Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Aug 05 16:44:33 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Seb is still wrong
Dakyron
Member
Thu Jul 16 17:42:24
R0 in Arizona now under 1.

People can still eat out, shop at stores, etc... Proving that a complete economic shutdown was never needed.
hood
Member
Thu Jul 16 17:43:35
http://www...de-11ea-952c-ebc74378852b.html
Dakyron
Member
Thu Jul 16 17:46:25
http://www.../covid-19/dashboards/index.php
Habebe
Member
Thu Jul 16 18:06:19
http://youtu.be/7gKTvfutdfs

Your all wrong, proof.
Dakyron
Member
Thu Jul 16 21:12:04
You're
Pillz
Member
Thu Jul 16 21:28:56
People are going to die. But mostly the old.

This is obvious from all serological tests released so far. Whatever immunity may exist, exists in younger populations. Because the majority of old infected die.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 17 03:56:53
The majority of old infected do not die, far from it. Worst case people over 80 is 15-20% case mortality

You and numbers, ey? :)
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 04:32:34
Pillz/dakyron:

COVIDiots: Look, lockdown is unnecessary, we lifted it, and death rates aren't going up! That's because only the young are infected, the old and at risk are safe at home.

Sane people: wait two to three weeks, median time to death is about that. Also, eventually the infection will reach the at risk population.

COVIDiots: nonsense, that's all the fault of care homes and bad treatment by Liberal s! Scaremongers! You said it would be the apocalypse!

Sane people: oh look, death rates are increasing.

COVIDiots: that was always going to happen, but the case fatality rate is low.
It's only the old people. They were always going to die.

So let's see what happens next: I expect a reduction in consumer confidence, reduced demand and an economic downturn; and return to lockdown like behaviour irrespective of official position.

Like I did months ago.

You don't get to choose between ending lockdown and economic downturn. The only way to get the economy going is to contain the disease.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 04:35:35
http://ig....e=1&perMillion=0&values=deaths
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 04:37:57
Country that's got things right, country that's got things badly wrong, country that's shat the bed, rolled around in it laughing like a mad man, smeared "I am INVINCIBLE!!! I can FLY!!!" on the wall with its shit stained hands, and is running towards the closed window.

Pillz
Member
Fri Jul 17 09:20:17
Nim & Seb both retards
Dakyron
Member
Fri Jul 17 10:58:44
Sorry Seb, positive test rate going down. Deaths going down. Case #s going down.

No lockdown.

You were wrong. Admit it.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 17 12:30:07
7 day rolling average of new deaths in increasing. In Arizona, high as it's ever been, no evidence it's decreasing.
In the US as a whole, it's up.

7 day rolling case numbers going up nationally, seem be plateauing maybe dipping slightly in Arizona , increasing in other states.

Linked to live charts with FT.








Dakyron
Member
Fri Jul 17 14:59:05
Deaths are misleading. That is the number of deaths reported on that date, not the number of people who died. Number of people of dying in a day has been trending downward since a plateau in early July and is now showing numbers similar to mid-April, when we were in full lockdown.

Number of COVID-19 cases confirmed by date of confirmation is also trending downward after a spike on From June 15th - July 2nd.

Hospitalization numbers are also trending downward, although those numbers have been fairly consistent since late March.

And finally, if you look at the % of ER visits with COVID-like symptoms, that has plummeted in the last 3-4 weeks.

Again, this is with restaurants open for dine-in, stores open, etc...

The lockdown was never needed. Just a ban on large gatherings and a mandate to wear a mask indoors.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 18 08:41:17
Dakyron:

Why would a seven day average of number of deaths reported on a date give different trend from actual number of people dying on day? Surely it doesn't take more than seven days for an actual to get into reports? Any volatility caused by reports lagging actuals will simply be smoothed out.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 18 08:42:33
Again I assume you are looking only at Arizona.
Dakyron
Member
Sun Jul 19 20:25:43
"Why would a seven day average of number of deaths reported on a date give different trend from actual number of people dying on day?"

Smooths out fluctuations due to technical glitches, reporting lag, etc...

"Surely it doesn't take more than seven days for an actual to get into reports? "

Its taking 7-10 days to get test results, and often deaths reported are from death certificate matching of old cases.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 21 02:03:43
Dakyron:

So... a 7 day rolling average would likely be more accurate than? In which case why do you object to me using that?

"often deaths reported are from death certificate matching of old cases"

So, again, doesn't that mean that deaths are later identified as being covid related and recalculated. Why would that to overestimation, surely that means daily counts are underestimated?

Or are you saying that old deaths are being counted only on the day they are subsequently identified as being Covid rather than the day they happened? This would attenuate the peak by bringing forward deaths occurred previously.

But a seven day average does the same and ought to effectively suppress artefacts arising from this.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 21 11:44:57
Seb, you were using deaths reported by day, not reports of deaths by the day the person died.

That is the difference.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 21 11:48:07
Anyway...

"Tuesday's dashboard shows 83% of current inpatient beds and 85% of ICU beds were in use, which includes people being treated for COVID-19 and other patients. Overall, 49% of ventilators were in use."

Down from early July numbers that were around 90% for inpatient and ICU use.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 21 12:26:19
Um, no, I linked to a graph produced by the FT, showing deaths and new cases on a 7 day rolling average basis.

Here is the link again.

http://ig....e=1&perMillion=0&values=deaths

Here is a direct quote from my previous post:

"7 day rolling average of new deaths in increasing. In Arizona, high as it's ever been, no evidence it's decreasing.
In the US as a whole, it's up.

7 day rolling case numbers going up nationally, seem be plateauing maybe dipping slightly in Arizona , increasing in other states.

Linked to live charts with FT."


Here is the link to the FT, again:

http://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areas=gbr&areas=deu&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=ustx&areasRegional=usaz&cumulative=0&logScale=1&perMillion=0&values=deaths

Here is the graph description:

"Seven-day rolling average of new deaths, by number of days since 3 average daily deaths first recorded"

It is seven day rolling average of daily deaths, which addresses substantially the issues you are talking about.
Pillz
Member
Tue Jul 21 12:54:17
Fuck you break the thread for
Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 21 15:41:30
Where are they getting those numbers?

http://www.../covid-19/dashboards/index.php

State department of health is reporting a high of 73 deaths on 7/7. So again, I think this is deaths by day reported, not the day the person actually died. Or it is just made up bullshit numbers.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 21 15:46:47
"Every day, our volunteers compile the latest numbers on tests, cases, hospitalizations, and patient outcomes from every US state and territory."

Yeah, so probably made up bullshit numbers.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 21 16:49:44
Dakyron:

It literally says on the graph: Covid Tracking Project, which in turn is getting it from here:

http://www.../covid-19/dashboards/index.php

So if it is death by day reported, the lag must be more than 7 days for a 7 day smoothing to still result in a curve that is significantly higher than the trend.

it also means that any trend in the "deaths by day of death" is probably an artefact of reporting lags. If the median time for the report to come in is say, 4 days, any trend based on examining the last 4 days is going to look like a sharp tail off under any circumstances, because the full tally of deaths for those days are still in the reporting pipeline. And if the mean time is 8 days, you will see a downward trend on the last 8 days even if the true trend in deaths is upward.

So earlier you said 7-10 10 days to filter through, that means you should probably truncate the series at the 10th of July and ignore the data beyond there as incomplete and trailing off due to reporting backlogs.

Looking at the data up to the 10th, that's not really looking so much like a tail off as a plateau with volatility.

Either way, if a seven day smooth on deaths reported today still tracks above peak actuals that can only mean the reporting pipeline must be longer than 7 days, or there was a highly anomalous day where the reporting backlog manage to get through a larger chunk of its backlog than usual. Which is possible of course.

Either way, I'm not so sure that I'm seeing a downard trend there - depends entirely on the median and mean time to report a death.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 21 17:41:42
Seb - they cant be getting the information from the DHS dashboard because the numbers do not match.

THEY DO NOT MATCH. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 21 17:57:15
Dakyron:

Ok, you've clearly never handled time series data before.

Of course they can be getting the data from the DHS dashboard. If they are getting the daily reported deaths, and then performing a 7 day rolling average, then of course they will not match.

For example, today's dashboard shows 134 new deaths reported today. These will be apportioned over many different days in the graph below it.

However, for the seven day smoothed plot of this to differ significantly from the plot of deaths by date of death (noting you need to truncate the end of the graph as most deaths that actually occurred today will not be reported for some days) means either very high volatility in daily reporting (say, releasing reports only Weekly or huge backlog builds up, then cleared every two weeks); OR that there is much longer than 7 days mean time to report a death, i.e. a substantial number of deaths that actually occurred today might not be reported for 14 days. In which case, the "Covid deaths by date of reported death" graph is essentially inaccurate for any point later than 14 days ago, in this hypothetical example.

So the question is, how long do you think the median time it takes to report a death?
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 21 18:01:32
The point of the rolling 7 day smooth is precisely to avoid the issues with end truncation and volatility in daily reporting including deaths that occurred some time in the previous week.

The mismatch tells you something interesting about how Arizona death reporting works and what the lag might be - and thus when you should stop looking at the covid deaths by date of deaths because the data is incomplete. I'd reckon about the 10th July.

Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 21 22:51:04
Seb, they are doing death certificate matching of people who died weeks or even months ago.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 22 00:39:46
Dakyron:

So, in other words, the data in the "Covid deaths by date of reported death" becomes progressively incomplete (i.e. is under counting what it will eventually be) as you approach the most recent date.

As the dashboard itself says:

"recent deaths may not be reported"


So, do you now see the problem with this statement:

"Number of people of dying in a day has been trending downward since a plateau in early July and is now showing numbers similar to mid-April, when we were in full lockdown."

What you are seeing now on that chart is purely an artefact of a lag in reporting. Deaths in reality could be rising, and given the way reporting works, you will still show a downward trend for the last few weeks of that graph.

Indeed, the more deaths you get, and the more stretched the matching gets (more tests and deaths to search through, the longer the pipeline from actual death to get through to the figure), the more the trend will appear a sharp drop over the most recent few weeks.


Seb
Member
Wed Jul 22 00:43:03
Ok, so took a snapshot of the graph today, what we can do is come back in a week and see what it looks like, we do the same in a week and the same in another week and see what happens to the trend in the period 10 July to 21 July.

Pillz
Member
Wed Jul 22 06:01:18
In a week you'll make more excuses.
Dakyron
Member
Wed Jul 22 10:52:30
I give up. Seb is beyond help.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 22 11:49:47
If all is well in Arizona and being near 90% full on ICU beds, the prognosis that AZ will run out of beds by August and approval of triage guidelines, does not concern Arizonians, I think that is fair.
Dakyron
Member
Wed Jul 22 12:05:07
Hospital utilization rates are going down. We are not going to run out of beds.

Meanwhile, Sweden has a similar population and twice as many deaths.

Way to go!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 23 11:12:46
Dakidiot
You were saying all these things when the beds were diminishing. Even right now, you are basing it on, according to your own state government, a slight decrease reported monday. You are the embodiment of the broken watch example.

1. I don’t agree with the Swedish strategy
2. Arizona is several weeks behind Sweden

sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 24 00:07:08
Lol @ the excuses coming out of seb.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 24 01:14:08
Sam, careful now, this is one that could come back to bite you in a few days. Pretty easy to paste a side by side comparison ;-)
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 24 11:37:52
Dakyron:
So, by way of illustration, lets check out what the graph looks like today.

It now peaks on the 7/7 at 77, not 73. Ok, so a 5% increase over a 3 day period - fairly minor right?

But look what has happened to the period after the 10th... they've all increased. That sharp decline to mid April levels looks more like a sharp decline to late June levels now.

What will it look like in another three days?

But that's fine, because after the 14th, it tails of very sharply to mid April levels before reaching a level very similar to late March.

What I'm saying is this data set will *always* will look like a sharp drop off over the past 10 - 15 days due to the reporting lag.

You can't do reliable trend analysis on the incomplete data for the 15 days previous. Ignore it.

You've only really got accurate data up to the last 15 days.

And before you answer, I do have a nice overlay and I will be posting a link later :-)

Seb
Member
Fri Jul 24 11:45:17
So, that's your choice really:

Use date of reporting, smoothed - this give you a lagging signal for reality. It means you won't see spikes until after they have happened, and you won't see declines until after they have happened.

Use actual date of death, but your data is nonsense and will vary for weeks, which is in some ways more unhelpful as you get a fluctuating picture until the data crystalises, and unless there is very good consistency and reporting that period of crystallisation is fluctuating too.

Here for example, you are seeing 5% shifts in numbers going back to the 6th of June.

In theory, we could track the rate of growth in numbers attributed to each day, and estimate after day 3 what we think they would grow to when the data does crytalise, but that feels like too much work. I'd just say that in reality, this data isn't really that accurate beyond the peak, so asserting that there is a trend of real deaths falling from a peak seems not easily substantiated. It could be consistent with a plateau around 55 to 65 deaths a day that has been going on since late june, with a few days where it broke 70.

sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 24 14:14:35

"Sam, careful now, this is one that could come back to bite you in a few days. Pretty easy to paste a side by side comparison ;-)"

Yes, then we could give you credit for predicting something correctly... for the first time in... about 7 years?
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 24 14:57:54
Didn't take even 24 hours Sam. You could have just, you know, looked and verified what I said was true.

Sad. Very sad.

Seb
Member
Fri Jul 24 14:58:31
But then, we knew you didn't know how to actually understand how numbers relate to the real world.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 24 16:39:56
Alas, since you take no blame when you are wrong, you will recieve no credit for being right.

Hence we can just assume you are wrong and move on.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 24 17:37:06
Oh Sam, I don't ask for credit, that would imply your esteem mastered. Your credit matters nothing. It's just an objective fact you were wrong. Again.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 24 18:12:39
If you dont ask for credit, why are you always whining, making up BS excuses, and other low-iq nonsense to cover up your mistakes? If you actually didnt care, you wouldnt feel the need to try to save face all the fucking time.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 24 18:16:40
You both make good points.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 24 18:34:44
Sam:

There was no mistake. What you call an "excuse" was always just a simple explanation of the flaw in Dakyron's interpretation of the data due to his failure to grasp the implications of the underlying methodology.

What I said was entirely true, and evidently true when you called it an excuse.

And what could be more low iq than assessing a proposition based on your personal feelings for the person making it Sam?

So your proposition is just wrong: no mistake, no excuse, no face lost. But given you are so invested in this that you see it all in terms of face, yours must look pretty red now.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 24 18:39:57
Also, do you really think I'm going to be asking for credit when the graph has, as I pointed out, got a label saying "recent deaths may not be reported yet".

It didn't take a genius. Dakyron is just trapped in a bit of a confirmation bias spiral, so he's got a bit of an excuse.

You on the other hand... typical slapdash, lazy ineptitude and disinterest in understanding the meaning of things and preference to calculate and be damned that we know so well. You must try harder.
sam adams
Member
Fri Jul 24 22:24:29
Blah blah blah.

You are wrong again.
Seb
Member
Sat Jul 25 17:26:34
Sam, you forgot that death reports by day of reporting would have a lag on today's date.

Seb
Member
Sun Jul 26 05:45:51
Todays update:

Dakyron and Sam still wrong and getting wronger.

Since Dakyron stated (on the 17th of July) with some degree of confidence that looking at deaths reported on a day was misleading because deaths by date of death recorded numbers had peaked and declined, showing numbers "similar to mid-April".

Well as we can see from today's updates to the graph here:

http://www.../covid-19/dashboards/index.php

The chart now peaks at 7/7 at 80 deaths, up nearly 10% from the 23rd.

As we can see the graph now shows 59 deaths recorded on the 17th, about the same level it has been at or above on average since 30th of June.

But that's ok, because after then, it tails off rapidly to Mid April levels. As this graph will always do. Whatever happens.

Have I made my point yet?

This graph is not in face a better way to try and work out what the current state of the outbreak is than deaths reported in day, it can only ever tell you what was happening about 10-15 days ago.

All we can really say is that Arizona hit a peak on the 7th of July, but is running at at least 50-60 deaths a day up until the 17th.

And there is some possibility that the days subsequent to the 7-17th of July will later be shown to be around that 70-80 ball park.



Dukhat
Member
Sun Jul 26 06:52:19
Pneumonia-related deaths massively up in all states. Trump forbids testing because he likes the numbers where they are. This administration is a fucking disaster.
Pillz
Member
Sun Jul 26 09:43:29
Lol cry more
Dakyron
Member
Mon Jul 27 11:40:07
-1 deaths reported today.

