FACT vs OPINION

[AKA-None]

So I feel good that if I have diabetes and smoke and am fat and someone hits me with their car then I didn’t die from being hit by their car. I was going to die anyway, I feel so much better now.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by UFO

Also how many millions of people will get Covid and not even know or only have mild symptoms and that is it - Throwing around the % above is truly misleading and is used to create fear as they are not based on the true figures of people getting covid which is likely a figure of 10 or probably considerably more to those that actually have the test.

Indeed, if only there was an established scientific discipline for studying and quantifying such things! Except; there is. Epidemiology is not a new field. Statistics is not a new field. And yet, some are asking that we discard all of such precedence and learning and treat this as some novel situation to which the traditional tools of analysis are no longer applicable.

When presented with a suggestion that such a large number of deaths were "with, not from" COVID, one may note that the opposite statement of "from, not with" could also apply; why is someone attached so firmly to the former and not the latter? Is it because it just happens to align with a desired world-view? I do not present this as a counterargument; as already mentioned these fields are not new and the "with, not from" interpretation reflects, in the most kindest of interpretations, an ignorance of the science. Rather I mention it to point out that if even one abandons the existing scientific precedence and framework, as some may desire, that conclusion still does not follow.

As the point has been raised, I would suggest a simple means of sanity-checking: take the average weekly death rate for the US for the preceding five years, and compare the 2020 numbers against it. If the numbers don't significantly differ, then perhaps the 9000 interpretation could have some merit. (Following the courtroom principle of not asking questions to which one doesn't already know the answer, I can confidently say that the figures for 2020, regardless of age bracket considered, stand out quite clearly. Perhaps there's an insidious new strain of hypertension making the rounds?)

Oh, regarding an earlier question: Clearly the feathers weigh more, because you have to carry around the weight of what you did to those poor birds.

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by requiem

Indeed, if only there was an established scientific discipline for studying and quantifying such things! Except; there is. Epidemiology is not a new field. Statistics is not a new field. And yet, some are asking that we discard all of such precedence and learning and treat this as some novel situation to which the traditional tools of analysis are no longer applicable.

When presented with a suggestion that such a large number of deaths were "with, not from" COVID, one may note that the opposite statement of "from, not with" could also apply; why is someone attached so firmly to the former and not the latter? Is it because it just happens to align with a desired world-view? I do not present this as a counterargument; as already mentioned these fields are not new and the "with, not from" interpretation reflects, in the most kindest of interpretations, an ignorance of the science. Rather I mention it to point out that if even one abandons the existing scientific precedence and framework, as some may desire, that conclusion still does not follow.

As the point has been raised, I would suggest a simple means of sanity-checking: take the average weekly death rate for the US for the preceding five years, and compare the 2020 numbers against it. If the numbers don't significantly differ, then perhaps the 9000 interpretation could have some merit. (Following the courtroom principle of not asking questions to which one doesn't already know the answer, I can confidently say that the figures for 2020, regardless of age bracket considered, stand out quite clearly. Perhaps there's an insidious new strain of hypertension making the rounds?)

Oh, regarding an earlier question: Clearly the feathers weigh more, because you have to carry around the weight of what you did to those poor birds.

CDC reckons 300,000 excess death compared to average.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...cid=mm6942e2_w

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/e...e&region=World

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So I feel good that if I have diabetes and smoke and am fat and someone hits me with their car then I didn’t die from being hit by their car. I was going to die anyway, I feel so much better now.

Funny you mention vehicle deaths.
If the above happened, good chance it’ll be a “covid death”

“ According to the report, Orange County Health Officer Dr. Raul Pino was asked whether two coronavirus victims in their 20s had any underlying medical conditions that could have potentially made them more susceptible to the virus.

Pino's answer was that one of the two people who was listed as a COVID death actually died in a motorcycle crash. Despite health officials knowing the man died in a motorcycle crash, it is unclear whether or not his death was removed from the overall count in the state.”







Also your example is, well, meh
I mean unless there has been a surge of covid positive people running down, tackling and sneezing on fat people, well I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by requiem

Indeed, if only there was an established scientific discipline for studying and quantifying such things! Except; there is. Epidemiology is not a new field. Statistics is not a new field. And yet, some are asking that we discard all of such precedence and learning and treat this as some novel situation to which the traditional tools of analysis are no longer applicable.

It does not help that they come out with OUTRAGEOUS figures - If you re-look over from the start of the Pandemic some very prominent epidemiologists and Government officials were coming out with huge predicted death tolls for certain countries and also stating mortality rates of 5% or more - All based on data from a handful of positive tests and deaths in China and then Italy. Even a Primary school child could see the figures and their portrayal of them were absolute rubbish - which they were. Statistics are so easily manipulated to meet whatever end you want to achieve it's as simple as that.



It was the initial imperial college report that sparked worldwide fear and panic, leading Governments around the planet to implement harsh measures and leading to the media frenzy that followed.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by UFO

It does not help that they come out with OUTRAGEOUS figures - If you re-look over from the start of the Pandemic some very prominent epidemiologists and Government officials were coming out with huge predicted death tolls for certain countries and also stating mortality rates of 5% or more - All based on data from a handful of positive tests and deaths in China and then Italy. Even a Primary school child could see the figures and their portrayal of them were absolute rubbish - which they were. Statistics are so easily manipulated to meet whatever end you want to achieve it's as simple as that.



It was the initial imperial college report that sparked worldwide fear and panic, leading Governments around the planet to implement harsh measures and leading to the media frenzy that followed.

But nobody has good data at that fine in fact we still don’t have. It will take years to sort through all the raw data

[UFO]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

But nobody has good data at that fine in fact we still don’t have. It will take years to sort through all the raw data

My point was Imperial College, the WHO, and a host of other scientists and politicians should have know better than to spout the garbage they did about it at the beginning, based on the extremely limited data they had about it - It was that, that created the fear and media frenzy and lockdowns!



If you didn't know better you would think they had an agenda

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

... Same fauci who thought you could catch AIDs from routine close contact? ...

Some context is in order.

As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, Dr. Fauci has lasted through six presidents, and has declined multiple requests to lead his agency’s parent organization, the National Institutes of Health. He has led federal efforts to combat diseases caused by emerging viruses, including H.I.V., SARS, the 2009 swine pandemic, MERS, Ebola and now the new coronavirus.

AIDS began as a frightening medical mystery, with clustered outbreaks in California and New York City. Dr. Paul Volberding saw his first AIDS patient on July 1, 1981, although he didn't know it at the time. It took two years until the virus that causes it, HIV, was identified in May 1983. [1]

In an editorial, in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1983, Dr. Fauci wrote [2] (commenting on a study [3] that suggested “that children living in high-risk households are susceptible to AIDS and that sexual contact, drug abuse, or exposure to blood products is not necessary for disease transmission”), that while AIDS transmission had been observed largely as a function of high-risk behaviors, such as homosexual sex, and intravenous drug use, there was still the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, could spread the disease.

Dr. Fauci wrote:

“... “We are witnessing at the present time the evolution of a new disease process of unknown etiology ...
... The finding of AIDS in infants and children who are household contacts of patients with AIDS or persons with risks for AIDS has enormous implications with regard to ultimate transmissibility of this syndrome,” Fauci says. “If routine close contact can spread the disease, AIDS takes on an entirely new dimension,” he adds...” [4]

That hypothesis turned out to be wrong. Fauci himself, in a presentation a year later, acknowledged that no cases of the disease being spread through "casual contact" had yet been detected. [5]

1. ➥ https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-hum...iscovered-hiv/

2. “The Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome The Ever-Broadening Clinical Spectrum” ~ by Anthony S. Fauci
➥ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...bstract/386561

3. “Immune Deficiency Syndrome in Children” ~ by James Oleske et al
➥ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...bstract/386504

4. ➥ https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/06/u...ting-aids.html
4. ➥

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzK3...youtu.be&t=779

5. ➥ https://www.econlib.org/great-moments-in-epidemiology/

So, as it turns out, your implication that Dr. Fauci didn’t know what he was talking about, when, in 1983, he hypothesized the possibility of casual AIDS transmission, is partially correct, your implied criticism (that his medical/epidemialogical judgement was/is unreliable), is not. No one knew at that time, and Fauci reflected on the possibility, as suggested by the James Oleski article.

I suspect that you have little appreciation/understanding of the highest level of respect and recognition Dr Fauci has garnered in his field, especially for (but not limited to) his work on HIV/Aids research.


FWIW: BMJ interview: Anthony Fauci on covid-19 (Sept. 2020)
➥ https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3703
➥ https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3774

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So I feel good that if I have diabetes and smoke and am fat and someone hits me with their car then I didn’t die from being hit by their car. I was going to die anyway, I feel so much better now.

Covid. You’d die of covid:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mynorth...us-deaths/amp/

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I suspect that you have little appreciation/understanding of the highest level of respect and recognition Dr Fauci has garnered in his field, especially for (but not limited to) his work on HIV/Aids research.

It was a decent post Gord, until you went off the rails.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tDQw21ntR64

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

I find the last couple of pages of discussion fascinating when contrasted with data on transmission blocking vaccines (TBVs) for malaria. A TBV does absolutely nothing for the recipient. It does not prevent them from getting the disease. It does not prevent them from dying from the disease. It does, if it is effective, prevent them from spreading the disease to others in the community.

And this, in various shades, is what all mass vaccines are intended to do. But I realize those who can't see beyond their own self-interest are unable to grasp this simple point.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Godwin's law makes an appearance.

Yup. You knew it was likely given some folks here.

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So I feel good that if I have diabetes and smoke and am fat and someone hits me with their car then I didn’t die from being hit by their car. I was going to die anyway, I feel so much better now.

This attempt to blame Covid-19 deaths on other factors is laughable. As I've said before, it's like saying all those people who perished when the plane hit the ground didn't really die of an airline crash. Most had pre-existing conditions that would eventually kill them.

It's a clear attempt at obfuscation so as to buttress their do-nothing agenda.

Originally Posted by Yihang

CDC reckons 300,000 excess death compared to average.

Originally Posted by GordMay

Some context is in order.

...

So, as it turns out, your implication that Dr. Fauci didn’t know what he was talking about, when, in 1983, he hypothesized the possibility of casual AIDS transmission, is partially correct, your implied criticism (that his medical/epidemialogical judgement was/is unreliable), is not. No one knew at that time, and Fauci reflected on the possibility, as suggested by the James Oleski article.

This illustrates well my contrast between an expert opinion and a babbler:

"When a babbler gives an opinion, facts are irrelevant, or more often these days cherry-picked from the totality of facts"

Here again, one can see the agenda of obfuscation at work. They want to discredit one of the leading minds guiding a science-based approach to this pandemic so as to justify their do-nothing approach.

Originally Posted by Singularity

...Feeding the trolls just gives them more excuse to post misinformation that they cannot recognize as such; perhaps let them return to the ~other echo chambers.

Yes, good advice. I'll try and remember this. It's one I sometimes offer to others in my state. If we all stop feeding the trolls, they'll scuttle away. I'll do my best.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

It was a decent post Gord, until you went off the rails.

Speaking of going off things

[Lake-Effect]

If anyone is discouraged by the denial, negativity, misinformation and just plain trolling over COVID-19 here on CF, take heart: it's as bad or worse in the US and elsewhere, period.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by GordMay

William Clifford have would said so.
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3284175

Perhaps. But I've given up. I feel like John Cleese sometimes, arguing till I'm blue in the face.

Most people unfortunately don't understand that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a position. It's not just the automatic gainsay of anything the other person says.

Instead I've decided to move up my departure date a couple years.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That 9k number is grossly misleading when used like above. It's a deliberate attempt to downplay the severity of COVID-19.

Agreed.

Just like the 266,000 covid deaths is a deliberate attempt to upplay the severity.

The truth is somewhere in the middle but when neither side is willing to discuss what is the difference between dying FROM covid vs dying WITH covid...you get these two polar positions where neither side is being reasonable.