Jump to content

Covid stats


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Statement of Fact #10:

10. Hospitals were never unusually over-burdened. 

As you point out, yes, some hospitals were extremely overwhelmed.  But we don't have to look back to 2020 to see that.

Remember when I showed that picture of freezer trucks in New York and many here freaked out and accused me of fear mongering suggesting that such things would never happen around here.   Well, it is happening...

Quote

Dave Salove has watched his morgue fill with bodies. Covid-19 victims have poured into the funeral home he runs in Boise, Idaho, in recent weeks, as the state contends with an unprecedented spike in deaths driven by the delta variant of the coronavirus. His 16-slot refrigeration room is over capacity. Other funeral homes have neared a tipping point, too..

Intent on avoiding the makeshift morgues that cropped up in the Northeast during the pandemic’s first wave, Salove this week brought in a refrigerated trailer to hold the growing number of dead. By Friday, there were seven corpses inside, up from two the day before. Six more were on their way from another facility...

“I’d barely gotten it installed, and we had to start using it,” Salove said. “Right now, we are seeing that spike.”...

As covid-19 deaths reach record highs in the state of 1.8 million, hard-hit areas are struggling to keep pace with the surge in victims. Some hospitals, funeral homes and coroners say they’ve been pushed to the limit. Some morticians have even started embalming bodies that wouldn’t normally need the procedure so they don’t have to refrigerate them, the Idaho Statesman reported....

The backlog is so bad in some places that people have had to wait weeks to cremate their loved ones...

“We’re so far behind on cremations,” said Lance Cox, owner of Bell Tower Funeral Home in Post Falls, Idaho. “That’s really how it impacts the families the most. You can bring in backup refrigeration options in an emergency, but you can’t bring in a backup crematory.”

The dire situation in Idaho, one of the least vaccinated states in the country, is another grisly illustration of what happens when a state fails to contain infections...

Statewide, hospitalizations have shot upward since early summer, leading officials to authorize rationing of medical care for the first time in Idaho’s history...

“We’re exhausted,” Owens said. “I have a feeling moving forward in the next couple weeks we’re in trouble. I’m honestly afraid of what’s coming.”...

Owens’s office is holding coronavirus victims in an external trailer she bought last fall to ensure they didn’t run out of room during the previous covid-19 wave. Hospital officials around the region are now leaning on her for relief...

On Friday morning, Owens said she got a call from a hospital telling her that their morgue was full and that they needed a place to store the bodies of 13 people who died overnight. At the end of the day, she was still trying to help work out a plan for moving the bodies to her facility or a nearby funeral home...

“It’s taken us all day to facilitate all this,” Owens said. “If the funeral homes can’t get them processed and cremated or buried quickly enough, or if they’re full, we have to take them. We can’t leave them at the hospital.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/25/idaho-funeral-homes-coronavirus/

 

Are the morgues and crematoriums also inspired by Satan to lie about this as @mburgess1982 points out?  Are they also in on the conspiracy?

In regard to the PCR tests, if the PCR tests are dysfunctional and so unreliable why are they so reliably predictive of future hospitalizations and deaths?  Why do positive PCR tests ALWAYS spike before spikes in hospitalizations and deaths?  Why is there always a predictable correlation there? They are extremely and reliably predictive.  That can't be so easily dismissed.   How do you explain that if they don't really work?  

Quote

Coronavirus patients are flooding and straining hospitals across the U.S., particularly in Western states, where administrators are put in positions of needing to ration care as their facilities are pushed to their breaking points by the delta variant...

Alaska this past week joined Idaho in adopting statewide crisis standards of care that provide guidance to health care providers making difficult decisions on how to allocate limited resources. Several hospitals in Montana have either activated crisis standards of care or are considering it as the state is pummeled by COVID-19...

Under the guidelines, providers can prioritize treating patients based on their chances of recovery, impacting anyone seeking emergency care, not just those with COVID-19...

Still, the vast majority of COVID-19 patients overwhelming hospitals are unvaccinated, months after the vaccine became widely available to U.S. adults...

With Alaska seeing its highest rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations since the pandemic started, the Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage decided to start crisis standards of care earlier this month so doctors wouldn't be forced to make determinations about patients themselves...

“That also ensures that it is equitable [and follows] principles of justice, fairness because we all want to do the right thing,” Bernstein said. “And those types of choices can cause moral pain for health care providers.”

Meanwhile, the health care industry is taking a hit of a different kind, with many hospitals across the country experiencing staffing shortages amid burnout...

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/573897-more-hospitals-forced-to-ration-care-amid-delta-surge

 

If hospitals are not overburdened, how do you explain the above?  Do you think Alaska and Idaho (both very conservative governments) are fudging their numbers?  Are they in on it too?

Quote

Statewide, hospitalizations have shot upward since early summer, leading officials to authorize rationing of medical care for the first time in Idaho’s history...

Is there a spike in heart attacks, strokes, car accidents that can explain this first in Idaho's history?  How do you explain this without pointing the finger at Covid and the unvaccinated?  Who or what is responsible for this?  Thoughts?

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Chum said:

Pretty sure this isn't an indicator of intelligence.

Why not? How do you define smartness or intelligence? One can be highly intelligent yet misguided and evil. There are plenty of fictional and real-life examples of that. He is the embodiment of supreme intelligence and pure evil combined.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you think Alaska and Idaho (both very conservative governments) are fudging their numbers?  Are they in on it too?

Mate, in the end everyone is in on it ... except for the select handful who feel special because they figured it out.

As a PhD student, I tutored a history course in conspiracies and propaganda. We're dealing with a very specific psychological state here, one stubbornly impervious to facts.

People who are inclined to believe conspiracy theories commonly share three psychological needs:

  1. Epistemic motives: the need for certainty. This one often correlates with educational attainment (not intelligence!), with people who have studied less feeling a greater psychological need for certainty and/or demonstrating lower tolerance for the existence of uncertainty. I think we see facets of this when people complain about 'inconsistent' messaging creating uncertainty or insist that if a mask or a vaccine isn't 100 per cent fool-proof (or 'certain'), then it is worthless.
  2. Existential motives: the need to feel in control. These are people who are disappointed by life and who also feel powerless because they've been cheated or 'gamed' by the system. There's a strong manifestation of perceived victimisation in this trait.
  3. Social motives: the need to feel good about oneself. This springs from low self-esteem. A huge boost to self-esteem is standing out from the crowd in some way (not being a 'sheep') or having access to special knowledge.

These three needs when the exist together feed into each other. Lack of certainty in some area of life often feeds into the need for control. Low self-esteem can lead to a sense of victimisation: when life doesn't turn out the way one hopes, it must be someone else's doing. Very often the presumed oppressors are those with greater educational and social capital, so an opportunity to demonstrate that one is actually smarter than all the 'deceived' doctors and nurses and epidemiologists and people with PhDs is a huge boost to ego. And so on.

It's a heady mix, giving people a sense of importance, power, and certainty, sometimes for the first time in their lives. And since it's based on 'secret' information and a rejection of external authorities and their 'fake' facts, attempts to cut through with these facts frequently fail.

To be honest, there are so many parallels here to people who are convinced that they've discovered the 'true history' of the Church, which nefarious Church 'authorities' have been hiding from everyone else. Attempts at reasonable, data-based discussion with such people often result in accusations of being a 'sheep', engaging in 'mental gymnastics', and so forth. There is so much social credit in joining the 'smart' crowd of people who've seen through the lies.

And from what I can tell, such people were nearly always psychologically 'broken' in some way. The ones I know personally certainly have been!

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment

Have a horror story from a nurse:

Quote

They just keep dying. 

I may be a new nurse, but this is something I never imagined I'd be seeing. Before, covid, and even with the previous waves, we would work hard and some people would get better. Now we work hard and almost nobody gets better. I can think of a literal handful of patients that I've downgraded or discharged. 

I’m consoling grown men every week. Tears running down their faces, terrified that they will never see their families again, worried about how said families will get by without their paycheck. At first I was optimistic about their outcome. But now I realize they are actually right. They aren't going to see their family again.