Seb still wrong.

http://kta...-coronavirus-death-count-by-1/

"The Arizona health department reduced the total of documented coronavirus deaths by one on Monday morning while reporting 1,813 new cases."

Seb
Member
Mon Jul 27 12:56:47
Dakyron, do you still maintain that the deaths on the 17th of July were the same as in mid April in Arizona?

Dakyron
Member
Mon Jul 27 12:58:48
Are we talking your alleged deaths or actual deaths?

April 30th - 27 deaths. July 18 - 35 deaths.

That is pretty damn close.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Jul 27 13:01:06
It's a 30% increase.
Dakyron
Member
Mon Jul 27 13:01:49
Its 8 people in a state of 8 million.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Jul 27 13:03:54
In terms of establish trend or statistical significance of change, that's irrelevant.

Now, you can argue that it's relevant regarding the application of the statistics to the real world, but that was not point.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 27 14:06:10
He doesn't even know what he is arguing for or against. This is strange. Why is it important that seb be wrong on this? Of all the things seb has said, this is the battle you chose?

Just days ago, you said Sweden and Arizona have comparable populations. 7.279 million which has now rounded to 8 million.

Sweden 10.23 million

That is 44% more. Do you know what happens when we add 44% to the Arizona covid deaths? It doesn't look as impressive anymore with less than 1k difference. And when we take into account that Arizona is weeks behind Sweden?

What kind of bullshit operation are you running Dakyron?
Dakyron
Member
Mon Jul 27 14:15:19
Nimatzo enjoys jar-jar binks. Please leave my thread. Thank you.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 27 15:45:05
I said, he didn't bother me that much, he didn't, clearly he was a weak and annoying character. Moveon.org

Ehum, I pay, like money, to run this place. This is "my" forum, before it is your thread. Your welcome btw, enjoy it ;-)

Clearly you are doing quite a lot of math voodoo to "win" here.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 27 18:22:38
Since when is April 30th the middle of April Dakyron?
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 27 18:24:07
Point is, you are looking at the tail end of a graph that explicitly states on the graph that it is inaccurate in that period.

So no, Arizona deaths are not declining, they are plateauing.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 27 18:24:46
Often on the 60th of April, I think back to what I did in the middle of the month, around the 30th...
Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 28 11:07:45
Yesterday -1 deaths reported, today 104 deaths reported.

Do you see why deaths by DATE REPORTED is a useless metric?

Deaths by date of death is showing a clear downward trend, as well as confirmed cases by day and hospitalizations.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 28 11:24:12
Except it isn't at all. What looks like a clear downward trend is simply the last 15 days of data being incomplete.

If you take the graph as it stands now, chop off every data point dated after the 17th of July (when you last said it was a downward trend) and look at it, it's a very clear plateau with a slight peak on the 7th.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 28 11:27:12
The point about date reported is you average them over a period.
smart dude
Member
Tue Jul 28 11:38:44
Seb is saying that single data points dont matter, and that averages and trends are what's important (correct, btw), but the same Seb will claim in other circumstances that single data points mean something (e.g. random black guy tossed from a random Starbucks caught on YouTube). Durrr?
Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 28 11:46:38
"The point about date reported is you average them over a period. "

No. No. No. Unless you averaging 30 days or so it won't matter since some of the deaths are from certificate matching and they could have died in April. You have to go by date of death to get a meaningful number.

Look at the other numbers to get a better measure. The number of patients in hospital beds and the number being treated in the ER are both going down. Overall case numbers by day are going down.

Deaths lag about 3 weeks. You can see the beginning of the trend down now, and it will continue.

The point is, mitigation measures other than "shut it all down" are working, and could have worked from the beginning.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 28 11:50:54
Dakyron:

By the same argument then, tend analysis of the date-of-death data in the last 30 days shouldn't be used, because it's incomplete.

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 28 11:53:32
Working being demonstrated by daily deaths rising from somewhere just below 20 a day for most of April to over 50.

In what world is a doubling of daily deaths a success measure?
Pillz
Member
Tue Jul 28 12:25:35
Seb back on the 1 death is too many train
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 28 13:13:55
Pillz:

60 deaths a day isn't exactly 1 death pillz.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 28 15:55:13
"Working being demonstrated by daily deaths rising from somewhere just below 20 a day for most of April to over 50.

In what world is a doubling of daily deaths a success measure? "

This is factually incorrect, but hey its Seb. How about you address the fact that hospitalizations are down, case numbers are down, test positivity rate is down, hospital utilization is down? Instead you argue semantics over # of deaths, cherry picking data to try to support your lost cause argument.

"60 deaths a day isn't exactly 1 death pillz. "

Even if it *was* 60, which is not, that is still 60 people out of a population of 7.23M(to appease the jar-jarophile), which would extrapolate to 0.3% of the population dying, or roughly the same number of people who die of heart disease and cancer(coincidentally, those people often die of COVID, so there is definitely overlap).



Dakyron
Member
Tue Jul 28 15:56:25
Anyway, again, a ban on large gatherings plus mandatory mask wearing probably kills the spread of COVID, or at least mitigates it to where its not a major threat to public health.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 29 05:44:27
Dakyron:

You said on the 17th deaths were at mid April level.

That's clearly incorrect looking at the chart. They probably looked like they were at mid April levels on the 17th because many of the recent deaths had not yet been recorded. As you yourself note, it can take 30 days to attribute a death to Corona using the method here.

The same is still true today. We will come back in a week.

"Roughly the same heart disease and cancer" - i.e. covid would be one of the biggest causes of death in your state then.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 29 06:45:02
Dear god. Dakyron WoO just explained it for you, it’s about TRENDS, not the real world significance of the absolute number deaths on a given day! Were you not a math teacher or something?
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 29 09:28:46
Nim:

It's worse than that. The what the death figures work, it takes around 15 days for all the deaths for a given day to come in, but they'll still report the ones they know about.

So the last fifteen days always look like a sharp decline, with a few deaths recorded yesterday building up to increasingly more accurate numbers 15 days ago.

So as far as Dakyron is concerned, there's always a downward trend.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 29 09:39:23
I was about to warn you, in a week he will just say the same thing. You can’t win with someone unaware that they are living the Groundhogs day of covid stats!
Dakyron
Member
Wed Jul 29 10:38:54
"Dear god. Dakyron WoO just explained it for you, it’s about TRENDS, not the real world significance of the absolute number deaths on a given day! Were you not a math teacher or something? "

Semantics. The point was that COVID is under control via methods other than those harsh lockdowns Seb has been advocating we stay in since March.

He won't just admit that yes, there was probably a better way to deal with this.

"i.e. covid would be one of the biggest causes of death in your state then. "

/facepalm

Yes, because it would be killing people about to die of cancer and heart disease.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 29 11:46:56
Under control meaning, hospitals still at above 80% capacity. Sure under control, but certainly not go on about your lives as if nothing.

Which country are you thinking of, dealing with this the best way?
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 29 12:53:05
Dakyron:

You would, like much of Europe, now be out of lockdown and with much lower deaths if you'd done what I'd suggested.

And the idea that all the people dying of covid would very shortly have died of heart disease is very silly.

But we will be able to see this by the end of the year in the stats.
Dakyron
Member
Wed Jul 29 14:23:37
"Which country are you thinking of, dealing with this the best way? "

Probably Sweden. Good social distancing. No heavy handed lockdown. Reasonable death toll of mostly older residents. Assuming they wear masks, its probably how the whole world should have handled the situation.

"You would, like much of Europe, now be out of lockdown and with much lower deaths if you'd done what I'd suggested. "

Which time? Last I checked you wanted a continuous 18 week lockdown, in which the economy crumbles and people start killing themselves via depression.

"And the idea that all the people dying of covid would very shortly have died of heart disease is very silly."

Why? Most of the deaths have been from older people with fragile health. Hell, at one time nearly 2/3 of the deaths in the metro area here were from nursing homes. They count people who were already in hospice as COVID-19 deaths(hospice of course being the place people are sent to die comfortably).

"But we will be able to see this by the end of the year in the stats. "

Yes, we will, but unfortunately you are either not smart enough to understand those stats or you will lie about what they actually say.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 29 14:47:22
Dakyron:

" Hell, at one time nearly 2/3 of the deaths in the metro area here were from nursing homes."
In July?

Ok, so we will see at the end of the year whether cancer and heart disease deaths are correspondingly down. Lets hope you are better reading those than the ones you are failing to understand now.

The truth is that many of those dying of Covid would not have died in the subsequent months of something else. They are dying substantially earlier than they would have done.

So far there is little evidence that there is mass suicides happening across Europe, and while there is economic damage, that's also true if you don't lock down.



Seb
Member
Wed Jul 29 14:49:37
http://www...in-Europe-and-the-United-49553

"The deterioration of economic conditions preceded the introduction of these policies and a gradual recovery also started before formal reopening, highlighting the importance of voluntary social distancing, communication, and trust-building measures."
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 29 14:55:48
http://vox...-impact-covid-19-europe-and-us

"Moreover, lifting mandatory lockdown measures – especially when the health crisis is not under control – may not have the expected effect on economic activity, as people would continue to voluntarily limit their mobility."
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 29 15:37:19
I calculated it for Sweden. From March 1st to May 31th 2020, compared with 2015-2019, 20% more people died during the period. Not as bad during June, but still higher, after that the numbers lag so we can't tell. I assume it will be normal figures, unless we get a second wave.


Daky
"Probably Sweden."

Also Daky

"Meanwhile, Sweden has a similar population and twice as many deaths.

Way to go!"

You just have no idea where you want to go with this? No idea what you are arguing against or for. You are one confused little cookie.
Dakyron
Member
Thu Jul 30 13:01:53
"I calculated it for Sweden. From March 1st to May 31th 2020, compared with 2015-2019, 20% more people died during the period. Not as bad during June, but still higher, after that the numbers lag so we can't tell. I assume it will be normal figures, unless we get a second wave. "

You would need to calculate based on the entire year. People dying of COVID in March might have died of cancer/diabetes/HD in July. You cannot really count them are tragedies related to COVID.
Dakyron
Member
Thu Jul 30 13:03:04
"You just have no idea where you want to go with this? No idea what you are arguing against or for. You are one confused little cookie. "

What can I say, sometimes if a monkey is flinging shit at you, you throw some back, even if you should know better.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 30 13:11:29
And by flinging shit, you mean the post where I refer to the hospital situation and say that if this does not concearn you, fair enough? Ok buddy, whatever makes you sleep at night.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 30 13:20:42
Daky
The numbers are an indicator, obviously we will be reappraising them on UP early 2021, don’t worry. None of it will matter though. It can be 50% and you will say, well most of those people were going to die within 5 years anyway.
Dakyron
Member
Thu Jul 30 15:18:24
And I would be right.
Pillz
Member
Thu Jul 30 16:38:20
1 death is too many
Lockdown for life!
seb
Member
Fri Jul 31 06:07:52
http://www.../covid-19/dashboards/index.php

Lets see where we are today then.

The 7/7 death toll stands at 80, but the 15th now also stands at 80. This, of course, is what Rakryon described on the 17th as "a decline towards mid April levels". And the 17th stands at 77, higher than the 73 that Dakyron identified as the previous peak.
seb
Member
Fri Jul 31 06:07:52
http://www.../covid-19/dashboards/index.php

Lets see where we are today then.

The 7/7 death toll stands at 80, but the 15th now also stands at 80. This, of course, is what Rakryon described on the 17th as "a decline towards mid April levels". And the 17th stands at 77, higher than the 73 that Dakyron identified as the previous peak.
seb
Member
Fri Jul 31 06:07:53
http://www.../covid-19/dashboards/index.php

Lets see where we are today then.

The 7/7 death toll stands at 80, but the 15th now also stands at 80. This, of course, is what Rakryon described on the 17th as "a decline towards mid April levels". And the 17th stands at 77, higher than the 73 that Dakyron identified as the previous peak.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 31 06:21:56
Dakyron, do you perhaps want to accept you got this wrong? Or am I going to have to sign up to an image hosting app and display my screen caps?
Dakyron
Member
Fri Jul 31 10:44:57
You are still wrong. Everything points to a downward trajectory... You obsess over deaths from almost 3 weeks ago, refuse to acknowledge trends in cases and hospitalizations.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share