how far could the market go down?

[Artfldgr]

There as several issues going on at once..
1) the corona virus news cycle is off its rocker wrong in terms of proportion
2) the forces that be know a clobbered market may change the outcome of the election

the 2nd is easy peasy to understand... drive the herd off a cliff, them blame

the 1st is harder... but not to hard if you pay attention to DETAILS which the news is really not allowing to do, and is searching for people who will give the most dire warnings and most dire predictions to foment worse, cause that is better (for them).

We are ALL FAMILIAR with the chicken little careerists that make a living with doom and gloom as a constant till it happens then scream - see, i knew it... (when they didnt actually)

any comparison to the Spanish flu is way off... why? what detail matters in this is the age of the dying... the Spanish flu caused such serious response in healthy people they died drowning int heir fluids while the people with more compromised immune systems survived because their responses were LESS..

I can sit and i can give you a sane answer... but pretty money people in offices who get clients to put money in, dont know their ass from their elbows... they cant fix a light switch, they dont know how things work, and ergo, thats our herd running for the cliffs.

EVEN When the Spanish flu killed, it didn't drop the economies to the point these are in fear of much less... but note... the Spanish flu had as high as a 25% death rate... think on that... and higher in other areas (some estimated as high as 60%)

now... lets take some BASIC information of the corona virus..
1) the cases your seeing now are not determined by testing, but by how bad they are
2) the people with the condition are not so bad they lay in bed, they walk around and violate quarantine
3) if you do some basic math, you can see that its death rate is LESS than the flu not more

so worldwide there are 100,000 serious cases - the not serious cases are unknown as people are getting it, getting better, and not reporting or going to the hospital.

the number of deaths are around 3000... lets add 500 for the heck of it.. make it 3500

their calculations for things are only based on known cases, not all cases...
this is not valid... so saying its 2%-3% is way off.. as there can be more than 3x the number of healthy people getting it and thinking its a cold or bad flu

IF you consider this is more the case... then its as low as the flu..
which is .5% to 1%

the flu kills about 25,000 people a year in the US.. (some years over 60,000)
hows that for disparate numbers?

Lesson 3: Measures of Risk
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section2.html

the problem is that without prevalence and testing our numbers are all big guesses
and since the med field and colleges are filled with mostly leftists, doom and gloom is their daily diet and they tend to err on the side of cautiousness to the point of idiocy

did you know we arent supposed to konw what snow is any more?
that given these same people from the 1970s, ny should have 40 million people?
that they predicted ice age before warming?

see a pattern?

Prevalence, sometimes referred to as prevalence rate, is the proportion of persons in a population who have a particular disease or attribute at a specified point in time or over a specified period of time. Prevalence differs from incidence in that prevalence includes all cases, both new and preexisting, in the population at the specified time, whereas incidence is limited to new cases only.


What is incidence?

Incidence is a measure of disease that allows us to determine a person's probability of being diagnosed with a disease during a given period of time. Therefore, incidence is the number of newly diagnosed cases of a disease. An incidence rate is the number of new cases of a disease divided by the number of persons at risk for the disease. If, over the course of one year, five women are diagnosed with breast cancer, out of a total female study population of 200 (who do not have breast cancer at the beginning of the study period), then we would say the incidence of breast cancer in this population was 0.025. (or 2,500 per 100,000 women-years of study)


What is prevalence?

Prevalence is a measure of disease that allows us to determine a person's likelihood of having a disease. Therefore, the number of prevalent cases is the total number of cases of disease existing in a population. A prevalence rate is the total number of cases of a disease existing in a population divided by the total population. So, if a measurement of cancer is taken in a population of 40,000 people and 1,200 were recently diagnosed with cancer and 3,500 are living with cancer, then the prevalence of cancer is 0.118. (or 11,750 per 100,000 persons)


What is morbidity?

Morbidity is another term for illness. A person can have several co-morbidities simultaneously. So, morbidities can range from Alzheimer's disease to cancer to traumatic brain injury. Morbidities are NOT deaths. Prevalence is a measure often used to determine the level of morbidity in a population.


What is mortality?

Mortality is another term for death. A mortality rate is the number of deaths due to a disease divided by the total population. If there are 25 lung cancer deaths in one year in a population of 30,000, then the mortality rate for that population is 83 per 100,000.


Do note that without a real test in great quantities, people are being ASSUMED to have it
some of those wont... others who are assumed NOT to have it, are not counted...
seriously.. ny says they can do 2000 tests a day... so it would take ny 50 days to test all 100,000 original estimates... you think china has a test that we dont? and in higher quantities? doubt it.

Only 8.1% of cases were 20-somethings, 1.2% were teens, and 0.9% were 9 or younger. The World Health Organization mission to China found that 78% of the cases reported as of Feb. 20 were in people ages 30 to 69.

The death toll skews old even more strongly. Overall, China CDC found, 2.3% of confirmed cases died. But the fatality rate was 14.8% in people 80 or older, likely reflecting the presence of other diseases, a weaker immune system, or simply worse overall health. By contrast, the fatality rate was 1.3% in 50-somethings, 0.4% in 40-somethings, and 0.2% in people 10 to 39.

and

CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza

Our estimates of hospitalizations and mortality associated with the 2018–2019 influenza season continue to demonstrate how serious influenza virus infection can be. We estimate, overall, there were 490,600 hospitalizations and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 season. More than 46,000 hospitalizations occurred in children (aged <18 years); however, 57% of hospitalizations occurred in older adults aged ≥65 years. Older adults also accounted for 75% of influenza-associated deaths, highlighting that older adults are particularly vulnerable to severe outcomes resulting from an influenza virus infection. An estimated 8,100 deaths occurred among working age adults (aged 18–64 years), an age group that often has low influenza vaccination uptake


this is like being afraid of flying (safest way to travel long distances) vs feeling safer in a car

its not proportional to the actual risk..

which is why the news is making everything worse..
really worse... totally out of proportion to the actual risk
in fact... pretty much everything economic is still chugging EXCEPT for things that are fear related run by chicken littles... concerts? gets them press... same with conventions and those things... planes? who wants to run a travel company and get blamed for not acting on fear?

sadly..
until testing gets a lot more numbers and someone comes out and starts saying facts
its not going to get much better

in fact... for anyone that would do that, you have 20 chicken littles waiting to become famous giving their opinion that the sky is falling and we are all going to die.

 

[Sig]

There as several issues going on at once..
1) the corona virus news cycle is off its rocker wrong in terms of proportion
2) the forces that be know a clobbered market may change the outcome of the election

the 2nd is easy peasy to understand... drive the herd off a cliff, them blame

the 1st is harder... but not to hard if you pay attention to DETAILS which the news is really not allowing to do, and is searching for people who will give the most dire warnings and most dire predictions to foment worse, cause that is better (for them).

We are ALL FAMILIAR with the chicken little careerists that make a living with doom and gloom as a constant till it happens then scream - see, i knew it... (when they didnt actually)

any comparison to the Spanish flu is way off... why? what detail matters in this is the age of the dying... the Spanish flu caused such serious response in healthy people they died drowning int heir fluids while the people with more compromised immune systems survived because their responses were LESS..

I can sit and i can give you a sane answer... but pretty money people in offices who get clients to put money in, dont know their ass from their elbows... they cant fix a light switch, they dont know how things work, and ergo, thats our herd running for the cliffs.

EVEN When the Spanish flu killed, it didn't drop the economies to the point these are in fear of much less... but note... the Spanish flu had as high as a 25% death rate... think on that... and higher in other areas (some estimated as high as 60%)

now... lets take some BASIC information of the corona virus..
1) the cases your seeing now are not determined by testing, but by how bad they are
2) the people with the condition are not so bad they lay in bed, they walk around and violate quarantine
3) if you do some basic math, you can see that its death rate is LESS than the flu not more

so worldwide there are 100,000 serious cases - the not serious cases are unknown as people are getting it, getting better, and not reporting or going to the hospital.

the number of deaths are around 3000... lets add 500 for the heck of it.. make it 3500

their calculations for things are only based on known cases, not all cases...
this is not valid... so saying its 2%-3% is way off.. as there can be more than 3x the number of healthy people getting it and thinking its a cold or bad flu

IF you consider this is more the case... then its as low as the flu..
which is .5% to 1%

the flu kills about 25,000 people a year in the US.. (some years over 60,000)
hows that for disparate numbers?

Lesson 3: Measures of Risk
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section2.html

the problem is that without prevalence and testing our numbers are all big guesses
and since the med field and colleges are filled with mostly leftists, doom and gloom is their daily diet and they tend to err on the side of cautiousness to the point of idiocy

did you know we arent supposed to konw what snow is any more?
that given these same people from the 1970s, ny should have 40 million people?
that they predicted ice age before warming?

see a pattern?

Prevalence, sometimes referred to as prevalence rate, is the proportion of persons in a population who have a particular disease or attribute at a specified point in time or over a specified period of time. Prevalence differs from incidence in that prevalence includes all cases, both new and preexisting, in the population at the specified time, whereas incidence is limited to new cases only.


What is incidence?

Incidence is a measure of disease that allows us to determine a person's probability of being diagnosed with a disease during a given period of time. Therefore, incidence is the number of newly diagnosed cases of a disease. An incidence rate is the number of new cases of a disease divided by the number of persons at risk for the disease. If, over the course of one year, five women are diagnosed with breast cancer, out of a total female study population of 200 (who do not have breast cancer at the beginning of the study period), then we would say the incidence of breast cancer in this population was 0.025. (or 2,500 per 100,000 women-years of study)


What is prevalence?

Prevalence is a measure of disease that allows us to determine a person's likelihood of having a disease. Therefore, the number of prevalent cases is the total number of cases of disease existing in a population. A prevalence rate is the total number of cases of a disease existing in a population divided by the total population. So, if a measurement of cancer is taken in a population of 40,000 people and 1,200 were recently diagnosed with cancer and 3,500 are living with cancer, then the prevalence of cancer is 0.118. (or 11,750 per 100,000 persons)


What is morbidity?

Morbidity is another term for illness. A person can have several co-morbidities simultaneously. So, morbidities can range from Alzheimer's disease to cancer to traumatic brain injury. Morbidities are NOT deaths. Prevalence is a measure often used to determine the level of morbidity in a population.


What is mortality?

Mortality is another term for death. A mortality rate is the number of deaths due to a disease divided by the total population. If there are 25 lung cancer deaths in one year in a population of 30,000, then the mortality rate for that population is 83 per 100,000.


Do note that without a real test in great quantities, people are being ASSUMED to have it
some of those wont... others who are assumed NOT to have it, are not counted...
seriously.. ny says they can do 2000 tests a day... so it would take ny 50 days to test all 100,000 original estimates... you think china has a test that we dont? and in higher quantities? doubt it.

Only 8.1% of cases were 20-somethings, 1.2% were teens, and 0.9% were 9 or younger. The World Health Organization mission to China found that 78% of the cases reported as of Feb. 20 were in people ages 30 to 69.

The death toll skews old even more strongly. Overall, China CDC found, 2.3% of confirmed cases died. But the fatality rate was 14.8% in people 80 or older, likely reflecting the presence of other diseases, a weaker immune system, or simply worse overall health. By contrast, the fatality rate was 1.3% in 50-somethings, 0.4% in 40-somethings, and 0.2% in people 10 to 39.

and

CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza

Our estimates of hospitalizations and mortality associated with the 2018–2019 influenza season continue to demonstrate how serious influenza virus infection can be. We estimate, overall, there were 490,600 hospitalizations and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 season. More than 46,000 hospitalizations occurred in children (aged <18 years); however, 57% of hospitalizations occurred in older adults aged ≥65 years. Older adults also accounted for 75% of influenza-associated deaths, highlighting that older adults are particularly vulnerable to severe outcomes resulting from an influenza virus infection. An estimated 8,100 deaths occurred among working age adults (aged 18–64 years), an age group that often has low influenza vaccination uptake


this is like being afraid of flying (safest way to travel long distances) vs feeling safer in a car

its not proportional to the actual risk..

which is why the news is making everything worse..
really worse... totally out of proportion to the actual risk
in fact... pretty much everything economic is still chugging EXCEPT for things that are fear related run by chicken littles... concerts? gets them press... same with conventions and those things... planes? who wants to run a travel company and get blamed for not acting on fear?

sadly..
until testing gets a lot more numbers and someone comes out and starts saying facts
its not going to get much better

in fact... for anyone that would do that, you have 20 chicken littles waiting to become famous giving their opinion that the sky is falling and we are all going to die.

Enough with this whole "I can find something that kills more people then coronavirus therefore you shouldn't worry about coronavirus" fucked up logic. In your rant you just basically said an ADDITIONAL 25,000 to 60,000 people could die from this. Think about that for a second. In what universe does concern over the potential for 25,000 deaths equate to "chicken little" behavior. If a half dozen 737s crashed in the past few weeks and there's the very real possibility that one would crash every day for the next year killing all on board, would you call anyone concerned about that a "chicken little"? That's the magnitude of ADDITIONAL deaths you yourself are telling us we are unnecessarily freaking out about. You have to be either a sociopath or severely on the spectrum NOT to be concerned about that!

 

[Artfldgr]

Actually that is NOT what i said...
[i worked for over 15 years in medical research doing programming for research doctors]

what my point is, or was, is the psychology of real dangers vs perceived dangers

lets take what you said...
Think about that for a second. In what universe does concern over the potential for 25,000 deaths equate to "chicken little" behavior.

well... in what universe do people run around and close businesses and do all this stuff for the flu, which actually DOES kill that many people? where is the chicken little behavior? its absent, isn't it?

If a half dozen 737s crashed in the past few weeks and there's the very real possibility that one would crash every day for the next year killing all on board, would you call anyone concerned about that a "chicken little"?

that's a red herring... your inventing a thing that doesn't and cant happen to create an argument out of thin air... its not rational.. when have you EVER read half a dozen of ANY plane crashed in a week?

More recent numbers from the probability-calculating app Am I Going Down?, as reported by Newsweek in April 2018, give you odds as good as 20 million to one that you’ll make it safely from point A to point B.

Your odds of being hit by lightning is one in 1.2 million...

The flu, which kills 55,000 Americans annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Even traveling by car is 100 times more deadly than hopping on a plane.

right now we are canceling conventions for something that has killed 3000 people out of 7.5 billion... but we dont cancel conventions for something that kills 55,000 out of 350 million EVERY YEAR

hows that for where are the chicken littles..
and that phrase was to describe the doom and gloomers.. like the people who are constantly saying the market will crash... society will collapse... a nuclear war will happen next year..

That's the magnitude of ADDITIONAL deaths you yourself are telling us we are unnecessarily freaking out about. You have to be either a sociopath or severely on the spectrum NOT to be concerned about that!

no... and thats not what sociopathy would do... sociopathy would prevent GUILT
so you dont even get your medical points right in your arguments..
why would i feel guilty for a desease dont cause, dont have any say in how people move or make any policy, etc?

your confusing clinical distance and thinking with sociopathy

what i am talking about is the way people think vs reality
we are traders here, and we are all aware of the gamblers fallacy
if our brains thought real about reality, would there even be a gamblers fallacy?

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, wherein it may be believed for example that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been less than the usual number of sixes.

why would that even exist if our brains calculated odds instead of felt its way?

my point is our feelings are out of proportion to the actual dangers!!
and we are all aware of this... our fear of flying is out of proportion to the danger
our lack of fear in driving long distances is also out of proportion the opposite way

ever hear of "confirmation bias / frequency illusion"?
[why would we even HAVE illusions if we saw reality clearly?]

Here is one for traders.. "sunk cost" - we worry about things we already lost and cant lose again!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason we can’t ignore the cost, even though it’s already been paid, is that we wired to feel loss far more strongly than gain. The sunk cost fallacy plays on this tendency of ours to emphasize loss over gain.


Hal Arkes and Catehrine Blumer created an experiment in 1985 which demonstrated your tendency to go fuzzy when sunk costs come along. They asked subjects to assume they had spent $100 on a ticket for a ski trip in Michigan, but soon after found a better ski trip in Wisconsin for $50 and bought a ticket for this trip too. They then asked the people in the study to imagine they learned the two trips overlapped and the tickets couldn’t be refunded or resold. Which one do you think they chose, the $100 good vacation, or the $50 great one?


Over half of the people in the study went with the more expensive trip. It may not have promised to be as fun, but the loss seemed greater.

then there is something called the "anchoring effect"..

This TED talk is for people like you:
Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, the author of Predictably Irrational, uses classic visual illusions and his own counterintuitive (and sometimes shocking) research findings to show how we're not as rational as we think when we make decisions.



look... all i am pointing out is the disparity between what the numbers actually are saying and what the people are actually doing.. they are running away, canceling concerts and doing economic harm in the trillions in fear of something that has a lower death rate than the common flu (not including the cold)...

IF your taking the other side of this argument, and that is your want and fine to do in a debate, then your saying the loss of this money IS justified... and is less harmful than all these deaths...

if this was so then, each death in the world should be worth 1,700,000,000,000/ 3000
despite your bombastic argument and nasty language towards me, i dont think you think every person on the planet is worth half a billion in costs to others.. or would be a good way to spend societies money on... is that cold? maybe... maybe its practical.. $566,666,666 million per person would make the current people on the planet worth $4,249,999,995,000,000,000 which would be a hard argument to swallow...

 

[Sig]

My point is what the fuck does the number of people killed by flu, heart disease, car accidents, you name it.....have to do with any new thing that has the potential to kill an ADDITIONAL 25,000 to 60,000 people (using your comparison to the flu). Other then the fact that flu is a disease and coronavirus is a disease, they're pretty much entirely unrelated and the fact that flu exists and that flu kills 25,000 to 60,000 people people in a year is absolutely irrelevant when determining if we should worry about some entirely novel thing that kills an ADDITIONAL 25,000 to 60,000 people people in a year.

You tacitly admit that an additional 25,000 to 60,000 people dying in airplane crashes each year WOULD be cause for concern, but apparently since it "can't happen" you can ignore it (I spent 20 years as a professional pilot so no need to lecture me on the relative safety of flying, thanks). The point is to abstract your thinking to X and Y vice flu and coronavirus. My point is that if something X could potentially kill 25,000 to 60,000 people people this year it is cause for concern. Full stop. It is absolutely irrelevant if something else Y also kills 25,000 to 60,000 people people. You're saying that as long as we can say X is unrelated to Y (airplane crashes, terrorists blowing up stadiums, crazy guys opening fire in crowded places, you pick the X) then it would apparently be cause for concern, but as long as you can say "It's kind of like Y" then being concerned is "chicken little" behavior. That's not a rational argument, no matter how much you shuck and jive trying to misappropriate Dan Ariely's excellent points about our (in)ability to accurately estimate risk (great book by the way, read it when it came out). Until you can honestly tell me we should be unconcerned about ANYTHING that has potential to kill an additional 25,000 to 60,000 people people then you simply can't tell me that we should be unconcerned about this specific thing that has the potential to kill an additional 25,000 to 60,000 people people......because flu.

As far as your economic argument, using that logic if beheading 20 random Americans every day helped our economy by some number of dollars you'd have to be for it, which I hardly think to be the case. What dollar value per life to the U.S. economy, exactly, do you think is worth knowingly letting people die? And let's look more deeply at what you're saying, apparently you're advocating for taking people's freedom away and forcing them to ignore coronavirus, because you decided their concern was irrational? If not, what exactly are you advocating we do? I'm advocating we spend $7-10B to limit it's spread and speed a vaccine, just so you know my concrete position that I'm willing to take a stand on.

Finally, what exactly is your definition of a "people like you"? Believe me, I've gone far beyond reading a Dan Ariely book, and not only do I fully grasp concepts like the sunk cost fallacy but I also realize it has fuck-all to do with this conversation and don't feel the need to insert it to demonstrate some kind of intellectual superiority by means of sheer number of buzzword concepts I can throw down. Here's a hint for you, if you stopped railing about how every human isn't perfectly rational like you and started figuring out how to make money from the inevitable irrationality of people you might be both wealthier and happier. Add behavioral economics to your stable of buzz concepts, you might find it more productive.

 

[KCalhoun]

Fascinating discussion, you both have valid points....

Facts:

+ there's no vaccine nor cure, it's very contagious and many thousands of people will die from it in the near term, especially over 60 year olds

+ supply chain disruption and fear will cause recession and missed earnings for next 2+ quarters

+ the sh|t is hitting the fan and we're early stage in a truly awful pandemic: one smart epidemiologist on cnbc recently predicted 40-60% infection rate and millions dead globally before it gets contained

+ we should all buy lots of canned goods rice etc and stay housebound if possible the next 90 days plus; any suggestions on how I can get family to take it more seriously? They're like, stop worrying... they're wrong we should all be very worried imho

+ now is a perfect time to trade from home. I will continue to aggressively trade uvxy tvix sqqq etc if s&p continues to crash

 

[Artfldgr]

My point is what the fuck does the number of people killed by flu, heart disease, car accidents, you name it.....have to do with any new thing that has the potential to kill an ADDITIONAL 25,000 to 60,000 people (using your comparison to the flu).

First... what is the point of your cursing? What the fuck does fuck have to do with your point?

Second... corona viruses are not new... your bombastic, and delusional in your thinking... you make any idea irrational by adding your own irrationality.. by your OWN arguing, there is nothing that can be done as any point made, becomes irrationally wrong...

your adding red herrings more than a fishing net full of red herrings..
no one can make a point with your arguing this way... you can take the rational point and make it irrationally wrong... but it gets you no where...

lets go through your things.

the number of people killed by other processes start giving you a basis for rational outcomes to certain dangers... rationally there is no infinite well of money to spend or lose... what is rational in terms of fear? do you rationally fear the 1 in two million but ignore the 1 in 10,000? is THAT rational?

Other then the fact that flu is a disease and coronavirus is a disease, they're pretty much entirely unrelated and the fact that flu exists and that flu kills 25,000 to 60,000 people people in a year is absolutely irrelevant when determining if we should worry about some entirely novel thing that kills an ADDITIONAL 25,000 to 60,000 people people in a year.

they are entirely unrelated?
Both are viral (of which we really have no medicines for, for the most part)
Both are currently incurable other than letting them run their course
Both are tracked by governments
Both are transmitted in much the same way

so your not correct in your point of their being unrelated...
from Yale health...

Coronavirus vs. the flu: Which is a greater threat?

COVID-19 and the flu are both contagious viruses that cause respiratory illness. While public health officials are still learning more about symptoms and severity of COVID-19 vs. the flu, the best way to prevent either illness is to take everyday precautions including frequent hand washing; refraining from touching your eyes, nose and mouth; and staying home if you are sick.

Obviously the medical community is very wrong... you should go tell them..

You tacitly admit that an additional 25,000 to 60,000 people people dying in airplane crashes each year WOULD be cause for concern, but apparently since it "can't happen" you can ignore it (I spent 20 years as a professional pilot so no need to lecture me on the relative safety of flying, thanks).

your point is a non point... i suspect you dont know what a red herring argument is or a straw man argument is... these are non arguments... you create a fake position that is not possible... and then argue about it... its not relevant...

also, you threw in another irrelevant argument.. ie. argument by appeal to authority..
ie. your being a pilot has nothing to do with the statistics or knowing them

A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

your plane argument is a straw man argument... you set up the argument by creating a false thing that cant exist (given the statistics you claim you know by being a pilot), then instead of refuting my argument, you make a false attack through the fake argument

not good.. .not valid either.. you also are ignoring the actual point i am making
THAT PEOPLE DO NOT REACT IN RATIONAL WAYS BASED ON STATISICAL VALIDITY

thats my argument... you have yet to refute that.. despite your red herring

Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters, or to induce them to make false conclusions.

here...
You tacitly admit that an additional 25,000 to 60,000 people people dying in airplane crashes each year WOULD be cause for concern

first of all.. you dont know what tacitly means
in a way that is understood or implied without being directly stated.

but you did not say 60,000 more people dying in plane crashes
you said a lot more plane crashes... you gave no number of actual deaths by such

i openly said if X amount of plane crashes happened it would affect people who are already irrationally afraid of crashes to be more afraid... but the argument is a red herring.. it has less to do with epidemiology and false fear... its a distraction... no planes or crashes of the numbers you put forth happen or will happen... it has no actual point given it has no basis in ANY reality...

i supported my point of people not being rationally afraid of real risks..
i can even add more points.. number of smokers vs cancer from smoking as a risk
number of people who eat poorly vs the known health outcomes

my point, and i have stated it more than once, is that people are not being rational based on actual risk... and i demonstrated that point by showing irrationality in behavior of people vs risk...

your not evne close to demolishing that as that is a very well established fact i am repeating
i dont have to establish it more and more to refute red herrings, authority or straw arguments

you woudl and can only refute this by showing that people DO react rationally to fears in proportion to their statistical significance...
you have yet to do that..

My point is that if something X could potentially kill 25,000 to 60,000 people people this year it is cause for concern. Full stop.

actually that is not your point... no one has yet to argue we should not be concerned.. ie. another straw man argument... (even more so that my point came BEFORE yours)..
but shoudl we be concerned by selling off all our shares and demolishing the market?
should we stop leaving our homes and going to the store or restaurants?
should we cancel all public venues?

i say no..
given your arguments i cant even figure out what your trying to say!!
your not actually giving argument...

It is absolutely irrelevant if something else Y also kills 25,000 to 60,000 people people. You're saying that as long as we can say X is unrelated to Y (airplane crashes, terrorists blowing up stadiums, crazy guys opening fire in crowded places, you pick the X) then it would apparently be cause for concern, but as long as you can say "It's kind of like Y" then being concerned is "chicken little" behavior.

actually i never said that... what i said, and have said about 6 times is that people do not rationlly react to dangers based on their actual significance, they react based on their fears and that has no real basis to significance... and used those things as examples of their behavior... not as corrolaries betwene conditions..

you have to understand the point before you refute it..
you havent showed you have understood the point..

even less that my point is a common knowledge point that is something people who make polcy and want better health outcomes discuss is a problem all the time... twisting it around to refute an argument i have not made does not get your points nor make you win

Until you can honestly tell me we should be unconcerned about ANYTHING that has potential to kill an additional 25,000 to 60,000 people people then you simply can't tell me that we should be unconcerned about this specific thing that has the potential to kill an additional 25,000 to 60,000 people people......because flu.

putting words into my mouth i never claimed and arguing aginst them is the red herring again

i never said we shold be unconcerned... i said we are over concerned based on its dangers and what is already known medically... and that the news and some people make a living making people over ocncerned..

people who build bomb shelters for a living do not do so out of the rational fear of nuclear war
do they? (they been building them for nearly 100 years now)

same thing with people who prepp... how much prepping food has spoiled past its lifetime by over 20 years?

be concerned...
but do not be 1.7 trillion in economic losses concerned when there are greater dangers
that the costs of over concern vastly out spend the actual danger....

As far as your economic argument, using that logic if beheading 20 random Americans every day helped our economy by some number of dollars you'd have to be for it, which I hardly think to be the case.

your a nutcase... where did you get that argument from mine? where is your point rational? where did i actually say that? again... thats a straw man argument... not only that, but the point your making requires a conscious act by people towards other people and a virus spreading has no such agency...

my point was that if we spend more money than the whole of the planet has on one condition, what do we have left for other things? no one said beheading people... no one said any such argument... well, actually one person did... YOU... your making those false arguments and then skewering them pretending i made them... i never did..

What dollar value per life to the U.S. economy, exactly, do you think is worth knowingly letting people die?

you ahve more straw than the scarecrow in the wizard of oz..

who said knowingly let them die? i am arguing only the difference between rational response and panic... why dont we all live wearing gas masks? why are you not fighting to have every person wear a gas mask filtration all the time to save them from corona, flu, measles, and more? becuase that is not a rational response... nor is it a valid argument in this context.

lets see how many invalid arguments you have made
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
Ambiguous Assertion
Appeal To Authority
Appeal To Widespread Belief
Argument By Emotive Language (for fucks sake)
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)
Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam) ignoring my actual argument
Argument by Rhetorical Question
Argument By Scenario
Argument From Adverse Consequences
Argument From False Authority (your flying a plane does not give you epidemiology, my working in epidemiology might help, but doesnt make me an authority either)
Argument by Bad Analogy
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis)
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection)
Needling


there is a lot more...
try to stay on subject..

my point, concisely is that we are not reacting in respect to the actual danger
that we as humans not machines do that quite often - ergo the word panic to describe such
that the economic cost of such response is huge when compared or contasted with other things

no one said any of the things your claiming and arguing
i do not deny that your brain works that way, its obvious
but i do put forth that your not actually making any real case to show that people are reacting in a rational way with a rational loss of economy, and that you havent shown that my assertion that is well known (that people react disproportionally to the actual danger), is something people dont do.

i am tired of your crazy train..
when you get off of it and can put forth a rational arguement without strawman or red herrings and show examples that support it or not (which is what the plane and the flu was the point of), then write... i will be glad to rationally talk to you about it..

there is no more sense to this the way your going..

 

[Artfldgr]

by the way... i should have used the cold in my example..
or do you not know that the common cold is a corona virus?

Coronaviruses vary significantly in risk factor. Some killing more than 30% of those infected (such as MERS-CoV), and some relatively harmless, such as the common cold

Coronaviruses cause colds with major symptoms, such as fever and sore throat from swollen adenoids, primarily in the winter and early spring seasons. Coronaviruses can cause pneumonia – either direct viral pneumonia or a secondary bacterial pneumonia – and may cause bronchitis – either direct viral bronchitis or a secondary bacterial bronchitis

Seven strains of human coronaviruses are known:
Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E)
Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)
Human coronavirus NL63 (HCoV-NL63, New Haven coronavirus)
Human coronavirus HKU1
Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV), previously known as novel coronavirus 2012 and HCoV-EMC
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), previously known as 2019-nCoV or "novel coronavirus 2019"

The coronaviruses HCoV-229E, -NL63, -OC43, and -HKU1 continually circulate in the human population and cause respiratory infections in adults and children world-wide

so this is not new... not by a long shot..

The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all coronaviruses has been placed at around 8000 BCE

The MRCAs of the Alphacoronavirus line has been placed at about 2400 BCE, the Betacoronavirus line at 3300 BCE, the Gammacoronavirus line at 2800 BCE, and the Deltacoronavirus line at about 3000 BCE. It appears that bats and birds, as warm-blooded flying vertebrates, are ideal hosts for the coronavirus gene source (with bats for Alphacoronavirus and Betacoronavirus, and birds for Gammacoronavirus and Deltacoronavirus) to fuel coronavirus evolution and dissemination


Currently, there is no definite cure for Coronavirus (COVID-19).treatments are based similar to the kind of care given for influenza, cold, bronchitis and other severe respiratory illnesses according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These treatments essentially treat the symptoms, which often in the case of COVID-19 involve fever, cough and shortness of breath. In mild cases, it simply means rest and fever-reducing medications for comfort. In severe cases its recommended immediate hospitalization

[so much for not having anything to do with each other]

 

[Artfldgr]

On 2 February, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a "massive infodemic", citing an over-abundance of reported information, accurate and false, about the virus that "makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it." The WHO stated that the high demand for timely and trustworthy information has incentivised the creation of a direct WHO 24/7 myth-busting hotline where its communication and social media teams have been monitoring and responding to misinformation through its website and social media pages.



On 24 January, a video circulated online appearing to be of a nurse named Jin Hui in Hubei province describing a far more dire situation in Wuhan than purported by Chinese officials. The video claimed that more than 90,000 people had been infected with the virus in China, the virus can spread from one person to 14 people and the virus is starting the second mutation. The video attracted millions of views on various social media platforms and was mentioned in numerous online reports. However, the BBC noted that contrary to its English subtitles in one of the video's existing versions, the woman does not claim to be either a nurse or a doctor in the video and that her suit and mask do not match the ones worn by medical staff in Hubei. The video's claim of 90,000 infected cases is noted to be 'unsubstantiated'


Alleged leak of death toll
On February 25, Taiwan News published an article, claiming Tencent accidentally leaked the real numbers of death and infection in China. Taiwan News suggests the Tencent Epidemic Situation Tracker had briefly showed infected cases and death tolls many times higher of the official figure, citing a Facebook post by 38-year-old Taiwanese beverage store owner Hiroki Lo and an anonymous Taiwanese netizen. The article was referenced by other news outlets such as Daily Mail and widely circulated on Twitter, Facebook, 4chan, sparked a wide range of conspiracy theories that the screenshot indicates the real death toll instead of the ones published by health officials. Justin Lessler, associate professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, claims the numbers of the alleged "leak" are unreasonable and unrealistic, citing the case fatality rate as far lower than the 'leaked information'. A spokesman of Tencent responded to the news article, claiming the image was doctored, and it features "false information which we never published".

Keoni Everington, author of the original news article, defended and asserted the authenticity of the leak. Brian Hioe and Lars Wooster of New Bloom Magazine debunked the theory from data on other websites, which were using Tencent's database to generate custom visualizations while showing none of the inflated figures appearing in the images promulgated by Taiwan News. Thus, they concluded the screenshot was digitally fabricated.



African resistance
Beginning on 11 February, reports, quickly spread via Facebook, implied that a Cameroonian student in China had been completely cured of the virus due to his African genetics. While a student was successfully treated, other media sources have noted that no evidence implies Africans are more resistant to the virus and labeled such claims as false information


This kind of thing isnt helping... is it?
they are the kind of people i am referring to when i say chicken little's and people who are getting positive outcomes from more fear... like news outlets... there are many financial pundits that never say anything but negatives... they make their living doing that..

In the first week of March, after the World Health Organization reported that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 increased from the previous estimate of around 2% to 3.4%, he said the correct number is less than 1% based only on his “hunch”: "Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number." (See also list of human disease case fatality rates and timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak for the actual COVID-19 case fatality rates.)

List of human disease case fatality rates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_disease_case_fatality_rates
This is a list of human disease case fatality rates (CFRs). A CFR is the proportion of people diagnosed with a disease who die during the course of the disease (cf. mortality rate). Data are based on optimally treated patients and exclude isolated cases or minor outbreaks, unless otherwise indicated.

its a very interesting list...

 

[Sig]

On 2 February, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a "massive infodemic", citing an over-abundance of reported information, accurate and false, about the virus that "makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it." The WHO stated that the high demand for timely and trustworthy information has incentivised the creation of a direct WHO 24/7 myth-busting hotline where its communication and social media teams have been monitoring and responding to misinformation through its website and social media pages.



On 24 January, a video circulated online appearing to be of a nurse named Jin Hui in Hubei province describing a far more dire situation in Wuhan than purported by Chinese officials. The video claimed that more than 90,000 people had been infected with the virus in China, the virus can spread from one person to 14 people and the virus is starting the second mutation. The video attracted millions of views on various social media platforms and was mentioned in numerous online reports. However, the BBC noted that contrary to its English subtitles in one of the video's existing versions, the woman does not claim to be either a nurse or a doctor in the video and that her suit and mask do not match the ones worn by medical staff in Hubei. The video's claim of 90,000 infected cases is noted to be 'unsubstantiated'


Alleged leak of death toll
On February 25, Taiwan News published an article, claiming Tencent accidentally leaked the real numbers of death and infection in China. Taiwan News suggests the Tencent Epidemic Situation Tracker had briefly showed infected cases and death tolls many times higher of the official figure, citing a Facebook post by 38-year-old Taiwanese beverage store owner Hiroki Lo and an anonymous Taiwanese netizen. The article was referenced by other news outlets such as Daily Mail and widely circulated on Twitter, Facebook, 4chan, sparked a wide range of conspiracy theories that the screenshot indicates the real death toll instead of the ones published by health officials. Justin Lessler, associate professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, claims the numbers of the alleged "leak" are unreasonable and unrealistic, citing the case fatality rate as far lower than the 'leaked information'. A spokesman of Tencent responded to the news article, claiming the image was doctored, and it features "false information which we never published".

Keoni Everington, author of the original news article, defended and asserted the authenticity of the leak. Brian Hioe and Lars Wooster of New Bloom Magazine debunked the theory from data on other websites, which were using Tencent's database to generate custom visualizations while showing none of the inflated figures appearing in the images promulgated by Taiwan News. Thus, they concluded the screenshot was digitally fabricated.



African resistance
Beginning on 11 February, reports, quickly spread via Facebook, implied that a Cameroonian student in China had been completely cured of the virus due to his African genetics. While a student was successfully treated, other media sources have noted that no evidence implies Africans are more resistant to the virus and labeled such claims as false information


This kind of thing isnt helping... is it?
they are the kind of people i am referring to when i say chicken little's and people who are getting positive outcomes from more fear... like news outlets... there are many financial pundits that never say anything but negatives... they make their living doing that..

In the first week of March, after the World Health Organization reported that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 increased from the previous estimate of around 2% to 3.4%, he said the correct number is less than 1% based only on his “hunch”: "Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number." (See also list of human disease case fatality rates and timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak for the actual COVID-19 case fatality rates.)

List of human disease case fatality rates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_disease_case_fatality_rates
This is a list of human disease case fatality rates (CFRs). A CFR is the proportion of people diagnosed with a disease who die during the course of the disease (cf. mortality rate). Data are based on optimally treated patients and exclude isolated cases or minor outbreaks, unless otherwise indicated.

its a very interesting list...

Wow! There's actually a name for what you just did, it's called the Gish Gallop and you've presented as fine an example as I've ever witnessed. Not even the original Gish was able to copy a random list of fallacies down from the first online source that popped up when they googled "logical fallacies" like you did (It's "Appeal to anonymous authority", BTW)!
Entertaining if nothing else.

Let's boil your pages and pages of ranting down to one simple question. What concrete thing are you advocating for, exactly? Forcing people to go to public events? Taking over the press and telling them what they can publish? You just want us all to bow down to your knowledge that everyone is being a "chicken little"? It's all pretty unclear between all the buzzwords you've vomited out here.

 

[Same Lazy Element]

There's actually a name for what you just did, it's called the Gish Gallop and you've presented as fine an example as I've ever witnessed.

Random question - how on earth did you know this has a name?