Continuation The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread pt. 2

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

We can any time, but it will be one of those un-anchored discussions without resolution unless anyone in power ever gets around to having those discussions, too. We'll just spit-ball ideas, shoot everyone else's ideas down with keen insight, get butt hurt about our ideas being denied for "reasons", and never have a baseline of what informed, rational people actually end up doing about it.

I suggest a dedicated thread called "sensible solutions to the COVID pandemic." We should save the trouble and go ahead and pre-locate it in AAH.

I spend very little time in the ISF outside the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology board. I'm interested in discussing how to deal with COVID in the US.

A few months ago I knew next to nothing about epidemiology, viruses, public health, etc; today, with the help of many fellow ISF members, I feel ready to have an informed discussion on it, in the context of US Politics.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Then what do think it means you have offered me nothing disputing the claim?

What actually is your claim? That covid is no more serious than flu, or it doesn't require mediation efforts, or it's a hoax, or what? Does 160,000 U.S. deaths in five months with mediation mean anything to you?

[Meadmaker]

The discussion with Gavin mirrors something I find most frustrating about the national dialog on coronavirus. It all seems to be conclusion driven. Pick what you want to be true, and find data to support it.

Here's what I wish would happen, and what I think ought to have happened. The President, seeing that there is a problem, gets a group of about 20 really sharp, knowledgeable people who really know their stuff about epidemiology, and tells them to work full time writing a report about it. Give them a staff at the same time. The report isn't "What should we do", but rather, "What are our available options, and what will happen (deaths, diseases, brain damage, etc) if we take each option?" Publish the findings.

Even on the questions like that, there won't be unanimous opinion, so include the dissenting voices. Keep the panel convened to update the report at least monthly.

If that happened, it would be obvious where everyone agrees, and where the areas of disagreement remain. Then, policy makers could use that as a tool. Under option A, which involves drastic lockdowns for a long time, 100,000 people die. Under option B, which is "lead life as normal, and everyone makes a saving throw versus disease or they catch the disease and die", 2,000,000 people die, although two guys on the panel says it will only be 500,000, and one says it will be 5,000,000.

And do that for all of the "big questions", like, "What if we have a mask mandate?" Because a lot of people have a lot of different opinions, but I think if all of the big guns on the epidemiology council said it would save a lot of lives, that would carry a lot of weight. Of course, this is America, and there will always be plenty of people who figure that the Nobel Prize winners are all wrong, but those will be in a (vocal) minority.

That's what ought to happen. Gather scientists. Do science. Report science. Tell people what is unanimously agreed on, versus what is somewhat controversial, versus where there is no real agreeement on scientists.

Instead, "The guy that was interviewed on CNN last night", carries just as much weight as a senior scientist from the CDC, and the guy who is in charge of policy picks and chooses just like every schmuck on the internet, and declares that the virus will all go away.

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The discussion with Gavin mirrors something I find most frustrating about the national dialog on coronavirus. It all seems to be conclusion driven. Pick what you want to be true, and find data to support it.

Here's what I wish would happen, and what I think ought to have happened. The President, seeing that there is a problem, gets a group of about 20 really sharp, knowledgeable people who really know their stuff about epidemiology, and tells them to work full time writing a report about it. Give them a staff at the same time. The report isn't "What should we do", but rather, "What are our available options, and what will happen (deaths, diseases, brain damage, etc) if we take each option?" Publish the findings.

Even on the questions like that, there won't be unanimous opinion, so include the dissenting voices. Keep the panel convened to update the report at least monthly.

If that happened, it would be obvious where everyone agrees, and where the areas of disagreement remain. Then, policy makers could use that as a tool. Under option A, which involves drastic lockdowns for a long time, 100,000 people die. Under option B, which is "lead life as normal, and everyone makes a saving throw versus disease or they catch the disease and die", 2,000,000 people die, although two guys on the panel says it will only be 500,000, and one says it will be 5,000,000.

And do that for all of the "big questions", like, "What if we have a mask mandate?" Because a lot of people have a lot of different opinions, but I think if all of the big guns on the epidemiology council said it would save a lot of lives, that would carry a lot of weight. Of course, this is America, and there will always be plenty of people who figure that the Nobel Prize winners are all wrong, but those will be in a (vocal) minority.

That's what ought to happen. Gather scientists. Do science. Report science. Tell people what is unanimously agreed on, versus what is somewhat controversial, versus where there is no real agreeement on scientists.

Instead, "The guy that was interviewed on CNN last night", carries just as much weight as a senior scientist from the CDC, and the guy who is in charge of policy picks and chooses just like every schmuck on the internet, and declares that the virus will all go away.

What a wonderful world that would be.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Gavin

This one posted of a continuing discussion you guys are replying to one post as if it’s all have said!

What? I'm responding to a post that was in response to mine!

Forcing people to wear masks because it protects other people is not like forcing people to eat healthy, which protects only the eater.

Do you not understand this?

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Giordano

I’ll give you a hint: did you download and look at the tables themselves yet? What specifically were the other factors listed? What were the criteria that assigned all the deaths as corvid-19 related? What was the interpretation by the epidemiologists who specialize in this sort of thing?

Oh, and how did you happen on the tables themselves? They are a rather obscure densely scientific source. Did you find the
link at a “covid-19 denial” site specializing in distorting actual facts and using them to fool their followers?

This is all you need to know no downloading needed
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. For data on comorbidities,
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...#Comorbidities

[Sherkeu]

Back to School!

My kid goes back to 'in person' school next week (woo hoo!). Really small class and lots of changes to the campus rules. We exceed the guidelines mandated for the California school waiver.

I looked up news of what was happening with the public schools and was surprised to find that the public school and union spokespersons were against private schools reopening sooner since poorer kids would somehow be disproportionately affected by that. It's not equity!, they say.

Um...what? It makes the list of dumbest things I have ever read.

If they got creative, they could do it too. There is no need to have every kid on campus at the same time, full days, every day. There can be a transition plan with staggered attendance for places with larger class sizes. They just cant get their **** together.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I notice the command of written English is a tad awkward. Is it possible? Anyone know what the weather's like in Moscow this summer? (Is actually quiet mild is now.)

I wonder if he named himself after Gavin Newsom. Cute, Agent trollsky!!

[smartcooky]

What it must feel like right now to be a Health Care worker in the USA

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Back to School!

My kid goes back to 'in person' school next week (woo hoo!). Really small class and lots of changes to the campus rules. We exceed the guidelines mandated for the California school waiver.

I looked up news of what was happening with the public schools and was surprised to find that the public school and union spokespersons were against private schools reopening sooner since poorer kids would somehow be disproportionately affected by that. It's not equity!, they say.

Um...what? It makes the list of dumbest things I have ever read.

If they got creative, they could do it too. There is no need to have every kid on campus at the same time, full days, every day. There can be a transition plan with staggered attendance for places with larger class sizes. They just cant get their **** together.

Here's wishing you the best luck science can give.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u8kbj12mpb...rdon.jpg?raw=1

What it must feel like right now to be a Health Care worker in the USA

Mooning them, I hope?

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Gavin

I have covered this there hasn’t been enough time to determine long term disabilities why are none of the major news networks reporting on long term disabilities?
When searches they say the same thing just going by the world meter it’s 3% casualty rate and just confirmed cases also 92% of the deaths are people 55 and above
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...09c1ae_c_d.jpg

Cozy Bear, is that you?

Very make health, super impress, lack of dying plus turgid member all night drive women go crazynuts! Wow, wow, wow buy now! (StephenColbert)

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Gavin

They don’t know how long that will take

Of course not. That would require having a firm handle on things - which just won't happen when it's not fully understood, the initial response was virtually non-existent, the scramble to fix that was sabotaged, and problem groups are actively undermining any and all attempts to get it under control.

With that said, though, it's not a situation where the experts were sitting back and ignoring the situation. That numerous states outright ignored the guidelines for reopening is a lesson in bad politics. To poke at Arizona, as an example, the scientists were able to provide a fairly specific projection of when the state almost certainly would be able to reopen while keeping things under control - and then were pretty much told "Screw you guys, your services are no longer required. We're just going to re-open tomorrow to make Trump happy." And then the case numbers shot up.

So yeah, they don't know how long it'll take - when the measures taken are actively being sabotaged or ignored. That's really not saying much, though. Quite a few countries around the world have managed to reopen either in large part or in full by now, at last check, while keeping COVID numbers either very low or have effectively eliminated it. The US could have been one of them. That it's not is deeply problematic.

Originally Posted by Gavin

and if it will not rise again after the lockdowns

That's the thing. Eradication would be nice, but isn't strictly necessary. Once the numbers are low enough, aggressive testing and contact tracing is enough to keep it under control enough that damage can be minimized and life can go on with only minor inconveniences, like wearing a mask while in public.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Though there was no cure, and no vaccine, there was a long incubation period before symptoms would reveal themselves, and while there was a great deal of confusion about how it was transmitted, the thought of locking down an entire state, nation, or world was inconceivable. The concept of a universal “shelter in place” order was nowhere imaginable. Efforts to impose “social distancing” were selective and voluntary.*

...And the places that did take strong measures to protect the public health had dramatically better outcomes. Is it that you don't like learning from experience or that you want things to be much worse than they could be?

Originally Posted by Gavin

We never had shutdowns for the flu are anything else before covid but everyone acts as no one is dying from anything else

Do you... live in a bizarre alternate world? Or is it that you're letting yourself be led by the nose by RW propagandists who are either shilling for corporate interests, as usual, or just following the RW propaganda flow?

Originally Posted by Gavin

I’m saying it’s not deadly as it’s made out to be we have been cramming 100’s of people in Walmart, Lowe’s and Home depo since the beginning of the virus Walmart just recently made masks mandatory we should all be infected by now anyway

How deadly has it actually been made out to be, in your opinion? With that said, though, as was projected, the death toll of US citizens could easily have been approaching the millions - IF no measures were taken to get things under control. Obviously, measures were taken, because it would be spectacularly dumb to let it go unchecked when reasonably well informed that the consequences of such will be horrible and fairly certainly much worse than the admittedly very unpleasant potential consequences of some of the more extreme measures that may need be taken when the most effective and cost-effective initial period prevention is ignored. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is an old saying that's particularly relevant here. It's most relevant to all the preventative measures that pointedly weren't taken when they should have been according to plan, but it's also relevant up to and including effective lockdowns.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Here's what I wish would happen, and what I think ought to have happened. The President, seeing that there is a problem, gets a group of about 20 really sharp, knowledgeable people who really know their stuff about epidemiology, and tells them to work full time writing a report about it. Give them a staff at the same time. The report isn't "What should we do", but rather, "What are our available options, and what will happen (deaths, diseases, brain damage, etc) if we take each option?" Publish the findings.

Even on the questions like that, there won't be unanimous opinion, so include the dissenting voices. Keep the panel convened to update the report at least monthly.

If that happened, it would be obvious where everyone agrees, and where the areas of disagreement remain. Then, policy makers could use that as a tool. Under option A, which involves drastic lockdowns for a long time, 100,000 people die. Under option B, which is "lead life as normal, and everyone makes a saving throw versus disease or they catch the disease and die", 2,000,000 people die, although two guys on the panel says it will only be 500,000, and one says it will be 5,000,000.

And do that for all of the "big questions", like, "What if we have a mask mandate?" Because a lot of people have a lot of different opinions, but I think if all of the big guns on the epidemiology council said it would save a lot of lives, that would carry a lot of weight. Of course, this is America, and there will always be plenty of people who figure that the Nobel Prize winners are all wrong, but those will be in a (vocal) minority.

That's what ought to happen. Gather scientists. Do science. Report science. Tell people what is unanimously agreed on, versus what is somewhat controversial, versus where there is no real agreeement on scientists.

That would be lovely.

Oh, and...

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So, maybe we can compare infection rates in states that have more restrictions to states with less restrictions.

Over in the Science thread for COVID, marting posted a link to a Kansas Department of Health update that addressed the effects of mandatory public masking versus strongly recommended public masking. The effect seems to be pretty dramatic. The mandatory masking was done in places where there was a lot more risk of outbreaks in nigh every way and cut the transmission to a fraction of what it had been, if the numbers are correct. The strongly recommended had pretty much unchanged and steady numbers.

[newyorkguy]

In the Jonathan Swan interview, trump says:

Quote:

"There are tremendous problems in the world. You look at Moscow, look at what’s going on with Moscow. Look at Brazil, look at these countries what’s going on."

trump puts the U.S. in with Russia and Brazil, in his mind undoubtedly our natural allies. He has praised the leaders of those countries -- Bolsonaro and Putin -- and they have reciprocated. Forget the UK, France and Germany, folks. Brazil and Russia are our new allies.

Let's see how we're doing:

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The discussion with Gavin mirrors something I find most frustrating about the national dialog on coronavirus. It all seems to be conclusion driven. Pick what you want to be true, and find data to support it. (snip)

Sadly very far away from where the US is at the moment, but yes, it would be wonderful.

[Safe-Keeper]

Also, remember the economy was bigly yuge before Covid. Doesn't matter that he inherited the low unemployment rates from Obama, or that the artificially inflated stock market was bound to burst. Once/if the virus is gone, the trumpkins will blame any and all economic problems on the incompetent libs.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Back to School!

