r/RedditCensors: Permabanned from r/Virginia for posting an AP article describing COVIDs 99% survival rate and an Oxford study concluding Delta viral loads are the same between vaxxed/unvaxxed when a user claims the unvaccinated are killing children.

23 u/Anianna 01 Oct 2021 03:42

Was it "for posting an AP article describing COVIDs 99% survival rate" or because [that article](https://archive.is/ZPJUJ) actually says the 99% claim the article referred to is misleading? Perhaps it was because when people disagreed with you, you were demeaning, responded with personal attacks, and demanded they stop posting instead of having a civil discussion on the matter. Perhaps the fact that you edited your comments after they had already been responded to played a role. Censorship can be overreaching, but being dishonest about it doesn't solve the problem.

2 u/wafflehousewhore 01 Oct 2021 15:36

Having read through the thread, I vote "probably not any one of these individual things, but the total combination of them"

1 u/[deleted] 01 Oct 2021 16:58

[removed]

-1 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] * 01 Oct 2021 19:49

You're honestly one of the dumbest people I've ever met that didn't have a clinical diagnosis. The AP article says the rate is 98.2% but that's in documented cases. The AP article then goes on to say the number of undocumented cases is much larger than the documented cases. The undocumented cases are almost certainly survived cases (people didn't die of COVID without it being noticed and documented), thus, and let me just quote the AP on this once more... >Because the true number of infections is much larger than just the documented cases, the actual survival rate of all COVID-19 infections is even higher than 98.2%. In other words, it's likely at least 99% survivable but we can't actually retrieve the missing data so the 99% figure requires some context, which is what the AP says. >AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context In other words, they can't say false, they can just say "missing context." You're so fucking dumb that you can't comprehend how it could be 99%. I even made a word problem out of it: >If the survivability rate of COVID is 98% according to the AP, and there are 100,000,000 documented cases, but also there are at least 100,000,000 undocumented cases that were survived. What is the absolute minimum survivability rate? A. 99% Your response: >So, 34.3 million documented cases and an unknown number of undocumented cases now becomes "100,000,000 documented cases, but also there are at least 100,000,000 undocumented cases"? You really like making up numbers. This is stroke inducing fucking stupid because you don't know what a percentage is or how it is applied and you can't conceptualize a different number of cases other than the official total for what I guess is the US. For no reason you are hung up on US cases or something, which are 43.4 not 34.3. Why would you get hung up on 30 - 40 million cases? There are over 230 million worldwide. Just look at the first 100,000,000 idiot. Look at all of them. It. doesn't. matter. when. the. case. survivability. is. a. percentage.

1 u/Anianna 01 Oct 2021 20:02

More than 98.2 does not magically mean 99. You can't just pull a number out of your rear end and say that is the number the article supports, particularly when the article is labeling the specific claim as misleading. What you say the article says and what the article actually says are two different things and that is misinformation, which is probably what you were banned for, not simply because you posted the article.

0 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] * 01 Oct 2021 20:12

You're dumb as a fucking brick. >If the survivability rate of COVID is 98% according to the AP, and there are X number of documented cases, but also there are at least the same number of undocumented cases that were survived. What is the absolute minimum survivability rate? It doesn't matter what X is. 34.3 million. 43.4 million. 100 million. The answer is still 99%. You're too dumb to understand why. >What you say the article says and what the article actually says are two different things and that is misinformation I'm directly quoting the article. The articles says not to say any one persons chances are 99%. I'm not doing that. An 80 year old does not have a 99% survivability rate. I never claimed that, nor will I ever. >THE FACTS: As of July 23, there were more than 34.3 million known cases of COVID-19 in the United States and 610,370 deaths, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. That means the case fatality ratio -- or the portion of known cases that result in death in the country -- is 1.8%. In other words, on average, 98.2% of known COVID-19 patients in the U.S. survive. Because the true number of infections is much larger than just the documented cases, the actual survival rate of all COVID-19 infections is even higher than 98.2%. If the case fatality rate for COVID according to the AP is 1.8%, and there are X number of documented cases, but also AP says there are *at least* the same number of undocumented cases that were survived. What is the absolute maximum case fatality rate? Basic first semester algebra: 2*X=1.8 X = 1.8/2 X = 0.9 Answer. 0.9% case fatality rate. In other words, 99% survivability rate. I'm not misrepresenting anything, you're just a dunce.

0 u/Anianna 01 Oct 2021 20:23

You quoted the one line of the article that says the survivability is more than 98.2%. I don't dispute that it's greater than 98.2% when accounting for unreported cases or even that the rate will continue to go up as more people get vaccinated. That is not evidence that the survivability is 99%. It might be 98.7%. It might be 99.6%. On the scale we are looking at, that is a sizeable difference. The article is not "describing COVIDs 99% survival rate" as you stated in the title of this post. If you want to support that claim, quote where the article describes Covid's 99% survival rate.

2 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] * 01 Oct 2021 20:31

> It might be 99.6%. How would it be 99.6% (a case fatality rate of .4%)? How? Oh because... >the true number of infections is **much larger** than just the documented cases So, I just stopped at *equal* to the number of documented cases. X + X = 2X 2*X=1.8 X = 1.8/2 X = 0.9 A case fatality rate of 0.9 is a 99% survivability rate. >the true number of infections is **much larger** than just the documented cases >the true number of infections is **much larger** than just the documented cases I readily admit it may not be 99% on the button, but I can easily claim *it's at least* 99% based on the information provided, which is what I did. >Me: If the true number of infections is much larger than the DOCUMENTED cases which already have a survival rate of 98.2%, then I'm going to have no problem saying 99% survival rate. If anything I was being conservative and favoring a worse survivability rate than the AP implies exists. cc u/sliplover

0 u/Anianna 01 Oct 2021 21:10

> >the true number of infections is much larger than just the documented cases > > > > So, I just stopped at equal to the number of documented cases. Again, choosing whatever number you prefer and not one the article provides. I notice you avoided actually quoting the article "describing COVIDs 99% survival rate". >How would it be 99.6% (a case fatality rate of .4%)? >How? Why stop at the same number as documented cases? If we're pulling numbers out of our butts, I say the *much higher* case rate when accounting for undocumented cases is 150 million cases. 610,370 deaths divided by 150 million cases is a fatality rate of 0.4%, which is a survival rate of 99.6%. I can make up numbers that work in math problems, too, but I'm not claiming my numbers came from that article, just as you shouldn't be.

2 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] 01 Oct 2021 21:20

>Why stop at the same number as documented cases? Because we don't know what those numbers are. We do know the documented numbers. Using those numbers I can easily arrive at 99% survival rate. You then going >BUT IT COULD BE 99.9% SURVIVABLE STOP SPREADING MISINFO could quite possibly be the dumbest backpedal ever on reddit.

2 u/Anianna * 01 Oct 2021 21:35

> Because we don't know what those numbers are. Ding, ding, ding! We don't know what those numbers are, so stop making stuff up and claiming the article supports your made up numbers. >We do know the documented numbers. Using those numbers I can easily arrive at 99% survival rate. The known numbers stated in this article reach a survival rate of 98.2%, not 99%. In order to get to 99%, you have to make up what the number of undocumented cases may or may not be. I notice, yet again, that you avoided actually quoting the article "describing COVIDs 99% survival rate". Edit: Oh, looky. You're going back and editing your comments again. Very disingenuous of you. Edit again: I see you added this gem to one of your comments: >It doesn't matter what X is. >34.3 million. 43.4 million. 100 million. >The answer is still 99%. You're too dumb to understand why. We already know that the survival rate for 34.4 million cases isn't 99%. Let's look at those other numbers. If X is the number of all cases and there are 610,370 known deaths, the equation for survival rate would be as follows: 100-((610,370/X)*100) Lets try plugging those randomly chosen numbers in: 100-((610,370/43400000)*100) = 98.59% 98.59% =|= 99% 100-((610,370/100000000)*100) = 99.39% 99.39% =|= 99%

4 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] 02 Oct 2021 00:29

Indeed, the survivability rate is extremely high in many ways.

1 u/brekky_sandy 02 Nov 2021 03:39

Holy shit, dude. When you lead with an ad hominem attack there's no way chance that someone is going to take your argument seriously. Regardless, that kind of behavior is against the rules across Reddit. If you behaved the same way on r/virginia (I haven't checked but based on this I would say that it's safe to assume that you did), then it's no surprise that they banned you.

1 u/sneakpeekbot 02 Nov 2021 03:39

Here's a sneak peek of /r/Virginia using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Virginia/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Some kids pranked a School Board meeting here in Virginia, on a "Bart Simpson level" and I am dying laughing!](https://v.redd.it/b92k7waqcqk71) | [128 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Virginia/comments/pfat8t/some_kids_pranked_a_school_board_meeting_here_in/) \#2: [Gov. Northam signs 'Breonna's Law' banning no-knock search warrants: Virginia is the first state to ban no-knock search warrants in response to Breonna Taylor’s death, according to Gov. Northam's office.](https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/no-knock-search-warrants-banned-virginia-breonna-taylor-death/65-1b5bd1c5-84f5-4e68-8a39-c3ac487d24c8) | [186 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Virginia/comments/k8v87m/gov_northam_signs_breonnas_law_banning_noknock/) \#3: [Afghan family arrives in Virginia](https://i.redd.it/8dqsfwxlpyj71.jpg) | [156 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Virginia/comments/pcyalx/afghan_family_arrives_in_virginia/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)

1 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] 02 Nov 2021 13:19

I didn't, and the rules are not even remotely applied fairly across reddit.

1 u/brekky_sandy 02 Nov 2021 15:20

And cops don't catch *every* person that speeds, but rules are rules and laws are laws. If you're doing 80 in a 45 and a cop pulls you over, then you can't be angry when they actually enforce the law that *you* broke.

1 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] 02 Nov 2021 15:22

Right, I literally didn't ad hominem the person in the original thread that you refuse to read for some reason. I explained myself in the most basic terms, as if speaking to a 10 year old. I'm obviously not hiding my contempt for the same person in this thread, because the person is legitimately obnoxious trash and there are no real consequences.

