No reason. It will keep you busy for awhile, and the answers from a larger swath of the population might surprise you.
Excess Deaths
- Thread starter lc5397
- Start date
Guillotine
Well-known member
But I don't care about their "answers" because I'm 100% correct. Breathing your mouth farts is nasty and disgusting, and serves no real purpose in stopping the spread of covid.
Further, I don't care if you want to wear your mask like a whatever color wrist-band to show your compassion. Just leave me out of it.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
We agree on this projection 100%. Your number (2,939,280) is far closer to reality than the averaging of the last 3 years. The CDC's expected deaths is lazy or incompetent.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
Not if you are one of the 30K, or more importantly the family of one of the 30K - that's kind of Biden's message.
With 215K deaths, that's about .0016% of households. Not very many families are setting a plate on Thanksgiving for someone that isn't going to be there. That's close to the number of people that die from lung cancer every year - why hasn't Joe sought to outlaw cigarettes and cigars? It's not about masks and social distancing, it would be about completely stopping the planting and harvesting of tobacco and the production of smoking products..... that seems like an easy choice to make to save 200K people annually. With the flu, the deaths equal Covid's morbidity every 3-4 years, why weren't vaccines and masks and social distancing mandated for the flu?
Japanese men have 1/3rd the rate of heart disease as American men, why not legislate that American men have to eat the same diet and exercise the same as Japanese men? After all, the death rate from heart disease is almost 3X what Covid has. If it's about saving lives, and those lives are important I want to kow why Biden the CDC and other "concerned" people don't go after all disease like Covid?
psycho_dad
Well-known member
It is not over, so any stats are meaningless.
Remember how every year all the ICU's fill up!?
Remember how every year all the ICU's fill up!?
Not far off. The most compelling reason for their about face on masking was to use it as a form of control in which people are constantly reminded of the danger covid poses. Certainly there are no solid studies showing that general mask wearing impacts infectious disease spread.
In fact there is a Danish study that is rumored to show that masking has no impact on covid spread. Evidently it's a large, well controlled study and they can't get a major journal to publish the results because it goes against the idea that mask wearing works. This is anti-science by the journals.
Top scientific journals reject ‘controversial’ Danish study on effectiveness of face masks against coronavirus: Report - Washington Examiner
Some of the world's top scientific journals are being accused of suppressing the results of a study aimed at determining the effectiveness of face masks against the spread of the coronavirus."They all said no," said Christian Torp-Pedersen, chief physician at North Zealand Hospital’s research...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Lol
4GX
Well-known member
It is NOT hard at all to deny that “the theme of (LC5397)’s underlying argument is pretty much exactly that (i.e.-a plague that is going to kill is all)”— that has NEVER been LC’s argument— and only YOU are characterizing it that way— this is the classic definition of a strawman argument. LC is trying to persuade people who have openly stated that this virus is NOT serious and/or is “no more serious than an average seasonal flu” that they are completely wrong— he is NOT trying to persuade you (or anybody else) that this is the second coming of the bubonic plague (or even the 1918 Spanish Flu). You have this thin veneer of rationality that covers over a thick, heavy substrate of lunacy and ignorance.
4GX
Well-known member
This must look awfully familiar-- since you see it in the mirror every morning, when you are shaving— anyone who can claim to have read the commercial airline virus distribution study, and somehow concluded that:
A) Masks don’t work;
B) Masks don’t reduce the spread of the virus as aerosol particles;
C) Masks are not recommended by the study‘s authors;
...is either a science ignoramus, or a complete liar and shameless political hack.
4GX
Well-known member
The very first line in that linked article cites a false data point (he/she claims that the survival rate from this virus is 997 out of 1000, when virtually ALL reputable epidemiologists put the survival rate at more like 993 or 994 out of 1000– in other words, a mortality rate of 0.6%-0.7%— or more than double what Stacey Rubin is claiming— not sure why I should want to read the rest of it, when it starts off in the very first line with a data falsehood of on the order of 100%-133%...Here's a comprehensive article on the failure of lock downs to stop the spread of infectious disease. This is loaded with lots of links to other good data sources. Worth a read.
“Superstition in the Pigeon”: Can Lockdowns Really Stop Death?
"We are faced with a virus with a 997 out of 1000 survival rate. We have done harder things before. We can only be free of this plague by remembering something we have always known: neither we, nor our favorite politicians, have control over death." ~ Stacey Rudinwww.aier.org
4GX
Well-known member
No one rational is asking for anyone to panic-- on the contrary, the rational, informed observers are simply asking for the general populace to take simple, easy, cheap methods to keep this virus from NEEDLESSLY causing an excess death total that is 6-7X higher than that caused by the seasonal flu— this virus’s death toll is/was eminently preventable— as has been demonstrated in countries with effective countermeasures (like Viet Nam, Taiwan, New Zealand)— so your argument that it is NOT preventable is just ignorant and silly.
4GX
Well-known member
No climate scientist thinks that it is 1% man-made causes— they think It is much higher than that. The climate change that you describe happened over periods thousands (even hundreds of thousands) of times longer than what is happening now— that is precisely WHY it is so worrisome to the climate scientists and geologists— because it is happening SO FAST. 175 years (basically the Industrial Era) is an instant in geologic terms— this change is comparable to changes that took tens of thousands of years to occur, in the earth’s past.
As for your questions about Texas, Arizona and New Mexico— you do understand that those states are NOT forested like the parts of CA, OR, and WA that are burning? You do understand that you need a forest to have a FOREST FIRE? The southeastern part of CA is NOT burning— because it is desert— like Arizona, Nevada, and quite a bit of New Mexico... and the part of Texas that is NOT desert (in the eastern part of the state) gets CONSIDERABLY more rain than the parts of CA, OR, and WA (and yes, parts of ID—in the southwest part of the state adjacent to OR and WA, ID Is ALSO under threat from forest fires)... your geography ignorance is showing.
4GX
Well-known member
When did flu deaths ”vary by 100% over the span of 2 years”? Name the years, and cite your data source.
4GX
Well-known member
I like being informed. You like being ignorant— You do YOU.
4GX
Well-known member
Actually, within certain ranges, you CAN. New Zealand, Viet Nam, Taiwan have shown that you can.
said_aouita
Well-known member
4GX
Well-known member
Clueless describes you perfectly— you just made my point for me again— you ended up with your standard BS refrain “school shutdowns are child abuse”— I did NOT say that “school shutdowns won’t hurt kids”— but there is a HUGE difference between saying that ”school shutdowns hurt kids” and “school shutdowns are child abuse”— you like to use that phrase like a pro-abortionist talking about limits on abortion “killing women and hurting women’s health”— it’s an absurd, jingoistic refrain, designed to illicit an extreme reaction— but it has no basis in reality-- Child abuse is NOT keeping a kid home from school— it is physically or mentally assaulting a child, and the like— keeping a kid home from school (and home schooling them) is NOT child abuse— many people do it for their kids’ entire childhood— and produce some of the highest achieving children in our society.
As for ignorant people NOT listening to their elected officials (and their public health officials) and electing not to get care— you can’t stop people from making stupid personal health decisions— that happens all the time (it’s why we have smokers and alcoholics and hugely obese people, despite incredible efforts to dissuade them from those destructive behaviors)— but people are going to do stupid things, no matter what good advice they get from their elected officials and health care advisors— we’ve had ALL too much of that during this epidemic.... I don‘t feel any empathy for people who won’t listen to widely promulgated good advice— and HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD that they should NOT go to the doctor with health emergencies or even for regular preventative care.
Raider6309
Well-known member
We couldn’t lockdown because drumroll.........the democrats thought it was racist
said_aouita
Well-known member
Quit being a baby. We have plenty of scientific facts to prove that masks do work.
The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking.
What may have finally convinced the CDC to change its guidance in favor of masks were rising disease prevalence and a clearer understanding that both pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission are possible – even common.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/4...s-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
4GX
Well-known member
NO, I did not lie about the study’s conclusions— it ABSOLUTELY DOES RECOMMEND MASK WEARING AS A KEY MEANS OF MITIGATING THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS ON AIRPLANES— AND ELSEWHERE, FOR THAT MATTER! The fact that its “main point” was that airplane ventilation and air flow systems combined with interior design greatly reduced COVID transmission through the air” (OF COURSE IT DOES– it was performed with the help of commercial airline staff— they have a vested interest in highlighting precisely THAT conclusion!) does NOT change the fact that the study’s data VERY CLEARLY SHOW that mask wearring FURTHER ABATES virus spread— sometimes (in various test cases) by 10X the spread from a source NOT WEARING A MASK— but IN ALL CASES, VIRUS SPREAD WAS REDUCED BY WEARING A MASK.
i included the reference to your ridiculous conclusion about the debate last night, to show the parallel to how you can watch an event, and draw a completely spurious conclusion— just as you can (claim to have) read that stidy, and draw EXACTLY the wrong conclusions from it. I didn’t misrepresent the study’s conclusions— YOU DID!
4GX
Well-known member
I didn‘t lie about anything– you lied about that study’s data and conclusions— because you ARE BIASED. You’ve shown NO ability or willingness to change your mind, if the face of data and results that contradict your (false) entrenched positions.
said_aouita
Well-known member
We didn't lock down everywhere because of democrats? North Dakota having the worst spread of covid in America is because democrats thought it was racist?
lol You've lost your mind.
4GX
Well-known member
Fauci’s initial recommendation (against mask-wearing) was NEVER because masks don’t work (if they didn’t work, surgical teams would not have been wearing them for over 50 years now); his recommendation was made because he feared idiot people creating a run on masks, like they did on toilet paper and hand sanitizer, quite possibly leaving front-line health care workers (who ALREADY had a shortage of PPE) without sufficient protection to do their jobs—especially at a time where we thought the only masks that would do the job were N95 masks— and we did not have sufficient inventory of those, nor sufficient organic, on-shore production capability to rapidly ramp up the supply. Fauci changed (and has been firmly in the camp of mask-wearing) as soon as it became apparent that 1) the virus transmits primarily through aerosol particles; and 2) Mask-wearing is the best way to limit that— and even relatively poor, cheap, reusable cloth masks can do a decent job of mitigating the spread of the virus through aerosol particles... and most reputable epidemiologists firmly agree with him. Redfield certainly does; Birx certainly does; Gottlieb certainly does; Osterholm certainly does.
4GX
Well-known member
You have mis-stated what I have claimed. I am not going to argue for LC5397’s original post (I’ll let him do that); I have said NOT that there are “80,000 more deaths“ than expected-- I AM saying that, right now, even if I grant you your claim that the CDC “fraudulently” (your words, not mine) understated the expected deaths by 1000-2000/week, that would ONLY add 40,000-80,000 additional expected) deaths to the CDC’s total for the YTD (40 weeks into the year)— and YET, we have the CDC enumerating 282,000 excess deaths above their “fraudulent“ estimate. If we add your top number (80,000) to the CDC’s expected death total YTD— we STILL have an EXCESS 200,000 deaths for the YTD.
I don’t yet believe your claim about the CDC’s expected death total being “fraudulently” understated— I’d still like to see you cite where you got that information (and chart) from— but even when I grant you your claim, it STILL amounts to “re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic”— the bigger concern is the 200,000 excess deaths for which both YOU and I have no other explanation (at this point) than the likely cause of Covid-19. I’m happy to go along with an “Excess Death” total, at this juncture of only 200,000, instead of 282,000– but then what? Doesn’t that STILL HUGE number warrant a major public health response?!
4GX
Well-known member
We will see if the excess ”deaths due to the shutdown” are anywhere close to what you have claimed (with no data to support your contention). This TOO will be studied with great intensity— there will be ample scrutiny of the number of suicide deaths, for example, to see how much (if at all) those rose during the lockdown. Excess deaths are ALWAYS scrutinized, in an effort to reach an innovative conclusion— this is how academic reputations are made.
Speaking of the lockdown— WHERE are these “large areas of the country” that are still under lockdown— I really would like to know.
4GX
Well-known member
Bottom line for your drivel: “You can’t be bothered to read too much”— but (much like our current president, who also doesn‘t read anything—including his daily intelligence briefs— how appropriate and ironic), you consider yourself an expert in all kinds of scientific fields beyond your ken— well, you just continue on being ignorant— you’re a lost cause who likes to bloviate about metaphysical concepts with no comprehension of what you are talking about.
4GX
Well-known member
I doubt it— nor are we here in the US.
4GX
Well-known member
There’s a whole raft of silly comments in here— but a couple stand out:
1) Biden hasn’t (and doesn’t plan to) outlaw anything— so how does that parallel your “outlaw cigarettes and cigars” silly comment.
2) In fact, Democrats, if given free reign, would probably actually very much LIKE to ban cigarettes and cigars— but, we learned (with Prohibition) that banning something people like and are addicted to doesn’t work—and fosters crime syndicates that also commit other crimes— something we should have learned (and reacted to) with all other controlled substance drugs.
3) Your math is wrong— with Covid-19 deaths at 282,000 (or even your 215,000 quote), that is right around 0.07% of the US’s 330 million population—already ~45 times higher than you cite— and then, households are not composed of one person— if we put the average household size at 2.5 people, then you are talking about the incidence of a household having a Covid-19 death being over 100 times more likely than you have claimed.
4) Covid-19 is about 6-7X more lethal than the average seasonal flu; so it would take ~7 years for the flu to kill as many people as Covid-19 will kill this year— not 3-4 years... and many employers (my wife’s being one of them) DO require them to get an annual flu vaccone as a condition of continuing employment— there is NO choice in the matter, if she wants to keep working there.
5). We ARE going after heart disease even harder than we go after Covid-19– we spend thousands of times more each year (in health care research) on heart disease than we do on COVID, and yet, heart disease does not upend our entire economy the way this epidemic has.
4GX
Well-known member
WRONG AGAIN— the very airliner study (the one that you keep lying about the results from) cites TWO studies that support the need to wear masks— but I’m sure that you will deem them not “solid studies”.Not far off. The most compelling reason for their about face on masking was to use it as a form of control in which people are constantly reminded of the danger covid poses. Certainly there are no solid studies showing that general mask wearing impacts infectious disease spread.
In fact there is a Danish study that is rumored to show that masking has no impact on covid spread. Evidently it's a large, well controlled study and they can't get a major journal to publish the results because it goes against the idea that mask wearing works. This is anti-science by the journals.
Top scientific journals reject ‘controversial’ Danish study on effectiveness of face masks against coronavirus: Report - Washington Examiner
Some of the world's top scientific journals are being accused of suppressing the results of a study aimed at determining the effectiveness of face masks against the spread of the coronavirus."They all said no," said Christian Torp-Pedersen, chief physician at North Zealand Hospital’s research...
