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

[Sundancer]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Try to follow along with my point ok.  Of the patients in LA county hospitals for Covid ony 40% were admitted FOR Covid while 60% were admitted WITH Covid.  I was wondering aloud if the reports during the peak of Covid deaths had a similar ratio.  Had 40% died FROM Covid while 60% died WITH Covid.  It had nothing to do with the surge in LA county.  Get it?? 

 

That makes even less sense given differences in treatments, severity, and prevention at different times during the pandemic. 

 

It's like comparing the deaths from malaria in America in 1810 and now. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Try to follow along with my point ok.  Of the patients in LA county hospitals for Covid ony 40% were admitted FOR Covid while 60% were admitted WITH Covid.  I was wondering aloud if the reports during the peak of Covid deaths had a similar ratio.  Had 40% died FROM Covid while 60% died WITH Covid.  It had nothing to do with the surge in LA county.  Get it?? 

Sunny D can’t keep track of his own posts, expecting him to follow yours is a big ask. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Sundancer said:

 

That makes even less sense given differences in treatments, severity, and prevention at different times during the pandemic. 

 

It's like comparing the deaths from malaria in America in 1810 and now. 

 

Yeah...it's JUST like that.  

 

So do you think that they WAY overestimated the number of Covid deaths vs those that just died with Covid?  Remember hospitals got more money for Covid deaths. 

 

BTW treatments and severity have nothing to do with the today's ratio.  It's the number that showed up at ER with Covid or something else and were found to have Covid.  Treatment hadn't even started yet.  

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Sunny D can’t keep track of his own posts, expecting him to follow yours is a big ask. 

 

I'm not sure it that was a dig on me too.  LOL 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

21 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Yeah...it's JUST like that.  

 

So do you think that they WAY overestimated the number of Covid deaths vs those that just died with Covid?  Remember hospitals got more money for Covid deaths. 

 

BTW treatments and severity have nothing to do with the today's ratio.  It's the number that showed up at ER with Covid or something else and were found to have Covid.  Treatment hadn't even started yet.  

 

I'm not sure it that was a dig on me too.  LOL 

Not this time, Chef! 

[Chef Jim]

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

Not this time, Chef! 

 

Well that's no fun.  

[Sundancer]

13 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Sunny D can’t keep track of his own posts, expecting him to follow yours is a big ask. 

Two hammers believer guy shows up to a party to comment on credibility. That’s cute. 

12 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Yeah...it's JUST like that.  

 

So do you think that they WAY overestimated the number of Covid deaths vs those that just died with Covid? 

 

Yes I do. 
 

But not based on your stupid article. 
 

12 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

BTW treatments and severity have nothing to do with the today's ratio.  It's the number that showed up at ER with Covid or something else and were found to have Covid.  Treatment hadn't even started yet.  

 

 

They do when talking about deaths from Covid, your alleged point. 
 

12 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, Sundancer said:

 

 

Yes I do. 
 

But not based on your stupid article. 

 

Then what are you basing your reasoning on and by how much do you think they overestimated Covid deaths?

 

 My whole point was in using this “stupid”

article was if  they could be way overstating the number of COVID hospitalizations could they have way overstated the number of deaths by the same ratio 4:6? But I guess you’re the smartest man in the room and I just share stupid articles. 🙄

[GaryPinC]

6 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Then what are you basing your reasoning on and by how much do you think they overestimated Covid deaths?

 

 My whole point was in using this “stupid”

article was if  they could be way overstating the number of COVID hospitalizations could they have way overstated the number of deaths by the same ratio 4:6? But I guess you’re the smartest man in the room and I just share stupid articles. 🙄

Help me out here, because I fail to follow your reasoning.  The article seems to drive home the point:

 

Out of 100% of Covid positive admitted patients, 40% were admitted for Covid (severe enough symptoms) while 60% were admitted for indirect injuries/symptoms but tested positive for Covid.  It's worth noting these are not 100% of total patients admitted, just 100% of the Covid-positive admittees.

 

And you are wondering if this ratio translates to how much they overstated the death ratio?

 

1.  40 and 60% are not death ratios in this context.  They are admittances, plenty of patients admitted for covid symptoms survive, especially at this stage of an endemic virus.  This is what Sundancer is alluding to, you don't know how many of these patients survived, especially in the context of 40 vs 60.  If any deaths from this 100% group were all from the 40% would that really be applicable to your reasoning?  Should you change your mind and decide deaths weren't overstated, why or why not?

 

2.  Without digging too deep, at first glance it appears the CDC examines death certificates and applies criteria for who died primarily from Covid and who died with Covid.  This may be separate from the hospital declaration to control for mis-attributed deaths.  You're welcome to dig further, they discuss their criteria:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

 

Here's also their excess deaths graph (all causes) compared to historical data, which speaks volumes:

 

Wherever you choose to attribute the deaths, the impact of the virus is clear.

 

3.  Finally, these are medical professionals working hard to help people.  There are very clear symptoms and progressions for most people who die from Covid.

https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/covid-19-symptoms-progress-death-3536264/

 

 

 

Obviously if someone has ongoing respiratory issues at the time of infection, it can get complex, but medical professionals are intimately familiar with what it looks like to die from Covid so while I believe there was some over-attribution of Covid deaths, I do believe it wasn't a large amount and may have been corrected for, even if the hospital got paid incorrectly.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 hours ago, Sundancer said:

Two hammers believer guy shows up to a party to comment on credibility. That’s cute. 

 

Yet another regurgitation of a falsehood, one of several as you changed your story from post to post. 
 

As for party crashing, the first time you darkened my doorstep with your silliness, you responded to a post I sent to @B-Man . 

 

This time, you chimed in on a post directed to

 @Chef Jim.   
 

While neither interaction would constitute a party in my mind, the consistent element was you reaching out to me in some strange quest to be validated.  

 

 

[Chef Jim]

12 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Help me out here, because I fail to follow your reasoning.  The article seems to drive home the point:

 

Out of 100% of Covid positive admitted patients, 40% were admitted for Covid (severe enough symptoms) while 60% were admitted for indirect injuries/symptoms but tested positive for Covid.  It's worth noting these are not 100% of total patients admitted, just 100% of the Covid-positive admittees.

 

And you are wondering if this ratio translates to how much they overstated the death ratio?

 

1.  40 and 60% are not death ratios in this context.  They are admittances, plenty of patients admitted for covid symptoms survive, especially at this stage of an endemic virus.  This is what Sundancer is alluding to, you don't know how many of these patients survived, especially in the context of 40 vs 60.  If any deaths from this 100% group were all from the 40% would that really be applicable to your reasoning?  Should you change your mind and decide deaths weren't overstated, why or why not?

 

2.  Without digging too deep, at first glance it appears the CDC examines death certificates and applies criteria for who died primarily from Covid and who died with Covid.  This may be separate from the hospital declaration to control for mis-attributed deaths.  You're welcome to dig further, they discuss their criteria:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

 

Here's also their excess deaths graph (all causes) compared to historical data, which speaks volumes:

 

Wherever you choose to attribute the deaths, the impact of the virus is clear.

 

3.  Finally, these are medical professionals working hard to help people.  There are very clear symptoms and progressions for most people who die from Covid.

https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/covid-19-symptoms-progress-death-3536264/

 

 

 

Obviously if someone has ongoing respiratory issues at the time of infection, it can get complex, but medical professionals are intimately familiar with what it looks like to die from Covid so while I believe there was some over-attribution of Covid deaths, I do believe it wasn't a large amount and may have been corrected for, even if the hospital got paid incorrectly.  

 

Again it was just me wondering aloud.  I felt that it was as if it was reported this way.

 

There are 1,000 people admitted to ER with Covid.  And there was this footnote of:  Well yeah but only 400 of those people were actually in ER due to Covid.  The other 600 were admitted for other reasons and just happened to test positive for Covid.  I made the leap, and a large one I will admit to this:  1,000 people died with Covid today.  With a footnote of: Well only 400 of them died FROM Covid the other 600 died from other causes but they HAD Covid.  Bottom line is we are all pretty certain the deaths from Covid vs with Covid are two VERY different numbers but were not initially reported as such. This drove the fear hysteria. 

[GaryPinC]

13 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Again it was just me wondering aloud.  I felt that it was as if it was reported this way.

 

There are 1,000 people admitted to ER with Covid.  And there was this footnote of:  Well yeah but only 400 of those people were actually in ER due to Covid.  The other 600 were admitted for other reasons and just happened to test positive for Covid.  I made the leap, and a large one I will admit to this:  1,000 people died with Covid today.  With a footnote of: Well only 400 of them died FROM Covid the other 600 died from other causes but they HAD Covid.  Bottom line is we are all pretty certain the deaths from Covid vs with Covid are two VERY different numbers but were not initially reported as such. This drove the fear hysteria. 

Ah.  Well, there's your flaw.  It is never definitively stated that any of them died, though I'm sure some did(maybe the 21?). 

 

And no, outside of far right circles most of the US does not believe deaths from Covid vs deaths with Covid are two VERY different numbers.  Sorry, the evidence is not there.  But happy to entertain evidence you feel proves your point.

[Sundancer]

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

Yet another regurgitation of a falsehood, one of several as you changed your story from post to post. 
 

 

Captain Apologist caught in another lie:

 

This was you, "The police spokesman in the link provided said that both men were holding hammers, and that they arrived, one man began bashing the other guy with a hammer" and here is the link.

 

 

As I've linked in the actual story, that's never what they said. It's a story you made up and I called you on it then and continue to. When might you admit you were 100% wrong? 

 

Never.

 

Good look. 

 

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

As for party crashing, the first time you darkened my doorstep with your silliness, you responded to a post I sent to @B-Man . 

 

This time, you chimed in on a post directed to

 @Chef Jim.   
 

While neither interaction would constitute a party in my mind, the consistent element was you reaching out to me in some strange quest to be validated.  
 

 

Yeah, you chimed in to accuse me of changing some story. I've asked for a link to said change but you can't provide it. Yet here I am quoting your stupidity and noting your lie with actual evidence. 

 

Your words haunt you two hammer conspiracy believer. If you want to pipe up, expect to get smacked around for being a liar. 

 BTW, cute that you're calling for Jim and B-Man for help. Can't fight your own battles? 

[SoCal Deek]

Two Hammers Guy?  Was he in the Godfather? Or was it the Sopranos? Ya know.....Johnny Two Hammers. 

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Two Hammers Guy?  Was he in the Godfather? Or was it the Sopranos? Ya know.....Johnny Two Hammers. 

No. Porno Freaks Part 7. 

[Big Blitz]

 

 

[Doc]

Edelweiss...

[Chef Jim]

46 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

The vaccine now protects you from Covid?  Haven’t we been through this?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 hours ago, Sundancer said:

 

Your words haunt you two hammer conspiracy believer. If you want to pipe up, expect to get smacked around for being a liar. 

 BTW, cute that you're calling for Jim and B-Man for help. Can't fight your own battles? 

I've deleted the preamble on the inane points you've offered previously, and you're rambling no less now than you did then.  You're welcome to feel anyway you choose, but that doesn't change anything you've said or done.  

 

As usual, you're juggling a few different points of view and just can't keep to stay on track.  On 11/19, you went on a weird screed about the PPP site and tagged the site owner---the freaking site owner--- presumably to get me in some sort of trouble.  Your post was just about the saddest thing I've seen on this board over the years, and that says a lot.  A little bit of a snitch, a little bit of a rat, a little bit of a weasel, and a quick look at how you view problem-solving and dispute resolution--that is to say, ya call the principal.  This time, it seems the principal didn't take the call? 

 

The good news is that this post is about 10 times more pathetic than that one because you were focused on the tough talk and not what you said previously.  The bad news is you now occupy spots 1 and 2. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sundancer]

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

I've deleted the preamble on the inane points you've offered previously, and you're rambling no less now than you did then.  You're welcome to feel anyway you choose, but that doesn't change anything you've said or done.  

 

As usual, you're juggling a few different points of view and just can't keep to stay on track.  On 11/19, you went on a weird screed about the PPP site and tagged the site owner---the freaking site owner--- presumably to get me in some sort of trouble.  Your post was just about the saddest thing I've seen on this board over the years, and that says a lot.  A little bit of a snitch, a little bit of a rat, a little bit of a weasel, and a quick look at how you view problem-solving and dispute resolution--that is to say, ya call the principal.  This time, it seems the principal didn't take the call? 

 

You think this sentence was me tattle-taling on you?!? 

 

"SDS runs TBD and allows this hole to exist because he somehow enjoys what it brings to the overall site. "

 

Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you, dude.

 

I tagged Scott to see if he would chime in on the value of PPP. I've chatted with him before about it and thought he might want to post here about his thoughts. Trust me: He's seen a lot worse here than you. And if I was going to report you, there's a button for it. I have not seen anything in your posts that would ever merit that though. What would merit a use of the report button at PPP: death threats, suicide claims, doxxing, kiddy porn, I don't even know what else would concern me at that level. 

 

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

 

The good news is that this post is about 10 times more pathetic than that one because you were focused on the tough talk and not what you said previously.  The bad news is you now occupy spots 1 and 2. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see that you can't give an example of the contradictory posts you say I've made even though I've asked you 4 times for examples. 

 

But I keep noting your conspiracy belief that was proven wrong with actual links, and I see you won't answer it. Just keep ignoring how dumb you look for buying into the two hammer story. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Sundancer

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

44 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

You think this sentence was me tattle-taling on you?!? 

 

"SDS runs TBD and allows this hole to exist because he somehow enjoys what it brings to the overall site. "

 

Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you, dude.

 

I tagged Scott to see if he would chime in on the value of PPP. I've chatted with him before about it and thought he might want to post here about his thoughts. Trust me: He's seen a lot worse here than you. And if I was going to report you, there's a button for it. I have not seen anything in your posts that would ever merit that though. What would merit a use of the report button at PPP: death threats, suicide claims, doxxing, kiddy porn, I don't even know what else would concern me at that level. 

 

 

I see that you can't give an example of the contradictory posts you say I've made even though I've asked you 4 times for examples. 

 

But I keep noting your conspiracy belief that was proven wrong with actual links, and I see you won't answer it. Just keep ignoring how dumb you look for buying into the two hammer story. 

I don't know what you think, but more importantly, you don't know what you think.  

 

As for tagging the site owner, man, thank you for explaining how you thought he might want to put aside the important personal and professional issues he surely deals with to share his thoughts on the value of PPP in the middle of the Pelosi attacker thread.  It probably happens all the time.  I usually call my plumber around 2:30am to ask him what he thinks about copper v pex v galvanized pipe in my home.  The guy loves me.  

 

I get that you are sort of the Associate Site Consigliere, but I do want to offer a suggestion.   Perhaps in your next private conversation with him, you should discuss whether or not namedropping the site owner should violate terms of service, even when it's only for the sake of clarity.   To be completely honest, I have not felt safe in my posting since 11/19, known now and forever to me as the Sundancer Saturday Slaughter. 

 

Have a good day, though. You now hold all the top spots for lamest posts in PPP history.  

Edited November 30, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd