JoeFreedom
New member
I’m not responding to your so called knowledge of “the facts” or your editor memory but your crass opinion you know everything about what is right when it comes to politics. That’s YOUR opinion.
Who's Going to Pay the Bills?: Purpose-Driven Coronavirus Business Shutdowns Cause Economic Catastrophe
- Status
A
Anrakyr
Guest
Which is backed up by science.
Last edited:
J
jeannetherese
Guest
G
GEddie
Guest
Last two times what? International epidemics are thankfully rare. The last being in 1918. No, a war didn’t occur, as one was already going on.
Before that? 1665? An entirely different world, socioenomically.
ICXC NIKA
Before that? 1665? An entirely different world, socioenomically.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
What’s the alternative? Growing your own food isn’t an option. Most people can’t afford the land, or live in areas where that isn’t practical.
Biological life IS a risk. You could take every precaution, avoid COVID19, and die of a head-aneurysm the day Fauci sounds the all-clear. You could slip and break your neck standing in a social-distance queue.
Some physical risks are inseparable from natural life.
ICXC NIKA
Biological life IS a risk. You could take every precaution, avoid COVID19, and die of a head-aneurysm the day Fauci sounds the all-clear. You could slip and break your neck standing in a social-distance queue.
Some physical risks are inseparable from natural life.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
DJIA =Dow Jones Industrial Avg. ( “The Dow.” )
FTSE= Financial Times Stock Exchange (the one in London.)
FTSE= Financial Times Stock Exchange (the one in London.)
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Thanks GEddie!
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This is not a correct comparison because there are reliable methods of calculating the total number affected by the seasonal flu. It isn’t a mystery.
What is a mystery with COVID-19 is the actual number infected, so the death rate remains a mystery.
Your 2% figure is based solely on positive testing and in the large majority of regions and countries testing it is based upon reporting of symptoms, so the sample is skewed from the beginning.
Fortunately, there are now serological tests being given to random samples of people within communities impacted by the virus. Those numbers tell a very different story.
This sampling of 3000 done in California indicates that between 2.5 and 4.2% of the population of Santa Clara County have already been infected (**between 48,000 and 81,000 people **). That is 50 (to) 85 times the number of ‘official’ cases. That means your 2% figure drops to about the same level as the seasonal flu in terms of the deadliness of COVID-19. Instead of death rates of 2-3 per 100, the real rate would be about 1 per 1000.
Hey, and look, I used a source that might even suit your “idea of valid.” To be completely honest, there are three or four more complete and detailed discussions of that sampling that would have been more informative but that you likely would have dismissed as not “valid.” So I suppose we have to go with your standard even though it is far less informative. I’ll sneak one in here.
Other studies done in Germany, Italy, Boston (with homeless individuals) and New York (with women delivering babies in hospital) are showing that the virus is far more widespread than what merely positive test cases are showing. Serology testing on random samples across different sectors of the population would provide a far better picture.
Therefore, the death rate is likely far lower than we have been led to believe.
Your article was written March 12. Much more is known now about the virus than even a month ago.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This may be something of a misrepresentation.Not to derail the thread but simply replace virus with abortion and reread your statement.
Is avoiding financial suffering ever a good compromise to death?
Sweden has done very little mitigation and their case and death rates are not much different than the US or the UK.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coron...ompare-canada-and-other-key-nations-1.4881500
@Anrakyr might want to take note that the US death rate is currently lower than most of the other European countries and that the projections from IHME are continually being lowered.
There won’t be anywhere near 3 million dead because the 5% mortality rate is far too high because of the way mortalities are being certified in many European countries and because the actual prevalence of the virus is far more than can be assessed from current positive test results. Antibody or serology testing on large samples of different sectors of the population is necessary to determine the real mortality rate.
Your points are largely based on outdated media reports.
Last edited:
farronwolf
New member
These numbers will continue to be updated.
The flu numbers are based on modeling and the testing done. Every person isn’t tested for the flu every year. So those are estimates, based on models from folks who do this stuff for a living.
What the final numbers for Covid 19 are will be determined. If you think that nearly 40k deaths in just over 7 weeks time isn’t something serious. I don’t know what we can talk about.
If this was to go unmitigated for an entire year. that would equate to about 300k deaths. Would that be enough for people to be concerned. Some probably wouldn’t be concerned with those numbers even i fear.
The flu numbers are based on modeling and the testing done. Every person isn’t tested for the flu every year. So those are estimates, based on models from folks who do this stuff for a living.
What the final numbers for Covid 19 are will be determined. If you think that nearly 40k deaths in just over 7 weeks time isn’t something serious. I don’t know what we can talk about.
If this was to go unmitigated for an entire year. that would equate to about 300k deaths. Would that be enough for people to be concerned. Some probably wouldn’t be concerned with those numbers even i fear.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
I’m worried the US Healthcare can’t keep up. Looks early in the curve.
They are based on projection of a unrestricted virus.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
For one thing, we don’t know yet if the antibody tests being used today are accurate and specific - that is, that they are not detecting antibodies from a bout with the common cold, which is often also another corona virus.
Also, when evaluating the risk of Covid-19 vs seasonal flu there are two factors to take into account. One is the death rate. The other is the infection rate, that is, how infectious the virus is. Analyzing just one of these factors in isolation does not tell the whole picture. If the antibody data is true, it also means this virus is a lot more infectious than we thought.
Also, people get vaccines for the flu which helps somewhat. There is no vaccine for Covid-19 or any pre-existing exposure immunity.
Also, Covid-19 has only been with us for a short while. It has not had time to spread to every corner of the nation like the seasonal flu does.
Also, New York has never had to process so many dead bodies at once from the seasonal flu. The seasonal flu has never overwhelmed the health care system like it is now. This should serve as a reality check on theoretical arguments that covid-19 is not more dangerous than the seasonal flu.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
There are questions regarding how those deaths were determined.
Anyone with COVID-19 is being determined to have died from COVID-19, irrespective of the underlying conditions. That is hardly a reliable or accurate determination.
I’ll give you that it appears to be highly infectious, so the numbers of deaths have been escalating in some places. However, the variability in those numbers in different areas should give us all pause so we do not jump to premature conclusions.
Something seems very fishy when death rates and raw numbers of infections seem to vary so greatly across jurisdictions.
That variability implies that it is very difficult to make any “equate” statements at the moment.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
New York appears to be very liberal about counting deaths at the moment. Sure, you have defended those counts recently, but not with completely satisfactory reasons — just “statistically justified,” whatever that means.
The numbers of deaths in a short time may reflect how infectious the virus is, more so than its lethality. It could have a lethality en par with the seasonal flu but has spread far more rapidly than preceding viruses. Proper serology testing is necessary to determine the real fatality rate, regardless of your conjecture.
A comparable set of data comes from the H1N1 (swine flu) epidemic in 2009.
WHO and the CDC ascertained that there were 1,632,710 (confirmed) cases with
18,449 (lab-confirmed) deaths. However flu patients who died were generally not tested at the time but the CDC and WHO estimate the death toll at around 284,000 (with a range between 151,700-575,400 world-wide).
So 284 000 (estimated) deaths out of 1 632 710 cases is a fatality rate of .17.
Currently, there have been 165 054 deaths from 2 406 823 cases of COVID-19. The fatality rate would be .068. That would be less than half of H1N1. Yes, I understand many of those cases are unresolved and the number of deaths will rise.
So, it is possible that COVID spreads faster, causing a high number of deaths but still be less lethal than H1N1, for example, because of its higher infection rate. The higher number of infections in a relatively short amount of time bears that out. As you have said, “Covid-19 has only been with us for a short while.” H1N1 lasted from Jan 2009 to Aug 2010, with about only 66% of the infections and 1.7 times the deaths.
Slower infection rate BUT higher fatality rate are both possible.
As is higher infection rate, MORE death overall, but lower fatality rate.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Certainly everyone is concerned with those numbers.
However, the issue is that some have tunnel vision with regard to suffering and deaths.
The world goes on despite that there is a pandemic raging. When large numbers of people are out of work or confined to small spaces for weeks on end, many of those tend to get depressed or exhibit a wide range behaviours that could also result in serious health and mortality issues. To say nothing of those with serious health issues not being permitted to go to hospitals because of the crisis situation.
So what you are seeing as a “wouldn’t be concerned” should more accurately be read as having a more wide-ranging concern with the entire picture.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I would say the “More death overall” is more important to our nation than the “lower fatality rate”.
And of course all of this is still continent on the antibody tests proving to be specific.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
“More important” than fatality rate in this case for sure, but certainly not the only consideration with regard to keeping much of the economy shut down. At some point the cost of that will begin to outweigh the cost in COVID-19 fatalities because lives and livelihoods will begin to be lost from other causes in large numbers.HarryStotle:
I would say the “More death overall” is more important to our nation than the “lower fatality rate”.
This is why antibody tests are important to get a sense of total prevalence and who can safely work even where the disease is prevalent.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is true. Without large scale testing for both antibodies and infection we are forced to fly blind and that is why the shutdown is more broad-based than it might have been with more testing.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I found this article rather interesting.HarryStotle:
That is true. Without large scale testing for both antibodies and infection we are forced to fly blind and that is why the shutdown is more broad-based than it might have been with more testing.
You might want to explain your prior claim that New York was “statistically justified” in including between 3700 and 5000 deaths from unknown causes — irrespective of whether those decedents tested positive or not — into the deaths tolls from COVID-19.
It appears that the mortality rate per million in the New York City area is double or higher than some of the worst death rates of any country in the world.
Still “statistically justified?”
Now you might want to argue that NewYork City is a metro area while the others are countries that have rates averaged over the entire country. That would be a valid point, but then there is this…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The deaths included from “unknown causes” are deaths that are most likely covid-19, based on symptoms and circumstances. They are statistically justified because the numbers of these deaths cannot be explained by the typical number of deaths due to other possible causes. The deaths in nursing homes, for instance, did not get a chance to be tested before they died. And although it may be theoretically possible to test post-mortum, the scarcity of testing supplies mandates that at this time those tests be reserved for the living - especially those who may have infected others.
There is no question that the high-density city populations have many more deaths compared to outstate areas with less occasion for interaction. But as we have seen in some pork processing plants in fairly small cities, serious outbreaks can still occur when people gather in large numbers in close quarters. Here in Minnesota they just closed the biggest pork processing plant in Minnesota, located in Worthington, a city with a population of about 13,000 located 50 miles from the nearest somewhat larger city of Sioux Falls, SD, all because of a serious outbreak of covid-19 at the plant.
Last edited:
- Status