Defensive Carry banner

21 - 40 of 63 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,151 Posts
The problem with the CDC and their numbers is I don't trust their numbers!

My son works in a hospital. Any patient who has any simptom and is tested for Covid19 is presumed to have it [Till the test comes back with a result]. All presumed cases are counted on the CDC form, But there is no mechanism to remove those that are negative. and no interest in doing so. There is funding available for treating Covid patient's. The funds cover both the hospital and patients costs! With the government footing the cost, Why report anything else?

I don't know if they are doing this nationally, state wide, or just locally. But it makes me not trust anything I read about Covid 19. DR
It is not the "government" but us taxpayers instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Virginia’s numbers are 33,962 confirmed cases. 1,159 actual deaths. The mortality rate is 3.41.

The problem with proponents of an argument is ignoring or twisting facts to make their case. Ignorance or wishing are not supporting logical arguments. Theses threads are getting quite tiresome.
That is true for some folks. But people are going to talk about the things that interest them. If those things don't interest me - I just don't participate until something comes along that does interest me. No sarcasm or disrespect intended. Just what I hope might be a helpful suggestion. It seems to work okay for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,903 Posts
....and the idiot governor of Michigan extended the lockdown until June 12.

...no ulterior motive here folks, move along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,868 Posts
And yet, it still killed a lot more people per week than influenza does. The worst week of flu since 2013 had 1,626 deaths, while this disease gave us two weeks with over 15,000 deaths, nine times higher.

Since the mortality seems to be only 2.5 times higher, the difference is probably explained by COVID being more contagious. An average carrier during flu season will infect 1.3 other people; recent studies on COVID make it 5.7.

So, you're right and you're wrong. The death rate calculation was high, but the disease is still as dangerous as the calculation implied; it was just that they misattributed the danger to mortality rate rather than virulence, because they didn't know at the time how many asymptomatic carriers there were.

The need for restrictions is still there. Or, if it isn't, it's because the people are choosing to stay home regardless of what's allowed. Around here a bunch of retail has reopened with capacity restrictions, but from what I've seen, they're not even getting close to enough customers to reach the restricted capacity. There's no going back to normal in the immediate future.
I’m just glad we don’t actually compare things that way outside this forum.

Here, I haven’t noticed that people don’t want to go out. Each time I’ve been out to eat was during the week though, when most people would normally be at work. Restaurants were not full then even before COVID. Those who are out of jobs are not likely to be out spending money anyway, regardless of whether they are comparable being out. The people who are scared to go out are mostly scared because of how bad they were told the virus is, not because of how bad it actually turned out to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,203 Posts
Without reviewing the underlying data and methodology in each country, those results cannot be used to establish efficacy of the American lock down.

Without getting on this merry-go-round again, all of this ignores the deaths caused by the lock down.

The bottom line is we'll never know if the lock down achieved its stated goal, or failed miserably.
I seem to recall you using Sweden's statistics as a point of comparison to argue for ending the lockdown here. When it turns out that their numbers really aren't so great, the numbers must be off, I guess?

And if we're not going to accept that data, how can we possibly accept the supposed numbers of people "killed by the shutdown?" There's no methodology supporting that.

Here's what I think: the best analysis of the best data we have supports the decisions that states made to restrict activity. People see the suffering resulting from those restrictions, and don't want to believe it's necessary, so they latch on to any weakness in the data and analysis.

We don't have the luxury of certainty in a situation like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,203 Posts
I’m just glad we don’t actually compare things that way outside this forum.

Here, I haven’t noticed that people don’t want to go out. Each time I’ve been out to eat was during the week though, when most people would normally be at work. Restaurants were not full then even before COVID. Those who are out of jobs are not likely to be out spending money anyway, regardless of whether they are comparable being out. The people who are scared to go out are mostly scared because of how bad they were told the virus is, not because of how bad it actually turned out to be.
This from Gallup. People aren't ready to go back to normal.

View attachment 327638
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,868 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,868 Posts
I seem to recall you using Sweden's statistics as a point of comparison to argue for ending the lockdown here. When it turns out that their numbers really aren't so great, the numbers must be off, I guess?

And if we're not going to accept that data, how can we possibly accept the supposed numbers of people "killed by the shutdown?" There's no methodology supporting that.

Here's what I think: the best analysis of the best data we have supports the decisions that states made to restrict activity. People see the suffering resulting from those restrictions, and don't want to believe it's necessary, so they latch on to any weakness in the data and analysis.

We don't have the luxury of certainty in a situation like this.
I would trade our covid response for Sweden’s in a heartbeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bakes and Mike1956

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
I seem to recall you using Sweden's statistics as a point of comparison to argue for ending the lockdown here. When it turns out that their numbers really aren't so great, the numbers must be off, I guess?

And if we're not going to accept that data, how can we possibly accept the supposed numbers of people "killed by the shutdown?" There's no methodology supporting that.

Here's what I think: the best analysis of the best data we have supports the decisions that states made to restrict activity. People see the suffering resulting from those restrictions, and don't want to believe it's necessary, so they latch on to any weakness in the data and analysis.

We don't have the luxury of certainty in a situation like this.
Funny, I was going to mention that you noted the geographic disparity between Sweden and the US to argue against my first comparison, and now you are using the disparity of C19 deaths among Scandahooovian countries to argue for the efficacy of the shutdown in the US. But then I thought, nah, that's a not a constructive way to add to this conversation.

We can pick other countries with lockdowns with much higher death rates.

