Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 668678 times)

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4350 on: February 10, 2022, 06:48:00 PM »
- Wearing a mask protects others from you
- verses thinking that wearing a mask protects you from others. 

Put another way my concern is for you and or my concern is for myself. I suspect that if the focus is on the latter the anxiety level would be different then if focused on former.

I've seen enough cases of people scrambling to mask up and/or avoid unmasked people in such a way that it seems obvious their primary concern isn't protecting others. Can't read minds, but body language and behavior are usually pretty good indicators of whether something is coming from a place of altruism vs self-preservation.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4351 on: February 10, 2022, 06:51:42 PM »
I was going to make a prediction that we will see less masking and we will see more dying, my prediction being over 3k per day. Then I looked at where we're at now just to see how many more deaths per day we'd have to have to get there and lo and behold, we're already there. Easiest prediction ever since it's already true. The other part of my prediction was going to be that people won't care very much even as the death rate skyrockets and stays high. That's also already true too. Welcome to the new normal. A 9-11 terrorist attack's worth of covid deaths every day and most people don't care at all.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4352 on: February 10, 2022, 06:54:41 PM »
I can mention the several cases I'm aware of involving someone getting covid, and being much more scared that they got it (it finally happened TO ME!!!) than concerned about the severity of their symptoms.

Well...yeah, that has been the most common reaction I've seen with tightly-wound low-risk people "getting it".

"It's probably because they're worried about spreading it to others!". Maybe. Or maybe their lizard brain latched on to the daily death tickers and ignored the data. Letting go is hard when your limbic system has been whipped into a frenzy for a couple of years.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4353 on: February 10, 2022, 06:57:36 PM »
"That's not to say that some people don't have serious symptoms, but when even people with light symptoms are acting as if they got the plague it's really a bad mental health situation."

Sometimes people do worry too much but it's looking more and more like covid isn't one of those times:

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/covid-19-infections-increase-risk-of-heart-conditions-up-to-a-year-later/

"An in-depth analysis of federal health data indicates that people who have had COVID-19 are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular complications within the first month to a year after infection. Such complications include disruptive heart rhythms, inflammation of the heart, blood clots, stroke, coronary artery disease, heart attack, heart failure or even death.

Such problems occur even among previously healthy individuals and those who have had mild COVID-19 infections...

... But most remarkably, people who have never had any heart problems and were considered low risk are also developing heart problems after COVID-19,” he added. “Our data showed an increased risk of heart damage for young people and old people; males and females; Blacks, whites and all races; people with obesity and people without; people with diabetes and those without; people with prior heart disease and no prior heart disease; people with mild COVID infections and those with more severe COVID who needed to be hospitalized for it.”

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4354 on: February 10, 2022, 07:10:29 PM »
"I've seen enough cases of people scrambling to mask up and/or avoid unmasked people in such a way that it seems obvious their primary concern isn't protecting others."

Of course, a better way even than wearing a mask to protect others from you giving them covid is to not get it in the first place and avoiding unmasked people is a good first step toward avoiding getting covid and that's a very important step in avoiding spreading it especially to the people in your trust circle around whom you are unmasked like your spouse and children and maybe parents.

---------------------------------------------

Back to the recovering after mild covid thing...

People think they dodged a bullet with light covid but they don't realize that the bullet is still inside them lodged right in their heart. It's a small bullet though, well actually millions of microscopic bullets they don't know are there until it's too late. Their sighs of relief may be premature.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4355 on: February 10, 2022, 07:21:58 PM »
"I've seen enough cases of people scrambling to mask up and/or avoid unmasked people in such a way that it seems obvious their primary concern isn't protecting others."

Of course, a better way even than wearing a mask to protect others from you giving them covid is to not get it in the first place and avoiding unmasked people is a good first step toward avoiding getting covid

How far and how long do you want to take it? Covid has psychologically broken a lot of people. I hope for your sake that this whole thing hasn't broken you.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4356 on: February 10, 2022, 07:25:04 PM »
Sometimes people do worry too much but it's looking more and more like covid isn't one of those times:

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/covid-19-infections-increase-risk-of-heart-conditions-up-to-a-year-later/

But in a way it doesn't matter. It's not like getting it means you were irresponsible, necessarily. Sure, some people do get it from doing stupid things. But others get it because it was essentially unavoidable and just a numbers game (some % will get it, period end of story). My question is at this point whether the worry (and all the precautions we assume goes along with that) is no longer beneficial. Back when we knew nothing, and when it was harder to catch, and when there was no vaccine, the uncertainty was a killer. And yes, we don't understand its long-term effects that much. But you tell me what's better: worrying all the time and very likely still catch it, versus living a clean mental life and possibly upping your chances somewhat, but being strong in mind and body when you do. Which brings up gym closures...

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4357 on: February 10, 2022, 07:30:00 PM »
People think they dodged a bullet with light covid but they don't realize that the bullet is still inside them lodged right in their heart. It's a small bullet though, well actually millions of microscopic bullets they don't know are there until it's too late.

I know you think you feel fine, that you're recovered. Hell, you may even run a marathon. But heed me FOOL - do you not know that you could die from the Covid Ghost Bullet lodged deep in your heart? Listen to my warning and, well, just listen to it. For death awaits you.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4358 on: February 10, 2022, 07:37:50 PM »
But others get it because it was essentially unavoidable and just a numbers game (some % will get it, period end of story).

Why are you so selfish? Why are you trying to kill my grandmother?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4359 on: February 10, 2022, 07:54:25 PM »
Why are you so selfish? Why are you trying to kill my grandmother?

Just to be clear, I wouldn't go too far in the other direction either. Some people are clearly self-centered to the point where they literally do not care if other people die, so long as they get what's theirs. I sympathize at least in principle with people who get insane about this kind of mentality. I feel that way about a-hole drivers. But the issue is whether a medical scenario has been tuned wholesale into a religious/moral one, casting us/them nets at people who aren't like you in some way. And at this point logic is no longer behind certain types of over-caution. And I'll repeat, I was among the more over-cautious for quite a while. I just don't think it makes sense anymore.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4360 on: February 11, 2022, 08:15:52 AM »
One of my concerns is that now that we've been through covid, when the next novel coronavirus appears, people will unpack their preset covid 19 positions. Desantis isn't going to put mask mandates in place like the first time. His state won't be the only one to blow off covid-24. The zinc peddlers and freedom wagons will be prepped and ready to go. The conspiracies on vaccines, communism, and bogus treatments will be ready to go. The illucid pathways are now baked in to accept a 99% survival rate as perfectly fine, despite the 3 million deaths that could represent in the US alone.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4361 on: February 11, 2022, 09:43:54 AM »
So far haven't run into those that had Corvid with mild symptoms and thought they had the plague - most have been grateful it was mild and that as far as they knew didn't infect others that had worse responses to it

My thinking on Masks is that a persons who wasn't feeling great and couldn't stay home would wear a mask when they go out. 

But I can't disagree.  Masks have become associated with Corvid and the anxiety that comes with that, and that Anxiety is likely a greater health risk of any new variant for the majority. 
For those that end up in a hospital that might not have the staff to deal with whatever they come in with... as long is its not me or someone I care about... no anxiety here


Ignorance is bliss... until it isn't

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4362 on: February 11, 2022, 11:17:28 AM »
People think they dodged a bullet with light covid but they don't realize that the bullet is still inside them lodged right in their heart. It's a small bullet though, well actually millions of microscopic bullets they don't know are there until it's too late.

I know you think you feel fine, that you're recovered. Hell, you may even run a marathon. But heed me FOOL - do you not know that you could die from the Covid Ghost Bullet lodged deep in your heart? Listen to my warning and, well, just listen to it. For death awaits you.

So we SHOULD be concerned about delayed after effects of the vaccine, but we SHOULDN'T be worried about delayed after effects of covid?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4363 on: February 11, 2022, 12:14:11 PM »
You should be worried about both, plus the next variant. Constantly.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2022, 12:17:02 PM by ScottF »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4364 on: February 11, 2022, 12:37:09 PM »
I enjoy living in constant anxiety about everything that is going to get me...

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4365 on: February 11, 2022, 02:03:17 PM »
Maybe some people are worrying too much but there are at least 900,000 Americans who apparently didn't worry enough.

Of course that's along with however many most likely maskless people it was who infected them.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4366 on: February 11, 2022, 04:33:39 PM »
Some of those just had family members who didn't worry enough and came home infectious. Or coworkers. Being actively concerned and taking preventative measures, I'm not sure when that was supposed to turn into fear and cowardice. I also worry about automobile accidents, in the sense that I care about my automobile maintenance, road conditions, and use the safety features. I don't disable the traction control to assert my freedom to do so.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4367 on: February 11, 2022, 08:41:50 PM »
Some of those just had family members who didn't worry enough and came home infectious. Or coworkers. Being actively concerned and taking preventative measures, I'm not sure when that was supposed to turn into fear and cowardice. I also worry about automobile accidents, in the sense that I care about my automobile maintenance, road conditions, and use the safety features. I don't disable the traction control to assert my freedom to do so.

Some of those people also had enough other underlying health conditions, and were of sufficient age, that odds are very good they were going to be dead within a year or two in any case.

While their children/grandchildren/etc might disagree to varying degrees, I think most of the 80+ crowd and even a good sized portion of the 70+ crowd do not want to the global economy crushed in order to let them eek out another 18 months of life. Individually, or collectively. But that goes into wanting data about the data that probably isn't very widely available, and even harder to drill into to parse out.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4368 on: February 11, 2022, 08:58:26 PM »
Easier than I thought.
As of February 9th of 2022.
https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/9bhg-hcku?mobile_redirect=true

Over 668 thousand of the just under 899 thousand Covid19 deaths involved someone over the age of 65.
Taking it to 55 and over brings it up to over 800K dead, with 45 and over comprising nearly 861k of the deceased.   

Age Group          COVID-19 Deaths 
Under 1 year         203
0-17 years            795
1-4 years            93
5-14 years            244
15-24 years         2,347
18-29 years         5,581
25-34 years         9,964
30-39 years         16,343
35-44 years         25,116
40-49 years         39,166
45-54 years         60,577
50-64 years         168,765
55-64 years         132,106
65-74 years         205,457
75-84 years         230,870
85 years and over   231,722


Do be careful with this numbers, they created some "breakout" groupings which cause some numbers to overlap if you're not careful. However, with those breakout numbers, you can make some other inferences. (35-44, 40-49, 45-54, 50-64, 55-64, and 0-17 being the main offenders)
« Last Edit: February 11, 2022, 09:07:26 PM by TheDeamon »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4369 on: February 11, 2022, 09:06:31 PM »
Average years of life lost is 8.8 for men, and 8.7 for women; if you account for health factors (unhealthy people die sooner) 5.5 for both men and women.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301522000110

5.5 year is quite a bit of life lost.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4370 on: February 11, 2022, 09:09:21 PM »
Average years of life lost is 8.8 for men, and 8.7 for women; if you account for health factors (unhealthy people die sooner) 5.5 for both men and women.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301522000110

5.5 year is quite a bit of life lost.

Well, for the ones that simply die, there also is a "quality of life" consideration to make, especially so for the very unhealthy people. It may have shortened their lives by 5+ years, but they were likely looking at essentially spending their last few years of life in effectively hospice care all the same.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4371 on: February 11, 2022, 09:29:54 PM »
Maybe more in the "it's just the flu" department with this placenta eating virus but while we're talking about covid deaths and ages it's also worth considering a group that was left out there which is the under zero crowd.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220211/covid-causes-extensive-damage-to-placenta

"David Schwartz, MD, a pathologist in Atlanta, and the lead author of the study, said COVID appears to be unique in destroying the placenta.

"I don't know of any infection that does that to this degree or with this uniformity," Schwartz says. "The simple message is that this infection is chewing up the placenta and destroying its capability to oxygenate the fetus."

The CDC reported in November that COVID-19 increases the risk of losing a pregnancy. From March 2020 to September 2021, 8,154 stillbirths were reported, affecting 0.65% of births by women without COVID and 1.26% of births by women with COVID-19.

Delta, the variant that dominated in mid-2021, appears to have been particularly harmful. The CDC reported that the relative risk for stillbirth for mothers with COVID-19 during that period increased to 4.04. Many cases in the new analysis coincided with Delta.

Schwartz and his colleagues say vaccines, along with antiviral therapy, might reduce the chance of the virus infecting the placenta. None of the mothers in the analysis was vaccinated, and Schwartz said he is not aware of a single case in a vaccinated woman."


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4372 on: February 14, 2022, 12:06:06 PM »
Average years of life lost is 8.8 for men, and 8.7 for women; if you account for health factors (unhealthy people die sooner) 5.5 for both men and women.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301522000110

5.5 year is quite a bit of life lost.

The argument on its face isn't that the years lost don't matter, but that even those who would lose the years might perhaps see it themselves as illegitimate to screw over young people in order to cash in on those years. I have in fact made this argument myself right at the start of the pandemic (not sure if I made it here), that in enacting any public policy where certain persons are protected at a certain cost, you have to look carefully at what that cost is going to be. In a scenario where the old benefit at the expense of the young I think there is a strong argument to be made that it cannot be justified. Just as an example, the (I suppose) right-wing position has often been that sacrificing the quality of the economy is a terrible idea just to create covid measures that may or may not work. This in and of itself is an iffy objection because the economy could suffer just as much through lack of action as through wrong action. But the moment you consider that harming the economy overwhelmingly injures millenials and the younger generation than it does people who've already had established careers or even retired, you are now faced with a "old people suck the life out of young people" scenario, and that is VERY hard to justify even if the consquences to the old people involve death. Is a lockdown worth it if it saves X 80-year-old lives but sends 100 times more 30-year-old people into a psychological tailspin? The world on the street that I've heard occasionally is "good therapists are hard to find because everyone is depressed." That is a statement so shocking that I take it as seriously as the "800,000 dead" figures people here keep citing. To what extent these things are as severe as they sound, and how they should be weighed relatively speaking is at minimum something that needs to be taken into consideration when making policy. For the last couple of years so far the only position I've consistently seen is "X amount of hospitalizations and deaths" and that is a very incomplete axis of analysis.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4373 on: February 14, 2022, 01:07:50 PM »
The problem is staying fixed on deaths, and not paying attention to hospitalizations. A lot of the younger, healthier people who survive do so with weeks in ICU, dialysis, intubation, bed sores, etc.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4374 on: February 14, 2022, 01:08:39 PM »
Is a lockdown worth it if it saves X 80-year-old lives but sends 100 times more 30-year-old people into a psychological tailspin?
No such equation tradeoffs were ever seriously deliberated, at least not in the mainstream. We had scientists and epidemiological experts recommending what they thought were the best recommendations to meet their single end goal - the lowest viral transmission possible. Good leaders don't just hand the mic and policy to single-dimension experts with something that has global, multi-dimensional ramifications.

We're now in a place where you can have older adults drinking it up at bars and packed arenas without concern, but 5 year old kids need to keep struggling with masks.

Indefensible.   

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4375 on: February 14, 2022, 01:12:53 PM »
The problem is staying fixed on deaths, and not paying attention to hospitalizations. A lot of the younger, healthier people who survive do so with weeks in ICU, dialysis, intubation, bed sores, etc.

Part of my challenge in responding to comments like this is that we clearly have different definitions of words like "younger and healthier", "a lot", and "survive".

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4376 on: February 14, 2022, 02:32:05 PM »
The problem is staying fixed on deaths, and not paying attention to hospitalizations. A lot of the younger, healthier people who survive do so with weeks in ICU, dialysis, intubation, bed sores, etc.

Part of my challenge in responding to comments like this is that we clearly have different definitions of words like "younger and healthier", "a lot", and "survive".

You have a different definition of survive than "not die"? You define younger as different from "not as old as the people dying"?

I'll grant you that characterizing "a lot" is subjective and open to wide interpretation.

hospitalization vs death by age

Cumulative case counts per age group for hospitalization vs death are shown there. You are pointing out that the 75 year olds are over a hundred times more likely to die of covid than a person in their twenties. But hospitalization is only 8x more likely. So your nice sharp divider when going by death isn't so clear when you look at hospitalization.

weekly hospitalization by age

You can see that easily a third of hospitalizations are those under 50. Now, we can't know the severity but we can guess. "A lot" more 80 year olds are likely to need bigger intervention, while the 40 year old might just get bipap and observation for a day or two.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4377 on: February 14, 2022, 03:55:58 PM »

I'll grant you that characterizing "a lot" is subjective and open to wide interpretation.


This is probably it. If we assume that many tens of millions of younger, healthier people have been exposed/positive, and a tiny percentage of them have had bad outcomes then saying "a lot of healthier people who survive" is highly subjective vs relative/objective.

Maybe my reflex is to push back too frequently on these things, but I've been hyper-sensitive to misrepresentation of data since a highly respected heart surgeon I knew told me to my face that "most of the people" in real trouble in the ERs in New York back in the early days of the pandemic were healthy young teenagers and adults. At the time I didn't know better (he certainly didn't either) and believed him.

I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4378 on: February 14, 2022, 08:40:15 PM »

weekly hospitalization by age

You can see that easily a third of hospitalizations are those under 50. Now, we can't know the severity but we can guess. "A lot" more 80 year olds are likely to need bigger intervention, while the 40 year old might just get bipap and observation for a day or two.

"Now, we can't know the severity..." - that's quite the understatement.

Do you know how the CDC actually tallies covid associated hospitalization data? I do. This is why when something like omicron is ripping through an entire population, its super informative to realize that a huge % of ALL hospitalizations (kids, teens, everyone) are now suddenly covid "associated".

jc44

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4379 on: February 15, 2022, 07:37:10 AM »
I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.
Can you find stats to back that up? My brief research suggests that in the last stats year flu caused 199 pediatric deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2020-2021/pediatric-flu-deaths-reach-new-high.htm) and covid ~470 (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 table is over 2 years so /2) so whilst I can't account for all factors covid certainly doesn't seem to be less deadly than flu.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4380 on: February 15, 2022, 10:47:53 AM »
I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.
Can you find stats to back that up? My brief research suggests that in the last stats year flu caused 199 pediatric deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2020-2021/pediatric-flu-deaths-reach-new-high.htm) and covid ~470 (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 table is over 2 years so /2) so whilst I can't account for all factors covid certainly doesn't seem to be less deadly than flu.

Don't have time to go data-hunting right now but I don't think it's that much of a mystery. This article was pre-omicron, which clearly is much milder.

About 3x as many children die from drowning than covid - maybe they're all just wearing the wrong kind of mask.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn

https://www.vox.com/22699019/covid-19-children-kids-risk-hospitalization-death

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4381 on: February 15, 2022, 11:35:13 AM »
I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.
Can you find stats to back that up? My brief research suggests that in the last stats year flu caused 199 pediatric deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2020-2021/pediatric-flu-deaths-reach-new-high.htm) and covid ~470 (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 table is over 2 years so /2) so whilst I can't account for all factors covid certainly doesn't seem to be less deadly than flu.

Don't have time to go data-hunting right now but I don't think it's that much of a mystery. This article was pre-omicron, which clearly is much milder.

About 3x as many children die from drowning than covid - maybe they're all just wearing the wrong kind of mask.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn

https://www.vox.com/22699019/covid-19-children-kids-risk-hospitalization-death

I am Scott. If you don't like my flu comparison, how about a comparison to drowning? If you bring me data, I'll just wave it away with an assumption that it must be wrong. Is there any way to have a discussion with me in good faith? Try it and find out.

jc44

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4382 on: February 15, 2022, 11:47:39 AM »
I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.
Can you find stats to back that up? My brief research suggests that in the last stats year flu caused 199 pediatric deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2020-2021/pediatric-flu-deaths-reach-new-high.htm) and covid ~470 (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 table is over 2 years so /2) so whilst I can't account for all factors covid certainly doesn't seem to be less deadly than flu.

Don't have time to go data-hunting right now but I don't think it's that much of a mystery. This article was pre-omicron, which clearly is much milder.

About 3x as many children die from drowning than covid - maybe they're all just wearing the wrong kind of mask.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn

https://www.vox.com/22699019/covid-19-children-kids-risk-hospitalization-death
And I would wager that many many more die in car related accidents than either but that's not really the point.  My covid stats cover the omicron period (which turned out to be better at infecting kids than earlier variants even if generally milder).  If you had said that the chances of a child dying of covid are really very small and people are really bad at assessing risk then I would have been forced to agree with you but you compared it to flu where, at best, your statement is debateable.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4383 on: February 15, 2022, 12:39:01 PM »
https://www.worldtribune.com/reports-ceo-of-moderna-nuked-twitter-account-has-sold-off-millions-in-stock/

Quote
The CEO of Moderna has deleted his Twitter account and is selling off millions of dollars in stock amid accusations of fraud in Moderna’s Covid vaccine trials, reports say.

In an interview with Steve Bannon’s War Room last month, Dowd said:

“I also have a thesis as to what is going on at Pfizer and Moderna, and how those companies are probably fraudulent. These vaccines were pushed through and I think the clinical trial data is fraud. I believe that due to the institutional imperative that was in place at the time, and the speed with which they tried to approve these products with this unproven technology, fraud did occur.”

The Covid World noted that, if Dowd’s accusations were proven true, “it would mean that both Pfizer and Moderna become liable for all injuries and deaths caused by their vaccines.”

Big Pharma is supposed to be one of the most regulated industries in the country, especially with the FDA. However, the blanket declaration that Covid jabs are ‘safe and effective’ combined with the full immunity that was granted to drug companies involved in the pandemic suggests that this ‘gold standard’ is no longer trustworthy,”” The Covid World’s Ethan Huff noted earlier this month.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4384 on: February 15, 2022, 01:10:23 PM »
Impressive stuff from "Covid World" a renowned publication that can't possibly have any bias on the line.

Let's address the meat of this fiasco article and wild man Steve Bannon (under indictment) and his guest Dowd (who?).

The CEO is selling of millions in stock! Sounds like something nefarious. He knows he's about to be sued ooga booga!

He's sold exactly 19,000 shares on a weekly basis going back to late 2019 before covid even existed. Knuckleheads. Everybody ought to know that CEOs as insiders can't just decide to sell some stock. It is all preplanned. When they want to cheat on insider trading, they will enlist other people to buy or sell for them.

What about the mysterious deletion of the twitter account that his lawyers must have advised because of covid?

Quote
The account featured a profile picture of Bancel and the bio read “Moderna CEO. Likes & RTs are not endorsements.” He had 4,377 tweets, 6,396 followers, and was following 16 people at the time. A tweet from Moderna was pinned at the top.

However, it appears that he may not have used Twitter much since April 2019, according to the November archive, which shows his most recent retweets being April 2019 articles and tweets.

article

So he never used it since long before covid. Such an easy thing to research that neither the stock sales nor the twitter account could possibly be linked to anything covid related.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4385 on: February 15, 2022, 01:24:04 PM »
But his Covid?  Lock him up!

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4386 on: February 15, 2022, 02:12:36 PM »
Everybody ought to know that CEOs as insiders can't just decide to sell some stock. It is all preplanned.

Surprisingly that isn't the case.  They can do so, but it risks being accused of insider trading if it wasn't preplanned.  For instance Musk's sell of his stock to cover exercising his stock options probably wasn't prescheduled.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4387 on: February 15, 2022, 02:23:17 PM »
Everybody ought to know that CEOs as insiders can't just decide to sell some stock. It is all preplanned.

