Draining the swamp:

Quote:

---

This Treasury Official Is Running the Bailout. It's Been Great for His Family.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Justin Muzinich has an increasingly prominent role. He still has ties to his family's investment firm, which is a major beneficiary of the Treasury's bailout actions

---

Quote:

---

Behind the scenes, however, the Treasury's responsibilities have fallen largely to the 42-year-old deputy secretary, Justin Muzinich.

A major beneficiary of that bailout so far: Muzinich & Co., the asset manager founded by his father where Justin served as president before joining the administration. He reported owning a stake worth at least $60 million when he entered government in 2017.

Today, Muzinich retains financial ties to the firm through an opaque transaction in which he transferred his shares in the privately held company to his father. Ethics experts say the arrangement is troubling because his father received the shares for no money up front, and it appears possible that Muzinich can simply get his stake back after leaving government.

When lockdowns crippled the economy in March, the Treasury and the Fed launched an unprecedented effort to buy up corporate debt to avert a freeze in lending at the exact moment businesses needed to borrow to keep running. That effort has succeeded, at least temporarily, with credit continuing to flow to companies over the last several weeks. This policy also allowed those who were heavily invested in corporate loans to recoup huge losses.

Muzinich & Co. has long specialized in precisely this market, managing approximately $38 billion of clients' money, including in riskier instruments known as junk, or high-yield, bonds. Since the Fed and the Treasury's actions in late March, the bond market has roared back. Muzinich & Co. has reversed billions in losses, according to a review of its holdings, with 28 of the 29 funds tracked by the investor research service Morningstar Direct rising in that period. The firm doesn't publicly detail all of its holdings, so a precise figure can't be calculated.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

Israel has stated they're just weeks out from a successful vaccine and @3 months from delivery to market.

---

Is anyone signing up to receive the COVID vaccine Israel is set to deliver soon?

---

Palestnians will be in the first wave of testiing

There have now been more COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. than the number of seats in Michigan Stadium (the stadium with the highest capacity in the country).

EDIT: It looks like they recently increased the capacity of the stadium, so we're not yet to this grim milestone (although we likely are, when one considers that the official count is lower than the true number).

"Among the 15% who RARELY/NEVER wear a mask, Trump is ahead by 76pts ."

...which means tRump may pull up a few votes short come November.

Professor Bearitas said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Professor Bearitas said:

---

If I get the Corona virus, I'm immediately going to BearForce2's house

---

I won't be home when you show up. While you wait, you can play here:

cyberbears.com

---

No problem. My good friend Mike Zillion and I will come over afterwards and give you a proper buggering.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

smh said:

---

front page of sunday's nytimes top to bottom / left to right (continued on page 12) is given to the dead.

Quote:

---

Departments across The Times have been robustly covering the coronavirus pandemic for months. But Ms. Landon and her colleagues realized that "both among ourselves and perhaps in the general reading public, there's a little bit of a fatigue with the data."

"We knew we were approaching this milestone," she added. "We knew that there should be some way to try to reckon with that number."

Putting 100,000 dots or stick figures on a page "doesn't really tell you very much about who these people were, the lives that they lived, what it means for us as a country," Ms. Landon said. So, she came up with the idea of compiling obituaries and death notices of Covid-19 victims from newspapers large and small across the country, and culling vivid passages from them.

Alain Delaqurire, a researcher, combed through various sources online for obituaries and death notices with Covid-19 written as the cause of death. He compiled a list of nearly a thousand names from hundreds of newspapers. A team of editors from across the newsroom, in addition to three graduate student journalists, read them and gleaned phrases that depicted the uniqueness of each life lost:

"Alan Lund, 81, Washington, conductor with 'the most amazing ear' "

"Theresa Elloie, 63, New Orleans, renowned for her business making detailed pins and corsages "

"Florencio Almazo Morn, 65, New York City, one-man army "

"Coby Adolph, 44, Chicago, entrepreneur and adventurer "

---

---

Last winter, 80,000 Americans died from the flu, and the NYT barely noticed.

CDC: 80,000 people died of flu last winter in U.S.

I guess that reporting that the death toll from flu viruses this year is 25%-35% above last year's doesn't make as dramatic a headline.

---

That wasn't this year. This year the estimates are 24-62k. I'm not sure how relevant it is to refer to the flu - we do have a flu vaccine that people can take which helps reduce mortality annually, so it's not like we ignore the seasonal flu either.

We have good flu years and bad flu years. That is neither here nor there when discussing a novel virus like COVID.

Why the misinformation?

Look at what you posted 2 months ago about COVID and please let us know why you are singing a completely different tune now.

---

The 80,000 US deaths from the flu was from the 2017-18 season, OK, not the 2018-19. This doesn't change my main point about the covid-19 mortality looking more like a very bad flu season, around 50% worse than the flu season from 2 years ago, rather than the kind of extraordinary pandemic most observers feared it was two months ago.

So we now know that the C19 fatality rate is far lower than previously estimated. Initially the WHO has put that figure at up to 3.4%, while the recent CDC estimates have been revised downwards closer to the seasonal flu envelope

The picture we had 3 months ago, shown below, which I was the first to post on this board, turned out to be way too alarmist:



This is the data released by the CDC two months later in May back when the death toll was 74,000:



We're headed to a total in the 130k-140k range, so the blue curve above will shift up, but it will still be of the same order of magnitude, about twice as bad as a recent bad flu season, of the order of the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1986 Hong Kong Flu, both of which ha a death toll in the low 100,000s. We are nowhere near the Spanish Flu as some alarmist modelers like Imperial College's Ferguson have predicted.


Furthermore,we now also have treatments like the HCQ/Azythromycin/zinc regimen, which gas proven to be highly effective in reducing the viral loads and death rates if applied under the right protocol in the early to middle stages of the disease (as opposed to the later stage, where the virus is no longer the main pathology agent).

This is the treatment that is being used successfully in dozens of countries around the world, including India, Israel, Russia,Turkey and over a dozen African countries, all of which have had great success using HCQ with the protocol fine-tuned by Dr Didier Raoult in his Marseille hospital. The recent Lancet study that claimed HCQ was ineffective has now been thoroughly discredited.

"The recent Lancet study that claimed HCQ was ineffective has now been thoroughly discredited."

Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent COVID-19 | Science | AAAS


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

smh said:

---

front page of sunday's nytimes top to bottom / left to right (continued on page 12) is given to the dead.

Quote:

---

Departments across The Times have been robustly covering the coronavirus pandemic for months. But Ms. Landon and her colleagues realized that "both among ourselves and perhaps in the general reading public, there's a little bit of a fatigue with the data."

"We knew we were approaching this milestone," she added. "We knew that there should be some way to try to reckon with that number."

Putting 100,000 dots or stick figures on a page "doesn't really tell you very much about who these people were, the lives that they lived, what it means for us as a country," Ms. Landon said. So, she came up with the idea of compiling obituaries and death notices of Covid-19 victims from newspapers large and small across the country, and culling vivid passages from them.

Alain Delaqurire, a researcher, combed through various sources online for obituaries and death notices with Covid-19 written as the cause of death. He compiled a list of nearly a thousand names from hundreds of newspapers. A team of editors from across the newsroom, in addition to three graduate student journalists, read them and gleaned phrases that depicted the uniqueness of each life lost:

"Alan Lund, 81, Washington, conductor with 'the most amazing ear' "

"Theresa Elloie, 63, New Orleans, renowned for her business making detailed pins and corsages "

"Florencio Almazo Morn, 65, New York City, one-man army "

"Coby Adolph, 44, Chicago, entrepreneur and adventurer "

---

---

Last winter, 80,000 Americans died from the flu, and the NYT barely noticed.

CDC: 80,000 people died of flu last winter in U.S.

I guess that reporting that the death toll from flu viruses this year is 25%-35% above last year's doesn't make as dramatic a headline.

---

That wasn't this year. This year the estimates are 24-62k. I'm not sure how relevant it is to refer to the flu - we do have a flu vaccine that people can take which helps reduce mortality annually, so it's not like we ignore the seasonal flu either.

We have good flu years and bad flu years. That is neither here nor there when discussing a novel virus like COVID.

Why the misinformation?

Look at what you posted 2 months ago about COVID and please let us know why you are singing a completely different tune now.

---

The 80,000 US deaths from the flu was from the 2017-18 season, OK, not the 2018-19. This doesn't change my main point about the covid-19 mortality looking more like a very bad flu season, around 50% worse than the flu season from 2 years ago, rather than the kind of extraordinary pandemic most observers feared it was two months ago.

So we now know that the C19 fatality rate is far lower than previously estimated. Initially the WHO has put that figure at up to 3.4%, while the recent CDC estimates have been revised downwards closer to the seasonal flu envelope

The picture we had 3 months ago, shown below, which I was the first to post on this board, turned out to be way too alarmist:



This is the data released by the CDC two months later in May back when the death toll was 74,000:



We're headed to a total in the 130k-140k range, so the blue curve above will shift up, but it will still be of the same order of magnitude, about twice as bad as a recent bad flu season, of the order of the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1986 Hong Kong Flu, both of which ha a death toll in the low 100,000s. We are nowhere near the Spanish Flu as some alarmist modelers like Imperial College's Ferguson have predicted.


Furthermore,we now also have treatments like the HCQ/Azythromycin/zinc regimen, which gas proven to be highly effective in reducing the viral loads and death rates if applied under the right protocol in the early to middle stages of the disease (as opposed to the later stage, where the virus is no longer the main pathology agent).

This is the treatment that is being used successfully in dozens of countries around the world, including India, Israel, Russia,Turkey and over a dozen African countries, all of which have had great success using HCQ with the protocol fine-tuned by Dr Didier Raoult in his Marseille hospital. The recent Lancet study that claimed HCQ was ineffective has now been thoroughly discredited.

---

Thanks for answering and acknowledging that you said this year's flu but actually referred to 2 seasons ago. This year's flu killed between 1/4 and 1/2 as many as COVID already has. And the deaths are incremental - it's not like we get to choose between one or the other. I do wonder whether SIP helped reduce normal flu deaths by limiting spread. I suspect we will find out.

Few other thoughts in response.

First - the second chart doesn't speak to magnitude. It's speaks to relative death mix. COVID could kill 2 million and the chart wouldn't move. So it may be interesting but it's not particularly relevant when discussing magnitude of mortality of flu or COVID.

Second - you said your prior data was alarmist without acknowledging that SIP and social distancing are largely the reason we don't have far more dead. It's like saying we don't need seatbelts because people aren't dying from flying through windshields any more. It's not a coincidence. I suspect given the increase in new cases and hospitalizations we are seeing, combined with the relaxing of social distancing efforts, we aren't going to see mortality get close to zero for quite some time and that 140k will just be a waypoint in our battle. Would be surprised if we end up with fewer than 200k dead before year end and 250k by March 2021 (fully year into the pandemic). That would put COVID as a top 5 killer in the US over that 12 month period. Some of those people would have died anyway but it will be a major cause of excess deaths as well.

Third - you are just picking and choosing on HCQ like many others. I don't believe you ever responded to my critique of the Marseilles HCQ results that you crow about but it's quite apparent that they were misleading. Now you are basically saying HCQ is helpful for people who will probably do fine no matter what. It's not an apples to apples comparison. The vast majority of people in the early stages of the disease will do just fine. Many who won't are ineligible for HCQ due to the risks of side effects and those are the people most at risk. In Merseille they had to cut out more than 1/4 patients from the trials because of these risks and those at risk patients are the ones who most would benefit from a therapy. HCQ is unlikely to be the reason mortality has been reduced anywhere. I think others have posted on the Lancet study, but to be clear it hasn't been rebuked. It was withdrawn because they didn't have permission to allow the data to be reviewed. It should have been withdrawn but that doesn't mean that it was invalid rather that it just couldn't be peer reviewed.

I would love more than anything for HCQ to be a silver bullet here but that is just hard to justify right now given how many studies have shown otherwise.

Perhaps one takeaway from what you now acknowledge was an incorrect and alarmist view in February is that you shouldn't be so confident in your predictions.

bearister said:

---

"The recent Lancet study that claimed HCQ was ineffective has now been thoroughly discredited."

Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent COVID-19 | Science | AAAS


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

---

Percentage of patients with PCR-positive nasopharyngeal samples from inclusion to day6 post-inclusion in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine only, in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithomycin combination, and in COVID-19 control

patients.
Gautret et al. (2020) Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID19


There are about 20 clinical studies from across the world that showed that HCQ is an effective treatment for covid19 when applied with the proper protocol:
-In early and middle stages of the disease
-With the right dosage, or in the right dosage range
-In combination with Azythromycin and zinc supplements.

Those studies are listed here, on the site of the leading institution for the study and treatment of infectious diseases in France, starting from the 1min mark:

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/etudes-sur-lhydroxychloroquine-la-realite-contre-le-big-data/

The treatment doesn't work if this protocol is not followed.

Quote:

---

Science Mag link above:
"But now three large studies, two in people exposed to the virus and at risk of infection and the other in severely ill patients, show no benefit from the drug."

---

-HCQ doesn't work on severely ill patients, this is a well known fact, because the virus is no longer the primary pathogen in the latter stages. It only works in the early and middle stages, by reducing the viral load.

-The British Recovery study was done on patients who were not tested for covid19, with mortality rates in the 25% range. Not only was the bulk of these patients very sick, as shown for the very high mortality rates, but also they weren't even tested for covid19.

Ultimately, the truth is in the pudding, and there is this immutable fact:
-Countries with high mortality rates and numbers have not used HCQ. None of the top 10 worst hit countries have used HCQ extensively.
-Countries with low to very low mortality rates have been using HCQ widely and effectively, including Israel, India, Russia, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria and a large number of African nations.

You have Spain with 30,000 dead, and just across a narrow straight, Morocco, which relied almost completely on HCQ, with 210 deaths out of a population of comparible size to Spain. There were more deaths from covid19 in the relatively small immigrants communities of either Belgium or Spain than in all of Morocco...

This conversation just took a left turn above my pay grade.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

smh said:

---

front page of sunday's nytimes top to bottom / left to right (continued on page 12) is given to the dead.

Quote:

---

Departments across The Times have been robustly covering the coronavirus pandemic for months. But Ms. Landon and her colleagues realized that "both among ourselves and perhaps in the general reading public, there's a little bit of a fatigue with the data."

"We knew we were approaching this milestone," she added. "We knew that there should be some way to try to reckon with that number."

Putting 100,000 dots or stick figures on a page "doesn't really tell you very much about who these people were, the lives that they lived, what it means for us as a country," Ms. Landon said. So, she came up with the idea of compiling obituaries and death notices of Covid-19 victims from newspapers large and small across the country, and culling vivid passages from them.

Alain Delaqurire, a researcher, combed through various sources online for obituaries and death notices with Covid-19 written as the cause of death. He compiled a list of nearly a thousand names from hundreds of newspapers. A team of editors from across the newsroom, in addition to three graduate student journalists, read them and gleaned phrases that depicted the uniqueness of each life lost:

"Alan Lund, 81, Washington, conductor with 'the most amazing ear' "

"Theresa Elloie, 63, New Orleans, renowned for her business making detailed pins and corsages "

"Florencio Almazo Morn, 65, New York City, one-man army "

"Coby Adolph, 44, Chicago, entrepreneur and adventurer "

---

---

Last winter, 80,000 Americans died from the flu, and the NYT barely noticed.

CDC: 80,000 people died of flu last winter in U.S.

I guess that reporting that the death toll from flu viruses this year is 25%-35% above last year's doesn't make as dramatic a headline.

---

That wasn't this year. This year the estimates are 24-62k. I'm not sure how relevant it is to refer to the flu - we do have a flu vaccine that people can take which helps reduce mortality annually, so it's not like we ignore the seasonal flu either.

We have good flu years and bad flu years. That is neither here nor there when discussing a novel virus like COVID.

Why the misinformation?

Look at what you posted 2 months ago about COVID and please let us know why you are singing a completely different tune now.

---

The 80,000 US deaths from the flu was from the 2017-18 season, OK, not the 2018-19. This doesn't change my main point about the covid-19 mortality looking more like a very bad flu season, around 50% worse than the flu season from 2 years ago, rather than the kind of extraordinary pandemic most observers feared it was two months ago.

So we now know that the C19 fatality rate is far lower than previously estimated. Initially the WHO has put that figure at up to 3.4%, while the recent CDC estimates have been revised downwards closer to the seasonal flu envelope

The picture we had 3 months ago, shown below, which I was the first to post on this board, turned out to be way too alarmist:



This is the data released by the CDC two months later in May back when the death toll was 74,000:



We're headed to a total in the 130k-140k range, so the blue curve above will shift up, but it will still be of the same order of magnitude, about twice as bad as a recent bad flu season, of the order of the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1986 Hong Kong Flu, both of which ha a death toll in the low 100,000s. We are nowhere near the Spanish Flu as some alarmist modelers like Imperial College's Ferguson have predicted.


Furthermore,we now also have treatments like the HCQ/Azythromycin/zinc regimen, which gas proven to be highly effective in reducing the viral loads and death rates if applied under the right protocol in the early to middle stages of the disease (as opposed to the later stage, where the virus is no longer the main pathology agent).

This is the treatment that is being used successfully in dozens of countries around the world, including India, Israel, Russia,Turkey and over a dozen African countries, all of which have had great success using HCQ with the protocol fine-tuned by Dr Didier Raoult in his Marseille hospital. The recent Lancet study that claimed HCQ was ineffective has now been thoroughly discredited.

---

Thanks for answering and acknowledging that you said this year's flu but actually referred to 2 seasons ago. This year's flu killed between 1/4 and 1/2 as many as COVID already has. And the deaths are incremental - it's not like we get to choose between one or the other. I do wonder whether SIP helped reduce normal flu deaths by limiting spread. I suspect we will find out.

Few other thoughts in response.

First - the second chart doesn't speak to magnitude. It's speaks to relative death mix. COVID could kill 2 million and the chart wouldn't move. So it may be interesting but it's not particularly relevant when discussing magnitude of mortality of flu or COVID.

Second - you said your prior data was alarmist without acknowledging that SIP and social distancing are largely the reason we don't have far more dead. It's like saying we don't need seatbelts because people aren't dying from flying through windshields any more. It's not a coincidence. I suspect given the increase in new cases and hospitalizations we are seeing, combined with the relaxing of social distancing efforts, we aren't going to see mortality get close to zero for quite some time and that 140k will just be a waypoint in our battle. Would be surprised if we end up with fewer than 200k dead before year end and 250k by March 2021 (fully year into the pandemic). That would put COVID as a top 5 killer in the US over that 12 month period. Some of those people would have died anyway but it will be a major cause of excess deaths as well.

Third - you are just picking and choosing on HCQ like many others. I don't believe you ever responded to my critique of the Marseilles HCQ results that you crow about but it's quite apparent that they were misleading. Now you are basically saying HCQ is helpful for people who will probably do fine no matter what. It's not an apples to apples comparison. The vast majority of people in the early stages of the disease will do just fine. Many who won't are ineligible for HCQ due to the risks of side effects and those are the people most at risk. In Merseille they had to cut out more than 1/4 patients from the trials because of these risks and those at risk patients are the ones who most would benefit from a therapy. HCQ is unlikely to be the reason mortality has been reduced anywhere. I think others have posted on the Lancet study, but to be clear it hasn't been rebuked. It was withdrawn because they didn't have permission to allow the data to be reviewed. It should have been withdrawn but that doesn't mean that it was invalid rather that it just couldn't be peer reviewed.

I would love more than anything for HCQ to be a silver bullet here but that is just hard to justify right now given how many studies have shown otherwise.

Perhaps one takeaway from what you now acknowledge was an incorrect and alarmist view in February is that you shouldn't be so confident in your predictions.

---

We know a lot more about the disease now than we did back in February. I was correct in predicting the pandemic's arrival in the US all the way back in February, and the disruption it would cause, and was widely mocked for that and dismissed as some king of prepper. If you have the same mindset today that you did in March, it indicates you haven't incorporated many basic facts about the disease that we've learned along the way.


There are too many points to refute here and not that much time, I will just stick with a couple of very glaring points that show that you have a completely false understanding of what HCQ is about.

Quote:

---

Many who won't are ineligible for HCQ due to the risks of side effects and those are the people most at risk. In Merseille they had to cut out more than 1/4 patients from the trials because of these risks and those at risk patients are the ones who most would benefit from a therapy.

---

The side effects from HCQ over the short term in the right dosage (1) are very well known and documented, as the drug has been prescribed/used over a billion times across the world and (2) are very benign over the short term. HCQ has been an OTC drug for decades.

Any pharmacist or physician from countries where this drug is commonly administered would laugh at the notion that this drug is dangerous. The fact that this notion is so widely spread in American circles indicates that the general public here is grossly misinformed, which is perhaps a symptom of the very polarized political environment we live in. If you can't get this fact straight about HCQ side effects, we're just not going to go very far in this discussion.

Quote:

---

I think others have posted on the Lancet study, but to be clear it hasn't been rebuked. It was withdrawn because they didn't have permission to allow the data to be reviewed.

---

That's a gross mischaracterization, the three authors of this study retracted their names from the study because they could not vouch for the authenticily of the data used. The data provided by Surgisphere, the fly by night company that was supposed to gather the data, is outright fraudulent, for example it showed more deaths in Australia from HCQ treatments than the actual total number of covid deaths in that continent, and abnormalities like little variations across continents in the profile of the data.

Fact checkers from reputable media sources contacted over 100 hospitals that were supposed to have provided their data to the study, none of their officials even knew of Surgisphere. It's not that they had confidentiality clauses with Surgisphere, it's that they have unequivocally stated that they've never even heard of them.

Another negative study on side effects of HCQ recently published by the N England Journal of Medecine from the same team with Mehta, using Surgisphere data, was also rebuked by the magazine, who issued an
"expression of concern" about the study and the data used.

Quote:

---

the second chart doesn't speak to magnitude. It's speaks to relative death mix. COVID could kill 2 million and the chart wouldn't move.

---

We're well past the peak in the US in covid deaths. The notion that it could still kill a million or two here is ridiculous, the total will be in the low to mid 100k range.

We know this because this is what happened in other countries with similar death rates, it's the basic behavior of all viral respiratory epidemics, the national aggregates of new deaths are bell curves with wider tapering, that's true in every country, and it will be true in the US.

You know very well that I wasn't claiming that it would kill 2 Million but the point I was making is that a chart on relative age distribution of mortality would be the same whether regardless of deaths. It has no relevance to the magnitude of the pandemic vs the flu and is intended to mislead by making it seem flu like.


As for HCQ, I agree it's relatively benign for most people but the people who have the most to fear from COVID are often the same people who shouldn't take HCQ due to the side effects. That's why Merseille excluded so many patients from the study. It's still not clear from any reliable study that HCQ is better early on than nothing. The vast majority of people do quite fine with COVID. I wrote about the problems in the Merseilles study in depth a few weeks ago and don't recall if you had a chance to respond then or not but happy to post a link tomorrow to my full analysis.

Big C said:

---

However, if someone doesn't want to wear a mask when shopping at my local Safeway, hey, too freaking bad: It's a public health issue. (I will make an exception maybe in certain areas of the country such as Montana where there is basically no coronavirus... yet.)

---

No it aint -- if you don't like it you stay home. I think wearing a mask is sensible and even if one disagrees, I'd argue it's the reasonable thing to do for others. But to virtue signal about it and claim they're the ones that need to go away -- uh no. If the business wants to require it, that's self explanatory

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You know very well that I wasn't claiming that it would kill 2 Million but the point I was making is that a chart on relative age distribution of mortality would be the same whether regardless of deaths. It has no relevance to the magnitude of the pandemic vs the flu and is intended to mislead by making it seem flu like.

---

This is the chart that is really misleading, it's the picture from early March:



This graph, which I've posted myself on this board, was the picture we thought we had of the covid19 fatality rate. It showed that covid19 would be 25 times as lethal as a normal flu season.

A few months later, it turns out that the covid19 death rates were within the range of historic seasonal flus, we're currently at 113k which is about 40% higher than the 80k death total from a recent bad flu season, and will end up with less than twice that death count.

This is orders of magnitude smaller than the early estimates reflected by the chart above, upon which the very stringent confinement policies were based. We need to adjust our expectations and policies accordingly.

Quote:

---

As for HCQ, I agree it's relatively benign for most people but the people who have the most to fear from COVID are often the same people who shouldn't take HCQ due to the side effects. That's why Merseille excluded so many patients from the study. It's still not clear from any reliable study that HCQ is better early on than nothing. The vast majority of people do quite fine with COVID. I wrote about the problems in the Merseilles study in depth a few weeks ago and don't recall if you had a chance to respond then or not but happy to post a link tomorrow to my full analysis.

---

IHU Marseille treated about 4,000 infected patients with HCQ, these patients were carefully monitored for adverse side effects, which occurred in less than 1 in 500 patient.

They had an overall death rate of 0.5% among those infected patients, and only 1 death in patients under 70. Their death rates were 7 times lower than the rates registered in Paris, where HCQ was not used. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France, with a poorer population relative to Paris, and a large "inner city" immigrant population similar to Brussels which was much, much harder hit. Marseille had the best results at the national scale due to the IHU HCQ protocol..

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You know very well that I wasn't claiming that it would kill 2 Million but the point I was making is that a chart on relative age distribution of mortality would be the same whether regardless of deaths. It has no relevance to the magnitude of the pandemic vs the flu and is intended to mislead by making it seem flu like.

---

This is the chart that is really misleading, it's the picture from early March:



This graph, which I've posted myself on this board, was the picture we thought we had of the covid19 fatality rate. It showed that covid19 would be 25 times as lethal as a normal flu season.

A few months later, it turns out that the covid19 death rates were within the range of historic seasonal flus, we're currently at 113k which is about 40% higher than the 80k death total from a recent bad flu season, and will end up with less than twice that death count.

This is orders of magnitude smaller than the early estimates reflected by the chart above, upon which the very stringent confinement policies were based. We need to adjust our expectations and policies accordingly.

Quote:

---

As for HCQ, I agree it's relatively benign for most people but the people who have the most to fear from COVID are often the same people who shouldn't take HCQ due to the side effects. That's why Merseille excluded so many patients from the study. It's still not clear from any reliable study that HCQ is better early on than nothing. The vast majority of people do quite fine with COVID. I wrote about the problems in the Merseilles study in depth a few weeks ago and don't recall if you had a chance to respond then or not but happy to post a link tomorrow to my full analysis.

---

IHU Marseille treated about 4,000 infected patients with HCQ, these patients were carefully monitored for adverse side effects, which occurred in less than 1 in 500 patient.

They had an overall death rate of 0.5% among those infected patients, and only 1 death in patients under 70. Their death rates were 7 times lower than the rates registered in Paris, where HCQ was not used. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France, with a poorer population relative to Paris, and a large "inner city" immigrant population similar to Brussels which was much, much harder hit. Marseille had the best results at the national scale due to the IHU HCQ protocol..

---

Ok - now you are disagreeing with yourself.

Here's what you said:

Quote:

---

This is the data released by the CDC two months later in May back when the death toll was 74,000:



We're headed to a total in the 130k-140k range, so the blue curve above will shift up, but it will still be of the same order of magnitude, about twice as bad as a recent bad flu season, of the order of the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1986 Hong Kong Flu, both of which ha a death toll in the low 100,000s. We are nowhere near the Spanish Flu as some alarmist modelers like Imperial College's Ferguson have predicted.

---

You clearly are referring to the blue curve and then you talk about magnitude compared to the flu. This is not a chart you should reference when talking about magnitude of mortality but rather the age mix.

If you want to say that early predictions were that mortality could be 25x the seasonal flu, you should acknowledge that our country took measures to reduce mortality. Had we done nothing (which is effectively what we do with the flu - apart from the vaccine which is not available for COVID), we may have hit 25x the flu (which could be in the neighborhood of 1m deaths).

Quote:

---

IHU Marseille treated about 4,000 infected patients with HCQ, these patients were carefully monitored for adverse side effects, which occurred in less than 1 in 500 patient.

They had an overall death rate of 0.5% among those infected patients, and only 1 death in patients under 70. Their death rates were 7 times lower than the rates registered in Paris, where HCQ was not used. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France, with a poorer population relative to Paris, and a large "inner city" immigrant population similar to Brussels which was much, much harder hit. Marseille had the best results at the national scale due to the IHU HCQ protocol..

---

This is misleading because Marseille excluded high-risk patients from the HCQ protocol. I've gone more in depth in my critique of the Marseille study and will just link to that post. I haven't heard anything to indicate that what happened in Marseille is anything other than cherry-picking of favorable data.

The number of deaths due to COVID-19 in the U.S. is about to officially pass 115,000, which is the highest capacity of any stadium in the world.

chazzed said:

---

The number of deaths due to COVID-19 in the U.S. is about to officially pass 115,000, which is the highest capacity of any stadium in the world.

---

*A sub intelligent person won the office of POTUS. When and how did America lose it's way?

GBear4Life said:

---

Big C said:

---

However, if someone doesn't want to wear a mask when shopping at my local Safeway, hey, too freaking bad: It's a public health issue. (I will make an exception maybe in certain areas of the country such as Montana where there is basically no coronavirus... yet.)

---

No it aint -- if you don't like it you stay home. I think wearing a mask is sensible and even if one disagrees, I'd argue it's the reasonable thing to do for others. But to virtue signal about it and claim they're the ones that need to go away -- uh no. If the business wants to require it, that's self explanatory

---

Strong disagree: When people live together in a society, they sometimes have to make individual sacrifices for the good of the society. Ideally, they would WANT TO, but in some cases, if they do not want to, then they just HAVE TO. We're (correctly) trying to open our economy back up in the middle of a pandemic, one that is largely being transmitted from people's breath. Masks help.

Not sure how "virtue signaling" figures in to this.

What if someone wanted the personal freedom of doing their grocery shopping naked? is it others' responsibility to look away? Do you think paying taxes should be optional? Obeying laws?

Trump took a public health issue and made it a political/personal freedom issue. Another of his huge mistakes that are costing American lives.

chazzed said:

---

The number of deaths due to COVID-19 in the U.S. is about to officially pass 115,000, which is
the highest capacity of any stadium in the world [corrected above to biggest in the u.s.a, u.s.a... )

---

nuttin honey wiki-wiki gives 3 bigger stadia..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity


Strahov Stadium
250,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-1][1][/url]
Prague, Czech Republic
AC Sparta Praha

^^^ ..built for displays of synchronized gymnastics on a massive scale, with a field three times as long as and three times as wide as the standard Association football pitch


Rungrado 1st of May Stadium
114,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-2][2][/url]
Pyongyang, North Korea
Korea DPR national football team*


Motera Stadium
110,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-3][3][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-4][4][/url]
Ahmedabad, Gujara, India
India national cricket team / Gujarat cricket team


Michigan Stadium
107,601[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-5][5][/url]
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
Michigan Wolverines football

with apologies in advance for smirching high holy OT with sports 'nstuff..

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You know very well that I wasn't claiming that it would kill 2 Million but the point I was making is that a chart on relative age distribution of mortality would be the same whether regardless of deaths. It has no relevance to the magnitude of the pandemic vs the flu and is intended to mislead by making it seem flu like.

---

This is the chart that is really misleading, it's the picture from early March:



This graph, which I've posted myself on this board, was the picture we thought we had of the covid19 fatality rate. It showed that covid19 would be 25 times as lethal as a normal flu season.

A few months later, it turns out that the covid19 death rates were within the range of historic seasonal flus, we're currently at 113k which is about 40% higher than the 80k death total from a recent bad flu season, and will end up with less than twice that death count.

This is orders of magnitude smaller than the early estimates reflected by the chart above, upon which the very stringent confinement policies were based. We need to adjust our expectations and policies accordingly.

Quote:

---

As for HCQ, I agree it's relatively benign for most people but the people who have the most to fear from COVID are often the same people who shouldn't take HCQ due to the side effects. That's why Merseille excluded so many patients from the study. It's still not clear from any reliable study that HCQ is better early on than nothing. The vast majority of people do quite fine with COVID. I wrote about the problems in the Merseilles study in depth a few weeks ago and don't recall if you had a chance to respond then or not but happy to post a link tomorrow to my full analysis.

---

IHU Marseille treated about 4,000 infected patients with HCQ, these patients were carefully monitored for adverse side effects, which occurred in less than 1 in 500 patient.

They had an overall death rate of 0.5% among those infected patients, and only 1 death in patients under 70. Their death rates were 7 times lower than the rates registered in Paris, where HCQ was not used. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France, with a poorer population relative to Paris, and a large "inner city" immigrant population similar to Brussels which was much, much harder hit. Marseille had the best results at the national scale due to the IHU HCQ protocol..

---

Ok - now you are disagreeing with yourself.

Here's what you said:

Quote:

---

This is the data released by the CDC two months later in May back when the death toll was 74,000:



We're headed to a total in the 130k-140k range, so the blue curve above will shift up, but it will still be of the same order of magnitude, about twice as bad as a recent bad flu season, of the order of the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1986 Hong Kong Flu, both of which ha a death toll in the low 100,000s. We are nowhere near the Spanish Flu as some alarmist modelers like Imperial College's Ferguson have predicted.

---

You clearly are referring to the blue curve and then you talk about magnitude compared to the flu. This is not a chart you should reference when talking about magnitude of mortality but rather the age mix.

If you want to say that early predictions were that mortality could be 25x the seasonal flu, you should acknowledge that our country took measures to reduce mortality. Had we done nothing (which is effectively what we do with the flu - apart from the vaccine which is not available for COVID), we may have hit 25x the flu (which could be in the neighborhood of 1m deaths).

Quote:

---

IHU Marseille treated about 4,000 infected patients with HCQ, these patients were carefully monitored for adverse side effects, which occurred in less than 1 in 500 patient.

They had an overall death rate of 0.5% among those infected patients, and only 1 death in patients under 70. Their death rates were 7 times lower than the rates registered in Paris, where HCQ was not used. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France, with a poorer population relative to Paris, and a large "inner city" immigrant population similar to Brussels which was much, much harder hit. Marseille had the best results at the national scale due to the IHU HCQ protocol..

---

This is misleading because Marseille excluded high-risk patients from the HCQ protocol. I've gone more in depth in my critique of the Marseille study and will just link to that post. I haven't heard anything to indicate that what happened in Marseille is anything other than cherry-picking of favorable data.

---

I was referring to the overall death rate in the greater Marseille/Provence region, not a small individual study. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France. That overall regional mortality rate for Marseille turned out to be 7 times lower than the rate in Paris, where HCQ was not widely used as in the Marseille region.

Most patients in the Marseille/Provence region were treated according to the IHU hospital HCQ protocol. Tens of thousands were treated in that region, including 4,000 at the hospital itself.

Only 18 died out of these 4,000 patients, and IIRC just one patient under 70. Paris and other regions had far greater death rates overall, and especially so among younger patients.

Quote:

---

You clearly are referring to the blue curve and then you talk about magnitude compared to the flu. This is not a chart you should reference when talking about magnitude of mortality but rather the age mix.

---

At the time of publication of that graph, the death toll was 74,000, so while the blue and black lines representing covid deaths vs normal flu/pneumonia deaths were represented as histograms on the Y axis, they were also very much within the same orders of magnitude. 74,000 deaths being a bad flu season. We're now at 113k and headed towards a 130k-140k total, based on the behavior of the disease and shape of the epidemic curve in other countries.

So we're basically going to get twice the total deaths of a bad flu season, or about the same mortality of a really bad flu season like the Hong Kong Flu or the Asian Flu before that. The Hong Kong Flu killed 116,000 Americans in 1968, back when the population was 200 million. For covid19 to be as deadly as teh Hong Kong Flu, the toll will have to get all the way up to 185,000 - not likely -.

Quote:

---

If you want to say that early predictions were that mortality could be 25x the seasonal flu, you should acknowledge that our country took measures to reduce mortality. Had we done nothing (which is effectively what we do with the flu - apart from the vaccine which is not available for COVID), we may have hit 25x the flu (which could be in the neighborhood of 1m deaths).

---

The measures taken in the US were no different than those taken in most European countries, which is basically a fairly strict confinement, lax testing, and no treatment until ICU hospitalization. Many countries that had very little or no lockdowns ended up getting the same infection rates, including Sweden and Belarus in Europe. Belarus has the same population as Belgium and only 290 deaths. And contrary to what's been reported in the American media, Sweden is very much within the EU average (will show this in the Sweden thread).

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You know very well that I wasn't claiming that it would kill 2 Million but the point I was making is that a chart on relative age distribution of mortality would be the same whether regardless of deaths. It has no relevance to the magnitude of the pandemic vs the flu and is intended to mislead by making it seem flu like.

---

This is the chart that is really misleading, it's the picture from early March:



This graph, which I've posted myself on this board, was the picture we thought we had of the covid19 fatality rate. It showed that covid19 would be 25 times as lethal as a normal flu season.

A few months later, it turns out that the covid19 death rates were within the range of historic seasonal flus, we're currently at 113k which is about 40% higher than the 80k death total from a recent bad flu season, and will end up with less than twice that death count.

This is orders of magnitude smaller than the early estimates reflected by the chart above, upon which the very stringent confinement policies were based. We need to adjust our expectations and policies accordingly.

Quote:

---

As for HCQ, I agree it's relatively benign for most people but the people who have the most to fear from COVID are often the same people who shouldn't take HCQ due to the side effects. That's why Merseille excluded so many patients from the study. It's still not clear from any reliable study that HCQ is better early on than nothing. The vast majority of people do quite fine with COVID. I wrote about the problems in the Merseilles study in depth a few weeks ago and don't recall if you had a chance to respond then or not but happy to post a link tomorrow to my full analysis.

---

IHU Marseille treated about 4,000 infected patients with HCQ, these patients were carefully monitored for adverse side effects, which occurred in less than 1 in 500 patient.

They had an overall death rate of 0.5% among those infected patients, and only 1 death in patients under 70. Their death rates were 7 times lower than the rates registered in Paris, where HCQ was not used. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France, with a poorer population relative to Paris, and a large "inner city" immigrant population similar to Brussels which was much, much harder hit. Marseille had the best results at the national scale due to the IHU HCQ protocol..

---

Ok - now you are disagreeing with yourself.

Here's what you said:

Quote:

---

This is the data released by the CDC two months later in May back when the death toll was 74,000:



We're headed to a total in the 130k-140k range, so the blue curve above will shift up, but it will still be of the same order of magnitude, about twice as bad as a recent bad flu season, of the order of the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1986 Hong Kong Flu, both of which ha a death toll in the low 100,000s. We are nowhere near the Spanish Flu as some alarmist modelers like Imperial College's Ferguson have predicted.

---

You clearly are referring to the blue curve and then you talk about magnitude compared to the flu. This is not a chart you should reference when talking about magnitude of mortality but rather the age mix.

If you want to say that early predictions were that mortality could be 25x the seasonal flu, you should acknowledge that our country took measures to reduce mortality. Had we done nothing (which is effectively what we do with the flu - apart from the vaccine which is not available for COVID), we may have hit 25x the flu (which could be in the neighborhood of 1m deaths).

Quote:

---

IHU Marseille treated about 4,000 infected patients with HCQ, these patients were carefully monitored for adverse side effects, which occurred in less than 1 in 500 patient.

They had an overall death rate of 0.5% among those infected patients, and only 1 death in patients under 70. Their death rates were 7 times lower than the rates registered in Paris, where HCQ was not used. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France, with a poorer population relative to Paris, and a large "inner city" immigrant population similar to Brussels which was much, much harder hit. Marseille had the best results at the national scale due to the IHU HCQ protocol..

---

This is misleading because Marseille excluded high-risk patients from the HCQ protocol. I've gone more in depth in my critique of the Marseille study and will just link to that post. I haven't heard anything to indicate that what happened in Marseille is anything other than cherry-picking of favorable data.

---

I was referring to the overall death rate in the greater Marseille/Provence region, not a small individual study. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France. That overall regional mortality rate for Marseille turned out to be 7 times lower than the rate in Paris, where HCQ was not widely used as in the Marseille region.

Most patients in the Marseille/Provence region were treated according to the IHU hospital HCQ protocol. Tens of thousands were treated in that region, including 4,000 at the hospital itself.

Only 18 died out of these 4,000 patients, and IIRC just one patient under 70. Paris and other regions had far greater death rates overall, and especially so among younger patients.

Quote:

---

You clearly are referring to the blue curve and then you talk about magnitude compared to the flu. This is not a chart you should reference when talking about magnitude of mortality but rather the age mix.

---

At the time of publication of that graph, the death toll was 74,000, so while the blue and black lines representing covid deaths vs normal flu/pneumonia deaths were represented as histograms on the Y axis, they were also very much within the same orders of magnitude. 74,000 deaths being a bad flu season. We're now at 113k and headed towards a 130k-140k total, based on the behavior of the disease and shape of the epidemic curve in other countries.

So we're basically going to get twice the total deaths of a bad flu season, or about the same mortality of a really bad flu season like the Hong Kong Flu or the Asian Flu before that. The Hong Kong Flu killed 116,000 Americans in 1968, back when the population was 200 million. For covid19 to be as deadly as teh Hong Kong Flu, the toll will have to get all the way up to 185,000 - not likely -.

Quote:

---

If you want to say that early predictions were that mortality could be 25x the seasonal flu, you should acknowledge that our country took measures to reduce mortality. Had we done nothing (which is effectively what we do with the flu - apart from the vaccine which is not available for COVID), we may have hit 25x the flu (which could be in the neighborhood of 1m deaths).

---

The measures taken in the US were no different than those taken in most European countries, which is basically a fairly strict confinement, lax testing, and no treatment until ICU hospitalization. Many countries that had very little or no lockdowns ended up getting the same infection rates, including Sweden and Belarus in Europe. Belarus has the same population as Belgium and only 290 deaths. And contrary to what's been reported in the American media, Sweden is very much within the EU average (will show this in the Sweden thread).

---

Quote:

---

I was referring to the overall death rate in the greater Marseille/Provence region, not a small individual study. Marseille is the 2nd largest city in France. That overall regional mortality rate for Marseille turned out to be 7 times lower than the rate in Paris, where HCQ was not widely used as in the Marseille region.

Most patients in the Marseille/Provence region were treated according to the IHU hospital HCQ protocol. Tens of thousands were treated in that region, including 4,000 at the hospital itself.

Only 18 died out of these 4,000 patients, and IIRC just one patient under 70. Paris and other regions had far greater death rates overall, and especially so among younger patients.

---

Marseille was contact tracing and testing as well so it's really an apples and oranges situation Comparing to Paris is like comparing LA to NYC and as we all know NYC has had about a 7x worse outcome so far than LA.

Quote:

---

At the time of publication of that graph, the death toll was 74,000, so while the blue and black lines representing covid deaths vs normal flu/pneumonia deaths were represented as histograms on the Y axis, they were also very much within the same orders of magnitude. 74,000 deaths being a bad flu season. We're now at 113k and headed towards a 130k-140k total, based on the behavior of the disease and shape of the epidemic curve in other countries.

So we're basically going to get twice the total deaths of a bad flu season, or about the same mortality of a really bad flu season like the Hong Kong Flu or the Asian Flu before that. The Hong Kong Flu killed 116,000 Americans in 1968, back when the population was 200 million. For covid19 to be as deadly as teh Hong Kong Flu, the toll will have to get all the way up to 185,000 - not likely -.

---

I just don't get why you keep talking about mortality. The title of the graph is "Distribution of deaths by age group." If you 10x the deaths but the relative age distribution stays the same, the blue line wouldn't move. The orders of magnitude are literally irrelevant to the shapes of the curves, so why do you keep talking about magnitude? Please tell me what I'm missing.

Also, with respect to "the behavior of the disease and shape of the epidemic curve in other countries" we are forging our own path and at this point we don't need to look at other countries curves. I would love for our curves to resemble the downslopes of France, Italy and Spain but they are far sharper than ours. We lost more than 1k Americans yesterday to COVID. If you exclude NYC and surrounding areas, our charts look pretty bad right now and we have worsening outbreaks in 20+ states at this point so I think the question is not if we are heading toward 140k dead but how soon it will occur.

EDIT: To back up my statements, I used this tracker to show daily counts if you exclude (NY and surrounding states as well as Louisiana and Washington - all early hotspots that have drastically reduced counts of late). I think this curve is more representative of the current pandemic in the US than our overall chart and shows how flat the dropoff is across much of the country.

smh said:

---

chazzed said:

---

The number of deaths due to COVID-19 in the U.S. is about to officially pass 115,000, which is
the highest capacity of any stadium in the world [corrected above to biggest in the u.s.a, u.s.a... )

---

nuttin honey wiki-wiki gives 3 bigger stadia..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity


Strahov Stadium
250,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-1][1][/url]
Prague, Czech Republic
AC Sparta Praha

^^^ ..built for displays of synchronized gymnastics on a massive scale, with a field three times as long as and three times as wide as the standard Association football pitch


Rungrado 1st of May Stadium
114,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-2][2][/url]
Pyongyang, North Korea
Korea DPR national football team*


Motera Stadium
110,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-3][3][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-4][4][/url]
Ahmedabad, Gujara, India
India national cricket team / Gujarat cricket team


Michigan Stadium
107,601[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-5][5][/url]
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
Michigan Wolverines football

---

Also, if you include auto and horse racing, there are several venues bigger than 115,000. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has 235,000 permanent seats and has had as many as 400,000 in attendance. Churchill Downs seats 165,000.

Cal88 said:

---

Any pharmacist or physician from countries where this drug is commonly administered would laugh at the notion that this drug is dangerous

---

this thread is way too long loong loooong '88, sorry, dint read it. just dropped in to relate stuff heard around the water cooler, at home of course.

allegedly the covid purposed HCQ dosage is much higher than routine day after day malarial use. so if (if) proprietary interests wanted to deceive they could average results from the billions and billions served At The Lower Dose to discount side affects of their doings.
# inquiring minds # ymmv # big pass

be safe out there.

I see no relevance in comparing the number of COVID-19 deaths to the capacity of a stadium, or the number of deaths in a war. Can we stick to comparing it to the number of deaths from other diseases and health problems, or even as a percentage of the total number of deaths during the same time period?

smh said:

---

chazzed said:

---

The number of deaths due to COVID-19 in the U.S. is about to officially pass 115,000, which is
the highest capacity of any stadium in the world [corrected above to biggest in the u.s.a, u.s.a... )

---

nuttin honey wiki-wiki gives 3 bigger stadia..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity


Strahov Stadium
250,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-1][1][/url]
Prague, Czech Republic
AC Sparta Praha

^^^ ..built for displays of synchronized gymnastics on a massive scale, with a field three times as long as and three times as wide as the standard Association football pitch


Rungrado 1st of May Stadium
114,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-2][2][/url]
Pyongyang, North Korea
Korea DPR national football team*


Motera Stadium
110,000[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-3][3][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-4][4][/url]
Ahmedabad, Gujara, India
India national cricket team / Gujarat cricket team


Michigan Stadium
107,601[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity#cite_note-5][5][/url]
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
Michigan Wolverines football

with apologies in advance for smirching high holy OT with sports 'nstuff..

---

I was using the list below, and I thought it listed the N. Korean stadium's capacity at 115,000.
https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-metropcs-us&source=android-browser&q=biggest+stadium+in+the+world

Big C said:

---

I see no relevance in comparing the number of COVID-19 deaths to the capacity of a stadium, or the number of deaths in a war. Can we stick to comparing it to the number of deaths from other diseases and health problems, or even as a percentage of the total number of deaths during the same time period?

---

Sure, feel free to stick to whatever you'd like. I think that stadium capacity comparisons are useful for wrapping one's mind around the numbers involved.

I'm a Hong Kong Flu survivor. Is there a reunion somewhere?

bearister said:

---

I'm a Hong Kong Flu survivor. Is there a reunion somewhere?

---

Meet me at Madison Square Garden in July 2022.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

bearister said:

---

I'm a Hong Kong Flu survivor. Is there a reunion somewhere?

---

Meet me at Madison Square Garden in July 2022.

---

I'll be there. I got it during Christmas vacation when I was 13 watching Bullitt in a theater. I was one sick f@uck (still am).

The troops practicing Covid 19 safety protocol:

chazzed said:

---

Big C said:

---

I see no relevance in comparing the number of COVID-19 deaths to the capacity of a stadium, or the number of deaths in a war. Can we stick to comparing it to the number of deaths from other diseases and health problems, or even as a percentage of the total number of deaths during the same time period?

---

Sure, feel free to stick to whatever you'd like. I think that stadium capacity comparisons are useful for wrapping one's mind around the numbers involved.

---

I was thinking that Cal grads are capable of understanding the number 110,000 in its given context without irrelevant comparisons.

In this case, it's, like, a lot. (Oops, up to 115,000 today. Yikes.)