Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Michael T. Griffith]

At this stage the long term effects are not known about the infection. Comparing it to the flu is simply misinformation.

No, it is not. For ages 0-49, the case death rate is either lower than or the same as that of the flu.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6

Yeah, the Nature journal has been a cheerleader for irrational panic and errant predictions from the get-go.

The number of excess deaths from Covid 19 either directly or indirectly in the USA so far this year is closer to 300,000.

Not according to the CDC or the John Hopkins Medical Center. If anything, there is good evidence that a sizable percentage of COVID-19 deaths were not actually caused by COVID-19 but were labeled as such because the person had COVID-19.

[John Tonkovich]

Democrats are still in full panic mode over COVID-19, for no valid reason. The COVID-19 death rate continues to drop, even though we are seeing a big jump in the number of new cases. New cases are rising because many states have reopened and because we are doing a lot more testing than we were in March, April, and May. As of yesterday afternoon, we've had 8.56 million cases and 224,710 deaths, which equals a death rate of just 2.62%, down from last week's rate of 2.67%. This means that, on average, the survival rate is 97.38%.

Let's look at California's COVID-19 stats from the CA health department's website. CA has a larger population (39.5 million) than that of many nations, including Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Greece. Among other things, we see that for ages 0-49, the death rate is either lower than the flu's death rate or the same.

Statewide Death Rate: 1.95% /// Statewide Survival Rate: 98.05%
(17,311 deaths/892,810 cases)

Ages 0-17
10.6% of the state's cases (94,637)
0.00% of the state's deaths (0)
0.00% death rate

Ages 18-49
59.8% of the state's cases (533,900)
7.1% of the state's deaths (1,229)
0.23% death rate/99.77% survival rate
(A 0.23% death rate is 4.2 times lower than 1%, the same as the flu. The flu's death rate varies between 0.15% and 0.25%, depending on the flu season in question. Five of the last nine flu seasons had a case death rate of between 0.21% and 0.25%.)

Ages 50-64
18.9% of the state's cases (168,741)
19.1% of the state's deaths (3,306)
1.97% death rate/98.03% survival rate

Ages 65-100
10.6% of the state's cases (94,638)
73.8% of the state's deaths (12,775)
13.5% death rate/86.5% survival rate

These statistics are further proof that a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach to COVID-19 is needless overkill. They are also proof that the Democrats' constant emphasis on the number of cases is misleading. For ages 0-49, COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the flu. For ages 50-64, the survival rate is over 98%, hardly Black Plague territory. And even the most at-risk age group, 65+, has a survival rate of over 86%. Clearly, the elderly (along the medically ill) are the ones who should be targeted for preventive measures, not the whole population.

If you want to check these stats, here's the  website:
https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/
(In the Infections By Group section, select Age as the filter.)

You do not mention hospitalization rates, nor the tremendous co$ts therefrom, nor do you mention temporary and permanent damage to survivors.
Meanwhile, Pence's staff - including Marc Short - has tested positive for coronavirus, yet Pence refuses to quarantine for 10? 14 ? days.

[Colin Crow]

No, it is not. For ages 0-49, the case death rate is either lower than or the same as that of the flu.

Yeah, the Nature journal has been a cheerleader for irrational panic and errant predictions from the get-go.

Not according to the CDC or the John Hopkins Medical Center. If anything, there is good evidence that a sizable percentage of COVID-19 deaths were not actually caused by COVID-19 but were labeled as such because the person had COVID-19.

I was not talking about death rate. It is apparent that the long term effects on younger. people are unknown at this point but there is some evidence to suggest it is not as simple as what was originally assumed.

As someone who had my research published in Nature perhaps you could point to some "cheerleading" you have noticed. Some references would be appreciated. You do realise that Nature publishes a range of journals?

Regarding the excess deaths, unless you can point to any other significant health issue that has occurred in 2020 the excess deaths is a valid estimate of the overall impact of covid. Perhaps you missed the phrase directly,or indirectly. It would include those who had had died at home and no cause of death was attributed to the virus.

As for the CDC, unfortunately that entity has been politically contaminated for some time.

But the 300,000 excess death figure since January is from their website.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

[Martin Weidmann]

A last desperate attempt, nice.

FYI, I support neither candidate.

I suggest you check out the yellow pages, look for "anger management".

FYI, I support neither candidate.

Yet, as only a pathetic Trump supporter would do, you go after Biden with childish crap like;

Tried my best to keep up with his rant. Must have been distracted while looking up "deadths" Joe was talking about, all the "deadths". Didn't find "deadths" in any of the dictionaries I tried. You know what it is?

Not what a truly neutral person would do.....

And since I did not see you go after Trump, the conclusion is justified that you support him and just do not want to admit it.

[John Tonkovich]

I was not talking about death rate. It is apparent that the long term effects on younger. people are unknown at this point but there is some evidence to suggest it is not as simple as what was originally assumed.

As someone who had my research published in Nature perhaps you could point to some "cheerleading" you have noticed. Some references would be appreciated. You do realise that Nature publishes a range of journals?

Regarding the excess deaths, unless you can point to any other significant health issue that has occurred in 2020 the excess deaths is a valid estimate of the overall impact of covid. Perhaps you missed the phrase directly,or indirectly. It would include those who had had died at home and no cause of death was attributed to the virus.

As for the CDC, unfortunately that entity has been politically contaminated for some time.

But the 300,000 excess death figure since January is from their website.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

Well, I must choose whether to believe the words of a layman - Mr Griffiths - or those of a scientist. Gee, let me ponder that for a bit.
Ok. I'm done.
I'll go with the scientist.

[Martin Weidmann]

Democrats are still in full panic mode over COVID-19, for no valid reason. The COVID-19 death rate continues to drop, even though we are seeing a big jump in the number of new cases. New cases are rising because many states have reopened and because we are doing a lot more testing than we were in March, April, and May. As of yesterday afternoon, we've had 8.56 million cases and 224,710 deaths, which equals a death rate of just 2.62%, down from last week's rate of 2.67%. This means that, on average, the survival rate is 97.38%.

Let's look at California's COVID-19 stats from the CA health department's website. CA has a larger population (39.5 million) than that of many nations, including Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Greece. Among other things, we see that for ages 0-49, the death rate is either lower than the flu's death rate or the same.

Statewide Death Rate: 1.95% /// Statewide Survival Rate: 98.05%
(17,311 deaths/892,810 cases)

Ages 0-17
10.6% of the state's cases (94,637)
0.00% of the state's deaths (0)
0.00% death rate

Ages 18-49
59.8% of the state's cases (533,900)
7.1% of the state's deaths (1,229)
0.23% death rate/99.77% survival rate
(A 0.23% death rate is 4.2 times lower than 1%, the same as the flu. The flu's death rate varies between 0.15% and 0.25%, depending on the flu season in question. Five of the last nine flu seasons had a case death rate of between 0.21% and 0.25%.)

Ages 50-64
18.9% of the state's cases (168,741)
19.1% of the state's deaths (3,306)
1.97% death rate/98.03% survival rate

Ages 65-100
10.6% of the state's cases (94,638)
73.8% of the state's deaths (12,775)
13.5% death rate/86.5% survival rate

These statistics are further proof that a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach to COVID-19 is needless overkill. They are also proof that the Democrats' constant emphasis on the number of cases is misleading. For ages 0-49, COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the flu. For ages 50-64, the survival rate is over 98%, hardly Black Plague territory. And even the most at-risk age group, 65+, has a survival rate of over 86%. Clearly, the elderly (along the medically ill) are the ones who should be targeted for preventive measures, not the whole population.

If you want to check these stats, here's the  website:
https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/
(In the Infections By Group section, select Age as the filter.)

Democrats are still in full panic mode over COVID-19, for no valid reason. The COVID-19 death rate continues to drop, even though we are seeing a big jump in the number of new cases

Denial and underestimation of the seriousness of covid-19 is one of the main reasons why it is so difficult to get this disease under control. Rather than facing the hard reality of what is going on, you can argue stats until you are blue in the face but it won't solve anything and it most certainly won't make the virus disappear any time soon.

New cases are rising because many states have reopened and because we are doing a lot more testing than we were in March, April, and May.

When you agree that new cases are rising because many states have reopened, why in the world would you advocate more states being reopened. What is it going to take for the right to learn the very simple lesson? Btw the fact that more cases are found due to more testing only proves that the official number of infections is probably a lot lower than the real one.

As of yesterday afternoon, we've had 8.56 million cases and 224,710 deaths, which equals a death rate of just 2.62%, down from last week's rate of 2.67%. This means that, on average, the survival rate is 97.38%.

Your point being?.... Could it be you are advocating that we should simply do nothing and let 2.67% of the population die? Why else would you even bring up these stats?

Btw here's another stat; the USA has 4% of the world's population and 25% of the deaths.

These statistics are further proof that a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach to COVID-19 is needless overkill. They are also proof that the Democrats' constant emphasis on the number of cases is misleading.

Ignorance is bliss....

[Michael T. Griffith]

COVID-19 panic peddlers are simply ignoring the cold, hard statistical data. In the last four months, the case death rate has dropped from 5.6%-5.8% territory down to 2.7% territory, even though we've seen a huge increase in case numbers. Common sense should tell you that this proves that cooping up hundreds of millions of people and shutting down half the economy was a needless act and a bad idea. If the lockdown approach were the best answer, the death rate should be higher than it was under the lockdown, not 50% lower.

Given the renewed attacks on any kind of herd-immunity approach to COVID-19, we should take another look at Sweden's and Taiwan's approaches. Sweden and Taiwan have allowed most of their businesses and schools to stay open. Yet, COVID-19 deaths in Sweden have dropped dramatically since June, while Taiwan has had fewer cases and deaths per capita than any other nation.

From April to June, daily COVID-19 deaths in Sweden dropped by more than 50%. Since July 24, Sweden has never had more than 6 deaths on any given day, and on many days has had 0, 1, or 2 deaths. And Sweden's COVID-19 crude death rate continues to be lower than that of several other European nations.

Critics cite Sweden's COVID-19 case death rate as evidence that Sweden's modified herd-immunity approach has not worked. But this argument ignores the fact that even though Sweden has not been under a lockdown, barely 1% of Swedes have caught the virus, and the daily number of deaths has remained very low for the last four months even during periods when the number of cases has increased substantially. And, as mentioned, Sweden's crude death rate is lower than that of several other European nations.

Furthermore, Sweden's overall COVID-19 case death rate is 5.8%. Granted, that is higher than most other nations' case death rate, but it is still very low in absolute terms. A 5.8% case death rate equals a case survival rate of 94.2%.

In addition, the vast majority of Sweden's COVID-19 deaths have occurred among the elderly and the medically ill. Sweden's one mistake in its modified herd-immunity approach was that no significant efforts were made to keep the elderly and the medically ill away from other people. If this had been done, Sweden's case death rate would be far lower than 5.8%.

When we look at Sweden's COVID-19 numbers, we should keep in mind that, thanks to Sweden's moderate approach, millions of Swedes have not lost their jobs; millions of Swedes have not seen their life savings wiped out; and thousands of Swedish businesses have not been forced to shut down. By any fair measurement, Sweden's approach has been a success. 

As mentioned, Taiwan is another country that chose not to impose a lockdown, and that chose to keep most of its schools and businesses open. The results? Taiwan has had fewer than 600 cases and only 7 deaths out of a population of 24 million. Here are two articles on Taiwan's success with its very moderate approach to COVID-19:

https://www.cnbc.com/.../how-taiwan-beat-the-coronavirus...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Taiwan