Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:15 pm

.

As i said, i didn't check out his background in detail yet. It may well be this author's background reveals him to be a self-promotor of some sort, but what of the content in the specific article pasted here? How 'wrong' is his content?

The messenger may be flawed, but it doesn't mean the message doesn't have value.

Even if some of the figures he presents remain in question, it appears the manner in which figures have been calculated -- and related methodologies -- as presented to the public are at best misleading. If so, lives and livelihoods were lost unnecessarily.

Also: the author didn't gather these figures wholly on his own; his primary source is this journal article:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... BB28DCC6E9


Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation

Ronald B. Brown (a1)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.298
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12

August 2020

Abstract

In testimony before U.S. Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza. Additional evidence, however, suggests the validity of this estimation could benefit from vetting for biases and miscalculations. The main objective of this article is to critically appraise the coronavirus mortality estimation presented to Congress. Informational texts from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are compared with coronavirus mortality calculations in Congressional testimony. Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate. Public health lessons learned for future infectious disease pandemics include: safeguarding against research biases that may underestimate or overestimate an associated risk of disease and mortality; reassessing the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns; and providing full public disclosure of adverse effects from severe mitigation measures to contain viral transmission.


Draw your own conclusions.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:23 pm

.

Excerpt from the above-referenced Cambridge University journal findings:


Fear and collateral damage

Psychological adverse effects such as anxiety, anger, and post-traumatic stress have been linked to restrictive public health mitigation measures due to isolation, frustration, financial loss, and fear of infection.

A June 8, 2020 survey from the Association for Canadian Studies found that fear of contracting the coronavirus affected 51% of the Canadian population, compared to
56% of the U.S. population.60 Venturing out into public during the reopening phase of the lockdown was stressful to 50% of Canadians compared to 56% of Americans. A second wave of the virus was also expected by 76% of Canadians and 64% of Americans. Furthermore, the
possibility exists that yet another novel virus could emerge, potentially reigniting a perpetual
process of unfounded fear and unnecessary lockdowns if mortality estimations are not properly vetted.


Fear, in contrast to moral civic duty and political orientation, was shown to be a more powerful predictor of compliance with mitigating behavior in response to a viral pandemic, but with decreasing wellbeing and poorer decision making.61 Studies have shown that fear impairs performance of cognitive tasks through debilitating anxiety and worry.

Even if a threat ceases to exist, prolonged fearful avoidance of threats is maladaptive and restricts a return to normal social interaction and productivity.
63 For example, after the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) had ended in 2004, avoidance behavior continued to restrict people’s social
interactions and prevented people from returning to work.64

Exaggerated levels of fear were driven by sensationalist media coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. And yet, while the public was ordered to lockdown, overall costs and benefits to society from severe mitigation measures had not been assessed.

Fear of infection also prevented people from seeking needed healthcare services in hospitals during the
pandemic.The ethics of implementing fear-based public health campaigns needs to be reevaluated for the potential harm these strategies can cause.68

Dissemination of vital health information to the public should employ emotionally persuasive messaging without exploiting and encouraging overreactions based on fear.
In addition, legal and ethical violations associated with mitigation of pandemic diseases were previously investigated by the Institute of Medicine in 2007.69

People should have the right to full disclosure of all information pertinent to adverse impacts of mitigation measures during a pandemic, including information on legal and constitutional human rights issues,44 and the public should be guaranteed a voice in a transparent process as authorities establish public health
policy.

Lastly, severe mitigating measures during the COVID-19 pandemic caused considerable global social and economic disruption.70 Enforced lockdowns increased domestic violence, closed businesses and schools, laid off workers, restricted travel, affected capital markets,
threatened the security of low-income families, and saddled governments with massive debt.

Between February and April 2020, U.S. unemployment rose from 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years, to 14.7%.

A recession in the United States was also officially declared in June 2020 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, ending 128 months of historic economic expansion. Of relevance, economic downturns are associated with higher suicide rates compared to times of prosperity, and increased suicide risk may be associated with economic stress as a consequence
of severe mitigation measures during a pandemic.

72 Relapses and newly diagnosed cases of
alcohol use disorder were also predicted to increase due to social isolation, and harmful drinking in China increased two-fold following the COVID-19 outbreak.73 As a global natural experiment, psychological outcomes from restrictive interventions in the COVID-19 pandemic require further investigation.

Image




Conclusion

Sampling bias in coronavirus mortality calculations led to a ten-fold increased mortality overestimation in March 11, 2020 U.S. Congressional testimony. This bias most likely followed from information bias due to misclassifying a seasonal influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate, evident in a NEJM.org editorial. Evidence from the World Health Organization confirmed that the approximate case fatality rate of the coronavirus is generally no higher than that of seasonal influenza. By early May, 2020, mortality levels from COVID-19 were considerably below predicted overestimations, a result which the public attributed to successful mitigating measures to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus.


This article presented important public health lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Reliable safeguards are needed in epidemiological research to prevent seemingly minor miscalculations from developing into disasters. Sufficient organizational quality assurance procedures should be implemented in public health institutions to check, catch, and correct research biases and mistakes that underestimate or overestimate associated risks of disease and mortality. Particularly, the denominator of fatality rates should clearly define the group to whom fatalities apply. Public health campaigns based on fear can have harmful effects, and the ethics of such campaigns should be reevaluated. People need to have a greater voice in a transparent process that influences public health policy during an outbreak, and educational curricula should include basic research methods to teach people how to be better consumers of public health information. The public should also be fully informed of the adverse impacts on psychological well-being, human rights issues, social disruption, and economic costs associated with restrictive public health interventions during a pandemic.

[...]



Worth reading in its entirety.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:30 pm

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby cptmarginal » Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:36 pm

AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine study put on hold due to suspected adverse reaction in participant in the U.K.

By REBECCA ROBBINS @rebeccadrobbins, ADAM FEUERSTEIN @adamfeuerstein, and HELEN BRANSWELL @HelenBranswell - SEPTEMBER 8, 2020

A large, Phase 3 study testing a Covid-19 vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford at dozens of sites across the U.S. has been put on hold due to a suspected serious adverse reaction in a participant in the United Kingdom.

A spokesperson for AstraZeneca, a frontrunner in the race for a Covid-19 vaccine, said in a statement that the company’s “standard review process triggered a pause to vaccination to allow review of safety data.”

In a follow-up statement, AstraZeneca said it initiated the study hold. The nature of the adverse reaction and when it happened were not immediately known, though the participant is expected to recover, according to an individual familiar with the matter.

The spokesperson described the pause as “a routine action which has to happen whenever there is a potentially unexplained illness in one of the trials, while it is investigated, ensuring we maintain the integrity of the trials.” The spokesperson also said that the company is “working to expedite the review of the single event to minimize any potential impact on the trial timeline.”

An individual familiar with the development said researchers had been told the hold was placed on the trial out of “an abundance of caution.” A second individual familiar with the matter, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the finding is having an impact on other AstraZeneca vaccine trials underway — as well as on the clinical trials being conducted by other vaccine manufacturers.

Clinical holds are not uncommon, and it’s unclear how long AstraZeneca’s might last. But the progress of the company’s trial — and those of all Covid-19 vaccines in development — are being closely watched given the pressing need for new ways to curb the global pandemic. There are currently nine vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials. AstraZeneca’s is the first Phase 3 Covid-19 vaccine trial known to have been put on hold.

Researchers running other trials are now looking for similar cases of adverse reactions by combing through databases reviewed by a so-called Data and Safety Monitoring Board, the second person said.

AstraZeneca only began its Phase 3 trial in the U.S. in late August. The U.S. trial is currently taking place at 62 sites across the country, according to clinicaltrials.gov, a government registry, though some have not yet started enrolling participants. Phase 2/3 trials were previously started in the U.K., Brazil, and South Africa.

There are a number of different reactions that can qualify as suspected serious adverse reactions, symptoms that require hospitalization, life-threatening illness and even death. It was also not immediately clear which clinical trial the adverse reaction occurred in, though a clear possibility is the Phase 2/3 trial underway in the U.K.

While it’s still unclear how severe and rare the adverse event may be, the finding could impact how quickly efficacy data from the U.K. trial will be available. Those data are considered integral to any bid to seek an emergency use authorization for the vaccine from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — and potentially jeopardize President Trump’s efforts to fast-track a vaccine ahead of the November election.

A Phase 1/2 study published in July reported that about 60% of 1,000 participants given the vaccine experienced side effects. All of the side effects, which included fever, headaches, muscle pain, and injection site reactions, were deemed mild or moderate. All of the side effects reported also subsided during the course of the study.

The vaccine — known as AZD1222 — uses an adenovirus that carries a gene for one of the proteins in SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. The adenovirus is designed to induce the immune system to generate a protective response against SARS-2. The platform has not been used in an approved vaccine, but has been tested in experimental vaccines against other viruses, including the Ebola virus.

The Phase 3 trial in the U.S. aims to enroll about 30,000 participants at 80 sites across the country, according to a release last week from the National Institutes of Health.

It was not immediately clear what steps were being taken at study sites across the U.S. in response to the hold. Clinical holds in ongoing studies often involve a pause in recruiting new participants and dosing existing ones, unless it’s deemed in the interest of participant safety to continue dosing.

In the statement from AstraZeneca, the company spokesperson noted that “in large trials illnesses will happen by chance but must be independently reviewed to check this carefully.” The spokesperson also said the company is “committed to the safety of our participants and the highest standards of conduct in our trials.”


AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine to be tested at military sites

By Christen McCurdy
DEFENSE NEWS SEPT. 3, 2020 / 3:22 PM

Sept. 3 (UPI) -- Five Department of Defense facilities will participate in the Phase 3 trial of a COVID-19 vaccine, the Pentagon announced Thursday.

According to the Department of Defense, researchers are still seeking volunteers for the next phase of testing for AZD1222, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate under development by AstraZeneca.

The upcoming trial will take place at Naval Medical Center in San Diego, Joint Base San Antonio, Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center in San Diego, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., and Fort Belvoir Community Hospital in Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

"The Department of Defense continues to play a key role in the development of a potential COVID-19 vaccine," Tom McCaffery, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said in a statement.

"Now that vaccines have passed the first phases of testing for safety, dosing and response, we are ready to move into the next phase where volunteers are needed to join large clinical studies," McCaffery said. "We are excited to have several sites identified to support the next steps in the vaccine development process."

AZD1222 is one of several vaccine candidates under development under Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. federal government's effort to create and distribute a vaccine against the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

The vaccine is the result of a partnership between AstraZeneca and Oxford Vaccine Group, with funding from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the British government.

Researchers are looking to enroll essential workers, individuals living or working in densely congregated environments and members of high-risk groups to participate in the trial.


viewtopic.php?p=689626#p689626

cptmarginal
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:54 am

conniption » 07 Sep 2020 10:51 wrote:
RT

The 1% blunder: How a simple but fatal math mistake by US Covid-19 experts caused the world to panic and order lockdowns

6 Sep, 2020

By Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, 'Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,' is available here.

In February, US Covid guru Anthony Fauci predicted the virus was ‘akin to a severe flu’ and would therefore kill around 0.1 percent of people. Then fatality rate predictions were somehow mixed up to make it look ten times WORSE.

When you strip everything else out, the reason for lockdown comes from a single figure: one percent. This was the prediction that Covid, if left unchecked, would kill around one percent of us.

You may not think that percentage is enormous, but one percent of the population of the world is 70 million people – and that’s a lot. It would mean 3.2 million Americans dead, and 670,000 Britons.

But where did this one percent figure come from? You may find this hard to believe, but this figure emerged by mistake. A pretty major thing to make a mistake about, but that’s what happened.

Also on rt.com Up to 90% of people who test positive for Covid barely carry any virus & are not contagious. Every stat about the disease is bogus

Such things occur. On September 23, 1998, NASA permanently lost contact with the Mars Climate Orbiter. It was supposed to go round and round the planet looking at the weather, but instead it hit Mars at around 5,000 mph, exploding into tiny fragments. It didn’t measure the weather; it became the weather – for a few seconds anyway.

An investigation later found that the disaster happened because engineers had used the wrong units. They didn’t convert pound seconds into Newton seconds when doing their calculations. Imperial, not metric. This, remember, was NASA. An organisation not completely full of numbskulls.

Now you and I probably have no idea of the difference between a pound second and a Newton second (it’s 0.67 – I looked it up). But you would kind-of hope NASA would. In fact, I am sure they do, but they didn’t notice, so the figures came out wrong. The initial mistake was made, and was baked into the figures.

Kaboom!

With Covid, a similar mistake happened. One type of fatality rate was substituted for another. The wrong rate was then used to predict the likely death rate – and, as with NASA, no-one picked up the error.

In order to understand what happened, you have to understand the difference between two medical terms that sound the same – but are completely different. Rather like a pound second or a Newton second.

Which fatality rate, did you say?
First, there’s the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This is the total number of people who are infected by a disease and the number of them who die. This figure includes those who have no symptoms at all, or only very mild symptoms – those who stayed at home, coughed a bit and watched Outbreak.

Then there’s the Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is the number of people suffering serious symptoms, who are probably ill enough to be in hospital. Clearly, people who are seriously ill – the “cases” – are going to have a higher mortality rate than those who are infected, many of whom don’t have symptoms. Put simply – all cases are infections, but not all infections are cases.

Which means that the CFR will always be far higher than the IFR. With influenza, the CFR is around ten times as high as the IFR. Covid seems to have a similar proportion.

Now, clearly, you do not want to get these figures mixed up. By doing so you would either wildly overestimate, or wildly underestimate, the impact of Covid. But mix these figures up, they did.

The error started in America, but didn’t end there. In healthcare, the US is very much the dog that wags the tail. The figures they come up with are used globally.

On February 28, 2020, an editorial was released by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the editorial stated: “… the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”

Also on rt.com ‘Corona World’ game backed by German public TV dehumanizes lockdown resisters & kids – but sure, what could go wrong?

They added that influenza has a CFR of approximately 0.1 percent. One person in a thousand who gets it badly, dies.

But that quoted CFR for influenza was ten times too low – they meant to say the IFR, the Infection Fatality Rate, for influenza was 0.1 percent. This was their fatal – quite literally – mistake.

The mistake was compounded. On March 11, the same experts testified to Congress, stating that Covid’s CFR was likely to be about one percent, so one person dying from a hundred who fell seriously ill. Which, as time has passed, has proved to be pretty accurate.

At this meeting, they compared the likely impact of Covid to flu. But they used the wrong CFR for influenza, the one stated in the previous NEJM editorial. 0.1 percent, or one in a thousand. The one that was ten times too low.

Flu toll 1,000 – Covid toll 10,000
So, they matched up the one percent CFR of Covid with the incorrect 0.1 percent CFR of flu. Suddenly, Covid was going to be ten times as deadly.

READ MORE: Lockdown supporters are using psychology pseudoscience to label anti-maskers as irrational, stupid sociopaths

If influenza killed 50, Covid was going to kill 500. If influenza killed a million, Covid was going to get 10 million. No wonder Congress, then the world, panicked. Because they were told Covid was going to be ten times worse than influenza. They could see three million deaths in the US alone, and 70 million around the world.

I don’t expect you or I to get this sort of thing right. But I bloody well expect the experts to do so. They didn’t. They got their IFR and CFR mixed up and multiplied the likely impact of Covid by a factor of ten.

Here’s what the paper, “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation”,says: “On March 11, 2020,... based on the data available at the time, Congress was informed that the estimated mortality rate for the coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza, which helped launch a campaign of social distancing, organizational and business lockdowns, and shelter-in-place orders.”

On February 28 it was estimated that Covid was going to have about the same impact as a bad influenza season – almost certainly correct. Eleven days later, the same group of experts predicted that the mortality rate was going to be ten times as high. This was horribly, catastrophically, running-into-Mars-at-5,000-miles-an-hour wrong.

Enter the Mad Modellers of Lockdown
In the UK, the group I call the Mad Modellers of lockdown, the Imperial College experts, created the same panic. On March 16, they used an estimated IFR of 0.9 percent to predict that, without lockdown, Covid would kill around 500,000 in the UK.

Is this prediction anywhere close?

So far, the UK has had around 40,000 Covid deaths. Significantly less than 0.1 percent, but not that far off. Of course, people will say... “We had lockdown... without it so many more would have died. Most people have not been infected…” etc.

To answer this, we need to know the true IFR. Is it a 0.1 percent, or one percent? If it is one percent, we have more than 400,000 deaths to go. If it is 0.1 percent, this epidemic has run its course. For this year, at least.

With swine flu, remember that the IFR started at around two percent. In the end, it was 0.02 percent, which was five times lower than the lowest estimate during the outbreak. The more you test, the lower the IFR will fall.

Also on rt.com We might have to wait forever for science to show the Covid threat is over, so let’s use our common sense & get back to normal

So where can we look to get the current figures on the IFR? The best place to look is at the country that has tested more people than anywhere else as a proportion of their population: Iceland.

As of last week, Iceland’s IFR stood at 0.16 per cent. It cannot go up from here. It can only fall. People can’t start dying of a disease they haven’t got.

This means that we’ll probably end up with an IFR of about 0.1 percent, maybe less. Not the 0.02 percent of Swine Flu – somewhere between the two, perhaps. In short, the 0.1 percent prophecy has proved to be pretty much bang on.

Which means that we’ve had all the deaths we were ever going to get. And which also means that lockdown achieved, almost precisely nothing with regard to Covid. No deaths were prevented.

Mangled beyond recognition
Yes, we are testing and testing, and finding more so-called cases. As you will. But the hospitals and ICUs are virtually empty. Almost no-one is dying of Covid anymore, and most of those who do were otherwise very ill.

Instead of celebrating that, we’ve artificially created a whole new thing to scare ourselves with. We now call a positive test a Covid “case.” This is not medicine. A “case” is someone who has symptoms. A case is not someone carrying tiny amounts of virus in their nose.

Now, however, you test positive, and you’re a “case.” Never in history has medical terminology been so badly mangled. Never have statistics been so badly mangled.

READ MORE: Weird science: Covid-19 does NOT cause heart damage, as blockbuster study had basic calculation errors

When researchers look back at this pandemic, they’ll have absolutely no idea who died because of Covid, or who died –coincidentally– with it. Everything’s been mashed together in a determined effort to make the virus look as deadly as possible.

Lockdown happened because we were told that Coivid could kill one percent. But Covid was never going to kill more than about 0.1 percent – max.

That’s the figure estimated back in February, by the major players in viral epidemiology. A figure that has turned out to be remarkably accurate. Bright guys… bad mistake.

We’ve killed tens of thousands – for nothing
But because we panicked, we’ve added hugely to the toll. Excess mortality between March and May was around 70,000, not the 40,000 who died of/with Covid. Which means 30,000 may have died directly as a result of the actions we took.

We protected the young, the children, who are at zero risk of Covid. But we threw our elderly and vulnerable under a bus. The very group who should have been shielded. Instead, we caused 20,000 excess deaths in care homes.

It was government policy to clear out hospitals, and stuff care homes with patients carrying Covid, or discharge them back to their own homes, to infect their nearest and dearest. Or any community care staff who visited them.

We threw – to use health secretary Matt Hancock’s ridiculous phrase – a ring of steel around care homes. As it turned out, this was not to protect them, but to trap the residents, as we turned their buildings into Covid incubators. Anyone working in care homes, as I do, knows why we got 20,000 excess deaths. Government policy did this.

That is far from all the damage. On top of care homes, the ONS estimates that 16,000 excess deaths were caused by lockdown. The heart attacks and strokes that were not treated. The empty, echoing hospitals and A&E units. The cancer treatments stopped entirely.

Which means that at least as many people have died as a result of the draconian actions taken to combat Covid, as have been killed by the virus itself. This has been a slow-motion stampede, where the elderly – in particular - were trampled to death.

We locked down in fear. We killed tens of thousands unnecessarily, in fear. We crippled the economy, and left millions in fear of their livelihoods. We have trapped abused women and children at home with their abusers. We have wiped out scores of companies, and crushed entire industries.

We stripped out the NHS, and left millions in prolonged pain and suffering, on ever lengthening waiting lists, which have doubled. There have also been tens of thousands of delayed cancer diagnoses – the effects of which are yet to be seen, but the Lancet has estimated at least sixty thousand years of life will be lost.

Lockdown can be seen as a complete and utter disaster. And it was all based on a nonsense, a claim that Covid was going to kill one percent. A claim that can now be seen to be utterly and completely wrong. Sweden, which did not lock down, has had a death rate of 0.0058 percent.

It takes a very big person to admit they have made a horrible, terrible mistake. But a horrible, terrible mistake has been made. Let’s end this ridiculous nonsense now. And vow never to let such monumental stupidity happen ever again.


https://www.rt.com/op-ed/500000-covid19 ... ake-panic/


Speaking of completely and utterly wrong. The death rate in Sweden, for the entire population, from COVID is 0.058%. One Hundred times higher than the author claims in that second last paragraph.

In Australia this year there were 36 flu deaths to the 17 of August, nearly 500 from COVID and right now it's at 781 while flu deaths are the same or slightly higher.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:15 am

.

Irrespective of whether the author got it wrong or not: as mentioned a number of times, the manner in which deaths are attributed to COVID will vary per region/jurisdiction and remains in question (it's certainly not consistently applied).

Then there is the issue of defining a 'case'; the actual criteria of what constitutes a 'positive' result, etc.

In short, the numbers can not be taken as de facto given the reported overestimation and miscalculations in methodology for determining fatality rates and other data points.

Speaking only for myself, just about every 'official' metric related to COVID is viewed with an asterisk*.

*yet to be properly vetted/corroborated by other -- neutral -- parties.

This is naive, admittedly: expecting a process that would involve any sort of 3rd/4th party unbiased vetting is far too idealistic/fanciful.

Instead, more lies, omissions, and/or errors will continue to flow.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:35 pm

.

Me and this guy must have been separated at birth.

Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:20 pm

The weirdest thing of all to me is how successful US corporate media has been at politicizing this supposed pandemic and everything associated with it. If Trump is for anything, from pulling the troops of out Iraq and Afghanistan to extending moratoriums on foreclosures to testing anti-malaria medication to downplaying the risk of COVID, tens of millions of Americans are reflexively against or for whatever Trump is for or against, regardless of any cohesion with people's supposed political political beliefs or any of the individual merits of Trump's hourly changing stream of consciousness ruminations.

As the portfolios of almost every billionaire skyrocket while Congress does nothing as millions of small businesses face closure and millions of Americans become permanently unemployed, tens of millions of US citizens are transfixed by each daily episode of The Trump Show. Meanwhile, total information awareness has now been superceded by total digital dependence as well as the turbocharged transfer of all wealth and property ownership directly to the top 0.01%.

Consider San Francisco, for just a minute. Most small businesses in San Francisco have now been shut down or forced to operate at minimum capacity by law for nearly 6 months now. All schools from nursery to medical colleges have suspended in person classes and cleared out their dormitories. Why?

https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/dak2-gvuj

Cumulative COVID-19 cases to date: 10,188
Cumulative COVID-19 associated deaths to date: 89

That's a 0.87% death rated among those who have tested positive.

This is in a city with a population of roughly 900,000. One in 89 people in the city have tested positive for COVID-19 cumulatively to date. Fewer than 1 in 10,000 have died of COVID-19. According to the CDC's (IMHO fear mongering) statistics about the annual flu, roughly 1 in 10,000 Americans die annually from the seasonal flu.

https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/w6za-6st8

Of these 89 deaths:

45 were among people over than 80.
63 were among people older than 70.
76 were among people older that 60.
82 were among people older than 50.

That's 13 total deaths of people below 60, and just 7 total deaths of people below 50 over a 6 month period.

Of these 89 deaths:

80 were among people who had one or more underlying conditions.
9 were among people whose underlying condition medical history is unknown.
Only one with no underlying medical conditions has died in San Francisco over this entire completely unprecedented 6 month quarantine of healthy individuals.

Among people under 60, 13 have died out of 8,888 cases, for a death rate of less than 0.15% per resident who has tested positive. Since there are roughly 777,500 San Francisco residents under 60, that puts the overall COVID-19 death rate rate among people under 60 at 0.00167%. In other words, about 1 in 60,000 San Francisco residents under 60 has died while also testing positive for COVID-19 over the last 6 months.

Just to put this in perspective, 441 San Franciscans died of drug overdose in 2019. There were 29 traffic-related fatalities in San Francisco in 2019. 21 people have been murdered in San Francisco over the last 6 months. San Francisco has recorded an outrageous 125 deaths among the homeless from the beginning of 2020 until June 30th, yet just one of these deaths was related to COVID-19.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/ar ... 493665.php

Image

Can you imagine how many more lived would be saved if people were allowed to reopen their businesses if they found housing for a single homeless person?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:08 pm

All of the COVID-19 measures have definitely been "worth it" for certain individuals.

Image

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/iss ... 0-billion/
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:51 pm

To indulge this, where is the comparison table for 2019? How much does the portfolio grow for a billionaire in normal times? I have no idea, so this table doesn't really illuminate anything.

stickdog99 wrote:All of the COVID-19 measures have definitely been "worth it" for certain individuals.

Image

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/iss ... 0-billion/
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Elvis » Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:24 pm

The picture I see is of certain people privately urging Congress to go easy on household & small business relief. The government not replacing the lost incomes guarantees wealth will slide into big bank & private equity coffers.

It was already bad pre-Covid. https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/why- ... -not-exist

And of course, not stopping the spread of the virus enhances this process tremendously.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:38 am

mentalgongfu2 » 12 Sep 2020 02:51 wrote:To indulge this, where is the comparison table for 2019? How much does the portfolio grow for a billionaire in normal times? I have no idea, so this table doesn't really illuminate anything.

stickdog99 wrote:All of the COVID-19 measures have definitely been "worth it" for certain individuals.

Image

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/iss ... 0-billion/


I'm trying to figure out how this matters. What exactly do you think has happened to wealth of everyone who is not a millionaire over this same time period?

And how in the hell is a 41% increase in wealth over any 5 month period, much less a total economic crisis for nearly half of the population, supposed to be considered normal for anyone at any time?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:04 am

stickdog99 » Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:20 pm wrote:
Just to put this in perspective, 441 San Franciscans died of drug overdose in 2019. There were 29 traffic-related fatalities in San Francisco in 2019. 21 people have been murdered in San Francisco over the last 6 months. San Francisco has recorded an outrageous 125 deaths among the homeless from the beginning of 2020 until June 30th, yet just one of these deaths was related to COVID-19.


Can you imagine how many more lived would be saved if people were allowed to reopen their businesses if they found housing for a single homeless person?


Your entire posting is excellent, but wanted to quote this bit as the logic is so transparent, yet continues to be missed by many.
And we can dig up many similar examples, for each region, that provides much-needed perspective on the numbers, which further underscores how disastrous the extent of these mandates/lockdowns have been.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:08 pm

.

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Grizzly » Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:36 pm

https://www.reddit.com/r/ATBGE/comments/irypeb/antibill_gatescovid_vaccine_in_australia_pretty/
Anti-Bill Gates/COVID vaccine in Australia. Pretty good artwork, though!
Image
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests