Statistically, is Coronavirus now Less Dangerous than Heart Disease? [High Effort Post] - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15107581
Recently I read the CDC and another webpage wrong due to declining interest. In order to redeem myself, I am now making a [High Effort Post]. Reply at your own risk. You have been warned. Trump 2020.

According to the CDC, roughly 12,500 people in the United States die of heart disease each week: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
    * I reached this number by dividing the number of deaths for the year of 2017 by 52, roughly the number of weeks in a year.

Last week in the US, a prospected 950 people died of coronavirus, including comorbidity: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
    * I reached this number based upon the "percentage of expected deaths" figure which has been largely accurate through most of the testing periods.

Based upon this data, one might argue that the coronavirus pandemic is already over: heart disease is roughly 13 times as deadly as coronavirus and they both target predominantly older individuals, which makes comparison appropriate.

Maybe it will go away and maybe it won't. But in light of the greatly reduced death rate, is there a point when people should decide that we just have to live with this thing? Or do we stay locked down forever because there's a new, albeit statistically unlikely cause of death for old people?
#15107585
Wulfschilde wrote:But in light of the greatly reduced death rate, is there a point when people should decide that we just have to live with this thing? Or do we stay locked down forever because there's a new, albeit statistically unlikely cause of death for old people?

Well, it's getting to the point where the death rate is low enough that they can't really consider it an epidemic anymore--at least according to their own definitions. However, we are in a presidential election season, so I do not see an end to the craziness until after early November.

Outbreaks vs. Epidemics
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been careful to characterize the sharp uptick in flu cases as an outbreak, rather than an epidemic. What’s the difference between an outbreak and an epidemic, and where do pandemics fit into the nomenclature of disease?

In terms of the flu, the difference between an outbreak and an epidemic is the percenatge of overall deaths caused by the disease. Every week, the CDC gathers morbidity data from hospitals in 122 cities nationwide and figures out what percentage of the decedents died of pneumonia, cancer, and other prolific killers. If the number of flu-caused deaths exceeds 7.7 percent of the total, then the United States officially has an epidemic on its hands. According to the latest survey, only 7.2 percent of last week’s deaths were due to influenza, so there’s no epidemic yet.

So we have an "outbreak" of coronavirus now, not an epidemic if we're following CDC guidance from 2019. The US has a confirmed case fatality rate of 3.92%.
#15107595
A really fucking retarded comparison but I guess we can't expect much more from uneducated twits who think a pandemic isn't something to worry about. :moron:

:roll: Your heart disease isn't contagious. Why aren't you comparing it to car crashes?


:knife:
#15107603
Wulfschilde wrote:death

Death isn't the only outcome to be worried about. A study of Italians hospitalized with Covid-19 who survived has shown that the long term effects of the disease are real and debilitating with 44% of patients reporting that their quality of life was worse than before they were sick.
#15107606
blackjack21 wrote:Well, it's getting to the point where the death rate is low enough that they can't really consider it an epidemic anymore--at least according to their own definitions. However, we are in a presidential election season, so I do not see an end to the craziness until after early November.

Outbreaks vs. Epidemics

So we have an "outbreak" of coronavirus now, not an epidemic if we're following CDC guidance from 2019. The US has a confirmed case fatality rate of 3.92%.


As usual, you are spewing complete utter unmitigated nonsense.
Epidemic or Pandemic does not refer to any %% of deaths. They refer to the prevalence of a disease. You can have an epidemic of gonorrhea, had zero deaths and still be an epidemic. Your site it is some sort of dubious "Slate.com" and not the CDC.
From the ACTUAL CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/ ... hic%20area.
Epidemic refers to an increase, often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in that area. Outbreak carries the same definition of epidemic, but is often used for a more limited geographic area.

Unless you consider the WHOLE United States as "more limited geographic area" or actually the WHOLE World "more limited geographic area". The only thing limited here is any shred of sincerity coming from you.

As for the OP, this has been discussed at length in previous posts. Your "High effort" is laughable.
As @Godstud hinted earlier part of the issue is the nature of the disease. By June, close to 600 healthcare workers have contracted the disease and died. How many healthcare workers do you reckon to get heart disease from their patients and die? :lol: . Furthermore, this is under the paradigm that we are "aggressively" taking precautions for prevention of further disease. Now, we can have a whole debate in "how aggressive" are we really doing, arguably not much, but that's another point entirely.
Even under these conditions of large scale precautions... we still have close to 140k deaths in about 4 months. If you kept the same conditions and extended that for a year we would be looking closer to half a million people dying from this shit... and that is under lockdown situations, remove that from the equation and you could have even more.
Now, those are "just" deaths. And I don't mean "just" as if it didn't matter, it does, but what I am also trying to say is that we have other problems other than deaths to worry about.
Part of healthcare being run like a business means that hospitals are optimized to run like a business.
Most for-profit hospitals (and this have increased a lot in the last few decades due to non-profit/rurals going out of business or being bought out) means that they don't really have many "extra resources" (beds, personnel, etc). So they are ill-equipped to handle surges. Furthermore, this disease, even when it does not kill, tends to put people in the hospital for a significant amount of time, further decreasing the resources even when they don't die.

Then there is the issue of the vagueness of the statistics. For statistics to be useful, you need to understand the context and mechanism/how the system works. You need to know how they are reported, etc. Did you do the homework? What does the CDC consider heart disease? How are those reported/counted? At this actual cases or estimates? What degree of overlap exists... for instance if a patient comes with the flu, and has a heart attack while in the hospital does it count as both pneumonia and heart disease or does it count only as pneumonia or only as heart attack? What about a patient with atrial fibrillation that has a stroke as a result of a clot formed in the heart, would that lead to a "heart disease" report or something else?
How many diseases are "heart disease". There is no such thing as heart disease in medicine, rather there is coronary artery disease, heart failure with low or preserved ejection fraction, aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, and many others. Presumably, heart disease would include many of these.
Now, as I said, none of this is important. Even if you could demonstrate that all those cases are STEMIs, accurate (not estimate and no overlap with other etiologies), etc. You still have to reconcile this with the fact that we are talking about different entities with different pathophysiology.

Seems that most of the rest of the world had an approach that seems to be working. An approach that we failed to adhere to properly. We are paying the price now and we will continue to do so for years.
#15107611
The US has been mostly reopened for months now, leading (as we're often reminded) to the rise in cases because the disease can be contagious. Despite this, it is still 1/13th as dangerous as heart disease. Couldn't these things be taken as evidence that the coronavirus isn't very dangerous anymore?

If it's rational to shut the country down to fight the sources of coronavirus, wouldn't 13 times as many deaths mean it would be rational to ban fatty foods?

Also, the comorbidity argument against heart disease statistics is no good because the coronavirus death count is extremely broad, being based upon "deaths with COVID-19" as opposed to the harder to determine "deaths from."
#15107615
Wulfschilde wrote: Couldn't these things be taken as evidence that the coronavirus isn't very dangerous anymore?


Absolutely not. You simply ignored anything I said and put up your same retarded point again. :knife:

The US has been mostly reopened for months now

That is not true. I live in one of those states that "opened early" and there was no real open. Sure, the governor gave an OK, but costumers didn't return back to business right away. Just 1 week ago I went to a barbershop on a weekend at usual peak hour (I was expecting to just walk out if there was a line) and sure enough, there were 4 barbers talking to each other and not a single customer. Same thing with restaurants.
Yes, there has been the occasional party and occasional large gathering... and that is in part to blame for the "uptick" that we are currently experiencing that might force another shutdown (as California already did.)

Even if for an instant I were to grant you "it is not that lethal" for the sake of argument... the fact is the rest of the world is controlling it, we are not. And this has serious implications for our future trade, economics, politics, etc. The right thing to do is to aggressively control it, if not for public health, if not for our populations' health... at this point it is a global economy/diplomacy nightmare if we end up with a country full of infected citizens that won't be allowed in europe, asia, canada, etc.
#15107620
Without extraordinary interventions such as lockdowns, travel bans, containment measures, etc., Europe would have more than 3 million death by now instead of about 0.15 million for the whole of Europe.

Thus, the global death count would be at least as high as for the Spanish flu.

@Wulfschilde, your comparison is total BS.

In fact, people who are trying to undermine containment measure by claiming that the fatality rate is low want millions to die.
#15107625
I've been pretty open about wanting millions of people to die, in fact that was one of my very first posts here. So please provide evidence for this claim.

My point though is that fried chikkin barbecues are killing 13 times as many people as corona virus and we don't ban corona beer. Hypocrisy much?

Also the quarantines going on sometimes 8-10 months after the virus is speculated to have appeared didn't do shit, the death rate in places that never locked down is similar as to places that did.
#15107643
Wulfschilde wrote:Recently I read the CDC and another webpage wrong due to declining interest. In order to redeem myself, I am now making a [High Effort Post]. Reply at your own risk. You have been warned. Trump 2020.

According to the CDC, roughly 12,500 people in the United States die of heart disease each week: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
    * I reached this number by dividing the number of deaths for the year of 2017 by 52, roughly the number of weeks in a year.

Last week in the US, a prospected 950 people died of coronavirus, including comorbidity: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm
    * I reached this number based upon the "percentage of expected deaths" figure which has been largely accurate through most of the testing periods.

Based upon this data, one might argue that the coronavirus pandemic is already over: heart disease is roughly 13 times as deadly as coronavirus and they both target predominantly older individuals, which makes comparison appropriate.

Maybe it will go away and maybe it won't. But in light of the greatly reduced death rate, is there a point when people should decide that we just have to live with this thing? Or do we stay locked down forever because there's a new, albeit statistically unlikely cause of death for old people?


YEAH, it is so not dangerous that it managed to beat total US war death numbers in couple of months besides the CIVIL WAR and WW2. :eh:

So uhhh, apparently the only event that caused more deaths for US besides Covid is basically the Civil war and WW2. And those raged for years. I am pretty sure that if this rages for the same time as the Civil war or WW2 then it will kill more people and finally be the single largest die off event in American history, congrats on the success.

Well that and heart disease don't just appear out of nowhere. It is usually related to older people and you know them getting older. This is something that you can't really prevent reliably unless you turn back ageing.
#15107644
JohnRawls wrote:YEAH, it is so not dangerous that it managed to beat total US war death numbers in couple of months besides the CIVIL WAR and WW2. :eh:

So uhhh, apparently the only event that caused more deaths for US besides Covid is basically the Civil war and WW2. And those raged for years. I am pretty sure that if this rages for the same time as the Civil war or WW2 then it will kill more people and finally be the single largest die off event in American history, congrats on the success.

Well that and heart disease don't just appear out of nowhere. It is usually related to older people and you know them getting older. This is something that you can't really prevent reliably unless you turn back ageing.

But you are talking total death numbers, I'm talking about death numbers right now :D
#15107645
Wulfschilde wrote:But you are talking total death numbers, I'm talking about death numbers right now :D


Death numbers right now is on the lower side because more or less we figured out how to treat the fucker, got more ventilators, got more medical facilities and started doing real testing. It is not perfect in every regard but it is better compared to couple of months ago in any country. So no shit that the death numbers will go down even if the amount of infected is increasing. But that is besides the point. First of all, treatment is not perfect and saves you from death not even in all cases and second of all, the side effects of COVID seem to be problematic also in around 25% of cases. So for every dead person, we are getting some kind of health problems for 25 more. Most of which we still have no full understanding about and also if they are permanent/long term/short term. Evidence seems to suggest that there will be a lot of permanent/long term health consequences but the decision ain't final yet.
#15107646
JohnRawls wrote:Death numbers right now is on the lower side because more or less we figured out how to treat the fucker, got more ventilators, got more medical facilities and started doing real testing. It is not perfect in every regard but it is better compared to couple of months ago in any country. So no shit that the death numbers will go down even if the amount of infected is increasing. But that is besides the point. First of all, treatment is not perfect and saves you from death not even in all cases and second of all, the side effects of COVID seem to be problematic also in around 25% of cases. So for every dead person, we are getting some kind of health problems for 25 more. Most of which we still have no full understanding about and also if they are permanent/long term/short term. Evidence seems to suggest that there will be a lot of permanent/long term health consequences but the decision ain't final yet.

So agree with me then that it's recently been killing about 1/13th as many people as heart disease does and we need to ban fried chicken and big sodas?
#15107647
Wulfschilde wrote:So agree with me then that it's recently been killing about 1/13th as many people as heart disease does and we need to ban fried chicken and big sodas?


Heart disease is not preventable while COVID is. COVID is a virus while Heart Disease is as the name implies a disease that is not contagious that happens mostly due to ageing. Friend chicken doesn't make you age. It can only make you fat. Which might be a negative thing for your heart disease but is not the underlying cause.

But if you are asking if i could bann super fatsos from eating friend chicken and drinking sodas then sure. I am all for banning chickens and big sodas for people whos body/mass index is beyond some number like 50 or something unless they are an athlete or a heavy gym goer.
#15107648
JohnRawls wrote:Heart disease is not preventable while COVID is. COVID is a virus while Heart Disease is as the name implies a disease that is not contagious that happens mostly due to ageing. Friend chicken doesn't make you age. It can only make you fat. Which might be a negative thing for your heart disease but is not the underlying cause.

But if you are asking if i could bann super fatsos from eating friend chicken and drinking sodas then sure. I am all for banning chickens and big sodas for people whos body/mass index is beyond some number like 50 or something unless they are an athlete or a heavy gym goer.

Wow, that's so callous of you. Of course heart disease is preventable. You just have to eat right, for your entire life, until you die of something else. I may be a Nazi who wears a dead wolf on his head but I have empathy for other human beings and that is why I will not stop badgering you until we have banned large sodas.
#15107651
Wulfschilde wrote:Wow, that's so callous of you. Of course heart disease is preventable. You just have to eat right, for your entire life, until you die of something else. I may be a Nazi who wears a dead wolf on his head but I have empathy for other human beings and that is why I will not stop badgering you until we have banned large sodas.


What, you don't like people being called fatsos or something? Have some standards. I have plenty of empathy for those who deserve it. Also heart disease is not preventable in any way shape or form because of ageing. The older you get, the more problematic it gets. It is not the only disease that is heavily related to ageing but one of the main ones. At best, we can only manage it nowadays. We can never fully cure it in most cases. Medicine and science ain't there yet.

As for you trying to misinterpret my words that i want to bann sodas and chicken nuggets or something :lol: Why would i want to bann them if i drink/eat them often. But banning them for super fatsos would be nice.
Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

@ckaihatsu Source, please. You're already rea[…]

Joe Biden

Do they? I wouldn't know. I am a conservative. […]

Lecture On Tragedy of China's "Liberation"

@Patrickov I loved Professor Frank Dikotter's […]

The vaccination was always the predetermined solut[…]