Covid-19 Discussion
Has the wisdom and courage to realize that the cure has now become worse than the disease. It's time to open up. Stop moving the ball.
Hospital systems have not been overwhelmed.
Ventilators are not in shortage.
Treatments are being developed.
There is no cure or vaccine. This is not going away for four years.
The devastation of the cure:
Suicide rates picking up.
Massive economic devastation which causes depression, anxiety, obesity, again increase in suicide rates and directly impacts poorer economic areas.
Alcohol sales up 51%.
Domestic Abuse on the uprise
Child abuse on the uprise.
Hospitals that do not have COVID related issues are forced to lay off doctors and nurses as there are not enough patients to economically support it, meaning they won't have the staff to deal with COVID outbreaks.
Michael Avenatti gets released from prison
We all did our part. We sheltered (here in Pennsylvania for 5 weeks already).
Open the office buildings. Open the hair saloons. Get rid of stupid mask laws.
Continue to monitor outbreaks and in areas hospital systems become threatened, reenact tougher guidelines.
LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!
And stop shaming people that want common sense solutions. Waiting for a vaccine is stupid and unpractical.
Yep, it's a waste of time. They reached their conclusion on day 1 and have spent every day since walking around looking under rocks for clues and listening to kooks who echo their unsubstantiated conclusions. It's the opposite of the scientific method.
You are plain wrong about this statement that you made earlier:
The cumulative COVID-19 USA death toll in mid April 2020 was only 25,000 nowhere near enough to yield a complete picture of how the mortality would play out across age cohorts.
After I showed you global data + USA data that showed we had a very accurate idea by April 2020 about how mortality would play out across age cohorts you just closed your eyes and discarded all the data.
Not enough data!!
Spare me the self righteousness Mr Rick.
Lockdowns for people under 55 were a complete failure in policy globally. You simply refuse to weigh the cost of these lockdowns and how we are paying for it in aggregate today.
I have zero problem if people that were pro mask mandate and lockdowns simply stopped posting trying to defend their positions.
Not sure if this applies to pro lockdown people in this forum, but in many countries, they can't admit they were wrong and it was absolutely clear they were wrong even when enacted, not only through ex-post analysis (with the possible exception of the first 3 months), because if that is the case we are talking very severe crimes (in some countries).
If you lie (and it's a lie even if done through mathematical modeling, when you lie about assumptions or about purported causality you don't have any prove of) about something to justify the suspension of basic constitutional rights for millions of citizens, that's a very very very severe crime in many countries.
Proving such a lie was a conscious choice might be hard in court, but certainly people admitting they were wrong would help build a case against them, or their political leaders, or the scientifical bodies which were used to fabricate and spread those modeled lies and their components.
Because once they admit they were wrong and give their reason why (certainly trying to build arguments that are based on after-the-fact knowledge), you then simply need to show that the knowledge was present at the time of the choice to prove they committed or enabled exceptionally severe crimes.
Please remember that (perhaps not in the USA as much as elsewhere) for countries like Italy, Spain, France, Australia and others we are talking by a very large margin the biggest suspensions of civil rights in peacetime history . We are talking a truly unprecedented violation (if it's proven it was a deliberate choice based on lies they knew were lies) of democratic constitutions in their most important parts.
An "healthcare based dictatorship", an attempted (and succesful, albeit temporarily) coup. Court martial material for thousands of people in each of the above countries.
They were pro lockdown mostly because their monetary livelihood was secure. They got paid regardless of how much global destruction they caused.
There wasn't a financial cost to being wrong. If they nuked the economy and were wrong about doing so it didn't matter. They weren't the ones paying.
They were pro lockdown mostly because their monetary livelihood was secure. They got paid regardless of how much global destruction they caused.
There wasn't a financial cost to being wrong. If they nuked the economy and were wrong about doing so it didn't matter. They weren't the ones paying.
Again not sure if it applies to people in this forum, but i am talking being in favor of militaries in the streets stopping everyone including them and fining you if you were over X meters from your house without a "compelling need" you had to prove. It goes well above mere economic considerations, it's about being in favour of absolutely unprecedented limitations of basic freedoms for everyone, "because models".
I am not even talking being in favor of, say, closing movie theaters for a while.
You are plain wrong about this statement that you made earlier:
After I showed you global data + USA data that showed we had a very accurate idea by April 2020 about how mortality would play out across age cohorts you just closed your eyes and discarded all the data.
Not enough data!!
Your logic was wrong when your made this same assertion earlier in the thread and it remains wrong now. Pointing to early statistics in a few regions with no statistical controls and when the data was still unsettled and claiming it could be used to make sweeping public health policy decisions about a developing pandemic that don't error on the side of caution is absurd.
Thank you for all your posts.
Sometimes you add facts for me to understand the nuances which has been very helpful.
I have been thinking of leaving as well because the level of arguments is so bad. People cherry picking data like Brian James citing children in England having an increase of unexplained deaths when just about every country in the word has had a huge reduction of unexplained deaths in 2022 and 2023 after huge and unprecedented increases in 2020 and 2021. And then Tien citing Sweden
This is nonsense.
I was talking about excess deaths not unexplained deaths and the data was correct. Also many countries still have excess mortality above normal through 2022 and 2023.
Can’t beat that rock solid scientific analysis.
It looks like you are arguing with yourself. :p
This is nonsense.
I was talking about excess deaths not unexplained deaths and the data was correct. Also many countries still have excess mortality above normal through 2022 and 2023.
That's because some insane people decided to keep using the 2016-2019 average death rate as permanent baseline while most countries are getting older so you would expect increasing lethality every year, obviously.
Notice that they started this to overestimate COVID mortality on purpose (no reason in literature to use previous years as baseline death rate: actuarial predictions based on the demographic pyramid precovid are the correct baseline)
That's because some insane people decided to keep using the 2016-2019 average death rate as permanent baseline while most countries are getting older so you would expect increasing lethality every year, obviously.
Notice that they started this to overestimate COVID mortality on purpose (no reason in literature to use previous years as baseline death rate: actuarial predictions based on the demographic pyramid precovid are the correct baseline)
A lot of oldies died off in 2020/21. Anyway the excess mortality has skewed more to younger age groups since then.
Hey gorgo. How many times have you spat the dummy and threatened to quit the thread now? I've lost count.
Nobody says I was quitting the thread, captain illiteracy. I said I'm going to reduce my involvement.
I wouldn't expect you to start understanding basic English sentences now, though. MJ.gif
I'll make it easy for you: for an unknown amount of time, I'm going to step aside and let others argue with the brick wall that is your (and others') head. I may jump back in at anytime I choose to, and you will have to deal with whatever happens. So sorry to disappoint you.
That's because some insane people decided to keep using the 2016-2019 average death rate as permanent baseline while most countries are getting older so you would expect increasing lethality every year, obviously.
Notice that they started this to overestimate COVID mortality on purpose (no reason in literature to use previous years as baseline death rate: actuarial predictions based on the demographic pyramid precovid are the correct baseline)
Do you have statistical references to the specific age composition changes of the population over that period that correlate to the increased death rate you attribute to that and not COVID?
Do you have statistical references to the specific age composition changes of the population over that period that correlate to the increased death rate you attribute to that and not COVID?
I do for Italy because being an Italian I studied that.
I used 2018 population projections from our statistical institute which crucially included mortality predictions per year.
They expected approx 1% increase in total deaths per year up to 2035-2040.
So the 2015-2019 baseline (averaged into 2017 ) had to be increased by 3% in 2020, 4% in 2021 and so on before accounting for excess deaths (for Italy)
In the USA, yes, and the reason is called fentanyl.
In Italy, Spain, France and so on, absolutely no
Nope. Not just the US.
It's the same in other countries with high excess mortality, the UK, Australia for example. Which (surprise, suprise) just happen to be highly vaccinated countries as well.
Spare me the self righteousness Mr Rick.
Lockdowns for people under 55 were a complete failure in policy globally. You simply refuse to weigh the cost of these lockdowns and how we are paying for it in aggregate today.
I have zero problem if people that were pro mask mandate and lockdowns simply stopped posting trying to defend their positions.
What cost are we paying today related to the lockdown still ??
Btw here a questions , do u believe without lockdown no one would of need hospital because of COVID infections ?
Do u believe the COVID virus couldn’t mutate as increase of infections explode exponentially by not doing any lockdowns ?
You are plain wrong about this statement that you made earlier:
After I showed you global data + USA data that showed we had a very accurate idea by April 2020 about how mortality would play out across age cohorts you just closed your eyes and discarded all the data.
