So how deadly is it? - Page 20 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Atlantis
#15081298
Rancid wrote:Doubtful. At least some people would have died.


I'm counting 6 Chinese provinces with zero deaths, many others have a few, but except for Hubei, only one has more than 20.

https://news.qq.com/zt2020/page/feiyan.htm#/?nojump=1

It doesn't matter if it's zero or if there are a few, the trolls are responsible for the death of millions.
#15081300
Sivad wrote:Why in the preposterous stupid not? That's like saying "I don't get my information from lectures and presentations". :knife: :lol: oh my fucking pofo.


Perhaps I should clarify.
If a scientist, lecturer or other expert in the field pointed me to a youtube video then I would watch it. However, if someone who I don't know from adam claims youtube x proves a theory then I have no interest and would prefer to see the source.

In this instance I had already read the letter sent to Merkel.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15081302
Atlantis wrote:It doesn't matter if it's zero or if there are a few, the trolls are responsible for the death of millions.


It does matter, zero deaths is a bold claim to make. It's hyperbolic language that weakens your over all point. By the way, I agree with your point, but hyperbolic language is not good at time like this.
By Sivad
#15081313
BeesKnee5 wrote:Meanwhile on the ground,

Nembro, one of the municipalities most affected by Covid-19, should have had - under normal conditions - about 35 deaths. 158 people were registered dead this year by the municipal offices. But the number of deaths officially attributed to Covid-19 is 31



Their methodology is retarded, you can't just go back five years, you'd have to go back like at least 25 to even begin to get a baseline. And you can't just look at a 3 month period, you'd have to look at the ebb and flow all the way through every year for 25 years. These guys don't have demographics, they don't have CoDs, they don't have medical histories, they don't have any of the basic information necessary for a proper analysis.
#15081316
BeesKnee5 wrote:Perhaps I should clarify.
If a scientist, lecturer or other expert in the field pointed me to a youtube video then I would watch it. However, if someone who I don't know from adam claims youtube x proves a theory then I have no interest and would prefer to see the source.


That's only slightly less retarded. The platform is totally irrelevant, what's the difference between a presentation on youtube or a presentation in a lecture hall? Why are you hung up on the platform? And why do you need an expert to tell you which information to consider? Are you scared the unauthorized information is gonna corrupt your faith or something?
User avatar
By Ter
#15081317
Sivad wrote:Their methodology is retarded


Euh, no. I think it is retarded to name a co-morbidity as cause of death if a patient dies whilst having a Corona-induced pneumonia.
It is the pneumonia that kills.
Diabetes, obesity, hypertension are present in millions of people. Strangely, mainly those who have a pneumonia caused by COVID-19 die.
It is pretty obvious and to deny it is pretty retarded.

Half the world is under lock-down because Sivad's theory is not believed.
Well, well. Bummer.
:D
By Sivad
#15081318
Ter wrote:Euh, no. I think it is retarded to name a co-morbidity as cause of death if a patient dies whilst having a Corona-induced pneumonia.


I'll let Carl Heneghan, an epidemiologist and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, explain why your comments are wrong and stupid:

What counts as a Covid-19 death?

There are other factors that alter the death rate, too.

One of them is what doctors actually count as a Covid-19 death. At first it might seem simple enough: if a patient dies while infected with Covid-19, they died of Covid-19.

But what if they had an underlying condition, such as asthma, which was exacerbated by Covid-19? Or what if the patient died from something seemingly less related to Covid-19, which is a respiratory disease – such as, say, a brain aneurysm? Which condition should be considered the cause of death?

Complex causes

The picture is murkier still when patients have not had a Covid-19 test, but are a suspected case. Given that many deaths from Covid-19 are in people who have underlying health issues, doctors still have to make the call on the cause of death.


During an epidemic, doctors are more likely to attribute a death with complex causes as being caused by the disease in question – a trait known as ascertainment bias.

“We know, during an epidemic, people will call every death as though it’s related to Covid-19. But that is not the case,” says Heneghan. “Always, when people look back at the case notes and assign causation, they realise they will have overestimated the case fatality in relation to the disease.”

The reason for the bias is that “there’s a tendency to focus on the worst-case scenario”, says Heneghan. “That’s the only message that gets out there.”

One example is the H1N1 pandemic of 2009, known as swine flu. Early case fatality rate estimates were inflated by a factor of more than 10. Even 10 weeks into the epidemic, estimates varied widely between countries, coming in between 0.1% and 5.1%. When medics later had a chance to go through case documents and evaluate cases, the actual H1N1 case death rate was far lower, at 0.02%.

That’s not a cause for complacency, says Heneghan. But it could be an antidote to some of the alarm at the very high reported death rates in some countries.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... tes-differ
By Sivad
#15081334
Ter wrote:
Half the world is under lock-down because Sivad's theory is not believed.


No, actually there's a lot of experts out there calling bullshit on this hysteria and a large portion of the public also wants to end this shit. The fearmongers and hysterics are in the minority, they may be getting their way for the moment but that's not gonna last much longer. You people have done a staggering amount of damage, you've destroyed tens of millions of lives and millions will die because of your mindless panic, but hopefully after all the suffering and misery you've caused begins to subside in about a decade or so people will remember your petty, short-sighted selfishness and learn from it.
#15081346
Sivad wrote:No, actually there's a lot of experts out there calling bullshit on this hysteria and a large portion of the public also wants to end this shit. The fearmongers and hysterics are in the minority, they may be getting their way for the moment but that's not gonna last much longer. You people have done a staggering amount of damage, you've destroyed tens of millions of lives and millions will die because of your mindless panic, but hopefully after all the suffering and misery you've caused begins to subside in about a decade or so people will remember your petty, short-sighted selfishness and learn from it.


So, how many have died so far from our efforts to stop the pandemic?

And what are you proposing people should do?
#15081359
Sivad wrote:
That's only slightly less retarded. The platform is totally irrelevant, what's the difference between a presentation on youtube or a presentation in a lecture hall? Why are you hung up on the platform? And why do you need an expert to tell you which information to consider? Are you scared the unauthorized information is gonna corrupt your faith or something?


I'm not scared of anything.
Experience has taught me that the bulk of YouTube videos shared on social media are designed to elicit emotion and reafirm an entrenched belief. By the time you've trawled through and checked the claims, it's simply not worth the effort.
By Sivad
#15081361
Would these people be dying anyway?

what is not clear – because the modellers did not map this – is to what extent the deaths would have happened without coronavirus.

Of course, this will never truly be known until the pandemic is over, which is why modelling is very difficult and needs caveats.

But given that the old and frail are the most vulnerable, would these people be dying anyway?

Every year more than 500,000 people die in England and Wales: factor in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the figure tops 600,000.

The coronavirus deaths will not be on top of this. Many would be within this “normal” number of expected deaths. In short, they would have died anyway.

It was a point conceded by Sir Patrick at a press conference on Thursday when he said there would be “some overlap” between coronavirus deaths and expected deaths – he just did not know how much of an overlap.

Is coronavirus causing the deaths?

The death figures being reported daily are hospital cases where a person dies with the coronavirus infection in their body - because it is a notifiable disease cases have to be reported.

But what the figures do not tell us is to what extent the virus is causing the death.

It could be the major cause, a contributory factor or simply present when they are dying of something else.

Now, it is hoped the lockdown will limit deaths to 20,000.

But that does not mean 480,000 lives are being saved - many will die whether or not they get the virus.

Every year, about 600,000 people in the UK die. And the frail and elderly are most at risk, just as they are if they have coronavirus.

Nearly 10% of people aged over 80 will die in the next year, Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, at the University of Cambridge, points out, and the risk of them dying if infected with coronavirus is almost exactly the same.

"Many people who die of Covid [the disease caused by coronavirus] would have died anyway within a short period," he says.

Knowing exactly how many is impossible to tell at this stage.

Prof Neil Ferguson, the lead modeller at Imperial College London, has suggested it could be up to two-thirds.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51979654
#15081372
Sivad wrote:Would these people be dying anyway?

what is not clear – because the modellers did not map this – is to what extent the deaths would have happened without coronavirus.

Of course, this will never truly be known until the pandemic is over, which is why modelling is very difficult and needs caveats.

But given that the old and frail are the most vulnerable, would these people be dying anyway?

Every year more than 500,000 people die in England and Wales: factor in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the figure tops 600,000.

The coronavirus deaths will not be on top of this. Many would be within this “normal” number of expected deaths. In short, they would have died anyway.

It was a point conceded by Sir Patrick at a press conference on Thursday when he said there would be “some overlap” between coronavirus deaths and expected deaths – he just did not know how much of an overlap.

Is coronavirus causing the deaths?

The death figures being reported daily are hospital cases where a person dies with the coronavirus infection in their body - because it is a notifiable disease cases have to be reported.

But what the figures do not tell us is to what extent the virus is causing the death.

It could be the major cause, a contributory factor or simply present when they are dying of something else.

Now, it is hoped the lockdown will limit deaths to 20,000.

But that does not mean 480,000 lives are being saved - many will die whether or not they get the virus.

Every year, about 600,000 people in the UK die. And the frail and elderly are most at risk, just as they are if they have coronavirus.

Nearly 10% of people aged over 80 will die in the next year, Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, at the University of Cambridge, points out, and the risk of them dying if infected with coronavirus is almost exactly the same.

"Many people who die of Covid [the disease caused by coronavirus] would have died anyway within a short period," he says.

Knowing exactly how many is impossible to tell at this stage.

Prof Neil Ferguson, the lead modeller at Imperial College London, has suggested it could be up to two-thirds.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51979654


May as well kill off anyone who may not last 3 months to get the deaths from covid-19 down.

I wonder if the same logic should be applied for seasonal flu to reduce its death rate. We could then have cause of death as euthanasia.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15081376
More figures, this time Netherlands

https://www.rivm.nl/monitoring-sterftecijfers-nederland

In the week from March 19 to March 25, 2020, total mortality in the Netherlands was strongly increased (mortality reported within 2 weeks - around 97% reported). A total of 3,892 deaths have been reported (we usually expect between 2,711 and 3,022 deaths at this time of year). That's between 870 and 1181 more deaths than we would expect. This is approximately twice the reported mortality from laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the same week. Mortality was slightly increased in the age group 45-54 years, increased in the age group 54-64 years and significantly increased in the age groups 65-74 years and 75 years and older. 
By Sivad
#15081382
BeesKnee5 wrote:
total mortality in the Netherlands was strongly increased


and because of the overlap there will be a corresponding drop in mortality below the average in the months after corona subsides.

I wonder if the same logic should be applied for seasonal flu to reduce its death rate. May as well kill off anyone who may not last 3 months to get the deaths from covid-19 down.

I wonder if the same logic should be applied for seasonal flu to reduce its death rate. We could then have cause of death as euthanasia.


It's the circle of life or some shit, you just gotta deal with it.
User avatar
By Donna
#15081386
Sivad, at this point you don't even have a coherent argument, you're just trying to convince yourself in a very public manner that the lives of people with comorbidities do not matter to yourself personally. That's all it is, a performative value judgement (and a terrible one at that). You don't need to quote Neil Ferguson in bold red text to convince us that you don't give a shit. We know.
By Sivad
#15081398
Donna wrote:Sivad, at this point you don't even have a coherent argument,


yeah whatever there, Donna. I have a perfectly coherent argument with facts and expert opinions and Science! and everything. You just say retarded shit like this because you people are intellectually defenseless. You can't think, you don't have any game or wit, you don't know the facts, you're too lazy to research anything, so all you can do is go all obtuse and type stupid into your comboxes.
User avatar
By Donna
#15081405
Sivad wrote:yeah whatever there, Donna. I have a perfectly coherent argument with facts and expert opinions and Science! and everything. You just say retarded shit like this because you people are intellectually defenseless. You can't think, you don't have any game or wit, you don't know the facts, you're too lazy to research anything, so all you can do is go all obtuse and type stupid into your comboxes.


Please provide a summary of your argument. What is your claim?

You can't because you don't have one. You post articles without explaining why your annotations support a particular point of view and you post articles largely to manufacture attacks on straw men. It appears you do not understand how to properly use science to support a truth claim.
By Sivad
#15081415
Donna wrote:Please provide a summary of your argument. What is your claim?

You can't because you don't have one.


Oh, I always have an argument, Donna. I have a lot of issues but a lack of arguments definitely isn't one of them. I have so many arguments from so many angles for why this is a retarded farce and why it's dangerous and wasteful and immoral that it would take me days to type them all out. I don't really care if you can't keep up with what I'm doing here, just because you can't follow something doesn't mean there's nothing to follow. I'm not incoherent, you're just dense.
User avatar
By Donna
#15081419
Sivad wrote:Oh, I always have an argument, Donna. I have a lot of issues but a lack of arguments definitely isn't one of them. I have so many arguments from so many angles for why this is a retarded farce and why it's dangerous and wasteful and immoral that it would take me days to type them all out. I don't really care if you can't keep up with what I'm doing here, just because you can't follow something doesn't mean there's nothing to follow. I'm not incoherent, you're just dense.


What do you mean by 'this'? What is "a retarded farce [that is] dangerous and wasteful and immoral"? Can you be more specific?
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 32
Am I racist in your opinion?

I'm pleased to see that the poll so far is in favo[…]

The Clown you give me hope that even some libera[…]

Whataboutisms from the Village Idiot. @Rich , y[…]

Donald in the Bunker

You put so much false stuff on here that I don't […]