The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[SoCal Deek]

People please!!!! We’ve been wearing masks in liberal California for months now! It may help slow the spread but it clearly didn’t STOP THE SPREAD. Geez, this topic isn’t anywhere near as complicated as many so desperately want it to be!

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

What a bull#### chart and article from the NY Times.  More mainstream analysis that lacks complete context and understanding of how things are working.

 

Look at how they attempt to portray Texas in that chart, as if it's going through some huge excess death surge.   Texas has the lowest per capita death rate due to Coronavirus out of any of the large state along with California.  

 

You seem triggered by the source, which just shows data. Almost no opinions there.

 

"Attempt to portray Texas" WTF? All that chart shows is what months excess deaths occurred. That's just data. It's not anything to fear. Just shows when things happened. You make it sound like a sinister plot when all it does is show movement of the disease by state and region. 

 

Lowest per capita is a good stat but it's a different one. I would guess all the later-hit states look good on that stat. (I haven't looked but I bet FL looks solid in this stat too.)

 

1 hour ago, Magox said:

Even according to CDC which is severely under counted, but even if you were to accept their analysis, anywhere between 16%-40% of all the excess deaths are not COVID-19 related deaths.    And we know how shoddy the reporting systems have been and classifying deaths that aren't truly COVID as COVID deaths.

 

As I noted, and as the article notes, the CDC provisional death counts are slow to identify COVID deaths, which is why the CV-only deaths in earlier months are above the norm at the CDC and not as much in later--the CDC has not yet classified all the later deaths in the same way that the states have. Their process is slower.

 

You can see that in the charts I linked upthread where I dealt with this. 

 

1 hour ago, Magox said:

It's amazing how people from the NY times and other mainstream outlets are not able to add 2+2 and realize that the answer is 4.    When we know that the average person who dies of COVID is 78years old (some countries show 80) with 2.7 comorbidities and that 42% of the COVID deaths came from nursing homes.  And knowing that the average person in a nursing home has a life expectancy of 5 months. When you consider these undeniable facts, that the vast majority of deaths when you look at the NON COVID excess deaths and the Nursing home/average age of 78 year old with 2.7 comorbidites, that a low percentage of people that have died have died strictly due to COVID.

 

All of that is relevant to other conversations and has been covered in many places. Adding another one, there's a good map that shows how many deaths have occurred in nursing homes by state. It's high. 

 

1 hour ago, Magox said:

And no, Louisiana was not hit hard because of that.  It was primarily New Orleans as most of the rest of Louisiana was relatively spared.  They just happened to be a city that was seeded early on and it spread like wildfire until they burnt out.   What is happening now with Louisiana is that the rest of the cities like Shreveport, Lafayette, Baton Rouge among other cities are now having their turn at this musical COVID chairs. 

 

And? The point is that the LA chart looks like the NE because NOLA got hit hard. Just like the NYS and NJ state data is all NYC-metro driven. That all supports my point that those places had bad treatments, behavior adaptations slow to take hold, etc.  

 

 

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

People please!!!! We’ve been wearing masks in liberal California for months now! It may help slow the spread but it clearly didn’t STOP THE SPREAD. Geez, this topic isn’t anywhere near as complicated as many so desperately want it to be!

 

California probably has the best flattened curve in the US, especially given how many huge pop centers there are. 

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

What a bull#### chart and article from the NY Times.  More mainstream analysis that lacks complete context and understanding of how things are working.

 

Look at how they attempt to portray Texas in that chart, as if it's going through some huge excess death surge.   Texas has the lowest per capita death rate due to Coronavirus out of any of the large state along with California.  

 

Even according to CDC which is severely under counted, but even if you were to accept their analysis, anywhere between 16%-40% of all the excess deaths are not COVID-19 related deaths.    And we know how shoddy the reporting systems have been and classifying deaths that aren't truly COVID as COVID deaths.

 

It's amazing how people from the NY times and other mainstream outlets are not able to add 2+2 and realize that the answer is 4.    When we know that the average person who dies of COVID is 78years old (some countries show 80) with 2.7 comorbidities and that 42% of the COVID deaths came from nursing homes.  And knowing that the average person in a nursing home has a life expectancy of 5 months. When you consider these undeniable facts, that the vast majority of deaths when you look at the NON COVID excess deaths and the Nursing home/average age of 78 year old with 2.7 comorbidites, that a low percentage of people that have died have died strictly due to COVID.

 

I don't expect their readers to apply critical thinking and see that common sense doesn't jive with their narrative, it's the news media organizations that are either purposely misleading people or that they are so desperate to push a narrative that they are oblivious to context and common sense.

 

•  

 

 

And no, Louisiana was not hit hard because of that.  It was primarily New Orleans as most of the rest of Louisiana was relatively spared.  They just happened to be a city that was seeded early on and it spread like wildfire until they burnt out.   What is happening now with Louisiana is that the rest of the cities like Shreveport, Lafayette, Baton Rouge among other cities are now having their turn at this musical COVID chairs. 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation, if you are going to read anything about COVID from a mainstream outlet, apply some additional thought and research.  Most of the time you will find that it's all bull####.

 

Not only should you never believe any data filtered through journalists outright, if you want to analyze data like an actual scientist would you'll read the ENTIRE study, not just the abstract, and completely understand the methodology used. Then you'll also read cited articles from the paper that are crucial to your complete understanding of what was done. You'll also read all contemporary papers being published in the field, especially the ones that disagree with your preconceived notions that you shouldn't have in the first place as a scientist. 

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

California probably has the best flattened curve in the US, especially given how many huge pop centers there are. 

And what I know from living here is that the flattening has NOT been caused by any change of behavior or mask wearing. We didn’t go back to school, yet. We didn’t go back to church, yet. There’s been no change at the beach. The overwhelming majority of people have been wearing masks since April in all of our stores, and in general when out in public. It’s a contagious virus but it’s not lethal to the ‘general’ population....it just isn’t! 

Edited August 13, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[Magox]

Quote

You seem triggered by the source, which just shows data. Almost no opinions there.

 

It's as if you didn't digest anything that I wrote.  Not surprising.

 

Quote

"Attempt to portray Texas" WTF? All that chart shows is what months excess deaths occurred. That's just data. It's not anything to fear. Just shows when things happened. You make it sound like a sinister plot when all it does is show movement of the disease by state and region. 

 

It is.  It's either highly biased lacking in context to push a narrative or they lack any ability to apply common sense.  The whole basis of the article is that there are more COVID related deaths than what has been tallied.   Again, you missed the mark.

 

Quote

 

As I noted, and as the article notes, the CDC provisional death counts are slow to identify COVID deaths, which is why the CV-only deaths in earlier months are above the norm at the CDC and not as much in later--the CDC has not yet classified all the later deaths in the same way that the states have. Their process is slower.

 

You can see that in the charts I linked upthread where I dealt with this. 

 

 Never mind the fact that we know that close to 50% of the COVID deaths were on track to die less than half a year.  Where is your common sense?  

 

Quote

All of that is relevant to other conversations and has been covered in many places. Adding another one, there's a good map that shows how many deaths have occurred in nursing homes by state. It's high. 

 

No, it's relevant to this discussion, not just relevant but highly relevant.  The fact that you don't recognize that says a lot on how you are unable to process information.

 

Quote

And? The point is that the LA chart looks like the NE because NOLA got hit hard. Just like the NYS and NJ state data is all NYC-metro driven. That all supports my point that those places had bad treatments, behavior adaptations slow to take hold, etc. 

 

It does absolutely 0 to support what you said.  Zero, zilch, nada, nothing.   

6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Not only should you never believe any data filtered through journalists outright, if you want to analyze data like an actual scientist would you'll read the ENTIRE study, not just the abstract, and completely understand the methodology used. Then you'll also read cited articles from the paper that are crucial to your complete understanding of what was done. You'll also read all contemporary papers being published in the field, especially the ones that disagree with your preconceived notions that you shouldn't have in the first place as a scientist. 

 

 

This is why guys like Berenson are people to follow...They cut through the B.S mainstream out-of-context mainstream "analysis" and are able to apply sound reason and logic backed up by data.    

 

No one is infallible and especially when it comes to COVID, everyone will get some things wrong but his analysis on COVID has been a public service for people who truly want to get a good feel of how things are.

[BillStime]

Thank you Trump voters - #deathcult

 

 

[Gary M]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Thank you Trump voters - #deathcult

 

 

But still 1.5 million less than estimated so Thank you POTUS Trump. keep winning Keep MAGA

[ziltoid]

I always like my data presented without axis labels.

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

 

This is why guys like Berenson are people to follow...They cut through the B.S mainstream out-of-context mainstream "analysis" and are able to apply sound reason and logic backed up by data.    

 

No one is infallible and especially when it comes to COVID, everyone will get some things wrong but his analysis on COVID has been a public service for people who truly want to get a good feel of how things are.

 

 I dont disagree and I've read Berenson, and while his analysis isn't flawed he often states things with a level of certainty which I don't like. At the same time I understand that social media statements can't come with waffling. 

 

We are in the middle of a pandemic, which is essentially a virology study with the earth as the petri dish. More definitive conclusions can be made once we are past this and all the data is collected and analyzed. Even then you have scientific institutions with agendas that purposely skew data and conclusions. Ive been guilty myself of reading into data halfway through an experiment and concluding what the data will say at the end. Its a natural human tendency that the rigor of science is designed to combat.

Edited August 13, 2020 by BillsFanNC

[BillStime]

Um - no thanks but of course Trump is going to transfer more of our tax dollars to his friends! 

 

 

[LB3]

37 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Thank you Trump voters - #deathcult

 

 

I would bet that number goes down in the coming months. The people who would have died between September and December under normal circumstances were taken early.

[Magox]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 I dont disagree and I've read Berenson, and while his analysis isn't flawed he often states things with a level of certainty which I don't like. At the same I understand that social media statements can't come with waffling. 

 

We are in the middle of a pandemic, which is essentially a virology study with the earth as the petri dish. More definitive conclusions can be made once we are past this and all the data is collected and analyzed. Even then you have scientific institutions with agendas that purposely skew data and conclusions. Ive been guilty myself of reading into data halfway through an experiment and concluding what the data will say at the end. Its a natural human tendency that the rigor of science is designed to combat.

 

No doubt that his stuff does grate some people the wrong way.   Unfortunately, meager sounding opinions don't get the attention.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

40 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said:

I always like my data presented without axis labels.

Because of the ties to the Nazzys and WW2, obviously. 

[ziltoid]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Because of the ties to the Nazzys and WW2, obviously. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, LB3 said:

I would bet that number goes down in the coming months. The people who would have died between September and December under normal circumstances were taken early.

 

A rational mind would expect that, yes.

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

It does absolutely 0 to support what you said.  Zero, zilch, nada, nothing.   

 

 

Why factors do think contributed to the fatality spikes in IT, ES, NYC Metro, NOLA that were not repeated in FL, TX, JP, CA? 

 

The two factors I proposed were #1: Treatment protocols. #2: Distancing measures particularly protecting the most vulnerable. 

 

Since you say that #1 and #2 are not supported by the data, let me know what you'd put ahead of those 2. 

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, Gary M said:

But still 1.5 million less than estimated so Thank you POTUS Trump. keep winning Keep MAGA

 

 

He's never going to respond to the fact that on March 13, the model that shutdown the planet said BEST CASE in the U.S. was 1.1 million dead.  

 

He will never ever respond to that.  He's more mad at Trump (not really he's just a hack) then the modelers probably completely in the tank for the WHO.  

[shoshin]

57 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said:

I always like my data presented without axis labels.

[Taro T]

41 minutes ago, LB3 said:

I would bet that number goes down in the coming months. The people who would have died between September and December under normal circumstances were taken early.

 

That's a reasonable expectation.  

 

But am guessing though that overall the reductions won't fully balance out as due to both people putting off procedures and Dr's visits & increased stress from the uncertainty this year has created that we'll see preventable deaths from causes like heart attack, stroke, suicide, etc. increasing over the expected baseline which will end up offsetting the people that would've been expected to die in the fall that lost a few months of life due to the novel virus.

[LB3]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

That's a reasonable expectation.  

 

But am guessing though that overall the reductions won't fully balance out as due to both people putting off procedures and Dr's visits & increased stress from the uncertainty this year has created that we'll see preventable deaths from causes like heart attack, stroke, suicide, etc. increasing over the expected baseline which will end up offsetting the people that would've been expected to die in the fall that lost a few months of life due to the novel virus.

Good point.

[BillStime]

Mmmhmmm