Say No To Fishing

[kreighoff]

I stopped going out for the trout opening 10 yrs ago its usually insanely overcrowded. I wait a week or two and all the wannabe's are no longer there. 

If we can't fish or its greatly reduced for this season let's look forward to how good it could be next season. 

Maybe I'll  buy a few live trout and stock the pool, might tick off the wife but at least I'll be at home.

[GBW]

37 minutes ago, kreighoff said:

 Maybe I'll  buy a few live trout and stock the pool, might tick off the wife but at least I'll be at home.

I have a pool at my new place in 2 weeks and I told the Mrs I am turning it into a freshwater pond and stocking it with some form of fish for me to catch and eat the odd time.  

[grimsbylander]

1 hour ago, Crimsongulf said:

Rather than looking at a raw number (45,000) I try to look at things in context.  There is approx. 330M population in the US.

I have found this to be the most agenda free actual facts site.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

It just gives you data and demographics, not a talking head interpretation of what is going on.

 

Regardless of what the number is, it should still be the focal point of concern. IMHO there is no acceptable number regardless of what the total population is. 
Covid 19 knows no borders. It’s the virus against humans. So the only percentage that really matters is the one that includes world totals. Hence the entire argument regarding social distancing...no one is in this alone and our actions influence others. 
 

[Crimsongulf]

11 minutes ago, grimsbylander said:

Regardless of what the number is, it should still be the focal point of concern. IMHO there is no acceptable number regardless of what the total population is. 
Covid 19 knows no borders. It’s the virus against humans. So the only percentage that really matters is the one that includes world totals. Hence the entire argument regarding social distancing...no one is in this alone and our actions influence others. 
 

I don't disagree, by the same token raw numbers are thrown out for sensationalism and ratings.

If the actual fatality rate was used, it wouldn't be as sensational.

[grimsbylander]

5 minutes ago, Crimsongulf said:

I don't disagree, by the same token raw numbers are thrown out for sensationalism and ratings.

If the actual fatality rate was used, it wouldn't be as sensational.

Huh? Are you saying the death toll is artificially inflated for ratings??? Seriously?? The numbers are on a US government website and I’m 100% positive the big kahuna there wants anything but Covid sensationalism. 

[Crimsongulf]

11 minutes ago, grimsbylander said:

Huh? Are you saying the death toll is artificially inflated for ratings??? Seriously?? The numbers are on a US government website and I’m 100% positive the big kahuna there wants anything but Covid sensationalism. 

I didn't say that at all.  I said raw numbers with no correlation to population are being used for ratings.

Especially now that NY is counting "suspected" corona deaths with no facts in the official count.

45,000 sounds much more sensational than .00014% of the population.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Crimsongulf

[grimsbylander]

9 minutes ago, Crimsongulf said:

I didn't say that at all.  I said raw numbers with no correlation to population are being used for ratings.

Especially now that NY is counting "suspected" corona deaths with no facts in the official count.

45,000 sounds much more sensational than .00014% of the population.

Im not exactly sure who you are saying wants to sensationalize it? Media? Maybe. So why isn’t the gov.com website saying .00014%? If anything, they absolutely want to minimize the impact  to protect their positions. 

[Crimsongulf]

25 minutes ago, grimsbylander said:

Im not exactly sure who you are saying wants to sensationalize it? Media? Maybe. So why isn’t the gov.com website saying .00014%? If anything, they absolutely want to minimize the impact  to protect their positions. 

 

25 minutes ago, grimsbylander said:

Im not exactly sure who you are saying wants to sensationalize it? Media? Maybe. So why isn’t the gov.com website saying .00014%? If anything, they absolutely want to minimize the impact  to protect their positions. 

Yes the media is doing it to sensationalize.

 

Why do you need a website.  45000 divided by 330,000,000 = .00014%.  I simply used a calculator.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Crimsongulf

[grimsbylander]

25 minutes ago, Crimsongulf said:

 

Yes the media is doing it to sensationalize.

