Now over 3,000 Covid deaths per day

  • Thread starter Thread starter puer.dei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
Your assumption is just the sort of thinking that people use to justify euthanasia (“ He was going to die anyway! ”).
Click to expand...
No one said anything about euthanasia.

I have seen you do this before.
When you don’t have a logical rebuttal, blindly accuse others of supporting euthanasia.
Click to expand...
To be fair, he is saying we are using the same argument. But I would say we are not using the argument to promote death.
 
qui_est_ce said:
Death certificates often list multiple causes of death. … It does not mean the primary cause of death is covid.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that 3000 people died from covid being the primary cause of death. When they list the number of covid deaths they are doing so to understand how well we are doing in our fight against the pandemic. For that purpose it is appropriate to count every death for which covid played any role at all. It is likely that in most of those deaths in which the patient tested positive for covid, that was in fact the primary cause of death. Those that want to cast doubt on what our public health officials are telling us are doing so without any real statistical data. They are relying on irrational extrapolations from their cherry-picked anecdotes to spread the impression that covid is not having a devastating effect on our society. You won’t find any true believers of that theory among the overworked and exhausted doctors and nurses who have been the real heroes in this crisis.
 
qui_est_ce said:
Death certificates often list multiple causes of death.
Click to expand...
My dad died of a type of cancer that is Agent Orange related, but the physician who wrote the death certificate (and never treated my dad for cancer) listed the type of cancer that was in the original diagnosis six months earlier. My mom was never able to get it changed, which cost her thousands of dollars in VA compensation.
 
vz71 said:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
And I have seen you argue that covid deaths are overcounted before
Click to expand...
They are.
There is plenty of evidence to show that.
Click to expand...
So you say. But the experts who are our public health officials say no such thing. So who should I believe? I will go with the best public health people in the world over some anonymous voice from the Internet.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So you say.
Click to expand...
No, so says the many news articles.
LeafByNiggle said:
But the experts who are our public health officials say no such thing.
Click to expand...
Unless covid can manage to kill someone in a fatal motorcycle accident, the experts would be wrong.
LeafByNiggle said:
I will go with the best public health people in the world over some anonymous voice from the Internet.
Click to expand...
Sure.
Check reason at the door.
Let the other guy do the thinking.
 
Come on! There is no more proof of inflated covid stats than there is of voting irregularities.

(this is my attempt at sarcasm)
 
The big difference I see is the people willing to suspend disbelief on the word of an expert.

Personally, I don’t care what credentials someone has.
If they tell me something that I can verify is false, I will not believe them.
 
vz71 said:
48.png
Motherwit:
Of course I do
Click to expand...
Then answer the questions.
What exactly is “equitable”?
And what exactly is wealthy?

I’m trying to find common ground here, and looking at your position seriously to see if there is agreement anywhere to be found in what you claimed…
Click to expand...
There are dedicated think tanks and organizations who identify problem areas and develop ways of addressing them. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) is one such think tank.

Equity comes from the idea of moral equality, that people should be treated as equals. Thinking about equity can help us decide how to distribute goods and services across society, holding the state responsible for its influence over how goods and services are distributed in a society, and using this influence to ensure fair treatment for all citizens. Applying these ideas in a specific country context involves hard choices, and embedding discussions of distributive justice into domestic political and policy debates is central to national development, but three areas of considerable consensus can be identified.
vz71 said:
48.png
Motherwit:
Part of that was limiting excess profiteering and getting the wealthy to pay equitable tax.
Click to expand...
So, what exactly are you talking about?
Click to expand...
For example the ODI prioritizes these area’s…

1. Equal life chances: There should be no differences in outcomes based on factors for which people cannot be held responsible.

2. Equal concern for people’s needs: Some goods and services are necessities, and should be distributed according solely to the level of need.

3. Meritocracy: Positions in society and rewards should reflect differences in effort and ability, based on fair competition.

https://www.odi.org/publications/3480-equity-development-why-it-important-and-how-achieve-it
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
48.png
Motherwit:
Something has to change
Click to expand...
What exactly?

If you want people to agree with you, you need to articulate what you want.

No one can agree to something that is not clearly defined.
Click to expand...
The ODI goes on to provide some solutions…

Taking equity as a guiding principle brings into focus particular areas of policy. These are existing and emerging areas of policy, but they gain a new importance from an equity perspective. The five core priorities for addressing equity at the national level are:

1. Providing universal public services for fair treatment. This means prioritising universal access to public services, such as health and education, and improving their quality by improving their delivery and strengthening underlying institutions. Infrastructure and law and order are also crucial. Services should be free at the point of delivery wherever possible, and where this is not possible, arrangements should be made to ensure that poor people are not excluded.
2. Targeted action for disadvantaged groups. Government expenditure should favour disadvantaged regions or groups. Quotas can support access to employment for specific excluded groups. Services targeted towards these groups are crucial (e.g. girls’ education), as is providing assistance at key stages of development, such as early childhood. Empowering these groups is also vital, as well as strengthening organisations such as producer organisations, social movements and trade unions.
3. Social protection. Social protection should be provided to ensure that nobody drops below a minimum level of wellbeing, beyond which unmet need will create cycles of disadvantage. Options include: payments such as social insurance or basic income grants; conditional transfers to promote human development; minimum wage policies; guaranteed government employment programmes; and labour market regulations to those in employment.
4. Redistribution. ‘Downstream’ action is required to improve equity by reducing inequality. Progressive taxation can help, if the additional fiscal space created is used to fund interventions that will support equity. Other priorities include lowering taxes on staple goods and applying taxes on property – inheritance taxes are key. Land reform is also crucial and redistribution may be required to provide the poor with productive assets.
5. Challenging embedded power imbalances. Power relations can cause and sustain inequity. Tackling harmful power relations takes time, and the empowerment of disadvantaged people must be combined with improving accountability mechanisms and reforming democratic institutions. It is important to build a vibrant civil society and an independent media. Addressing unhelpful attitudes and beliefs can also help foster social cohesion and build a pro-equity social contract.

Something has to change and there are people working for that change.
 
vz71 said:
The big difference I see is the people willing to suspend disbelief on the word of an expert.

Personally, I don’t care what credentials someone has.
Click to expand...
This is the issue with the standard of “peer review”. In theory, it’s an objective review by an impartial third-party who aims to determine the veracity (or at least reproducibility) of a finding. In practice, a researcher can find someone with similar views to essentially “rubber stamp” a finding. This is particularly true in the social sciences.
 
MikeInVA said:
This is the issue with the standard of “peer review”. In theory, it’s an objective review by an impartial third-party who aims to determine the veracity (or at least reproducibility) of a finding. In practice, a researcher can find someone with similar views to essentially “rubber stamp” a finding. This is particularly true in the social sciences.
Click to expand...
It’s a real problem in research. You have to go where the money is. The people who fund research are looking for results that confirm their biases. Here in my city the research and biotech industry is astonishingly huge.
 
I can also give a first hand example of a questionable static.

I saw an article about an employee, in a specific industry, that died from Covid. I had access to that persons sickness and accident file. The woman died in March, she was already off work for an end stage illness. The article counted her as having died of Covid.
 
If a person with terminal cancer is killed by a bus while crossing the street did they die from cancer or being hit by the bus?
 
Vaccines are too late. Anything short of a martial law style lockdown in every major city, this country is going to be brought to its knees.

This pandemic is going to hand China the world on a silver platter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top