Jump to content

Covid stats


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Chum said:

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.

Okay.  She can also do that by . . . ignoring my post.  

I am as interested in examining Covid, and in differentiating truth from error as anyone else here.

19 minutes ago, Chum said:

If I understand you correctly, your vetting process began and ended at reading the content of the links.

No, you are not understanding me correctly.  

19 minutes ago, Chum said:

I offer that that isn't vetting; it's just you reading the content.

Neophytes have limited vetting capability.  Hence my bringing the information here.

19 minutes ago, Chum said:

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.

I think the conclusions of the article are uneven.  But the data and references are useful.

This is an interesting experience.  I am seldom accused, directly or tacitly, of being a lazy researcher.  And the article, I think, does a good job of distilling references about a number of Covid-related issues into a single resource.  The article seemed to be selective, but it also seemed to be well-referenced.  

If the data are flawed or misleading, I want to know that.  If the conclusions are premature or incorrect or inappropriate, I want to know that too.  I am not holding a gun to anyone's head.  I am not demanding that you or Calm or anyone else "exhaust" yourselves in responding to each and every jot and tittle of the article.  Respond to any part you like.  Or none of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

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.

You don't see the value of being able to rule out 2 symptomatically similar diseases with one single test? 

If the PCR doesn't work, as you claim, how is it so reliable as a predictor of future hospitalizations and death?  When there is a spike in positive PCR tests, Covid hospitalizations are guaranteed to follow within a couple/few weeks, followed by an increase in death after that.  How can it be so positively predictive if it doesn't really work?

33 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

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

We get upset because of what we see happening in hospitals.  That is a threat to all of us when crisis standards of care are implemented.  We are concerned for the welfare of our communities.  The vaccines both reduce transmission and severity of disease, push back against that narrative is dangerous and reckless.   

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

You aren’t. I count you as one of the better researchers on the board. That is why your posts on this have been quite surprising to me. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

You aren’t. I count you as one of the better researchers on the board. That is why your posts on this have been quite surprising to me. 

I figured being a newbie is why I was struggling to get a bead on @smac97's postings. This fully explains my confusion.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Chum said:

'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.

No, constant fear porn implies concern is warranted, just not concern for what they are telling you to be concerned about. Remember weapons of mass destruction?

Never have we seen a so called "Pandemic' with such a massive marketing budget, being broadcast into our face on mainstream media and social media 24/7 for 18 months straight.

Our lives have been changed not by a "Virus" but because of the response to said "Virus" 

Link to comment
Just now, pogi said:

Those are the only 2 options?

I can't qualify it but I've heard epidemiologist forecast that Covid will eventually behave more cold-like in it's effects. Not in the next couple of years but one day. Our responsibility is to keep applying effective measures and adapting as needed. This scenario gives me hope.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

Never have we seen a so called "Pandemic' with such a massive marketing budget, being broadcast into our face on mainstream media and social media 24/7 for 18 months straight.

How many pandemics or even “pandemics” have you personally lived through? 
 

Please list if more than one. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

Never have we seen a so called "Pandemic' with such a massive marketing budget, being broadcast into our face on mainstream media and social media 24/7 for 18 months straight.

Sigh. Fine. Again. Marketing implies generating desire for something that wouldn't occur organically. Reporting on stuff that Covid actually does is better described as reporting.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

No, constant fear porn implies concern is warranted, just not concern for what they are telling you to be concerned about. Remember weapons of mass destruction?

Never have we seen a so called "Pandemic' with such a massive marketing budget, being broadcast into our face on mainstream media and social media 24/7 for 18 months straight.

Oh right, those Satanic secret combination GMO's and their deep marketing budgets...

30 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

Our lives have been changed not by a "Virus"

Is this fake news then?

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/08/29/3rd-conservative-radio-host-who-condemned-vaccines-dies-of-covid-1390555

Why are you putting quote marks around "Virus"?

Are you LDS?  Are the prophets deceived in this?

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

Our lives have been changed not by a "Virus" but because of the response to said "Virus" 

It is patently false to infer that family deaths and disability don't change lives.

As far as responding to a pandemic, it is self-evident that bulk changes in our lives mean bulk changes in our lives. Changes that keep people alive and keep businesses from emptying out due to actions of anti-vaxxers are far, far less disruptive than having businesses empty out due to infected anti-vaxxers or family being dead or disabled.  It's kind of odd that you aren't able to puzzle this out for yourself.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  She can also do that by . . . ignoring my post.

If we have painfully learned anything during Covid it's that false & misleading info devastates lives, when it goes unchecked. Working to reduce that devastation can reasonably considered to be our civic duty.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many pandemics or even “pandemics” have you personally lived through? 
 

Please list if more than one. 

Remember this one? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic

My parents lived through this one. Estimated that it killed between 1-4 million people. I asked them about it, they hadn't heard of it 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_flu

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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. :(

I'm actually pretty ambivalent about many Covid-related issues.  Your perception of me overall may be affected by my devotion to the Restored Gospel, about which I have reached particular and emphatic conclusions.  That's not the case with Covid.  I have no training or expertise as to any of the medical issues.  I am substantially concerned about the legal and sociopolitical (re: individual liberties) ramifications of our reaction to Covid, but I have no hard and fast conclusions about such things.  

I am in favor of vaccinations.  I am concerned about government mandating vaccinations.

I am in favor of wearing masks and social distancing.  I am concerned about whether there are "limiting principles" in play.

I am ambivalent about the efficacy of lockdowns.  I am deeply concerned about the "downstream" effects they will have, particularly if we continue to impose them.

I am concerned about tendency toward authoritarianism rather than persuasion relative to "vaccine-hesitant" folks.

I am concerned about societies surrendering too much personal autonomy and liberty.

I am concerned that governments are becoming too authoritarian, too severe, and too willing to expand their authority at the expense of individual liberty.

I am concerned that such expansions of governmental authority are being presented as being responsive to emergent conditions, but may end up being permanent (not unlike the Patriot Act).

I am concerned at the contempt and animosity expressed towards those who are questioning and challenging governmental actions. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Chum said:

If we have painfully learned anything during Covid it's that false & misleading info devastates lives, when it goes unchecked. Working to reduce that devastation can reasonably considered to be our civic duty.

Hence my post.  So why are you trying to silence it?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Calm said:

You aren’t. I count you as one of the better researchers on the board. That is why your posts on this have been quite surprising to me. 

I don't understand. 

I am a real estate and business lawyer in Utah, so I feel pretty competent to speak authoritatively on how the law in those (and peripheral) areas operate.

Several years ago I bought an in-home freeze dryer, and I have spent those years using it extensively with all sorts of food.  I feel pretty confident in my ability to speak as an experienced user of the machine.

I am a member of the Church.  I have spent a lot of time researching its doctrines and history, and I have substantial experience with how the Church functions in Utah.  I feel fairly well-informed about such things, though I would not say that I could speak "authoritatively."

But when it comes to Covid, I have no training, no expertise, no in-depth personal experience.  I am a neophyte.  But I'm a neophyte inundated with all sorts of data of uneven quality and competency.  I don't feel particularly qualified to differentiate the good from the bad, so I sometimes participate in Covid-related threads.  In this thread I posted a link to an article that seems to include a wide array of data.  It includes conclusions as well, but the data were my primary focus.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Hence my post.  So why are you trying to silence it?

We are asking you to vet info. It is interesting that you equate vetting with silencing here. It's as if you are reacting to the risk of what might happen to debunked info.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Smac, your approach here comes across to me as the equivalent of the CES letter.

Ouch!

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

I see a world of difference between the two topics.  Covid is a worldwide pandemic, involving governmental actions and policies, empirical data, political considerations, and so on.

The CES Letter is far more subjective.  It's about religious beliefs and doctrines.  It's far more about eye-of-the-beholder sorts of considerations as compared to Covid.

Also, I remain pretty ambivalent about most Covid-related things.  I err on the side of caution when it comes to rubber-hitting-the-road types of things (wearing masks, vaccinations, etc.), but I feel quite at liberty to be skeptical about governmental overreach, incompetence, and so on.  As Elder Oaks put it:

Quote

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership...

That is what I am trying to do re: Covid.

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

I have done quite a bit of basic and in-depth research.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

I'm actually pretty ambivalent about many Covid-related issues.  Your perception of me overall may be affected by my devotion to the Restored Gospel, about which I have reached particular and emphatic conclusions.  That's not the case with Covid.  I have no training or expertise as to any of the medical issues.  I am substantially concerned about the legal and sociopolitical (re: individual liberties) ramifications of our reaction to Covid, but I have no hard and fast conclusions about such things.  

I am in favor of vaccinations.  I am concerned about government mandating vaccinations.

I am in favor of wearing masks and social distancing.  I am concerned about whether there are "limiting principles" in play.

I am ambivalent about the efficacy of lockdowns.  I am deeply concerned about the "downstream" effects they will have, particularly if we continue to impose them.

I am concerned about tendency toward authoritarianism rather than persuasion relative to "vaccine-hesitant" folks.

I am concerned about societies surrendering too much personal autonomy and liberty.

I am concerned that governments are becoming too authoritarian, too severe, and too willing to expand their authority at the expense of individual liberty.

I am concerned that such expansions of governmental authority are being presented as being responsive to emergent conditions, but may end up being permanent (not unlike the Patriot Act).

I am concerned at the contempt and animosity expressed towards those who are questioning and challenging governmental actions. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks Smac, very well laid out, your feelings here. I believe you and my daughter are on the same page on the government overstepping in certain areas. She works for an arm of the LDS church and she may have to take the vaccine in order to keep her job with Biden's action on having companies with 100 or more employees get vaccinated, she told me last Saturday. This is where I agree with her. I think companies should make that decision on their own. Not have government mandate it, because of all the fallout from it especially. Hey, I'm seeing football stadiums full of people and indoor concerts allowed as well. So this doesn't make sense especially where it can affect livelihoods. She will quit her job if forced to get the vaccine. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have done quite a bit of basic and in-depth research.

Okay. Then please take 1-3 issues or “statement of fact” at a time to be addressed in the future rather than many at the same time. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Chum said:

It is patently false to infer that family deaths and disability don't change lives.

As far as responding to a pandemic, it is self-evident that bulk changes in our lives mean bulk changes in our lives. Changes that keep people alive and keep businesses from emptying out due to actions of anti-vaxxers are far, far less disruptive than having businesses empty out due to infected anti-vaxxers or family being dead or disabled.  It's kind of odd that you aren't able to puzzle this out for yourself.

Changes that keep people alive? Are you serious?

You mean like lockdowns imposed by Governments around the world that caused an exponential amount of more deaths and suffering than they prevented by bankrupting people and businesses, causing mass mounts of hopelessness and suicides, spiking alcoholism and domestic abuse, starvation in 3rd world countries, massive amounts of missed surgeries and procedures due to closed hospitals etc etc

Or how about forcing masks on an entire generation including children in schools creating a massive amount of psychological damage we haven't even begun to see play out

Or how about coercing people into taking a vaccine by threatening their jobs and livelihoods if they don't take it despite the fact that so many already have natural immunity that is being completely ignored

Or how about vaccine passports that where I live are putting massive pressure on already suffering businesses and furthering a divide among the people by creating a two tiered society

I could go on and on. 

All for a Virus with a 99.8% survival rate

I find it odd that so many aren't able to figure THIS out

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

Changes that keep people alive? Are you serious?

You mean like lockdowns imposed by Governments around the world that caused an exponential amount of more deaths and suffering than they prevented by bankrupting people and businesses, causing mass mounts of hopelessness and suicides, spiking alcoholism and domestic abuse, starvation in 3rd world countries, massive amounts of missed surgeries and procedures due to closed hospitals etc etc

Or how about forcing masks on an entire generation including children in schools creating a massive amount of psychological damage we haven't even begun to see play out

Or how about coercing people into taking a vaccine by threatening their jobs and livelihoods if they don't take it despite the fact that so many already have natural immunity that is being completely ignored

Or how about vaccine passports that where I live are putting massive pressure on already suffering businesses and furthering a divide among the people by creating a two tiered society

I could go on and on. 

All for a Virus with a 99.8% survival rate

I find it odd that so many aren't able to figure THIS out

Do you realize that polio have roughly the same survival rate?  Do you think what the population and government did during the polio vaccination was ok?  What if polio had been transmitted airborne (like covid-19), do you think they should have been even more draconic back then?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, mburgess1982 said:

Changes that keep people alive? Are you serious?

My mood changes a lot. Covid doesn't care.

6 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

You mean like lockdowns imposed by Governments around the world that caused an exponential amount of more deaths

One day, pandemic historians will track down the original butt this was pulled out of.

8 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

You mean like lockdowns that bankrupted people and businesses,

I mean anti-vaxers effectively shuttering their employer by introducing Covid into the workplace. My day job is mitigating this. Covid-nurturing talking points are costing businesses tons of revenue and lost productivity.

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

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