Author Topic: 888's furious ranting room  (Read 65647 times)

KwukDuck

  • Administrator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6003
  • -Receive: 7231
  • Posts: 5540
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2020, 11:08:27 pm »
1) With respect, wrong. The numbers are EXACTLY the same (in terms of who is mostly dying) in Sweden and the 7/8 US states (like Iowa) that did NOT lock down their population compared to locations that did. EXACTLY.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

2) Wrong - it's easy to imagine. Just look at Sweden. They did NOT lockdown and their death rate is lower than the UK's, France's and Italy's...who ALL did lock down.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Iowa has a population density of 55/sq.mile
New York has a population density of 26400/sq.mile

A population density of a fat two orders of magnitude bigger! (480x!!)

Same when you compare the UK with Sweden. A population density difference of an order of magnitude.
This matters, a lot, with something that  spreads through human interaction.


Quote
3) the rest of the article was irrelevant. The point was that THE guy in the UK said that 2/3 of COVID-19 deaths were to people who would have died within a year anyway. And I am positive he knows a HELL of a lot more about it then you (or I) do.
 He should - it was his words that were the main cause of all the panic in the UK.

Okay... If you think so... Even the title contains a conservative 'may'...
He was wrong on pretty much all relevant accounts, the numbers were wrong. The prediction that medical care would not be overwhelmed.
Not saying he's an idiot, i'm sure he has quite the expertise, just saying this is a new thing which we know very little about and predictions are not easy to accurately make, as stated in my initial reply.

Quote
4) Are you saying the official government statistics of New York State and Canada are erroneous? Yes or No, please?

https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/surv-covid19-epi-update-eng.pdf   Table 5

No, i didn't say they were fudging numbers. I only said it's the internet and you can find 'information' confirming whatever you believe. I know comorbidity and age is super relevant with covid19, i never argued anything else.

Quote
5) Wrong.
I typed: 'COVID-19 is NOTHING but some overblown virus that virtually kills ONLY weak, old people.'
I will assume that you did not see the word 'virtually'.

You really emphasized the NOTHING and ONLY there so yea, the 'virtually' didn't really get much emphasis there, not sure how to read that, not a native English speaker.
To me when somebody uses 'virtually' it is like an emphasis on what's coming next? Not a negation or to make it less emphasized?

Quote
6) That makes no sense. If the vulnerable are already quarantined - how can quarantining the rest make any difference to the vulnerable already quarantined?
 Please answer that.
And the more younger people that get this - the faster a herd immunity can happen.

I didn't argue  quarantining the vulnerable wouldn't wouldn't be effective. You said to warn them, not quarantine them. My response to warning people was that people would take it even less serious than they do a lock down already now. Essentially making it ineffective. If you turn the warning into a quarantine it becomes more effective.

As far as herd immunity goes, the jury is still out there. There have been several case reports of secondary infections which could indicate we do not develop any significant long term immunity, which is not uncommon. In addition, the genepool is quite huge at this point, and it has mutated into several strains already. Herd immunity is possible not applicable for this virus at all or in a limited way. The last i read about this was several weeks ago, we may have gotten new insights in the mean time.

Quote
Once again - my point is NOT that COVID-19 is not deadly. My point is that it is VIRTUALLY only deadly to people whom are old and very sick.

Yea, and everybody knows this. What's your point? Just let them oldies and sick people die already? Caring for them is not worth large scale mitigation protocols?

Quote
No offense, but you are talking just like 80% of the world...like you are blindly believing what the government/MSM say and refuse to look at the facts.
EVERY link to stats I posted above cite government statistics from all over the globe as sources.

The heck are you going on about? Talking about people blindly believing the government and than citing government stats?