And they just keep dying. Husband on one side of the unit, wife on the other. They die. 

Father in one room and son in the next. They die.

And they don't die peacefully or quickly. They might start out being able to hold a conversation, but eventually that gets too hard and they get winded. Then they can't tolerate just the high flow anymore and need Bi-PAP off and on, until it's always on. I watch as their mouths dry, crack, and bleed as they starve because they're so air hungry they can't tolerate taking it off long enough for even a few sips of a protein shake. 

And then, eventually, the Bi-PAP isn't enough and we need to intubate. If they're lucky, the MD will get it first try without breaking any teeth. And then I'm paid to torture them for weeks/months. I stick a urinary catheter up their urethra. I'm nice and use lidocaine. Not everyone does. 

I shove a suction catheter down their breathing tube and suck the phlegm (and air) out of their lungs and they feel like they're choking and suffocating. I turn them from side to side, often crudely because there is no other way, in the hopes that they don't get a pressure ulcer. I open up their eyelids and shining a bright light at their pupils every 4 hours. I give them suppositories and then wipe them down after they've sat in their poop for up to an hour if I'm busy keeping my other patient alive. If they code, we pound on their chest and break their ribs, pump them full of drugs to jolt them back to life, shock them. If they survive that, they usually don't live very long. 

They die. They all die.

 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why not? How do you define smartness or intelligence? One can be highly intelligent yet misguided and evil. There are plenty of fictional and real-life examples of that. He is the embodiment of supreme intelligence and pure evil combined.

Wickedness degrades intelligence pretty quickly. The evil genius archetype is popular in fiction because we like a brilliant villain. In reality such people are rare. Given how long the devil has been evil I doubt he thinks much at all. To him thought is just a weapon. Any reasoning should be limited to what will hurt or tempt someone. On his days off he doesn’t contemplate poetry or read up on the latest science or try to develop new and more exciting schemes. He has degenerated way past that. He has a lot of knowledge saved up and some low cunning but that is about it. The devil is not an erudite villain with a sense of humor about himself and a ready quip and a scheme leading the unsuspecting down his multi-layered web with backups and contingencies all over. I suspect he is the kind of being that would torture animals for amusement. He is less than human and less than whatever a premortal spirit is.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, pogi said:

I can't find those numbers on that link using the find command. I looked around, can't find anything with vaccination rates on that site.   Give me the specific page.  

 Satan only works through people who have to coordinate with each other.  

Just to clarify, you think a group over some NGO's are capable of deceiving the US government, along with all other world governments.   Which NGO's have that kind of influence to control reported ICU rates in every State in the US and every Province in Canada, add to that Mexico, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, South Africa, Egypt, etc. etc. etc.  I sure would love to know which NGO or group of NGO's could pull that off.   How does that work exactly?  How exactly does an NGO control local health departments and the CDC in every nation across the globe?  Seriously. Back up your theory.  Explain it.  

You do realize that I could say "you don't think that Satan could pull it off?" to every single conspiracy theory that exists...right?  It doesn't really give any credence to your theory, sorry.  Try again. 

So hold on are you in the "We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic and if we all wear our masks and take the vaccines then eventually we can beat this and go back to normal" camp?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why not?

Because stupid people don't come with any inability to make family miserable.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you define smartness or intelligence?

Mostly I don't because it is (at best) irrelevant, far more often than is commonly thought.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

One can be highly intelligent yet misguided and evil. There are plenty of fictional and real-life examples of that.

This may be one of those irrelevant times.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

He is the embodiment of supreme intelligence and pure evil combined.

Okay but none of that is required for keeping family in a constant state of misery. I mean, there are millions of less-capable people who make others miserable, every time they drive.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Have a horror story from a nurse:

 

Just to be clear, this horror is precisely what folks are working to achieve, who are marginalizing masks/vaccines and playing other covid-nurturing word games.  They just lack the minimal courage to admit it.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you fact-check any of them?

I'm not sure what that means in this context.

12 hours ago, Calm said:

If you went into court without fact-checking claims or looking at potential objections for them, would you see yourself as a good lawyer?

No, I wouldn't.  That's why I brought those claims here.  To, in a sense, "crowd source" the fact-checking process.

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Just asking given you are setting up the idea this is a legal context. 

I'm fine with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what that means in this context.

No, I wouldn't.  That's why I brought those claims here.  To, in a sense, "crowd source" the fact-checking process.

I'm fine with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you would do yourself a favor if you fact-checked/researched some yourself more to avoid the more error ridden statements and stopped using other people’s lists and maybe addressed one issue at a time.  My memory is that you are repeating some stuff that was already rebutted from your previous comments.  Perhaps it is harder to remember details and implications if others just give you the answers to shotgun questions rather than you working on finding them for yourself. Using others’ lists is a shortcut, but shortcuts can be detrimental to learning at times.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

So hold on are you in the "We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic and if we all wear our masks and take the vaccines then eventually we can beat this and go back to normal" camp?

In other words, you can't answer my questions?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, webbles said:

Survival of polio was over 99% (see the outcomes table for children at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Signs_and_symptoms).  I think we would still want a polio vaccine.

Let's not get ahead of things.  The exercise was to determine if the factual allegation is correct.  You appear to be conceding that it is.

11 hours ago, webbles said:
Quote

2. There has been NO unusual excess mortality.

uk-age-standardised-mortality-rate-1943-

The chart actually disagrees with that "fact".  It shows that the last decade had less deaths than 2020.  So, there are more deaths in 2020 than we should normally have.

Well, the chart shows a substantial gradual decline in the Age-Standardised Mortality Rate since World War II.  

2020 clearly had an uptick, but it seems nowhere close to being "the UK’s 'deadliest year since world war two.'"

11 hours ago, webbles said:

3. “Covid death” counts are artificially inflated.

And other deaths are underinflated. 

Okay, but that's not really responsive to the exercise, which is to determine whether the factual allegation here is correct.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

There's a lot of people that die from influenza but their deaths aren't attributed to influenza because they didn't have a test.  The CDC uses mathematical models to estimate how many people were killed from the influenza because of the lack of tests.

Okay.  But we have not destroyed tens of thousands of businesses, livelihoods, economies, and trillions of dollars in wealth by shutting down entire societies for months and months and months because of the flu.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

And if the death toll is overinflated for covid-19, we can still use mathematical models to figure out if it was overinflated or not. 

Okay.  But then we would need to examine the accuracy and reliability of those models.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

And from fact #2, we can see that there was an increase of deaths in 2020.  So covid-19 was definitely killing more people than would die in a normal year.

Yes, I think Covid was the "but for" cause of many deaths in 2020.  But that metric can also be applied to the flu, and we haven't cratered businesses and economies by draconian shutdowns in response to the flu.

11 hours ago, webbles said:
Quote

4. The vast majority of covid deaths have serious comorbidities.

I'm not entirely sure why this matters.  The vast majority of all deaths have serious comorbidities.

Well, I think we can discuss the relevance after we ascertain its factual accuracy.

You seem to be conceding that it is accurate.  As regarding its relevance, I think serious comorbidities make the draconian measures imposed responsive to Covid more difficult to justify.  If, as you say, "[t]he vast majority of all deaths have serious comorbidities," and if we do not generally destroy millions of business, jobs, etc. and destroy trillions of dollars in wealth via draconian countermeasures to avoid those other deaths, then why are we maintaining the draconian measures relative to Covid?

11 hours ago, webbles said:
Quote

5. Average age of “Covid death” is greater than the average life expectancy.

I'm not entirely sure why this matters as well. 

Again, let's discuss relevancy after we ascertain accuracy.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

People are still dying from covid-19 when they didn't need to. Yes, these people might be older than the average life expectancy, but I'm sure they would have liked to live even longer instead of dying prematurely.  Also, we've known that covid-19 severely affects older patients.

I think the point is that Covid is not a risk that is evenly spread across society.  

I also think the point is that a lot of the draconian measures we have taken relative to Covid have adversely affected the lives of people who are at substantially lower risk of dying from Covid.

I also think the point is that we have not insisted on the imposition of these draconian measures across huge swaths of society as to other health risks, such as the flu.

11 hours ago, webbles said:
Quote

7. There has been a massive increase in the use of “unlawful” DNRs

I do disagree with use of "unlawful" DNRs. 

So you agree with this point as to its factual accuracy?

11 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't think this affects the mortality rate, though.  It sounds like all of these "unlawful" DNRs were done with people who were never going to survive covid-19 and so why resuscitate them into a vegetable state?

I think you should read the links provided.  "Universal DRS" are, by definition, universal.  They aren't being applied to "people who were never going to survive covid-19."

From the linked-to Washington Post article:

Quote

Hospitals on the front lines of the pandemic are engaged in a heated private debate over a calculation few have encountered in their lifetimes — how to weigh the “save at all costs” approach to resuscitating a dying patient against the real danger of exposing doctors and nurses to the contagion of coronavirus.

 

The conversations are driven by the realization that the risk to staff amid dwindling stores of protective equipment — such as masks, gowns and gloves — may be too great to justify the conventional response when a patient “codes,” and their heart or breathing stops.

Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago has been discussing a do-not-resuscitate policy for infected patients, regardless of the wishes of the patient or their family members — a wrenching decision to prioritize the lives of the many over the one.

 

Richard Wunderink, one of Northwestern’s intensive-care medical directors, said hospital administrators would have to ask Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker for help in clarifying state law and whether it permits the policy shift.

The witholding of medical care here is not based on whether the patient can survive or not, but whether to withold medical care so as to reduce "the real danger of exposing doctors and nurses to the contagion of coronavirus."

Quote

Several large hospital systems — Atrium Health in the Carolinas, Geisinger in Pennsylvania and regional Kaiser Permanente networks — are looking at guidelines that would allow doctors to override the wishes of the coronavirus patient or family members on a case-by-case basis due to the risk to doctors and nurses, or a shortage of protective equipment, say ethicists and doctors involved in those conversations. But they would stop short of imposing a do-not-resuscitate order on every coronavirus patient. The companies declined to comment.

(Emphasis added.)  Again, the DNRs here are not based on whether the patient would inevitably die, but whether continuing care should be eliminated "due to the risk of doctors and nurses" or because of "a shortage of protective equiipment."

That article was from March 2020.  One of the other cited articles, this one, was from June 2020:

Quote

Erin Marie Olszewski is a Nurse-turned-investigative journalist, who has spent the last few months on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic, on the inside in two radically different settings. Two hospitals. One private, the other public. One in Florida, the other in New York.
...
Her story perfectly aligns with that of other doctors and nurses who have 
come forward or posted to social media, and confirms some of the worst aspects of the research OffGuardian (and other alt-media outlets) have been doing. Including the over-use of ventilators in such a way that causes avoidable deaths, the forced use of DNRs, financial incentives for Covid diagnoses and in general a top-down, non-scientific approach which spread fear and made the situation incalculably worse.

Consider also this UK story from February 2021:  

Quote

Fury at ‘do not resuscitate’ notices given to Covid patients with learning disabilities
Vulnerable people have encountered ‘shocking discrimination’ during pandemic, says Mencap charity

People with learning disabilities have been given do not resuscitate orders during the second wave of the pandemic, in spite of widespread condemnation of the practice last year and an urgent investigation by the care watchdog.

Mencap said it had received reports in January from people with learning disabilities that they had been told they would not be resuscitated if they were taken ill with Covid-19.

The Care Quality Commission said in December that inappropriate Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notices had caused potentially avoidable deaths last year.
...
NHS figures released last week show that in the five weeks since the third lockdown began, Covid-19 accounted for 65% of deaths of people with learning disabilities. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the rate for the general population was 39%, although the two statistics are drawn from different measurements.

Younger people with learning disabilities aged 18 to 34 are 30 times more likely to die of Covid than others the same age, according to Public Health England.

Oi.  Quite a strong whiff of eugenics coming off this items.

11 hours ago, webbles said:
Quote

8. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease.

Sweden did have a form of lockdown where the government asked people to stay home but didn't order it.  So saying that Sweden didn't have a lockdown is only looking at government mandated lockdowns. 

As regarding the specific example of Sweden, I don't understand your point.  What is a "lockdown" in this context if not one that is "government mandated?" 

That said, I wonder if this point is guilty of cherry-picking.  See, e.g., this story from August 2021:

Quote

Months before the first COVID-19 cases were detected, public-health experts ranked Sweden as one of the most prepared countries to handle a pandemic. But in March 2020, Swedish health authorities surprised the world with their unorthodox approach: Rather than locking down and requiring masks, as many countries did, Sweden let residents decide individually whether to take those precautions.

The gamble, Swedish authorities predicted, would pay off in the long run. Ideally, vulnerable people would choose to stay home, the economy wouldn't suffer too much, and healthy people might get mild COVID-19 cases that ultimately contributed to the population's collective immunity.

But a year and a half into the pandemic, it's clear that bet was wrong.

Sweden has recorded more COVID-19 cases per capita than most countries so far: Since the start of the pandemic, roughly 11 out of every 100 people in Sweden have been diagnosed with COVID-19, compared with 9.4 out of every 100 in the UK and 7.4 per 100 in Italy. Sweden has also recorded around 145 COVID-19 deaths for every 100,000 people — around three times more than Denmark, eight times more than Finland, and nearly 10 times more than Norway.

So the article I cited compares Sweden to the UK, which may be a bit more apples-to-oranges.  Perhaps a better "apples to apples" comparison would be to compare Sweden to its Nordic neighbors.  As noted above, that comparison makes Sweden's no-lockdown strategy look pretty bad.

Whether lockdowns work seems to be a strongly contested point:

Oi.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

You could argue that government mandated lockdown was heavy handed, but I don't think you can actually argue that lockdowns (voluntary or mandated) were useless.

I think the question should not be whether they were "useless," but rather they were effective, proportional and worth the tremendous cost.  This is an important consideration moving forward, I think.

11 hours ago, webbles said:
Quote

9. Lockdowns kill people.

I don't have a problem with this statement. 

Same here.  I think we need to be looking a lot at the "downstream" effects of what we are doing.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

But the real question is, did the lockdowns prevent more deaths or cause more deaths? 

Well, that's the point raised in the linked article: Could the Covid19 Response be More Deadly than the Virus?

If the cure is worse than the disease, is the cure really worthwhile? 

The above article discusses increases in suicide and drug abuse deaths consequent to lockdowns.  Covid --> Draconian Lockdowns --> Widespread catastrophic damage to the economy and social fabric -->  Substantial economic hardship, loss of social structures, loneliness, and related factors --> Inreased instances of emotional and mental health issues --> Increases in substance abuse deaths and suicides.

The article also discusses the lockdowns in terms of reduced medical care/treatment.   Covid --> Draconian Lockdowns --> Widespread catastrophic damage to the economy and social fabric -->  Substantial economic hardship, loss of social structures, loneliness, and related factors --> Loss of employment, loss of insurance, loss of money --> Reduced medical coverage or means of obtaining it --> Reduced medical care/treatment --> deaths due to reduced medical care/treatment.

And so on. 

The above article was from April 2020.  This would normally not be seen as "outdated," but the article in the OP does seem to lean quite a bit on early 2020 materials, which is a bit odd since it was published on 9/26/2021.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

In addition, you have to factor in that a lot of hospitals were suspending operations to focus on covid-19.  So, maybe it wasn't the lockdown that caused the death but the fact that the hospital was focused on covid-19 and couldn't help the patient.

Isn't that part of the problem, though?  That huge numbers of people have died / are dying / will die because they are missing medical treatment due to lockdowns?

11 hours ago, webbles said:
Quote

10. Hospitals were never unusually over-burdened. 

This fact is funny.  It is saying that "flattening the curve" wasn't needed because hospitals never got overwhelmed.  But why didn't they get overwhelmed?  Because we "flattened the curve".  Yes, hospitals expected a much large influx of patients, yes we had temporary hospitals set up, and yes we didn't have to use all of that capacity.  But that's because we "flattened the curve", not because covid-19 was a dud.  Also, some hospitals absolutely were overwhelmed.  Many hospitals had to stop doing normal operations so that they would have enough space/staff for covid-19 patients.

Yes, this one seems a bit off.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think you would do yourself a favor if you fact-checked/researched some yourself more to avoid the more error ridden statements and stopped using other people’s lists and maybe addressed one issue at a time.  

I love ya, Calm.  But this sort of seems passive aggressive.  If the article is full of "error ridded statements," then I'd like to know it, but your say-so doesn't establish that.  I read the article and reviewed a number of the links (there are many of them), and it seemed to be making some solid points.  So I brought it here for further critique and discussion.

If you don't want to participate in the exercise I proposed, I'm quite okay with that.  But the topic of this thread is "Covid stats."  The article I provided includes all sorts of statistics and data.  To be sure, it also includes conclusions and opinions.  I don't agree with them all, but I don't disagree with them all either.  

If there are errors, then let's suss them out rather than merely conclude they are there.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My memory is that you are repeating some stuff that was already rebutted from your previous comments.  

With respect, so what?  The article I posted includes tons of references and data that I have not seen previously, have not previously commented on, etc.

More to the point, I posted the article with little conclusory commentary from myself.  I did this because I wanted to invite a critique of the information I was providing, rather than a critique of my personal conclusions.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Perhaps it is harder to remember details and implications if others just give you the answers to shotgun questions rather than you working on finding them for yourself.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  The article doesn't contain "shotgun questions."  It includes a bunch of conclusions that may or may not be substantiated by citation to competent evidence.  So I brought the article here to see whether that evidence is persuasive and probative, and/or how many of the conclusions drawn from those evidences are reasonable.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Using others’ lists is a shortcut, but shortcuts can be detrimental to learning at times.

Huh.  I'm not often accused of being a lazy researcher.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I love ya, Calm.  But this sort of seems passive aggressive.  If the article is full of "error ridded statements," then I'd like to know it, but your say-so doesn't establish that.  I read the article and reviewed a number of the links (there are many of them), and it seemed to be making some solid points.  So I brought it here for further critique and discussion.

She isn't being passive-aggressive. She's trying to stave off the exhaustion being caused by endlessly refuting false and misleading Covid-related claims.

If I understand you correctly, your vetting process began and ended at reading the content of the links. I offer that that isn't vetting; it's just you reading the content. You can do a lot to reduce exhaustion levels if you make sure a claim isn't already debunked before posting it here and post one claim one at a time.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

All of this was covered by Pogi, Calm, and me, and you did not respond to it. I'll just say this.

Your problem is when you say: so, by implication, some patients had been erroneously diagnosed as having covid when they had the flu

That is not the implication. You are drawing a conclusion that is false. We know it is false because the report tells us so, and you quote that in the very next quote box. You say it is inexplicable, but that is only because you have already drawn your conclusion without accepting the rest of the facts.

The test can differentiate between the two. It just cannot say if you have the flu or not. All it can say is whether or not you have covid. If you have the flu, the test won't tell you that.

Please re-read Pogi and Calm's responses to you (and mine as well). I don't need to repeat what has already been said, especially since you didn't address us at all.

If the test works like you say, then why change it?  How hard is it to take two samples and use the current pcr test and a separate flu test?  Supposedly that is what was going on last year at this time, according to Pogi.  Yet, there is a need for a change, for some reason.  Also, there were a lot of false positives from the current pcr test that a combined covid/flu test will probably remedy.  I think this is the reason why there is a change.

The pcr test was never meant to tell whether or not one was sick with covid, only if one had parts of the virus in their system.  It could be dead virus or live virus. The test didn't differentiate between the two.  So, a positive test didn't necessarily mean that one was going to get sick.

On another note, you seem to get upset if someone pushes back on the vaccine narrative.  Why?  Supposedly you are protected if you got the vaccine and your booster will be available soon to protect you even more.  The vaccines don't stop the spread of the disease.  They weren't made to do so.  So, the unvaccinated don't pose a threat to  you.  Yet, you seem upset when someone pushes back on the narrative, supposedly in the name of fighting vaccine hesitancy?  What does it matter?  Israel has the highest vaccine compliance rate and is suffering from the Delta.   https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/nearly-60-of-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-in-israel-fully-vaccinated-study-finds.html

At least there is this:  https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021/08/26/large-israeli-study-natural-immunity-provides-13-times-more-protection-against-delta-than-pfizers-vaccine-does-n411863

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

I think I heard this exact same story from my nightly news station, typical fear porn to keep the masses scared. Maybe they should stop killing their patients with remdesivir and ventilators

'Fear porn' implies concern is unwarranted. It's a good term to apply to vanishingly rare events like stranger kidnappings and dying in a terror attack, when they get talked up in ways that ignore the lottery-like odds (1 in tens of millions). It's not a great term against a reality that has most of us close to people whose lives are profoundly changed by Covid itself.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

So hold on are you in the "We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic and if we all wear our masks and take the vaccines then eventually we can beat this and go back to normal" camp?

No, I don't believe that we will ever "beat this" (as in it will just disappear).  I do think our efforts will save lives, reduce suffering, and can get us out of the unnecessary and completely avoidable hospital crisis we are finding ourselves in. 

2 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

I needed to ask that quick question first and depending on how you responded would determine whether I would be wasting my time for answering yours or not

Ok, your turn.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

On another note, you seem to get upset if someone pushes back on the vaccine narrative.  Why?

Because vaccines sharply reduce the ending and ruination of lives. This has been evidenced to you over and over and over and over again. People are reasonably upset with those who will not stop pushing lies and misinformation no matter how many times they are proven to be sharing lies.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I love ya, Calm.  But this sort of seems passive aggressive.  If the article is full of "error ridded statements," then I'd like to know it, but your say-so doesn't establish that.  I read the article and reviewed a number of the links (there are many of them), and it seemed to be making some solid points.  So I brought it here for further critique and discussion.

If you don't want to participate in the exercise I proposed, I'm quite okay with that.  But the topic of this thread is "Covid stats."  The article I provided includes all sorts of statistics and data.  To be sure, it also includes conclusions and opinions.  I don't agree with them all, but I don't disagree with them all either.  

If there are errors, then let's suss them out rather than merely conclude they are there.

With respect, so what?  The article I posted includes tons of references and data that I have not seen previously, have not previously commented on, etc.

More to the point, I posted the article with little conclusory commentary from myself.  I did this because I wanted to invite a critique of the information I was providing, rather than a critique of my personal conclusions.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  The article doesn't contain "shotgun questions."  It includes a bunch of conclusions that may or may not be substantiated by citation to competent evidence.  So I brought the article here to see whether that evidence is persuasive and probative, and/or how many of the conclusions drawn from those evidences are reasonable.

Huh.  I'm not often accused of being a lazy researcher.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it's true, my daughter and I butt heads over vaccine's and masks, that bias can be backed up on both sides, what to do, what to do! 

Makes me think that no matter what each side says, we'll both not change our minds. And this is the same for you and my daughter and so many others. In fact many would be aghast that you Smac, might be wrong about something, merely because of being bias. I'm sure me and others would hope this wouldn't happen. But I have a bias and will allow you the same. :(

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:
1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

I love ya, Calm.  But this sort of seems passive aggressive.  If the article is full of "error ridded statements," then I'd like to know it, but your say-so doesn't establish that.  I read the article and reviewed a number of the links (there are many of them), and it seemed to be making some solid points.  So I brought it here for further critique and discussion.

Smac, your approach here comes across to me as the equivalent of the CES letter. I was suggesting to you much what I would suggest to any friend who presented me with that and told me they wanted to address it like you did. 
 

If you don’t want to do any basic or in-depth research before discussing it, at least present it as one issue at a time. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...