You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- A Private Eye
- Rep: 77
Re: Covid 19
Well, I mean my state has more than 2x the amount of people as all of Scotland (you Europhiles keep forgetting how much bigger we yanks are than any of your countries), so if you're going to make a blanket statement about ages, I think the sample should be evaluated. Looking at this BBC article from 5 days ago, 90% of all deaths in Scotland have been over the age of 65 and 75% are over the age of 75. The average life expectancy in Scotland is 79. So my state's numbers and Scotland's are almost identical, but why research any of this before linking an article that supports your fear.
So I have no idea how this study makes the argument people are dying 12 years too early. 40% of all Scots dying from COVID are over 85, and only 9% are under 65 (wow, this number is significantly higher than the US - don't let the others know this piece of information) so it just doesn't add up at all. But feel free to accuse my "anecdotal" evidence of my state which has over 2x the population of Scotland, and ignore Scotland's own numbers which clearly show this study to be wrong on its face. And what do you know, the majority of deaths in Scotland are occurring in "care homes". It's almost as if the virus treats people the same regardless of nationality. You found a headline, didn't bother to fact check a single thing or see if it made sense at all, linked it as an authority, then had the gall to say me linking actual numbers from my states (which is 2x a big as Scotland) is anecdotal. Wooosh (that's the sound of it going over your head)
I get it. People defaulting on loans and losing their homes is all just imaginary. 33% unemployment is just a number. These people don't need income and food to eat.
If you're going to just dismiss anything I say outright, do yourself a favor and make sure your posts at least pass the smell test before embarrassing yourself. You clearly didn't bother to research anything before posting, and have the audacity to call my comments anecdotal when some random, non credited study you link doesn't pass basic math. But keep trying.
Did you read the study? The data on deaths is taken from Italy primarily.
It's still to be peer reviewed in fairness so let's wait and see. I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of the statistical modelling they have done but applying deaths from one country to a general population of another and concluding years lost seems a bit woolly to me.
Can we also look at moving this to more civil ground please. Some feel the current lockdown is an overreaction, fine. Others disagree, also fine. Given the scientific community and world experts in this field haven't reached a general consensus either, a position of 'I'm right and you're wrong' on a GNR fan forum from either side of the argument seems foolish to me.
Re: Covid 19
Can we also look at moving this to more civil ground please. Some feel the current lockdown is an overreaction, fine. Others disagree, also fine. Given the scientific community and world experts in this field haven't reached a general consensus either, a position of 'I'm right and you're wrong' on a GNR fan forum from either side of the argument seems foolish to me.
Well, you have one side saying to consider that we might be doing more damage by doing what we've done and we've got the other side insisting that's not even a possibility. I think I've been on record more than anyone saying that we don't know a lot about this. Said it from the beginning; I continue to say it. That's the whole basis for my we overreacted stance. We've never reacted this way to any of the many pandemics that have happened in and around my lifetime. Ever. We've had pandemics where (proportionally) more people died and we didn't react this way.
Why did we pick this as the time we were going to lose our shit? I've yet to hear an even close to rational argument for it.
Have you noticed this headline: "It could" 'We think" "Maybe" "As many as" "numbers could reach" - the experts don't know, outside of the snippets that play on the news they admit they don't know, when pressed they admit they don't know, yet this is what is fed to people nightly and the whole truth never makes it into the news. Of course people are scared, and so we make decisions out of fear instead of rational thinking. We've given number after number indicating exactly where the threat is and every time it's dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative. NOBODY has given numbers to contradict that almost all of the deaths are in the elderly and unhealthy crowds. NOBODY has given numbers that contradict that the majority of deaths have been in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. Nobody is talking about the vast numbers in urban areas while demanding the whole country stay in lockdown. There's no logic to any of it; it's all emotional and not based at all in fact. Even with the numbers that they've manipulated, it STILL doesn't justify the response.
Re: Covid 19
Did you read the study? The data on deaths is taken from Italy primarily.
This, right here, talk about pot calling the kettle black...
It's still to be peer reviewed in fairness so let's wait and see.
Yes, true. And I also pointed this out in my initial post. But I also don't think we should dismiss it out of hand, and I'm inclined to give more stock to this paper than I am to some back of the napkin calculation of some (admittedly well-educated) random folks on the internet.
Re: Covid 19
It's somewhat fascinating that the people that claim to care about people so much aren't worried about people losing their jobs, houses, sanity, businesses, lives (I know you care about the virus deaths, but you don't seem worried about the other deaths including suicide that have happened as a direct result of poor decisions being made), etc.
Not really, it's just that I feel that dying (by basically drowning) from a virus that you contracted unknowingly and unwillingly seems a worse faith to me than losing your job, house or business. Regardless of someone's age. I get that you feel differently, that's okay.
It's like you aren't willing to admit that there are consequences to the decisions that have been made that might hurt more people than actually die from the virus.
Of course everyone acknowledges there are consequences, but the financial fall-out just seems so much more manageable (in the sense that we as a society have the tools to soften the impact) than the loss of lives (for which we still don't have an adequate answer in the form of a cure or vaccin).
Look, in general I'm all for letting the free market do its thing, it's a well understood system that has proven its merrits in the past time and time again. But any system has its limits, and I genuinely feel that in this particular case a well-thought out strategy enforced by our governments is going to serve us much better than just letting the free market handle this. Of course that strategy needs to include measures to support and reinforce the economy, to support people that are suffering from the economic impact of the quarantine measures. And obviously that's where the US gov't is currently not taking its responsibility.
Looking at past pandemics, it's clear to see that economic recovery post-lockdown is almost a given. It is up to us as a society to ensure that we do everything we can to support that recover. This article is an interesting read on the subject: https://theconversation.com/past-pandem … ery-137775
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Covid 19
Randall Flagg wrote:Well, I mean my state has more than 2x the amount of people as all of Scotland (you Europhiles keep forgetting how much bigger we yanks are than any of your countries), so if you're going to make a blanket statement about ages, I think the sample should be evaluated. Looking at this BBC article from 5 days ago, 90% of all deaths in Scotland have been over the age of 65 and 75% are over the age of 75. The average life expectancy in Scotland is 79. So my state's numbers and Scotland's are almost identical, but why research any of this before linking an article that supports your fear.
So I have no idea how this study makes the argument people are dying 12 years too early. 40% of all Scots dying from COVID are over 85, and only 9% are under 65 (wow, this number is significantly higher than the US - don't let the others know this piece of information) so it just doesn't add up at all. But feel free to accuse my "anecdotal" evidence of my state which has over 2x the population of Scotland, and ignore Scotland's own numbers which clearly show this study to be wrong on its face. And what do you know, the majority of deaths in Scotland are occurring in "care homes". It's almost as if the virus treats people the same regardless of nationality. You found a headline, didn't bother to fact check a single thing or see if it made sense at all, linked it as an authority, then had the gall to say me linking actual numbers from my states (which is 2x a big as Scotland) is anecdotal. Wooosh (that's the sound of it going over your head)
I get it. People defaulting on loans and losing their homes is all just imaginary. 33% unemployment is just a number. These people don't need income and food to eat.
If you're going to just dismiss anything I say outright, do yourself a favor and make sure your posts at least pass the smell test before embarrassing yourself. You clearly didn't bother to research anything before posting, and have the audacity to call my comments anecdotal when some random, non credited study you link doesn't pass basic math. But keep trying.
Did you read the study? The data on deaths is taken from Italy primarily.
It's still to be peer reviewed in fairness so let's wait and see. I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of the statistical modelling they have done but applying deaths from one country to a general population of another and concluding years lost seems a bit woolly to me.
Can we also look at moving this to more civil ground please. Some feel the current lockdown is an overreaction, fine. Others disagree, also fine. Given the scientific community and world experts in this field haven't reached a general consensus either, a position of 'I'm right and you're wrong' on a GNR fan forum from either side of the argument seems foolish to me.
Of course I did (there's not much to read, just their abstract and the images of their models predictions), but obviously I didn't get that it came from Italy. Comments like this though give me great hope of its accuracy though "Next, we modelled the relationship between age and multimorbidity counts among people dying with COVID-19. We were unable to obtain direct estimates of the association between age and extent of multimorbidity among patients who had died from COVID-19."
and
"We searched the WHO repository of COVID-19 studies on 24th March 2020. To identify studies reporting data on LTCs among people who had died from Covid-19, we screened titles and abstracts of all epidemiological, clinical, case-series and review articles (n=1685). We identified and screened 77 potentially relevant full-text articles, of which four reported aggregate data on LTCs among people who had died of COVID-19. Three were small studies (32, 44, and 54 deaths, respectively) based in Wuhan, China"
Any person with any academic background in stats would immediately see the problem. To say nothing that its thesis clearly doesn't align with real world data. They're using data from March, and 3/4 of their data is from "small studies" in Wuhan. That's just a fantatsic model to make predictive claims from.
The average age of someone dying from COVID in the West is 80. 60-80% are in nursing homes. This isn't a disease that kills the healthy and young in any meaningful numbers. If you have a study that shows otherwise though, please link it. Otherwise you can't expect people who have training in this area to immediately accept as final a BS study that is wrong on its face to anyone who can do linear algebra.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Covid 19
A Private Eye wrote:Did you read the study? The data on deaths is taken from Italy primarily.
This, right here, talk about pot calling the kettle black...
A Private Eye wrote:It's still to be peer reviewed in fairness so let's wait and see.
Yes, true. And I also pointed this out in my initial post. But I also don't think we should dismiss it out of hand, and I'm inclined to give more stock to this paper than I am to some back of the napkin calculation of some (admittedly well-educated) random folks on the internet.
Are you going to provide a cutoff for when it's safe to "return", or is playing "gotcha" cause I didn't catch "Italy" in the jumbo wall of text you posted from some grad students in Glasglow. Can you explain how they came to their conclusions since you think this study is so good? What do you think of them taking historical WHO data on morbidity and transposing it on a specific population? What do you think of their study using variables and beliefs about COVID that were available in late March? You're using this study as some kind of credible claim despite the very unavoidable fact it doesn't align with any modern demographic information from any nation. What about this study (it's actual models) makes you think it's accurate or suggestive of something. Can you provide a link to any nation that has an large amount of people dying under the age of 65? SHouldn't that be your first step if you're going to make a claim that COVID is killing people 12 years too early?
Pot calling the kettle black is you linking an article you didn't read and can't explain, and attempting to claim I'm somehow in error because the actual figures I linked don't remotely align with such a while claim. If we can link grad student studies from mediocre universities and accept them as fact, can I play too?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Covid 19
Of course everyone acknowledges there are consequences, but the financial fall-out just seems so much more manageable (in the sense that we as a society have the tools to soften the impact) than the loss of lives (for which we still don't have an adequate answer in the form of a cure or vaccin).
Do you have anything to support this opinion, or is based on the same appeal to authority as your other posts are. "I don't really have an answer, but I like it when authority tells me it's going to be ok. I'm still going to express an opinion, but when someone tells me not to worry, I just let the people I think are smarter than me make decisions, and accept them. You're crazy if you question any of it."
Re: Covid 19
TheMole wrote:Of course everyone acknowledges there are consequences, but the financial fall-out just seems so much more manageable (in the sense that we as a society have the tools to soften the impact) than the loss of lives (for which we still don't have an adequate answer in the form of a cure or vaccin).
Do you have anything to support this opinion, or is based on the same appeal to authority as your other posts are. "I don't really have an answer, but I like it when authority tells me it's going to be ok. I'm still going to express an opinion, but when someone tells me not to worry, I just let the people I think are smarter than me make decisions, and accept them. You're crazy if you question any of it."
Fuck off flagg...what do you have to support your opinions?
Re: Covid 19
Flagg and buzz would have you believe they know everything...
But in reality, they set up a perfect situation in this thread where they can say one of two things: so many people died the quarantine wasnt worth it or not enough people died we should open up immediately!
They don’t care about the health or the safety of anyone. They care about themselves. Me me me me me! No empathy no concern for anyone ever. Just getting up on their soapbox over and over and over again telling everyone how smart they are.
