Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Anyone who wants to debate the various pandemic measures (their effectiveness, how they actually function, their possible real purposes, their origins) who plays into the denial that an unusually lethal contagion has killed numbers approximating the measured excess death tolls is losing that debate. It's like nominating the guaranteed loser in an election.
But some people already affect to know! The credulous and those with predetermined conclusions, or geniuses who think that if the corporate media lies then all they have to do is believe the opposite and they will be right, they will consult the same old tired sites for a daily fix and then present anything that can be twisted into a fit as "evidence," without any sense of filters, standards, fairness, or, often, decency.
The repetition of the same snippets of video in which people who talk in front of cameras for literally seven or eight or 20 hours a week seem to say something that can be misinterpreted or misunderstood is a prime example. It's the pizzagate method and it's trash, and posters who repeat it without ever varying on it or accepting any other possibility should be ashamed of themselves, especially when their whole schtick is to subtly deny the mass death that is actually happening.
Amid all this, excess death is real and undeniable. (I mean, I get it, there are people here who fucking want to tell me no one died in New York on 9/11, it was all a staged fake, or no one died in Vegas, etc. All crisis actors.) Do you believe that eventually the excess death toll might be more due to the economic catastrophe (unaddressed by relief measures in the US)? So do I. Do you think that's already happened? Show it. If you can't, accept that you might have to wait a year before anyone can.
An accidental inclusion of a homicide among the tens of thousands of C19 bodies amid the chaos is not evidence of a system. There is a reason that some do not take excess death seriously, but do deny all the obvious incentives to undercount. The use of this pandemic for hyperexploitation of forced labor and disaster capitalism are thus trivialized.
The fucking insane G5 theories may as well have been invented by the G5 industry intentionally to poison-pill movement against G5. They function as inoculation, and may have been invented as such. If the tobacco industry had figured this out, they would have gotten another 10 or 20 years out of uncontrolled smoking by seeding the idea that smoking was an alien plot to reverse the earth's gravitational field until we were all suddenly ejected into space. Every time a politician used the word "taxpayer," it was a code word for the fact that all taxpayers were getting imperceptibly lighter. They could have stringed hours of video in which politicians used that word. Evidence!
0_0 » Tue May 26, 2020 12:39 pm wrote:You take "an unusually lethal contagion" as the given unquestionable starting point around which any legitimate debate must be centered. You seem to skip the part where the factual basis of this "unusually lethal contagion" is established.
That important part is beyond discussion seemingly. And even more than that, questioning it should apparently be actively disparaged.
Meanwhile the fatality rate seems to be between 0.2 and 0.3% of infected people.
ILLINOIS ADJUSTS HOW IT CLASSIFIES COVID-19 DEATHS
The Illinois Department of Public Health will begin removing deaths with obvious other causes from its data of coronavirus deaths.
During Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s daily COVID-19 briefing on Tuesday, IDPH Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike said that as the state looks through and cleans the data that has been reported to it by county health departments, it will weed out deaths with other comorbidities that are not related to the virus.
That means that people who happened to test positive for COVID-19 at the time of their death but were killed in other circumstances such as a motor vehicle accident or a homicide will not be counted among the deaths from the pandemic.
In cases where someone had underlying conditions, however, like cancer or cardiac diseases, those deaths will stand as coronavirus-related deaths among the state’s data, Ezike said, because it is “less clear that COVID disease didn’t play a part in hastening the death.”
When asked why the state is not following the lead of the Centers of Disease Control, which reports a death due to coronavirus about one to two weeks after it is confirmed, Ezike said IDPH reports deaths that are reported to it “really, pretty quickly.” Those are the deaths that have COVID-19 on the death certificate, she said.
“Sometimes after further review ... we would have to adjust those numbers,” she said.
To me it doesn't seem ludicrous at all that the general chaos, panic and disarray, sent into a frenzy by the nonstop media, in and of itself caused a lot of preventable deaths, next to and above deaths caused by the coronavirus.
cptmarginal » Wed May 27, 2020 7:31 am wrote:Yes, and I still cringe every time I see the words "confirmed cases" used in reference to inaccurate PCR testing.
Such considerations are exactly why comparing overall death counts to previous years is one of the few reliable ways of determining that something bad is happening. At least in New York City, that is - the only location so far for which I have added up the numbers myself. That weekly data I posted on the previous page only covers 2019-2020; I'd still like to compare with 2017-2018, a nasty flu season.
Willibobs
There comes a point where this is deliberately misleading.
Heart attack admissions are down 50%. Urgent cancer referrals down 75%. Normal cancer referrals down 85%. I personally know of two suicide attempts since lockdown.
If the headline said could be, or up to, or anything like that I'd give the FT the benefit of the doubt. But this is the second time they've included all excess deaths under "covid" and made it free to read for maximum publicity.
reply Chivo
In reply to Willibobs
To quote the article back to you "Some of these deaths may be the result of causes other than Covid-19, as people avoid hospitals for other ailments. But excess mortality has risen most steeply in places suffering the worst Covid-19 outbreaks, suggesting most of these deaths are directly related to the virus rather than simply side-effects of lockdowns."
Amateur
One perceives an ideological bias to defend lockdown.
"Covid" deaths may be over reported too, because people with Covid die from other preexisting conditions.
And Excess Mortality is adjudicated to Covid rather than to lockdown, without any supporting evidence. How can it be assumed, for example, that 26 million new unemployed in the US will not entail some mortality?
HLT
"In Ecuador’s Guayas province, just 245 official Covid-related deaths were reported between March 1 and April 15, but data on total deaths show that about 10,200 more people died during this period than in a typical year — an increase of 350 per cent." There is a very simple reason for that: They closed the hospital there for all other treatments except covid-19, so if you were hit by a lorry and you somehow could not prove to be covid-19 positive, tough shit. That is what the report I read about it said, the hospital is only open for Corona patients: https://nos.nl/artikel/2331528-lijken-o ... rfilm.html . The result: An enormous increase of deaths caused by insane reactions and measures....
ClaphamMan
What. a fear-mongering distorted headline. I would have hoped that the FT could at least be objective. Deaths are firstly deaths with Covid-19, not necessarily because of it. Most of the vulnerable would have died of something as they were so vulnerable; so the flu, pneumonia and the rest are off the hook. The other thing is that the those who have had it, unless they were hospitalised, which was only in the most severe cases, have been excluded from the figures, so the mortality figures look far far worse than they really are. But the story here shouldn't be Covid-19, but the over reaction of governments. The real loss of life are those of the young who might well be unemployed for the rest of their lives; that won't become quantifiable for a while yet, but will show the extra loss of life due to Covid-19 to be insignificant compared to the effects of lockdown.
reply Pseudonym
In reply to ClaphamMan
Maybe one day, you too will die gasping for breath and then you will know what you are asking of others.
reply HLT
In reply to Pseudonym
Oh, you sound so bitter, with globally only 206,000 covid-19 death so far we are still a long way of the global numbers of death caused by influenza which is annually about 500,000. You obviously really hope for more people to die....
reply lightandtruth
In reply to Girard
Even if you get the flu, you also have the possibility of heart damage, liver damage, lung damage.... no one ever discusses these things for flu but because COVID is in the spotlight, now we pay attention to the phenomenon. I've had respiratory problems since childhood (asthma) and once needed an inhaler but I have adapted by pursuing healthy living. I eat raw fruits and vegetables for 70% of my daily eating, do deep breathing yoga, walking/hiking, and I don't drink or smoke but I drink green matcha tea for the ECGC catechin (epigallocatechin gallate), which academic studies show reduces inflammation and fights viruses and bacteria. I check my vitamin deficiencies regularly via tests and always supplement my vitamin D and zinc and fish oil. As such, I haven't had an asthma attack in years. People don't need to become a chronic patient if they take a bad situation and learn how to adapt to it. The fact that they don't is because the disease care system we have doesn't encourage it, and because most individuals are too lazy perhaps to overcome that, or they are set in their ways (my Dad won't eat any vegetables except soup and white potatoes, preferably fried). Personal responsibility and moral hazard seem to have gone to the wayside both in the global financial crisis and this lockdown induced crisis, but individuals do have some control over their health. The state cannot save everyone, nor can it guarantee perfect health to those who do not make efforts on their own. Having had childhood asthma, I would probably be considered to have an underlying condition, but I am not afraid of this virus, because I almost never fall ill with the kind of lifestyle I live, and my physical exams reflect that as well. I have not put any pressure on the healthcare system. I pay a lab for my vitamin tests myself, and otherwise I almost never need to go to the doctor.
Jake
It will take some considerable time, but I suggest that we will need to arrive at a position of distinguishing between:
- FROM covid-19
- WITH covid-19
- From the effects of the RESPONSE to covid-19
reply IcurusCRB
In reply to Jake
That is the point of these statistics in many ways.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps ... by-country
PsychByte
But recent modeling is based on a crucial statistic: the % of those infected by the virus in a population who die. Imperial still insist this is about 1%.
Even if the death rate is doubled, this "mortality rate" will be significantly reduced if a great deal more people are infected than was previously believed. Data is slowly coming in to suggest that the numbers infected in most populations are indeed much greater than was previously assumed. This is possibly an error caused by using a test with relatively low sensitivity in a sample with low prevalence and will need to be confirmed. Such results from Finland are expected at the end of the month.
However if the mortality is closer to 0.1% than 1.0% it's going to make a big difference,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... n-tell-us/
reply Startup_Germany
In reply to randomthought
Every quarter, approx. 0.3% of the population dies (of all causes). Most of those people spend their final month(s) in the hospital. When the epidemic went rampant, it is extremely likely it spread in the hospitals, causing people to die either with COVID, or of COVID - but just a bit earlier than they otherwise would have. Check the average ages, similar to Italy they are often over the life expectancy. Look up harvesting.
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
A popover with more user information
reply
In reply to Startup_Germany
Life expectancy in NY state is 80 years. More than half of deaths were in people aged less than 75. Almost a quarter are in the 45-65 age group.
Co-morbidities for covid-19 include high blood pressure and diabetes. 1 out of every 3 American adults is classified as having high blood pressure. 1 in 10 is classified as diabetic.
The data coming out of places like NY that have seen a lot of covid-19 are very concerning, no matter which way you look at them.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ographics/
https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- ... 319587.pdf
https://www.diabetes.org/resources/stat ... t-diabetes
reply
In reply to randomthought
NYC death rates age 0-17 are 0.15%, age 18-44 0.27%, age 45-64 are 1.49%, age 65-74 are 4.29%, and age 75+are 11.3%. Most of the deaths are around age 45 and up. If you look at China's CDC data, the death rate is 0.2% up to age 40 and 0.4% 41 up to age 50, 1.3% from 50-59, then 3.6% in the 60s, 8% in the 70s, and 14.8% in the 80s. https://www.businessinsider.com/new-yor ... art-2020-3. The data actually follow the typical annual death rate pattern, as more old people tend to die than young in any given year, and obviously the closer you get to life expectancy norms (mid to upper 70s and up) the higher the mortality. But the BBC showed a chart that the probabilty of dying with coronavirus is the same as the probabilty of dying without it, i.e. the normal annual rate. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51979654. Even Dr. Fauci has co-authored a piece in the New England Journal of Medicine, where he also explains that the virus may not be as bad as initially thought, “If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
Jake
It will take some considerable time, but I suggest that we will need to arrive at a position of distinguishing between:
- FROM covid-19
- WITH covid-19
- From the effects of the RESPONSE to covid-19
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests