But you just tell us how it is, Merky. — ssu

I'm sorry, I cannot tell you how it is, I can only how it isn't.

And that something did hit us can be seen from the statistical difference: the mortality rate doesn't normally vary to nearly twice the number as in the earlier month on a national level. — ssu

Nice graph. Is that suppose to convince me? Even if i accept it at face value, a graph does not constitute evidence (such as covid causing a spike in death rates). You are giving it a groundless interpretation that supports your narrative. But it's ok, just keep believing what you are told if it makes you feel better.

The heterogeneous mortality effects of the COVID-19 pandemic reflect differences in how well countries have managed the pandemic and the resilience and preparedness of the health and social care system.

Is that so? Did you ever think that the heterogeneous mortality rates (caused by covid) are due to the various ways in which various countries report causes of death? Of course you haven't, you just accept what you are told and run with it.

Why do I get the feeling you disagree with me on the covid issue?

Still, though, there's this: something with a mortality rate of around two percent has killed more people in less than one year than were killed in the US Army in all of WW2. Anything to that? Ya think? — tim wood

My cousin says covid has killed more Americans than all deaths in all wars combined. Must be true. :vomit:

Again, I'm supposed to just accept the numbers you regurgitate on covid mortality rates because you believe them? Sorry, I'm not the gullible chump you are looking for. I have substantial evidence that the numbers are being surreptitiously inflated, and good reason to reject the propaganda that you so zealously subscribe to.

Did you ever think that the heterogeneous mortality rates (caused by covid) are due to the various ways in which various countries report causes of death? Of course you haven't, you just accept what you are told and run with it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah, there aren't statisticians in the World who would notice the differences in the reporting fatalities, Merky. And of course, hundreds of thousands of deaths can be simply reported just how the powers that be want them to be reported as so. As if those doctors don't care what they write down as the cause of death, or those who gather these statistics cannot be relied upon.

How's that tinfoil hat of yours fitting? A bit tight?

Sorry Merky, but I have to say it, either you are just trolling and getting a laugh from it or you are an example of the cultural decadence of our times. Or then you are both.

Sorry, you're views don't even arise to a level that warrants disagreement.

I remember reading a case of Cicero's. He was defending (as I recall) a politician accused of corruption in that he had bought votes. Cicero's defense was that his client was innocent, but that someone had bought votes, so that must have been the plaintiff. The editor noted that likely the truth was that they had both bought votes!

Your claims about Covid are as specious as Cicero's on his client's corruption - I leave you to work out how.

All I hear is a chorus of whining when I disagree with your bullshit. It verges on par with religious fanaticism. But that's what happens when slave morality meets free thought. I saw with the same nonsense when I opposed the Iraq war back in 02-03, (which people like you were on board with the entire way until it turned out to be bullshit). It is familiar territory for me. But keep with your group-think, at least you won't be alone on the road to hell.

. But keep with your group-think, at least you won't be alone on the road to hell. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'd rather be alone on the way to hell. Ya know, mull things over, think about eternal torment without having to deal with anyone else's baggage.

I'd rather be alone on the way to hell. Ya know, mull things over, think about eternal torment without having to deal with anyone else's baggage. — frank

:rofl:

If there are no symptoms prior to a trigger event then, logically, the triggering event was the cause of the body electing to turn on itself and begin attacking itself. Specifically, we do not know the cause of autoimmune diseases, as in, do Killer T-cells attack because there is a mutated protein on the exterior of the "other Identified" cell? We don't know that. To say that the underlying condition existed prior to the event is not helpful if we cannot determine that the condition exists prior to the event. You are pushing an "if C occurs then A must be pre-existing" however we aren't certain of the alphabet used, let alone the sequence of the letters.

You're right, no pandemic. It's all a hoax. Still, though, there's this: something with a mortality rate of around two percent has killed more people in less than one year than were killed in the US Army in all of WW2. Anything to that? Ya think? — tim wood

I did not say Covid is hoax. Not ever. I said the response to Covid is fear based, not fact based. Yep, Covid killed over 300000 state side, and just under 15000 in Canada. Those are real deaths. The US number is just more than a months normal mortality rate, and about 2/3 of a months rate in Canada. Inflated numbers or not, still is an increase. Is it worth tanking our economy, our children's mental health, doubling our suicide rates, increasing our domestic violence, doubling our opioid overdoses for? Not a chance. That's the point I am making. Our "abundance of Caution", is excessively cowardly, and far more harmful that doing nothing.

Yeah, there aren't statisticians in the World who would notice the differences in the reporting fatalities — ssu

You mean like Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University who called comparing countries' performances a "completely fatuous exercise"? But of course, I forget everyone who disagrees with you is simply a conspiracy theorist. It's shocking how high up the echelons of academia these conspiracy theorists can get - this one even has a knighthood.

hundreds of thousands of deaths can be simply reported just how the powers that be want them to be reported as so. — ssu

Yes, that is exactly the case. The method of recording and counting death is set by either the government or the government agencies in the respective countries. It is exactly true that deaths can be reported how the powers that be want them reported. I've literally just cited the British government saying exactly that - for fuck's sake. It's like you're immune to any contrary evidence. The British government determined how a covid death should be counted, a professional epidemiologist raised concerns that this was doing exactly what is being claimed (inflating the numbers of covid deaths) and they responded by changing the way they counted covid deaths.

As if those doctors don't care what they write down as the cause of death — ssu

Caring is not necessarily correlated with any particular method of recording is it?

those who gather these statistics cannot be relied upon. — ssu

Again, I've just cited cases in which they have made substantial mistakes. It's a complex situation. This Disneyfication of it into a nice childish narrative is positively dangerous.

Has any research been done on that anywhere? — Benkei

I cited earlier a couple of reports on the impact of lockdowns on TB which gave estimated numbers of deaths. I can't find a free version, so I'll quote

Even temporary disruptions can cause long-term increases in TB incidence and mortality. If lockdown-related disruptions cause a temporary 50% reduction in TB transmission, we estimated that a 3-month suspension of TB services, followed by 10 months to restore to normal, would cause, over the next 5 years, an additional 1⋅19 million TB cases (Crl 1⋅06–1⋅33) and 361,000 TB deaths (CrI 333–394 thousand) in India, 24,700 (16,100–44,700) TB cases and 12,500 deaths (8.8–17.8 thousand) in Kenya, and 4,350 (826–6,540) cases and 1,340 deaths (815–1,980) in Ukraine. The principal driver of these adverse impacts is the accumulation of undetected TB during a lockdown. — The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tuberculosis epidemic a modelling analysis - The Lancet — Isaac

There's also some work done on behalf of the WHO on deaths from the loss of normal vaccination programmes due to lockdown and supply disruption, no figures yet, but speculation that it could be in the tens of thousands. Here's the briefing note - https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/geneva-palais-briefing-note-impact-covid-19-mitigation-measures-vaccine-supply-and

Polio vaccinations have been postponed in many countries - http://polioeradication.org/news-post/call-to-action-to-support-covid-19-response/

There's no collective numbers that I know of on the impact of lessened access to primary healthcare, but there was a good study done at Leeds on Heart attacks which showed a worrying decrease in emergency care access for heart attacks, putting the figures in the low thousands of potential deaths. If this were extrapolated out to cancers, other heart conditions, etc the figures would be alarming. The WHO have done some research on the extent of disruption, but not the numbers yet -https://www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2020-covid-19-significantly-impacts-health-services-for-noncommunicable-diseases. - These diseases kill 41 million annually

This is a most worrying study from the Lancet on infant mortality - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30229-1/fulltext estimating an additional 253 500 child deaths and 12 200 maternal deaths from disruption to healthcare and food access. This is just infant mortality here.

None of this even touches yet on development aid budgets. Oxfam is closing its operations in 18 countries due to Covid restrictions. The World Food Programme estimates number of children in food poverty will double - https://www.wfp.org/news/covid-19-will-double-number-people-facing-food-crises-unless-swift-action-taken

What really worries me though is the impact on the next generation - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32929399/ . As ever, children seem to be treated like lesser citizens whose lives can be interfered with with impunity in service to the older generations.

Thanks for that. Looks pretty bad and a bit predictable.

As ever, children seem to be treated like lesser citizens whose lives can be interfered with with impunity in service to the older generations. — Isaac

Which seems counterintuitive. As a parent, I sacrifice for my children's future, I do not sacrifice my children for my future, nor my parent's future. I am baffled why the governments seem to function in direct opposition to this concept. I do not not of one grand parent that would sacrifice their grandkids' future for the chance to live another year.

Thanks for that. Looks pretty bad and a bit predictable. — Benkei

No problem. Yeah, things look bad either way. We seem to have no good options. What I find difficult to swallow is why, given these hard choices, our governments consistently choose to mitigate the unknown using methods of unknown efficacy at the expense of the known harms of doing so. Personally I'd mitigate the known harms and hope for the best with an unknown, if I was forced into such a choice. We know how much people rely on primary care, aid, and community healthcare, so let's at least keep those going, shut down the rest and hope for the best. But then I don't have to get re-elected.

I think a big part of the problem is social media. There's been significant studies indicating the effect on polarization of views. Because flag-waiving trumptards want to downplay the virus and keep the economy going, the only option for the 'other side' is to say the virus is worse than anything else in the world and all responses are entirely justified. Trying to tread any public line between is like trying to roll a marble on a knife edge, sooner or later it's going to roll irretrievably down one side or the other.

Vested interests lobby hard, as usual, but what's changed is the escalating effect social media has on the narrative they put out there.

Which seems counterintuitive. As a parent, I sacrifice for my children's future, I do not sacrifice my children for my future, nor my parent's future. I am baffled why the governments seem to function in direct opposition to this concept. I do not not of one grand parent that would sacrifice their grandkids' future for the chance to live another year. — Book273

Yeah, but policy mostly affects other people's children, especially for the wealthy.

If there are no symptoms prior to a trigger event then, logically, the triggering event was the cause of the body electing to turn on itself and begin attacking itself. — Book273

I can't believe you call that logic. Logic is supposed to rule out other possibilities, not simply ignore them. Your premises are sorely lacking. That's like saying exposure to an allergen is logically the cause of the allergy because there were no symptoms prior to that. See, you're sort of missing a premise or two, the false ones which would be required for your conclusion.

Yeah, but policy mostly affects other people's children, especially for the wealthy — Isaac

Sure, if you follow policy. At some point, I would expect people to say "enough, this is stupid policy and I will do something else." Although, admittedly, I am not so good with understanding people.

I simply cannot make more broken down and simple to understand. You don't get it, either by choice or by intellectual diversity. Regardless, it is clear that, no matter what is presented to you, unless it supports your position, you will simply ask for it to be explained repeatedly. I will not attempt to explain auto immune response to you any more: you have no interest in the answers. Good day to you sir.

I said the response to Covid is fear based, not fact based. — Book273

I love it that I can learn more about pandemics from quacky blowhards on little forums than I can from vast teams of scientific experts who have spent their entire careers studying the subject in exhaustive detail. Yea, what does the CDC know about facts? They're just a bunch of fearful little twerps, not manly man REAL experts such as ourselves.

Interestingly your "vast teams of scientific experts" did not support lockdowns, generalized masking, or border closures...until the politicians got involved back in early April. Totally scientific there. Nothing at all suspicious...

...amazing what can happen when the people that are in charge of public funding can get when they suddenly have an interest in an outcome.

You don't get it, either by choice or by intellectual diversity. — Book273

I "don't get it" because it's so blatantly illogical, and I can't believe that you could call this logic.

I will not attempt to explain auto immune response to you any more: you have no interest in the answers. Good day to you sir. — Book273

I was naively hoping that you might be able to give me something interesting. Actually I was quite certain that you had no such capacity, so I was just goading you. My apologies, I'm sorry, I shouldn't do that.

if the US would share similar percentages as Canada, it would have now only 125 000 deaths, not 330 000. Hence the simple fact is that policies taken DO MATTER. — ssu

Yep.

Meanwhile half a million die from preventable heart disease, but not a penny of additional investment in health initiatives or legislation around food and working conditions.

Another half million from preventable cancers. No additional investment in research, no action on known carcinogens in the environment, no action on community healthcare.

Another 150,000 or so preventable respiratory diseases. No action on air pollution, no action on outdoor activities, no action on allergens. No additional research investment.

3 million children across the world die from poverty...every year. No increase in foreign aid, no action on fair trade, no action on modern slavery.

The question is not whether policy matters. The question is why take every measure conceivable to avoid these particular deaths when no one gave a shit about all the other preventable deaths last year.

I did not say Covid is hoax. Not ever. I said the response to Covid is fear based, not fact based. Yep, Covid killed over 300000 state side, and just under 15000 in Canada. Those are real deaths. The US number is just more than a months normal mortality rate, and about 2/3 of a months rate in Canada. Inflated numbers or not, still is an increase. Is it worth tanking our economy, our children's mental health, doubling our suicide rates, increasing our domestic violence, doubling our opioid overdoses for? Not a chance. That's the point I am making. Our "abundance of Caution", is excessively cowardly, and far more harmful that doing nothing. — Book273

Fair reply and comment. Based on your thinking, though, it would be all right for me to carry a rifle into your neighborhood and just start shooting wherever? After all, probably won't kill too many, and we all know there are more where they came from. And the odds for any individual are pretty good. Not worth closing down the neighborhood just for that, right?

Those other problems? They mainly represent choices that people make. That is, those are deeper problems Covid merely uncovers. And you would like to ignore(?) Covid to cover them back up?

With Covid death rates apparently far exceeding military death rates of war, it seems to me the correct attitude wrt Covid is to declare war on it. I think that is how it's going to be anyway. That would get everyone's mind right and governments would - could - re-orient themselves to a wartime footing and functioning. A wild idea: governments would each agree to reduce military spending by half. In the US that would free up around $350B. Some good could be done with that!

No easy solutions, and my metaphor has obvious flaws, but business-as-usual has failed. And it would seem that business-as-usual is actually a fatal error.

A doctor once explained to me why regimens for the treatment of some illnesses had to be followed out to the end. You can't stop treatment just because you feel better, he said, because if you relax on the virus while it's still present and potent, it will just come back and make you sick again. And he might have added that if enough people let the virus back up, there comes a fair chance it will mutate.

It seems that what you want - for all the best reasons - is to return to a status quo ante bellum. But the war isn't over, and while subject to the vaccine's efficacy, may not yet even have properly begun. Business-as-usual, then, is head-in-the-sand.

Merky, talking about slave morality you're definitely starting to rant like a 9/11 truther, because we aren't discussing Nietzsche.

Building WTC 7 you sheeple!!!

And btw, I remember very well on the old PF the 2003 invasion, the time of Freedom Fries. There were those who saw it as their duty to defend the invasion on PF, yet a lot of people here were totally against it. I made my mind when reading a small memoir of a Iraqi weapons inspector that convinced me the whole thing was bogus and that the war was quite similar to the Spanish-American war. Many people thought here that the US would fabricate the WMD's later, but no, who cares.

You mean like Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University who called comparing countries' performances a "completely fatuous exercise"? — Isaac

You think so? Well, here is Professor Sir David Speigelhalter himself saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying. You can make country comparisons, of course you have to understand how rough those comparison are, which I DO understand. Please listen the following interview to the end.

It's like you're immune to any contrary evidence. — Isaac

Where did you give the contrary evidence? I and you have not discussed or if you have given it earlier, so could you give a link to what you are referring to. It's an informative way would give links or simply to give the exact reason why and what is wrong.

Just referring to Spiegelhalter saying completely fatous exercise doesn't give much, but at least I did get the name and the professor has interesting points. What I can find from the net is the statistician Spiegelhalter talking sense about statistics, but I've not gotten the stuff you refer to, that governments can make statistics just what they want. If you can be more specific, I am open to other viewpoints. In my view Spiegelhalter isn't refuting or contradicting the pandemic.

Whaddya bet the China virus hoax stops being a hoax after January 20th.

that so? Did you ever think that the heterogeneous mortality rates (caused by covid) are due to the various ways in which various countries report causes of death? Of course you haven't, you just accept what you are told and run with it. — Merkwurdichliebe

The statistic used to show increased number of deaths during the pandemic doesn't depend upon the subjective classification of the death by the reporting agency. The "excess death rate" is all that needs to be looked at. That is, the data shows that since the identification of covid-19 being present, the US had 300,000 more deaths than would have been predicted based upon prior years' data. https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/20/cdc-data-excess-deaths-covid-19/

Ignoring all subjective interpretation of cause of death, you're left with a huge spike in death. That correlation certainly ought raise eyebrows, especially since we have no other explanation for the spike and we do have on the ground accounts of covid-19 causing death.

We have a statistical anomaly showing a death spike and data supportive of what is causing it. What is your alternative theory explaining this spike?

I told you it was a new strain! I speculated anyway.

I'm getting the big shot tomorrow. Wish me luck (hopefully it won't turn me into a zombie).

Ignoring all subjective interpretation of cause of death, you're left with a huge spike in death. That correlation certainly ought raise eyebrows, especially since we have no other explanation for the spike and we do have on the ground accounts of covid-19 causing death.

We have a statistical anomaly showing a death spike and data supportive of what is causing it. What is your alternative theory explaining this spike? — Hanover

Great point. My opinion: such predictive data is unreliable when it comes to something as complex as national mortality rates. It is a fact that people believe what they want, and there is no difficulty in finding and interpreting data that will support one's position. For example, the article you provided admits of shortcomings in the research, saying:

But the 300,000 number probably also includes people who died because they were scared to seek out medical care because of the pandemic or had their care interrupted, and because of other causes. One limitation of the study, the researchers noted, was that the U.S. population is growing and getting older, so more deaths might have occurred in 2020 versus recent years without a pandemic, making a direct comparison harder.

Let that be my alternative theory. Let that count as some other explanation for a spike in deaths in 2020