Coronavirus/NHL Suspension Talk

[KyleJRM]

Absolutely, we know nyc is probably a worst case scenario with the highest death rates. We also have whistleblower doctors amd nurses saying that they completely botched their response with ventilators amd nursing homes in nyc which would boost the death rate. We also know that the cdc has said they want to more aggressively code for covid than other diseases like the flu. We also know we have financially incentivized hospitals to code for covid and vent for those on Medicare AMD Medicaid, which lines up with the drastically higher rates for low income and elderly. It all lines up.

somebody watched Plandemic but not any of the many, many expert debunkings of it.

 

[KyleJRM]

Except that the mortality rate among the REMAINING population could be much lower than 0.2%. Is that not possible? Of course it is!

That’s not what death rate means though. That’s like trying to claim the Ducks win rate is 1.000 percent because that’s what it is when you take out all the losses.

 

[Terry Yake]

I'd say for those under 40 the answer is almost certainly "yes". And for those under 25 even more so.

The point is that as a society we are impacting those least likely to be affected the most. That cannot continue until a cure or vaccine is created. We need to be smarter and learn from the last three months...not continue on as if we haven't learned anything since March. There were some tragic decisions made in NYC and NJ in that earlier time frame that caused the mortality rate to skyrocket among the elderly in those places. Absent those decisions, thousands would still be alive and we'd be looking at this in a more rational way. In the meantime, the younger generations are paying a terrible price.

possibly. but the entire population isn't just people under 40. are we just gonna ignore our elderly because we're that selfish? (for a lot of people, that's been a yes)

everywhere here is open again and our numbers are worse than ever. so all the "reopen" people got their wish. we chose the economy over people's lives and now we're gonna see the consequences. the bars in newport/HB have been packed this weekend and you won't find any masks or social distancing there. and i already heard from a friend that a bar that just reopened recently had to close again because there were a few positive cases. so i guess we're already seeing the consequences

 

[Trojans86]

First, we need to admit that deaths caused by a virus does not equal deaths with a virus. If we cant agree on that and the fact that the cdc changed how they told hospitals to code this than you are just being intellectually dishonest. No I have not watched that doc and I am not affiliated with either party. I was as spooked as anyone but the data just didnt add up to me. The more I would dig the more things just dont make sense and the more the media narratives seem twisted. I now have zero faith in major news outlets after this. I have no idea why journalists dont want to learn both sides of the story and solely push a narrative. It isnt journalism anymore.

 

[KyleJRM]

How did the CDC get to all the other countries and force them to count deaths in a way that also doesn’t reflect a 0.1% death rate?

 

[tomd]

That’s not what death rate means though. That’s like trying to claim the Ducks win rate is 1.000 percent because that’s what it is when you take out all the losses.

If the tragic decisions regarding nursing homes had not been made the death toll would have been significantly lower. That alone invalidates the 0.2% number. We'd probably be looking at 8,000-10,000 deaths which would put the percentage much closer to 0.1%. That is a more realistic number to base future projections and impacts on.

 

[Trojans86]

I also dont understand why we are just dismissing the usc and stanford study. I, as someone that doesnt identify with either political party, find it completely dumbfounding. When the news finds one expert that meets their narrative I tend to not put any weight in that. Especially when we are trying to defend big pharma. I work in big pharma and fully see the corruption but now everyone acts like they have no influence over the media and government. We are talking about big pharma.

 

[Trojans86]

How did the CDC get to all the other countries and force them to count deaths in a way that also doesn’t reflect a 0.1% death rate?

They are counting deaths vs positive tests which does not equal deaths/people that have the virus. Two totally different things. A lot of countries do very little testing.

 

[tomd]

possibly. but the entire population isn't just people under 40. are we just gonna ignore our elderly because we're that selfish? (for a lot of people, that's been a yes)

everywhere here is open again and our numbers are worse than ever. so all the "reopen" people got their wish. we chose the economy over people's lives and now we're gonna see the consequences. the bars in newport/HB have been packed this weekend and you won't find any masks or social distancing there. and i already heard from a friend that a bar that just reopened recently had to close again because there were a few positive cases. so i guess we're already seeing the consequences

Suggest you start following Alex Berenson. In case you don't know, he's an ex-NYT investigative reporter who has been providing some much needed clarity to this subject.

 

[Trojans86]

I'm telling you guys, check out that nurses documentary. It isnt political at all. More just her dumbfounded how they were doing things in queens compared to how they were doing it in florida with excellent results. It is frightening. You can see and hear doctors saying how this doesnt make sense but that is what they were told to do from higher ups. Clear whistleblower situation.

 

[Trojans86]

I've talked to doctors directly who handles patients daily who say the exact same thing. High pressure vents with heavy paralysis leads to 0% recovery rate. We now know that low pressure rebreathers work (sorry but no 40k reimbursement from gov). We know that placing healthy people on heavy paralysis will effectively kill healthy people after a handful of weeks. Its sad

 

[KyleJRM]

If we aren’t reopening the economy now, I’m not sure what we are waiting for.

Hospitals have spare capacity, the PPE situation has improved, medical knowledge had improved, contact tracing is in place. Infection rates weren’t trending downward to point toward eradication.

So if you don’t want to reopen now, what are you waiting for that will happen in two months, four months, six months? The only thing on the horizon that will change anything is a vaccine that may be a year away from being mass delivered. Holding lockdowns for a year isn’t practical and would likely have potentially disastrous consequences that could easily be as bad as the virus itself.

 

[KyleJRM]

If the tragic decisions regarding nursing homes had not been made the death toll would have been significantly lower. That alone invalidates the 0.2% number. We'd probably be looking at 8,000-10,000 deaths which would put the percentage much closer to 0.1%. That is a more realistic number to base future projections and impacts on.

it would only put it at 0.1% if 100% of New York had been infected.

I guess this is my fault for trying to demonstrate crackpottery with simplification.

The expert consensus remains significantly higher than 0.1% based on a wide variety of surveying and data parsing. The evidence that they are wrong has thus far been some vague conspiracy theories and a pair of Stanford studies that were unable to be replicated.

It’s almost certainly lower than early fears like the Imperial College report, and I’ll agree the media has done a poor job of keeping up with that. Right now the expert consensus is that it’s most likely between 0.6% and 1%.

 

[KyleJRM]

I also dont understand why we are just dismissing the usc and stanford study. I, as someone that doesnt identify with either political party, find it completely dumbfounding. When the news finds one expert that meets their narrative I tend to not put any weight in that. Especially when we are trying to defend big pharma. I work in big pharma and fully see the corruption but now everyone acts like they have no influence over the media and government. We are talking about big pharma.

We are dismissing those studies because they had significant methodological problems that caused their results to be unable to be replicated, and thus they got results that were notably different from the many other scientists in the field doing many other similar studies. That’s how science is supposed to work, it’s called peer review.

There were two problems with their methodology that caused them to significantly overestimate the prevalence of covid19 antibodies in the general public. First, they misreported the amount of false positives that would be expected to be caused by the test they were using over the sample size they had. Second, they introduced sampling bias by having people recruit their friends and family to the study rather than using a truly random sampling.

 

[KyleJRM]

If the tragic decisions regarding nursing homes had not been made the death toll would have been significantly lower. That alone invalidates the 0.2% number. We'd probably be looking at 8,000-10,000 deaths which would put the percentage much closer to 0.1%. That is a more realistic number to base future projections and impacts on.

If that were true, we would have seen a 0.1% death rate in all the other hot spots that didn’t make the nursing home mistake. But we did not observe that.

 

[KyleJRM]

They are counting deaths vs positive tests which does not equal deaths/people that have the virus. Two totally different things. A lot of countries do very little testing.

that is factually incorrect. Most countries are using broad surveys to estimate total infection. I’ve seen such studies come out of Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Italy and Germany just off the top of my head. None of them came up with a 0.1% number, and the CDC has no influence with any of them.

 

[Terry Yake]

Suggest you start following Alex Berenson. In case you don't know, he's an ex-NYT investigative reporter who has been providing some much needed clarity to this subject.

i just went on his twitter and....lol

he says there's close to no evidence that ending lockdowns leads to spikes in cases. except, of course, that states which reopened recently are now seeing spikes.

that's all i needed to see

 

[Trojans86]

We are dismissing those studies because they had significant methodological problems that caused their results to be unable to be replicated, and thus they got results that were notably different from the many other scientists in the field doing many other similar studies. That’s how science is supposed to work, it’s called peer review.

There were two problems with their methodology that caused them to significantly overestimate the prevalence of covid19 antibodies in the general public. First, they misreported the amount of false positives that would be expected to be caused by the test they were using over the sample size they had. Second, they introduced sampling bias by having people recruit their friends and family to the study rather than using a truly random sampling.

I 100% agree in the peer review process. Just because someone said their are issues doesnt mean they are right but I am all for a legitimate peer review process. Guess who doesnt use a peer review process. The cdc. If two of the world leading institutions are grossly wrong, show me what the correct numbers should be from a legitimate institution? Dont just say they are wrong and dismiss. This isnt some random person hired by the media, this is usc and stanford that separately corroborated their numbers.

As an example, we know plasma transfusion work amd they are solely based on positive antibody testing, so we know antibody testing actually works but just not to the degree, but we know plasma transfusions work to a very high degree.

 

[KyleJRM]

This is the problem with conspiracy theories in general. They take reasonable criticisms of the status quo and pair them with completely unverified claims. If the official story is shaky, which it often is, then that makes it seem like the alternative explanation must have legs when it is often even shakier.

I have no problem with the following statements

1) The death rate for COVID-19 appears to be lowering, with improved medical treatment being an extremely plausible explanation

2) politicians have frequently misrepresented the state of our knowledge in order to try to influence behavior

3) the crisis has exposed many of the terrible flaws in our news media, who have done an absolutely terrible job as they lurch around trying to find easy narratives and clickbait.

4) the combination of 2 and 3 led to an environment where a lot of bad science was being peddled in order to scare people into action under the justification that worst-case scenarios must be avoided no matter how unlikely

but once we get through those, the claims start to get more and more farfetched and the evidence becomes sketchier and sketchier.

 

[Trojans86]

that is factually incorrect. Most countries are using broad surveys to estimate total infection. I’ve seen such studies come out of Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Italy and Germany just off the top of my head. None of them came up with a 0.1% number, and the CDC has no influence with any of them.

But if we know that a great percentage of the population is asymptomatic, then we know those %s are dramatically overstated. The one thing we know about the coronavirus is that it has a very low risk of anything for the vast majority of population so we would expect the death rates to be particularly high. Male sense? All I am saying is keep an open mind. There is a narrative out there that tries to immediately discredit ANY SCIENCE that disagrees with their narrative. You cant just dismiss those usc and Stanford studies. Juat get off your mainstream media and follow independent experts. Not someone who reports for a media outlet.

 

[KyleJRM]

I 100% agree in the peer review process. Just because someone said their are issues doesnt mean they are right but I am all for a legitimate peer review process. Guess who doesnt use a peer review process. The cdc. If two of the world leading institutions are grossly wrong, show me what the correct numbers should be from a legitimate institution? Dont just say they are wrong and dismiss. This isnt some random person hired by the media, this is usc and stanford that separately corroborated their numbers.

As an example, we know plasma transfusion work amd they are solely based on positive antibody testing, so we know antibody testing actually works but just not to the degree, but we know plasma transfusions work to a very high degree.

antibody testing absolutely works. As I said, many other scientists have used a similar approach to try to project infection rates from antibody testing. None of them have come up with numbers close to that those two studies (from the same group) did.

They aren’t the only ones to try to study the matter that way. They just did a bad job of it and got numbers that are big outliers compared with everyone else who does it, but that outlier is politically convenient for some so they keep getting quoted even as the scientists in the field tear them apart.

 

[tomd]

i just went on his twitter and....lol

he says there's close to no evidence that ending lockdowns leads to spikes in cases. except, of course, that states which reopened recently are now seeing spikes.

that's all i needed to see

As I suspected you are locked into your feelings and emotions with no room for additional evidence that may conflict with your mindset. No need for further discussion.

 

[KyleJRM]

But if we know that a great percentage of the population is asymptomatic, then we know those %s are dramatically overstated. The one thing we know about the coronavirus is that it has a very low risk of anything for the vast majority of population so we would expect the death rates to be particularly high. Male sense? All I am saying is keep an open mind. There is a narrative out there that tries to immediately discredit ANY SCIENCE that disagrees with their narrative. You cant just dismiss those usc and Stanford studies. Juat get off your mainstream media and follow independent experts. Not someone who reports for a media outlet.

you’re not getting it. I’m talking about studies that account for those asymptomatic cases the exact same way the Stanford guys did. Those sorts of studies are being done all over the world now. Nobody’s just using symptomatic, PCR cases anymore.

What you’re describing is something that happened two months ago, but it hasn’t been done that way for awhile now.

the Stanford guys had the right idea. They just did it wrong. The scientists in their field explained that to them and now those scientists are doing it right.

They’re coming up with death rates significantly lower than the 2-5% that was being thrown around in March, wire. But absolutely nobody is coming up with 0.1-0.3 (which isn’t even what the Stanford studies said, it was one of several possible results they posited based on different assumptions.).

 

[Trojans86]

you’re not getting it. I’m talking about studies that account for those asymptomatic cases the exact same way the Stanford guys did. Those sorts of studies are being done all over the world now. Nobody’s just using symptomatic, PCR cases anymore.

What you’re describing is something that happened two months ago, but it hasn’t been done that way for awhile now.

the Stanford guys had the right idea. They just did it wrong. The scientists in their field explained that to them and now those scientists are doing it right.

They’re coming up with death rates significantly lower than the 2-5% that was being thrown around in March, wire. But absolutely nobody is coming up with 0.1-0.3 (which isn’t even what the Stanford studies said, it was one of several possible results they posited based on different assumptions.).

So what are the death rates then? I'm all for new and better information by science that I can trust.

 

[Trojans86]

Just checked Sweden's deaths for the country and with no lockdown they had 4k deaths on a population of 10m which is below 0.05% and they are way way ahead of the curve than us. They wont even hit 0.1% and for a super contagious virus that is supposed to spread to everyone, and which has already flattened, I am not seeing anything anywhere near 1% of deaths.