 

Why do you need a website.  45000 divided by 330,000,000 = .00014%.  I simply used a calculator.

You’re missing my point

[MJIG]

16 minutes ago, Crimsongulf said:

Why do you need a website.  45000 divided by 330,000,000 = .00014%.  I simply used a calculator.

Isn’t 45,000 out of a population of 330,000,000 actually .0136% ?

 

[Crimsongulf]

21 hours ago, MJIG said:

Isn’t 45,000 out of a population of 330,000,000 actually .0136% ?

 

Not by the calculator that I used.

https://calculator.com/standard-tape/

[irishfield]

Suggest you revist your grade 6 memories on how to calculate percentages...

[Rizzo]

remember...to get % you move the decimal over 2 places...so I would say .0136%

[Woodsman]

I agree with those saying .0136.

[Crimsongulf]

1 hour ago, Woodsman said:

I agree with those saying .0136.

That is fine, it is still a minuscule number.

 

I concede that I was wrong on the decimal point.  Yay for y'all.

[Woodsman]

23 minutes ago, Crimsongulf said:

That is fine, it is still a minuscule number.

 

I concede that I was wrong on the decimal point.  Yay for y'all.

But the .0136 is the percentage of death for the whole population not the percentage of those infected which would be far higher.

But we have no way of determining how many were/are infected as there isn't wide spread testing.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Woodsman

[Terry]

I thought Ontario has almost 16000 cases and almost 10000 deaths 

seems like one in sixteen is fatal 

 

[Crimsongulf]

53 minutes ago, Woodsman said:

But the .0136 is the percentage of death for the whole population not the percentage of those infected which would be far higher.

But we have no way of determining how many were/are infected as there isn't wide spread testing.

Who knows how many are actually infected.  This entire deal is a manipulated numbers game to support agendas regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

 

Me, I am going to live my life taking into account China flu, but in no way is it going to put a halt to my normal life.

I understand folks like to take potshots at the US, it has always been that way.  You can only apply infection and fatality rates to the entire population to get a true picture.

 

If you take European countries, lump them together to get to a population number equal to the US, their fatality rate is double.

[MJIG]

47 minutes ago, Terry said:

I thought Ontario has almost 16000 cases and almost 10000 deaths 

seems like one in sixteen is fatal 

 

Ontario has had a total of 996 deaths as of today.

https://covid-19.ontario.ca/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlo-1peOO6QIVPyqzAB2slgjyEAAYASABEgLP6PD_BwE#section-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Terry]

Yeah I know ,have the same info . but to make it easy for the math geniuses here 

I rounded up to make it easy to do the calculations 

[Crimsongulf]

Again, you can take numbers and prove anything.

 

Ontario has about a population of 14.5 Million with 996 deaths.

 

Florida has a population of 20.2 million with 1218 deaths with the oldest population in the US.

 

Who is winning?

[Terry]

From where I sit you can only count the deaths per number of people who have had the virus 

let’s face it ,if you don’t catch the virus the chances of death from covid is 0

[Woodsman]

1 hour ago, Terry said:

I thought Ontario has almost 16000 cases and almost 10000 deaths 

seems like one in sixteen is fatal 

 

Terry that's only based on confirmed deaths with a confirmed infection.

They are not testing everyone by far.

Those effected without symptoms unless working with or exposed to a confirmed infected  person do not get tested. 

No way to confirm a percentage of those infected that die.

Information is just not there.

[Terry]

Yeah but you can’t do the math on unknown numbers or you just get deaths = X

 

[Crimsongulf]

16 minutes ago, Terry said:

Yeah but you can’t do the math on unknown numbers or you just get deaths = X

 

I am just going to leave that there, k.  If you divide deaths by the population, you get my number.

 

I will be sure and send you a pic of when I am at the cottage in June after I have been told here that it can't happen.

 

I have nothing against you and if you want to hang your hat on a decimal point, enjoy.