So how deadly is it? - Page 21 - 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.
#15081431
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.


You've been given an opportunity to put your argument forward and this is all you can come up with.

It's such a classic method of distraction to claim the argument is to complicated to explain to mere mortals.

Usually because someone can no longer explain it to themselves, let alone express it to others.
By foxdemon
#15081432
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Sivad

What is your argument?



@Sivad doesn’t really have an argument. It is just that he is frightened of needles, so he wants to stop a Covid-19 vaccination program.


Image
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15081450
It's an old persons disease is the fallacy that keeps @sivad going.

The numbers that are overwhelming healthcare systems are high in younger ages.


This puts a strain and forces a choice on healthcare systems to save the younger patient.
User avatar
By Donna
#15081456
It could be his point of view is one of simple social Darwinism. If you need medical attention for any reason, you probably deserve to die. "No victims in history" is what he likes to say.

But this is basically fascist thinking and it's par for the course that someone who has already expressed white supremacist beliefs would also have social Darwinist ones.
By Sivad
#15081493
It's a retarded pofo dogpile! :lol:
User avatar
By Ter
#15081513
Pants-of-dog wrote:So what is your argument?


@Sivad says that only old people suffer and die but even if they are positive for the virus they have in fact died from something else.
So there is no need for lockdown at all. Not even face masks are needed.
It looks as if Sivad is not happy with the present situation (or with life itself).
My advice : Sivad should get laid.
User avatar
By MadMonk
#15081526
I would say that Sivad's supposition is that diseases happen and they are not worth shutting down societies to combat. He has also expressed concerns regarding the centralisation of authoritative power in the wake of this crisis (for example Hungary).

His arguments have been mostly downplaying any projected mortality, or that those deaths would have occurred with or without the virus.

Where to I stand? 1 in 3 retirement homes in Stockholm now have cases of Corona. Even if one doesn't take every measure available to stop this virus in general society, how can we fail so badly to isolate where it's absolutely necessary?
By Sivad
#15081531
MadMonk wrote:I would say that Sivad's supposition is that diseases happen and they are not worth shutting down societies to combat.


I'm not saying that society should never shut down under any circumstances. I would support a shutdown for a communicable disease with a high mortality rate in the healthy. I'm saying that this specific disease is nowhere near dangerous enough to justify a shutdown. What's happened here is an insane overreaction.

I'm not even saying that we shouldn't take steps to manage and mitigate this outbreak. We should not only be isolating the vulnerable but we should also be providing them with finanacial assistance and giving them all the social service support they need. And we should be providing healthcare workers with all the resources and support they need.


He has also expressed concerns regarding the centralisation of authoritative power in the wake of this crisis (for example Hungary).


Anyone who's not brain damaged is concerned about that. The only ones who aren't concerned are babbitt control freaks and mindless conformists.


His arguments have been mostly downplaying any projected mortality,


I wouldn't say I'm downplaying it, all I'm doing is debunking the bullshit and putting it in perspective.


or that those deaths would have occurred with or without the virus.


Not all of them, it's gonna kill a lot of people. It's gonna be exactly what Fauci said it was gonna be in the NEjM, "akin to a severe seasonal influenza".

Where to I stand? 1 in 3 retirement homes in Stockholm now have cases of Corona. Even if one doesn't take every measure available to stop this virus in general society, how can we fail so badly to isolate where it's absolutely necessary?


We should be doing a much better job of that but you have to remember that they're not saying the lockdown is going to prevent anyone from getting the virus, they're all going to get it regardless. The only thing the lockdown is doing is flattening and lengthening the curve so medical services don't get swamped. It will prevent some deaths but not nearly as many as most people seem to think it will.
#15081532
@Sivad has already explained his argument in this post.
Yeah, and then in following months the death rate is going to drop off precipitously because all the terminally old got the sniffles.

No, I think their conditions were so frail that a mild illness was more than they could take. The virus didn't kill them, the oldness did. The reason they're all getting it is because there's no herd immunity and it's highly contagious. The reason we don't see this with other weak viruses is because there's no vector for them to spread like this one does.

Ignoring the nonsense that oldness kills, he's saying these are early deaths but they would have happened within a reasonably short period of time, say a few months, anyway.

-----------------------------------------------

Spain has been tracking all cause mortality nationally and in the regions since 19 March. They estimate expected all cause mortality using the last 10 years of data, which is shown in blue (line and shaded region). From the most recent one on 2 Apr, nationally and for Madrid (note that the steep drop-offs at the right of the charts are artifacts - presumably incomplete data):
Image
Image
Much like everywhere else so far, there are large differences between regions.

More graphs for Spain and its regions here. They think R0 is now close to or below 1 almost everywhere in Spain.

-------------------------------------------------

Sivad wrote:Not all of them, it's gonna kill a lot of people. It's gonna be exactly what Fauci said it was gonna be in the NEjM, "akin to a severe seasonal influenza".

