Is the Coronavirus a Joke to some People?

[backsmasher23]

If you want accurate numbers, don't look towards long term care facilities, hospitals, etc, where they are getting government funds for positive cases and deaths.

Look outside the box to somewhere they have nothing to gain from positive cases or deaths.....prisons.

Quick google search reveals:

Arkansas 4665 cases amongst workers and inmates with 34 deaths.... .7% death rate
Michigan 4786 cases and 71 deaths..... 1.4% death rate
Florida 15,066 cases and 70 deaths.... .4% death rate

Now, you could figure out all 50 states and weigh them based on population or not; however you want to do it.....but I would bet good money that the death rate would be around 1%.
I agree that any death is a sad death, no doubt.

However, we have this disease called influenza, true influenza, not the stomach bug......that even with a vaccine, kills 1% of those infected.
AND the kicker is that only 68% of people in the US over the age of 65 ACTUALLY get the flu shot.

Mind blowing!!

Everyone knows of people that lost loved ones, that has deaths attributed to covid when there is no doubt a different cause. An NFL ref pt of mine lost his 95 year old mom and the death certificate says "covid related depression." Another pt., their uncle drowned and they swabbed the body, it was negative and the death certificate said "presumed covid," the family is actually fighting the report on this one...We could actually see covid death numbers go down if people would fight those ridiculous money grab diagnosis's.

 

[LWC55]

and different genetics in Nordic countries. Two years from now after all this is over and we have scientists study the numbers without the rush to get their name in the press, we will discover some amazing things. And hopefully learn from them for the next time.

For sure. Genetics and even race plays a major role. Some groups have much higher risk factors. It would be nice if the reporting of these issues was factual and consistent so folks could make informed risk assessments for themselves and their families. A healthy 25 year old white female has a much different chance of getting seriously ill than a 70 year old minority who has high blood pressure and diabetes. But we don't see a lot of media covid reporting based on race, age, sex, etc....

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

For sure. Genetics and even race plays a major role. Some groups have much higher risk factors. It would be nice if the reporting of these issues was factual and consistent so folks could make informed risk assessments for themselves and their families. A healthy 25 year old white female has a much different chance of getting seriously ill than a 70 year old minority who has high blood pressure and diabetes. But we don't see a lot of media covid reporting based on race, age, sex, etc....

View attachment 150692

Interesting disclosure under the increases: "race and ethnicity are risk markers for other underlying conditions that impact health- including socioeconomic states, access to heath care, and increased exposure to the virus due to occupations (e.g. frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers)".

Not to totally derail your argument, but really they are saying its not your race (genetics) that matters, its the other three: Socioeconomic, heath care, and occupation that increases the risk for different races.

Which that makes sense. For example in Sioux Falls a large outbreak was from the meat plant which was mainly minorities that were getting the virus.



Still an interesting info graphic, thanks for sharing.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I heard this as well from a friend of mine that was considering buying one to ensure he could get into Alaska for his fishing trip this month...

That's pathetic

 

[SAJ-99]

But we don't see a lot of media covid reporting based on race, age, sex, etc....

C'mon, the media reported that early on. That is why when the "reopening" happened it was young people that were out at bars and meeting in large groups, thinking they were less likely to catch it or have extreme negative outcomes. People know the age demographic, which is why the latest increase in cases looks different than the first. The flaw of the media works both ways. It takes a single case and applies a story to it to get readers to click on it. People take that story and apply it the broader population, often twisting it. It's just bad statistics. It happens regardless of the message. See @backsmasher23 post on "don't trust the hospitals". Take one story, maybe true, maybe not, and apply it to the entire population. Certainly ignoring that such cases would be medicare fraud which come with steep penalties if discovered. It doesn't fit the narrative of "inflated" numbers. Most of the studies posted make this mistake too. I just assume it is because the scientist, who are very competitive, want to publish before others. It really makes getting a true picture worse. Any media outlet is going to pick the story they want to cover ignore others. It really doesn't matter, because the algorithms will push the story to the reader's phone that the reader wants to see.

 

[LWC55]

C'mon, the media reported that early on. That is why when the "reopening" happened it was young people that were out at bars and meeting in large groups, thinking they were less likely to catch it or have extreme negative outcomes. People know the age demographic, which is why the latest increase in cases looks different than the first. The flaw of the media works both ways. It takes a single case and applies a story to it to get readers to click on it. People take that story and apply it the broader population, often twisting it. It's just bad statistics. It happens regardless of the message. See @backsmasher23 post on "don't trust the hospitals". Take one story, maybe true, maybe not, and apply it to the entire population. Certainly ignoring that such cases would be medicare fraud which come with steep penalties if discovered. It doesn't fit the narrative of "inflated" numbers. Most of the studies posted make this mistake too. I just assume it is because the scientist, who are very competitive, want to publish before others. It really makes getting a true picture worse. Any media outlet is going to pick the story they want to cover ignore others. It really doesn't matter, because the algorithms will push the story to the reader's phone that the reader wants to see.

Yes, I agree that it has been reported. But like you said it is usually to fit whatever narrative that media outlet is trying to push. I think I also mentioned factual and consistent which most of the media has not been. My point was that it is not super easy to find the particular risks for a certain demographic. You can find it if you dig enough. But most of the media has been about scaring the largest number of their audience because that is what gets the most likes, clicks, $, etc..

 

[406dn]

If you want accurate numbers, don't look towards long term care facilities, hospitals, etc, where they are getting government funds for positive cases and deaths.

Look outside the box to somewhere they have nothing to gain from positive cases or deaths.....prisons.

Quick google search reveals:

Arkansas 4665 cases amongst workers and inmates with 34 deaths.... .7% death rate
Michigan 4786 cases and 71 deaths..... 1.4% death rate
Florida 15,066 cases and 70 deaths.... .4% death rate

Now, you could figure out all 50 states and weigh them based on population or not; however you want to do it.....but I would bet good money that the death rate would be around 1%.
I agree that any death is a sad death, no doubt.

However, we have this disease called influenza, true influenza, not the stomach bug......that even with a vaccine, kills 1% of those infected.
AND the kicker is that only 68% of people in the US over the age of 65 ACTUALLY get the flu shot.

Mind blowing!!

Everyone knows of people that lost loved ones, that has deaths attributed to covid when there is no doubt a different cause. An NFL ref pt of mine lost his 95 year old mom and the death certificate says "covid related depression." Another pt., their uncle drowned and they swabbed the body, it was negative and the death certificate said "presumed covid," the family is actually fighting the report on this one...We could actually see covid death numbers go down if people would fight those ridiculous money grab diagnosis's.

It's not worth going thru all of this. A prison population is HEAVILY skewed towards young men,,,,,,,,,hardly representative of the general population.

You need to double check the fatality rate you posted for the flu. It is no where near 1% of those infected. It is far closer to 0.1%. So you are only off by an order of magnitude.

 

[LWC55]

Interesting disclosure under the increases: "race and ethnicity are risk markers for other underlying conditions that impact health- including socioeconomic states, access to heath care, and increased exposure to the virus due to occupations (e.g. frontline, essential, and critical infrastructure workers)".

Not to totally derail your argument, but really they are saying its not your race (genetics) that matters, its the other three: Socioeconomic, heath care, and occupation that increases the risk for different races.

Which that makes sense. For example in Sioux Falls a large outbreak was from the meat plant which was mainly minorities that were getting the virus.

Still an interesting info graphic, thanks for sharing.

I saw that note from CDC. Asians have the highest median income in the US but still higher cases and hospitalization rates than whites. So that doesn't really fit their socioeconomic narrative. It will be interesting to see all the studies a couple years down the road.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes, I agree that it has been reported. But like you said it is usually to fit whatever narrative that media outlet is trying to push. I think I also mentioned factual and consistent which most of the media has not been. My point was that it is not super easy to find the particular risks for a certain demographic. You can find it if you dig enough. But most of the media has been about scaring the largest number of their audience because that is what gets the most likes, clicks, $, etc..

My point is to stop blaming the media for trying to make a $ and you not wanting to do a little work. You can find that data because you found it, and I suspect it wasn't that hard. The data is published every day, but maybe you have to dig a little. The problem is that if a breakdown of the data was published, people (everyone) would cherry pick data and conclude something incorrect. Some people are so f'ing lazy they don't even need actual data, they just make shit up, like "masks are harmful". The press can't be expected to stop 'stupid'. It would be easy to blame Facebook or whatever, but the blame is how Americans process news. We are soooo lazy.

 

[LWC55]

My point is to stop blaming the media for trying to make a $ and you not wanting to do a little work. You can find that data because you found it, and I suspect it wasn't that hard. The data is published every day, but maybe you have to dig a little. The problem is that if a breakdown of the data was published, people (everyone) would cherry pick data and conclude something incorrect. Some people are so f'ing lazy they don't even need actual data, they just make shit up, like "masks are harmful". The press can't be expected to stop 'stupid'. It would be easy to blame Facebook or whatever, but the blame is how Americans process news. We are soooo lazy.

Fauci did say people walking around America shouldn't wear masks and wearing masks could lead to "unintended consequences". He didn't say harmful but he left it open for interpretation. Amazing what a few months will do.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Fauci did say people walking around America shouldn't wear masks and wearing masks could lead to "unintended consequences". He didn't say harmful but he left it open for interpretation. Amazing what a few months will do.

No; he was clear if you realize his entire context ... and what followed with respect to mask production. His main point was a concern about people on the street wearing masks which could have been made available to medical professionals and care givers who really needed them in MARCH 2020. He was consistent in that even today, Fauci cautions against not wearing the mask properly and against inferior, less effective masks. That was and is an informative interview ... but don't insert your own political anti-mask opinion into interpretation of his meaning.

 

[SAJ-99]

Fauci did say people walking around America shouldn't wear masks and wearing masks could lead to "unintended consequences". He didn't say harmful but he left it open for interpretation. Amazing what a few months will do.

Yeah. Agree. The inconsistency is frustrating, but when new data is presented and the facts change, so should the recommendation. Clinging to a recommendation from March isn’t helpful.i think people just want whatever message allows them not to wear a mask. We all agree they are not exactly comfortable.

 

[LWC55]

No; he was clear if you realize his entire context ... and what followed with respect to mask production. His main point was a concern about people on the street wearing masks which could have been made available to medical professionals and care givers who really needed them in MARCH 2020. He was consistent in that even today, Fauci cautions against not wearing the mask properly and against inferior, less effective masks. That was and is an informative interview ... but don't insert your own political anti-mask opinion into interpretation of his meaning.

Not my opinion.


"There's no reason to be walking around with a mask," infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told 60 Minutes.

While masks may block some droplets, Fauci said, they do not provide the level of protection people think they do. Wearing a mask may also have unintended consequences: People who wear masks tend to touch their face more often to adjust them, which can spread germs from their hands.

 

[noharleyyet]

My point is to stop blaming the media for trying to make a $ and you not wanting to do a little work. You can find that data because you found it, and I suspect it wasn't that hard. The data is published every day, but maybe you have to dig a little. The problem is that if a breakdown of the data was published, people (everyone) would cherry pick data and conclude something incorrect. Some people are so f'ing lazy they don't even need actual data, they just make shit up, like "masks are harmful". The press can't be expected to stop 'stupid'. It would be easy to blame Facebook or whatever, but the blame is how Americans process news. We are soooo lazy.

The 'press' makes no effort to stop 'stupid', especially when it emanates from their ranks and advances their narrative (agenda)...

 

[Irrelevant]

The 'press' makes no effort to stop 'stupid', especially when it emanates from their ranks and advances their narrative (agenda)...

I like to point out good journalism when I see it. I thought this was pretty good. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/9019...-to-make-lying-on-the-platform-more-difficult

Those weren't necessarily easy questions.

 

[longbow51]

I like to point out good journalism when I see it. I thought this was pretty good. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/9019...-to-make-lying-on-the-platform-more-difficult

Those weren't necessarily easy questions.

Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's sponsors.

 

[LWC55]

Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's sponsors.

Very objective journalism

 

[Irrelevant]

Very objective journalism

Did you listen to it? I actually thought considering they are NPR sponsors those were some pretty uncomfortable questions. Want to show me where another media source is asking it's sponsors hard questions?

 

[LWC55]

Did you listen to it? I actually thought considering they are NPR sponsors those were some pretty uncomfortable questions. Want to show me where another media source is asking it's sponsors hard questions?

I read the article you linked to. I guess I missed the hard questions. It went on an on about censoring political opinions of one side but didn't mention doing that for the other side. How do you see it as good journalism and objective?

 

[Irrelevant]

I read the article you linked to. I guess I missed the hard questions. It went on an on about censoring political opinions of one side but didn't mention doing that for the other side. How do you see it as good journalism and objective?

I listened to it, the host not only asked FB hard questions where the answers clearly weren't going to be beneficial to FB, and also pressed on follow ups when the FB rep tried to evade (though I'll add he still didn't answer many of the questions). My definition of objective is when you ask hard questions and press for honestly and not lob sugar-coated softballs at your guest. I find it even better when it is directly against the financial interests of NPR to press FB or to ask questions that make FB look bad. I like when a journalist is out for answers despite when it's not in there best interests. We need more of that across the entire spectrum of the media. That's one of my many complaints about MeatEater having Rob Bishop on the show, they clearly lopped softballs then avoided hard followups. I understand the need to be fair, but you have to try to find the true amongst the political BS.