COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Mark Rippetoe]

I have tried (very unsuccessfully) to google an article or quote for this. I also recall someone, somewhere in this thread, mentioning it (it may have been you). Do you have a link, easily at your fingertips, to find an article, etc. quoting this from the 1980s? Thanks.

I haven't tried. I just remember Fauci and his buddy Gallo telling us that AIDS would be in the general population in 5 years with no way to stop it. He and his buddy Deb Birx (DOD LEAK: Feds Investigated Birx & CDC Director for "Scientific Fraud & Misconduct"; Fabricated, Falsified HIV/AIDS Vaccine Trials – True Pundit) may well be the Heroes we all so desperately need in These Trying Times.

Meanwhile, The Israelis may have an important point here: Could coronavirus crisis be over in 2 weeks? - Technology & Health - Israel National News

And this guy has some good things to say (the source of the Israeli link above): Coronavirus Update IX: End Game—Will Politicians Double Down On Fear Or End It? – William M. Briggs

From the comments:

Harry G
April 14, 2020 at 7:18 am
COVID 19 – raw data extracted from Australian Government Heath Dept Website

In Australia up to 6:00AM 13 April 2020

Number of people tested 366,000 (we have now tested over 1.4% of the Australian population)
Number who have tested positive 6400
Number who have died 61
Infection rate of those tested 1.749%
Death rate of those tested positive 0.953%
Death rate of all tested 0.017%
Fatality rate per 100,000 of Aussie population 0.248
Infection rate of Australian Population 0.026%
Current survival rate 99.047%
Number currently in a serious or critical condition 80 (1.25%)
COMMENT
Let’s say for arguments sake, that of the people tested to date, those that are currently in a serious or critical condition succumb to the virus. That would be 141 deaths out of the diagnosed 6400. This still leaves the fatality rate below single figures. (0.57) It still means that the survival rate is 97.8%.
I really worry that Australia has gone too far in it’s lock-down – our winter is just around the corner and we will not have any herd immunity as the rest of the world will. Now I am worried. But the politicians will claim they won wont they?

[Soule]

I don't see the point you are trying to make.

But as far as the COVID19 thing that is going around.
It is "novel", and it's first go around might not behave the same way as the seasonal flu.
No one had an immunity from being previously infected (or via vaccine obvs.) before hand. Everyone is a virgin.

IIRC 2009 N1H1 was this way. It hit in April/June and peaked in August (dead of summer) in its 'first year'.
Then was abruptly tamped down, then peaked again quickly in winter, as you would expect.

Peaks in winter, correct. Which is why covid19 became a pandemic when it did. There is a high likelihood that this thing has been around since the fall and many of us have antibodies already.

[Rob Waskis]

Your linked page gives the *total number of deaths*, while we -- specifically *you* -- were talking about the *daily number of deaths*. Let me remind you:Those numbers are *nowhere* on this page. And no reputable source has ever cited an actual daily death count anywhere near 3154 so far. The correct link to the CDC mortality statistics is this one: Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) -- which of course also disagrees with your numbers.

It's really sad how often you just spout shit about how you're so superior for actually reading papers and such, and then when you get caught with your pants down have to go back and read them for the first time and scramble with a response. At least now you acknowledge that the page lists deaths, so maybe you actually clicked the link this time before responding.

By the way, why do you say "my" numbers? They are numbers posted every day on the CDC website. Do you think I made them up?

And yes, the numbers on the other CDC page do disagree. Those other numbers are quite a bit smaller. Care to explain the difference, professor? That's your cue to go back and actually read the page you linked and then try to come up with a way to cover your ass (again). I suggest changing the argument yet again in an attempt to make it look like you're right.

BUT, I think I've managed to reverse engineer where your number comes from. What I think you've done is grabbed the total number from that page on every day and called the difference between successive dates a "daily death count".

Yes, rocket science. You're one hell of a reverse-engineer-er. Sherlock Holmes meets Nikola Tesla. You managed to figure out that the number of people reported to have died each day is the daily death count. Brilliant. I'm in awe.

This, of course, is ridiculous. The number of deaths reported on any given day do NOT just refer to the number who died that day -- reports keep coming for a long time after any given day, reporting on weekends may be sketchy, etc etc. The CDC death count page I linked to above starts by saying "Death counts are delayed and may differ from other published sources (see Technical Notes)" and if you then look at the technical notes -- which I'm sure only one of us has done -- you also find this: "Provisional counts reported here track approximately 1–2 weeks behind other published data sources on the number of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. (1,2,3)."

Yeah, the fact that they revise the numbers slightly to correct for reporting error (just like everyone else does) totally invalidates everything. Ok. What are you trying to change the argument to this time?

Christ, if there ever was a better illustration of why armchair epidemiology is a bad idea, this is it. "Analysing" data you do not understand is a fucking recipe for disaster.

Yes, posting the number of people who died every day for the last week and pointing out that the biggest number isn't the most recent number is clearly a level of analysis that should be left to you, professor.

For the love of all that is holy, could you please just acknowledge that you fucked up?

Fine. I fucked up. I shouldn't have fed the troll. I admit it here, in writing, for the world to see. Making you look bad is a guilty pleasure, and I regret it sometimes.

[lazygun37]

It's really sad how often you just spout shit about how you're so superior for actually reading papers and such, and then when you get caught with your pants down have to go back and read them for the first time and scramble with a response. At least now you acknowledge that the page lists deaths, so maybe you actually clicked the link this time before responding.

By the way, why do you say "my" numbers? They are numbers posted every day on the CDC website. Do you think I made them up?

And yes, the numbers on the other CDC page do disagree. Those other numbers are quite a bit smaller. Care to explain the difference, professor? That's your cue to go back and actually read the page you linked and then try to come up with a way to cover your ass (again). I suggest changing the argument yet again in an attempt to make it look like you're right.


Yes, rocket science. You're one hell of a reverse-engineer-er. Sherlock Holmes meets Nikola Tesla. You managed to figure out that the number of people reported to have died each day is the daily death count. Brilliant. I'm in awe.

Yeah, the fact that they revise the numbers slightly to correct for reporting error (just like everyone else does) totally invalidates everything. Ok. What are you trying to change the argument to this time?

Yes, posting the number of people who died every day for the last week and pointing out that the biggest number isn't the most recent number is clearly a level of analysis that should be left to you, professor.

Fine. I fucked up. I shouldn't have fed the troll. I admit it here, in writing, for the world to see. Making you look bad is a guilty pleasure, and I regret it sometimes.

Dear God, Rob. I haven't changed my numbers and my arguments once, and yes, I actually do read the papers I cite before I cite them. And of course I had noticed the total number of deaths on the page you linked -- but as we had been discussing *daily death counts* and that number is *total deaths*, it seemed you couldn't possibly be referring to it (because it makes no sense).

Look, do you seriously think that your method doesn't agree with other numbers because "they revise the numbers slightly to correct for reporting error"? If so, you're completely missing the point. Could you just take a deep breath and read the following paragraph with something resembling an open mind before you start typing furiously at me again?

The way the CDC is collecting data is that they receive *dated* reports of COVID-19 related deaths every day. But not just from *that* day. So, on Monday, for example, they'll get dated reports coming in of deaths that occurred on Monday, of deaths that occurred the day before (Sunday), the day before that (Saturday), etc etc. As the CDC site I quoted *explicitly* states, these reports tend to come in for up to at least 1-2 weeks or so. So if you're going to work out a "daily death count", you simply *CANNOT* take the total number of deaths that were known on, say Monday, and subtract from it the total number of deaths that were known on Sunday. Because the deaths that were reported in this time interval includes deaths that happened on Sunday, on Saturday, on Friday etc etc. This isn't a "reporting error". It's just how reporting works. And it explains why your number is way too high -- because the deaths that were counted that day included deaths that occurred on multiple days.

Look, I actually think you know perfectly well that your position is just ridiculous here. I don't even know why you're trying to defend it. Even I don't think it's all that important a point -- it just shows that you were wrong about the peak possibly having already happened. But it's exactly this sort of shit that pisses me off so much throughout this thread. It's bad enough that people throw around numbers they don't understand and misinterpret them to make whatever point they're trying to make. But fuck, what is it with people that nobody can ever acknowledge even the most obvious and blatant outright mistakes? We're all human, we all fuck up. I'd like to think that if you showed me such a clear-cut error I've made, I'd be big enough to acknowledge it.

[Yngvi]

South Dakota..

And her response to people calling for her to lockdown the state:
Noem maintained that the government has no role in keeping citizens locked in their homes, arguing it is instead individuals’ personal responsibility to wisely use the “expansive freedoms” granted under the federal and state constitutions to follow health officials’ guidelines.

“The people themselves are primarily responsible for their safety,” Noem said. “They are free to exercise their rights to work, to worship and to play or to even stay home or to conduct social distancing.”

That’s a hell of a leader.

Interesting that the most free state in the US is the one that has had among the fewest migrants.

.... (DOD LEAK: Feds Investigated Birx & CDC Director for "Scientific Fraud & Misconduct"; Fabricated, Falsified HIV/AIDS Vaccine Trials – True Pundit) ...

That one is important for many reasons.

Fraud from "the experts"

4 years into a new administration and politically appointed bureaucrats from the previous administration are still running the show.

[Rob Waskis]

Some data recently made available would support the claim that this is not a simple flu:

From Italy:

http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/cal...si_2020w13.pdf

That's number of deaths for people over 65, by week, un to March 31st, compared to average for the last five years, adjusted for ageing population. The spike is undeniable.

From the UK.
The stats office has just released some data that point to a similar dynamics:

Coronavirus: One in five deaths now linked to virus - BBC News

(see picture mid-way through text).
Bear in mind this is only for the week ending April 3rd;

Couldn't find the same numbers for Spain, or France, yet.

Is a similar data set available for the US? Could be useful to compare the trends.

IPB

I only speak American and a little German, so maybe you could help - what's the difference between "mortalita" and "baseline" in the Italian paper? Especially on page 2, what is the difference between the red and black lines?

Comparing the two sets of graphs makes it look like a particularly bad flu stacked at the end of a relatively mild flu season. Perhaps it's just a very compressed event (I certainly hope it is).

Somewhat related gripe: I HATE it when the y axis doesn't start at zero. It can really make the data look distorted. Bad practice.

[David A. Rowe]

Apologies if this has been presented already.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...as_killed.html

[Mark Le Comte]

surely a smart guy like yourself realizes that population density matters, right? Why do you keep bringing up sweden vs norway? Its like new york vs los angeles.

I would imagine that its interested because Sweden is the only country (that I'm aware of at least - I would love to know if there are others) that has not imposed lockdowns and probably has reliable statistics. I then assume Norway as a comparison because its "similar". Prima facie, it does look like there is a difference. However to be more certain other factors; like population density, age etc; do need to be taken into account.

[CommanderFun]

4) Most (or a great deal of) the entire population of the US HAS already been infected.

That's the feeling I have. I'm looking forward to antibody tests being proliferated, I think a lot of people are gonna look really goddamn stupid once they are.

[Soule]

My girlfriend was just denied service and kicked out of CVS for not wearing a mask. She was told that she could buy one of the individually wrapped masks that they sell for $3 a piece. What a fucking scam.