Originally posted by Surtur
Convicted Murderer Serving 84-Years-To-Life In Prison, Terebea Williams, Released Over Coronavirus Fears*smh*
If they are trying to protect prisoners, why not release the lesser crime prisoners? I couldn't care less if some murderer catches Corona.
Originally posted by Surtur
CDC director admits hospitals have monetary 'incentive' to inflate coronavirus death count
Which is one of the reasons we have the death count we do, they count bodies that are infected with covid as cause of death, which is not always a fact.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Which is one of the reasons we have the death count we do, they count bodies that are infected with covid as cause of death, which is not always a fact.
According to COVID-19 autopsy research, as many as 57% of the deaths could be from some other illness. Meaning, up to a majority could wrongfully attributed.
Follow-up research is being done so we will know as time progresses.
I saw a chart that showed all the deaths by type, by year, before and after COVID-19. We certainly have an uptick in deaths.
Originally posted by dadudemonoh DDm, the majority die from pneumonia, are you saying another intermediate pathogen is out their acting as another precursor to these extra deaths? 😖hifty: really?
According to COVID-19 autopsy research, as many as 57% of the deaths could be from some other illness. Meaning, up to a majority could wrongfully attributed.Follow-up research is being done so we will know as time progresses.
I saw a chart that showed all the deaths by type, by year, before and after COVID-19. We certainly have an uptick in deaths.
Originally posted by dadudemon
According to COVID-19 autopsy research, as many as 57% of the deaths could be from some other illness. Meaning, up to a majority could wrongfully attributed.Follow-up research is being done so we will know as time progresses.
I saw a chart that showed all the deaths by type, by year, before and after COVID-19. We certainly have an uptick in deaths.
Plz stop posting, your facts frighten and confuse me.
Originally posted by Surtur
Plz stop posting, your facts frighten and confuse me.
From JAMA:
Results
Between March 1, 2020, and April 25, 2020, a total of 505 059 deaths were reported in the US; 87 001 (95% CI, 86 578-87 423) were excess deaths, of which 56 246 (65%) were attributed to COVID-19. In 14 states, more than 50% of excess deaths were attributed to underlying causes other than COVID-19; these included California (55% of excess deaths) and Texas (64% of excess deaths)
What really might burn people's noodles is how many of those deaths may be attributable to actions taken by the government that caused the spike in those non-COVID-19 related deaths such as the lack of access to healthcare, lockdowns, stress related to economic ruin from lockdowns, etc.
I wonder when people will acknowledge the role the government played in the tens of thousands of excess deaths that were not COVID-19?
When is the medicine more harmful than the disease?
Originally posted by dadudemon
From JAMA:What really might burn people's noodles is how many of those deaths may be attributable to actions taken by the government that caused the spike in those non-COVID-19 related deaths such as the lack of access to healthcare, lockdowns, stress related to economic ruin from lockdowns, etc.
I wonder when people will acknowledge the role the government played in the tens of thousands of excess deaths that were not COVID-19?
When is the medicine more harmful than the disease?
The sad truth, which I suspect will be revealed more in full in the years to come, will be that our response to covid killed far more people than covid itself did.
Originally posted by Surtur
The sad truth, which I suspect will be revealed more in full in the years to come, will be that our response to covid killed far more people than covid itself did.
As fact, based on the research we have already done from the 2008 housing market crash, the number of deaths from the policies implemented because of reactions to COVID-19, will 100% definitely kill more people than die from COVID-19. It's a fact. The economic ruin is already too great. We just killed hundreds of thousands of people or millions of people (likely between 1-2 million in the US, alone) due to our policies.
The body count is already in the tens of thousands of COVID-19 related deaths, but not actual deaths from an "Advanced Respiratory Illness" directly caused by COVID-19. It was from the lockdowns and economic ruin that killed those tens of thousands.
Who's talking about those kinds of deaths? Whoever you find talking about those deaths as they relate to public policy is a person you should vote for or raise up as a person of the people. We always knew that any policy we implemented to fight COVID-19 would be killing people in the future to save people now. We always knew this - it was made very clear by leading experts in epidemiology back in Feb. FFS, I think Fauci talked about it back then, too.
How long the policies lasted and how much economic damage it did was supposed to be intelligently and wisely balanced against lives we could save by "flattening the curve." That was always the goal. It was never supposed to last this long (the policies).
Pretty morbid to think that the body count from those policies will add up to 1.2 million, by my math, and it already numbers in the tens of thousands.
Originally posted by dadudemon
As fact, based on the research we have already done from the 2008 housing market crash, the number of deaths from the policies implemented because of reactions to COVID-19, will 100% definitely kill more people than die from COVID-19. It's a fact. The economic ruin is already too great. We just killed hundreds of thousands of people or millions of people (likely between 1-2 million in the US, alone) due to our policies.
I mostly believe that as well, especially in poorer countries or areas economic downturn can be devastating (it wouldn't have to be, but it is in the logic of the economic system we live under). However a few years ago I read a surprising paper that argued that, at least in some places, the economic downturn of 2008 actually had positive impact on life expectancy, which I found very counterintuitive. Of course one study is just one study, not proof of anything.
Originally posted by Artol
I mostly believe that as well, especially in poorer countries or areas economic downturn can be devastating (it wouldn't have to be, but it is in the logic of the economic system we live under). However a few years ago I read a surprising paper that argued that, at least in some places, the economic downturn of 2008 actually had positive impact on life expectancy, which I found very counterintuitive. Of course one study is just one study, not proof of anything.
The research I'm talking about found that countries with really high social safety nets and true universal healthcare did not see those stress-related deaths from the economic recession. Meaning, if the US had a better unemployment system (such as a graduated UBI) and an affordable UHC, we could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
And that also means if we had pulled our head out, implemented an affordable UHC, implemented a proper social safety net for unemployed (again, a graduated UBI), we'd save anywhere from 1-2 million lives from the disastrous COVID-19 policies.
I would note that the paper written does not include a regression analysis to demonstrate this correlation, it didn't control for confounding variables, and it was written in 2012 before the deaths from the rescission were readily understood and properly correlated.
In order for them to make their case, they would have needed to show that there was a statistically significant life expectancy increase (with a very low p-value since we are talking about hundreds of millions of people), and compare projected before and projected after (linear regression since these two variables would vary directly). They did not show this at all. Their full paper is actually very short. These kinds of papers are more for "here's an interested quick analysis that may warrant more investigation" but not intended to be solid research that informs medical or public policy.
Originally posted by dadudemonWhich is why you can't draw valid conclusions from them. *cringe*
The research I'm talking about found that countries with really high social safety nets and true universal healthcare did not see those stress-related deaths from the economic recession. Meaning, if the US had a better unemployment system (such as a graduated UBI) and an affordable UHC, we could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.And that also means if we had pulled our head out, implemented an affordable UHC, implemented a proper social safety net for unemployed (again, a graduated UBI), we'd save anywhere from 1-2 million lives from the disastrous COVID-19 policies.
I would note that the paper written does not include a regression analysis to demonstrate this correlation, it didn't control for confounding variables, and it was written in 2012 before the deaths from the rescission were readily understood and properly correlated.
In order for them to make their case, they would have needed to show that there was a statistically significant life expectancy increase (with a very low p-value since we are talking about hundreds of millions of people), and compare projected before and projected after (linear regression since these two variables would vary directly). They did not show this at all. Their full paper is actually very short. These kinds of papers are more for "here's an interested quick analysis that may warrant more investigation" but not intended to be solid research that informs medical or public policy.