Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

For philosophical reflections on the COVID-19 pandemic. How can philosophy help us to understand it, to combat it and to survive it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:11 am If you do something as drastic as putting all of humanity on house arrest, you better have mountains upon mountains of indisputable, irrefutable scientific data to back you up, which is not at all like what they've given us.
All we have is speculation and conjecture, empty models whose projections dramatically change from moment to moment no one is prepared to stand behind, continually contradicted by new, actual data coming in from doctors and scientists on the frontlines.
Whose ass is on the line if their models are wildly off, who's responsible?
Are the CDC, WHO and guys like Anthony Fauci and Theresa Tam going to prison if their models are off by several orders of magnitude?
Are they going to be fined billions of dollars?
No?
Put your money where you mouth is and if you're not prepared to, then back the fuck up.
Absurd 'logic'. If the lockdown works and only a small number die (which is what will happen if it WORKS), then no one will ever know what the outcome would have been WITHOUT a lockdown. There is never any way of knowing what 'might' have happened if certain things had been done differently. What would the world be like if Hitler had been assassinated early on?
Do you think the lockdown will be justified only if there's a massive death rate DESPITE the lockdown?? Even you must be able to see the absurdity of that assertion.
Morons expect it to be like a movie pandemic, with people dropping dead in minutes and blood spurting from every orifice. It doesn't work like that in real life. Extremely deadly viruses don't spread very much because their hosts die before they can pass it on to many people. This virus is so successful because it's not particularly deadly (but deadly to some) with many people getting mild or even no symptoms and therefore being able to spread it to a large number of people. The only way to contain a virus like that is to limit contact between whole populations (i.e if you want to contain or eradicate it).
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gloominary »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 8:01 pm
Gloominary wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 7:37 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

Sweden never locked itself down, let's compare it with some of its neighbors.

Sweden, total cases 22,082, total deaths 2,669

Denmark, total cases, 9,407, total deaths 475
Norway, total cases 7,801, total deaths 210
Belgium, total cases 49,517, total deaths 7,765
Netherlands, total cases 40,236, total deaths 4,987
Austria, total cases 15,558, total deaths 596
Switzerland, total cases 29,817, total deaths 1,760

Bear in mind, Sweden has about double the population of Denmark and Norway.

Sweden has a population of about 10 million.
About 1 in every 3000 or 0.03% of Swedes died with Covid.

Again, I'm not seeing a significant difference, are you?

Also bear in mind, they died with Covid, not necessarily of, as the vast majority of infected that died were 70+ with multiple serious diseases (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension) and other colds and flus who very well might've died immediately or within days or weeks had they not contracted Covid.
Doctors were pressured to write down Covid on their death certificates.
They weren't pressured to write down other colds and flus on their death certificates.
Covid was never determined to be the or even a cause of death.
COVID-19 Lethality Not Much Different Than Flu, Says New Study

Possible really good news from a population screening antibody test study in Santa Clara County, California

Between 48,000 and 81,000 residents of Santa Clara County, California are likely to have already been infected by the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, suggests a new study by researchers associated with Stanford University Medical School. The researchers tested a sample of 3,330 residents of the county using blood tests to detect antibodies to determine whether or not they had been exposed to the coronavirus. If the researchers' calculations are correct, that's really good news. Why? Because that data will help public health officials to get a better handle on just how lethal the coronavirus is, and if researchers are right it's a lot less lethal than many have feared it to be.

Currently, the U.S. case fatality rate, that is, the percent of people with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19 who die, is running at 5.2 percent. But epidemiologists have known that a significant proportion of people who are infected are going undetected by the medical system because either they don't feel sick enough to seek help or are asymptomatic. For example, recent research in Iceland suggests that about 50 percent of people infected with the virus have no symptoms.

In the new study, the researchers sought residents through Facebook to whom they could administer the antibody tests. The results were an unadjusted prevalence of coronavirus antibodies of 1.5 percent. After making various statistical and demographic adjustments, researchers calculated the likely prevalence ranged from 2.49 to 4.16 percent. At the time that these tests were administered, there were about 1,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 32* deaths from the disease in Santa Clara County. The upshot is that "these prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50- 85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases."

Using these data, the researchers calculated the infection fatality rate, that is, the percent of people infected with the disease who die: "A hundred deaths out of 48,000-81,000 infections corresponds to an infection fatality rate of 0.12-0.2%," they report.* That's about the same infection fatality rate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates for seasonal influenza.

The researchers conclude:

While our study was limited to Santa Clara County, it demonstrates the feasibility of seroprevalence surveys of population samples now, and in the future, to inform our understanding of this pandemic's progression, project estimates of community vulnerability, and monitor infection fatality rates in different populations over time. It is also an important tool for reducing uncertainty about the state of the epidemic, which may have important public benefits.

Assuming that their findings are happily confirmed, among the important public benefits would be a quicker end to the pandemic lockdown we are all experiencing. It's high time the CDC gets it act together and conducts similar antibody population screening to determine the prevalence of the disease across the nation.
https://reason.com/2020/04/17/covid-19- ... new-study/
Well in the US there were between 24,000 and 62,000 deaths from the flu between October 1 and April 4. That's for 6 months. It appears that COVID 19 has claimed 66,000 people's lives (according to your source) during the span of 2 months. At this point, we don't know how long COVID 19 will last at the current rate of fatalities. If it goes for 6 months at that rate, then it could be almost 200,000 deaths. That sounds a bit worse than the flu to me, even taking the high-end number of deaths from the flu at 62,000.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/pr ... imates.htm
Due to a growing and aging population, more people (especially more elderly) die every year than the year before, presumably more people die of colds and flus too.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195 ... ince-1990/
Over 80,000 Americans Died of Flu Last Winter, Highest Toll in Years
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/heal ... ccine.html
The proportion of the senior population (aged 65 and older) has been increasing steadily over the past 40 years. From 1971 to 2010, the proportion of seniors in the population grew from 8% to 14%.
According to demographic projections, the proportion of seniors is expected to increase rapidly until 2031, when all the baby boomers will have reached 65. Seniors could represent between 23% and 25% of the total population in 2036.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11- ... es-eng.htm
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Clown.
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gloominary »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:21 am
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:11 am If you do something as drastic as putting all of humanity on house arrest, you better have mountains upon mountains of indisputable, irrefutable scientific data to back you up, which is not at all like what they've given us.
All we have is speculation and conjecture, empty models whose projections dramatically change from moment to moment no one is prepared to stand behind, continually contradicted by new, actual data coming in from doctors and scientists on the frontlines.
Whose ass is on the line if their models are wildly off, who's responsible?
Are the CDC, WHO and guys like Anthony Fauci and Theresa Tam going to prison if their models are off by several orders of magnitude?
Are they going to be fined billions of dollars?
No?
Put your money where you mouth is and if you're not prepared to, then back the fuck up.
Absurd 'logic'. If the lockdown works and only a small number die (which is what will happen if it WORKS), then no one will ever know what the outcome would have been WITHOUT a lockdown. There is never any way of knowing what 'might' have happened if certain things had been done differently. What would the world be like if Hitler had been assassinated early on?
Do you think the lockdown will be justified only if there's a massive death rate DESPITE the lockdown?? Even you must be able to see the absurdity of that assertion.
Morons expect it to be like a movie pandemic, with people dropping dead in minutes and blood spurting from every orifice. It doesn't work like that in real life. Extremely deadly viruses don't spread very much because their hosts die before they can pass it on to many people. This virus is so successful because it's not particularly deadly (but deadly to some) with many people getting mild or even no symptoms and therefore being able to spread it to a large number of people. The only way to contain a virus like that is to limit contact between whole populations (i.e if you want to contain or eradicate it).
They had no good reason to suspect anything would be different this year, and so far things haven't been different, in terms of sickness and death.
Thousands of people, the vast majority of them 70+ with multiple chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, colds and flus were dying in nursing homes in places like Wuhan China, Northern Italy and New York, like they do every year, the only difference was this year they also had Covid, and so what?
They had no reason to suspect Covid played a significant role in their deaths and every reason not to.
Old people with multiple chronic conditions often get colds and flus as their body breaks down on their deathbeds.

You think Covid is the first virus to mutate or pass from animal to manimal in the last century?
We haven't had a severe outbreak in 100 years, so it's unlikely we'll have one now.
We use to have more outbreaks before modernity for conditions were different, sanitation was poorer and there was more malnutrition in some places, we treated our poor like shit.
+ there was sort of a world war going on when the Spanish flu (AKA H1N1, swine flu and relatively harmless seasonal flu) broke out, and all the carnage and famine ensuing as a result made them a hell of a lot more susceptible to H1N1, colds and flus in general I'm sure.

