All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (5 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[Dragon]

"There Is Nothing from the CDC I Can Trust!" - Dr. Birx Tells Off CDC Director, Claims COVID-19 Mortality Rate Inflated By as Much as 25%!

We have reported for weeks since EARLY MARCH that the numbers and predictions coming out on the coronavirus could not be trusted. Earlier this week The Gateway Pundit reported on the faulty models used to shut down the US economy: ** Dr. Tony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx used the Imperial College...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Did you actually read those links? It did not say what the article said it did

What is actually the discussion here is what should be written as the cause of death if multiple reasons could be given.

So if a patient has serious heart disease AND Covid-19, CDC wants Covid-19 to be listed as cause of death. Basically the white house wants every person with serious pre-existing conditions to be listed as dying from those rather than Covid-19

The article also claims that "Frontline COVID-19 doctors this week have gone public saying they feel pressured to show COVID-19 as cause-of-death on certificates of patients suspected of having the virus when they also have had underlying medical conditions." but does not include a single frontline doctor or article written by such, as source. Only a single reseacher who does not fit that description

 

[SFIDC3]

The White House released pretty good plans for a phased approach to re-opening, and yet I'm hearing a demand to open up states before they hit the guidelines that the White House released, with no logic as to why, or what guidelines they recommend.

This is exactly what the WH wanted. We have a task force, we are using science and data to establish these guidelines....and then when the guidelines are issued for review and revision....they just file them away....creating the illusion that they are using science and data (and listening to the experts)...until they aren't anymore....

The CDC is full of it when it comes to stats so if they are the experts, then they are expert at BS.

This is it in a nutshell. I'm going to take the advice/guidelines from the CDC seriously, I trust them a lot more than all those great Patriots that feel their rights have been oh so violated....there are a lot of folks out there (unfortunately) who can't be protected from themselves and yes...others will suffer from their lack of caution....

 

[SystemShock]

Every year the CDC has quite a variety of different death tolls. That is because some years the flu is not terrible. Like for instance 2011 a weak flu year. Only 11k in deaths.

The thing you can't loose in all this is it takes years to get the data right.

This from the CDC link I am posting.

* Estimates from the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 seasons are preliminary and may change as data are finalized.

So yes still working on numbers.

Past Seasons Estimated Influenza Disease Burden | CDC

These page includes information about the estimated burden of influenza from past seasons, including tables of the estimated influenza disease burden (and 95% credible interval [Cr I]) by age group.

www.cdc.gov

So, let's recap.

@Surviving Saint posted: The CDC is full of it when it comes to stats so if they are the experts, then they are expert at BS.

@Heathen replied to him: According to whom and what evidence do you have of such?

While you can say Surviving Saint's verbiage is, shall we say unrefined, it still makes the point that CDC statistical data can be wildly inaccurate, as evidenced the links I provided: whereas one year they are estimating 80,000 deaths, the revised number is significantly less.

Heck, they are still revising numbers from the Spanish flu.

 

[SystemShock]

Assumed vs. Confirmed - not BS

You will find the same is the case with Covid-19. A lot of elderly people who died at home have not been tested for Covid-19 due to the limitations on the number of tests. (saving the tests for the living) Follow up testing of samples taken before burial in Europe, has shown that many of those did actually die from Covid-19 and as mentioned above, there will always be some changes in numbers once the critical phase is over and they have a chance to evaluate all the available information.


With Covid you have 2 sets of unknown data. Those who perished without being tested and those who had a mild case of Covid without seeking medical help. Especially the elderly who live alone will be less likely to seek help. I know - my father-in-law had a heart attack and waited almost 36 hours before calling for help because "it will be better tomorrow"

So, again, Surviving Saint's comment wasn't the most tactful comment, but still it holds that CDC statistical data can be wildly inaccurate, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Dragon]

So, let's recap.

@Surviving Saint posted: The CDC is full of it when it comes to stats so if they are the experts, then they are expert at BS.

@Heathen replied to him: According to whom and what evidence do you have of such?

While you can say Surviving Saint's verbiage is, shall we say unrefined, it still makes the point that CDC statistical data can be wildly inaccurate, as evidenced the links I provided: whereas one year they are estimating 80,000 deaths, the revised number is significantly less.

Heck, they are still revising numbers from the Spanish flu.

The numbers the CDC reports are those they receive and there will always be a huge difference between confirmed cases and estimated cases, especially when testing is only done on those admitted to hospital and not on many of those who perish due to an illness. If an 80 year old dies in his bed at home , the coroner is not going to test for the flu

 

[The moose]

"There Is Nothing from the CDC I Can Trust!" - Dr. Birx Tells Off CDC Director, Claims COVID-19 Mortality Rate Inflated By as Much as 25%!

We have reported for weeks since EARLY MARCH that the numbers and predictions coming out on the coronavirus could not be trusted. Earlier this week The Gateway Pundit reported on the faulty models used to shut down the US economy: ** Dr. Tony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx used the Imperial College...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Like I said earlier prove just how much you think this is a hoax.

Keep posting stuff back it up with your life.

Do you see yet how similar it is to the message from this administration. All the testing in the world and all the science you could want yet it is running thru the white house as we speak. Not wearing PPE not distancing. They have it. Then why should we stop?

If you believe it is a hoax by the Dems let's not just post the propaganda back it up.

 

[SystemShock]

15,000 isn't the revised number, I never said that. I said that was the confirmed number and that the CDC applies an algorithm to determine the total number. The CDC still says that roughly 80,000 people died that year.

dtc posts that covid-19 has killed more people than the flu the past 4 years
I replied the CDC said the flu killed 80,000 in 2017-18 alone.
Then you come in and tell me that's wrong, that the CDC says only 15,000 died in 2017-18.
Now you are telling me that I am wrong again.

Ok....

The point is if you are comparing the flu to COVID-19, you need to compare the 79,000 confirmed Covid-19 death to the 15,000 confirmed flu deaths. If you want to use the 80,000 flu death numbers, you need to then apply a multiplier to the 79,000 Covid deaths.

I don't need to do any of that. I gave a counterpoint to one comment as stated above with information I found from the CDC. That's all I did. That was all I meant to do.

The reason is not everyone is tested for the flu (or Covid before they die), so the CDC makes an estimate of how many people died from the flu before they've been tested. They are NOT doing that with COVID-19 yet. They are only counting people with COVID-19 listed on the death certificate.

It's weird that you are still stating this after I clarified this for you.

I'll tell you what's weird...

 

[Dragon]

So, again, Surviving Saint's comment wasn't the most tactful comment, but still it holds that CDC statistical data can be wildly inaccurate, depending on the circumstances.

It goes both ways.. The number of people who died of Covid-19 is likely to rise when more samples are tested

We're back at discussing testing again. Just because you don't test people doesn't mean that they did not have Covid-19 or died from it.

When the white house wants secondary illnesses registered as cause of death, despite the fact that it may be a combination of the secondary factors AND covid-19 which eventually killed the patient, it is also a way for the WH to hide the actual effect of the pandemic

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, let's recap.

@Surviving Saint posted: The CDC is full of it when it comes to stats so if they are the experts, then they are expert at BS.

@Heathen replied to him: According to whom and what evidence do you have of such?

While you can say Surviving Saint's verbiage is, shall we say unrefined, it still makes the point that CDC statistical data can be wildly inaccurate, as evidenced the links I provided: whereas one year they are estimating 80,000 deaths, the revised number is significantly less.

Heck, they are still revising numbers from the Spanish flu.

Again, the 15,000 numbers aren't the revised numbers. Those are the base numbers that the CDC applies an algorithm on to get their final number. So, you have it backwards.... they first get the confirmed numbers (which was 15,000), and then they apply their algorithm to get 80,000.

The COVID numbers don't have any algorithm applied to them yet. Right now the CDC is only reporting the confirmed number of deaths. At some point in the future they are going to revise those numbers up to account for the people who have died that weren't tested.

 

[SystemShock]

The numbers the CDC reports are those they receive and there will always be a huge difference between confirmed cases and estimated cases, especially when testing is only done on those admitted to hospital and not on many of those who perish due to an illness. If an 80 year old dies in his bed at home , the coroner is not going to test for the flu

Exactly. So why are we arguing?

The simple fact is that statistical data from the CDC can be extremely inaccurate, not only because of the data fed into the algorithms, but because of their reliance on 3rd parties (death certificates, etc).

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, what game are you playing here?
dtc posts that covid-19 has killed more people than the flu the past 4 years
I replied the CDC said the flu killed 80,000 in 2017-18 alone.
Then you come in and tell me that's wrong, that the CDC says only 15,000 died in 2017-18.
What gives?
Did 80,000 people died of the flu in 2017-18 or not?


I don't need to do any of that. I gave a counterpoint to one comment as stated above with information I found from the CDC. That's all I did. That was all I meant to do.


I'll tell you what's weird...

No game. Just if you want to compare the flu to COVID-19 you need to make sure you're using numbers from the same point in the process.

I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say the CDC said only 15,000 died in 2017-18, I said that the number of confirmed flu deaths was 15,000. Whereas the number of confirmed COVID deaths was 60,000+ at the time I wrote the post. The CDC has not yet done an estimate of people who have died from COVID-19 but not been tested.

So when comparing COVID-19 to the flu you need to compare:
FLU (2017/18) COVID
confirmed deaths 15,000 79,000
estimated deaths 80,000 ?
dtc's assertion is neither proven nor disproven b/c we don't have a good estimate on how many people have died but were not tested for COVID-19.

 

[Dragon]

Exactly. So why are we arguing?

The simple fact is that statistical data from the CDC can be extremely inaccurate, not only because of the data fed into the algorithms, but because of their reliance on 3rd parties (death certificates, etc).

Their reliance on 3rd part data wil not reduce the number of confirmed death - only increase those.

 

[SystemShock]

Their reliance on 3rd part data wil not reduce the number of confirmed death - only increase those.

That's not the point. Whether reducing it or augmenting it, the point is, the statistical data can be extremely inaccurate.

 

[RobF]

That's not the point. Whether reducing it or augmenting it, the point is, the statistical data can be extremely inaccurate.

What is the point of this argument? Statistical data inevitably has a degree of inaccuracy in it, which you need to account for, but it's highly useful provided you do so.

So is this just jabbing at the use of statistics for the sake of it, or are you arguing that there's a significant likelihood that COVID-19 isn't more dangerous than flu was in 2017/18, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, on the ground that it involves statistics?

 

[SystemShock]

What is the point of this argument? Statistical data inevitably has a degree of inaccuracy in it, which you need to account for, but it's highly useful provided you do so.

So is this just jabbing at the use of statistics for the sake of it, or are you arguing that there's a significant likelihood that COVID-19 isn't more dangerous than flu was in 2017/18, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, on the ground that it involves statistics?

The point is, CDC statistical data can be quite inaccurate.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The point is, CDC statistical data can be quite inaccurate.

The problem is you haven't shown that yet. You haven't shown that the CDC's estimated number of flu deaths of 80,000 from 2017/18 is quite inaccurate.

And again just for emphasis sake, there were 15,000 confirmed deaths. That number came first. Then the CDC applies their statistical methodology to come up with the 80,000 estimate. I am not aware of any other study that says that the 80,000 number is way off.

But again my point in bringing this up in the first place is we don't need to worry about statistical methodology when comparing the flu to COVID-19, b/c we can compare confirmed numbers of between 3,000 to 15,000 flu deaths per year to now 81,000 COVID deaths. There are no statistical applications to those numbers. That is the raw data before trying to apply statistical sampling techniques to them.

 

[SystemShock]

The problem is you haven't shown that yet. You haven't shown that the CDC's estimated number of flu deaths of 80,000 from 2017/18 is quite inaccurate.

Can you show the estimated number of flu deaths from 2017/18 is accurate to > 10% ?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Can you show the estimated number of flu deaths from 2017/18 is accurate to > 10% ?

I’m not making any assertion other than Covid-19 is significantly worse than the flu. If you want to make a case that the CDC’s flu estimates are way off you’re welcome to make it.