance of returning a negative result. If your argument is that the new test is more accurate, then that means the old test was overestimating the cases, which actually makes the current surge in cases even worse. You have no evidence currently to support the rise in cases and positive test rate to be the result of the rapid PCR test.

>If only they just rioted, disregarded the 6 foot rule and burned things in those hard hit areas instead then maybe they'd be okay?
If you want to be sarcastic, then sure, but again, you're not backing your case up with any supported facts. There's been little correlation between protests and rise in cases, but there's been a major correlation between states reopening early and a rise in cases.

At this point, none of your defenses have any merit. You said the surge in cases was due to increased testing, it's not. You said it was due to cheap tests being used, but there's no evidence to support that. You said it was due to better tests being used, but the rapid test should be pushing the numbers in the other direction. You said it was due to protests, but if that were the case, all states with major protests should be seeing a rise, which they aren't. You said N-95 masks were worthless, but filtration tests and real-world tests show they're very efficacious. What else you got?

>>11855100
>My initial position was still that the data didn't matter/doesn't explain anything,
No, your initial position was that OP was making up the math.

>>11855780
Look at the numbers for Georgia. No significant rise after reopening but a much more recent rise after the rioting. Or are you going to be disingenuous and claim the incubation period is now two months long like you always do when the data doesn't fit your ever changing narrative?

>>11856166
Incubation of a single period is about two weeks. Incubation at the population level (i.e. multiple cycles of transmission) take around a month to become visible. It's quite clear.

>>11856186
incubation has a median of 5 days, pop lvl is a few weeks.

>>11855780
>There's been little correlation between protests and rise in cases, but there's been a major correlation between states reopening early and a rise in cases.
lol. according to the same public health officials who excused the rioting.

>>11856218
>incubation has a median of 5 days
fair enough, its maximum is 2 weeks
>pop lvl is a few weeks.
right, as the figure shows

>>11856224
according the the data*

and quote a public health official excusing rioting you dumbass

>>11856225
yeah, falls in line with the riots which started around june 1st.

>>11856227
>according the the data*
bs. data clearly shows that after the expected incubation period following the riots we got the bumps.

>and quote a public health official excusing rioting you dumbass
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

>>11856231
not to mention the age group that is getting the spike (pun intended) is that of the "peaceful" rioters.

>>11856228
are you stupid? double check your logic here or do I need to spell it out for you?

Coroma is all bushit, you can see the deep stahe oerfectly by all these lies. thunk of whats done doring the lockdiwn: yemen, venezuela, vaccines mandandory, electronic cash, war with china ('it is a chinese virus')... FEAR IS USED TO CONTROL YOU

>>11856231
>protests
>riots
these are not the same thing, try again

>>11856239
>>11856242
just go wash some nigger's feet already and die of covid for your white privilege. i don't care to argue with your retarded denialist apologia.

>>11856240
there's a train wreck of a post if I've ever seen one

are you typing with a potato or what

>>11856245
yeah just respond with hate and profanity if you have no argument anymore, makes sense

>>11856250
>>>/reddit/

>>11856251
I've never been

>>11856232
Also the age group massively going out again you dumbass

>>11856264
yes, to riot. bu mid june we'd expect the spike from the riots that started at the end of may. retard. now go wash some nigger's feet.

>>11856232
I thought you said the protests started on June 1st? Your figure shows a spike before that you mongol.

>>11856270
are you blind? nah, just a retarded woke cultist. look at the chart again. the big spike starts around june 15th.

>>11856266
>the virus isn't real
>the virus is real but cases are only going up because of testing
>the cases are really going up but only old people are dying
>the cases are really going up in young people but only because of riots
how much more cope is possible? we must be reaching the limit now

>>11856278
i was calling the virus a serious issue back in early january when you retarded faggots were saying just flu bro. fuck off. you're the faggot coping because you wash nigger feet to alleviate your retarded white guilt complex.

>>11856231
>>11856232
Number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all going all going down in Minnesota. There has been no bump. Stop being a faggot.

>>11856288
>i was calling the virus a serious issue back in early january
So was I, and I'm glad we agree that it is a serious issue. So why are you trying so hard to derail the thread, when all it's showing is that case numbers are going up, due to reasons other than increased testing?