Now if instead lots of people of all ages and levels of health were dying by the thousands, or in other words, the virus was ultra deadly, but still able to spread itself undetected because its progression was slow, now that would be cause for alarm.

In the coming weeks and months we'll have a better understanding of just how deadly this virus is, because some countries, provinces, regions and states didn't lock themselves down and others not as much as some.
Also some populations were more compliant than others.
It'll be interesting to compare/contrast these places.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun May 03, 2020 8:42 am, edited 3 times in total.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gary Childress »

Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:11 am If you do something as drastic as putting all of humanity on house arrest, you better have mountains upon mountains of indisputable, irrefutable scientific data to back you up, which is not at all like what they've given us.
All we have is speculation and conjecture, empty models whose projections dramatically change from moment to moment no one is prepared to stand behind, continually contradicted by new, actual data coming in from doctors and scientists on the frontlines.
Whose ass is on the line if their models are wildly off, who's responsible?
Are the CDC, WHO and guys like Anthony Fauci and Theresa Tam going to prison if their models are off by several orders of magnitude?
Are they going to be fined billions of dollars?
No?
Put your money where you mouth is and if you're not prepared to, then back the fuck up.
I think the lockdown was justified considering there have been 66,000 deaths over the course of 2 months from COVID 19. I'm willing to cooperate with the CDC and WHO. Also bear in mind that between both the flu and COVID 19 there have been over 130,000 deaths over the course of 6 months.
Last edited by Gary Childress on Sun May 03, 2020 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 8:00 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:21 am
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:11 am If you do something as drastic as putting all of humanity on house arrest, you better have mountains upon mountains of indisputable, irrefutable scientific data to back you up, which is not at all like what they've given us.
All we have is speculation and conjecture, empty models whose projections dramatically change from moment to moment no one is prepared to stand behind, continually contradicted by new, actual data coming in from doctors and scientists on the frontlines.
Whose ass is on the line if their models are wildly off, who's responsible?
Are the CDC, WHO and guys like Anthony Fauci and Theresa Tam going to prison if their models are off by several orders of magnitude?
Are they going to be fined billions of dollars?
No?
Put your money where you mouth is and if you're not prepared to, then back the fuck up.
Absurd 'logic'. If the lockdown works and only a small number die (which is what will happen if it WORKS), then no one will ever know what the outcome would have been WITHOUT a lockdown. There is never any way of knowing what 'might' have happened if certain things had been done differently. What would the world be like if Hitler had been assassinated early on?
Do you think the lockdown will be justified only if there's a massive death rate DESPITE the lockdown?? Even you must be able to see the absurdity of that assertion.
Morons expect it to be like a movie pandemic, with people dropping dead in minutes and blood spurting from every orifice. It doesn't work like that in real life. Extremely deadly viruses don't spread very much because their hosts die before they can pass it on to many people. This virus is so successful because it's not particularly deadly (but deadly to some) with many people getting mild or even no symptoms and therefore being able to spread it to a large number of people. The only way to contain a virus like that is to limit contact between whole populations (i.e if you want to contain or eradicate it).
They had no good reason to suspect anything would be different this year, and so far things haven't been different, in terms of sickness and death.
Thousands of people, the vast majority of them 70+ with multiple chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, colds and flus were dying in nursing homes in places like Wuhan China, Northern Italy and New York, like they do every year, the only difference was this year they also had Covid, and so what?
They had no reason to suspect Covid played a significant role in their deaths and every reason not to.
Old people with multiple chronic conditions often get colds and flus as their body breaks down on their deathbeds.

You think Covid is the first virus to mutate or pass from animal to manimal in the last century?
We haven't had a severe outbreak in 100 years, so it's unlikely we'll have one now.
We use to have more outbreaks before modernity for conditions were different, sanitation was poorer and there was more malnutrition in some places, we treated our poor like shit.
+ there was sort of a world war going on when the Spanish flu (AKA H1N1, swine flu and relatively harmless seasonal flu) broke out, and all the carnage and famine ensuing as a result made them a hell of a lot more susceptible to H1N1, colds and flus in general I'm sure.

Now if instead lots of people of all ages and levels of health were dying by the thousands, or in other words, the virus was ultra deadly, but still able to spread itself undetected because its progression was slow, now that would be cause for alarm.

In the coming weeks and months we'll have a better understanding of just how deadly this virus is, because some countries, provinces, regions and states didn't lock themselves down and others not as much as some.
Also some populations were more compliant than others.
It'll be interesting to compare/contrast these places.
Do it now then, since you seem to have all the answers. Why wait for months when everyone can look back in hindsight?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 8:00 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:21 am
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:11 am If you do something as drastic as putting all of humanity on house arrest, you better have mountains upon mountains of indisputable, irrefutable scientific data to back you up, which is not at all like what they've given us.
All we have is speculation and conjecture, empty models whose projections dramatically change from moment to moment no one is prepared to stand behind, continually contradicted by new, actual data coming in from doctors and scientists on the frontlines.
Whose ass is on the line if their models are wildly off, who's responsible?
Are the CDC, WHO and guys like Anthony Fauci and Theresa Tam going to prison if their models are off by several orders of magnitude?
Are they going to be fined billions of dollars?
No?
Put your money where you mouth is and if you're not prepared to, then back the fuck up.
Absurd 'logic'. If the lockdown works and only a small number die (which is what will happen if it WORKS), then no one will ever know what the outcome would have been WITHOUT a lockdown. There is never any way of knowing what 'might' have happened if certain things had been done differently. What would the world be like if Hitler had been assassinated early on?
Do you think the lockdown will be justified only if there's a massive death rate DESPITE the lockdown?? Even you must be able to see the absurdity of that assertion.
Morons expect it to be like a movie pandemic, with people dropping dead in minutes and blood spurting from every orifice. It doesn't work like that in real life. Extremely deadly viruses don't spread very much because their hosts die before they can pass it on to many people. This virus is so successful because it's not particularly deadly (but deadly to some) with many people getting mild or even no symptoms and therefore being able to spread it to a large number of people. The only way to contain a virus like that is to limit contact between whole populations (i.e if you want to contain or eradicate it).
They had no good reason to suspect anything would be different this year, and so far things haven't been different, in terms of sickness and death.
Thousands of people, the vast majority of them 70+ with multiple chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, colds and flus were dying in nursing homes in places like Wuhan China, Northern Italy and New York, like they do every year, the only difference was this year they also had Covid, and so what?
They had no reason to suspect Covid played a significant role in their deaths and every reason not to.
Old people with multiple chronic conditions often get colds and flus as their body breaks down on their deathbeds.

You think Covid is the first virus to mutate or pass from animal to manimal in the last century?
We haven't had a severe outbreak in 100 years, so it's unlikely we'll have one now.
We use to have more outbreaks before modernity for conditions were different, sanitation was poorer and there was more malnutrition in some places, we treated our poor like shit.
+ there was sort of a world war going on when the Spanish flu (AKA H1N1, swine flu and relatively harmless seasonal flu) broke out, and all the carnage and famine ensuing as a result made them a hell of a lot more susceptible to H1N1, colds and flus in general I'm sure.

Now if instead lots of people of all ages and levels of health were dying by the thousands, or in other words, the virus was ultra deadly, but still able to spread itself undetected because its progression was slow, now that would be cause for alarm.

In the coming weeks and months we'll have a better understanding of just how deadly this virus is, because some countries, provinces, regions and states didn't lock themselves down and others not as much as some.
Also some populations were more compliant than others.
It'll be interesting to compare/contrast these places.
Do it now then, since you seem to have all the answers. Why wait for months when everyone can look back in hindsight?
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gloominary »

I already have been comparing/contrasting all throughout this thread, you must've missed it.

I haven't seen any substantial difference between places that locked themselves down and places that haven't.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gary Childress »

Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 8:46 am I already have been comparing/contrasting all throughout this thread, you must've missed it.

I haven't seen any substantial difference between places that locked themselves down and places that haven't.
And people have repeatedly offered you answers as to why COVID 19 is so serious, which you seem to ignore. I suppose we are both set in our minds as to whether or not the lockdown is justified, so apparently we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gloominary »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 8:14 am
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:11 am If you do something as drastic as putting all of humanity on house arrest, you better have mountains upon mountains of indisputable, irrefutable scientific data to back you up, which is not at all like what they've given us.
All we have is speculation and conjecture, empty models whose projections dramatically change from moment to moment no one is prepared to stand behind, continually contradicted by new, actual data coming in from doctors and scientists on the frontlines.
Whose ass is on the line if their models are wildly off, who's responsible?
Are the CDC, WHO and guys like Anthony Fauci and Theresa Tam going to prison if their models are off by several orders of magnitude?
Are they going to be fined billions of dollars?
No?
Put your money where you mouth is and if you're not prepared to, then back the fuck up.
I think the lockdown was justified considering there have been 66,000 deaths over the course of 2 months from COVID 19. I'm willing to cooperate with the CDC and WHO. Also bear in mind that between both the flu and COVID 19 there have been over 130,000 deaths over the course of 6 months.
Source?
Gary Childress
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gary Childress »

Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 9:18 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 8:14 am
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 1:11 am If you do something as drastic as putting all of humanity on house arrest, you better have mountains upon mountains of indisputable, irrefutable scientific data to back you up, which is not at all like what they've given us.
All we have is speculation and conjecture, empty models whose projections dramatically change from moment to moment no one is prepared to stand behind, continually contradicted by new, actual data coming in from doctors and scientists on the frontlines.
Whose ass is on the line if their models are wildly off, who's responsible?
Are the CDC, WHO and guys like Anthony Fauci and Theresa Tam going to prison if their models are off by several orders of magnitude?
Are they going to be fined billions of dollars?
No?
Put your money where you mouth is and if you're not prepared to, then back the fuck up.
I think the lockdown was justified considering there have been 66,000 deaths over the course of 2 months from COVID 19. I'm willing to cooperate with the CDC and WHO. Also bear in mind that between both the flu and COVID 19 there have been over 130,000 deaths over the course of 6 months.
Source?
I already posted the source for flu deaths and you posted the source to COVID 19 deaths. But here are the sources again as requested:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/pr ... imates.htm
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gloominary »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 9:26 am
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 9:18 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 8:14 am

I think the lockdown was justified considering there have been 66,000 deaths over the course of 2 months from COVID 19. I'm willing to cooperate with the CDC and WHO. Also bear in mind that between both the flu and COVID 19 there have been over 130,000 deaths over the course of 6 months.
Source?
I already posted the source for flu deaths and you posted the source to COVID 19 deaths. But here are the sources again as requested:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/pr ... imates.htm
Can I get COVID-19 and the seasonal flu or common cold at the same time?
Yes.
Flu and COVID-19 are caused by two different viruses and there is nothing preventing you from getting exposed, and infected with both at the same time. It’s unusual, but possible.
https://time.com/5820118/coronavirus-qu ... wered/#flu

And people in nursing homes are more susceptible to viral and bacterial infections of all kinds because they're immunodeficient.
At least some of the people dying with Covid and Cancer, diabetes, heart disease and so on died with the common cold, seasonal flu, other viral and bacterial infections.
So a Covid death isn't necessarily not also a flu death or say a urinary tract infection death.
Over 1.5 million people live in 16,000 nursing homes in the USA and experience an average of 2 million infections a year. Infections have been associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, rehospitalization, extended hospital stay and substantial healthcare expenses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526889/
But different countries are also reporting cases and deaths in different ways: in Italy, Covid-19 is listed as the cause of death even if a patient was already ill and died from a combination of illnesses.
“Only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus,” said the scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health last week.
Spain’s national government simply lists how many people with confirmed cases of coronavirus have died and provides no extra information on any other medical conditions.
In the U.K., about 150,000 people die every year between January and March. To date, the vast majority of those who have died from Covid-19 in Britain have been aged 70 or older or had serious pre-existing health conditions.
What is not clear is how many of those deaths would have occurred anyway if the patients had not contracted Covid-19.
Speaking at a parliamentary hearing last week, Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis at Imperial College London, said it was not yet clear how many “excess deaths” caused by coronavirus there would be in the U.K. However, he said the proportion of Covid-19 victims who would have died anyway could be “as many as half or two-thirds”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526889/

See people in nursing homes are dying with all kinds of stuff.
That they also had Covid doesn't really mean much.
At least many if not most or the vast majority of them would've died immediately or within days or weeks anyway.

If a 90 year old on their deathbed contracts flu, did they die of flu?
Does anybody die of old age anymore?
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun May 03, 2020 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 5:24 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 9:26 am
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 9:18 am
Source?
I already posted the source for flu deaths and you posted the source to COVID 19 deaths. But here are the sources again as requested:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/pr ... imates.htm
Can I get COVID-19 and the seasonal flu or common cold at the same time?
Yes.
Flu and COVID-19 are caused by two different viruses and there is nothing preventing you from getting exposed, and infected with both at the same time. It’s unusual, but possible.
https://time.com/5820118/coronavirus-qu ... wered/#flu

And people in nursing homes are more susceptible to viral and bacterial infections because their immunodeficient.
At least some of the people dying with Covid and Cancer, diabetes, heart disease and so on died with the common cold, seasonal flu, other viral and bacterial infections.
So a Covid death isn't necessarily not also a flu death or say a urinary tract infection death.
Over 1.5 million people live in 16,000 nursing homes in the USA and experience an average of 2 million infections a year. Infections have been associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, rehospitalization, extended hospital stay and substantial healthcare expenses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526889/
But different countries are also reporting cases and deaths in different ways: in Italy, Covid-19 is listed as the cause of death even if a patient was already ill and died from a combination of illnesses.
“Only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus,” said the scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health last week.
Spain’s national government simply lists how many people with confirmed cases of coronavirus have died and provides no extra information on any other medical conditions.
In the U.K., about 150,000 people die every year between January and March. To date, the vast majority of those who have died from Covid-19 in Britain have been aged 70 or older or had serious pre-existing health conditions.
What is not clear is how many of those deaths would have occurred anyway if the patients had not contracted Covid-19.
Speaking at a parliamentary hearing last week, Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis at Imperial College London, said it was not yet clear how many “excess deaths” caused by coronavirus there would be in the U.K. However, he said the proportion of Covid-19 victims who would have died anyway could be “as many as half or two-thirds”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526889/

See people in nursing homes are dying with all kinds of stuff.
That they also had Covid doesn't really mean much.
At least many if not most or the vast majority of them would've died immediately or within days or weeks anyway.

If a 90 year old on their deathbed contracts flu, did they die of flu?
Does anybody die of old age anymore?
Sigh. The lockdown is to prevent spread. If the virus isn't spreading then a lockdown is working. Is that too difficult for you to understand? Would you be happier if they didn't include the very old in the statistics? How would that make a difference to your opinion? You can't take the virus away once a person has it, but you can limit its spread. What kind of a result would satisfy you?
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by Gloominary »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 6:49 pm
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 5:24 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 9:26 am

I already posted the source for flu deaths and you posted the source to COVID 19 deaths. But here are the sources again as requested:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/pr ... imates.htm
Can I get COVID-19 and the seasonal flu or common cold at the same time?
Yes.
Flu and COVID-19 are caused by two different viruses and there is nothing preventing you from getting exposed, and infected with both at the same time. It’s unusual, but possible.
https://time.com/5820118/coronavirus-qu ... wered/#flu

And people in nursing homes are more susceptible to viral and bacterial infections because their immunodeficient.
At least some of the people dying with Covid and Cancer, diabetes, heart disease and so on died with the common cold, seasonal flu, other viral and bacterial infections.
So a Covid death isn't necessarily not also a flu death or say a urinary tract infection death.
Over 1.5 million people live in 16,000 nursing homes in the USA and experience an average of 2 million infections a year. Infections have been associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, rehospitalization, extended hospital stay and substantial healthcare expenses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526889/
But different countries are also reporting cases and deaths in different ways: in Italy, Covid-19 is listed as the cause of death even if a patient was already ill and died from a combination of illnesses.
“Only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus,” said the scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health last week.
Spain’s national government simply lists how many people with confirmed cases of coronavirus have died and provides no extra information on any other medical conditions.
In the U.K., about 150,000 people die every year between January and March. To date, the vast majority of those who have died from Covid-19 in Britain have been aged 70 or older or had serious pre-existing health conditions.
What is not clear is how many of those deaths would have occurred anyway if the patients had not contracted Covid-19.
Speaking at a parliamentary hearing last week, Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis at Imperial College London, said it was not yet clear how many “excess deaths” caused by coronavirus there would be in the U.K. However, he said the proportion of Covid-19 victims who would have died anyway could be “as many as half or two-thirds”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526889/

See people in nursing homes are dying with all kinds of stuff.
That they also had Covid doesn't really mean much.
At least many if not most or the vast majority of them would've died immediately or within days or weeks anyway.

If a 90 year old on their deathbed contracts flu, did they die of flu?
Does anybody die of old age anymore?
Sigh. The lockdown is to prevent spread. If the virus isn't spreading then a lockdown is working. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
Or, the virus isn't as infectious as predicted, and that's why it's not spreading, or, the virus hasn't spread (much) more in countries, provinces, regions and states that didn't lock themselves down than in countries, provinces and so on that did, because lockdown is ineffective.
What tangible proof do they have that lockdown is effective?
Nothing like this has ever been tried before on anything like this scale in modernity.
Would you be happier if they didn't include the very old in the statistics?
They should only say a person died of Covid if they can prove they wouldn't've died immediately or within days or weeks had they not contracted Covid.
How would that make a difference to your opinion?
Lockdown has costs, like billions more unemployed and hundreds of millions more starving people, and supposedly it has a benefit, the prevention of the spread of Covid.
The more costs there are, and the less deaths it'll prevent, the less lockdown is warranted.
You can't take the virus away once a person has it, but you can limit its spread. What kind of a result would satisfy you?
Sweden didn't lock itself down and Covid appears to have peaked there.
If instead of 3000 of 10 million Swedes dying say 100 thousand or 1 million died, which's what they said was going to happen if we didn't lock ourselves down, then maybe they'd have an argument.
3000 of 10 million or 0.03% of the Swedes is nothing, about 100 thousand Swedes die every year of every accident and every disease.
And of those 3000 how many would've died anyway had they not contracted Covid?
Most if not almost all of them.
And of those that wouldn't've died anyway, how many could've they saved had Sweden locked itself down?
Some of Sweden's neighbors that locked themselves down like Belgium and Netherlands fared worse than Sweden.
There's no proof they would've saved a single person had they locked themselves down.
Last edited by Gloominary on Mon May 04, 2020 7:47 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 9:30 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 6:49 pm
Gloominary wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 5:24 pm

https://time.com/5820118/coronavirus-qu ... wered/#flu

And people in nursing homes are more susceptible to viral and bacterial infections because their immunodeficient.
At least some of the people dying with Covid and Cancer, diabetes, heart disease and so on died with the common cold, seasonal flu, other viral and bacterial infections.
So a Covid death isn't necessarily not also a flu death or say a urinary tract infection death.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526889/



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526889/

See people in nursing homes are dying with all kinds of stuff.
That they also had Covid doesn't really mean much.
At least many if not most or the vast majority of them would've died immediately or within days or weeks anyway.

If a 90 year old on their deathbed contracts flu, did they die of flu?
Does anybody die of old age anymore?
Sigh. The lockdown is to prevent spread. If the virus isn't spreading then a lockdown is working. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
Or, the virus isn't as infectious as predicted, and that's why it's not spreading, or, the virus hasn't spread (much) more in countries, provinces, regions and states that didn't lock themselves down than it has in countries, provinces and so on that did, because lockdown is ineffective.
What tangible proof do they have that lockdown is effective?
Nothing like this has ever been tried before on anything like this scale in modernity.
Would you be happier if they didn't include the very old in the statistics?

They should only say a person died of Covid if they can prove they wouldn't've died immediately or within days or weeks had they not contracted Covid.
How would that make a difference to your opinion?
Lockdown has costs, like billions of newly unemployed and hundreds of millions of starving people, and supposedly it has a benefit, the prevention of the spread of Covid.
The more costs there are, and the less deaths it'll prevent, the less lockdown is warranted.
You can't take the virus away once a person has it, but you can limit its spread. What kind of a result would satisfy you?
Sweden didn't lock itself down Covid has appeared to have peaked there.
If instead of 3000 of 10 million Swedes dying say 100 thousand or 1 million died, which's what they said was going to happen if we didn't lock ourselves down, then maybe they'd have an argument.
3000 of 10 million or 0.03% of the Swedes is nothing, about 100 000 Swedes die every year of every accident and every disease.
And of those 3000 how many would've died anyway had they not contracted Covid?
Probably most if not almost all of them.
And of those that wouldn't've died anyway, how many could they saved had they locked themselves down?
Some of Sweden's neighbors like Belgium and Netherlands that locked themselves down faired worse than Sweden.
There's no proof they would've saved a single person had they locked themselves down.
There is really no point in commenting about Sweden's result. If they did the right thing then you can be terribly wise 'with hindsight' :roll: They took a huge gamble. It may turn out to have been the right thing to do, or it may not. It's not over for them yet. Perhaps they will get herd immunity. The POINT is that NO ONE KNOWS YET!
Post Reply