You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 132 

Re: Covid 19

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

Weird, the state of Pennsylvania had to knock a couple hundred deaths of its total because it was inappropriately attributing deaths to COVID that were clearly other ailments:
https://abc14news.com/2020/04/26/pennsy … ularities/

16 16

That isn't even a real TV stations website.

https://abc14news.com/about-us/  lol, non-profit/ad-free?!  Dude, there's ads all over the fuckin place. Whois says it was just registered in 2018.  ie; Russian trolls website


Is this better:

https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronav … 00423.html

I picked that site because the original one sent to me was from Ben Shapiro's site, and I figured you'd dismiss it outright.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 132 

Re: Covid 19

misterID wrote:

Totally disagree, this is not the flu. There have already been over 60k deaths in a few months, not a year. So that statistic means dick. And it's far more contagious and brutal to the body. Just ignoring the douchbaggery, not just 80 year olds are dying, but people working in this economy, including medical workers. If more people get sick, more people will stay home on their own, businesses forcing employees to work will be liable (they're already seeking protection on that, good luck!) so that wrecks the economy anyway. You balance it out, what's worse... These are uncertain and unprecedented times. You manage with a scalpel not a wrecking ball. Shit is going to be tough, but the economy will bounce back.


How many people that were under 55 and "healthy" have died from COVID?  We're projected to have 67k dead from COVID by August, slightly more than the flu in 2018.  So tell me how making that comparison is unfair, since the demographics of fatalities from the flu and covid are almost identical. 

You can call it douchebaggery all you want, but living in irrational fear with no attention given to the numbers isn't intellectualism.  It's irrational fear.  30% of our nation's COVID deaths are from NYC alone.  It isn't wide spread, and Sweden clearly shows that had we done "nothing" (not something I supported then or now) we wouldn't have the millions dead alarmist "predicted" 6 weeks ago.  If you want to destroy the country to keep 50k abandoned old people alive for another year, you can make that argument.  But you're not going to get away with pretending that healthy 40 year olds are dropping dead in any significant number from COVID, and not be challenged on it. 

Pull up the numbers and make an argument.  Just be prepared to defend why 61 million people getting H1N1 in 2009 didn't deserve any kind of action, and this does.  Have you even attempted to look at how states are defining COVID deaths compared to other countries?

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 132 

Re: Covid 19

Here are the deaths in Pittsburgh as of today:

Deaths by age group:

• 40-49: 1 (1%)

• 50-59: 2 (2%)

•60-69: 11 (13%)

• 70 and over: 72 (84%)

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/healt … 2004290091


But tell me again that this is a major threat to anyone not a senior citizen with chronic health issues.

65/86 are from nursing homes.  So 75% are the extreme elderly and infirm in nursing homes (cause why would you be in a nursing home if you were healthy and capable), but keeping the entire country/state/city locked down rather than put extreme procedures to protect the most vulnerable is the smart move.  But yea, I'm involved in "douchebaggery" because I want to rely on the numbers and not irrational fear.

misterID
 Rep: 472 

Re: Covid 19

misterID wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
misterID wrote:

Totally disagree, this is not the flu. There have already been over 60k deaths in a few months, not a year. So that statistic means dick. And it's far more contagious and brutal to the body. Just ignoring the douchbaggery, not just 80 year olds are dying, but people working in this economy, including medical workers. If more people get sick, more people will stay home on their own, businesses forcing employees to work will be liable (they're already seeking protection on that, good luck!) so that wrecks the economy anyway. You balance it out, what's worse... These are uncertain and unprecedented times. You manage with a scalpel not a wrecking ball. Shit is going to be tough, but the economy will bounce back.


How many people that were under 55 and "healthy" have died from COVID?  We're projected to have 67k dead from COVID by August, slightly more than the flu in 2018.  So tell me how making that comparison is unfair, since the demographics of fatalities from the flu and covid are almost identical. 

You can call it douchebaggery all you want, but living in irrational fear with no attention given to the numbers isn't intellectualism.  It's irrational fear.  30% of our nation's COVID deaths are from NYC alone.  It isn't wide spread, and Sweden clearly shows that had we done "nothing" (not something I supported then or now) we wouldn't have the millions dead alarmist "predicted" 6 weeks ago.  If you want to destroy the country to keep 50k abandoned old people alive for another year, you can make that argument.  But you're not going to get away with pretending that healthy 40 year olds are dropping dead in any significant number from COVID, and not be challenged on it. 

Pull up the numbers and make an argument.  Just be prepared to defend why 61 million people getting H1N1 in 2009 didn't deserve any kind of action, and this does.  Have you even attempted to look at how states are defining COVID deaths compared to other countries?

It's NOT just about death, people don't want to get sick, they don't want to risk it, especially a virus we still don't fully understand.

Sweden is treating this like a flu, yet they still don't understand the long term effects, and how is it better?... And Sweden is NOT America.

bigbri
 Rep: 341 

Re: Covid 19

bigbri wrote:

Flu deaths, Trump said (and this article says he is right), are incredible to believe. They are.

This Scientific American story (I don't know their politics. I assume it'll be written off as leftist, but again they agree with Trump) says the CDC's flu death reports are not what they seem. It's interesting, if true.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob … o-oranges/

misterID
 Rep: 472 

Re: Covid 19

misterID wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

Here are the deaths in Pittsburgh as of today:

Deaths by age group:

• 40-49: 1 (1%)

• 50-59: 2 (2%)

•60-69: 11 (13%)

• 70 and over: 72 (84%)

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/healt … 2004290091


But tell me again that this is a major threat to anyone not a senior citizen with chronic health issues.

65/86 are from nursing homes.  So 75% are the extreme elderly and infirm in nursing homes (cause why would you be in a nursing home if you were healthy and capable), but keeping the entire country/state/city locked down rather than put extreme procedures to protect the most vulnerable is the smart move.  But yea, I'm involved in "douchebaggery" because I want to rely on the numbers and not irrational fear.

Lifecare is the hardest hit, which isn't just a nursing home but rehab facility. I've had both parents there temporarily. And the employees are getting sick. You can't even agree on what numbers are right. You don't know how this virus REALLY works on the body. A good % of younger people are getting strokes. Quote all you want, and act as though these deaths are no big deal (yeah, that's being a douchebag). But some folks won't risk it and neither will businesses.

IF there is a surge in new cases in these states, it will hit the economy harder.

mitchejw
 Rep: 129 

Re: Covid 19

mitchejw wrote:

You need to take the number of seats and multiply it by 5 or 6 to get a projected annual total.

apex-twin
 Rep: 199 

Re: Covid 19

apex-twin wrote:

I wouldn't drum up Sweden as anything but a cautionary tale in this whole saga. May Day celebrations are due. This means mass gatherings outdoors. We'll see the effects play out in 4 weeks time.

We're projected to have 67k dead from COVID by August, slightly more than the flu in 2018.  So tell me how making that comparison is unfair, since the demographics of fatalities from the flu and covid are almost identical.

We're probably looking at the same graphs. The prediction holds that the death rate would wind down mid-May, reaching near-zero in early June. Even so, their guess is anywhere between that and 125k. 

The problem is there is that one epidemic is in the past and the other is ongoing. Making direct comparisons, or even educated guesses, is tricky because of so many factors.

Pull up the numbers and make an argument.  Just be prepared to defend why 61 million people getting H1N1 in 2009 didn't deserve any kind of action, and this does.

The number of confirmed H1N1 cases by WHO in 2009 was approximately 1.6 million. Obviously, other numbers have been tossed around from 700 million upwards. But the same uncertainty goes for COVID19, which, by rough comparison, is about 6 times more fatal.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 132 

Re: Covid 19

bigbri wrote:

Flu deaths, Trump said (and this article says he is right), are incredible to believe. They are.

This Scientific American story (I don't know their politics. I assume it'll be written off as leftist, but again they agree with Trump) says the CDC's flu death reports are not what they seem. It's interesting, if true.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob … o-oranges/

Scientific American wrote:

"The question remains. Can we accurately compare the toll of the flu to the toll of the coronavirus pandemic?

To do this, we have to compare counted deaths to counted deaths, not counted deaths to wildly inflated statistical estimates. "


The article says we can't rely on the CDC's flu death numbers, because they use statistical estimates to count dead.  The author rightly suggests that these models can be misleading.  Then goes on to use the same models as a representation for COVID deaths, while deflating the amount of Flu deaths because said models can't be trusted.

"we have to compare counted deaths to counted deaths"

You're aware that the "counted deaths" from COVID aren't deaths that are attributable to all known people with positive COVID tests, let alone deceased patients who tested positive for COVID-19, and died of ailments attributed solely to "COVID".  As the author says:

"In fact, in the fine print, the CDC’s flu numbers also include pneumonia deaths." 

They're doing the exact same thing with COVID deaths in the United States.  If you die and they suspect you had COVID-19, those numbers are being reported as "counted deaths" for COVID. 

Here is directly from the CDC's site on how they count COVID deaths:

CDC wrote:

The provisional data presented on this page include the weekly provisional count of deaths in the United States due to COVID-19, deaths from all causes and percent of expected deaths (i.e., number of deaths received over number of deaths expected based on data from previous years), pneumonia deaths (excluding pneumonia deaths involving influenza), pneumonia deaths involving COVID-19, influenza deaths, and deaths involving pneumonia, influenza, or COVID-19;

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

So I totally agree with the author that using a statistical model with the same certainty as a "counted death" is inappropriate.  I just think that same criticism should be leveled at the total count of COVID "counted deaths" from the United States that use the same metric.  That's why I said in my first post in 2.5 weeks that we're still #2 in the world for mortality, behind Germany, who doesn't define "COVID Death" the same in the United States, and who are more accurately reflecting those that died from COVID versus those that " include pneumonia deaths".

If your point was to criticize me and "Trump" for using the idea that the real impact from COVID and the Flua re similar. by arguing the best known death count for the Flu released from the CDC shouldn't be compared with the shaky and ever decreasing and increasing number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States, I don't think you succeeded.  Both figures suffer from the variability of definition and cause.  But if one of the top 2 disease authorities in the world state a number is X, I'm going to take their word over it rather than some doctor who called a few friends and asked them if they saw someone die from the flu.  I just asked my fiance across the room if she's ever seen someone die of COVID, and she said "no".  I'll see if she can call some of her friends around the country and find out if they've seen anyone die from COVID who she knows will say "no" as well.

bigbri
 Rep: 341 

Re: Covid 19

bigbri wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
bigbri wrote:

Flu deaths, Trump said (and this article says he is right), are incredible to believe. They are.

This Scientific American story (I don't know their politics. I assume it'll be written off as leftist, but again they agree with Trump) says the CDC's flu death reports are not what they seem. It's interesting, if true.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob … o-oranges/

Scientific American wrote:

"The question remains. Can we accurately compare the toll of the flu to the toll of the coronavirus pandemic?

To do this, we have to compare counted deaths to counted deaths, not counted deaths to wildly inflated statistical estimates. "


The article says we can't rely on the CDC's flu death numbers, because they use statistical estimates to count dead.  The author rightly suggests that these models can be misleading.  Then goes on to use the same models as a representation for COVID deaths, while deflating the amount of Flu deaths because said models can't be trusted.

"we have to compare counted deaths to counted deaths"

You're aware that the "counted deaths" from COVID aren't deaths that are attributable to all known people with positive COVID tests, let alone deceased patients who tested positive for COVID-19, and died of ailments attributed solely to "COVID".  As the author says:

"In fact, in the fine print, the CDC’s flu numbers also include pneumonia deaths." 

They're doing the exact same thing with COVID deaths in the United States.  If you die and they suspect you had COVID-19, those numbers are being reported as "counted deaths" for COVID. 

Here is directly from the CDC's site on how they count COVID deaths:

CDC wrote:

The provisional data presented on this page include the weekly provisional count of deaths in the United States due to COVID-19, deaths from all causes and percent of expected deaths (i.e., number of deaths received over number of deaths expected based on data from previous years), pneumonia deaths (excluding pneumonia deaths involving influenza), pneumonia deaths involving COVID-19, influenza deaths, and deaths involving pneumonia, influenza, or COVID-19;

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

So I totally agree with the author that using a statistical model with the same certainty as a "counted death" is inappropriate.  I just think that same criticism should be leveled at the total count of COVID "counted deaths" from the United States that use the same metric.  That's why I said in my first post in 2.5 weeks that we're still #2 in the world for mortality, behind Germany, who doesn't define "COVID Death" the same in the United States, and who are more accurately reflecting those that died from COVID versus those that " include pneumonia deaths".

If your point was to criticize me and "Trump" for using the idea that the real impact from COVID and the Flua re similar. by arguing the best known death count for the Flu released from the CDC shouldn't be compared with the shaky and ever decreasing and increasing number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States, I don't think you succeeded.  Both figures suffer from the variability of definition and cause.  But if one of the top 2 disease authorities in the world state a number is X, I'm going to take their word over it rather than some doctor who called a few friends and asked them if they saw someone die from the flu.  I just asked my fiance across the room if she's ever seen someone die of COVID, and she said "no".  I'll see if she can call some of her friends around the country and find out if they've seen anyone die from COVID who she knows will say "no" as well.

No my point was to highlight the fluidity of flu deaths. I am not taking anything about Covid deaths as accepted fact at this point--it's changing.

His idea of talking to his friends in the medical community do not form his argument, they spurred him to look at data. But the point is well-taken. I've never seen nor heard of anyone i know dying of flu or Covid, yet.

Nor, building off your Chicago example, I've never seen anyone shot or known anyone to be shot in Chicago. So, no, I'm not worried about that either. I know where I should and should not be. Same cannot be said of Covid, of course, people have it everywhere. At last count 70 in my community of 19K so far, but 1,000 in the next town over. It is worth noting we have no hospital in my town, so maybe that has something to do with it. There hasn't been 70 people shot in my town in all of the past 70 years combined ...

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB