Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 19:20:04 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 19:32:37 GMT
There's an aspect to this that I don't see people discussing, at least not calmly and rationally.
The fact that COVID-19 is becoming the leading cause of death sounds bad. But is not, by itself, very informative. It would be if it attacked all people more or less equally.
But it doesn't.
We know that C-19 is harshest on those who are elderly and those already suffering from other maladies and for most of the rest of the population it is not only not lethal, but many are asymptomatic.
It sounds cold, but we either can deal with facts or deal with emotions. The leading cause of death is heart disease, right? And that's just another way of saying heart attack, true?
In other words, most people die of old age when their heart wears out.
What we need to know is not how many people C-19 is killing, but what it is doing to our life expectancy. And I haven't seen that data posted. If someone has it, great. Please post it.
If it is becoming the #1 killer because it's wiping out 50% of seniors, 30% of other adults and 10% of kids, that's some serious stuff. That's going to lower life expectancy by decades.
On the other hand, if it's becoming the #1 killer because it's wiping out 95% of those who were almost certainly going to die in the next 2 years anyway...well, that's another story. That's lowering our life expectancy by months at most, and possibly much less than that. We're just exchanging one cause of death for another.
Without that data, we have a scary headline, but no helpful information.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 23, 2020 20:31:40 GMT
The number cannot be accurate, because they are:
1) Untested 2) Unconfirmed
Therefore, while your math is spot on (you obviously know how to calculate percentages), the data you are using is from untested and unconfirmed supposed "cases"
Also your data is from March - when the pandemic was just getting started in the USA. It is OBSOLETE.
Let's look at more recent stats. For the USA alone, as of June 23, 2020:
2,413,716 confirmed cases, with 123,318 deaths. Do the math. That works out to a 5.1% death toll.
It is projected over 200,000 deaths in the USA from Covid19 by October 1, 2020.
Assuming that untested people will have a certain percent of infection is unreliable guesswork. But I can see why some want to utilize that approach if it supports their preconceived notions - public health be damned.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 23, 2020 20:34:39 GMT
There's an aspect to this that I don't see people discussing, at least not calmly and rationally. The fact that COVID-19 is becoming the leading cause of death sounds bad. But is not, by itself, very informative. It would be if it attacked all people more or less equally. But it doesn't. We know that C-19 is harshest on those who are elderly and those already suffering from other maladies and for most of the rest of the population it is not only not lethal, but many are asymptomatic. It sounds cold, but we either can deal with facts or deal with emotions. The leading cause of death is heart disease, right? And that's just another way of saying heart attack, true? In other words, most people die of old age when their heart wears out. What we need to know is not how many people C-19 is killing, but what it is doing to our life expectancy. And I haven't seen that data posted. If someone has it, great. Please post it. If it is becoming the #1 killer because it's wiping out 50% of seniors, 30% of other adults and 10% of kids, that's some serious stuff. That's going to lower life expectancy by decades. On the other hand, if it's becoming the #1 killer because it's wiping out 95% of those who were almost certainly going to die in the next 2 years anyway...well, that's another story. That's lowering our life expectancy by months at most, and possibly much less than that. We're just exchanging one cause of death for another.Without that data, we have a scary headline, but no helpful information.
Purely speculative on your part. Pollyanna much?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 20:50:06 GMT
The number cannot be accurate, because they are:
1) Untested 2) Unconfirmed
Therefore, while your math is spot on (you obviously know how to calculate percentages), the data you are using is from untested and unconfirmed supposed "cases"
Also your data is from March - when the pandemic was just getting started in the USA. It is OBSOLETE.
Let's look at more recent stats. For the USA alone, as of June 23, 2020:
2,413,716 confirmed cases, with 123,318 deaths. Do the math. That works out to a 5.1% death toll.
It is projected over 200,000 deaths in the USA from Covid19 by October 1, 2020.
Assuming that untested people will have a certain percent of infection is unreliable guesswork. But I can see why some want to utilize that approach if it supports their preconceived notions - public health be damned.
Oh yes, the data is obsolete. Since then we have learned that a ventilator makes the problems worse and that the reason people die is because their body is over reacting to the virus. New drugs are treating that problem and deaths per hospitalization are going down. So the infection mortality rate is likely even lower. As for the data being accurate, it is true that they are estimates. But look at where he got the estimates from. People that visited the doctor. There are a lot more that didn't visit the doctor because it was just a mild cough or they had no symptoms at all. The exact number is still unknown. It'll be a long time before we know for sure. But we do know that the infection mortality rate is low but living life still goes on. You can do it with a mask. I choose not.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 23, 2020 21:40:43 GMT
The number cannot be accurate, because they are:
1) Untested 2) Unconfirmed
Therefore, while your math is spot on (you obviously know how to calculate percentages), the data you are using is from untested and unconfirmed supposed "cases"
Also your data is from March - when the pandemic was just getting started in the USA. It is OBSOLETE.
Let's look at more recent stats. For the USA alone, as of June 23, 2020:
2,413,716 confirmed cases, with 123,318 deaths. Do the math. That works out to a 5.1% death toll.
It is projected over 200,000 deaths in the USA from Covid19 by October 1, 2020.
Assuming that untested people will have a certain percent of infection is unreliable guesswork. But I can see why some want to utilize that approach if it supports their preconceived notions - public health be damned.
Oh yes, the data is obsolete. Since then we have learned that a ventilator makes the problems worse and that the reason people die is because their body is over reacting to the virus. New drugs are treating that problem and deaths per hospitalization are going down. So the infection mortality rate is likely even lower. As for the data being accurate, it is true that they are estimates. But look at where he got the estimates from. People that visited the doctor. There are a lot more that didn't visit the doctor because it was just a mild cough or they had no symptoms at all. The exact number is still unknown. It'll be a long time before we know for sure. But we do know that the infection mortality rate is low but living life still goes on. You can do it with a mask. I choose not. Again, you are using guesswork to estimate an unnaturally low death rate.
Again, the death rate for confirmed Covid19 cases is about 5%, not 0.2 % as you are trying to assert.
And if you're going to blame a low testing rate, who the FUCK'S fault is that?
Can you say, Cheetolini?
And he wants LESS TESTING, not more.
Kind of blows up your entire position, whatever it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 22:14:35 GMT
There's an aspect to this that I don't see people discussing, at least not calmly and rationally. The fact that COVID-19 is becoming the leading cause of death sounds bad. But is not, by itself, very informative. It would be if it attacked all people more or less equally. But it doesn't. We know that C-19 is harshest on those who are elderly and those already suffering from other maladies and for most of the rest of the population it is not only not lethal, but many are asymptomatic. It sounds cold, but we either can deal with facts or deal with emotions. The leading cause of death is heart disease, right? And that's just another way of saying heart attack, true? In other words, most people die of old age when their heart wears out. What we need to know is not how many people C-19 is killing, but what it is doing to our life expectancy. And I haven't seen that data posted. If someone has it, great. Please post it. If it is becoming the #1 killer because it's wiping out 50% of seniors, 30% of other adults and 10% of kids, that's some serious stuff. That's going to lower life expectancy by decades. On the other hand, if it's becoming the #1 killer because it's wiping out 95% of those who were almost certainly going to die in the next 2 years anyway...well, that's another story. That's lowering our life expectancy by months at most, and possibly much less than that. We're just exchanging one cause of death for another.Without that data, we have a scary headline, but no helpful information.
Purely speculative on your part. Pollyanna much?
My obvious point was that the lack of data means the headline is meaningless by itself. My examples were meant to demonstrate that point, not represent the truth. Your fundamental misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of my post is made obvious by the fact that you accuse me of being Pollyanna for my second example, but had no problem with my first, which was just as extreme (if not moreso), but in the direction which supports your preconceptions.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 23, 2020 23:14:39 GMT
Purely speculative on your part. Pollyanna much?
My obvious point was that the lack of data means the headline is meaningless by itself. My examples were meant to demonstrate that point, not represent the truth. Your fundamental misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of my post is made obvious by the fact that you accuse me of being Pollyanna for my second example, but had no problem with my first, which was just as extreme (if not moreso), but in the direction which supports your preconceptions. I misrepresented none of what you wrote.
It may surprise you to learn that I don't hang on your every turgid phrase.
My criticism stands unchallenged: purely speculative.
If you had a point to make, please let us know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 23:39:49 GMT
My obvious point was that the lack of data means the headline is meaningless by itself. My examples were meant to demonstrate that point, not represent the truth. Your fundamental misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of my post is made obvious by the fact that you accuse me of being Pollyanna for my second example, but had no problem with my first, which was just as extreme (if not moreso), but in the direction which supports your preconceptions. I misrepresented none of what you wrote.
It may surprise you to learn that I don't hang on your every turgid phrase.
My criticism stands unchallenged: purely speculative.
If you had a point to make, please let us know.
I literally explained my point using the words "My obvious point was..." I can't be more clear than that. I don't care if you don't read my posts, but responding to posts you don't read is a strange habit. And, since you aren't reading what you're responding to, you have no idea whether or not you're misrepresenting my posts. In fact, you would be the absolute worst judge of that fact.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 23, 2020 23:47:43 GMT
I misrepresented none of what you wrote.
It may surprise you to learn that I don't hang on your every turgid phrase.
My criticism stands unchallenged: purely speculative.
If you had a point to make, please let us know.
I literally explained my point using the words "My obvious point was..." I can't be more clear than that. I don't care if you don't read my posts, but responding to posts you don't read is a strange habit. And, since you aren't reading what you're responding to, you have no idea whether or not you're misrepresenting my posts. In fact, you would be the absolute worst judge of that fact.
Have a nice evening!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 23:55:57 GMT
I literally explained my point using the words "My obvious point was..." I can't be more clear than that. I don't care if you don't read my posts, but responding to posts you don't read is a strange habit. And, since you aren't reading what you're responding to, you have no idea whether or not you're misrepresenting my posts. In fact, you would be the absolute worst judge of that fact.
Have a nice evening!
I will! Nice weather in my corner of the world tonight. You have one too.
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Jun 23, 2020 23:56:59 GMT
Wearing a mask is about protecting other people, not yourself. You don't give shit about your fellow man, that's obvious.
Love your neighbor as you would yourself, remember? Oh wait, you forgot to add your twist.... "when it's convenient for you"
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Jun 24, 2020 0:06:06 GMT
The number cannot be accurate, because they are:
1) Untested 2) Unconfirmed
Therefore, while your math is spot on (you obviously know how to calculate percentages), the data you are using is from untested and unconfirmed supposed "cases"
Also your data is from March - when the pandemic was just getting started in the USA. It is OBSOLETE.
Let's look at more recent stats. For the USA alone, as of June 23, 2020:
2,413,716 confirmed cases, with 123,318 deaths. Do the math. That works out to a 5.1% death toll.
It is projected over 200,000 deaths in the USA from Covid19 by October 1, 2020.
Assuming that untested people will have a certain percent of infection is unreliable guesswork. But I can see why some want to utilize that approach if it supports their preconceived notions - public health be damned.
It's pretty funny that you criticize him for using data from March in the same thread that you started with propaganda from April. Are you simply not woke yet?
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 24, 2020 0:40:23 GMT
The number cannot be accurate, because they are:
1) Untested 2) Unconfirmed
Therefore, while your math is spot on (you obviously know how to calculate percentages), the data you are using is from untested and unconfirmed supposed "cases"
Also your data is from March - when the pandemic was just getting started in the USA. It is OBSOLETE.
Let's look at more recent stats. For the USA alone, as of June 23, 2020:
2,413,716 confirmed cases, with 123,318 deaths. Do the math. That works out to a 5.1% death toll.
It is projected over 200,000 deaths in the USA from Covid19 by October 1, 2020.
Assuming that untested people will have a certain percent of infection is unreliable guesswork. But I can see why some want to utilize that approach if it supports their preconceived notions - public health be damned.
It's pretty funny that you criticize him for using data from March in the same thread that you started with propaganda from April. Are you simply not woke yet?
How's that Covid brain damage working for you?
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Jun 24, 2020 0:45:18 GMT
It's pretty funny that you criticize him for using data from March in the same thread that you started with propaganda from April. Are you simply not woke yet?
How's that Covid brain damage working for you?
🤦🏻♂️ Do better, you're embarrassing yourself.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 24, 2020 2:13:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 2:18:50 GMT
Oh yes, the data is obsolete. Since then we have learned that a ventilator makes the problems worse and that the reason people die is because their body is over reacting to the virus. New drugs are treating that problem and deaths per hospitalization are going down. So the infection mortality rate is likely even lower. As for the data being accurate, it is true that they are estimates. But look at where he got the estimates from. People that visited the doctor. There are a lot more that didn't visit the doctor because it was just a mild cough or they had no symptoms at all. The exact number is still unknown. It'll be a long time before we know for sure. But we do know that the infection mortality rate is low but living life still goes on. You can do it with a mask. I choose not. Again, you are using guesswork to estimate an unnaturally low death rate.
Again, the death rate for confirmed Covid19 cases is about 5%, not 0.2 % as you are trying to assert.
And if you're going to blame a low testing rate, who the FUCK'S fault is that?
Can you say, Cheetolini?
And he wants LESS TESTING, not more.
Kind of blows up your entire position, whatever it is.
There is a lot of anger here. Why? Moving on...The death rate is hard to lock down. We are using estimates right now. It'll take a while and some long term studies to better understand it. But here is an article that confirms that the estimate I came up with from the latest study isn't that different from previous studies.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 24, 2020 2:20:20 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 2:20:35 GMT
Wearing a mask is about protecting other people, not yourself. You don't give shit about your fellow man, that's obvious.
Love your neighbor as you would yourself, remember? Oh wait, you forgot to add your twist.... "when it's convenient for you"
It is not about protecting other people. If you wear a quality mask, you are safe. If you don't want to take a risk, stay home.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 24, 2020 2:22:10 GMT
Again, you are using guesswork to estimate an unnaturally low death rate.
Again, the death rate for confirmed Covid19 cases is about 5%, not 0.2 % as you are trying to assert.
And if you're going to blame a low testing rate, who the FUCK'S fault is that?
Can you say, Cheetolini?
And he wants LESS TESTING, not more.
Kind of blows up your entire position, whatever it is.
There is a lot of anger here. Why? Moving on...The death rate is hard to lock down. We are using estimates right now. It'll take a while and some long term studies to better understand it. But here is an article that confirms that the estimate I came up with from the latest study isn't that different from previous studies.
Anger?
You mean from the Covidenialists who bristle at the very suggestion that they wear face masks to protect others?
That anger?
|
|