Quote
What should have been done is obvious.
Quarantine the vulnerable (the sick and the weak), give them money to help out and let everyone else lead their lives as normal.
That way, the vulnerable are under no extra danger and the economy goes on as normal without the tens of millions of layoffs and all the huge numbers of bankruptcies.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/bankruptcies-likely-massive-small-businesses-201138758.html

As stated before, this was all new, we didn't and still don't know much about it. It appears even younger people that recovered from covid19 can have severe scarring of the lung tissue. The lock downs are a fear response to the unknown. As we learn more, policy can be adjusted.
The 'hard' lock downs are not the right policy, i completely agree. The harm an economic collapse like this will have on people is also very serious and quickly overlooked in shadow of the pandemic.

I'm proud of the Dutch government that implemented an 'intelligent lock down' and is continuously adjusting policy to open up the country where possible while closely monitoring the numbers to keep the situation medically manageable.

Quote
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/18/swedish_epidemiologist_johan_giesecke_why_lockdowns_are_the_wrong_policy.html

Even he states that social distancing matters. In addition the herd immunity approach is all but certain. But in general i agree that shutting down the entire country can do more harm than good.
I just hope we learn more quickly and adjust policy to the best of our ability and insights.




punternet

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 85
  • -Receive: 224
  • Posts: 144
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #61 on: May 08, 2020, 01:46:03 am »
Here is more proof that this lockdown is TOTALLY useless (except for those who have serious, health issues).

'NY Gov. Cuomo says 66% of new COVID-19 patients were sheltering at home: 'This is a surprise''

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/7/andrew-cuomo-says-66-of-new-covid-19-patients-were/

I'm sorry but the fact that you think this is evidence that the "lockdown is useless" shows that you do not understand the issue at all.
Of course most of the new cases will be people who were were sheltering at home because the vast majority of people are were sheltering at home. These people still go out to get groceries etc and that's why they constitute the majority of new infections.

You also completely failed to address the point of the level of deaths being more than double the expected deaths for the same period. How can something be "galactically overblown" when twice as many people are dying every day than prior to the Coronavirus?
Arguing that "virtually the only people it was killing are people who are old and sick" falls entirely flat. The old and sick are always with us. That cannot rationalize a death rate more than double the usual average. And that's WITH lockdown protocols.
If no precautions were taken the death toll would be exponentially higher.

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2020, 02:11:01 am »
1) With respect, wrong. The numbers are EXACTLY the same (in terms of who is mostly dying) in Sweden and the 7/8 US states (like Iowa) that did NOT lock down their population compared to locations that did. EXACTLY.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

2) Wrong - it's easy to imagine. Just look at Sweden. They did NOT lockdown and their death rate is lower than the UK's, France's and Italy's...who ALL did lock down.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Iowa has a population density of 55/sq.mile
New York has a population density of 26400/sq.mile

A population density of a fat two orders of magnitude bigger! (480x!!)

Same when you compare the UK with Sweden. A population density difference of an order of magnitude.
This matters, a lot, with something that  spreads through human interaction.


Quote
3) the rest of the article was irrelevant. The point was that THE guy in the UK said that 2/3 of COVID-19 deaths were to people who would have died within a year anyway. And I am positive he knows a HELL of a lot more about it then you (or I) do.
 He should - it was his words that were the main cause of all the panic in the UK.

Okay... If you think so... Even the title contains a conservative 'may'...
He was wrong on pretty much all relevant accounts, the numbers were wrong. The prediction that medical care would not be overwhelmed.
Not saying he's an idiot, i'm sure he has quite the expertise, just saying this is a new thing which we know very little about and predictions are not easy to accurately make, as stated in my initial reply.

Quote
4) Are you saying the official government statistics of New York State and Canada are erroneous? Yes or No, please?

https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/surv-covid19-epi-update-eng.pdf   Table 5

No, i didn't say they were fudging numbers. I only said it's the internet and you can find 'information' confirming whatever you believe. I know comorbidity and age is super relevant with covid19, i never argued anything else.

Quote
5) Wrong.
I typed: 'COVID-19 is NOTHING but some overblown virus that virtually kills ONLY weak, old people.'
I will assume that you did not see the word 'virtually'.