We're going to be very lucky if this ends up like a severe seasonal flu. And if that happens, it will be because we stopped or massively reduced the rampant spread of the virus.
By Sivad
#15081535
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Ignoring the nonsense that oldness kills,


dying of old age is about as medically accurate as saying the virus killed them. Causality is incredibly complicated, and in medicine it's even more so because of the extreme complexity of living systems.

he's saying these are early deaths but they would have happened within a reasonably short period of time, say a few months, anyway.


Even Neil Ferguson is saying that. I just quoted three public health authorities saying exactly that.
#15081538
Sivad wrote:dying of old age is about as medically accurate as saying the virus killed them.

Not even close.

Sivad wrote:Causality is incredibly complicated, and in medicine it's even more so because of the extreme complexity of living systems.

I don't mind if there are multiple causes, so by all means let the authorities count multiple causes. But when a virus sweeps through a population, especially if it lacks immunity, it is important that people are counted when they contract it and die as a consequence, regardless of preexisting conditions or opportunistic infections.

That is to say, I don't care what the CFR or IFR ultimately turns out to be. What I care about is what's happening in reality where regions in several developed countries are seeing a large spike in deaths and massive strain on hospitals and critical care.

And even you should care, because this means that if it happens where you live, nobody, including you and the people you care about, will get the standard of care that you'd otherwise would expect. In the worst case, which will happen if we don't slow this virus down, many of us will be watching our loved ones dying at home, from Covid or something else should we be unlucky enough to have a medical emergency during that time.

Sivad wrote:Even Neil Ferguson is saying that. I just quoted three public health authorities saying exactly that.

You forgot to mention that Ferguson is talking about the UK in lock down. His estimates are way worse otherwise.

But the important thing here is that you do not have to be an expert to see the danger. All you need to know is basic arithmetic and a dose of common sense.
By Sivad
#15081546
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Not even close.


whatever. Bodies break down over time, they become weaker and weaker until they can't hold up under even the slightest stress. The straw that breaks the camel's back is just the proximate cause, it's not the explanation.


I don't mind if there are multiple causes, so by all means let the authorities count multiple causes. But when a virus sweeps through a population, especially if it lacks immunity, it is important that people are counted when they contract it and die as a consequence, regardless of preexisting conditions or opportunistic infections.


But a lot of them aren't dying as a consequence of the virus, they tested positive for the virus but they died of something else totally unrelated. Another issue is false positives where some percentage are testing positive when they don't actually have it. I can't find anything on it but as busy as the labs are there's guaranteed to be a lot of cross contamination and other issues.

That is to say, I don't care what the CFR or IFR ultimately turns out to be. What I care about is what's happening in reality where regions in several developed countries are seeing a large spike in deaths and massive strain on hospitals and critical care.


Those are anomalies in a few regions where demographics and environmental and social factors are converging to create freak storms. It's not the norm and wouldn't be the norm even if we went with the mitigation strategy.

And even you should care, because this means that if it happens where you live, nobody, including you and the people you care about, will get the standard of care that you'd otherwise would expect.


I do care but I have rational priorities that don't permit plunging the world into authoritarianism and economic chaos just to protect me and mine [in the short term].


In the worst case, which will happen if we don't slow this virus down


I guess it depends on how you define "worst case" because from where I'm sitting this world is heading straight into the worst case scenario at full speed. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to panic a civilization, create economic chaos, and then give governments broad sweeping powers of social control? It's sheer fucking mindless stupidity to be unleashing those kinds of forces, there's no telling what kind of horrors could come about as result of that.

You forgot to mention that Ferguson is talking about the UK in lock down. His estimates are way worse otherwise.


His worst case estimates are babbitt shit stupid, it's fear tactics and nothing more. This is the third mass panic the guy has caused in the last twenty years. He was insanely wrong about foot-and-mouth, he was insanely wrong about swine flu, and he's insanely wrong about this. How is it you people are still taking this chicken little character seriously?

And let's not forget that his research was funded by the World Health Organization which has a maniac gulagist in charge of it, is squarely in the pocket of the Chicom regime, and has been called out by high ranking EU commissioners for causing the retarded panic over swine flu for its big pharma bosses. It's absolutely surreal that we're allowing these corrupt, malevolent entities to influence policy across the globe. You gotta be out of your fucking minds to be going along with this shit.

But the important thing here is that you do not have to be an expert to see the danger. All you need to know is basic arithmetic and a dose of common sense.


I couldn't agree more.
User avatar
By Ter
#15081615
Coronavirus UK death toll: why what we think we know is wrong

The figure we are all watching is likely to be an under-report, which is skewing the curve

New figures reveal that what we think we know about the Covid-19 death toll in the UK is wrong. Here’s why.

Every day we get one big figure for deaths occurring in the UK. Everyone jumps on this number, taking it to be the latest toll. However NHS England figures – which currently make up the bulk of UK deaths – in fact reflect the day on which the death was reported, not the actual date of death, which is usually days, sometimes weeks, before it appears in the figures.

The truth is we don’t know how many deaths have taken place the previous day. In fact the headline figure is likely to under-report the number of deaths that actually happened the previous day.

The number we hear about usually counts deaths which took place at an earlier date. The difference matters because by undercounting the number of deaths we are skewing the curve.

Image

Prof Sheila Bird, formerly of the Medical Research Council’s biostatistics unit at Cambridge University, explains: “We’re on a rising epidemic trend, and so the death counts are currently increasing, and we’re trying to track how steeply they are increasing. If today I’m getting to know about a series of deaths that occurred in the past 10 days, then what I’m getting is not a reflection of the steepness of the curve at this moment.”

On 30 March, NHS England reported 159 deaths in the 24 hours to 5pm on Sunday 29 March. However, the actual number of people who died in that 24-hour period was revised up to 401 in Thursday’s report and again to 463 on Friday as more deaths which occurred on that date were reported. And this figure could be revised up again as more deaths come to light.

“When you’re on a rising trajectory, the reporting delay is likely to mean that you underestimate the steepness [of the curve] and so we may think that we’re doing better than we are. And when we come to the downturn in the epidemic, the slowing, and there’s a decrease in deaths, we’ll be too slow to recognise the change. Hence, we risk getting it wrong in both senses,” Bird adds.

Another complicating factor is that the Department of Health and Social Care’s daily count covers deaths in hospitals, omitting those in the community. Although the ONS this week started releasing the number of deaths including community deaths in England and Wales, there is also a time lag in this data being reported.

There are other datasets we can look at. The number of confirmed cases of the virus is a useful indicator but it relies on testing, which has not been rolled out to cover a broad enough swathe of the general population to give us a sense of how many people are possibly infected.


Image

The number of triage calls and online assessments through the NHS are also useful to give us a sense of potential infection levels – 1.9m at the time of writing in England. But these are people with Covid-19 symptoms, not those with confirmed cases of the virus.

The most solid data we have showing the trajectory of the impact of this virus are deaths. That is why it is imperative that we have timely and reliable data – and why the seriousness of the problem is growing along with the death toll.

“It’s not uncommon that this happens in a new epidemic,” Bird says. “Reporting delays are something to be managed, not to be ashamed of. You manage them down but you don’t want to do that by making people think they will be blamed for reporting late and therefore run the risk of failing to report. That’s the worst possibility.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... l-is-wrong

So this is interesting: the number of deaths is under-reported.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15081628
Donna wrote:It could be his point of view is one of simple social Darwinism. If you need medical attention for any reason, you probably deserve to die. "No victims in history" is what he likes to say.

But this is basically fascist thinking and it's par for the course that someone who has already expressed white supremacist beliefs would also have social Darwinist ones.

I'm not sure if "no victims in history" is fascist, but it certainly is Hegelian.
(Hegel regards history as an intelligible process moving towards a specific condition—the realization of human freedom)

All the dead bodies that pile up because of COVIDS or climate change, are just the sounds of eggs breaking as mankind (or at least, a few members of that species) makes itself a giant omelette of freedom.

Perhaps this will be homo sapien's last omelette - the freedom to force people to stay in their houses so they can't organize themselves after a market crash. Or maybe it's the beginning of "the freedom to dumb everyone down with a mandatory vaccine."

Never forget your position as house-dog for billionaires.
By Sivad
#15081666
Donna wrote:social Darwinism

fascist thinking

white supremacist beliefs


Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I'm not a social darwinist, I'm not a fascist, and I have never "expresed white supremacist beliefs". Donna lives in a waking woketard fever dream and she's larping at tardmills.
#15081684
The reactions to the pandemic seem to be causing far more harm to the economic status quo than they are causing to actual people.

This seems to be a crisis of capitalism in that capitalism is unable to marshal an adequate response, and is unable to sustain itself when a large part of the labour force does not show up for work.

I think we should do this for a few months each year even without any viral outbreaks.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15081698
BeesKnee5 wrote:It's an old persons disease is the fallacy that keeps @sivad going.

The numbers that are overwhelming healthcare systems are high in younger ages.


This puts a strain and forces a choice on healthcare systems to save the younger patient.


perhaps we should let the young die and not treat them.
#15081704
Rancid wrote:
perhaps we should let the young die and not treat them.
Perhaps we should count those who die as a result of the system struggling to cope.

Right now many cancer sufferer's are not recieving treatment because the system is prioritising the treatment of Covid-19. Some of them are dying because of it when previously they had a higher chance of survival.

Should we ignore this?
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 32

I basically get called a Trump supporter for not […]

End of maduro - hopefully.

The penetration of popular culture by the Deep St[…]

It's pretty surreal. Go to church? Dangerous! Bur[…]

Donald in the Bunker

I am into the Trump In this case I have to tell […]