The article was concerned with "US Covid-19 Death Counts". You flippantly mention "nearly half a million excess deaths" — Metaphysician Undercover

How could you possibly consider citing an article from The Lancet warning of nearly half a million deaths from TB as a result of Covid strategies whilst we were talking about the statistics used to determine that very strategy 'flippant'. What on earth was 'flippant' about it?

Sorry Isaac, I didn't know you had changed the subject from Covid deaths to TB deaths, when you mentioned "nearly half a million excess deaths". Do you really think there will be an increase of half a million deaths from TB in the US because of Covid lockdowns? That seems extremely far fetched.

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Do you really think there will be an increase of half a million deaths from TB in the US because of Covid lockdowns? That seems extremely far fetched. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Lancet article was not referring to the US, so no. But for countries like India, I see no reason to disbelieve an article suggesting as such in such an eminent journal as The Lancet. I cited it here as an example of the importance of getting the statistics right ie, not biasing data gathering approaches toward only one outcome of interest.

Sorry Isaac, I just don't see the relevance.

What is interesting and I think is an explanation just why the US appears different from other countries is because of the utter lack of testing at start compared how huge the outbreak was. The infections were far higher than stated, hence when the infection cases went down in the summer, but the testing ramped up, it biased the statistics of new infections. Likely now we see the actual correlation:



We can assume that there has to be at least similar if not larger amount of infections at the spring as now.

In Nordic countries, Sweden hit a new high since last time and Iceland is up also. Only in Norway the number of new infections is decreasing:

We can assume that there has to be at least similar if not larger amount of infections at the spring as now. — ssu

Are you serious? What do you base that on, the death rate? The first wave swept through the most vulnerable, and exposed, the nursing homes, where the numbers of vulnerable are concentrated and the virus spread easily. The second wave is sweeping through the general population, where the vulnerable are scattered. The death rate has not reached its peak.

Are you serious? What do you base that on, the death rate? The first wave swept through the most vulnerable, and exposed, the nursing homes, where the numbers of vulnerable are concentrated and the virus spread easily. — Metaphysician Undercover

Based on what it says there on the chart: "Limited testing meant that most infections were not confirmed during this wave". I get your point, that partly might be an issue to be noted, but notice that the statistical difference is huge: from April to June there is hardly any correlation, while starting from July the correlation between deaths and infections is obvious.

Then there is the way how pandemics spread: it doesn't come as a rain and influence all parts of the country in a similar way from the start. It might be the deaths in nursing homes in Washington state that are here apart from let's say the nursing homes in South Dakota: the pandemic spread to Washington first when there was non-existent measures taken in nursing homes.

How it looked at the start:

Based on what it says there on the chart: "Limited testing meant that most infections were not confirmed during this wave". — ssu

You cannot proceed logically from the premise of a lack of information, to your conclusion of a similar or larger amount of infections.

but notice that the statistical difference is huge: from April to June there is hardly any correlation, — ssu

I see a very clear correlation there. What's different in the April-June time frame is a higher proportion of deaths per infections. That's probably due to a combination of the reasons you stated (insufficient testing), and the reasons I stated (rapid infection in the most vulnerable population). But there is nothing to indicate that the actual infections were as high at this time, as you assume. Even multiplying the March-April tested averages by ten will barely surpass the tested rate of today. And we can still assume that there are many infected today who do not test.

while starting from July the correlation between deaths and infections is obvious. — ssu

The increase in test confirmed cases in mid summer might be construed as representing a better testing capacity. However, there is also an increase of deaths at that time, so we might rule that conclusion out as unsupported by the data. Therefore the graphs show three distinct waves of increased infection, each one bigger than the last, spring, mid summer, and fall. The fact that the death rate was extremely high in the spring wave is probably due to the reasons I mentioned.

You cannot proceed logically from the premise of a lack of information, to your conclusion of a similar or larger amount of infections. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet you say...

What's different in the April-June time frame is a higher proportion of deaths per infections. That's probably due to a combination of the reasons you stated (insufficient testing), and the reasons I stated (rapid infection in the most vulnerable population). — Metaphysician Undercover

Which I agree.

And we can still assume that there are many infected today who do not test. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet highly less than earlier.

COVID-19's link to erectile dysfunction

Breathing issues, brain fog and a lingering loss of taste are just some of the long-term effects seen in coronavirus patients. Now, experts are warning that COVID-19 could also make it difficult to get an erection.

Is the government going to ship Viagra to us now?

We can assume that there has to be at least similar if not larger amount of infections at the spring as now. — ssu

Maybe not. The charts are too complicated to be simply summarized like that. The data included is hidden from view, and the statistics are not uniform from beginning to end but reflect different portions of the potential population. We see three waves.The initial wave culled the most vulnerable portion of the population both from the point of view of first quickly finding those who were open to getting infected and those with the highest mortality rate by age and sex. The nursing home patients.

The initial wave culled the most vulnerable portion of the population both from the point of view of first quickly finding those who were open to getting infected and those with the highest mortality rate by age and sex. — magritte

I've been thinking this too. It's such a weird virus.

The initial wave culled the most vulnerable portion of the population both from the point of view of first quickly finding those who were open to getting infected and those with the highest mortality rate by age and sex. The nursing home patients. — magritte

So you assume it went through all the nursing homes? It's not like the pandemic has gone through the population, which is obvious when you look at the debate around herd immunity and the Swedish-model (or the first adopted UK-policy).

First ask yourselves, how much investment and focus is put into vaccine research generally? Compare that with what is now happening with Covid-19. You think those billions now poured into various vaccine programs by major countries won't have an effect? — ssu

Yes, absolutely I think that (or at least not the scale of effect relied on). Developing a vaccine involves a very great number of resources and those resources are spread sufficiently thinly such that it takes a considerable amount of time to complete all the stages. Not all of those resources can simply be bought by throwing money at them. How is money going to increase the number of trained staff? How is money going to increase the supply of minority condition groups to test against? How is money going to speed up the long-term monitoring period?

It's lunacy to invest this amount of money in a medicine which might not even work when there's absolutely proven interventions which we know will save tens of thousands of lives not only now but in the next one, and the next one... — Isaac

Well, coming back to the discussion above with Isaac just two months ago: I think we can say that indeed yes, when there is an urge to do something, a concentrated effort to do it and far more resources are put on something than normally, it does have an effect on the timetable:

The vaccine development took nine months, not two to five years. Something worth noting.

The vaccine development took nine months, not two to five years. Something worth noting. — ssu

That's partly because the mRNA vaccine is a new technology. Future vaccine production will also be sped up due to this innovation. Cool, huh?

Oooh, frank, that's too positive. Especially being positive about technological innovation and that it will improve things in the future.

People don't like that. Far more trendy and smart looking to be doom and gloom. We're on the Titanic and people are just rearranging the deck chairs. That stuff.

Oooh, frank, that's too positive. Especially being positive about technological innovation and that it will improve things in the future.

People don't like that. Far more trendy and smart looking to be doom and gloom. We're on the Titanic and people are just rearranging the deck chairs. That stuff. — ssu

Oh sorry, yes we're all doomed because we didn't sacrifice to Poseidon (I'm rereading the Iliad.)

That's the spirit! :up:

Hopefully we'll see that kind of innovation and bold action with respect to climate change. Who knows what people can accomplish when the stock market is at stake.

So you assume it went through all the nursing homes? It's not like the pandemic has gone through the population, which is obvious when you look at the debate around herd immunity and the Swedish-model (or the first adopted UK-policy). — ssu

Those charts are US figures. The US is geographically more spread out, the population is more diverse, and the economic gap between the haves and the have nots is significantly wider. The first wave of the virus only effected the East and West coast which are the hubs of global aviation traffic.

Although in China and Europe the pandemic was under way well ahead of the US, our Leader denied the 'Chinese Hoax' and local politicians, even the political opponents of our Leader, suppressed data collection and medical preparedness efforts. Testing for the virus was not generally available and the hospitals were ill prepared for the first influx of intensive medical emergencies.

By the second wave, a different wider range of patients appeared to be effected. These were the poorer service workers who were forced by the necessities of keeping their families fed to work in supermarkets, small stores, and delivery of goods to those who have shifted to work from home, or can otherwise afford to stay at home in isolation.

The third wave primarily effects, at least to date, the Trumpist Midland and Southern states who have rallied, partied, and mocked the leftist commie facemask-wearing fools.

Just looking at the graphs, The death statistics are much more certain, more reliable, more real than what's reported by biased authorities which should only be used in an indictment. The hospital ICU stats are the ones that I would most like to see for further pandemic speculation.

It should be remembered that there are possibly social or racial differences in addition to socio-economic status on the chronology of the pandemic. All those in isolation will eventually be immunized or become victims as well, but later when the hospitals have become more adept at avoiding deaths.

Two more factors might be the availability of rapid and accurate testing and reporting with medical details, and, and that we might not be just talking about the virus but a family of very similar mutating cluster that should probably survive most of the current vaccines, depending on the vaccines method of attacking their target model.

Well, coming back to the discussion above with Isaac just two months ago: I think we can say that indeed yes, when there is an urge to do something, a concentrated effort to do it and far more resources are put on something than normally, it does have an effect on the timetable:

The vaccine development took nine months, not two to five years. Something worth noting. — ssu

At what point did I say that the level of investment would not produce a vaccine more quickly?

At what point did I say that the level of investment would not produce a vaccine more quickly? — Isaac

I think your point was that we don't need a vaccine because we have working therapeutics. What drugs were you talking about?

I think your point was that we don't need a vaccine because we have working therapeutics. What drugs were you talking about? — frank

No, my point was firstly, that a rushed vaccine based on new technology may be either falsely effective, have unexpected side effects (already we're getting allergic reaction that was not anticipated), or too expensive to help poorer countries.

And secondly that a huge proportion of the deaths are in poor communities coupled with poor healthcare services. Investing in core service provision and community healthcare is a far more efficient as it helps not only this pandemic, but also future ones. I've previously cited papers showing how proper ICU care more than halves the mortality rate. The overlap with poorer communities and existing health issues is well documented, but I can cite some if you like.

Thirdly, investment doesn't spring out of nowhere. It's taken from other budgets. I've just cited figures for TB excess deaths which result from only a fractional drop in the availability of frontline services.

Basically if you've already decided that the solution is an expensive vaccine then the investment is great. If your aim is to increase the number of vaccines in the world then this is a big score. If, however, your aim is to look after the immediate and future health of the population with the scarce resources we have available then the fact that a few rich countries have used up years of healthcare investment on a luxury vaccine is hardly the Holy Grail.

That's partly because the mRNA vaccine is a new technology. Future vaccine production will also be sped up due to this innovation. Cool, huh? — frank

Let's have a look at the mRNA trial. Take Moderna's mRNA-1273.

Did the trial include children and adolescents? No.

Did the trial check for ADE reactions? No.

Did the trial include pregnant or breastfeeding mothers? No.

Did the trial include the immunocompromised? No.

Did the trial even check for reduced severity of symptoms? No.

Did the trial test for reduction in transmission? No.

...

Or we could take AstraZeneca's AZD1222... oh no, we can't, because the scale, scope and all failed results in that trial are secret.

In fact have any of the seven major contenders actually trialled for a reduction in transmission? No (qualified with the fact that some of the latest trial data isn't out yet, this was certainly true as of phase 3 trials last month),


Seriously. Would we trust a massive multinational business to act in the interests of the wider community under any other circumstances? Do we need to go through the track record of giant multinationals with social welfare?

No, my point was firstly, that a rushed vaccine based on new technology may be either falsely effective, have unexpected side effects (already we're getting allergic reaction that was not anticipated), or too expensive to help poorer countries. — Isaac

It sounds like you don't have faith in the three stage testing system. You're not alone there.

Astra Zeneca's vaccine is expected to be the one poorer countries use because they just don't have the means to store the mRNA vaccine.

And secondly that a huge proportion of the deaths are in poor communities coupled with poor healthcare services. Investing in core service provision and community healthcare is a far more efficient as it helps not only this pandemic, but also future ones. — Isaac

Yes. There are a ton of organizations trying to help developing nations. Two of the biggies are Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation.

Thirdly, investment doesn't spring out of nowhere. It's taken from other budgets. — Isaac

Bill Gates, who is one the main funders for the WHO, also funded much of the vaccine R&D. Warp Speed was funded by the US's ability to print money and back it up with magic.

I've just cited figures for TB excess deaths which result from only a fractional drop in the availability of frontline services. — Isaac

That's disheartening.

If, however, your aim is to look after the immediate and future health of the population with the scarce resources we have available then the fact that a few rich countries have used up years of healthcare investment on a luxury vaccine is hardly the Holy Grail. — Isaac

It's our magic money to spend, though. Wait until there's a world government and then bitch about it. Ya know?

Seriously. Would we trust a massive multinational business to act in the interests of the wider community under any other circumstances? Do we need to go through the track record of giant multinationals with social welfare? — Isaac

They're in business to make money. Wait until we have a global government and then bitch about it. That's my new motto. :sparkle:

They're in business to make money. — frank

Yep. It's right there in black and white in the company's articles of association. Their objective is to make a profit for their shareholders. Why would we even expect them to produce a product which has a net benefit to society? It's not even on their list.

It sounds like you don't have faith in the three stage testing system. You're not alone there. — frank

What's really worrying is that anti-cancer drugs are now so profitable that it is actually an economic viability to simply run enough trials to ensure at least one is positive simply by chance. Since there's no requirement to publish failed trials, we could soon see companies producing drugs which are no better than placebo but seem so on the basis of one chance trial...if we haven't already...we wouldn't know.

It's astonishing what fear will do. You couldn't make a more archetypal villain than big pharma if you tried, now they're the shining white knights.

Yep. It's right there in black and white in the company's articles of association. Their objective is to make a profit for their shareholders. Why would we even expect them to produce a product which has a net benefit to society? It's not even on their list. — Isaac

Good question. Yet, the FDA has given the mRNA vaccine the big Checkity Check, so defrost that sucker, I'm ready!!

What's really worrying is that anti-cancer drugs are now so profitable that it is actually an economic viability to simply run enough trials to ensure at least one is positive simply by chance. Since there's no requirement to publish failed trials, we could soon see companies producing drugs which are no better than placebo but seem so on the basis of one chance trial...if we haven't already...we wouldn't know. — Isaac

Cancer is big business. No doubt about that.

It's astonishing what fear will do. You couldn't make a more archetypal villain than big pharma if you tried, now they're the shining white knights. — Isaac

I expected to you to be more of a nihilist than this. A human is a walking contradiction, huh?

the FDA has given the mRNA vaccine the big Checkity Check — frank

Ah! This would be the same FDA whose paid off officials continued to approve opiods despite clear evidence of the harm they were doing and that they were ineffective?

Or in the UK, perhaps you'd trust the MHRA? The same MHRA whose paid off officials during the breast implant scandal looked at no evidence at all apart from that provided to them by the manufacturer?

Big pharma's lobbying budget is double that of any other industry and over half are former government employees.

So your faith in the FDA comes from...?