1 u/brekky_sandy 02 Nov 2021 15:26

I did take a look at it but your comments are deleted. This would suggest that they were in violation of the rules...

1 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] 02 Nov 2021 15:29

Oh ok. Well they're visible to me and do not break the rules. They basically mirror what has been said here minus the insults. I'm very familiar with how to post without breaking posted rules. I didn't and was banned anyways, obviously for undermining a certain narrative mods have on that sub, thus why I posted here.

18 u/THICCC_LADIES_PM_ME 30 Sep 2021 23:27

Well duh the AP is obviously a hotbed of *disinformation*

2 u/revddit 30 Sep 2021 21:29

Another option for reviewing removed content is your ***Rev***eddit [user page](https://www.reveddit.com/user/W!o!k!e!P!o!k!e!B!o!w!l?all=true). The [real-time extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/direct/) alerts you when a moderator removes your content, and the [linker extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/linker) provides [buttons](https://i.imgur.com/0BAImPq.png) for viewing removed content. There's also a [shortcut for iOS](https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/62bc7570613c42cb8b851fad264136df). The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to remove this comment. This bot only operates in authorized subreddits. To support this tool, [post it on your profile](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) and select ['pin to profile'](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png).   [^F.A.Q.](https://www.reveddit.com/about/f.a.q./) ^| ^r/reveddit ^| [^support ^me](https://www.reveddit.com/about/donate) ^| [^share](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) ^& [^'pin ^to ^profile'](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png)

1 u/[deleted] 01 Oct 2021 10:38

[removed]

1 u/[deleted] 01 Oct 2021 10:42

[removed]

1 u/[deleted] * 03 Oct 2021 04:48

I have pure unedited data that is not from a news source. It is from [Tennessee's government website](https://www.tn.gov/health/cedep/ncov/data/downloadable-datasets.html) that posts data that has been collected about covid in the state. Here is the data I will be using. It is called [Daily Age Group Outcomes](https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/novel-coronavirus/datasets/Public-Dataset-Daily-Age-Group-Outcomes.XLSX) and the link I just mentioned, is an excel file download (found on the tn gov link I mentioned in the beginning of my comment). Total cases in this report as of September 30 2021 are 1,230,298. Total deaths are sadly at 15,205. This is a "mortality rate" of 1.24% or "survival rate" of 98.76% in this data. Dig deeper into this data and you'll find that the group with the highest number of cases has been age 21-30 but only 100 have died. Ages after 50 and you start getting into the thousands of deaths. Sure the mortality rate for the virus is 0.05% for the age group 21-30. But you know whats really sad? The older people who care about trying to live and have lower number of cases but even higher rates of death. Age 81+ is mortality rate of 16.23% . So yeah trying to generalize everything into one number survival rate is *overall*(/s) 98.76% but older groups are paying for the consequences of younger people who arent afraid of catching it because "they'll live." And then they'll pass it on to someone who won't. This pandemic is about caring for other people and protecting our vulnerable. Wear a mask and get vaccinated to lower chances of passing this disease on to people who will die from it

1 u/unkorrupted 06 Oct 2021 02:44

> This is a "mortality rate" of 1.24% or "survival rate" of 99.98% Ummm... Might want to double check your math. You're off by two orders of magnitude.

1 u/[deleted] 06 Oct 2021 03:13

You were right, and I appreciate the feedback. Edited in the correct number. Survival rate was not 99.98%, it is 98.76%

1 u/[deleted] * 04 Nov 2021 01:22

[deleted]

-1 u/NinjasOwnTheNight 01 Oct 2021 00:18

Hail Libertas Hail Reaper.

-14 u/bigman-penguin 30 Sep 2021 21:39

Everyone that disagrees with me is a Marxist hurr durr

22 u/WokePokeBowl [OP] * 30 Sep 2021 21:45

There's no reason to ban someone over linking to the AP. Only some fringe political shithead would so that, and I guarantee they're not right wing on that sub. Don't be mad that your ideology has failed and you now require walled gardens to keep it going. LOL an ideology so bad it has to be kept alive by tenured pedophiles and students too dumb for STEM.

5 u/A_Sexy_Pillow 01 Oct 2021 00:45

> LOL an ideology so bad it has to be kept alive by tenured pedophiles and students too dumb for STEM Lmao fucking brutal but the truth often hurts

7 u/JesusofBorg 30 Sep 2021 23:26

Aw, did the little fuck wit try, and fail, to come up with their own insult and instead steal one that works so very well against him? What's it like to be a worthless burden to the species? Does knowing that you'll never accomplish anything in your life cause your various mental illnesses? Bedlam should be rebuilt to house people like you.

1 u/cryptanomous 13 Oct 2021 23:10

As opposed to everyone that disagrees with me is fascist?

Permabanned from r/Virginia for posting an AP article describing COVIDs 99% survival rate and an Oxford study concluding Delta viral loads are the same between vaxxed/unvaxxed when a user claims the unvaccinated are killing children.

33 comments