Not enough data!!
It’s funny using such small size in numbers and time frame it’s a certainty for u to say a unknown virus like COVID was perfectly known at that time
and on the other side after many billions of injections , from something human created , with a much larger time frame some here ( not u) still maintain the vaccine might of been dangerous ….tho no strong scientific evidences (if at all ) can be found .
I do for Italy because being an Italian I studied that.
I used 2018 population projections from our statistical institute which crucially included mortality predictions per year.
They expected approx 1% increase in total deaths per year up to 2035-2040.
So the 2015-2019 baseline (averaged into 2017 ) had to be increased by 3% in 2020, 4% in 2021 and so on before accounting for excess deaths (for Italy)
So you're saying the "excess" deaths in Italy weren't excess at all but a consequence of an aging population where the death rate would have naturally gone up the amount it did even without COVID. That's very interesting. Can you please share references to a government or public-health organization producing the demographic statistics that support this assertion?
So you're saying the "excess" deaths in Italy weren't excess at all but a consequence of an aging population where the death rate would have naturally gone up the amount it did even without COVID. That's very interesting. Can you please share references to a government or public-health organization producing the demographic statistics that support this assertion?
No, because the excess was above even the correct baseline (which is approx (1%, 5-8k more deaths per year every year expected)
But the excess was smaller than "official" numbers tell you, and was 0 under 55 for men and under 66 for women even in 2020 (official numbers are no excess deaths under 45-50 for men and 55 for women).
This is the crucial study which you can use for baseline. Projections from 2017 on (written in 2018 with computations finished in 2016) by the Italian institute of statistics
On the right "decessi" Is deaths (expected). Do you see how it grows? Using a baseline expectation of stable mortality is a complete fraud for Italy and anyone engaging in it is either absolutely incompetent, or in bad faith, and should lose all credibility on the matter.
The document is from "il futuro demografico del paese" (the demographic future of the country) published in may 2018
Nobody says I was quitting the thread, captain illiteracy. I said I'm going to reduce my involvement.
I wouldn't expect you to start understanding basic English sentences now, though. MJ.gif
I'll make it easy for you: for an unknown amount of time, I'm going to step aside and let others argue with the brick wall that is your (and others') head. I may jump back in at anytime I choose to, and you will have to deal with whatever happens. So sorry to disappoint you.
It's OK Gorgo. I'll take over as captain of the thread until such time as you feel up to it again. No hurry. You need to recover from the beating you have been taking lately. I completely understand.
I've got a lot of informative content to post. So don't worry, we will manage without you.
Sounds like a 180 degree departure from your current posting strategy and history.
Though I doubt that your leopard can change it's spots.
No, because the excess was above even the correct baseline (which is approx (1%, 5-8k more deaths per year every year expected)
But the excess was smaller than "official" numbers tell you, and was 0 under 55 for men and under 66 for women even in 2020 (official numbers are no excess deaths under 45-50 for men and 55 for women).
This is the crucial study which you can use for baseline. Projections from 2017 on (written in 2018 with computations finished in 2016) by the Italian institute of statisti
Thanks. According to Excess total mortality during the Covid-..., excess deaths in Italty for were 99,334 for 03/2020 to 12/2020 and 61,808 in 2021. The expected death rate chart in the PDF you linked shows it growing by only a few thousand per year for this same period. What am I missing if I want to connect your assertion about the excess death rate attributed to COVID actually being the result of under-reported expected deaths, with the chart in the PDF you supplied as evidence?
Thanks. According to Excess total mortality during the Covid-..., excess deaths in Italty for were 99,334 for 03/2020 to 12/2020 and 61,808 in 2021. The expected death rate chart in the PDF you linked shows it growing by only a few thousand per year for this same period. What am I missing if I want to connect your assertion about the excess death rate attributed to COVID actually being the result of under-reported ex
antivaxxers are using the same wrongly decided baseline to claim now that working age cohorts are experiencing excess deaths.
in Australia those cohorts are bigger than they were in 2015-2019, so more people 25-44 are expected to die than in 2015-2019.
I was pointing out that like lockdownistas used baselines to exaggerate the lethality on younger people, antivaxxers use the same wrongly decided baselines to claim there are now excess deaths.
the whole "using a 5 year average" baseline without adjustment for cohorts changing is a fraud
