Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anyone who dies who has covid like symptoms can be included in the death count...Weakness is a symptom of covid. IDK anyone who dies without weakness. Hospitals get extra money for listing covid as cause of intake...they have a financial incentive to pump the numbers. I'm not sayings it's not a real thing to be concerned about, I'm just saying the numbers presented here are likely inflated.
Oddly, heart disease, cancer and death from diabetes have all vanished.
 
Richest company on the planet cannot wait to get their stores open. They're not making enough money, obviously.

As to the 'too soon comment' - it's too soon when the R Value is close to 1. Whether that's tomorrow, next month or next year is irrelevant.
The "when" is not irrelevant. Cuomo himself said something about 66% of New York's new cases being in people who haven't even left their homes. Which somehow is starting to suggest that "stay at home" isn't working either. That was our best "plan" and Cuomo's statement seems to suggest we are getting to a point where that isn't working either. If it was working...these people shouldn't be getting sick...correct? Especially if no one is coming into their homes with them. We may now not have a choice but to get back out there. Those who are in a lesser risk category...should be the ones to return first. While we take care of and isolate those at higher risk. As for the time being irrelevant...again, it won't matter. This is a new virus that we've never seen before. No proven immunity. Which means no matter WHEN we get back out there...there is going to be a spike. R value is going to go right back up no matter when we go back out into the world. BECAUSE THERE IS NO IMMUNITY!!! As time goes on...my hospital has been admitting more people due to suicide attempts. As I understand it, (I've been out of work for two weeks for a quarantine). In the last two weeks, we had 3x as many admits for suicide risks...as we did for COVID. And we were a hard hit hospital when it came to COVID. The "too soon" crowd is falling to realize that the "cure" can NOT be worse than the "disease". If we create five new problems in the process of trying to solve one...did we really solve one?
 
The director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has put the virus’s mortality rate at about 2%, while the WHO has estimated 3.4%. The flu has a 0.1% mortality rate.

It’s 20-30x more deadly than flu. It’s not even close. Where did you get that 0.3% mortality rate number from?

Again, there's a severe bias in testing, in that people only tested those who were showing obvious symptoms, or were associated with those showing severe symptoms. Further, the tests only showed those who were currently infected.

Antibody tests have shown that for a county with 1,000 confirmed cases, the rate of those with antibodies are 54x higher. Potentially, you're overestimating mortality rates by a similar factor.

 
Oddly, heart disease, cancer and death from diabetes have all vanished.
Unfortunately, in regards to the post you responded to...my state's director of public health admitted on live television that that is exactly what's happening...and she said it without hesitation.
 
.1% vs .3%, so basically, yes.

"Just the flu" according to you? How about a flu that is magnitudes more contagious, 3x more deadly, and no vaccine, unlike the normal flu where you could just go "get the flu shot" and be cool.

If none of that bothers you, why not take a quick get-away in NYC or other hot-spot. After-all, it's just the flu...shake it off, right?
 
"Just the flu" according to you? How about a flu that is magnitudes more contagious, 3x more deadly, and no vaccine, unlike the normal flu where you could just go "get the flu shot" and be cool.

If none of that bothers you, why not take a quick get-away in NYC or other hot-spot. After-all, it's just the flu...shake it off, right?

Again when are you people going to learn how to read the data?
 
Oddly, heart disease, cancer and death from diabetes have all vanished.

Are you... actually suggesting that there’s a global conspiracy to count all deaths from heart disease, cancer, and diabetes as coronavirus deaths? Really?
 
Antibody tests have shown that for a county with 1,000 confirmed cases, the rate of those with antibodies are 54x higher. Potentially, you're overestimating mortality rates by a similar factor.

I'm not doubting there are more people that have it then know it.

But if you run a Facebook ad "Get antibody testing to see if you had COVID-19" -- you are going to get a biased sample of people who think they might have had it.

Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a sample of individuals living within the county by demographic and geographic characteristics

So... not an unbiased test pool.

arn
 
Good thing this pandemic is behind us..
Oh wait.

View attachment 913312

Not entering into the hoax discussion (it isn't), or even into a discussion into how severe Covid-19 is (it's severe), but these are two bad graphs to prove your point. They can't go down as it's cumulative.
This is a much better graph:

Capture.PNG



Of course, the above doesn't take into consideration the improvements in testing, autopsies etc., but that's a different subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuruZac
.1% vs .3%, so basically, yes.
This thinking is just so wrong. I can't believe we get to have public policy massively influenced by people who can't understand an exponent. Even if the 0.3% is correct, the replication rate of this virus is about 2.3, vs. about 1.3 for the flu. So, what happens after, say, 20 generations of spread? Check what 2.3^20 is and divide by 1.3^20.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firewood
Too soon.
It's the same in the UK, everyone is too keen and eager to reopen things, relax measures. This is going to come back with avengeance, I can see it coming.
 
Are you... actually suggesting that there’s a global conspiracy to count all deaths from heart disease, cancer, and diabetes as coronavirus deaths? Really?
Well, to be fair, as I mentioned above...my state's director of public health admitted on live television that this is what we're doing. If someone dies of say, a heart attack, for instance and a postmortem test results in a positive for COVID...then they died of COVID and not the heart attack.
 
Not entering into the hoax discussion (it isn't), or even into a discussion into how severe Covid-19 is (it's severe), but these are two bad graphs to prove your point. They can't go down as it's cumulative.
This is a much better graph:

View attachment 913330


Of course, the above doesn't take into consideration the improvements in testing, autopsies etc., but that's a different subject.

Another interesting graph though... most of the decline is in New York only..

Screen Shot 2020-05-08 at 5.03.55 PM.png
 
Well, to be fair, as I mentioned above...my state's director of public health admitted on live television that this is what we're doing. If someone dies of say, a heart attack, for instance and a postmortem test results in a positive for COVID...then they died of COVID and not the heart attack.

Even if you believe that, it doesn't explain this. More deaths than typical for time of year.

Screen Shot 2020-05-08 at 5.07.02 PM.png


 
Even if you believe that, it doesn't explain this. More deaths than typical for time of year.


I think that the issue is trying to find what is an "acceptable" threshold from a public policy point of view. Truth be told, I don't think anyone knows, as long as the healthcare system is not overwhelmed.

(good graphs by the way, very interesting)
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps
But if you run a Facebook ad "Get antibody testing to see if you had COVID-19" -- you are going to get a biased sample of people who think they might have had it.

They specifically corrected for that. Along with demographic corrections (age, income and geography via zip code, race), they found the rates of cough and fever for their sample versus the general population, found that their sample did have a slightly higher rate, and then reweighed for it. See page 23 in their paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bolanders
I think that the issue is trying to find what is an "acceptable" threshold from a public policy point of view. Truth be told, I don't think anyone knows, as long as the healthcare system is not overwhelmed.

I'm not saying anything about acceptable deaths or whether we should reopen or not.

But, there's a small vocal contingent of people who essentially claim that there aren't any excess deaths from corona... and that these people had other things and are being mislabeled. And then you have people arguing death rates, and that it is or isn't worse than the flu etc.

All that goes away when you look at the total all-cause deaths. Something has happened in March - April 2020 that is causing more deaths than usual then historically. Most people believe that is due to Coronavirus.

arn
 
I'm not saying anything about acceptable deaths or whether we should reopen or not.

But, there's a small vocal contingent of people who essentially claim that there aren't any excess deaths from corona... and that these people had other things and are being mislabeled. And then you have people arguing death rates, and that it is or isn't worse than the flu etc.

All that goes away when you look at the total all-cause deaths. Something has happened in March - April 2020 that is causing more deaths than usual then historically. Most people believe that is due to Coronavirus.

arn

Oh, I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arn
I'm not saying anything about acceptable deaths or whether we should reopen or not.

But, there's a small vocal contingent of people who essentially claim that there aren't any excess deaths from corona... and that these people had other things and are being mislabeled. And then you have people arguing death rates, and that it is or isn't worse than the flu etc.

All that goes away when you look at the total all-cause deaths. Something has happened in March - April 2020 that is causing more deaths than usual then historically. Most people believe that is due to Coronavirus.

arn

I think that is very fair but the million dollar question is how many peoples lives are going to be ruined financially? Is it worth it? We know it isn't with the flu since they don't shut down the economy for the flu. What is the acceptable death rate where it is not worth it? Is it total number of deaths and not the rate?

How many people died of the stress caused by the economy shutting down? How many still will?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breezygirl
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.