>you wash nigger feet
I don't wash anyone's feet except my own. Why are you so mad?

>>11856299
>when all it's showing is that case numbers are going up
and the reason which makes the most sense given the incubation period distribution is the riots. i'm not derailing shit. maybe you should discuss the spike denial with this retarded faggot here: >>11856296

>>11856305
You clearly are derailing but whatever.

>the reason which makes the most
I don't think reasons for the spike are mutually exclusive. No one is saying that protests (that you willfully persistently seem to call riots) helped in this regard. Whether they are causally responsible for the massive surge we're seeing now is questionable, there are likely many reasons and protests may be one of them.

But the indisputable fact of the matter is that the thus far single most effective measures in bringing case numbers DOWN - stay at home orders and social distancing - are no longer in effect, either by law or by practice. As such we would expect to see a spike, and we do. And not a small one at that.

Furthermore, this spike cannot be attributed to an increase in testing alone, a this is concerning. That is what this thread is about.

>>11856305
>spike denial

>>11856317
The riots and protests and looting etc are partially to blame for stay at home orders and social distancing practices not being adhered to.

Think it through a little bit...

As soon as Americans see people in their state out protesting, rioting, looting, etc. and getting away with it, or in some cases even endorsed by public health officials, how and why would you expect them to continue adhering to stay at home orders themselves?

People will simply not accept that the protestors are allowed to go and break every single guideline regarding distancing, while they have to stay at home. You cannot have rules for one set of people, and a different set for another, living in the same society. If you can't understand this, you don't understand people.

I would actually go as far to say that the protests and riots have been the number one factor that has increased the spread of the virus, not necessarily directly through transmission spread at these events, but by how they have altered the collective social consciousness to accept that distancing practices are not required anymore. This would be on a nation-wide level as well, due to the 24/7 media coverage the protests and riots receive, and the nation-wide absence of condemnation for these gatherings.

>>11856317
>that you willfully persistently seem to call riots
maybe because they are riots.

> stay at home orders and social distancing - are no longer in effect, either by law or by practice.
because no one is stopping the "peaceful" rioters.

>Furthermore, this spike cannot be attributed to an increase in testing alone, a this is concerning. That is what this thread is about.
and i'm not disputing that.

>>11856322
see: >>11856232
think about the population pyramid it'll explain why when looking at all age groups together may show no bump.

>>11856330
>how and why would you expect them to continue adhering to stay at home orders themselves?
So we agree that stay at home orders are the way to go forward?

> how they have altered the collective social consciousness to accept that distancing practices are not required anymore
You are in massive denial. People, conservatives in particular, were protesting stay at home orders long before the BLM protests started. How about pic related, and note the date. You think that had no effect whatsoever on compliance?

>>11856333
>maybe because they are riots.
no one is denying that there were riots, but not all protests, in fact the vast minority, turned into riots.

>>11856340
>were protesting stay at home orders long before the BLM protests started.
and they were tiny in comparison so it's nothing.

>>11856342
>but not all protests, in fact the vast minority, turned into riots.
lol nope. statues being torn down everywhere, looting, arson, gunfights even. look at the summer of love at the chaz how many were killed by now? 5 or 6? lol. if you actually pay attention and not buy into the msm spin you'd admit they were riots.

>>11856345
>and they were tiny in comparison so it's nothing.
Bullshit, it was a widely shared sentiment among conservatives that stay at home orders were not needed, and fucking POTUS even commented on it. Stay in denial.

>>11856345
>you'd admit they were riots.
Stop strawmanning. I've admitted there were riots. But you'd be a moron to claim that all protests turned into riots. It's simply not true and not up for debate.

>>11856348
>Bullshit, it was a widely shared sentiment among conservatives that stay at home orders were not needed,
so why did blumpf's rally flop? conservatives and right wingers have a very high germ aversion/disgust response.

>>11856351
they were mostly if not all riots. name me one location where it was truly a "peaceful" protest.

>>11856355
>conservatives and right wingers have a very high germ aversion/disgust response.
now you're just making shit up altogether

>>11856355
>. name me one location where it was truly a "peaceful" protest.
pensilvania for example is still seeing protests DAILY, and no riots

try googling things

>>11856356
nope, it's lefties who roll around in the dirt.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26481-left-or-right-wing-brains-disgust-response-tells-all/

>>11856360
nope. that's a lie.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/01/democrat-gov-tom-wolf-claims-protesters-gathering-peacefully-riots-burn-pennsylvania-cities/
inb4 breitfart
they have photographic evidence.

>>11856365
The disgust response and germophobia aren't the same. Why the fuck do you think conservatives are still refusing to wear masks you dubass. Many of them don't even believe this virus is real.

>>11856365
>breitfart
Not a fucking source. How's the koolaid?

>>11856333
Yeah I saw that graph. You're desperately trying to blame the explosive number of cases on the protests. The problem is your graph from Minnesota, which had crazy level of protests and riots, didn't translate into a spike in # cases, hospitalizations or deaths. It's a dishonest and shitty attempt to explain away the states that decided to open up way too soon.

>>11856370
>The disgust response and germophobia aren't the same.
why did the disgust response evolve? also notice what are disgusting things, things that are germy.

>Why the fuck do you think conservatives are still refusing to wear masks you dubass.
what is availability heuristic, dumbass?

>Many of them don't even believe this virus is real.
i'd like to see what fraction because again availability heuristic. the lockdown protests were tiny.

>>11856374
>images
>not a source
mang, that nigger jizz koolaid of yours sure makes you blind.

>>11856377
> You're desperately trying to blame the explosive number of cases on the protests.
it's not desperate. the desperation here is you nigger worshipers excusing your dumb riots.

>The problem is your graph from Minnesota, which had crazy level of protests and riots, didn't translate into a spike in # cases, hospitalizations or deaths.
except the number of cases did spike for the age group that is dumb enough to be part of this woke cult and go out over some worthless scumbag being killed.

>It's a dishonest and shitty attempt to explain away the states that decided to open up way too soon.
no, what's dishonest is desperately trying to defend these riots when the timing given the incubation period distribution perfectly falls in line with them. also telling trackers to not report when the infected retard went to the protest.
https://www.thecity.nyc/coronavirus/2020/6/14/21290963/nyc-covid-19-trackers-skipping-floyd-protest-questions-even-amid-fears-of-new-wave

>>11856381
>hurr durr muh availability heuristic
>this kind of asinine coping
You are for real claiming that Republicans are more prone to wear masks and adhere to guidelines. That's simply false, and it's a stupid as fuck thing to claim. You are hyper-partisan, and your hyper-partisanship is causing you to deny facts. You first claim that the root cause of failure by the population to adhere to guidelines are BLM protests, and when I point out matter of fact evidence of anti-lockdown sentiments existing in conservatives, including POTUS, prior to the BLM protests started, you simply ignore it. Then, you claim that republicans are more 'germophobic', and imply that therefore they have no causal role in the reemergence of the virus. This is blatant denial of reality, pic fucking related. This kind of asinine mentality is how people get sick. Blame the other and take no responsibility for yourself. Get fucked you idiot.

>>11856449
>You are for real claiming that Republicans are more prone to wear masks and adhere to guidelines.
nope, just that most weren't out protesting the lock down.
>You are hyper-partisan, and your hyper-partisanship is causing you to deny facts.
lmao. nope. i'm not the one defending an obvious super spreading event and saying a smaller one is.
>You first claim that the root cause of failure by the population to adhere to guidelines are BLM protests, and when I point out matter of fact evidence of anti-lockdown sentiments existing in conservatives, including POTUS, prior to the BLM protests started, you simply ignore it.
nope, just saying the lockdown protests were tiny in comparison which they were.
>This is blatant denial of reality, pic fucking related.
so >80% of gops wear masks compared to ~90% of dems. wow my point exactly. you were on about how gops don't wear masks and your own source proves you wrong.
>This kind of asinine mentality is how people get sick. Blame the other and take no responsibility for yourself. Get fucked you idiot.
pottery. the fact remains most gops are locked down while you nigger worshipers are out burning down the cities.

>>11856449
>You are for real claiming that Republicans are more prone to wear masks and adhere to guidelines.
nope, just that most weren't out protesting the lock down.
>You are hyper-partisan, and your hyper-partisanship is causing you to deny facts.
lmao. nope. i'm not the one defending an obvious super spreading event and saying a tiny protest is.
>You first claim that the root cause of failure by the population to adhere to guidelines are BLM protests,
they are by a mile. they are out rioting, looting, etc. that is not guidelines but i guess they get excused by public health so rules for thee but not for me. you know now masks are only required of whites?
>and when I point out matter of fact evidence of anti-lockdown sentiments existing in conservatives, including POTUS, prior to the BLM protests started, you simply ignore it.
nope, just saying the lockdown protests were tiny in comparison which they were.
>This is blatant denial of reality, pic fucking related.
so >80% of gops wear masks compared to ~90% of dems. wow my point exactly. you were on about how gops don't wear masks and your own source proves you wrong.
>This kind of asinine mentality is how people get sick. Blame the other and take no responsibility for yourself. Get fucked you idiot.
pottery. the fact remains most gops are locked down while you nigger worshipers are out burning down the cities.

>>11856449
How did they collect this data? Self report? Datacollecters out in town looking at people?

>>11856499
>you know now masks are only required of whites?
oh i guess they turned around on that recently.
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/coronavirus/article243773412.html

>>11856479
>lmao. nope. i'm not the one defending an obvious super spreading event and saying a smaller one is.
lmfao, again, blatant strawman and denial of your own words. You literally claimed:
>I would actually go as far to say that the protests and riots have been the number one factor that has increased the spread of the virus, not necessarily directly through transmission spread at these events, but by how they have altered the collective social consciousness to accept that distancing practices are not required anymore.
>by how they have altered the collective social consciousness
I've already given you point of fact evidence for why this is false.
>nope, just saying the lockdown protests were tiny in comparison which they were.
It's fucking irrelevant, what matters is that your argument that it was the BLM protests that caused people to abandon restrictions, which is false given that there's clear evidence that these sentiments existed before.
>so >80% of gops wear masks compared to ~90% of dems. wow my point exactly. you were on about how gops don't wear masks and your own source proves you wrong.
No, I said many of them don't. Which is true. In fact, adherence to guidelines across the board is lower.
>pottery. the fact remains most gops are locked down while you nigger worshipers are out burning down the cities.
I'm not burning down anything you stupid cunt.

It's quite clear that I'm arguing with a britbong child, and so you are irrelevant. I'm out of there.

>>11856501
look it up, the source is right there

>>11856560
>lmfao, again, blatant strawman and denial of your own words. You literally claimed:
>>I would actually go as far to say that the protests and riots have been the number one factor that has increased the spread of the virus, not necessarily directly through transmission spread at these events, but by how they have altered the collective social consciousness to accept that distancing practices are not required anymore.
so you're gonna straw man me actually. fucking pottery. just saying the incubation period distribution coincides perfectly with the age group that went out rioting and is now getting the spike (pun intended again).
>>by how they have altered the collective social consciousness
>I've already given you point of fact evidence for why this is false.
where have i said this? quote me actually, not your strawman of my arguments.
>It's fucking irrelevant, what matters is that your argument that it was the BLM protests that caused people to abandon restrictions, which is false given that there's clear evidence that these sentiments existed before.
my point is that the retarded riots were the super spreading event which it was.
>No, I said many of them don't. Which is true. In fact, adherence to guidelines across the board is lower.
except for actually staying locked down because it sure as shit isn't gops out there rioting now.
>I'm not burning down anything you stupid cunt.
just spouting apologia for your stupid cultist friends that are.

>It's quite clear that I'm arguing with a britbong child, and so you are irrelevant. I'm out of there.
ok nigger worshiper.

>>11856571
>quote me actually,
it was a literal quote you dumb shit

>>11856575
where? that wasn't me.

>>11856577
>where?
ctrl+f
>that wasn't me.
kek, denial denial denial

>>11856330
not me, will show screen cap in sec after this post. i never use caps.
>>11856578

>>11856579
>>11856578
see, not me.

>>11856583
It's irrelevant, because it only means you jumped into a discussion and started arguing against a point that I never made, and missed the actual point that I was arguing against.

Like I said, I'm out of here because I don't feel like arguing with children.

