News ***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread*** - Page 2800

Originally Posted by TLO:
:-)

A lot of this person's takes/information have been on point. Some not so much, nobody is batting .1000 right now.

If nobody is getting even 10% right, we are in real trouble.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Donger:
The NYT acknowledges the 52,000 excess deaths, so why did this person say what they said about the NYT?

Because people like to say things?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Third Eye:
If nobody is getting even 10% right, we are in real trouble.

Heh. Ooops. :-)
[Reply]

It's even in the NYT article:

Measuring excess deaths does not tell us precisely how each person died. It is likely that most of the excess deaths in this period are because of the coronavirus itself, given the dangerousness of the virus and the well-documented problems with testing. But it is also possible that deaths from other causes have risen too, as hospitals in some hot spots have become overwhelmed and people have been scared to seek care for ailments that are typically survivable. Some causes of death may be declining, as people stay inside more, drive less and limit their contact with others.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Donger:
It's even in the NYT article:

Measuring excess deaths does not tell us precisely how each person died. It is likely that most of the excess deaths in this period are because of the coronavirus itself, given the dangerousness of the virus and the well-documented problems with testing. But it is also possible that deaths from other causes have risen too, as hospitals in some hot spots have become overwhelmed and people have been scared to seek care for ailments that are typically survivable. Some causes of death may be declining, as people stay inside more, drive less and limit their contact with others.

So you're denying that what ethical skeptic is saying is rational?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by TLO:
So you're denying that what ethical skeptic is saying is rational?

I'm denying what this person is claiming:

NYT is denying that lockdown deaths have occurred.

As you can see, the NYT is not denying that lockdown deaths have occurred at all.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by TLO:
:-)

A lot of this person's takes/information have been on point. Some not so much, nobody is batting .1000 right now.

Conspiracy theorists gonna conspiracy theory, agenda driven tweeter gonna post their agenda.

You do realize how most of those kind of people work don't you? Throw in enough facts/truth here and there to keep you on the line.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Covid-19 is a terrible disease, and the primary goal should be to minimise deaths. How is this done? The key is age. The risk of Covid-19 mortality varies more than a thousandfold between the oldest and youngest members of society.

The pandemic will not be over until we reach herd immunity, either through a vaccine or through natural infections. Herd immunity is not a strategy but a proven scientific phenomenon, and to deny that is as silly as denying gravity. With the right strategy, we can even use it to save lives.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ainst-covid-19

Originally Posted by :
It is inappropriate to either exaggerate or dismiss the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is still impossible to know what percentage is needed to reach herd immunity or how many people will eventually die, and no respectable epidemiologist will make such claims. Nor do we know how long it will take to get a vaccine, which could be anything from six months to never. The one important thing that we do know is the enormous risk difference by age. Covid-19 is a formidable enemy, and in any war, one must take advantage of the opponent�s weaknesses. That weakness is the near inability of the virus to kill younger people. Hence, it is the young adults among us that must stand in the front line as we fight this enemy. If not, we will have many more casualties than necessary.

Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He studies infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety.

This should have been the strategy all along. I'd be willing to bet that MANY more lives would have been saved had we focused our attention on the vulnerable instead of spreading mass hysteria early on.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by AustinChief:
This should have been the strategy all along. I'd be willing to bet that MANY more lives would have been saved had we focused our attention on the vulnerable instead of spreading mass hysteria early on.

Easier said than done , the elderly and sick need people to take care of them, if you reduce the amount of infections in those care takers you reduce the risk of the weak getting it and you try and do that by social distancing and masks but this stuff only works if people buy in when it comes to exponential growth it only takes a few people of to not buy in To make a mess of any plan.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Monticore:
Easier said than done , the elderly and sick need people to take care of them, if you reduce the amount of infections in those care takers you reduce the risk of the weak getting it and you try and do that by social distancing and masks but this stuff only works if people buy in when it comes to exponential growth it only takes a few people of to buy I. To mess things up.

Yes but you only reduce the number of infections at any given MOMENT not overall unless you mitigate successfully all the way until there is a vaccine. My posit has always been that it is far easier to get people to buy in and protect the vulnerable over a shorter time period then it is if we drag it out for a year.
[Reply]

Europe's Top Health Officials Say Masks Aren't Helpful in Beating COVID-19

https://fee.org/articles/europes-top...ting-covid-19/
[Reply]

Originally Posted by AustinChief:
Yes but you only reduce the number of infections at any given MOMENT not overall unless you mitigate successfully all the way until there is a vaccine. My posit has always been that it is far easier to get people to buy in and protect the vulnerable over a shorter time period then it is if we drag it out for a year.

How do you do it , people keep saying protect the vulnerable but I haven’t heard a viable solution that people would also be willing to pay for or make the sacrifices to put into effect.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Donger:
It's even in the NYT article:

Measuring excess deaths does not tell us precisely how each person died. It is likely that most of the excess deaths in this period are because of the coronavirus itself, given the dangerousness of the virus and the well-documented problems with testing. But it is also possible that deaths from other causes have risen too, as hospitals in some hot spots have become overwhelmed and people have been scared to seek care for ailments that are typically survivable. Some causes of death may be declining, as people stay inside more, drive less and limit their contact with others.

�We�re not saying it�s COVID but it�s obviously COVID.�

:-) :-) :-)
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Monticore:
How do you do it , people keep saying protect the vulnerable but I haven�t heard a viable solution that people would also be willing to pay for or make the sacrifices to put into effect.

You could start by not throwing them into nursing homes filled with infected people.
[Reply]

The Don holding a press conference starting in about 5 minutes. Expected to sign several executive orders today.
[Reply]