Coronavirus math
Quote: DeMangoYup, those with no underlying conditions need to know the true odds.
Doesn't change the fact nearly 200,000 Americans have died.
Those people with underlying conditions were still Americans whose deaths came about from Covid-19.
This selective math is simply attempted misdirection.
It can work with anything really.
Number of people who contracted Chlamydia directly without having sex? Zero.
People who are abstinent should know the odds.
Pointless, right?
Quote: billryanAlmost everyone I know who caught Chlamyda insisted they got it from a toilet seat.
Lol, they lied to you
https://tinyurl.com/y4my9ze4
The risk of dying from COVID-19 is 1% in the low-risk group, 10% in the intermediate-risk group, 31% in the high-risk group, and 62% in the very high-risk group.
"Key model predicts as many as 10,000 deaths daily in December!" - CNN chyron 9-12-20
I guess the TSA could have COVID-19 sniffing dogs at some point. No word if they'll bite your leg off if they think you have COVID-19.
Quote: darkozFact: The FDA has revoked the EUA for Hydroxychloriquine for Covid-19.
It's as effective as Penicillin in the fight against Covid-19.
It has shown good results when used early. We seem to have a problem with common sense medicine these days and instead want to wait for an “approved” miracle pill.
I would rather it than some vaccine they rushed out.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt has shown good results when used early. We seem to have a problem with common sense medicine these days and instead want to wait for an “approved” miracle pill.
I would rather it than some vaccine they rushed out.
Not really. Any drug administered soon after infection will show good results as the vast majority of infected people don't progress into the serious phase. If McDonalds was to put everyone who test positive on an all Big Mac diet for two weeks, it could show good results.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt has shown good results when used early. We seem to have a problem with common sense medicine these days and instead want to wait for an “approved” miracle pill.
I would rather it than some vaccine they rushed out.
Yup, they can't make any money off medications around for whatever amount of time this has been.
Quote: billryanNot really. Any drug administered soon after infection will show good results as the vast majority of infected people don't progress into the serious phase. If McDonalds was to put everyone who test positive on an all Big Mac diet for two weeks, it could show good results.
Bill Ryan's point is correct, AZ.
The only way to measure success with mild/moderate patients (i.e. at the stage where they either progressively get worse or improve and beat the virus on their own) is to use hard clinical data (viral load, Antibodies, and a number of other data sets) that are not observational but measured through lab results.
If a drug can show reduction in viral load for example then it can be said to be efficacious in the early stages.
So far in clinical trials only one drug has shown such results and it's not Hydroxychloriquine (hint: it's a drug I have invested in and spoken about before)
Quote: darkozBill Ryan's point is correct, AZ.
The only way to measure success with mild/moderate patients (i.e. at the stage where they either progressively get worse or improve and beat the virus on their own) is to use hard clinical data (viral load, Antibodies, and a number of other data sets) that are not observational but measured through lab results.
If a drug can show reduction in viral load for example then it can be said to be efficacious in the early stages.
So far in clinical trials only one drug has shown such results and it's not Hydroxychloriquine (hint: it's a drug I have invested in and spoken about before)
It does not have to reduce the viral load. It just has to mitigate the effects. Hydroxychloriquine + Zinc has shown itself to increase survival rates, which is what really matters. You are waiting for the miracle. But the answer is here. Sad thing is some people do not like the answer so want to deny it to patients.
We are at my count about 190 days into this in the USA, my starting date being when the shutdowns all started happening. That is no time for serious clinical trials. But we do have word from the field saying, "TRY THIS! WE HAVE HAD GOOD RESULTS!"
We should be letting people try it.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt does not have to reduce the viral load. It just has to mitigate the effects. Hydroxychloriquine + Zinc has shown itself to increase survival rates, which is what really matters. You are waiting for the miracle. But the answer is here. Sad thing is some people do not like the answer so want to deny it to patients.
We are at my count about 190 days into this in the USA, my starting date being when the shutdowns all started happening. That is no time for serious clinical trials. But we do have word from the field saying, "TRY THIS! WE HAVE HAD GOOD RESULTS!"
We should be letting people try it.
Let people try Snicker's bars and Skittles for Covid-19
As for Hydroxychloriquine people HAVE TRIED IT.
Studies in NEJM says it doesn't work
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014
American College of Medicine studied it's efficacy on Covid-19 and found it doesn't work.
https://www.contagionlive.com/news/acp-says-its-guidance-against-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-for-covid19-unlikely-to-change
John's Hopkins has found it doesn't work
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/covid-19-story-tip-hydroxychloroquine-not-recommended-for-treatment-of-covid-19
And the FDA says it doesn't work
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and
I don't know why you keep insisting on going against scientific studies and this no time for clinical trials is the worst belief of all.
Like I said, might as well suggest Skittles as a covid cure
Quote: AZDuffmanIt does not have to reduce the viral load. It just has to mitigate the effects. Hydroxychloriquine + Zinc has shown itself to increase survival rates, which is what really matters. You are waiting for the miracle. But the answer is here. Sad thing is some people do not like the answer so want to deny it to patients.
We are at my count about 190 days into this in the USA, my starting date being when the shutdowns all started happening. That is no time for serious clinical trials. But we do have word from the field saying, "TRY THIS! WE HAVE HAD GOOD RESULTS!"
We should be letting people try it.
Is anyone stopping anyone? People can try it, just as they can ingest bleach or drink water laced with silver or a million other " cures" floating around the internet. Zinc seems to have some effect. Vitamin D supplements seem to have some use.
If people want to try voodoo, they should be allowed. But the government shouldn't be pushing it.
If a pastor went on tv and without any scientific evidence claimed that ten people were cured by having naked virgins pray over them for 72 hours, do you think the government should start looking to hire virgins willing to pray naked?
Quote: darkozLet people try Snicker's bars and Skittles for Covid-19
As for Hydroxychloriquine people HAVE TRIED IT.
Studies in NEJM says it doesn't work
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014
American College of Medicine studied it's efficacy on Covid-19 and found it doesn't work.
https://www.contagionlive.com/news/acp-says-its-guidance-against-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-for-covid19-unlikely-to-change
John's Hopkins has found it doesn't work
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/covid-19-story-tip-hydroxychloroquine-not-recommended-for-treatment-of-covid-19
And the FDA says it doesn't work
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and
I don't know why you keep insisting on going against scientific studies and this no time for clinical trials is the worst belief of all.
Because we have not had time for a valid study. We do have reports form all over that it has been working. Why do you think people are wanting to try it? Why do you think doctors keep prescribing it.
What I do not get is why so many people are reflexively against it.
Quote:Like I said, might as well suggest Skittles as a covid cure
Aren't you going to wait for a study to tell you if they work?
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause we have not had time for a valid study. We do have reports form all over that it has been working. Why do you think people are wanting to try it? Why do you think doctors keep prescribing it.
What I do not get is why so many people are reflexively against it.
Aren't you going to wait for a study to tell you if they work?
All the links I gave show studies
If you wish to ignore the studies that's on you. But ignoring facts doesn't change facts.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause we have not had time for a valid study. We do have reports form all over that it has been working. Why do you think people are wanting to try it? Why do you think doctors keep prescribing it.
What I do not get is why so many people are reflexively against it.
Aren't you going to wait for a study to tell you if they work?
Actual data shows that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work. "Reports from all over" is an appeal to anecdotal evidence, which is almost an oxymoron. "Anecdotal evidence" is, by definition, not statistical.
If you want to read a series of articles pretty much destroying all of the HCQ positive blips that pop up from various people, such as Rep. Louie Gohmert and the President, I recommend the following:
www.respectfulinsolence.com
Specifically, the blog debunks HCQ on the following blog entry dates:
1) July 24 -- "Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch defends hydroxychloroquine in Newsweek -- badly."
2) July 29 -- "Hydroxychloroquine: The black knight of treatments for COVID-19."
3) August 17 -- The astroturf effort promoting hydroxyhloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 continues apace."
And for those who latched onto the CDC disinformation info that made headlines regarding "94% comorbidity," --
4) August 31 -- "The 'only 6%' gambit": The latest viral COVID-19 disinformation."
I suspect Shackleford may like the writing style of the respectfulinsolence blog.
Quote: ChumpChangeEven if they found a vaccine by mid-2021, they'd need 14 billion doses to supply the world and it would take years to do that, not counting the antivaxxers and 3rd world COVID-19 countries like the USA. We're looking at 3-5 years more of lock downs easily.
That's why we need Therapuetics not vaccines
Quote: darkozThat's why we need Therapuetics not vaccines
Are you sure they wouldn't run into the same problem? I mean, we ran out of freakin' toilet paper for awhile there. And that's just paper.
Quote: rxwineAre you sure they wouldn't run into the same problem? I mean, we ran out of freakin' toilet paper for awhile there. And that's just paper.
That's correct there will be an initial shortage.
But Therapuetics are distributed to the sick so NOT everyone in the world.
Within a few months the supply should catch up to demand with Therapuetics.
Quote: darkozAll the links I gave show studies
If you wish to ignore the studies that's on you. But ignoring facts doesn't change facts.
Yet you ignore the results we have seen and instead want to believe a study done in such a short time as to have no real value.
Seems to me you like to pick and choose when to believe science.
Quote: ChumpChangeEven if they found a vaccine by mid-2021, they'd need 14 billion doses to supply the world and it would take years to do that, not counting the antivaxxers and 3rd world COVID-19 countries like the USA. We're looking at 3-5 years more of lock downs easily.
The entire population does not need to be vaccinated. Look at how smallpox was eradicated. It was not by vaccinating everyone, it was by hitting just the hot areas.
3-5 years of lockdowns? Are you insane? No way we can survive that. We need to be opening back up now. The curve has been flattened.
Quote: AZDuffmanYet you ignore the results we have seen and instead want to believe a study done in such a short time as to have no real value.
Seems to me you like to pick and choose when to believe science.
Wrong
I believe studies based on their credibility.
The studies I linked to were:
1) The FDA
2) John's Hopkins
3) American College of Medicine
4). the New England Journal of Medicine.
Let's take the FDA. They are the governmental body that decides everything that is safe and efficacious for the entire USA
Let's take the NEJM -. This is a journal that will not print any study unless it is peer reviewed. I don't know if you understand what peer reviewed means but basically if they received an article about Hydroxychloriquine from a guy named AZDuffman they would only print it after other medical professionals reviewed the data and agreed with the findings based wholely on their knowledge of science. If your claims were wrong your stuff isn't getting published.
John's Hopkins is a world famous hospital. Look it up.
When ALL THOSE PLACES SAY THEIR STUDIES SHOW HYDROXYCHLORIQUINE DOESN'T WORK... GUESS WHAT. IT DON'T WORK!
Quote: ChumpChangeIf the curve was flattened the whole country would be shutdown every day we had over 500 new cases.
The curve is flattened. Only 1,000 or so deaths a day and of those only 50 or so are strictly from the virus, the rest it is just one of 3 contributing factors. It is not the parabolic growth we were warned about in March. Thus we should be opening up, not living locked down.
Some risk has to be lived with.
Quote: ChumpChangeI'm gonna go with a 20% fatality rate because hospitals are gonna shut their doors. 66 million Americans dead from #COVID19! #NoHerdMentality
190+ days since the shutdowns started. When exactly do you predict this will happen?
Quote: ChumpChange80% of those applying for unemployment haven't even been paid yet.
I think you need to check your facts. It is probably closer to 1% to 2%.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe curve is flattened. Only 1,000 or so deaths a day and of those only 50 or so are strictly from the virus, the rest it is just one of 3 contributing factors. It is not the parabolic growth we were warned about in March. Thus we should be opening up, not living locked down.
Some risk has to be lived with.
The above is a bizarre and inaccurate statement on two counts.
First, the United States is not "locked down" in any meaningful sense. What states are doing does not qualify as a "lockdown" according to the guidelines for lockdowns as issued by the CDC. And as compared to other countries, not only is what the United States currently doing not qualify as a "lockdown," the actual state lockdowns months ago had more gentle restrictions and lasted a much shorter time than other countries' lockdowns.
Just because an individual decides to use his or her own definition of "lockdown" for a political argument does not mean that definition has any credibility, merit, or practical applicability.
We can all define things in idiosyncratic ways to make various arguments, but if we're going to impose our own idiosyncratic definitions on words that aren't shared by the rest of the world or the medical community, well, then we are best served simply talking to ourselves.
Second, the idea that "50 or so" of the thousand daily deaths is due to coronavirus can be debunked fairly easily. What the writer is suggesting is that unless the thousand deaths can be attributed solely and cleanly to coronavirus with no tangential contributors, then coronavirus has killed just the 50 or so. This presumes a unique manner of death attribution for coronavirus as opposed to other causes of death. For example, since 40% of Americans are obese, any American who dies of cancer or ALS or any disease should, according to the author, not have cancer or ALS listed as "cause of death" because there were other contributing factors. Then add in the 15% or 17% of Americans who have diabetes, and again, you should be asterisk-ing the causes of death due to comorbidity from diabetes. And go down the list for more.
Comorbidity does not mean the other factors caused the death. It means they were present.
In addition, the mythology that Covid-19 is not responsible for 1,000 deaths a day can easily be debunked because the death tally the last six months is well above the normal death tallies for the same period in previous years by more than the 200,000 generally quoted these days. You can't hide from the tally. It's there above and beyond the demographic and epidemiological records of the past years.
So unless you're positing that the 1,000 additional deaths a day are due to smoking weed at home, heart attacks due to stress, or some novel new mysterious unidentified cause of death, like radiation poisoning or some other subtle poisoning, really you can't attribute the additional thousand a day to anything other than Covid-19.
These are basic, obvious facts. Why somebody would attempt to circumvent them by using their own definitions and cause-of-death mythologies is beyond me.
Quote: redietzThe above is a bizarre and inaccurate statement on two counts.
First, the United States is not "locked down" in any meaningful sense. What states are doing does not qualify as a "lockdown" according to the guidelines for lockdowns as issued by the CDC. And as compared to other countries, not only is what the United States currently doing not qualify as a "lockdown," the actual state lockdowns months ago had more gentle restrictions and lasted a much shorter time than other countries' lockdowns.
Just because an individual decides to use his or her own definition of "lockdown" for a political argument does not mean that definition has any credibility, merit, or practical applicability.
We can all define things in idiosyncratic ways to make various arguments, but if we're going to impose our own idiosyncratic definitions on words that aren't shared by the rest of the world or the medical community, well, then we are best served simply talking to ourselves.
Second, the idea that "50 or so" of the thousand daily deaths is due to coronavirus can be debunked fairly easily. What the writer is suggesting is that unless the thousand deaths can be attributed solely and cleanly to coronavirus with no tangential contributors, then coronavirus has killed just the 50 or so. This presumes a unique manner of death attribution for coronavirus as opposed to other causes of death. For example, since 40% of Americans are obese, any American who dies of cancer or ALS or any disease should, according to the author, not have cancer or ALS listed as "cause of death" because there were other contributing factors. Then add in the 15% or 17% of Americans who have diabetes, and again, you should be asterisk-ing the causes of death due to comorbidity from diabetes. And go down the list for more.
Comorbidity does not mean the other factors caused the death. It means they were present.
In addition, the mythology that Covid-19 is not responsible for 1,000 deaths a day can easily be debunked because the death tally the last six months is well above the normal death tallies for the same period in previous years by more than the 200,000 generally quoted these days. You can't hide from the tally. It's there above and beyond the demographic and epidemiological records of the past years.
So unless you're positing that the 1,000 additional deaths a day are due to smoking weed at home, heart attacks due to stress, or some novel new mysterious unidentified cause of death, like radiation poisoning or some other subtle poisoning, really you can't attribute the additional thousand a day to anything other than Covid-19.
These are basic, obvious facts. Why somebody would attempt to circumvent them by using their own definitions and cause-of-death mythologies is beyond me.
I give you a standing ovation, sir. Well said.
Quote: redietzThe above is a bizarre and inaccurate statement on two counts.
First, the United States is not "locked down" in any meaningful sense. What states are doing does not qualify as a "lockdown" according to the guidelines for lockdowns as issued by the CDC. And as compared to other countries, not only is what the United States currently doing not qualify as a "lockdown," the actual state lockdowns months ago had more gentle restrictions and lasted a much shorter time than other countries' lockdowns.
Just because an individual decides to use his or her own definition of "lockdown" for a political argument does not mean that definition has any credibility, merit, or practical applicability.
You are arguing semantics. I do not care what you call it, the restrictions can be lifted by this point.
Quote:Second, the idea that "50 or so" of the thousand daily deaths is due to coronavirus can be debunked fairly easily. What the writer is suggesting is that unless the thousand deaths can be attributed solely and cleanly to coronavirus with no tangential contributors, then coronavirus has killed just the 50 or so. This presumes a unique manner of death attribution for coronavirus as opposed to other causes of death. For example, since 40% of Americans are obese, any American who dies of cancer or ALS or any disease should, according to the author, not have cancer or ALS listed as "cause of death" because there were other contributing factors. Then add in the 15% or 17% of Americans who have diabetes, and again, you should be asterisk-ing the causes of death due to comorbidity from diabetes. And go down the list for more.
Comorbidity does not mean the other factors caused the death. It means they were present.
In addition, the mythology that Covid-19 is not responsible for 1,000 deaths a day can easily be debunked because the death tally the last six months is well above the normal death tallies for the same period in previous years by more than the 200,000 generally quoted these days. You can't hide from the tally. It's there above and beyond the demographic and epidemiological records of the past years.
So unless you're positing that the 1,000 additional deaths a day are due to smoking weed at home, heart attacks due to stress, or some novel new mysterious unidentified cause of death, like radiation poisoning or some other subtle poisoning, really you can't attribute the additional thousand a day to anything other than Covid-19.
These are basic, obvious facts. Why somebody would attempt to circumvent them by using their own definitions and cause-of-death mythologies is beyond me.
The point is that the virus is not knocking out healthy people on its own like smallpox did back in the day. It is aggravating other conditions. So it is not causing 1,000 deaths per day. ANY flu-like virus would be doing the same thing. And lots of these deaths are because governors like Cuomo put sick people into a place holding high-risk people. Had he used the hospital ships for these people, or all those field hospitals in Central Park then this would not have happened.
You want to hole up at home feel free to do so. Let the rest of us go back to a normal life. No masks, no restrictions. Life needs to go on.
You need to accept the reality that the death count has been exaggerated because there is incentive to over-count deaths.
Quote: ChumpChangeI'm gonna go with a 20% fatality rate because hospitals are gonna shut their doors. 66 million Americans dead from #COVID19! #NoHerdMentality
You can continue doom and gloom, as you have since day one. Your numbers are without merit. Since day 1
Quote: DRichI think you need to check your facts. It is probably closer to 1% to 2%.
I think it's more like 10-15% in many places. I know a lot of people who have not gotten the " bonus" unemployment money and more than a couple independent contractor sorts who have not seen a dime. I didn't apply for anything, but my $1200 check is in limbo. It was originally sent to a now-closed bank account in Nevada and I've yet to get a response on when it will be re-issued. It's not a big deal, as I can wait for it.
Quote: billryanIf a jumbo jet full of people headed to a Weight Watchers Seminar crashes and burns, how many died from the crash and how many died because they were obese with high blood pressure?
If a man with COVID dies in a motorcycle crash, did he die because of COVID or the crash?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/cbs12.com/amp/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report
Quote: unJonIf a man with COVID dies in a motorcycle crash, did he die because of COVID or the crash?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/cbs12.com/amp/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report
From what I've read, that was quickly corrected. That people keep pointing out that one incident from two months ago seems to show how few mistakes like that have been made.
Quote: billryanFrom what I've read, that was quickly corrected. That people keep pointing out that one incident from two months ago seems to show how few mistakes like that have been made.
Exactly. This "overcount" mythology is simply incorrect. Unless people are dying for new, hidden reasons like radiation poisoning or cosmic rays, there is no alternative explanation. The Covid-19 deaths are actually an undercount.
What rational explanation is there for an additional 200,000 dead in the last six months? Ghosts? Spectral aliens? A big chunk of the population are "skin jobs" with expiration dates?
The overcount arguments are just ridiculous.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-deaths-idUSKBN2426GZ
https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200701/study-suggests-official-covid19-death-counts-failed-to-show-pandemics-true-burden
https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/welcome-ad?toURL=/covid-19/covid-19-associated-deaths-significantly-undercounted
Quote: billryanIf a jumbo jet full of people headed to a Weight Watchers Seminar crashes and burns, how many died from the crash and how many died because they were obese with high blood pressure?
If they die in the crash, do we ban people from flying on airplanes?
Quote: unJonIf a man with COVID dies in a motorcycle crash, did he die because of COVID or the crash?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/cbs12.com/amp/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report
Multiply this by 50 states and who knows how many counties all adding it to a cause of death then blaming the virus.
I guess it is doing it's job based on how many people are still afraid to live a normal life.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf they die in the crash, do we ban people from flying on airplanes?
It's been done.
September 11th 2001.
Two planes crash - entire nation grounded
Quote: darkozIt's been done.
September 11th 2001.
Two planes crash - entire nation grounded
Yes those planes were defective!
Quote: darkozIt's been done.
September 11th 2001.
Two planes crash - entire nation grounded
Uh, no.
FOUR planes, all crashed intentionally.
And we were not grounded for 190 days and counting.
Quote: AZDuffmanUh, no.
FOUR planes, all crashed intentionally.
And we were not grounded for 190 days and counting.
I know 4 planes crashed but it only took 2 for the grounding.
The grounding lasted as long as it took for the powers that be to feel it was safe to initiate air travel again. Different situation so different timeline but you asked if we ban people from flying after a crash and yes it has happened. You just don't like that it's actually happened
The intentional crashing aspect is immaterial.
Planes crashed. A good expectation that more may crash. Planes grounded
It's that simple
Coronavirus - people dying. A good expectation that more will die. Until the virus is under control we have closures or restrictions.
Quote: darkozI know 4 planes crashed but it only took 2 for the grounding.
The grounding lasted as long as it took for the powers that be to feel it was safe to initiate air travel again. Different situation so different timeline but you asked if we ban people from flying after a crash and yes it has happened. You just don't like that you were proven wrong.
I was not proven wrong. We are not talking about a plane crashing as was given in the example but rather a muslim terrorist attack.
Quote:Coronavirus - people dying. A good expectation that more will die. Until the virus is under control we have closures or restrictions.
Smoking kills people. Should we shut down until we find a safe cigarette?
"People are dying" is a lame excuse. Everyone dies eventually.
Quote: AZDuffmanI was not proven wrong. We are not talking about a plane crashing as was given in the example but rather a muslim terrorist attack.
Smoking kills people. Should we shut down until we find a safe cigarette?
"People are dying" is a lame excuse. Everyone dies eventually.
So planes didn't crash into the world trade center?
If a crash is intentional it doesn't qualify as a crash?
Only accidental crashes are crashes?
Besides it doesn't matter what you call it. People died in planes that didn't land they were intended. Entire nation was grounded until safety measures could be implemented.
So yes if people die in fiery explosions while on airplanes (not crashes lol) there is precedent for a shutdown
As for cigarettes many states have been adding more and more restrictions to indoor dining precisely because it kills others. So, yes, shut down the smoking at least where it affects others who are non-smokers.
Quote: AZDuffmanMultiply this by 50 states and who knows how many counties all adding it to a cause of death then blaming the virus.
I guess it is doing it's job based on how many people are still afraid to live a normal life.
Or people can adapt and move on. Do I miss not being able to go to a bar or a concert? Yes, but they don't leave a huge hole in my existence. I've found I don't enjoy watching sports without a live audience but it's not as if I now have a four-hour hole in my day.
Would I rather be sitting around with my friends having an adult beverage instead of communicating via the web or by phone.
This is the new normal. Perhaps next year we will be able to go back to our old normal, but in the meantime, we adapt and drive on.
I wear a mask and wash my hands more than I ever imagined I would.
Quote: redietzThe above is a bizarre and inaccurate statement on two counts.
First, the United States is not "locked down" in any meaningful sense. What states are doing does not qualify as a "lockdown" according to the guidelines for lockdowns as issued by the CDC. And as compared to other countries, not only is what the United States currently doing not qualify as a "lockdown," the actual state lockdowns months ago had more gentle restrictions and lasted a much shorter time than other countries' lockdowns.
Just because an individual decides to use his or her own definition of "lockdown" for a political argument does not mean that definition has any credibility, merit, or practical applicability.
We can all define things in idiosyncratic ways to make various arguments, but if we're going to impose our own idiosyncratic definitions on words that aren't shared by the rest of the world or the medical community, well, then we are best served simply talking to ourselves.
Second, the idea that "50 or so" of the thousand daily deaths is due to coronavirus can be debunked fairly easily. What the writer is suggesting is that unless the thousand deaths can be attributed solely and cleanly to coronavirus with no tangential contributors, then coronavirus has killed just the 50 or so. This presumes a unique manner of death attribution for coronavirus as opposed to other causes of death. For example, since 40% of Americans are obese, any American who dies of cancer or ALS or any disease should, according to the author, not have cancer or ALS listed as "cause of death" because there were other contributing factors. Then add in the 15% or 17% of Americans who have diabetes, and again, you should be asterisk-ing the causes of death due to comorbidity from diabetes. And go down the list for more.
Comorbidity does not mean the other factors caused the death. It means they were present.
In addition, the mythology that Covid-19 is not responsible for 1,000 deaths a day can easily be debunked because the death tally the last six months is well above the normal death tallies for the same period in previous years by more than the 200,000 generally quoted these days. You can't hide from the tally. It's there above and beyond the demographic and epidemiological records of the past years.
So unless you're positing that the 1,000 additional deaths a day are due to smoking weed at home, heart attacks due to stress, or some novel new mysterious unidentified cause of death, like radiation poisoning or some other subtle poisoning, really you can't attribute the additional thousand a day to anything other than Covid-19.
These are basic, obvious facts. Why somebody would attempt to circumvent them by using their own definitions and cause-of-death mythologies is beyond me.
Great post. AZ has an agenda, which is to downplay the risks of COVID-19, and to laud the drug Trump trumpeted. It is clear by any objective person analyzing the available data that there is no statistically significant evidence that zinc/chloroquin is helpful. That of course does not rule out the possibility that it IS helpful. But if it is, it will not be a game changer. And AZ continually lowers the number of Covid-19 deaths by a ridiculous factor, because it suits his agenda, not because it is even close to being true.
These truths are self evident. COVID-19 is responsible for 100,000+ deaths in the USA. Most of the dead were old and sick already. But most were not on death's door yet.
The death rate for infected individuals is much lower than reported, as we don't know how many totally asymptomatic individuals were infected.
The argument should be on what our response should have been. Both my self evident facts, true as they are, do not tell us how much we should destroy the economy in the name of mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
Someone in Sierra Vista posted they tested positive for the CV anti-bodies. She said she was deathly sick a week or two before Christmas and insists she had the virus then. Her 67 year old neighbor died the same week, he had a stroke and a heart attack while fighting off a very bad flu.