>>11856586
sorry, i did see the argument was made earlier. and there is quite a lot of apologia throughout.

>>11856586
>you jumped into a discussion
I don't think you understand how 4chan works.

>>11856600
>no, pigs can in fact not fly

see how it makes no sense to jump in and start arguing against a point that was never made?

>>11856608
it was tho, not pigs flying but anyway i only came in to correct someone regarding the part about the incubation periods then went on further to discuss the aforementioned argument. anyway i'm tired of arguing too.

>>11856618
>i'm tired of arguing too.
so leave? you've added nothing of value

>>11856623
except correct cultist denialists who didn't even understand the incubation period distribution.

>>11856630
i should also mention on my way out that viral shedding appears during incubation as well.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32296168/

>>11856630
>cultist denialists
you're strawmanning again.
I've maintained:
>No one is saying that protests helped in this regard

>>11856643
ok then. no point in arguing. i just got a lot of resistance when i pointed out the riots.

>>11856649
It's because you're retarded

>>11856657
says the dipshit who didn't get the incubation period right.

>>11856660
strawmanning again retard

>>11856571
>the incubation period distribution coincides perfectly with the age group that went out rioting and is now getting the spike (pun intended again).
Let's see what the science says:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408.pdf
>Sparked by the killing of George Floyd in police custody, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests have brought a new wave of attention to the issue of inequality within criminal justice. However, many public health officials have warned that mass protests could lead to a reduction in social distancing behavior, spurring a resurgence of COVID-19. This study uses newly collected data on protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities to estimate the impacts of mass protests on social distancing and COVID-19 case growth. Event-study analyses provide strong evidence that net stay-at-home behavior increased following protest onset, consistent with the hypothesis that non- protesters’ behavior was substantially affected by urban protests. This effect was not fully explained by the imposition of city curfews. Estimated effects were generally larger for persistent protests and those accompanied by media reports of violence. Furthermore, we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case growth during the more than three weeks following protest onset. We conclude that predictions of broad negative public health consequences of Black Lives Matter protests were far too narrowly conceived.
So in fact, protests paradoxically resulted in FEWER infections, because the non-protesting populous stayed at home because of them.

We need an r9k for politics and by that I mean a bot that mutes you if you're at all political in your post. The board would be completely empty 24/7 and have the best content.

>>11856949
Look at this fascist SJW commie hating free speech

>>11856927
>riots caused people to stay at home
except for the rioters who are now infected. lmao. also i notice they left out age bracket analysis. notice how the spike is occurring for the 20-29 yr old age bracket, ie the retards going out and rioting. you can easily hide spikes in the general population because of the population pyramid in the us.
>Furthermore, we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case growth during the more than three weeks following protest onset.
except for the spike of the rioter age bracket that follows perfectly in line with that. lmao. protests started on may 26th in minneapolis. what trash research.

>>11857000
>deflecting
Overall cases were clearly already going up prior to the protests (linear trend in Appendix Figure 9). Moreover, even if some protesters themselves got infected, this is not the root cause of the outbreak we're seeing now, because as the paper shows it must have had a negligible effect at the population level (Figure 2, bottom right).

>protests started on may 26th in minneapolis
Minnesota is seeing a fall in case numbers dumbass.

>>11857038
>deflecting
nope. my point was that these riots explain the 20-29 age bracket. try again.

>Overall cases were clearly already going up prior to the protests (linear trend in Appendix Figure 9).
no shit, it's a cumulative of overall cases. notice how they're all monotonically increasing. says nothing about how many are infected at each time interval.

>Moreover, even if some protesters themselves got infected, this is not the root cause of the outbreak we're seeing now, because as the paper shows it must have had a negligible effect at the population level (Figure 2, bottom right).
except for the age bracket where the spike is occurring. try again.

>Minnesota is seeing a fall in case numbers dumbass.
so now it's seeing a drop? except for the rioter age bracket. see again: >>11856232
try not being so retarded and critical think instead of running with some shit study that doesn't address the point.

>>11857069
>nope. my point was that these riots explain the 20-29 age bracket. try again.
I'm not particularly interested in arguing that point since a small spike within a restricted part of the populous means little to the overall numbers. The overall numbers are exploding, and that's where the danger to the country lies, and what this thread is about.

>notice how they're all monotonically increasing. says nothing about how many are infected at each time interval.
It says a lot about how many are infected at each interval. It means that there's a large and consistent pool of infected present in the overall population, and ultimately that forms a danger to the country. This is what matters. Not the protests, as the paper shows.

>so now it's seeing a drop?
Yes, see: >>11856322

>shit study that doesn't address the point.
It addresses the exact point that at the population level these protests did not cause a major outbreak. It must mean that the major outbreak we are seeing is due to reopening of states ahead of time.

>>11857083
>I'm not particularly interested in arguing that point since a small spike within a restricted part of the populous means little to the overall numbers.
and that restricted part of the pop comes in contact with the rest. bunch of these rioters live with mommy and daddy.

>The overall numbers are exploding, and that's where the danger to the country lies, and what this thread is about.
>>so now it's seeing a drop? >Yes, see
which is it?

>It says a lot about how many are infected at each interval.
nope it doesn't because there are recovered and dead that are not part of that.

>It means that there's a large and consistent pool of infected present in the overall population, and ultimately that forms a danger to the country. This is what matters. Not the protests, as the paper shows.
nothing compared to the spike with the 20-29 age bracket after 3 weeks of rioting.

>It addresses the exact point that at the population level these protests did not cause a major outbreak. It must mean that the major outbreak we are seeing is due to reopening of states ahead of time.
except that the pop lvl uptick in daily new reported cases we're seeing is 3 weeks into the riots. all they indicated. they did a shit job trying to push their spin. look back to op's graph.

>>11856608
That's not the point I used to show how you don't understand how 4chan works.
You're really childish btw.

>>11857112
>and that restricted part of the pop comes in contact with the rest. bunch of these rioters live with mommy and daddy.
And apparently it's not having a major impact on infection rates, as shown in the paper.

>which is it?
It's both, are you stupid? Minnesota is seeing a drop, most other parts of the country are not, in particular the sun belt states.

>nothing compared to the spike with the 20-29 age bracket after 3 weeks of rioting.
lel, 40k+ new cases a day and literal records of infections is nothing is it? you have no quantitative information on your spike besides a literal .jpg put together by a journalist

> the pop lvl uptick in daily new reported cases we're seeing is 3 weeks into the riots.
You're again ignoring the empirical findings from the paper.

> look back to op's graph.
I'm the one who made that graph you retard

>>11857139
>And apparently it's not having a major impact on infection rates, as shown in the paper.
except for the rioters, from the paper:
>It is important to underscore that our findings do not imply that that this was the case for all parts of the population. The net effect of increased sheltering and decreased case growth could mask adverse outcomes within a subset of the population (specifically protest attendees).

>Minnesota is seeing a drop
not for the rioter age bracket.

>most other parts of the country are not, in particular the sun belt states.
which also had rioting.

>40k+ new cases a day and literal records of infections is nothing is it
most of whom are rioting idiots.

>you have no quantitative information on your spike besides a literal .jpg put together by a journalist\
the source is mn dep of health.

>You're again ignoring the empirical findings from the paper.
i'm pointing out why it's bs. pic related.

>I'm the one who made that graph you retard
so now you wanna redact it? because the 3 week period falls perfectly in line with the spike in daily reported cases.

>getting a blood test soon
i-i'm scared UwU

>>11857257
>not for the rioter age bracket.
so the fuck what? if it's not impacting the population at large, as the paper shows, then who the fuck cares?

>most of whom are rioting idiots.
fucking retard, I won't even dignify this stupidity with a response on content

>hurr durr lemme draw a line on a pic
this is not any suitable way to look at data you mong. States and cities differ in protest dates and in case numbers, and you are ignoring this variability when it is critical to your argument. If you probe this variability, you find no relationship between protests and case numbers. Stay in denial you stupid shit

>>11857332
>if it's not impacting the population at large, as the paper shows, then who the fuck cares?
if your goal is to avoid getting covid then not going to the riots is a good idea.

>fucking retard, I won't even dignify this stupidity with a response on content
not an argument, brainlet.

>States and cities differ in protest dates
they were practically all out by the 28th.

>and you are ignoring this variability when it is critical to your argument.
it's negligible, 2-3 days and all the rioters were out by then.

>If you probe this variability, you find no relationship between protests and case numbers
except mn's data falls perfectly in line with this. most of their pop is in minneapolis.

>Stay in denial you stupid shit
oh the pottery. keep being a brainlet cultist. go wash some holy nigger feet to repent.

>>11857370
>if your goal is to avoid getting covid then not going to the riots is a good idea.
yup, that's obvious. it's not a good idea to go to a riot even if there's no coivd

>not an argument, brainlet.
none was needed, you made a statement that departs from factual reality entirely

keep denying empirical fact, you haven't even read the paper numbnuts
>we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case growth
this is what it boils down to, and however much you whine and thrash, it won't change it

>keep being a brainlet cultist.
kek, said the little boy in his mums attic

>>11857387
>none was needed, you made a statement that departs from factual reality entirely
your delusions aren't reality.

>keep denying empirical fact, you haven't even read the paper numbnuts
>>we find no evidence that urban protests reignited COVID-19 case growth
they didn't look at age brackets, brainlet.
>It is important to underscore that our findings do not imply that that this was the case for all parts of the population. The net effect of increased sheltering and decreased case growth could mask adverse outcomes within a subset of the population (specifically protest attendees).
they went out to prove a point and clearly was enough for gullible tards like you, pic related. bet you never even heard of the replication crisis.

>kek, said the little boy in his mums attic
anything is more dignified than a blm cultist.

>>11857424
>they didn't look at age brackets, brainlet
As I repeatedly pointed out, this is absolutely iorthogonal to the larger point that people are claiming that protests caused the recent wave.

>pic related. bet you never even heard of the replication crisis.
fucking kek, any tard with half a brain knows what it is, as evidenced by you

>anything is more dignified than a blm cultist.
Thanks for literally admitting that you're a little boy in your mum's attic

>>11856381
>except the number of cases did spike for the age group that is dumb enough to be part of this woke cult and go out over some worthless scumbag being killed.
That age group spiking didn't even budge Minnesota's numbers, much less the entire country's. You're chasing another ghost. When one argument fails, you just move onto something else. This is like your 5th theory in this thread.

>>11849347
>civil war
You're one of those morons I see.

>>11857257
>within a subset of the population
In other words, one small group of the population may have been adversely affected, but the population as a whole was not.

>except for the rioters, from the paper
You know what had an even bigger impact than the rioting, and affected huge amounts of people instead of one small subset of the population? Certain states lifting their restrictions. If you're against protesting because it spreads disease to a small portion of the population, then certainly you're against states reopening because it spreads disease to a much larger portion of the population, right?

>>11846542
That's the real way to figure out the death rate, when the virus either is gone harmlessly or harmfully.

The best way to fight covid is to not fight it at all. This way there is just one big sharp spike and after that everything goes back to normal.

>>11846701
That was specifically about hoarding N95s. Cloth masks that can be made at home became recommended fairly quickly.

>>11844049
The media and medical workers lied to people, lied to patients, because they didn't trust people enough to say "look, masks help reduce the spread, but we can't have people hoarding PPE equipment right now, medical professionals need to have the priority, we'll try to get more supplies for everyone as soon as we can"

Instead they set the terrifying, dangerous precedent going forward that it's okay for the media and medical workers to tell you bald-faced lies so long as they deem it to be for "the greater good"

>>11859314
>"medical people": this virus is dangerous, we should take measures before it sprouts up at home
>politicians: look it's the new democratic hoax, it will disappear like magic, lock downs hurt the economy, it's just like the flu
kek

>>11843130
>by mid to end of next week the US will see 50000+ new cases daily
this unfortunately turned out to be painfully accurate

>>11859314
>The media and medical workers lied to people, lied to patients, because they didn't trust people enough to say "look, masks help reduce the spread, but we can't have people hoarding PPE equipment right now, medical professionals need to have the priority, we'll try to get more supplies for everyone as soon as we can"
I think doing that was a huge mistake, but I can see where it's coming from. The vast majority of people around us can't think ahead for more than a few days and hoarding did happen regardless of that lie.