Originally posted by Surtur
I made no claims on validity.I merely asked you to explain what they define as a covid death.
You don't seem to be able to do so, despite linking it repeatedly.
You're lying again, as you did just that when you implied that the numbers may not be legitimate. Bottom of page 352 of this thread
Repeat: I don't care if you magically no longer consider worldometers a valid source. The timing of your sudden change of heart is funny though.
Nancy Pelosi openly admits she's happy to do a COVID relief deal now that Joe Biden is president
I love being better than her and every single one of her supporters 🙂
Originally posted by Surtur
is it only people who would have lived long and healthy lives without Covid?
How important is that though really? Nobody knows how much time they have left, seems like a silly thing to be caught up on. I get that there will be stat massaging going on in some places, I'm just saying would it be acceptable if Covid only spared people who were guaranteed long, healthy lives?
Originally posted by samhain
How important is that though really? Nobody knows how much time they have left, seems like a silly thing to be caught up on. I get that there will be stat massaging going on in some places, I'm just saying would it be acceptable if Covid only spared people who were guaranteed long, healthy lives?
It's important to differentiate between an otherwise healthy person dying of covid and someone with stage 4 lung cancer dying from it.
Tell me you disagree?
Originally posted by Surtur
It's important to differentiate between an otherwise healthy person dying of covid and someone with stage 4 lung cancer dying from it.Tell me you disagree?
If differentiating gave us helpful info on how to better combat this then sure, why not go into more depth. But the claim that they both died of covid isn't a lie.
Why do you want me to disagree?
Originally posted by Surtur
For me it's about public fear.
Me disagreeing with you is about public fear? Okay, little weird.
jk
To what end to you see this public fear being spread for? I just don't see it as completely disingenuous for stats that show number of deaths attributable to covid to not immediately show the data on each individuals health levels/life expectancy.
Originally posted by Surtur
I dont know to what level the fear will go.You'd be especially right if this was the beginning of the pandemic. I can only go by what I feel and at this point though I feel like I wanna know the number of healthy people killed by covid as well as the total number.
That's fair enough.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I can agree with 1 being iffy because we do have evidence it does delay cases (but not deaths...unsure why). But the only robust modeling we have shows it increases the deaths, directly from COVID-19 (not ancillary deaths) because of the delayed effect. To better explain what they figured out, it creates multiple significant waves of infections and deaths instead of just one major one and minor increases later on. Second and third waves every bit as terrible as the first waves is the issue. So you reduce your primary wave to 80% max. Second wave is at 80% max. Whereas, not using lockdowns, you'd see 100% then 10%. It's not that exaggerated according to the modeling they did but you get the idea.If we want to see how true that is, we just need to look at Sweden's results. And that does appear to be the case (no pun intended). While the world is going through terrible second and third waves, they are almost completely done with their second wave which was moderate. Look at France to compare and their second wave was almost as severe as their first wave.
If you look at the US: the states with the most deaths all have lock down restrictions. And have had them for weeks. The correlation to deaths and lockdowns is, as research has found, statistically insignificant. In some instances, it actually causes a spike in deaths shortly after they go into place (the rehousing puts household members in much closer proximity so it allows it to transfer in much heavier viral loads - initial viral load is what kills the vulnerable: they just do not have the immune system to fight it off quick enough).
Here's an interactive map with all the lockdown restrictions by state:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/here-are-stay-home-orders-across-country-n1168736
I'm not sure Sweden isn't facing a second wave right now, especially for Scandinavian countries it is doing pretty badly, and the development of cases seems to mirror many other European countries.
They are starting to take counter measures like locking down the schools right now:
One of the scientists responsible for the approach also seems to be unsure about some aspects of it now:
And popular support for the no-lockdown stance seem to be slipping somewhat as well, as the cases and deaths are rising.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/03/sweden-anti-lockdown-covid-deaths
It's not unlikely that we might see Sweden use lockdown measures in the near future, I think.
One thing that Sweden has going for it, that a lot of other countries struggle with, is a general trust of the population in its government, and therefore a willingness to follow guidelines without much coercion, that is very impressive.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's important to differentiate between an otherwise healthy person dying of covid and someone with stage 4 lung cancer dying from it.Tell me you disagree?
Well in the week of Nov 21 the US had around 55k deaths so far our worst covid week is 1700 ish
So around 3% of our deaths are from covid and that 92% of deaths associated with covid are from folks over 55 which is around 1,564, in addition to that we know covid itself isn't the killer folks with heart disease, obesity, diabetes are high risk not every 55+ person.
It seems like the best thing would be to lock down retired individuals but in the case of covid let's shutdown the USA and sling fear like crack in the 90's 😉
Originally posted by Artol
I'm not sure Sweden isn't facing a second wave right now, especially for Scandinavian countries it is doing pretty badly, and the development of cases seems to mirror many other European countries.They are starting to take counter measures like locking down the schools right now:
One of the scientists responsible for the approach also seems to be unsure about some aspects of it now:
It's the daily death rate that I pay attention to, not necessarily the cases. You can see daily cases increase for weeks but death rates drop even when accounting for the case-to-death delay. It's because the "back to school" and holiday surges are not a majority elderly testing positive.
Notice how their case growth curve does not change at all after some of their more restrictive measures went in place? Notice how their deaths steeply drop off despite their cases remaining roughly the same and even peaking? It's because those variables are independent of each other. We know exactly how long incubation is from time of exposure to symptoms/positive tests. As previous research has shown, there is not statistical benefit to lockdowns and likely increases the number of COVID-19 deaths, long-term.
Originally posted by Artol
And popular support for the no-lockdown stance seem to be slipping somewhat as well, as the cases and deaths are rising.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/03/sweden-anti-lockdown-covid-deaths
It's not unlikely that we might see Sweden use lockdown measures in the near future, I think.
Based on their deaths not mirroring their cases, this should vindicate Tegall's original approach.
More to the point, the "Sweden locked down!" headlines are dishonest or flat out lies.
"It [the latest measures] is not a lockdown but some extra recommendations might be communicated locally when a need from the regional authorities is communicated,” Tegnell told Newsweek (who nevertheless ran the alarmist headline “Sweden, Which Refused Lockdown During COVID First Wave, Imposes Restrictions as Cases Soar”).Recommendations is the key word here. A careful reading of Tegnell's comments and the actual reporting makes it clear Sweden has not yet imposed any new restrictions, let alone a lockdown, and merely will be advising regional health officials on public health recommendations to slow the spread of the virus following a resurgence of cases in October.
As Business Insider reports, the new strategy “will give local authorities the power to strongly recommend people to avoid busy public places like shopping centers, museums, gyms, concerts, and sports matches. Swedes may also be asked to avoid public transport and contact with those considered most vulnerable to severe infection.”
https://fee.org/articles/no-sweden-isn-t-abandoning-its-no-lockdown-strategy/
Originally posted by Artol
One thing that Sweden has going for it, that a lot of other countries struggle with, is a general trust of the population in its government, and therefore a willingness to follow guidelines without much coercion, that is very impressive.
I would say that their greatest benefit is their ability of their leaders to actually function more like technocrats (they strongly listen to the leading experts).
Some weasel care to defend this bullshit?
There will no longer be "rules for thee but not for me". There will no longer be complaining about masks or social distancing.
It's over with.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/k748va/californian_restaurant_owner_freaks_out_when/So ****ed up 🙁
Not surprised though. These lockdowns can go to hell imo.
More info:
No, this is not okay. It will never be okay.
It shows those in power do not actually take this pandemic seriously. But I am open to someone defending this move if they can.