Surprisingly that isn't the case.  They can do so, but it risks being accused of insider trading if it wasn't preplanned.  For instance Musk's sell of his stock to cover exercising his stock options probably wasn't prescheduled.

Depends on the timing in the financial cycle. There are time periods when executives can't trade if they have insider info. But most of the time they can do what they want. It's much simpler for CEO's to have it on a schedule to avoid those complications and to avoid their moves potentially influencing the stock negatively.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4388 on: February 15, 2022, 03:30:36 PM »
If you had said that the chances of a child dying of covid are really very small and people are really bad at assessing risk then I would have been forced to agree with you but you compared it to flu where, at best, your statement is debateable.

My original comment was

Quote
I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu

If you concede the flu part is debatable, then we're not really disagreeing at all.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4389 on: February 15, 2022, 03:34:35 PM »
Meanwhile, Denmark has created a site addressing covid misinformation for its citizens. It's probably one of the more reasonable and responsible government responses I've seen.

https://en.ssi.dk/covid-19/typical-misinformation-regarding-danish-covid-numbers

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4390 on: February 15, 2022, 04:03:12 PM »
I am Scott. If you don't like my flu comparison, how about a comparison to drowning? If you bring me data, I'll just wave it away with an assumption that it must be wrong. Is there any way to have a discussion with me in good faith? Try it and find out.

Impressive post. Devoid of literally any actual content but somehow still seems to reek of condescension.

I said I didn't have time to pull data, not that it must be wrong. But you knew that. The drowning stat is perfectly in line with my overall opinion on the public's covid risk assessment re: children, but you knew that too. I'm perfectly willing to engage with almost anyone but will likely ignore anything from you going forward unless there's something actually substantive in your posts.

@jc44:

Here's a report showing Leading Causes of Death in Children 5-11 Years of Age, NCHS, 2019 (slide 20). From Oct 2020 to Oct 2021 there had been 66 covid associated deaths for children 5-11 compared to 84 dying of flu in 2019. I realize it's hypocritical for me to lament "from covid" vs "with covid" so the same disclaimers and skepticism should be in place for the flu as well.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-COVID-Jefferson-508.pdf


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4391 on: February 15, 2022, 05:06:19 PM »
I am Scott. If you don't like my flu comparison, how about a comparison to drowning? If you bring me data, I'll just wave it away with an assumption that it must be wrong. Is there any way to have a discussion with me in good faith? Try it and find out.

Impressive post. Devoid of literally any actual content but somehow still seems to reek of condescension.

I said I didn't have time to pull data, not that it must be wrong. But you knew that. The drowning stat is perfectly in line with my overall opinion on the public's covid risk assessment re: children, but you knew that too. I'm perfectly willing to engage with almost anyone but will likely ignore anything from you going forward unless there's something actually substantive in your posts.

@jc44:

Here's a report showing Leading Causes of Death in Children 5-11 Years of Age, NCHS, 2019 (slide 20). From Oct 2020 to Oct 2021 there had been 66 covid associated deaths for children 5-11 compared to 84 dying of flu in 2019. I realize it's hypocritical for me to lament "from covid" vs "with covid" so the same disclaimers and skepticism should be in place for the flu as well.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-COVID-Jefferson-508.pdf

The condescension was intentional and real. You were trying to defend this statement on its own.

Quote
I would wager the majority of the public still probably believes that covid is more deadly for kids than the flu but there's nothing to be done about it, can't unring that bell.

There's no part of that that has to do with the relative magnitude of either with respect to drowning. You challenge evidence and insinuate it is wrong without providing an argument as to why that might be. My argument was that there are more hospitalizations than deaths. This doesn't require any more data mining. Argument that maybe that number is overstated in absolute terms has no bearing on the proportion between deaths and hospitalizations by age, which was the statement that I made.

You seem to just want a widespread holistic argument that covid is just not something worth worrying about and you'll cherry pick, whittle away, ignore and drag in new ideas to try and prop up the sand castle instead of just sticking to the point under consideration.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4392 on: February 15, 2022, 05:09:02 PM »
FYI, Re: drowning.

We have dozens of laws in place to keep kids from drowning, including having lifeguards on duty, lifesaving equipment available, requirements to wear life vests when doing boating activities, requiring fences around in ground pools.

Oh NO! The government is infringing on our FREEEEEDOOM!

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4393 on: February 15, 2022, 07:04:29 PM »
ScottF,

Quote
Specifically, during the delta wave, about 88 percent of children entering the hospital had COVID-19-related symptoms, compared with 87 percent during the omicron wave. And about 81 percent of hospitalized children were admitted primarily for COVID-19, compared with about 82 percent during the omicron wave.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/omicron-wave-was-brutal-on-kids-hospitalization-rates-4x-higher-than-deltas/

So 4/5ths of children admitted were FOR COVID not WITH COVID.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4394 on: February 15, 2022, 11:02:42 PM »
The problem is staying fixed on deaths, and not paying attention to hospitalizations. A lot of the younger, healthier people who survive do so with weeks in ICU, dialysis, intubation, bed sores, etc.

Part of my challenge in responding to comments like this is that we clearly have different definitions of words like "younger and healthier", "a lot", and "survive".

There also is the matter of tracking to date making no distinction between "treated at a hospital with covid" and "treated at a hospital for covid"

Joe Twentysomething who breaks an arm while being dumb and getting diagnosed (and released).with Covid during his outpatient visit doesn't help.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4395 on: February 15, 2022, 11:06:08 PM »
Cumulative case counts per age group for hospitalization vs death are shown there. You are pointing out that the 75 year olds are over a hundred times more likely to die of covid than a person in their twenties. But hospitalization is only 8x more likely. So your nice sharp divider when going by death isn't so clear when you look at hospitalization.

weekly hospitalization by age

You can see that easily a third of hospitalizations are those under 50. Now, we can't know the severity but we can guess. "A lot" more 80 year olds are likely to need bigger intervention, while the 40 year old might just get bipap and observation for a day or two.
See my preceding post about a data quality problem there. Cancer patient tests Covid19 positive? They're now Covid patients as per that data. Even though the patient was there for cancer, not covid.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4396 on: February 16, 2022, 06:41:57 AM »
This was an issue related to hospitalizations up to about a month ago when the reporting rules changed to "hospitalized For" from "Hospitalized With" so older statistics need to be looked at carefully. This is however independent of deaths from which have been accurately tracked for the most part despite claims from deniers.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4397 on: February 16, 2022, 10:08:24 AM »
This was an issue related to hospitalizations up to about a month ago when the reporting rules changed to "hospitalized For" from "Hospitalized With" so older statistics need to be looked at carefully. This is however independent of deaths from which have been accurately tracked for the most part despite claims from deniers.

Where are you seeing this new "for vs with" data? Most recent CDC is still showing "Hospital Admissions of Patients with confirmed covid-19...", which simply confirms TheDeamon's point above.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4398 on: February 16, 2022, 12:24:48 PM »
Quote
This was an issue related to hospitalizations up to about a month ago when the reporting rules changed to "hospitalized For" from "Hospitalized With" so older statistics need to be looked at carefully. This is however independent of deaths from which have been accurately tracked for the most part despite claims from deniers.

Where are you seeing this new "for vs with" data? Most recent CDC is still showing "Hospital Admissions of Patients with confirmed covid-19...", which simply confirms TheDeamon's point above.

I try to be as accurate as possible with my data.  I frequently call out individuals I support on using misleading numbers even when I agree with their point.  This is the site I se for most of my data.  There is a section on hospitalizations.

https://ourworldindata.org


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4399 on: February 16, 2022, 01:27:54 PM »
Let's throw you a bone and say that a full 50% of hospitalizations are just accidental covid detections. Does it martially change the argument? If it was only 500 thousand deaths and not 900 thousand, do we change policy over that distinction?