Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

And that's far more specific than we get with flu death counts. Individual cases. So you please just stop. When the year is done, sadly there will be some number of hundreds of thousands of covid-19 deaths. How will you try to explain them all away then?

 

This is disingenuous at best.

Who cares about specificity when the numbers are inaccurate?

To report this as though anybody is "explaining" away deaths is utterly ridiculous and truly saddening. We need accurate counts. I understand that you don't realize this, but NIH and other entities will designate grant monies based on these data. There is a lot more at stake than a political perspective or agenda. For at least a moment, why not consider that I am not a Trumper. That I come from the very science you claim to want to hear from. I care about accurate data.

 

Basically, you're angry because they're opting not to blindly follow DeSantis?

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause ‘irreparable damage’

Dr. Anthony Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause 'irreparable damage'

Queued up to the time of quotation.

 

The COVID-19 shutdown will cost Americans millions of years of life

The COVID-19 shutdown will cost Americans millions of years of life

Pandemic could cost global economy $82 trillion in depression scenario

Losing Life and Livelihood: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Unemployment and All-Cause Mortality - PubMed

Recessions, Job Loss, and Mortality Among Older US Adults - PubMed

Does Unemployment Cause Long-Term Mortality? Selection and Causation After the 1992-96 Deep Swedish Recession - PubMed

 

I want only to focus on this bit here. The rest doesn't really concern me. Why wouldn't you calculate the probably against the total population of that age demographic? Isn't that how we calculate the probability of being struck by lightning?

It would seem that you're discussing a subset of the population: Those infected within that age demographic. However, if we were examining the probability within the entire population, then why wouldn't we include all of its constituents? Why we exclude all but the infected subset?

 

Nonsense. You're just making stuff up.

 

oh I see, so we only want to count flu deaths. Ok, let me know what the real count is on Covid19 deaths. Because if you die and they think you had it you get counted. You die from a gunshot wound but test positive you get counted as a Covid19 death. Guess your Covid19 numbers don’t hold water, huh?

I’m not taking everything from the article as gospel, but it paints a pretty good picture that we shouldn’t have shut down the whole country at once, we for sure shouldn’t have sent sick elderly patients back to nursing homes.

And add in the fact you are more likely to die of the flu if you are under 50 says this is virus is deadly to old people and very “flu” like for anyone under 50.

You won’t hammer Cuomo for his awful decision so that says all I need to hear about your opinions.

 

Every 2 weeks in the US a 100,000 people die. The average age of death from Covid19 is older than the average age of death in our country.

And this chart sure looks like it’s dropping like most of Europe did.

 

I don’t even know what the last dozen or so pages of argument is about at this point.

Around 100,000 Americans are dead from Covid 19 at this point.

Tens of millions of Americans have been put out of work in an effort to keep that first number down.

The vast majority of Americans want to have as few folks die as possible while putting as few folks out of work as possible.

The two are related.

If we had done nothing many more people would be dead. Doing nothing wasn’t a morally acceptable choice.

What public and private entities, individuals and leaders have been trying to do for months is try to figure out how to have the least people die while doing the least collateral damage. That’s red leaders, blue leaders and pink polka dot leaders.

There isn’t a single ICU bed available in Montgomery, Alabama today. Montgomery was over 15% unemployed and rising as of April.

I imagine that people in Montgomery want our government and private enterprise working together to figure out how to get the disease under control and get folks back to work.

You’re not going to make meaningful long term headway on the jobs front without fixing the health problem. Any tossing around of numbers arguing ancillary points is just noise. You’ve got to get the disease under control to get the economy moving again.

That’s true in NYC. It’s true in Montgomery, Alabama.

It’s also true that we don’t know what city is going to be in Montgomery’s shoes tomorrow when the virus spins up another hot spot as we change behaviors to get more folks working.

There isn’t an easy answer. This is a dance of death and joblessness that is going to continue until we have a vaccine that tilts the playing field in favor of health and the economy. What everyone wants is to hurt the fewest people until that better solution arrives.

 

One of them did, the quote he used was "Next comes watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants". I don't know why he left out the patriots part.

 

Your directional language is pointing the wrong way here. Alachua county has consistently done more than the minimum required.

 

I guess those who think Pew Research is unbiased might want to rethink their position. And you wonder why people don't trust a lot of what is reported. There are a lot of headlines you can make from the data on that graph. Some would be biased, some wouldn't. This one is well past the line of bias.

 

This is false. Cause of death is determined at a local level and can have multiple causes. There is no way in which a gunshot wound is considered caused by Covid, so they would not be included in the official figures, although their infection would be reported through other statistics.

As I said, it told you what you wanted to hear, which was why you went to Clay Travis, sports hot takes dude, for epidemiological information.

As I pointed out, there is not clear evidence that this is much more age correlated than the flu.

Classic deflection.

 

Everything you said was wrong. And when you don't like the data, you attack who wrote it. DEM 101. No evidence that this is age correlated than the flu? I've read all i need to know about you then. Move on. Have a good day.

 

I went after the data. You didn't offer a coherent defense of the data and instead tried multiple deflections. I already addressed the age correlation in an earlier post. Again, you didn't deal with the point I made. It is fascinating how you are mad that I went after Clay Travis, after dissecting some of his points specifically, while you don't recognize that you are not attacking the points I made but going after me personally. So I think you should look in the mirror with that second sentence.

 

I didn’t dig into this but at a glance I’d bet the NYC metro area is driving that divergence. I’m not sure if the value of trying to red/blue this thing. There are a boatload if factors that are not political.