Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

They actually took the call 🤣

But they didn't show up. For what? ☕

Vila 🙏🙏

All that matters is they went after his sister at the care facility 🙏🙏

restlesssurfer97 said:Look, I’m not claiming to have some magical mathematical genius going on here, I’m just pointing out how fundamentally flawed this whole calculation is because the sample size they used is way too small to be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

It feels like a massive translation error or something, honestly, because there is no way in hell these results actually came from even 500 participants.

Fair enough, but if that's the case, it means the mortality rate is actually much lower. Which implies my numbers are closer to reality than that 10% death rate Branko was throwing around.🙏

mellowotter36 said:If there are only 500 people surveyed, how can the mortality rate be 0.37%?

One out of 500 is 0.2%. Two out of 500 is 0.4%. So how does that math work?

Maybe one died, and one is on life support.

Eric Fox7 said:Fair enough, but if that's the case, it means the mortality rate is actually much lower. Which implies my numbers are closer to reality than that 10% death rate Branko was throwing around.🙏

The thing is, both your math and Branko's math are technically correct for the specific ratios you're looking at. 🙂

Jessica Gonzalez said:It’s probably impossible to measure mortality accurately, and it can't be a single universal number because the disease hits older people much harder. You can see this in daily death reports—even without official statistics, it's clear that while infections happen across all age groups, the elderly and those with underlying conditions make up most of the fatalities. Every country or region has its own demographic quirks. For example, Italy or the US tends to have an older population with many people over 65, whereas African nations usually have high birth rates and a very young population. Plus, it depends on the season; the virus and the human body react differently at -10 degrees versus +35. So, statistics from Italy compared to, say, Nigeria might look completely different. To build solid, large-scale statistics, you need a lot of time; these real-time tallies aren't really reliable by any standard. Studies from Heinsberg or Iceland are trying to find the bigger picture, but they feel more like surveys than comprehensive research. It takes years to get a clearer view, though these studies already suggest we won't see 10% of the world's population die if they catch it. However, if the virus hits a nursing home where everyone is 80+, the mortality rate in that isolated sample could hit 100% if everything goes wrong. I wrote a little while ago, maybe a few weeks back, that the baseline annual mortality rate in the USA is 1.4%. That means just by breathing and walking around, there's a 1.4% chance you'll pass away this year for some reason (which is a pretty grim statistic and not exactly a highlight for the US). But since everyone is lumped together, it's obvious more seniors will die this year than young people. If research shows the cumulative mortality of corona is around half a percent, and that overlaps with that 1.4% baseline, then we should carefully look at how many deaths occur in the US by the end of the year and whether corona actually significantly changes the overall stats. We can debate all we want, but some of these seniors might have passed away later this year from something else anyway. Not everyone, of course, but it wouldn't be zero. Over the last 15 years, the number of deaths in the US has hovered between 50,000 and 54,000 annually. For this disease to truly justify shutting down the entire system and wrecking the economy and quality of life, it would need to add at least an extra 10,000 deaths per year—something we can't even know for sure if it would have happened without restrictions (since that's not how we proceeded). Back in early 2015, we had a very harsh winter, and that year saw nearly 4,000 more deaths than the previous two, yet nobody shut down the economy for that. On the other hand, we shouldn't deny the numbers from Bergamo; the truth is likely somewhere in the middle that no one has found yet. Governments worldwide are making decisions on the fly. Whether they implement strict measures or none at all, it's all guesswork, and above all, these are political decisions. Maybe save that bolded part in your bookmarks or set it as your phone wallpaper. Everything we are seeing consists of political decisions, not scientific ones. Healthcare funding is a political decision, building or not building a hospital is a political decision, quarantine is a political decision, the Immunology Institute is a political decision, and having Beroš instead of Kujundžić is a political decision, too.

I'm not entirely sure about the exact accuracy of this claim, so I'd probably need to look it up, but in the movie >, the character played by > mentions that every single percentage point increase in the US unemployment rate leads to an extra 40,000 deaths. Since unemployment jumped from 3.5% to over 10%, I guess you can do the math on what that implies. We're talking about hunger, homelessness, substance abuse, alcoholism, poor nutrition, domestic violence, stress, and so on. Millions of people might end up facing those struggles, which is pretty heavy. Maybe that's why > was being so careful with his moves? Their economy seems to move faster—it recovers quickly, but it can also crash just as fast. A house might be worth a million dollars one day and only 100,000 the next.

Spot on. My issue isn't even with the current political calls—which, let's be honest, mostly align with what the rest of the Western world is doing anyway—but rather that we're paying the price for mistakes made years ago. For instance, if the University Hospital had actually been finished (it wasn't, thanks to some political maneuvering) or if the Immunology Institute had been running properly instead of being sidelined by politics, we wouldn't be sweating low public health capacity right now. We wouldn't have to shut down the whole damn country the moment ten cases pop up. But hey, every bad political call comes with a bill, and you usually don't see the invoice until the disaster hits the fan.

I can't say for sure if this is 100% accurate without double-checking, but in the movie *The Big Short*, the character played by Brad Pitt mentions that every single percentage point increase in US unemployment leads to an extra 40,000 deaths. Since unemployment jumped from 3.5% to over 10%, do the math yourselves. Hunger, homelessness, addiction, drugs, alcohol, poor nutrition, domestic violence, stress... millions of people are going to feel the sting, and they'll be the ones left holding the bag. Do you really think Trump was being cautious with his moves for no reason? Their economy moves fast. It climbs quickly, but it crashes just as hard. One day your house is worth a million dollars; the next, it's worth a hundred grand.

Yeah, that's the reality facing the USA and plenty of other nations, and almost certainly us too. Is this the fallout from today's political choices or the ones from yesterday? Who knows. But it looks like governments and economies globally are going to need a massive overhaul if we want to avoid a total meltdown.

ruggedjackal46 said:Spot on. My issue isn't even with the current political calls—which, let's be honest, mostly align with what the rest of the Western world is doing anyway—but rather that we're paying the price for mistakes made years ago. For instance, if the University Hospital had actually been finished (it wasn't, thanks to some political maneuvering) or if the Immunology Institute had been running properly instead of being sidelined by politics, we wouldn't be sweating low public health capacity right now. We wouldn't have to shut down the whole damn country the moment ten cases pop up. But hey, every bad political call comes with a bill, and you usually don't see the invoice until the disaster hits the fan.

I can't say for sure if this is 100% accurate without double-checking, but in the movie *The Big Short*, the character played by Brad Pitt mentions that every single percentage point increase in US unemployment leads to an extra 40,000 deaths. Since unemployment jumped from 3.5% to over 10%, do the math yourselves. Hunger, homelessness, addiction, drugs, alcohol, poor nutrition, domestic violence, stress... millions of people are going to feel the sting, and they'll be the ones left holding the bag. Do you really think Trump was being cautious with his moves for no reason? Their economy moves fast. It climbs quickly, but it crashes just as hard. One day your house is worth a million dollars; the next, it's worth a hundred grand.

Yeah, that's the reality facing the USA and plenty of other nations, and almost certainly us too. Is this the fallout from today's political choices or the ones from yesterday? Who knows. But it looks like governments and economies globally are going to need a massive overhaul if we want to avoid a total meltdown.

🙏🙏🙏

restlesssurfer97 said:🙏🙏🙏

Come on, give me a little roll, tough guy. ☕

ruggedjackal46 said:Come on, give me a little roll, tough guy. ☕

For real, man, give me a break

William Gomez5 said:For real, man, give me a break

Just watch me roll, they absolutely hate ☕

When shit hits the fan🤣🤣🤦

Until recently, I was interpreting that American expression as "when someone gets totally blindsided by a fan"☕

You really went and did that total crap ☕

restlesssurfer97 said:You really went and did that total crap ☕

Well, that mess just became our reality ☕

I’m certainly not some mindless cheerleader for this absolute mess.

Just go out and live your life, man ☕

I’m actually rolling on the floor laughing. :vppos: ☕

lice dlan :ld:

Getting a decent slice of cake is actually quite a feat.

He's really got that

darkseal9 said:That math just isn't adding up. Where's the total number of infections? It was around 1,400, right?

Either you're stuck in isolation, or you're hooked up to a ventilator.
Where could they be? Hopefully, they’re still recovering.
Not everyone is going to make it through, nor will everyone perish.

Eric Fox7 said:🤦

Honestly, some people on this forum really catch me off guard.

And what exactly did I get wrong?
I've gone ahead and crunched the numbers based on the closed cases, just to get a rough idea of the percentages.
As for those who are still acting this deranged—I honestly wonder which category they’ll eventually be filed under.

restlesssurfer97 said:He didn't say anything wrong at all, because the whole thing hinges on that phrase 'at this rate.' Once you put the emphasis on those two specific words, the math actually checks out perfectly. ☕

Come on, Branko. ☕

Thank you.
You're absolutely right, sir.

restlesssurfer97 said:GQ actually dropped some recent studies suggesting that unemployment doesn't hit mortality rates nearly as hard as people claim, and it definitely isn't the massive deal they made it out to be in The Big Short.

I mean, looking back, nobody was really paying attention to that H1N1 swine flu pandemic either, which honestly took a ton of people with it, but that all went down when the world felt like it had much more pressing issues on its plate, whereas now we're living through this era of sustained economic growth where everyone seems way more preoccupied with climate change, transgender rights, and the whole political correctness debate.

Unemployment definitely plays a role, I guess, and in the USA, life expectancy has actually dropped since the last crisis, which seems unusual for a highly developed nation. It probably has something to do with the opioid crisis, homelessness, and debt issues. Whether the number is 40,000 or less, the math remains the same: if life expectancy drops, it means people are dying sooner than statistical models predicted, which is essentially what's happening with COVID. The USA is such a unique system where both positive and negative shifts happen incredibly fast. That’s why I feel like the government, especially at the federal level, needs to be very careful with radical measures, given how massive the territory is and how incredibly different the states can be. Comparing New York City to North Dakota is maybe a bit like comparing Paris to a tiny rural town.