The point is that there is no way we can prove or disprove the lockdown is working. I'm not latching on to weaknesses; I'm latching on to a lack of any definite proof, coupled with shifting goals and understandings of the virus. Knowing what we know now, knowing how many people are being killed by the lock down (AA meetings are non-essential but liquor stores are essential - ***???), it seems foolhardy to hold the line on a decision that was made on a data set that is now know to be quite inaccurate.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
Discussion Starter #31

And if we're not going to accept that data, how can we possibly accept the supposed numbers of people "killed by the shutdown?" There's no methodology supporting that.


.
The numbers of missed cancer diagnoses, the suicide upticks, the drug abuse upticks, etc. All reported. Can the numbers be pinned down? No. Just like the numbers "saved" by the shutdown cannot be pinned down.

When in doubt, which we are, I choose the path that has the least impact on individual freedom. That's all I'm saying.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,782 Posts
Funny, I was going to mention that you noted the geographic disparity between Sweden and the US to argue against my first comparison, and now you are using the disparity of C19 deaths among Scandahooovian countries to argue for the efficacy of the shutdown in the US. But then I thought, nah, that's a not a constructive way to add to this conversation.

We can pick other countries with lockdowns with much higher death rates.

The point is that there is no way we can prove or disprove the lockdown is working. I'm not latching on to weaknesses; I'm latching on to a lack of any definite proof, coupled with shifting goals and understandings of the virus. Knowing what we know now, knowing how many people are being killed by the lock down (AA meetings are non-essential but liquor stores are essential - ***???), it seems foolhardy to hold the line on a decision that was made on a data set that is now know to be quite inaccurate.
Caution, adult language:

 
  • Like
Reactions: nj709 and PEF

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,868 Posts
The numbers of missed cancer diagnoses, the suicide upticks, the drug abuse upticks, etc. All reported. Can the numbers be pinned down? No. Just like the numbers "saved" by the shutdown cannot be pinned down.

When in doubt, which we are, I choose the path that has the least impact on individual freedom. That's all I'm saying.
The Seattle times reported a couple days ago that every single person in Washington who has COVID at time of death is reported as a COVID death. They have counted 5 people who have died of gunshot wounds as COVID deaths. They are also counting anyone who might have covid as a covid death, but we knew that pert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
If more people had covid-19 than reported then HOPEFULLY more people than anticipated have developed immunity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,203 Posts
Funny, I was going to mention that you noted the geographic disparity between Sweden and the US to argue against my first comparison, and now you are using the disparity of C19 deaths among Scandahooovian countries to argue for the efficacy of the shutdown in the US. But then I thought, nah, that's a not a constructive way to add to this conversation.

We can pick other countries with lockdowns with much higher death rates.
Actually i wasn't arguing against using Sweden for a comparison, but for doing it properly. Compare Sweden to American states of similar population and population density, or to its similar European neighbors. It's doing the worst, by far.

Deaths per million population:

Arizona 110
Minnesota 153
Mississippi 207
Vermont 87
Norway 43
Finland 55
Sweden 396
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,348 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
Actually i wasn't arguing against using Sweden for a comparison, but for doing it properly. Compare Sweden to American states of similar population and population density, or to its similar European neighbors. It's doing the worst, by far.

Deaths per million population:

Arizona 110
Minnesota 153
Mississippi 207
Vermont 87
Norway 43
Finland 55
Sweden 396
And we're back to we were several weeks ago, and our country's death rate/M has surpassed Sweden's death rate/M from several weeks ago (IIRC, someone called the Swedish model a failure then).

Recall we did not do the shut down to stop the spread; we did it to slow the spread. Spread is inevitable. We did it to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed, and based on a death rate of 3%+.

And now, with more data, we just stay the course. It's easy to make other justifications instead of admitting we may have over reacted. Admissions are a hard thing to come by in a "gotcha" media environment, I suppose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,868 Posts
Thanks, forgot about that.

View attachment 327648
Thanks. I don’t see that they asked people if they wanted to resume their normal lives.

In the beginning, people flipped out because Went to the beach. We were told it was going to kill all kinds of people. That story quickly faded away because it didn’t kill all kinds of people. We were told that businesses can’t open because there will be a second wave. Businesses defied ordered and customers came. No second wave happened. States never closed down, and never had a first wave. In Texas we were told we were reopening too early. Still waiting on the first wave. Businesses that have been open have been busy. Polls said Hilary was going to win. Polls say Biden is going to win. I don’t care what the polls say. People are out and about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,203 Posts
And we're back to we were several weeks ago, and our country's death rate/M has surpassed Sweden's death rate/M from several weeks ago (IIRC, someone called the Swedish model a failure then).

Recall we did not do the shut down to stop the spread; we did it to slow the spread. Spread is inevitable. We did it to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed, and based on a death rate of 3%+.

And now, with more data, we just stay the course. It's easy to make other justifications instead of admitting we may have over reacted. Admissions are a hard thing to come by in a "gotcha" media environment, I suppose.
And Sweden's deaths/million is still far worse than that of the US today, and far, far worse than that of comparable US states. Yes, it's a failure.

I don't think the response was an overreaction. The number of people requiring ICU facilities to stay alive is still the concern, whether that number comes about because the disease creates serious complications in a high percentage of those infected (as was thought) or because the number of infected spikes quickly because of high virulence (as now seems to be the more important factor).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,868 Posts
And Sweden's deaths/million is still far worse than that of the US today, and far, far worse than that of comparable US states. Yes, it's a failure.

I don't think the response was an overreaction. The number of people requiring ICU facilities to stay alive is still the concern, whether that number comes about because the disease creates serious complications in a high percentage of those infected (as was thought) or because the number of infected spikes quickly because of high virulence (as now seems to be the more important factor).
There is pretty much nothing supporting your stance that the lockdown reduced the spread of covid. Only that it has additional negative effects. You’re trying to say that people are still scared to go out here. The virus is as gone as it will ever get in Sweden. Pick a stance...
 
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
Top