covid-19

[ryoder 1,381]

44 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Epoch Times. You have to wonder, given that it's a ridiculable, far right, publication that is sure to be hammered here why offer them as a source?

Maybe it was the only source he could find?

"You go to post with the source you have, not the source you might want or wish to have at a later time." -- some defense secretary in the past.

[kallend 1,621]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

They're just following CNN's lead.

And I suppose Mazars USA is biased too?

[Phil1111 908]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

And I suppose Mazars USA is biased too?

Whores to the likes of GAAP, FASB, IFRS.  Not at all flexible like the GOP.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi folks,

The latest from Washington state:  Washington state to lift indoor mask mandate March 21 - oregonlive.com

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I expect Oregon to be right behind them.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

The latest from Washington state:  Washington state to lift indoor mask mandate March 21 - oregonlive.com

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I expect Oregon to be right behind them.

They are just following the polls…uh..er.. I mean the science.

[nwt 131]

On 2/16/2022 at 4:52 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi nwt,

I have to agree with Ken; at least here in Oregon, the need is going down.  We simply have less people in our ICU's.  

 

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on. (1) We are over the peak nationally so deaths on average are going down everywhere and (2) I'm not going to dispute what you say is happening in your local area, I just don't understand the significance you're placing on it. Some places are going to be hit worse than average and some are going to have it better. Those that have it better for one peak may have it worse for another. It doesn't necessarily mean anything. The national death numbers are what they are, unless you mean to implicitly dispute them in which case I'd ask you to use your words.

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

9 minutes ago, nwt said:

I just don't understand the significance you're placing on it.

That's because I don't have an agenda. I'm just commenting on what is going on and the arc it seems to be following.

[billeisele 122]

On 2/17/2022 at 7:54 AM, lippy said:

I've clicked enough links to Epoch Times articles to know that no good lies there.  

As far as The Great Barrington Declaration, I've seen this held up a few times before and I don't understand how anybody can consider it relevant today.  This was basically a bunch of doctors - back in October 2020, before vaccines were available - saying that they wanted everything to go back to normal.  A quote from 'The Declaration':

Again, this was from October 2020.  No vaccines, but far enough into COVID to know that asymptomatic transmission was a major deal.  So:

A - Nobody's advocating for widespread lockdowns today, which seems to me to make 'The Great Barrington Declaration' not applicable to the current COVID mitigation measures.

B - The fact that these guys were saying 'stay home if you're sick and drop all other restrictions' back in Oct. 2020 shows that they were being selfish and ignorant to how COVID spreads.  The fact that many of them have an 'MD' in their title doesn't change that.

Thanks for the background, I've not heard this before. The article is dated Feb 2022, thought it was new news.

The article discusses how the pandemic preparedness plan, that was previously prepared, wasn't followed. The plan stated that for the overall good of public health it was unnecessary and potentially harmful to close schools and small businesses, to impose masking and quarantine healthy people. These recommendations were based on public health science. The subsequent COVID actions were supposedly based on science, and they weren't. They were contrary to science.

In your reply you indicated that the MDs, "wanted everything to go back to normal." But the recommendations say something different. They suggest to protect the most vulnerable and allow those with minimal risk of death to live normally. It seems that there's no way to know how that would have turned out.

The article goes on to discuss how public health is wide-ranging and requires a long term view. The actions taken with COVID were short term. The COVID mandates resulted in a rise in suicide rates, increases in drug and alcohol abuse, a rise in domestic violence and a reduction in standard health screenings that detect cancer and other significant diseases.

If I'm reading the article correctly it says that the COVID mandates have a worse impact on overall public health than COVID would have had if the mandates were not imposed. Not sure how one proves that.

i don't know if these people are correct but the actions taken against them are not good. Silencing people with differing opinions is never good.

[billeisele 122]

On 2/17/2022 at 7:54 AM, lippy said:

 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by billeisele
delete the duplicate post

[billeisele 122]

On 2/17/2022 at 7:54 AM, lippy said:

 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by billeisele
delete the duplicate post

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

Thanks for the background, I've not heard this before. The article is dated Feb 2022, thought it was new news...

...If I'm reading the article correctly it says that the COVID mandates have a worse impact on overall public health than COVID would have had if the mandates were not imposed. Not sure how one proves that.

i don't know if these people are correct but the actions taken against them are not good. Silencing people with differing opinions is never good.

One thing the Epoch Times is good at is recycling old news and presenting stuff that was reported (and subsequently discredited) over and over again.

They're also really good at presenting claims that are really false.

One reason the Epoch Times is running that narrative is because they HATE the Chinese government.
And the Chinese are imposing very strict mandates to try to stop Covid. They impose lockdowns on any place that has reported cases. Its one of the reasons the supply chain is so messed up. Chinese factories can't produce cheap stuff for Walmart when their workers are quarantined.

The idea that the mitigation efforts (lockdowns, mask mandates, vax mandates) is worse than just 'letting the disease run its course' are a popular one. 
But it's not true.

Look at Italy early on.
They had a huge outbreak.
Hospitals were so overloaded they were turning away people. Just sending them home to die.
There was a time when Italy was seeing death rates approaching 10% of cases.
That's why they imposed a strict quarantine. 

I won't disagree that lockdowns and quarantines have bad effects.

I will state that overloading the hospitals is far worse than any of those effects.

[lippy 765]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

In your reply you indicated that the MDs, "wanted everything to go back to normal." But the recommendations say something different. They suggest to protect the most vulnerable and allow those with minimal risk of death to live normally. It seems that there's no way to know how that would have turned out.

Sorry, from the link they said that "those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal"...They wanted everything to go back to normal for themselves.

How would it have been possible to 'protect the most vulnerable'?  Lock them in a bubble?  No contact with the outside world?  Again, one of the major issues of this whole deal is the asymptomatic transmission.  The fact that the person who's supposed to be able to safely take care of Grandma could very well be infected and contagious but feeling fine....all the more likely if everybody outside of Grandma's house was gathering in groups maskless.  Remember, this was being proposed back in Oct 2020 before rapid testing or vaccines could be acquired at the Walgreens down the street.  

Aside from the impracticality of locking up the vulnerable, all of this business about only needing to shield the vulnerable ignores the fact that thousands of otherwise healthy people have died or are living with long-term affects from COVID.

2 years into this, the people who are still suggesting that the only required mitigation measures are 'stay home if you're sick' or 'stay home if you're vulnerable' are just being ignorant to how this thing spreads.  IMO opinion, 95% of it is being too damn selfish to put a mask on and bringing a "fuck you, you can't tell me what to do" attitude to the whole thing.  

Quote

If I'm reading the article correctly it says that the COVID mandates have a worse impact on overall public health than COVID would have had if the mandates were not imposed. Not sure how one proves that.

Don't think there's a way to prove that counterfactual, but why not look at the comparison between US and countries that have had stricter COVID restrictions.  The infection/death rate per capita in Canada is insanely low compared to US (less insanely low once Omicron came along).  You could argue that the Canadian restrictions weren't worth it (I think I heard something about some truckers doing that right now), but the relatively low infection and death rates seem to show that mask mandates, enforcing vaccines to be able to eat in restaurants, widely available rapid testing and the like were doing the trick.  

 

[wmw999 2,116]

Great Britain, Sweden, and Brazil all went into COVID with a “live life” attitude. Great Britain stopped after about two weeks because of the overrunning of hospital services. Sweden also didn’t impose lockdowns (lots of constitutional barriers to that), and while their death rate was not elevated, their hospitals were, in fact, more seriously affected than many other European countries at a similar development level.

Brazil is a whole mother story; a COVID denier president who dissed the vaccines, and the death rate has been high in the areas where they doubled down.

One problem with all this is the confounding data of population density — that seriously exacerbated the impact of COVID.

Wendy P. 

[billeisele 122]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

One thing the Epoch Times is good at is recycling old news and presenting stuff that was reported (and subsequently discredited) over and over again.

They're also really good at presenting claims that are really false.

One reason the Epoch Times is running that narrative is because they HATE the Chinese government.
And the Chinese are imposing very strict mandates to try to stop Covid. They impose lockdowns on any place that has reported cases. Its one of the reasons the supply chain is so messed up. Chinese factories can't produce cheap stuff for Walmart when their workers are quarantined.

The idea that the mitigation efforts (lockdowns, mask mandates, vax mandates) is worse than just 'letting the disease run its course' are a popular one. 
But it's not true.

Look at Italy early on.
They had a huge outbreak.
Hospitals were so overloaded they were turning away people. Just sending them home to die.
There was a time when Italy was seeing death rates approaching 10% of cases.
That's why they imposed a strict quarantine. 

I won't disagree that lockdowns and quarantines have bad effects.

I will state that overloading the hospitals is far worse than any of those effects.

thanks for background info

[billeisele 122]

3 hours ago, lippy said:

Sorry, from the link they said that "those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal"...They wanted everything to go back to normal for themselves.

How would it have been possible to 'protect the most vulnerable'?  Lock them in a bubble?  No contact with the outside world?  Again, one of the major issues of this whole deal is the asymptomatic transmission.  The fact that the person who's supposed to be able to safely take care of Grandma could very well be infected and contagious but feeling fine....all the more likely if everybody outside of Grandma's house was gathering in groups maskless.  Remember, this was being proposed back in Oct 2020 before rapid testing or vaccines could be acquired at the Walgreens down the street.  

Aside from the impracticality of locking up the vulnerable, all of this business about only needing to shield the vulnerable ignores the fact that thousands of otherwise healthy people have died or are living with long-term affects from COVID.

2 years into this, the people who are still suggesting that the only required mitigation measures are 'stay home if you're sick' or 'stay home if you're vulnerable' are just being ignorant to how this thing spreads.  IMO opinion, 95% of it is being too damn selfish to put a mask on and bringing a "fuck you, you can't tell me what to do" attitude to the whole thing.  

Don't think there's a way to prove that counterfactual, but why not look at the comparison between US and countries that have had stricter COVID restrictions.  The infection/death rate per capita in Canada is insanely low compared to US (less insanely low once Omicron came along).  You could argue that the Canadian restrictions weren't worth it (I think I heard something about some truckers doing that right now), but the relatively low infection and death rates seem to show that mask mandates, enforcing vaccines to be able to eat in restaurants, widely available rapid testing and the like were doing the trick.  

 

Yes, agree. As said before, it's complicated. It's interesting to try and compare states to states, and countries to countries. Comparisons do have value the challenge is determining how much.

One comparison is reviewing the case counts in strict CA and loose FL. The CDC normalized data showed high infection rates in CA, and FL had the lowest in the country in much of 2021. Then along came Omicron, the holidays when family gatherings occurred, the snowbirds arrived and tourism increased. I'm assuming that tourism increased because that always occurs in December, and FL had super low case counts lowering the perceived risk for travelers. No surprise, the FL case count went thru the roof to one of the highest in the country. CA and many other states experienced the same rapid increase. 

An interesting note is that the NE cold climate states starting climbing a couple weeks earlier than the rest of the country, presumably from more indoor contact. But then there is Maine. They stayed fairly steady until 3 weeks ago when their case counts soared while most other states are in a step decline. Interesting.

Hopefully the severity of the disease continues to decline. One concern I have is that the risk of death "appears" to decline, mainly because the most vulnerable have died. We'll keep learning.

Thanks for the good conversation.

[billeisele 122]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Great Britain, Sweden, and Brazil all went into COVID with a “live life” attitude. Great Britain stopped after about two weeks because of the overrunning of hospital services. Sweden also didn’t impose lockdowns (lots of constitutional barriers to that), and while their death rate was not elevated, their hospitals were, in fact, more seriously affected than many other European countries at a similar development level.

Brazil is a whole mother story; a COVID denier president who dissed the vaccines, and the death rate has been high in the areas where they doubled down.

One problem with all this is the confounding data of population density — that seriously exacerbated the impact of COVID.

Wendy P. 

Agree. I wonder if those countries have the same number, or more or less, per capita of hospital beds as the US?

One would think that population density and poverty rates would have a big impact. Variables like that make the value of comparisons difficult.

 

 

[kallend 1,621]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

A and loose FL. The CDC normalized data showed high infection rates in CA, and FL had the lowest in the country in much of 2021.

Dying is worse than having a case of the sniffles.

As of 2/14/22, death rates from COVID per 100,000 population:

Florida: 315

California: 209

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

 

For pretty much all of 2021 FL and TX led the way in deaths and hospitalizations.  During the delta wave just FL + TX alone had more deaths than all of western Europe.

[kallend 1,621]

Apparently there's a really good correlation between death rate per cap. by county according to whether the county has more Whole Foods (low rate) or Cracker Barrels (high rates).

Hidden variables, maybe?

[lippy 765]

13 minutes ago, kallend said:

Apparently there's a really good correlation between death rate per cap. by county according to whether the county has more Whole Foods (low rate) or Cracker Barrels (high rates).

Hidden variables, maybe?

How much a case of Whole Foods locating itself in towns full of young hipsters, and Cracker Barrel largely providing its clientele with a chair from which they can await the arrival of The Reaper?

[gowlerk 1,903]

32 minutes ago, kallend said:

Apparently there's a really good correlation between death rate per cap. by county according to whether the county has more Whole Foods (low rate) or Cracker Barrels (high rates).

Hidden variables, maybe?

I've never heard of the Whole Foods to Cracker Barrel ratio before. Is it also a voting pattern indicator?

Edit, Good Grief!!!! I Googled it and ....it is.

https://noah-ford.com/cracker-barrel-whole-foods-presidential-2020

 

I don't really get it though. I like Cracker Barrel but I've never been to Whole Foods and don't even like the concept. Obviously I don't vote in US elections. But I have never voted for a conservative in my life.

Edited February 20, 2022 by gowlerk

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 2/19/2022 at 9:32 PM, billeisele said:

The COVID mandates resulted in a rise in suicide rates,

People keep saying this. But is it true, or is it the truthiness you feel in your belly? 

 

From what I can see suicides in the US were down from 2019 to 2020 by about 3%. Haven't seen suicide numbers for 2021 yet.

[mistercwood 287]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

People keep saying this. But is it true, or is it the truthiness you feel in your belly? 

 

From what I can see suicides in the US were down from 2019 to 2020 by about 3%. Haven't seen suicide numbers for 2021 yet.

It's oft-quoted, but is consistently incorrect - suicide rates went down during lockdowns. Sadly the other points, in particular about DV incidents increasing, are generally accurate.

[ryoder 1,381]

Daily Beast: Billionaire Accused of Anti-Vax Misinfo Now Reportedly Has COVID

Clive Palmer, the 67-year-old Australian mining magnate and political provocateur, is battling both the coronavirus and pneumonia, according to unnamed sources cited by The Australian. The outlet reported that the billionaire “remains very sick.”

I'll notify the Herman Cain Award committee to stand by.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

Daily Beast: Billionaire Accused of Anti-Vax Misinfo Now Reportedly Has COVID

Clive Palmer, the 67-year-old Australian mining magnate and political provocateur, is battling both the coronavirus and pneumonia, according to unnamed sources cited by The Australian. The outlet reported that the billionaire “remains very sick.”

I'll notify the Herman Cain Award committee to stand by.

And triple vaccinated mask wearers are also dying of covid.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

Daily Beast: Billionaire Accused of Anti-Vax Misinfo Now Reportedly Has COVID

Clive Palmer, the 67-year-old Australian mining magnate and political provocateur, is battling both the coronavirus and pneumonia, according to unnamed sources cited by The Australian. The outlet reported that the billionaire “remains very sick.”

I'll notify the Herman Cain Award committee to stand by.

He's been posted on there.

Apparently he's known as "Fatty McFuckface" to his many detractors in Australia.
 

Also, from that part of the world:

There has been an influx of Covid patients in the hospitals in New Zealand. 
From the protests.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/462344/covid-19-protesters-show-up-as-patients-at-hospitals-across-new-zealand