Jump to content

collateral damage from covid


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, pogi said:

???  How do you calculate death rate based on the "whole population", when the vast majority have not been infected? 

Exactly.

Link to post
15 minutes ago, longview said:

Exactly.

I am so confused.  

Show me your math.  How did you get to 0.2 percent.  Defend your position or retract. 

You stated "we now know..."  Ummmm...no, "we" don't.   There is not one scientific/medical organization that will back up your 0.2% claim that "we now know".

I also find it amusing that those who are most sure of the death rate seem to always be the same people who distrust the testing stats the most.  They just seem to pull magical numbers out of a hat.

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am so confused.  

Show me your math.  How did you get to 0.2 percent.  Defend your position or retract. 

You stated "we now know..."  Ummmm...no, "we" don't.   There is not one scientific/medical organization that will back up your 0.2% claim that "we now know".

bmk.jpg?itok=6cg5yPIZ

“The claim that the U.S. has an inflated COVID-19 case count due to the sensitivity of the diagnostic PCR test for the virus that causes COVID-19…is a misinterpretation of a New York Times news report…[which questions whether] PCR test results for the virus that causes COVID-19 are a practical way of informing an infected person what steps they should take after their diagnosis [.]”

In other words, the “fact-checkers” at Health Feedback are resolved to debunk conservatives’ alleged misrepresentation of the Times report that up to “‘90% of positive COVID-19 tests should be negative [.]”

Presumably, given the take of Health Feedback, the PCR test is infallible: “The high number of COVID-19 cases reported in the U.S. is due to a large number of infected people, not the PCR test’s sensitivity.”

Are these conservatives guilty of the charge of “Flawed Reasoning” leveled against them by Health Feedback’s “fact-checkers?”

Well, the title of the Times piece alone, “Your Coronavirus Test is Positive.  Maybe it Shouldn’t Be,” strongly suggests that the alleged conservative misinterpretation isn’t a misinterpretation at all.  The subtitle—“The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus”—proves that conservatives’ characterization of the Times article couldn’t be more accurate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, longview said:

 

In other words, the “fact-checkers” at Health Feedback are resolved to debunk conservatives’ alleged misrepresentation of the Times report that up to “‘90% of positive COVID-19 tests should be negative [.]”

Presumably, given the take of Health Feedback, the PCR test is infallible: “The high number of COVID-19 cases reported in the U.S. is due to a large number of infected people, not the PCR test’s sensitivity.”

Are these conservatives guilty of the charge of “Flawed Reasoning” leveled against them by Health Feedback’s “fact-checkers?”

Well, the title of the Times piece alone, “Your Coronavirus Test is Positive.  Maybe it Shouldn’t Be,” strongly suggests that the alleged conservative misinterpretation isn’t a misinterpretation at all.  The subtitle—“The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus”—proves that conservatives’ characterization of the Times article couldn’t be more accurate.

How did you get to 0.2%?  Again.

Are you suggesting that 90% of the positive cases should be negative?  If that were true, then the death rate would skyrocket.  The fewer positive cases, the higher the death rate. 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
53 minutes ago, pogi said:

CFR on 0.2 percent%   Are you talking about CFR (case fatality rate) or IFR (infection fatality rate)?  The CFR is over 2% the IFR is estimated to be over 1%   What do you mean that testing statistics "do not account for a lack of symptoms"?  Yes they do.  

Covid is the worst it has ever been in the US, hospitals are being overrun.  Winter is on it's way.  Holliday's.  Flu.  Wake up people.  We are in the worst position that we ever have been with this pandemic. Total estimated deaths are near half a million in the US alone in less than 1 year (when you account for excess deaths). 

I am unable to find a single study that shows the IFR to be over 1%.  The CDC estimates in September put it around 0.65%  It varies wildly by location, from 0.1% in Utah to 1.4% in Connecticut.  There is no question that there are many cases of Covid that are not reflected in the reports.  I have seen estimates ranging from 20% to 80% of people with Covid that show no symptoms and have not been tested.  The IFR is very fluid and could be as low as 0.2% but I don't think it is possible to know right now.  That being said, because of untested, asymptomatic cases, we know that the reported death rate from Covid, (which continues to go down even while the cases are going up) does not give an accurate picture of how many people with Covid are actually dying.  What we can know is that the actual number is lower, and according to some studies, significantly lower.

All of this being said, this doesn't change the reality of the significant number of people who have died, and therefore it needs to be taken seriously.  Given that the majority of deaths were early on and largely in the older age groups, reality is, that if you are under 70 and healthy, the odds of dying from this is extremely low.

Edited by T-Shirt
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

How did you get to 0.2%?  Again.

Are you suggesting that 90% of the positive cases should be negative?  If that were true, then the death rate would skyrocket.  The fewer positive cases, the higher the death rate. 

I do not agree.

Link to post

Within my own extended family there was a positive covid test and restrictions were put in place. The person was tested again , twice more . and got negatives both times. The docs figured the first test was a false positive. Personally, if I tested positive I would wait a day or two and get a second test. If the second test came back negative I would get a third. If the second test came back positive then " all hands on deck " . 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
46 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I am unable to find a single study that shows the IFR to be over 1%.  The CDC estimates in September put it around .65%  It varies wildly by location, from .1% in Utah to 1.4% in Connecticut.  There is no question that there are many cases of Covid that are not reflected in the reports.  i have seen estimates ranging from 20% to 80% of people with Covid that show no symptoms and have not been tested.  The IFR is very fluid and could be as low as .2% but I don't think it is possible to know right now.  That being said, because of untested, asymptomatic cases, we know that the reported death rate from Covid, (which continues to go down even while the cases are going up) does not give an accurate number picture of how many people with Covid are actually dying.  What we can know is that the actual number is lower, and according to some studies, significantly lower.

All of this being said, this doesn't change the reality of the significant number of people who have died, and therefor it needs to be taken seriously.  Given that the majority of the deaths were early on and largely in the older age groups, reality is, that if you are under 70 and healthy, the odds of dying from this is extremely low.

My estimate is at around 1.6% based on two estimates - one from the WHO, which estimate that 10% of the population has been infected.  The other is from the CDC which estimates that 60% of excess deaths in US are due to Covid. When you add that number to total confirmed deaths and divide it by 10% of the population, you get to 1.6%.   I have admitted that this is my own estimate.   I agree that we don't know for sure right now, that is why I get so irritated at people claiming "we now know that the death rate is at 0.2%".   I also agree that a significant number of people have died and that it needs to be taken seriously.  Thank you for that. 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, longview said:

I do not agree.

If you can't back it up, retract your claim that you can't defend.  You can't state figures as fact, claiming that "we know" and not back it up with a reference or even attempt to show me the math. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Within my own extended family there was a positive covid test and restrictions were put in place. The person was tested again , twice more . and got negatives both times. The docs figured the first test was a false positive. Personally, if I tested positive I would wait a day or two and get a second test. If the second test came back negative I would get a third. If the second test came back positive then " all hands on deck " . 

It is very possible that it was a false positive - especially if no one else around her got infected.  It happens.  How long did this person wait to be retested?  If a person tests positive, we should assume that it is positive until proven otherwise.  There is nothing wrong with retesting, as you state, but you should assume that you are positive until you have 2 negatives 24 hours apart.  If you are symptomatic and test positive, you are likely wasting your time retesting...you are positive. 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I have a friend that was tested for cancer and told he had it. Treatment was started immediately and it really weakened him. A few weeks later he was told to come to the hospital to a meeting ... and bring his lawyer. At that meeting he was informed that it was an incorrect result and that he didn't have cancer. He was also told the treatments may have damaged him and might not show up until much later in life. The hospital was prepared for a significant lawsuit. My friend, being the type he is, said ," mistakes happen, thanks for your honesty" . That is why I now always get a second opinion . 

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I have a friend that was tested for cancer and told he had it. Treatment was started immediately and it really weakened him. A few weeks later he was told to come to the hospital to a meeting ... and bring his lawyer. At that meeting he was informed that it was an incorrect result and that he didn't have cancer. He was also told the treatments may have damaged him and might not show up until much later in life. The hospital was prepared for a significant lawsuit. My friend, being the type he is, said ," mistakes happen, thanks for your honesty" . That is why I now always get a second opinion . 

How is he doing?

Link to post
11 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I have a friend that was tested for cancer and told he had it. Treatment was started immediately and it really weakened him. A few weeks later he was told to come to the hospital to a meeting ... and bring his lawyer. At that meeting he was informed that it was an incorrect result and that he didn't have cancer. He was also told the treatments may have damaged him and might not show up until much later in life. The hospital was prepared for a significant lawsuit. My friend, being the type he is, said ," mistakes happen, thanks for your honesty" . That is why I now always get a second opinion . 

Yikes! 

Cancer is a hard one to get wrong.  The only way to diagnose it is with a biopsy - you actually have to see cancer cells under a microscope.  Sensitivity tests for Covid, etc. are not as reliable. 

I agree, it is always good to get a second opinion.  But in the case of infectious disease, to protect others you should always assume the positive is correct until proven otherwise. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still wonder why the California state and county governments shut down so that there was absolutely no access for weeks and months.  

It seems to me that when a major crisis hits, like a pandemic, government ought to keep their offices open to provide essential (less than first-responding) services.  Didn't happen in California.  I'm not the only one to complain.  What is the justification for this?  I'm sorry; my respect for people who have government jobs has plummeted to an all time low.  

But this isn't all that important for this forum, and I don't want to get government workers' noses out of joint.  I may need them in the future. 

This isn't necessarily a political comment, but, blame your idiot(ic Children of God) governor, state legislators, city council members, and county commissioners for that, Brother Crockett.  If my supervisor tells me, "You can pack up and go home.  Don't call us: We'll call you when we need you (but don't hold your breath)," I'm at a complete loss to explain how, under any given set of circumstances, possibly, that could be my fault.

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

There is that old story about a guy who fell off a ten story building and was heard to say as he passed each floor on the way down,  " so far , so good ! " 

I don't know if I should be laughing, but that's funny. 

Link to post
36 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

There is that old story about a guy who fell off a ten story building and was heard to say as he passed each floor on the way down,  " so far , so good ! " 

Not to be macabre or anything, and, certainly, don't share this with your friend, but, it's not the fall that kills you ...

Link to post
5 hours ago, pogi said:

If you can't back it up, retract your claim that you can't defend.  You can't state figures as fact, claiming that "we know" and not back it up with a reference or even attempt to show me the math. 

OK.  I have already stated that I do not trust the government's cooking of the data.  So a big chunk of it is going to be tossed out the window.  There is a similar situation with the Dept. of Labor's handling of unemployment stats with its many questionable elements.  In collectivist administrations, the unemployment rate is tweaked to make them look better.  Degraded for conservatives.

  • Like 1
Link to post
42 minutes ago, longview said:

OK.  I have already stated that I do not trust the government's cooking of the data.  So a big chunk of it is going to be tossed out the window.  There is a similar situation with the Dept. of Labor's handling of unemployment stats with its many questionable elements.  In collectivist administrations, the unemployment rate is tweaked to make them look better.  Degraded for conservatives.

So you are basically guessing?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
54 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you are basically guessing?

Not basically.  You can read patterns of the last several decades of governmental malfeasance.  I am pretty convinced of the Deep State's extensive ability to mislead the people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
35 minutes ago, longview said:

You can read patterns of the last several decades of governmental malfeasance.  I

And how does that give you actual numbers for Covid?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

And how does that give you actual numbers for Covid?

I do not have the resources for doing an independent count.  We all know of numerous questions on what has transpired.  The "Gretchen Whitmers" running their domains have given us plenty of reasons to push back on their narratives and their desires to impose coercion on the people.

Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

I do not have the resources for doing an independent count.  We all know of numerous questions on what has transpired.  The "Gretchen Whitmers" running their domains have given us plenty of reasons to push back on their narratives and their desires to impose coercion on the people.

You don’t have the resources?  Then how are you so confident in your 0.2% figure?  No reference, no resources, no math, just random figures pulled out of a hat.  You said “we now know...”, will you at least correct that to say “I believe, without any resources, that...”?  Give me some kind of hint that you are at least trying to act in good faith. 

We don't know the numbers because we can’t trust the test results, but “we now know“ the exact death rate?  Just stop.

What does Gretchen Whitmer have to do with 0.2%?  Quit deflecting!  Seriously, enough is enough.  Stop spreading falsehoods as fact people.  Stop the false, misleading, and downplaying narratives.  When you say “we now know”, when we don’t, that is toxic.  It’s a false truth.  This approach is destroying the character of our nation. This is leading us into dark times with an enemy (the virus) that you have way underestimated.  We are just getting started.  This is not a game.  I am done playing with you.  

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

You don’t have the resources?  Then how are you so confident in your 0.2% figure?  No reference, no resources, no math, just random figures pulled out of a hat.  You said “we now know...”, will you at least correct that to say “I believe, without any resources, that...”?  Give me some kind of hint that you are we at least trying to act in good faith. 

We don't know the numbers because we can’t trust the test results, but “we now know“ the exact death rate?  Just stop.

What does Gretchen Whitmer have to do with 0.2%?  Quit deflecting!  Seriously, enough is enough.  Stop spreading falsehoods as fact people.  Stop the false, misleading, and downplaying narratives.  When you say “we now know”, when we don’t, that is toxic.  It’s a false truth.  This approach is destroying the character of our nation. This is leading us into dark times with an enemy (the virus) that you have way underestimated.  We are just getting started.  This is not a game.  I am done playing with you.  

Thank you for your insistence on sticking to the facts in all this. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...