My kid goes back to 'in person' school next week (woo hoo!). Really small class and lots of changes to the campus rules. We exceed the guidelines mandated for the California school waiver.

I looked up news of what was happening with the public schools and was surprised to find that the public school and union spokespersons were against private schools reopening sooner since poorer kids would somehow be disproportionately affected by that. It's not equity!, they say.

Um...what? It makes the list of dumbest things I have ever read.

If they got creative, they could do it too. There is no need to have every kid on campus at the same time, full days, every day. There can be a transition plan with staggered attendance for places with larger class sizes. They just cant get their **** together.

Think through the resources required, especially for public schools that already have crowded classes and fewer staff and less room per student than most private schools. One needs more rooms if one is going to spread out the same number of students, or to keep the school open much longer hours if room availability is limited. In either case one will need to hire more teachers or require the existing teachers to work much longer hours.

Basically anyway one spreads out the students or distributes them over space or time requires more staff and resources. Or to ask existing staff to work double time.

Creativity helps but money and other resources are at least as important.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Gavin

This is all you need to know no downloading needed
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. For data on comorbidities,
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...#Comorbidities

I give up. You are looking at, and reaching conclusions from, very brief legends for the tables that provide the actual data. You are not looking at the data, you are misunderstanding what the numbers you cite are really referring to, and you are refusing to download and examine the information you need to actually comprehend the data.

Okay. Seems clear to me that someone provided you this link as “proof” covid-19 is not as dangerous as almost all doctors and epidemiologists believe, including those who generated the tables, and you are passing it blindly on as such without understanding it.

[Bob001]

Some perspective:

Quote:

Despite ample warning, the U.S. squandered every possible opportunity to control the coronavirus. And despite its considerable advantages—immense resources, biomedical might, scientific expertise—it floundered. While countries as different as South Korea, Thailand, Iceland, Slovakia, and Australia acted decisively to bend the curve of infections downward, the U.S. achieved merely a plateau in the spring, which changed to an appalling upward slope in the summer. “The U.S. fundamentally failed in ways that were worse than I ever could have imagined,” Julia Marcus, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, told me.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ailure/614191/

[Delphic Oracle]

Supremacy of knowledge did not matter because our values were ill-suited to the threat.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Supremacy of knowledge did not matter because our values were ill-suited to the threat.

Our values at any given moment are strongly shaped by our leadership. Think of how most of the country, for better or worse, rallied behind George Bush after 9/11. If the President, any President, had gone to the American people in February and said "We are all threatened by this new and deadly disease, and as Americans we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect one another," and he had said it while wearing a red, white and blue "freedom mask," all that followed would have been different. Today we might be where Germany or South Korea are. When the current President said "This is nothing, everything is under control, it wlll all disappear," a lot of people believed him. And here we are.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Giordano

I give up. You are looking at, and reaching conclusions from, very brief legends for the tables that provide the actual data. You are not looking at the data, you are misunderstanding what the numbers you cite are really referring to, and you are refusing to download and examine the information you need to actually comprehend the data.

Okay. Seems clear to me that someone provided you this link as “proof” covid-19 is not as dangerous as almost all doctors and epidemiologists believe, including those who generated the tables, and you are passing it blindly on as such without understanding it.

It's a link and statement took directly from the cdc website your saying cdc is wrong?

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Our values at any given moment are strongly shaped by our leadership. Think of how most of the country, for better or worse, rallied behind George Bush after 9/11. If the President, any President, had gone to the American people in February and said "We are all threatened by this new and deadly disease, and as Americans we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect one another," and he had said it while wearing a red, white and blue "freedom mask," all that followed would have been different. Today we might be where Germany or South Korea are. When the current President said "This is nothing, everything is under control, it wlll all disappear," a lot of people believed him. And here we are.

Very well summed up. trump's lack of leadership is really shocking. Even one of the Koch brothers has bailed on him and for that very reason: his style of leadership. History will not be kind to trump, I don't think.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Our values at any given moment are strongly shaped by our leadership. Think of how most of the country, for better or worse, rallied behind George Bush after 9/11. If the President, any President, had gone to the American people in February and said "We are all threatened by this new and deadly disease, and as Americans we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect one another," and he had said it while wearing a red, white and blue "freedom mask," all that followed would have been different. Today we might be where Germany or South Korea are. When the current President said "This is nothing, everything is under control, it wlll all disappear," a lot of people believed him. And here we are.

Very true.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Gavin

It's a link and statement took directly from the cdc website your saying cdc is wrong?

At no point did they dispute the data.

They disputed your interpretation of the data.

Based on your not seeming to comprehend that explicitly stated point, the possibility you failed to comprehend some very complex data seems eminently plausible.

ETA: keep in mind I haven't even dug back to see who is on which side of whatever is being disagreed, but just pointing out nobody denied the data itself by my reading.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I mentioned reading on a right wing blog, it was linked here, the author writing that x number of people die every year in traffic accidents, x number of people die every year from heart disease, yet we don't shutdown the economy. Then he went on to write how he couldn't understand the difference.

He seemed like a person of at least average intelligence -- and the difference isn't especially hard to understand -- but he had a political motive for writing what he wrote. End-of-story. You can't get these people 'off-message.' Don't expect these people to engage in a rational back-and-forth discussion. They're not looking for a discussion. They're messengers.

The difference is so glaringly obvious, that if someone actually needs to have it explained to them, you're probably just wasting your time.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If it works, it was all due to him.
If not, Democrats are to blame.

Why didn't Obama have a vaccine ready for this?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Our values at any given moment are strongly shaped by our leadership. Think of how most of the country, for better or worse, rallied behind George Bush after 9/11. If the President, any President, had gone to the American people in February and said "We are all threatened by this new and deadly disease, and as Americans we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect one another," and he had said it while wearing a red, white and blue "freedom mask," all that followed would have been different. Today we might be where Germany or South Korea are. When the current President said "This is nothing, everything is under control, it wlll all disappear," a lot of people believed him. And here we are.

Absolutely. And he is still lying to us. Just yesterday he claimed the virus is disappearing with an average of 1,000 Americans dying every day of Covid 19 and 10,000 dying in just 10 days. On Thursday, 2,060 Americans died, the highest number of deaths since May 7. But it's 'disappearing'. His message has been a lie. A lie that has killed people and continues to kill people. We see it here in this very thread by posters who do not believe it is any more serious than the flu secure in their ignorance backed by Trump. Anyone trying to educate them is just wasting their time.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

He seemed like a person of at least average intelligence -- and the difference isn't especially hard to understand -- but he had a political motive for writing what he wrote. End-of-story. You can't get these people 'off-message.' Don't expect these people to engage in a rational back-and-forth discussion. They're not looking for a discussion. They're messengers.

I've long since given up on rational discussion. I'll give everyone a shot, but when they start deflecting, trolling, insulting everyone who disagrees, whining about fake news, or posting whataboutisms, or the other typical 'control the conversation' behaviour that's the trumpkins' trademark, I just stop responding.

In a game of prisoner's dilemma, I believe in starting out generous, and then applying reciprocity -- cooperate when cooperated with, betray when betrayed. When someone is just there to troll or create noise, I ignore them until they start contributing, if they ever do.

The obvious downside is that if everyone did this, the trumpkins would never hear the counter-arguments they desperately need to hear, and far fewer of them would be converted. Also, I know there's something to be said for responding for the audience' sake. It's just that with creationists, CTers, and other clowns, you can usually have some kind of conversation with them, even if it just means having to repeat the same facts and arguments over and over, or debunking outlandish blogs and YouTube videos. Trumpkins don't even seem to want to have a conversation much of the time, it's just noise meant to shut down the conversation everyone else tries to have.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Why didn't Obama have a vaccine ready for this?

Because he's a muslim, obviously.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Gavin

It's a link and statement took directly from the cdc website your saying cdc is wrong?

Nope. We're saying you're wrong.

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

...Just yesterday he claimed the virus is disappearing with an average of 1,000 Americans dying every day of Covid 19 and 10,000 dying in just 10 days. On Thursday, 2,060 Americans died, the highest number of deaths since May 7. But it's 'disappearing'...

This is from trump's interview with Jonathan Swan:

Quote:

trump: Death is way down from where it was.
Swan: It’s 1,000 a day.
trump: Death-
Swan: It was two and a half thousand. It went down to 500. Now, it’s going up again.
trump: It spiked, but now it’s going down again.
Swan: It’s going up.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

This is from trump's interview with Jonathan Swan:

All he does is lie, lie, lie. He is a disgrace. Dr. Lee and the others are right: he is a danger to the American people and some are just too stupid to see it.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

At no point did they dispute the data.

They disputed your interpretation of the data.

