A prediction we will have wait for to see if it pans out.
It already has.
We know the numbers are wrong.
That they continue to report them as gospel tells a lot.
vz71 (on uncovering the corona virus death numbers spoof) . . .
It already has.
We know the numbers are wrong.
I added an edit to this post to affirm just what you are saying.
Here are the numbers you are going up against:
Total deaths due to covid-19 in the US so far: 137,922
So far your anecdotes have cast doubt on 3, maybe 4 of these deaths. But lets suppose that you were able to find 1000 mis-classified deaths? Even then you would only take the total down to 136,922. That is hardly much better than 137,922, is it. Look, we all know that statistics like this that are gathered during a crisis and bound to be less than perfect. But that does not mean they are not important - not until you can establish some sizable fraction of them are misclassified. That is not likely.
Let’s also address the “pure covid-19 deaths” nonsensical objection. Much is being made about counting covid-19 deaths for people with underlying conditions. There is nothing inappropriate about that. A large fraction of the population has underlying health conditions that might be life threatening. Their lives are just as important as those in perfect health. It is nonsense to count only those deaths of people in perfect health - not to mention very un-Christian.
LeafByNiggle . . .
It is nonsense to count only those deaths of people in perfect health
Nobody has suggested that here. Nobody.
LeafByNiggle . . .
So far your anecdotes have cast doubt on 3, maybe 4 of these deaths.
Don Jr. Tweeting this out awhile back to make fun of CNN’s hysterics in this area . . .
Do you think George Floyd, who tested positive for corona virus at his autopsy, died from his corona virus infection?
Or do you think he died from Derek Chauvin killing him?
Why do you think what you think on this?
Why, you did, when you said:
Since you did not define what you mean by “incidental”, I took it to mean any situation where an underlying health condition made the person more likely to die from corona virus. But if you meant only cases like the guy who crashed his motorcycle and was found to test positive, then I agree with you. In cases like that only, where covid-19 played no role in the death, those deaths should not be counted as covid-19 deaths. But other than the motorcycle guy, how many more have you cited? A significant fraction of 137,000? I don’t think so. Therefore we can take that as a valid working number.
I believe Trump used the number of 100,000 deaths to measure the success of his administration in dealing with the virus. We are way over that no matter how you count them. Or do you have 40,000 who say otherwise?
Not at all.
The numbers are wrong.
LeafByNiggle . . .
Why, you did, when you said:
No I didn’t.
People with other diseases are not “in perfect health”, but they don’t necessarily die of Corona virus either.
Do you think George Floyd died of a Corona virus infection?
But if you meant only cases like the guy who crashed his motorcycle and was found to test positive, then I agree with you.
But it is not necessary you agree with me.
The health officials reviewing these cases have been taken back enough where the “figures” have needed to be amended. Substantially amended. (Which just raises more obvious questions.)
I’m going to drop this here… enjoy.
A robust discussion and scrubbing of data is a good thing. It makes for better data and more actionable insights.
So, this is good, isn’t it?
Even including motorcycle and other over-counting of COVID deaths, more than 90% of the deaths are over age 55. Protect the vulnerable, and let the rest of us keep this country producing. Obviously, schools should open, too, as only 42 deaths were under age 15.
I think it becomes a problem when the number of people dying from the disease and not something else is in the majority. That indicates a problem. It looked more like a problem in China (and maybe Italy) than it did anywhere else, at least when I was paying attention.
At the point of the year where typically 1.5M Americans would’ve died, only about 100,000-150,000 had died from this virus, and less than 1.5M with purported adverse effects, which may/may not be lifelong. It’s really borderline worrisome, but not as bad as I’d expected in January/February from the looks. What has been bad is this bait and switch/goal post movement from [flatten the curve] to [wait for the vaccine before society can go to complete normalcy]…People were so obedient for flattening the curve, then got switched into panic and fear just as it should’ve become very obvious from the actual numbers that the reality wasn’t matching the fairy tale.
I did some various adjusted numbers to how it’d be…but realize…if it’s that bad, and people are still and always were shopping like normal, with or without masks, since it takes 10 minutes of contact with most disinfectants to kill this virus, purportedly, well…[eta: referring to shopping/grocery stores/etc:] many people touching and not buying things would’ve gotten others sick inadvertently without so much as being in the same room as them at the same exact time.
I can verify that while I don’t know anyone with any adverse effects that was diagnosed (and know a number of people diagnosed), someone I am related to lost her husband because of the nursing home fiasco. So there’s that. I also know someone that was diagnosed for several weeks, probably added to the tally (of positives, not dead), tested numerous times, always negative…finally they tested for other things: she had mono.
The numbers are being heavily inflated.
To what end? I don’t know.
But I suspect that after the election one of two things will happen. Trump will win, and the media will ramp up the insanity to levels we previously had thought impossible.
Or Trump will lose. And the media will suddenly discover things were never as bad as were projected.
TheIttyBitty . . .
What has been bad is this bait and switch/goal post movement from [flatten the curve] to [wait for the vaccine before society can go to complete normalcy]
Great point TheIttyBitty!
Not possible. That would involve separating families. But then the administration had no trouble doing this to immigrant families. I guess we should not be surprised that Trump supporters want to tear apart families of American citizens too.
The usual Leaf deflection.
Nearly half the death toll has been in long term care facilities. That toll was severely exacerbated by orders given in several states to force care facilities to accept the return of infected patients even when they did not have any way to isolate them as called for in the CDC regulations. But Leaf keeps waving hands and stamping feet to say nothing to see here!
Leaf is still calling for lockdowns when it is clear the toll isn’t among the younger people what it is in people over 55. Leaf never cared that much about the economic damage done and still doesn’t. I volunteer at a local food bank one or two days a week and I sure see it every time I’m there. A few months back Leaf stated this would be mostly over by July and businesses will start coming back and they’ll hire everyone back. Well … that is not aging so well.
Let me illustrate the problem with an anecdote. I know Leaf dislikes them, but there are points to be made here. Some years ago, I knew a young man with leukemia who battled it bravely for a long time before succumbing. There were times during his treatment when his immune system was stripped away to the point a simple cold could kill him. So his family had to be very careful at home around him, be mindful of their hygiene around him. By the same token they had to ask visitors including the young man’s friends to sanitize themselves on entry. The young man could not go out with his family to the restaurant or the mall. Because that would be to demand that everyone there sanitize themselves for his sake and he had no right to force his entire world to conform to his requirements. So no restaurant or grocery store trips, no going to Mass and so on.
Two points to be made here:
The vulnerable can isolate themselves the way this young man did and the people they live with can exercise care with them. Remember even a simple cold could have killed that guy and how easy are colds to catch? By the same token, maybe not for all, but certainly for many, it is possible to live that way for Covid-19.
The lockdowns and the social distancing is about forcing the healthy to live like the sick. Telling the healthy we’re assumed to be sick too. At no time in history has this ever been done before. At every epidemic, it has always been the sick who were isolated or quarantined. This time, we reversed that. I hope we never do it again.
It is worth noting that in Zzyzx_Road’s response, nothing in my quoted posting was addressed, despite the fact that my posting was a direct response (and not a deflection) to the proposal by 1cthlctrth that we “protect the vulnerable” while letting the rest of the nation go on with business as usual. Therefore Zzyzx_Road’s response was the real deflection, as it deflected from my valid points that directed refuted the posting by 1cthlctrth.
To repeat and clarify: 1cthlctrth’s proposal is not feasible because “protecting the vulnerable” while letting all the young get infected would require total isolation of the “vulnerable” from their families. Perhaps that is why Zzyzx_Road chose to reduce the “vulnerable” to “those in long-term care facilities” because that is one place where they are already somewhat isolated from their families. This is not a valid view to take because many of the vulnerable are not in long-term care facilities, but are living with their extended families. And even those that are in long-term care facilities used to get visits from their family. This proposal is nothing less than extreme age-based segregation. It was immoral when it was race-based and it is immoral when it age-based.
So discriminating against the sick and the vulnerable as was done in the past is now the new immorality.
I brought up the point about the leukemia victim as a counterpoint to Leaf’s desire for all of society to conform to the desires of the sick and the vulnerable. Leaf assumed I only meant long term care facilities, but I brought up the leukemia story to illustrate that it is possible for care for the vulnerable to take place at home.
There is a logical endgame to what Leaf desires of us: that destroying the economy is necessary to protect the vulnerable. So Leaf now posits for us that it is immoral to discriminate against the sick and the vulnerable. That said isolation done in 1918 and in many plagues before that was immoral and should never have been done, that the healthy should have voluntarily led themselves off the cliff economically for the sake of the sick. What happens when the healthy can no longer support the sick? I don’t believe Leaf has thought this through that far. Or maybe Leaf doesn’t care what happens to our livelihoods. It takes a long dang time for a wrecked economy to get back to anywhere near where it was. Or maybe Leaf skipped over that in history class.
When the economy gets destroyed enough, there won’t be the support for the medical system there is today and we’ll all be vulnerable to that. The authorities allowed the restart of elective care in the hospitals and clinics not out of any sense of care for the non-Covid-19 infected, but because the hospitals’ cash flow was suffering badly. Hospitals everywhere outside of the hardest hit areas were experiencing poor cash flows to the point they were putting staff on furlough and there are a fair number of articles about that. A few of which I posted. But the economy is not at all important to Leaf.
There are tradeoffs here, but Leaf doesn’t want to hear about those. They’re immoral, remember?
I raised my voice about the effects on the economy back way back when. Which was continually minimized. And now here we are. I get to see the damage done. Well played.