Is this a Hoax? Hot Mic White House

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Just going to leave this here: 

 

[JohnsonJones]

Interesting comment there.  Only a 1.3 and everyone has been vaccinated?  interesting things to say.

[NeuroTypical]

I hear the reason they set up cameras in that room, is because they don't want any video of the reptilian shapeshifters in the other room.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Full version here: 

 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I hear the reason they set up cameras in that room, is because they don't want any video of the reptilian shapeshifters in the other room.

Wait, what??? 😂

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Interesting comment there.  Only a 1.3 and everyone has been vaccinated?  interesting things to say.

Oh my gosh!  You're really bad at math, aren't you?

[dprh]

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8795340022

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Oh my gosh!  You're really bad at math, aren't you?

???

I was repeating what the guy said in the video? Or at least what it sounded like what he said in the video.

I have no idea why you would think anything he said had anything to do with how good or bad I was at math.

Maybe with hearing what he said...but math???

I don't think I follow your logic on this one.

Edited April 24, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

???

I was repeating what the guy said in the video? Or at least what it sounded like what he said in the video.

I have no idea why you would think anything he said had anything to do with how good or bad I was at math.

Maybe with hearing what he said...but math???

I don't think I follow your logic on this one.

He said... you can take off the mask because the case fatality rate is 0.1 to 0.3 according to USC - he did not say percent, but that's what a rate is, a percent so it's assumed 0.1% to 0.3%.  Its not 1.3. 

The math comes in because the rest of John Robert's statement (that got cut off from the video linked above but is part of the viral version) states that the USC study determined there are upwards of 221,000 to 442,000 infected in LA county.  And the ticker says LA County has had 790 covid-19 deaths.  So math badaboom badabing puts that fatality rate at 0.1% - 0.3% which is significantly much smaller than 1.3% as you noted.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

34 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

He said... you can take off the mask because the case fatality rate is 0.1 to 0.3 according to USC - he did not say percent, but that's what a rate is, a percent so it's assumed 0.1% to 0.3%.  Its not 1.3. 

The math comes in because the rest of John Robert's statement (that got cut off from the video linked above but is part of the viral version) states that the USC study determined there are upwards of 221,000 to 442,000 infected in LA county.  And the ticker says LA County has had 790 covid-19 deaths.  So math badaboom badabing puts that fatality rate at 0.1% - 0.3% which is significantly much smaller than 1.3% as you noted.

 

I didn't comment on the percentage or what I perceived it to be at all.  I only was saying what I thought he said...

No opinion of mine on what the percentage actually is or not.  Only opinion was that it was an interesting thing to say...I didn't even say WHY I thought it was interesting or not.  I included nothing to on my part that had math or included math except a number what I thought I heard him state.   I didn't even say whether I thought it was too high or too low.  Merely it was some interesting comments of the fellow.

I had no context to fill in the gaps of the conversation.  The Clips were to small to extrapolate anything more from the original thing I saw and heard.  Interesting it perks the interest.  I'm not sure why someone would gather any math skills from that.

PS: I may not be an expert at math.  I actually haven't taken math for a long time, and historians typically are not mathematicians, but I'm pretty sure a rate is different than a percentage.  He probably meant percentage, but percentages and rates are very different things, especially in medicine I think.  One is a comparison of numbers, the other is out of 100.   Thus, a rate could be .1 to .3 infections per 1, per 10, per 100, per 1000, per 9345, etc.  A percentage would be how many out of 100.  Thus, if you had 1 die out of every 1000 you would have a .1% mortality (if I did math right, I could be off, as I said, math is NOT my forte).  If you had 3 die out of 1000 it would be 3%.  On the otherhand, if you had .1 die out of every 5 people (a weird statistic to be sure) that would be a percentage of 2% mortality rate.

 

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

PS: I may not be an expert at math. 

We noticed.

Here, I'll help you out:  1/3 = 1:3 = 0.33 = 33.3333%.  They're all the same number.

Edited April 24, 2020 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

We noticed.

Here, I'll help you out:  1/3 = 1:3 = 0.33 = 33.3333%.  They're all the same number.

Yes, I'm not an expert...

but I still think a rate is a number to a number, a percentage is out of 100 (or something like that).

For example, you could have car accidents to days and the number could be 19 accidents in 10 days or 19/10.  A percentage is normally out of 100. 

If you do a rate OUT of a 100, than it could be equal to a percentage, but without something to identify what the rate is out of...it doesn't matter. 

For example, if gatherings were limited to 10 people (which it is in many areas) that means a fatality rate of .1-.3 would be 1%-3% out of those in the area. 

I think he probably meant the percentage of those had the virus who died (meaning how many out of 100) so that would be a .1 - .3 percent.

I just (and my hearing is not always the best, especially when I'm not wearing hearing aids or have them turned down a bit) heard badly on what he actually said.  Either way I found it interesting that they were saying such stuff, but had not really gone and done more research on the subject or why they may have said it.

And, as @dprh showed in the article, they said they were just joking around anyways.  Though, even if they had not I expect they may have been thinking due to how many had gotten it that the 'vaccination' as it were was simply how many had already gotten over it and perhaps gotten antibodies to it.

Edited April 24, 2020 by JohnsonJones
Clarity

[anatess2]

38 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yes, I'm not an expert...

but I still think a rate is a number to a number, a percentage is out of 100 (or something like that).

For example, you could have car accidents to days and the number could be 19 accidents in 10 days or 19/10.  A percentage is normally out of 100. 

If you do a rate OUT of a 100, than it could be equal to a percentage, but without something to identify what the rate is out of...it doesn't matter. 

For example, if gatherings were limited to 10 people (which it is in many areas) that means a fatality rate of .1-.3 would be 1%-3% out of those in the area. 

I think he probably meant the percentage of those had the virus who died (meaning how many out of 100) so that would be a .1 - .3 percent.

I just (and my hearing is not always the best, especially when I'm not wearing hearing aids or have them turned down a bit) heard badly on what he actually said.  Either way I found it interesting that they were saying such stuff, but had not really gone and done more research on the subject or why they may have said it.

And, as @dprh showed in the article, they said they were just joking around anyways.  Though, even if they had not I expect they may have been thinking due to how many had gotten it that the 'vaccination' as it were was simply how many had already gotten over it and perhaps gotten antibodies to it.

Stick to history, dude.

The context of John Roberts spitting numbers is not some random number pulled out of the air.  The NYT photographer in the mask may or may not be joking but John Roberts numbers is not a joke.  It's a USC study that has gone viral.  790/221,000 = 0.003 = 0.3%.  Case Fatality Rate.  TOTAL DEATHS versus TOTAL INFECTIONS in LA County.  USC.  University of Southern California.

There's no vaccine for covid-19.  The NYT photog was talking about the flu shot as a response to the mask comment - jokingly or not.

Edited April 24, 2020 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Stick to history, dude.

The context of John Roberts spitting numbers is not some random number pulled out of the air.  The NYT photographer in the mask may or may not be joking but John Roberts numbers is not a joke.  It's a USC study that has gone viral.

You mean this one

Preliminary results of USC COVID-19 study

Quote

Based on testing results from 863 adults, the research team estimates that approximately 4.1% of the county’s adult population has antibody to the virus. Adjusting this estimate for statistical margin of error implies about 2.8% to 5.6% of the county’s adult population has antibody to the virus— which translates to approximately 221,000 to 442,000 adults in the county who have had the infection. That estimate is 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the county by the time of the study in early April. The number of COVID-related deaths in the county has now surpassed 600.

--------------------------------------------------------

Though the results indicate a lower risk of death among those with infection than was previously thought, the number of COVID-related deaths each day continues to mount, highlighting the need for continued vigorous prevention and control efforts,” said Dr. Paul Simon, chief science officer at L.A. County Department of Public Health and co-lead on the study.

The study’s results have not yet been peer reviewed by other scientists. The researchers plan to test new groups of participants every few weeks in coming months to gauge the pandemic’s trajectory in the region.

I hope that the mortality rate is lower.  I even hope that what they said about the virus being in circulation earlier than it was is correct.  It might mean that nasty cough I developed from being sick earlier in the year was actually COVID-19 and I already have the antibodies (sure would be nice if they could just test those who wish to know or not so we can actually be sure) in me.  Unfortunately, no way to know currently.

Even the research indicates more research needs to be done as well as peer review.

Edited April 24, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You mean this one

Preliminary results of USC COVID-19 study

I hope that the mortality rate is lower.  I even hope that what they said about the virus being in circulation earlier than it was is correct.  It might mean that nasty cough I developed from being sick earlier in the year was actually COVID-19 and I already have the antibodies (sure would be nice if they could just test those who wish to know or not so we can actually be sure) in me.  Unfortunately, no way to know currently.

Even the research indicates more research needs to be done as well as peer review.

Yes.  THAT ONE.  That's what John Roberts was talking about.  0.1 - 0.3% Case Fatality Rate.  The current fatality rate used in predictive models is 4-12% based on WHO numbers and is the reason used for enhanced community quarantine that shut down economies worldwide.  That fatality rate is questionable because it is based on testing only symptomatic patients.  The study in LA County tested non-symptomatic population.  The issue at play here is - is 0.3% enough of a justification to shut down worldwide economies?

Sweden is another interesting case study.  Sweden kept lives normal for most people.  They only quarantined the aged population and sick people.  Everybody else went about their lives as normal.  Their death rate is higher than Norway that implemented social distancing and shut down non-essential activity.  Sweden versus Norway will prove out herd immunity without vaccines and see whether Norway will end up the same as Sweden in the long run after they "released" their population from forced lockdowns.  This will prove out whether lockdowns work in the absence of vaccines.

Edited April 24, 2020 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  THAT ONE.  That's what John Roberts was talking about.  0.1 - 0.3% Case Fatality Rate.  The current fatality rate used in predictive models is 4-12% based on WHO numbers and is the reason used for enhanced community quarantine that shut down economies worldwide.  That fatality rate is questionable because it is based on testing only symptomatic patients.  The study in LA County tested non-symptomatic population.  The issue at play here is - is 0.3% enough of a justification to shut down worldwide economies?

Sweden is another interesting case study.  Sweden kept lives normal for most people.  They only quarantined the aged population and sick people.  Everybody else went about their lives as normal.  Their death rate is higher than Norway that implemented social distancing and shut down non-essential activity.  Sweden versus Norway will prove out herd immunity without vaccines and see whether Norway will end up the same as Sweden in the long run after they "released" their population from forced lockdowns.  This will prove out whether lockdowns work in the absence of vaccines.

I like the one in Conneticutt (I think that was the state) even better (still not peer reviewed and more research needs to be done more accurately) which estimated almost 1/3 of a town had already had the virus.  It was far higher than even 4-6%.  It was already pretty high.  If the rest of the nation has that type of percentage the numbers will be looking far better.  Still, in less than 2 months we already are at 50K deaths in the US and almost 200K worldwide and that is WITH the social distancing in place for the most part in the more highly infected areas.

It could be twice that or more at least if the governors hadn't placed those lockdowns in the US when they did.  Many hospitals would probably be overrun by this point and they'd be triaging like they did in Northern Italy to see who lived and who died.

Edited April 24, 2020 by JohnsonJones