Based on your not seeming to comprehend that explicitly stated point, the possibility you failed to comprehend some very complex data seems eminently plausible.

ETA: keep in mind I haven't even dug back to see who is on which side of whatever is being disagreed, but just pointing out nobody denied the data itself by my reading.

It was a simple statement 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.
What is there to dispute?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Gavin

It was a simple statement 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.
What is there to dispute?

So what? What is the point you are trying to make? Over 700,000 people have died and at least 20,000,000 have gotten sick from a disease that did not exist before January. Everybody dies. The fact that somebody has some other health condition (and depending on how you define it, that might include most of us) doesn't mean that he would have died when he did anyway if he hadn't contracted covid. If somebody who is old or obese dies 10 or 20 years earlier than he would have otherwise, you don't see that as a problem? If five 747s were crashing every day, would you see that as a problem?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Again, what is the point you are trying so desperately to make?

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

So what? What is the point you are trying to make? Over 700,000 people have died and at least 20,000,000 have gotten sick from a disease that did not exist before January. Everybody dies. The fact that somebody has some other health condition (and depending on how you define it, that might include most of us) doesn't mean that he would have died when he did anyway if he hadn't contracted covid. If somebody who is old or obese dies 10 or 20 years earlier than he would have otherwise, you don't see that as a problem? If five 747s were crashing every day, would you see that as a problem?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Again, what is the point you are trying so desperately to make?

You don’t know if they would have died later or sooner with out covid that’s the problem!

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Gavin

You don’t if he would have died later or sooner with out covid that’s the problem!

Sooner? You think covid keeps some people alive longer? Now you're just being ridiculous.

In any large group of people during any specified time, actuaries and scientists can predict how many people will die of heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents etc. Excess deaths is the number of deaths above the standard predictions. This can be measured pretty effectively, and the general consensus is that the covid death count is lower than it should be because some covid deaths are being attributed to other causes.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm
https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...ross-countries

We know how many people are dying of covid. It's a lot. And again, you refuse to grasp that death is not the only severe outcome of a covid infection.

[newyorkguy]

I understand the argument, it's about minimizing the number of deaths due to the pandemic. If only 6% of the deaths list Covid-19 as the only cause then divide the 160,000 figure by 6% and you get 9,600. Thus proving Covid-19 is an especially mild form of flu. Why then are we shutting down?

The problem is, it doesn't work that way. For instance, if someone gets Covid-19, develops pneumonia and succumbs, pneumonia will be listed as a cause. Except without them having had coronavirus there's no pneumonia. Someone has Covid-19 and, as is common, it gets into their lungs, they are unable to breath properly and pass away. Respiratory failure is likely to be listed as a cause. Again, without Covid-19 the person would have been unlikely to have suddenly developed respiratory failure.

Common sense tells you, if you read and listen to everything CDC has been saying, if there is one agency that is NOT downplaying the seriousness of this pandemic, that agency is CDC.

Look at the CDC chart below. The number of deaths expected in the U.S. based on statistical models. The number of expected deaths has become fairly predictable. The tan line represents the number of expected deaths based on the statistical model. Look what began to happen in April 2020. Here is a link to the chart. You have to scroll down the page to see it. If you point your cursor at a bar you get a popup telling you the percentage of deaths in excess of the expected number based on statistical models. They're anywhere from 5% to 15% above normal.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Sooner? You think covid keeps some people alive longer? Now you're just being ridiculous.

That’s not what I said

Quote:

In any large group of people during any specified time, actuaries and scientists can predict how many people will die of heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents etc. Excess deaths is the number of deaths above the standard predictions. This can be measured pretty effectively, and the general consensus is that the covid death count is lower than it should be because some covid deaths are being attributed to other causes.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm
https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...ross-countries

We know how many people are dying of covid. It's a lot. And again, you refuse to grasp that death is not the only severe outcome of a covid infection.

It states on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.
Download the chart it’s very easy to read

[Modified]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

The problem is, it doesn't work that way. For instance, if someone gets Covid-19, develops pneumonia and succumbs, pneumonia will be listed as a cause. Except without them having had coronavirus there's no pneumonia. Someone has Covid-19 and, as is common, it gets into their lungs, they are unable to breath properly and pass away. Respiratory failure is likely to be listed as a cause. Again, without Covid-19 the person would have been unlikely to have suddenly developed respiratory failure.

Right, the question is why the number mentioning only Covid is 6% and not zero. You don't die from a virus, you have some sort of organ failure as a result of its effects, or as a result of your immune response.