Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

2,800,000 or thereabouts is the number of cases. Population say 340,000,000 So the government death rates are tied to per 100,000 of population. This makes sense to you? Not to me. The severity, intentionally, of the disease gets diminished when the number of deaths is measured against 337,000,000 people who don’t have the disease. The true death rate of the disease is 130,000 deaths resulting from the reported 2,800,000 cases, or 130,000/2,800,000. Within that context the data has to be reduced to whatever subsets you want to look at. Number of deaths of those over 70 for example divided by number of cases of those over 70 etc etc Yesterday the overall was 4.8% of those who have contracted the disease died in the U.S. And that too is inaccurate to the extent of the lag time of deaths
Lol. This BS argument again.
Update: Influenza Activity in the United States During the 2018–19 ....
2018 flu.

177,039 positives
4000 some odd deaths. @TennTradition I cant find you actual numbers you had used previously.

So its at least a 2.2% mortality rate for the flu. And for 2018 it was an epidemic for at least 10 weeks.
 
Yeah let's make school feel even more like a prison.

I think the teachers should be given social distancing encouragement devices. They can probably get them cheap from the defunded police.
There's more room in prison than in those tiny desk boxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
His argument was that we were overreacting to the spike in cases because deaths were going down. It was a BS argument for numerous reasons (which @lawgator1 set out), the most salient of which was that deaths lag diagnosis by several weeks to a month. Deaths will be going up. We're not going to see that low 200s number for a long long time.
It’s almost like a sports talk radio host isn’t a substitute for an epidemiologist.
 
Lol. This BS argument again.
Update: Influenza Activity in the United States During the 2018–19 ....
2018 flu.

177,039 positives
4000 some odd deaths. @TennTradition I cant find you actual numbers you had used previously.

So its at least a 2.2% mortality rate for the flu. And for 2018 it was an epidemic for at least 10 weeks.
The Rona-cronies always point at the number of deaths for each diseased not mortality rate....its comical reading their doom and gloom rhetoric.
 
It’s almost like a sports talk radio host isn’t a substitute for an epidemiologist.
I'll give him this. He knows what his followers want to hear and he gives it an air of plausibility by throwing in some charts and graphs that are divorced from what is happening NOW.

 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
Lol. This BS argument again.
Update: Influenza Activity in the United States During the 2018–19 ....
2018 flu.

177,039 positives
4000 some odd deaths. @TennTradition I cant find you actual numbers you had used previously.

So its at least a 2.2% mortality rate for the flu. And for 2018 it was an epidemic for at least 10 weeks.

Surely you don’t think this is a valid comparison.

How many times have you been given a laboratory test for the flu? What are the criteria for obtaining such a test?
 
Trump says CDC school-opening guidelines are wrong, and threatens to cut off federal funding to schools that don't reopen.

Simultaneously, his admin admits it's up to local officials to make this decision.

So. CDC wrong. Cut off school funding. But, he has no ability to control what schools do.

Got it.

safe_image_1.jpg
 
Surely you don’t think this is a valid comparison.

How many times have you been given a laboratory test for the flu? What are the criteria for obtaining such a test?

It's not intended to be a reasonable way of calculating flu impacts.

The intent is to highlight the role testing plays in such metrics of "mortality rate."

It clearly highlights how case capture skews this metric and why it isn't that worthwhile.
 
Doubt they have the 2 negative rules.
We have the two negative tests and then quarantine for 14 days rule for anyone admitting to my facility..... we had one patient have two negatives, quarantine for 14 days and then test positive again without being around anyone that has symptoms or tested positive.
 
His argument was that we were overreacting to the spike in cases because deaths were going down. It was a BS argument for numerous reasons (which @lawgator1 set out), the most salient of which was that deaths lag diagnosis by several weeks to a month. Deaths will be going up. We're not going to see that low 200s number for a long long time.
Ah yes, just wait 2 weeks, just wait a month, just wait 2 months. Didn't you tell us this for Easter, Memorial Day? But why not for BLM protest or Juneteeth celebrations? No covid there right? But we continue to tell the African American community they are at the highest risk for this racist virus. We have zero leadership from the White House, Zero Leadership from either party in the house or senate just a bunch of infighting and BS. Trump sucks, Biden sucks I'm voting for Monty Brewster at least it will be a damn party
 
Today marks the 14th day since Florida saw the big jump in daily cases...so far so good.. mortality rate not jumping...maybe we learned a valuable lesson...don't put COVID patients into nursing homes
nope just ask EL people are gonna die in 17 days from now and it will be worse than NY, EL 17 days from now "just wait 2 weeks"
 
Symptomatic and a swab up your nare. They usually run a respiratory viral panel with it.

By “criteria for obtaining the test,” I meant “who gets tested?”

Going to the ED or your PCP with flu-like symptoms in 2018 did not necessarily mean you were getting tested for flu. Particularly for pediatric care providers, but in my experience, that extends to healthy adults and even some unhealthy adults.

Also the ratio of people seeking treatment for the flu, a common illness with a fairly well established and low rate of negative outcomes, is probably going to be lower than for a novel illness with nonstop news coverage about how scary and deadly it is.

I’m sure there are similar difficultIt’s with precisely quantify Covid cases, but we extrapolate flu numbers for a reason. Until we know enough to do the same with COVID, it’s a bad comparison in either direction. And when we get to the point where we can do that, the comparison probably becomes superfluous.
 
It's not intended to be a reasonable way of calculating flu impacts.

The intent is to highlight the role testing plays in such metrics of "mortality rate."

It clearly highlights how case capture skews this metric and why it isn't that worthwhile.
Ok. It appears I misunderstood some aspects of the conversation. Apologies to @LouderVol, although I think I ended up supporting his point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol

VN Store



Back
Top