Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excess death is your deciding metric? Look at hospitalizations, please...which are rising in all the states which reopened too early or never shutdown in the first place. Listen--even for the ones who survive this--the effects are severe and long-lasting, with lesions and reduced lung capacity. You seem hellbent on equating this at various times with a flu or common cold, but the point is this is no picnic for those who get it and survive...and potentially life-changing.
Shutting down broadly may not be the answer, and I'm not advocating that, but minimizing the severity of COVID is equally irresponsible.
You have failed to understand my point. I'm suggesting that the people dying of this (an ever shrinking number) are the same demographic as that which dies of a moderate to severe flu. Is this false? If so, how so? How do you explain excess deaths now below average? Do you not see the below avg deaths of the past 2 seasons?
Are deaths irrelevant?
People are counting as hospitalizations after testing positive when being admitted for something completely different. A positive test doesn't even mean you are able to transmit the virus. It could mean you are immune to it as well, this isn't always clear. The hospitalization and case numbers can be cooked in a variety of ways and this isn't consistent across states (or even counties). This is why death is the best metric. There is a body. However, it's true that even that can be counted differently. At the same time, it remains the best metric we have.
Will you bother to address any of this or just say I think it's the flu and love trump again?If you do not understand my point, there is no harm in asking what I mean or to explain more. Though I think I've now done it 4 times.
You have failed to understand my point. I'm suggesting that the people dying of this (an ever shrinking number) are the same demographic as that which dies of a moderate to severe flu. Is this false? If so, how so? How do you explain excess deaths now below average? Do you not see the below avg deaths of the past 2 seasons?
Are deaths irrelevant?
People are counting as hospitalizations after testing positive when being admitted for something completely different. A positive test doesn't even mean you are able to transmit the virus. It could mean you are immune to it as well, this isn't always clear. The hospitalization and case numbers can be cooked in a variety of ways and this isn't consistent across states (or even counties). This is why death is the best metric. There is a body. However, it's true that even that can be counted differently. At the same time, it remains the best metric we have.
Will you bother to address any of this or just say I think it's the flu and love trump again?If you do not understand my point, there is no harm in asking what I mean or to explain more. Though I think I've now done it 4 times.
Sorry...but the highlighted statements above just strain the credibility of everything else you're saying. And I never brought politics / Trump into this. It's not a partisan issue, it's about science and translating best practices from other countries who have shown some success in containing the virus. The US has not done the latter by any measure, so it's very tough to defend continuing down the current path.
People are counting as hospitalizations after testing positive when being admitted for something completely different. A positive test doesn't even mean you are able to transmit the virus. It could mean you are immune to it as well, this isn't always clear. The hospitalization and case numbers can be cooked in a variety of ways and this isn't consistent across states (or even counties). This is why death is the best metric. There is a body. However, it's true that even that can be counted differently. At the same time, it remains the best metric we have.
We've already debated this. At least in MA, a Covid-19 related hospitalization is exactly that ... directly related to Covid-19 induced symptoms - sometimes verified with a positive test and sometimes not if symptoms align. If you're planning for an elective procedure and your Covid-19 screening is positive, you are not hospitalized for it. In fact, they don't want you in the hospital unless there is a vital need for care.
You're going to need to supply some real data proving your "theory" that hospitalization numbers are quote "cooked" because it is both against CDC guidance and the actions of major med centers in MA/NH.
I say this as someone who believes the full shutdown should have been avoided and understands there are very specific qualifications which place someone into a risk category... particularly as new pharma studies are showing significantly improved IFR numbers for the outlier patients who experience severe cytokine immune responses despite being otherwise healthy.
I.e., you might think your being rational, and many of your points may even be truthful, but your posts also reveal horrible bias.
Death is the overall end result that we don't want to have so we can't simply look at that as the end point. We have to test to see how many so we can forecast hospitalizations.
This this isn't having an impact already? My girlfriends son didn't have a prom or a high school graduation. My cousin might not have his wedding in September. His mother has a scheduled cancer treatment for August, she's had it before. She could NOT go in earlier due to the number of COVID cases. Look if we have people that are acting stupid and not wearing masks and thinking that it is a joke and if they have to be hospitalized that displaces other work. We don't exactly have extra doctors, nurses and hospitals sitting around.
There's a strong reason why we are taking a few weeks here and there with each step. The reason being is that we need to see if that extra openness leads to more cases and that also buys more time for a vaccine.
You have failed to understand my point. I'm suggesting that the people dying of this (an ever shrinking number) are the same demographic as that which dies of a moderate to severe flu. Is this false? If so, how so? How do you explain excess deaths now below average? Do you not see the below avg deaths of the past 2 seasons?
Are deaths irrelevant?
People are counting as hospitalizations after testing positive when being admitted for something completely different. A positive test doesn't even mean you are able to transmit the virus. It could mean you are immune to it as well, this isn't always clear. The hospitalization and case numbers can be cooked in a variety of ways and this isn't consistent across states (or even counties). This is why death is the best metric. There is a body. However, it's true that even that can be counted differently. At the same time, it remains the best metric we have.
Will you bother to address any of this or just say I think it's the flu and love trump again?If you do not understand my point, there is no harm in asking what I mean or to explain more. Though I think I've now done it 4 times.
It’s mostly the same demographic that does of the flu but that demographic dies at a higher rate with Covid...if there are more cases you are more likely to expose the demographic at risk...
It’s mostly the same demographic that does of the flu but that demographic dies at a higher rate with Covid...if there are more cases you are more likely to expose the demographic at risk...
Right, I am suggesting this is probably because of the mild previous seasons, thus I do not find it particularly surprising.
We've already debated this. At least in MA, a Covid-19 related hospitalization is exactly that ... directly related to Covid-19 induced symptoms - sometimes verified with a positive test and sometimes not if symptoms align. If you're planning for an elective procedure and your Covid-19 screening is positive, you are not hospitalized for it. In fact, they don't want you in the hospital unless there is a vital need for care.
You're going to need to supply some real data proving your "theory" that hospitalization numbers are quote "cooked" because it is both against CDC guidance and the actions of major med centers in MA/NH.
I say this as someone who believes the full shutdown should have been avoided and understands there are very specific qualifications which place someone into a risk category... particularly as new pharma studies are showing significantly improved IFR numbers for the outlier patients who experience severe cytokine immune responses despite being otherwise healthy.
I.e., you might think your being rational, and many of your points may even be truthful, but your posts also reveal horrible bias.
If I have time to gather all the links as to how the cases are counted I will, but it's really easy to serach yourself and find all the results too. I don't know why people refuse to look into it on their own, ask someone else to talk about it, then just call them names when they do.
Sorry...but the highlighted statements above just strain the credibility of everything else you're saying. And I never brought politics / Trump into this. It's not a partisan issue, it's about science and translating best practices from other countries who have shown some success in containing the virus. The US has not done the latter by any measure, so it's very tough to defend continuing down the current path.
I'm sorry dude, you really haven't understood anything I've said. This may be just reading people wrong on the internet. Which I get. But your interpretation of what I am saying is explicitly not what I'm saying. I don't know how else to phrase it.
If I have time to gather all the links as to how the cases are counted I will, but it's really easy to serach yourself and find all the results too. I don't know why people refuse to look into it on their own, ask someone else to talk about it, then just call them names when they do.
The onus is on you as you're making the claim without providing any evidence or even gross data. I have contacts at the local major hospitals through personal and existing work relations and their first-hand data points contradict your claims. As do the very public protocols in place at these hospitals. And as do any of white papers I've read on hospitalization rates (what does and doesn't count as a Covid-19 hospitalization is very clearly defined).
It's possible multiple direct clinical sources are conspiring against the truth, but it's also quite possible your full of s___ regarding this specific point.
Here's the language pulled directly from the study used by the CDC to track hospitalization rates:
Patients must be residents of a designated COVID-NET catchment area and hospitalized within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to meet the surveillance case definition. Testing is requested at the discretion of treating health care providers. Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 is defined as a positive result by any test that has received Emergency Use Authorization for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
By that definition, while it does leave some room for error, it does not leave room for gross error. It also does not capture the error in the opposite direction - clinicians not testing and confirming Covid positive status due to overt symptoms.
The onus is on you as you're making the claim without providing any evidence or even gross data. I have contacts at the local major hospitals through personal and existing work relations and their first-hand data points contradict your claims. As do the very public protocols in place at these hospitals. And as do any of white papers I've read on hospitalization rates (what does and doesn't count as a Covid-19 hospitalization is very clearly defined).
It's possible multiple direct clinical sources are conspiring against the truth, but it's also quite possible your full of s___ regarding this specific point.
Here's the language pulled directly from the study used by the CDC to track hospitalization rates:
Patients must be residents of a designated COVID-NET catchment area and hospitalized within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to meet the surveillance case definition. Testing is requested at the discretion of treating health care providers. Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 is defined as a positive result by any test that has received Emergency Use Authorization for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
By that definition, while it does leave some room for error, it does not leave room for gross error. It also does not capture the error in the opposite direction - clinicians not testing and confirming Covid positive status due to overt symptoms.
Considering the myriad health systems around the country (really, around the world!) reporting numbers, it's incredulous to think there is a systematic error of bias that is skewing the statistics to the high side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