You really emphasized the NOTHING and ONLY there so yea, the 'virtually' didn't really get much emphasis there, not sure how to read that, not a native English speaker.
To me when somebody uses 'virtually' it is like an emphasis on what's coming next? Not a negation or to make it less emphasized?

Quote
6) That makes no sense. If the vulnerable are already quarantined - how can quarantining the rest make any difference to the vulnerable already quarantined?
 Please answer that.
And the more younger people that get this - the faster a herd immunity can happen.

I didn't argue  quarantining the vulnerable wouldn't wouldn't be effective. You said to warn them, not quarantine them. My response to warning people was that people would take it even less serious than they do a lock down already now. Essentially making it ineffective. If you turn the warning into a quarantine it becomes more effective.

As far as herd immunity goes, the jury is still out there. There have been several case reports of secondary infections which could indicate we do not develop any significant long term immunity, which is not uncommon. In addition, the genepool is quite huge at this point, and it has mutated into several strains already. Herd immunity is possible not applicable for this virus at all or in a limited way. The last i read about this was several weeks ago, we may have gotten new insights in the mean time.

Quote
Once again - my point is NOT that COVID-19 is not deadly. My point is that it is VIRTUALLY only deadly to people whom are old and very sick.

Yea, and everybody knows this. What's your point? Just let them oldies and sick people die already? Caring for them is not worth large scale mitigation protocols?

Quote
No offense, but you are talking just like 80% of the world...like you are blindly believing what the government/MSM say and refuse to look at the facts.
EVERY link to stats I posted above cite government statistics from all over the globe as sources.

The heck are you going on about? Talking about people blindly believing the government and than citing government stats?

Quote
What should have been done is obvious.
Quarantine the vulnerable (the sick and the weak), give them money to help out and let everyone else lead their lives as normal.
That way, the vulnerable are under no extra danger and the economy goes on as normal without the tens of millions of layoffs and all the huge numbers of bankruptcies.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/bankruptcies-likely-massive-small-businesses-201138758.html

As stated before, this was all new, we didn't and still don't know much about it. It appears even younger people that recovered from covid19 can have severe scarring of the lung tissue. The lock downs are a fear response to the unknown. As we learn more, policy can be adjusted.
The 'hard' lock downs are not the right policy, i completely agree. The harm an economic collapse like this will have on people is also very serious and quickly overlooked in shadow of the pandemic.

I'm proud of the Dutch government that implemented an 'intelligent lock down' and is continuously adjusting policy to open up the country where possible while closely monitoring the numbers to keep the situation medically manageable.

Quote
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/18/swedish_epidemiologist_johan_giesecke_why_lockdowns_are_the_wrong_policy.html

Even he states that social distancing matters. In addition the herd immunity approach is all but certain. But in general i agree that shutting down the entire country can do more harm than good.
I just hope we learn more quickly and adjust policy to the best of our ability and insights.

1) WRONG.
Population density is almost TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Look at Canada? It has one of the lowest population densities on the planet. Yet they have 64000 cases. According to your theory - they should have almost no cases.
 It is not population density that matters. It is the % of the population that lives in urban areas that matters.
 Now look at the urban population % of the UK and Sweden?
Sweden's is actually higher - but they are close (87%-83%). France is 80% and Italy is 70%. That means Sweden has THE MOST concentrated population of the four countries. Yet - despite the fact they have not locked down - they have a much lower death rate than the other four.
 That proves that massed shutdowns do NOT work at lowering the death rate (assuming in both cases, the sick, old farts are quarantined).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS


2) WRONG. I NEVER said compare Iowa to NY. I said compare the 8 non-shutdown states to the 42 shutdown states. The numbers are similar.
 I didn't say compare Iowa to NY.

Ok - tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2020, 04:14:43 am by 888 »

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2020, 02:14:36 am »
Here is more proof that this lockdown is TOTALLY useless (except for those who have serious, health issues).

'NY Gov. Cuomo says 66% of new COVID-19 patients were sheltering at home: 'This is a surprise''

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/7/andrew-cuomo-says-66-of-new-covid-19-patients-were/

I'm sorry but the fact that you think this is evidence that the "lockdown is useless" shows that you do not understand the issue at all.
Of course most of the new cases will be people who were were sheltering at home because the vast majority of people are were sheltering at home. These people still go out to get groceries etc and that's why they constitute the majority of new infections.

You also completely failed to address the point of the level of deaths being more than double the expected deaths for the same period. How can something be "galactically overblown" when twice as many people are dying every day than prior to the Coronavirus?
Arguing that "virtually the only people it was killing are people who are old and sick" falls entirely flat. The old and sick are always with us. That cannot rationalize a death rate more than double the usual average. And that's WITH lockdown protocols.
If no precautions were taken the death toll would be exponentially higher.

You are missing the point. Even Cuomo was shocked. Clearly, sheltering people is NOT working. And NY has some of the most draconian sheltering laws in America.
 Also, the fact the Sweden has no lockdowns for most people AND has a higher % of people in urban living yet has a lower death rate than the UK, France and Italy PROVES that lockdowns do NOT lower death rates.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS


Look...

My ENTIRE point is 1) COVID-19 virtually kills ONLY sick, old people. That is a fact.
https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/surv-covid19-epi-update-eng.pdf   Go to Table 5

2) Ok - please tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2020, 04:03:21 am by 888 »

punternet

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 85
  • -Receive: 224
  • Posts: 144
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2020, 03:10:28 pm »
Quote
Ok - please tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?

If you have to ask this you understand nothing about how viruses work. Do you think people who are quarantined can survive with no interaction with the outside world? Particularly people who may need medical treatment for other reasons.
And this doesn't only apply to the over 60's. For example:
My neighbour, a young woman is immuno-compromised because of chemotherapy. Her chemo is working and her prospects are good. But she has to leave her home in order to continue chemo. In a lockdown environment, she has far less chance of infection than otherwise.

KwukDuck

  • Administrator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6003
  • -Receive: 7231
  • Posts: 5540
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #65 on: May 08, 2020, 03:19:41 pm »
1) WRONG.
Population density is almost TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Look at Canada? It has one of the lowest population densities on the planet. Yet they have 64000 cases. According to your theory - they should have almost no cases.
 It is not population density that matters. It is the % of the population that lives in urban areas that matters.
 Now look at the urban population % of the UK and Sweden?
Sweden's is actually higher - but they are close (87%-83%). France is 80% and Italy is 70%. That means Sweden has THE MOST concentrated population of the four countries. Yet - despite the fact they have not locked down - they have a much lower death rate than the other four.
 That proves that massed shutdowns do NOT work at lowering the death rate (assuming in both cases, the sick, old farts are quarantined).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

Actually, no, not wrong. The scale which i used is not the most accurate metric to show my point. Population density is extremely relevant with infectious disease, it's at the very nature of it.
The only two areas in Sweden with a higher population density than urban areas in the UK (where London ranks top) are within Stockholm, of which only one has little less than double that of the highest density areas in the UK, the other barely more. So let's average it out for the urban areas London and Stockholm, as we (at least I) lack exact figures for the sub areas of these cities and the sub areas aren't exactly isolated systems we can analyze.
Let's take a look...
London has 8.982 M people, on 1.572 km^2. That is a population density of 5.713 people/km^2. They have 25.000 confirmed infections, that is 0.278%.
Stockholm has 974.000 people, on 188 km^2. That is a population density of 5.180 people/km^2. They have 9.000 confirmed infections, that is 0.924%.

Are you still going to argue a lock down has no effect? Are you still going to argue population density is 'almost totally irrelevant'?  (why this double thing where you first say 'almost' and then 'totally', that caused confusion in my first reply too, i'm very unfamiliar with this use and am not sure how to interpret emphasis.)

The lock-downs are not meant to shut down the virus, they are meant to buy us time, to scale up the medical system, to learn more about the virus and to prepare society to run again with the virus in mind.
They are an initial response to mitigate escalation. You can do these lock-downs in various ways, and i think full hard lock downs are not the best option as they potentially hurt more people than it saves.

Quote
2) WRONG. I NEVER said compare Iowa to NY. I said compare the 8 non-shutdown states to the 42 shutdown states. The numbers are similar.
 I didn't say compare Iowa to NY.
Wrong what? So the Iowa/NY comparison is a fluke? I don't have time to compare all of them in detail.


Quote
Ok - tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?
I can't speak for other places, but in the Netherlands, 30% of hospitalizations for covid-19 is people under 60. At saturation levels, that is 30% less beds available for those over 60 or additionally compromised health situation. Also beds will be reserved for those with an increased chance of survival. So at saturation levels, the 'elderly and weak' are basically just left to die without care, alone. Like what happened in Italy and a few other places.
I think this is something we should avoid.

Quote
Also, the fact the Sweden has no lockdowns for most people AND has a higher % of people in urban living yet has a lower death rate than the UK, France and Italy PROVES that lockdowns do NOT lower death rates.

Lock-downs are not meant to reduce the death rate by itself, they are meant to bring down the infection rate, this could result in a decreased death rate. However, death rate depends on so many other factors, comorbidities, how patients are treated, if there's enough medical staff and equipment available, the demography of the infected patients.
Again, it is meant to mitigate the situation. The default death rate can only be sustained when our medical system is not overwhelmed. Lock-down's  don't improve the death rate, they prevent it from shooting up.
These are fundamentals, but in reality, the death rate figures and infection figures are still quite unreliable, getting better as time progresses.

tybalt50

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 114
  • -Receive: 407
  • Posts: 301
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #66 on: May 10, 2020, 02:50:31 am »
We're at the point now where we're fucked if we do and we're fucked if we don't. The ineptitude of leadership is not going to abate anytime soon. It's very clear the American federal strategy is to wait for a miracle, and then take credit for it. trump is afraid of testing on a massive scale, because he's afraid the numbers will hurt his re election chances. However, test or not, people are going to die, so those numbers are going to haunt him regardless. (As of today, about 80,000 and counting.) Testing and tracking could mitigate this, but again, the federal strategy is to wait for a miracle, and then take credit for it. So testing and tracking are out of the question. Hence, trump and the republicans are now fine with sending people out to risk their lives to bring back the economy, so they can be re-elected. And lots of Americans are fine with that as well.  And this is what happens when you elect a reality tv star con man president.

I hate to be the alarmist, but I don't see the US recovering from this. Americans naively think it's close to being over when it's only the very, very beginning, and nothing has been done to now to mitigate the spread of the virus in the US, so the US inevitably will be what and how the virus leaves it.  The US economy is fucked if it opens and it's fucked if it stays closed. (If you open, customers aren't going to shop with confidence, and if it closes, they're not going to shop at all.) Once again, due in no small part to inept leadership, that blithely continues to just allow things to happen, and hope for the best and then take credit for great things, no matter how it turns out. Lewis Carroll couldn't have written a more rabbit hole scenario.

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #67 on: May 10, 2020, 04:06:14 am »
Germany has new data for the seriousness of COVID-19.

Covid-19 in average shortens life of infected and died males by 10 years or higher and infected woman by 9 years or higher.
This means it shortens that much the life also of those people that had serious health issues before.

There is so much fake news out there. People believing in more conspiracy theories than before. They start to project their mental health issues on the lockdown that they find these escapes: https://youtu.be/urglg3WimHA

People that are in terms with themselves have no issue with this situation and the lockdown.
No offense, but that stat is 100% nonsense.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how long someone will live if they did not get COVID-19.

BTW - Professor Neil Ferguson says - as do many others - that 2/3'rd's you died of COVID-19 would probably have died within a year. Meaning, most people that are dying of COVID-19 were terminal already before they got the disease.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 04:37:48 am by 888 »

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #68 on: May 10, 2020, 04:12:04 am »
Quote
Ok - please tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?

If you have to ask this you understand nothing about how viruses work. Do you think people who are quarantined can survive with no interaction with the outside world? Particularly people who may need medical treatment for other reasons.
And this doesn't only apply to the over 60's. For example:
My neighbour, a young woman is immuno-compromised because of chemotherapy. Her chemo is working and her prospects are good. But she has to leave her home in order to continue chemo. In a lockdown environment, she has far less chance of infection than otherwise.

You are the ignoramus here on this subject...clearly.
And guess again pal - they are cancelling people's chemo because of COVID-19 and tons of surgeries. Over 100,000 surgeries in Canada alone.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/im-very-frightened-lives-on-hold-as-nhs-surgery-postponed-due-to-covid-19
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/23/cancer-patients-chemo-during-coronavirus-outbreak-canceled-appointments/2897880001/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-surgery-backlog-canada-1.5543530
https://globalnews.ca/news/6738005/alberta-surgeries-postponed-covid-19-coronavirus-health-calgary-cancer/

And you dodged my question completely.
I will ask again - let's see if you answer it this time:

Ok - please tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 07:14:04 am by 888 »

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #69 on: May 10, 2020, 04:29:49 am »
1) WRONG.
Population density is almost TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Look at Canada? It has one of the lowest population densities on the planet. Yet they have 64000 cases. According to your theory - they should have almost no cases.
 It is not population density that matters. It is the % of the population that lives in urban areas that matters.
 Now look at the urban population % of the UK and Sweden?
Sweden's is actually higher - but they are close (87%-83%). France is 80% and Italy is 70%. That means Sweden has THE MOST concentrated population of the four countries. Yet - despite the fact they have not locked down - they have a much lower death rate than the other four.
 That proves that massed shutdowns do NOT work at lowering the death rate (assuming in both cases, the sick, old farts are quarantined).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

Actually, no, not wrong. The scale which i used is not the most accurate metric to show my point. Population density is extremely relevant with infectious disease, it's at the very nature of it.
The only two areas in Sweden with a higher population density than urban areas in the UK (where London ranks top) are within Stockholm, of which only one has little less than double that of the highest density areas in the UK, the other barely more. So let's average it out for the urban areas London and Stockholm, as we (at least I) lack exact figures for the sub areas of these cities and the sub areas aren't exactly isolated systems we can analyze.
Let's take a look...
London has 8.982 M people, on 1.572 km^2. That is a population density of 5.713 people/km^2. They have 25.000 confirmed infections, that is 0.278%.
Stockholm has 974.000 people, on 188 km^2. That is a population density of 5.180 people/km^2. They have 9.000 confirmed infections, that is 0.924%.

Are you still going to argue a lock down has no effect? Are you still going to argue population density is 'almost totally irrelevant'?  (why this double thing where you first say 'almost' and then 'totally', that caused confusion in my first reply too, i'm very unfamiliar with this use and am not sure how to interpret emphasis.)

The lock-downs are not meant to shut down the virus, they are meant to buy us time, to scale up the medical system, to learn more about the virus and to prepare society to run again with the virus in mind.
They are an initial response to mitigate escalation. You can do these lock-downs in various ways, and i think full hard lock downs are not the best option as they potentially hurt more people than it saves.

Quote
2) WRONG. I NEVER said compare Iowa to NY. I said compare the 8 non-shutdown states to the 42 shutdown states. The numbers are similar.
 I didn't say compare Iowa to NY.
Wrong what? So the Iowa/NY comparison is a fluke? I don't have time to compare all of them in detail.


Quote
Ok - tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?
I can't speak for other places, but in the Netherlands, 30% of hospitalizations for covid-19 is people under 60. At saturation levels, that is 30% less beds available for those over 60 or additionally compromised health situation. Also beds will be reserved for those with an increased chance of survival. So at saturation levels, the 'elderly and weak' are basically just left to die without care, alone. Like what happened in Italy and a few other places.
I think this is something we should avoid.

Quote
Also, the fact the Sweden has no lockdowns for most people AND has a higher % of people in urban living yet has a lower death rate than the UK, France and Italy PROVES that lockdowns do NOT lower death rates.

Lock-downs are not meant to reduce the death rate by itself, they are meant to bring down the infection rate, this could result in a decreased death rate. However, death rate depends on so many other factors, comorbidities, how patients are treated, if there's enough medical staff and equipment available, the demography of the infected patients.
Again, it is meant to mitigate the situation. The default death rate can only be sustained when our medical system is not overwhelmed. Lock-down's  don't improve the death rate, they prevent it from shooting up.
These are fundamentals, but in reality, the death rate figures and infection figures are still quite unreliable, getting better as time progresses.

1) Well no kidding Stockholm has a higher infection rate than London. SWEDEN IS NOT LOCKED DOWN.
I am not talking about - nor do I give an 's' about - the infection rate.
I am ONLY talking about the death rate.

And, BTW, a high infection rate is good (amongst healthy people), it means herd immunity can happen faster.
That is a good thing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8233783/Sweden-herd-immunity-month-claims-infectious-diseases-chief.html

  I will make this simple for you - Does Sweden have a lower death rate than GB, Italy and France despite the fact Sweden have a higher population urban % and they did NOT do mass lockdowns?
Yes or no, please?


https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I will read NOTHING else you type on this until you answer that with either a 'Yes' or a 'No'.


2) I will ask again - Ok, please tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?

And again - I don't care about infection rates or hospitalizations. I am SOLELY talking about DEATH RATE.

And please stop posting statistics without a link to back them up. No offense, but I am not taking your (or anyone else's) word on statistics.
Every stat I post - I post a link to back it up.
 So far, every stat you post; you backup with nothing.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 11:25:59 am by 888 »

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #70 on: May 11, 2020, 09:26:08 am »
I gave explanation earlier, but you prefer to ignore it. Don't come with shit and then complain people don't want to talk with you about it.

1) Sorry - I thought you were someone else when I responded above.

2) And what does 6 weeks ago mean? He has not changed his mind and there is ZERO data that his statement is wrong.

Your post is saying that some loser knows how long old farts are going to live? HELLO? That is impossible. You cannot know how long someone is going to live.
That is TOTALLY unprovable and if you think that is valid science - you don't understand science, no offense.

Check these stats - current.
https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n

And they clearly show that 90% of everyone who dies of COVID-19 already has at least 1 SERIOUS health issue. And roughly 2/3 of those who die are over 70.
The scientist (or whatever that joker is) that you quoted expects a person who is already about 75-80 to live another 10 years even though he has a SERIOUS illness?
 Give me a break.
 It's hard enough to get to 85-90 even if you are healthy.

 Plus - you cannot accurately predict how long someone will live - that is IMPOSSIBLE. It is physically impossible. All you can do is guess.

 The person you quoted is a complete quack.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 01:17:31 am by 888 »

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #71 on: May 12, 2020, 01:08:44 am »
I gave explanation earlier, but you prefer to ignore it. Don't come with shit and then complain people don't want to talk with you about it.

1) Sorry - I thought you were someone else when I responded above.

2) And what does 6 weeks ago mean? He has not changed his mind and there is ZERO data that his statement is wrong.

Your post is saying that some loser knows how long old farts are going to live? HELLO? That is impossible. You cannot know how long someone is going to live.
That is TOTALLY unprovable and if you think that is valid science - you don't understand science, no offense.

Check these stats - current.
https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n

And they clearly show that 90% of everyone who dies of COVID-19 already has at least 1 SERIOUS health issue. And roughly 2/3 of those who die are over 70.
The scientist (or whatever that joker is) that you quoted expects a person who is already about 75-80 to live another 10 years even though he has a SERIOUS illness?
 Give me a break.
 It's hard enough to get to 85-90 even if you are healthy.

 Plus - you cannot predict how long someone will live - that is IMPOSSIBLE. It is physically impossible.

 The person you quoted is a complete quack.

Your disprespect towards elderly people, your naming of them reflects in your opinions about COVID-19.

Go talk to a data analyst of a life insurance and he will teach you a few lessons about what you believe is not possible. Do you think life insurances with their life insurance fee are playing lottery without knowing the probabilities of overall people (and gender) dying with their previous sicknesses? You seem never have to be requested a life insurance or a occupational disablement insurance. Otherwise you would know better.

You seem to have very limited knowledge on scientific topics, on philosphy, and on mathemathics with statistics and probabilities.

I have already proven - with current links - that almost everyone who dies of COVID-19 already has at least one, SERIOUS health problem AND that the vast majority of those who die are old (75-80 on average).

Now - Mr. KnowItAll - post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the average, life expectancy of a person 75-80 with at least one serious health problem is at least ten years? And not opinions....STATISTICAL PROOF from unbiased sources.

Without it - all the blather you are spewing forth means absolutely NOTHING.

And unless your reply to me on this includes said link - I will waste no more time on you on this.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 07:17:25 am by 888 »

Ricksanchez6

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1213
  • -Receive: 1497
  • Posts: 791
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2020, 09:09:34 am »
Too many people lacking in empathy and common sense. Why are you talking about how it mostly affects old people or that they had pre existing conditions? That's not the point.

The point is that those deaths can be PREVENTED. People like you don't care until it personally affects you or a loved one and that's really sad and unfortunate. And you keep saying people under X age have virtually no chance of dying. They can still die and/or spread it to people that have a higher chance of dying. Please try to do some critical thinking.

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2020, 09:33:55 am »
And I don't discuss with someone that is a discussion extremists that dictate what is allowed to present, like you now have proven several times. Go dictate your girlfriend what she is allowed to talk to you, but not me.

In other words - you cannot post said link because it obviously does not exist.
But instead of admitting that (something you obviously cannot handle doing)? You try to blow it off as some sort of 'I will not be spoken to in this way' nonsense.

Which obviously means you cannot prove your earlier point.

Which was ridiculously obvious right from the beginning.

Have a nice day.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 09:54:54 am by 888 »

888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1839
  • -Receive: 609
  • Posts: 776
Re: 888's furious ranting room
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2020, 09:45:03 am »
Too many people lacking in empathy and common sense. Why are you talking about how it mostly affects old people or that they had pre existing conditions? That's not the point.

The point is that those deaths can be PREVENTED. People like you don't care until it personally affects you or a loved one and that's really sad and unfortunate. And you keep saying people under X age have virtually no chance of dying. They can still die and/or spread it to people that have a higher chance of dying. Please try to do some critical thinking.

It is you who do not seem to be thinking properly.

You seem content to force thousands of businesses into bankruptcy, see millions of people suffer because they cannot get many medical procedures because hospitals are no longer doing them for fear of spreading COVID-19 and clearly cause tremendous mental hardship to hundreds of millions of people...all to save the life of almost exclusively old people whom are/were very sick already and were probably going to die on their own within a year or two.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-surgery-backlog-canada-1.5543530
https://sports.yahoo.com/covid-19-lockdowns-toll-record-102918434.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/05/08/store-closings-chapter-11-bankruptcy-coronavirus-covid-19/3090235001/
 
And you call me the one who lacks empathy?

🤣

All that needed to be done was ask those with serious, health conditions to self-quarantine and offer them assistance to do that. And allow everyone who was under little/no risk to lead their normal lives.
 But no, people like you fall for the MSM/government panic and force the world to lockdown...despite many of these lockdown orders going against basic rights laid out in many Constitution's (like US and Canada's to name just a couple).


But okay - just answer me this, please:

Tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 09:53:40 am by 888 »

Tags: