Run away from no-mask people

[Gerry Seymour]

To add to my other post; where did I say the science was wrong? In case you still misunderstand, I DID say what the news is spreading is questionable and what is happening in the health industry is downright unethical.

You're still parroting the claims that there's widespread malfeasance by the medical industry. Prove it. Not an anecdote here and there, but the systemic malfeasance you're claiming. You won't be able to.

You seem to assume I'm getting my information from sources like nightly news. I don't ever see the nightly news. I get my news from multiple sources and multiple countries. If there's a conspiracy in the American medical system, it seems other countries are in on it. Which is just ridiculous.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is an excellent point. Simply compare average deaths each year. People die from other diseases every year and it's unfortunately it's fairly consistent. It's consistent enough make estimates. Actual and Projected Cancer Death Rates, United States, 1975 to 2020

So if deaths are fairly predictable in a non-war environment then it's possible to see "glitches" where something out of the norm is occurs. Here are the numbers from 2018 so it doesn't include Covid-19 death rates.
Death rate for the U.S.

• Death rate: 867.8 deaths per 100,000 population

Source: FastStats
Now I won't post the death rates for Covid-19 since I've done that already. But these are things people can search on their own just to see if what they find matches up with what they believe. The higher than normal deaths have to come from something.

As support, here are some links regarding the US excess death rate:

• Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and ...).
• Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) (the US graph in this one is pretty clear and grim)
  
• Excess Deaths From COVID-19 and Other Causes, March-July 2020

That's three different sources, all with reasonably similar data and analysis.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Way to tempt fate. Not sure how you determine that you are 1 in 100,000. Is that a guaranteed thing?

I'm pretty sure it's a misused statistic. I think he's probably using the rate for the general population, which doesn't really apply at an individual level, because that's not how statistics work.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its a stastical certainty, arrived at by divding the preamature deaths in a year into the population.

certain life systle choices affect that to a relatively small degree, ridding mitirbikes, working on building sites, smoking, drug use etal , all increase your change of an untimely end in any given year, but only by a small amount,

once your dealing with large numbers, then certain truths come to light, , its very much what life insurance companies base there calcuations on, they have an extremly accurate model for predicting yoyr life expectancy, coz money

for the rest of us, circa 1 in a 1000,000 is close enough

As I suspected, you've misused the statistic. That's not how statistics work. What that number really means is that if you pick a person at random, there's a 1 in 100,000 chance they'll experience an untimely death this year. But that's not generalizable to individuals. As I said before, you don't seem to understand statistics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

possibly, but you may have to dig deeper into the numbers, there are covid related deaths, that arise from the lockdown rather than from the virus its self,

in the uk,murders are up, suicieds are up, people are beibg denied medical help, for non covid conditions, so that increases the death rate, they out a blanket do not resuscitate order on whole swavies if people, that other wise may well have survived, the elderly, the handicapped the autistic were all just left to die

I'd need to see proof on that last claim. That sounds pretty out there.

 

[jobo]

As I suspected, you've misused the statistic. That's not how statistics work. What that number really means is that if you pick a person at random, there's a 1 in 100,000 chance they'll experience an untimely death this year. But that's not generalizable to individuals. As I said before, you don't seem to understand statistics.

of course its generalizable, taking in to account that some ossues like being old increase the chances, i clearly said, i have a 1, in a 100,000 chance, not everybody did, but, im a random person ,there are another 70 million random people in this country, so its much the same for most people

 

[jobo]

I'd need to see proof on that last claim. That sounds pretty out there.

il dig out the bbc news report, it was only last week, but the bbc have a habit of deletibg controversial items

here we go

Covid-19: 'Do not resuscitate' decisions complaints up

 

[jobo]

No, we really don't need to know that %. It would make for a nice, clear picture, but death rates and hospitalization at the population level is where the risk is. And those numbers are pretty clear. And grim.

yes we do, otherwise its a meaningless number

if a product claim it will reduce my chance of a heart attack by 30% that sounds really impresive, but inless we know ehat the chances are if me havibg a heart attack with out the product it means nothing at all, as my chances of having a heart attack are neglable, then thats a 30%decrease on an infintesmal number

if you want to say wearibg a madk reduces my chance of getting the virus,by 30% then its beholdent on you to know what my chances are with out it. you cant calulate the former unless you kbow the latter

 

[jobo]

So you're okay with hospitalization and long-term cognitive and respiratory effects. Got it.

strawman, the death toll in this coubtry is unaccepable high, but that arises for a lack of planning,, poor impkimentation and out right neglect,

my wearibg ir not wearing mqsk would have no bearing on reducing that,, in fact the bulk of the deaths were in care homes in the first wave, that were just abanded by govenment, at the time we were beibg told not to wear a mask and as i wasnt wandering aimlessly round care homes with ir with iyt a mask,, non of those are down to me .

what they were doibg was readmitting residents from hospital, with out any tests or protection and thus killing people by the 10s, of thousands

 

[dvcochran]

You're still parroting the claims that there's widespread malfeasance by the medical industry. Prove it. Not an anecdote here and there, but the systemic malfeasance you're claiming. You won't be able to.

You seem to assume I'm getting my information from sources like nightly news. I don't ever see the nightly news. I get my news from multiple sources and multiple countries. If there's a conspiracy in the American medical system, it seems other countries are in on it. Which is just ridiculous.

Fair enough. But we are on a MA forum; pretty much everything said could be claimed as anecdotal is you wish.
Do you not agree that hospitals/doctors are getting incentives for Covid cases? Here is just one of countless sources: Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patientsFact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients
So yea, 'proving it' is not rocket science. People seeing it for what it is just takes good old common sense.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? Certainly not me since it appears they are playing within the rules that have been afforded them by our government. Pretty easy dots to connect there as well if you are willing to look for And see them.

But simple old fashioned capitalism at all cost? Yes, most definitely.

 

[Steve]

If you honestly think there aren't a LOT of people in the hospital right now with this, you need to talk to someone who works at one. In many areas of the US, ICU's are full. Like beyond 85%, which is the danger level for the ICU system at any hospital. That's not normal, and this is the second time some areas are at that level this year. That's way beyond the level you're suggesting, and takes very little effort to confirm. You're looking for what you want to see, to convince you this isn't an issue. You're flat ignoring evidence.

Simple truth is if someone is determined to be ignorant and selfish, you aren't going to convince them to do it on their own. They will say some of the most outlandish things to rationalize their selfish and self-destructive behavior. And these folks, like toddlers, simply need to be told what to do. Like toddlers, they are too selfish to understand that you are keeping them from their own self-destructive behavior. And like most children, they will rant and rave and throw temper tantrums, because they are too immature to see or care about things that don't directly affect them.

 

[jobo]

Simple truth is if someone is determined to be ignorant and selfish, you aren't going to convince them to do it on their own. They will say some of the most outlandish things to rationalize their selfish and self-destructive behavior. And these folks, like toddlers, simply need to be told what to do. Like toddlers, they are too selfish to understand that you are keeping them from their own self-destructive behavior. And like most children, they will rant and rave and throw temper tantrums, because they are too immature to see or care about things that don't directly affect them.

it seems to be the mask people that are acting irationaly with out evidence of risk

ive been through the uk figures, and nothing in that sugrsts to me either im at elivated risk or i am seriously elivating the risk to society as a whole.

just throwing blanket insults at peopke who have considered the available data, and have a different perspective, doesnt mean your correct, just rude

 

[Steve]

I'm pretty sure it's a misused statistic. I think he's probably using the rate for the general population, which doesn't really apply at an individual level, because that's not how statistics work.

You can't argue with the tangible outcomes. There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths. So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others. As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.

To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle. With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID. Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease. Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country. So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate. While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.

Also of interest, when talking about mitigation strategies such as wearing a mask, social distancing, etc, over 70% of the members of Congress who have tested positive for COVID are GOP, which is also statistically predictable based on their behaviors.

As I said before, we know what's causing the spread, and we know how to prevent it. It's just a matter of dealing with the toddler's who are selfish, ignorant, and unreasonable.

Edit: Just to be clear, everything we're seeing with those who have become infected is in line with what we're seeing on a larger scale among everyone who is infected. What is controllable is how many folks are becoming infected. So, within the microcosm of the Trump inner circle, those who are infected range from about 90% with mild or minimal symptoms, 10% or so with more severe symptoms, including a need for hospitalization, and 2% who actually died.

What is controllable is how many are infected, and we can see that a much higher percentage of republicans are testing positive because of their behaviors, which means more will be hospitalized and more will die needlessly.

 

[dvcochran]

You can't argue with the tangible outcomes. There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths. So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others. As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.

To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle. With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID. Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease. Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country. So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate. While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.

Also of interest, when talking about mitigation strategies such as wearing a mask, social distancing, etc, over 70% of the members of Congress who have tested positive for COVID are GOP, which is also statistically predictable based on their behaviors.

As I said before, we know what's causing the spread, and we know how to prevent it. It's just a matter of dealing with the toddler's who are selfish, ignorant, and unreasonable.

Edit: Just to be clear, everything we're seeing with those who have become infected is in line with what we're seeing on a larger scale among everyone who is infected. What is controllable is how many folks are becoming infected. So, within the microcosm of the Trump inner circle, those who are infected range from about 90% with mild or minimal symptoms, 10% or so with more severe symptoms, including a need for hospitalization, and 2% who actually died.

What is controllable is how many are infected, and we can see that a much higher percentage of republicans are testing positive because of their behaviors, which means more will be hospitalized and more will die needlessly.

This is an incredibly crass, selfish, and arrogant post. But like I have said before, you are consistent.
And yes, I realize you have me on ignore and do not see this post; but everyone else does.
And you missed a decimal on the stats. But I am certain you already know this.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Fair enough. But we are on a MA forum; pretty much everything said could be claimed as anecdotal is you wish.
Do you not agree that hospitals/doctors are getting incentives for Covid cases? Here is just one of countless sources: Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patientsFact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients
So yea, 'proving it' is not rocket science. People seeing it for what it is just takes good old common sense.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? Certainly not me since it appears they are playing within the rules that have been afforded them by our government. Pretty easy dots to connect there as well if you are willing to look for And see them.

But simple old fashioned capitalism at all cost? Yes, most definitely.

Here's something from that link you posted? The claim came from a meme. No one actually looked at the numbers? Then they post this "Because if it's a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they're Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000." You can't compare a Pneumonia diagnosis with a Covid-19 diagnosis. The tests aren't the same, the care isn't the same, and risk to the care takers and the other patients in the hospital aren't the same." Pneumonia is not the same as Covid-19 They are two different things. So why would it be $5000 for Covid-19? It wouldn't. One would be more than the other because one requires more resources than the other to treat and diagnose.

 

[Steve]

You can't argue with the tangible outcomes. There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths. So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others. As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.

To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle. With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID. Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease. Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country. So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate. While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.

Also of interest, when talking about mitigation strategies such as wearing a mask, social distancing, etc, over 70% of the members of Congress who have tested positive for COVID are GOP, which is also statistically predictable based on their behaviors.

As I said before, we know what's causing the spread, and we know how to prevent it. It's just a matter of dealing with the toddler's who are selfish, ignorant, and unreasonable.

Edit: Just to be clear, everything we're seeing with those who have become infected is in line with what we're seeing on a larger scale among everyone who is infected. What is controllable is how many folks are becoming infected. So, within the microcosm of the Trump inner circle, those who are infected range from about 90% with mild or minimal symptoms, 10% or so with more severe symptoms, including a need for hospitalization, and 2% who actually died.

What is controllable is how many are infected, and we can see that a much higher percentage of republicans are testing positive because of their behaviors, which means more will be hospitalized and more will die needlessly.

Too late to edit this one, but just adding some additional information:

More Than 50 People In Trump’s Orbit Have Contracted Covid-19

To reiterate the point, the infection rates are certainly higher than necessary, and a lot of those folks didn't need to get sick at all. In particular, the ones who are at higher risk of complications, like the president, Giuliani, Christi, Hermann Cain, and any others who have been hospitalized. Mr. Cain's untimely death, out of 50 people, represents a 2% death rate, which is on the high end of what we're seeing across the nation.

Here's some CDC information regarding hospitalization rates, and I recommend you also dig around to find their regional baseline percentages to compare what a "normal" flu season looks like: COVIDView, Key Updates for Week 48

It's not quite apples to apples, because the hospitalization rates seem to be based on total population per 100,000, and not based on percentage of positive cases. I'd be interested in seeing that (i.e., percentage of positive tests requiring hospitalization), if anyone has a link. We know for sure that four members of the white house's inner circle have been hospitalized, which is about 8% of the known cases.

And what really bothers me about this is that they have been spreading their germs all over the place without regard for those who may end up getting sick, in particular those who will undoubtedly end up needing medical intervention, and the 1 to 2% of them who will die. It's just totally unnecessary. And like children, it's not important to them unless it directly affects them. Very frustrating.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Simple truth is if someone is determined to be ignorant and selfish, you aren't going to convince them to do it on their own. They will say some of the most outlandish things to rationalize their selfish and self-destructive behavior. And these folks, like toddlers, simply need to be told what to do. Like toddlers, they are too selfish to understand that you are keeping them from their own self-destructive behavior. And like most children, they will rant and rave and throw temper tantrums, because they are too immature to see or care about things that don't directly affect them.

Giuliani has Covid now. I guess we'll find out how bad it is in the upcoming week.

 

[Steve]

And in related news, here in Washington State, 7 elderly men have died from COVID after some staff there attended a wedding and contracted the virus. Moses Lake is in Grant County, which is in Eastern Washington, a much more conservative area of the State than on this side of the Cascade Mountains.

Coronavirus: 7 Washington nursing home residents die of COVID-19 after staffers attend wedding

 

[Steve]

Giuliani has Covid now. I guess we'll find out how bad it is in the upcoming week.

Well, he's in the hospital. He's not in great health and he's in his 70s, so he's definitely at high risk for complications. That said, he has access to top tier health care, so he's got every chance of recovering. Fingers crossed for a full recovery.

 

[jobo]

You can't argue with the tangible outcomes. There is a lot of statistical data showing us a predictable cause and effect between certain behaviors and the ebb and flow of infection rates and deaths. So, the rate may be accurate, but you're right in that it's higher in some demographics and lower in others. As you narrow the focus onto subsets of the overall set, the rates will change based on unique characteristics of the subset.

To put things into perspective, we're seeing things play out as expected among the current administration's inner circle. With Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization, we've seen over 50 (53, according to Forbe's) members of the Trump inner circle who tested positive for COVID. Of those, we know that several, including the President, were hospitalized, and that at least one died from the disease. Statistically, this is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country. So, we have about 10% hospitalization, and 2% death rate. While members of the administration seemed little bothered by the untimely death of Herman Cain, I think his death was predictable, was the result of carelessness, and was entirely avoidable.

Also of interest, when talking about mitigation strategies such as wearing a mask, social distancing, etc, over 70% of the members of Congress who have tested positive for COVID are GOP, which is also statistically predictable based on their behaviors.

As I said before, we know what's causing the spread, and we know how to prevent it. It's just a matter of dealing with the toddler's who are selfish, ignorant, and unreasonable.

Edit: Just to be clear, everything we're seeing with those who have become infected is in line with what we're seeing on a larger scale among everyone who is infected. What is controllable is how many folks are becoming infected. So, within the microcosm of the Trump inner circle, those who are infected range from about 90% with mild or minimal symptoms, 10% or so with more severe symptoms, including a need for hospitalization, and 2% who actually died.

What is controllable is how many are infected, and we can see that a much higher percentage of republicans are testing positive because of their behaviors, which means more will be hospitalized and more will die needlessly.

the trump adminstration are not representative of the population, so no not a microcosm, and far to small a sample size to say anything about the wider population