Around 350,000 Americans will die from COVID in 12 months. Is that winning?

[pamak]

What "paper"?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.01167.pdf

Using both our measure of population- weighted density and the Hofstede score we can significantly explain half the variation in the current size of epidemics across Europe and North America.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But it's not 800-1000 deaths a day in the US. With a little luck for the Dem party, it could reach that again and possibly more. You'll have to check out worldometers.
I think you're hoping for 800-1000 deaths a day even more than I am!

The current, 7 day rolling average number of deaths in the US, as of this morning is 789

​

fortunately there is a weekend coming up and the delays in testing/reporting that always occur on weekends will drive that averge back down somewhat. Fortunately for Mr. Trump, it would take an INCREDIBLE jump in the number of daily deaths to push the total up to 250,000 before 03 NOV 20 (because

"US DEATHS REACH QUARTER MILLION" ​

is a really sucky headline for an incumbent to have to deal with right before an election.

 

[Rosie1]

The mask is mostly to protect other people from you. You can show no symptoms and spread it to others. I'm glad I'm in a state that requires masks in most places.

Hubby and I are big supporters of science (him being a first responder for many years). We went and got flu shots yesterday.

One of my cousins, back in Missouri just recently came down with Covid. I don't think they are doing enough in many states to slow the spread.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

i said in A day.

have you looked at the last two weeks. each day in the last two weeks?

You mean, like this?

​

 

[Rawley]

Since

1. Some countries have leadership at the national level, and some don't.
   
   
2. Some countries have leaders who pay attention to the facts, and some don't.
   
   
3. Some countries have leaders who do not lie to their people, and some don't.
   
   
4. Some countries have a population that wants the best outcome for the whole population, and some don't.
   
   
5. Some countries have a population that doesn't whine about the least little bit of personal inconvenience when that inconvenience is necessary to save lives, and some don't.
   
   
   and
   
   
6. Some countries have a population that adopts common sense measures to help reduce the spread of disease, and some don't.

I'd say that there are grounds for comparison.

Really. You think an island nation that shut down 100% of its borders to prevent migration of the virus is comparable to the United States? Really?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wrong!

Did not we go again through this nonsense claim?

Apparently, the tactic here when conservatives cannot refute counterpoints is to wait for a while and crawl in another thread repeating the same claims

Again

Final jobs report before Election Day shows US employers added 661,000 workers in September

The economy IS the only issue along with National security that the President impacts, all social programs come from the states and local communities. Pro growth economic policies boost state and local revenue and pro military protects even radicals on the left to allow them to attack the...

debatepolitics.com

According to their analysis , men are losing, on average, 13 years of their lives, and women, 11 years.

Even after accounting for high blood pressure, diabetes and other common chronic conditions found in people dying of the pandemic virus, death from COVID-19 resulted in more than a decade of life lost per person, the analysis shows, similar to the years of life lost from heart disease...

Estimated lost years of life, or YLLs, were more than a decade for deaths from COVID-19, and taking into account the underlying diseases did not change it dramatically – which means that most people “Have lost much more than the” 1-2 “years suggested by some commentators,” the researchers wrote

The abstract even says most are older. It says: " As most people dying with COVID-19 are older with underlying long-term conditions (LTCs), some have speculated that YLL are low. We aim to estimate YLL attributable to COVID-19, before and after adjustment for number/type of LTCs. " Yes, younger than "old" people are dying too. I didn't see anything there invalidating my statement.

Care to quote the parts that shows I am in error?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So tell us then, how many would have died if Hillary was POTUS?

Twice as many.

Easily!

 

[pamak]

The abstract even says most are older. It says: " As most people dying with COVID-19 are older with underlying long-term conditions (LTCs), some have speculated that YLL are low. We aim to estimate YLL attributable to COVID-19, before and after adjustment for number/type of LTCs. " Yes, younger than "old" people are dying too. I didn't see anything there invalidating my statement.

Care to quote the parts that shows I am in error?

I already quoted it.

According to their analysis , men are losing, on average, 13 years of their lives, and women, 11 years.

Even after accounting for high blood pressure, diabetes and other common chronic conditions found in people dying of the pandemic virus, death from COVID-19 resulted in more than a decade of life lost per person, the analysis shows, similar to the years of life lost from heart disease...

and from the paper itself (LTC stands for Long Term Conditions)

Conclusions: Deaths from COVID-19 represent a substantial burden in terms of per-person YLL, more than a decade, even after adjusting for the typical number and type of LTCs found in people dying of COVID-19.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you have any examples where there were no co-mortality causes, proven?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

-What "paper"?-

Oops

Found it.

It doesn't quite say what you think it says. It does NOT say that a nations aggregate national "population density" is the most important factor in the spreading of COVID-19.

Did you know that Japan, also an island, has a population density of 899 / sq.mi. (as opposed to New Zealand's 46, so that should mean (assuming that population density is as important as the article says it is) that the Japanese "Deaths/Million" rate should be 19.54 times New Zealand's 5 (that would be 97.72) while it is actually 13.

Somehow this minor detail escaped the notice of the paper's authors

PS - Please don't get the idea that I am saying that the ACTUAL population density of any SPECIFIC area has NOTHING to do with the spread of COVID-19 - because I'm not. What I am saying is that the measure used for population density in the study was too crude for accurate analysis.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I didn't excise shit, I cut and pasted directly from their story. Which explicitly referenced the scientists You got a bitch in your whiny defense of Biden, bring it up with the AP.

Biden says he'd shut down economy if scientists recommended

ATLANTA (AP) — Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said he would follow public health advisers’ advice if they called for a national shutdown should he take office and the coronavirus had not abated...

apnews.com

Following your "rule", this is a perfectly accurate quote of what you wrote.

"I bitch in whiny defence of Biden."​

because is was cut and pasted directly from your post.

 

[pamak]

Oops

Found it.

It doesn't quite say what you think it says. It does NOT say that a nations aggregate national "population density" is the most important factor in the spreading of COVID-19.

Did you know that Japan, also an island, has a population density of 899 / sq.mi. (as opposed to New Zealand's 46, so that should mean (assuming that population density is as important as the article says it is) that the Japanese "Deaths/Million" rate should be 19.54 times New Zealand's 5 (that would be 97.72) while it is actually 13.

Somehow this minor detail escaped the notice of the paper's authors

PS - Please don't get the idea that I am saying that the ACTUAL population density of any SPECIFIC area has NOTHING to do with the spread of COVID-19 - because I'm not. What I am saying is that the measure used for population density in the study was too crude for accurate analysis.

I love the fact that you come to such conclusions so fast. How much time did you actually spend to read the paper (26 pages)? The time lapse between my post that pointed to you the paper and your response came after 26 minutes.

Anyway, an example from the paper that you supposedly read

Page 10

In Figure 3 we see a significant correlation between rate of spread and ρN for Europe (r 2 = 0.26 and p < 0.004), and in Figure 4 we see an even stronger effect in terms of ρW (r 2 = 0.53 and p < 0.0001). Therefore, we conclude that in each case using non-standard measures of population density reveals statistically significant effects compared with those arising from the standard population density ρS. It appears that the population-weighted measure ρW is of the most value in this sense, explaining over half the variation in the rate of spread of COVID-19 across Europe.

Again, you fail to grasp that statistical analysis and correlations are derived from a big picture of many data points. If one wants to make an argument against such statistically significant link based on particular pairs of datapoints, then this is irrational. Again, it is like arguing that smoking is not significantly correlated to shorter life expectancy because we can find pairs of people where a non-smoker lives a shorter life than a smoker. Heck, the average Japanese smokes more than an American and lives longer than him..

 

[Rawley]

Following your "rule", this is a perfectly accurate quote of what you wrote.

"I bitch in whiny defence of Biden."​

because is was cut and pasted directly from your post.

Yes, your bitch was a whiny defense of Biden. But it wasn't a quote from my post. A paraphrase at best, which, at least in this country, you do not put quotation marks around.

 

[Montgomery]

The current, 7 day rolling average number of deaths in the US, as of this morning is 789

View attachment 67300814
​

fortunately there is a weekend coming up and the delays in testing/reporting that always occur on weekends will drive that averge back down somewhat. Fortunately for Mr. Trump, it would take an INCREDIBLE jump in the number of daily deaths to push the total up to 250,000 before 03 NOV 20 (because

"US DEATHS REACH QUARTER MILLION" ​

is a really sucky headline for an incumbent to have to deal with right before an election.

As I told you, it could change and become 800-1000 a day, or more. And in fact it did yesterday after we had discussed it.

United States COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

United States Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

I'm a Canadian and have no dog in your political fight, but I do lean with you to hoping it does increase for my own reasons.

 

[Montgomery]

I agree that there appears to be an increase in the daily death rate in the US

View attachment 67300796
​

When you smooth that out using the seven day average it looks like this

View attachment 67300797​

And when you smooth that out even more by using the 10 day average of the 7 day averages it looks like this

View attachment 67300798
​

I do admit that I tend to be picky about using the actual technical definition with respect to technical terms.



Are you one of those who denies that the Nazis killed around 15,000,000 people in their various death camps (permanent and temporary) and want to limit the number to those one or two camps that were specifically designated as "death camps" (which, of course, none were)?

First off, you're all over the map with your replies, so I'll be brief on each of your issues. The death rate was on the decline but a one day spike yesterday has shown that may change. I'll need to see more than one big day.

On the death camps issue, are you suggesting that no death camps existed? (in brackets)
For the record, I believe the truth. See Elie Weisel's evidence.

 

[Montgomery]

i said in A day.

have you looked at the last two weeks. each day in the last two weeks?

I really don't understand what you want to be true but I'll at least post a link to show what I consider to be true.

United States COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

United States Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

If you're hoping for the death count in the US to be 1000 a day again then I think it probably won't disappoint you. It certainly won't disappoint me!

 

[Montgomery]

Island, water. Shut down the airports and the ports. You're done. No virus coming in. Is this really rocket science?

In fairness, you have a point.
And also in fairness, you have to recognize that once the infection has entered the country, the isolation point you're making becomes of much less importance than the necessary precautions being observed. The reason for the US poor performance isn't because of infected people coming across your borders. Canada serves as a comparison too.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I really don't understand what you want to be true but I'll at least post a link to show what I consider to be true.

United States COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

United States Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

If you're hoping for the death count in the US to be 1000 a day again then I think it probably won't disappoint you. It certainly won't disappoint me!

dude. it's where i get the numbers.

now, how many died yesterday?

 

[Montgomery]

dude. it's where i get the numbers.

now, how many died yesterday?

I'll spend the time to answer you once. Yesterday the link says 1224 died. I won't include that in the daily average because the figure wasn't released when I make my comment or comments.
Now the average for the past seven days, excluding yesterday,s according to the link is 757.
Judging from yesterday, I suspect that the 7 day average is about to increase, but I say that with caution.
Otherwise, fwiw, I'm with you in hoping it does but not for the same reason you hope for an increase which is your political preference for Biden. My hope is for other reasons.

Why the fk is it necessary to state that which is the obvious for you when you can look at the numbers too?

 

[CaughtInThe]

I'll spend the time to answer you once. Yesterday the link says 1224 died.

exactly.

i never said anything about averages.

 

[pamak]

I'll spend the time to answer you once. Yesterday the link says 1224 died. I won't include that in the daily average because the figure wasn't released when I make my comment or comments.
Now the average for the past seven days, excluding yesterday,s according to the link is 757.
Judging from yesterday, I suspect that the 7 day average is about to increase, but I say that with caution.
Otherwise, fwiw, I'm with you in hoping it does but not for the same reason you hope for an increase which is your political preference for Biden. My hope is for other reasons.

Why the fk is it necessary to state that which is the obvious for you when you can look at the numbers too?

exactly.

i never said anything about averages.

To both of you:

Since you seem to use the worldmeter source, notice that for each country there is a link of projections based on modelling.
The expectation is that daily averages wll increase a lot in the next weeks

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

 

[Montgomery]

To both of you:

Since you seem to use the worldmeter source, notice that for each country there is a link of projections based on modelling.
The expectation is that daily averages wll increase a lot in the next weeks

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

I tend to mostly ignore predictions that are based on political wishful thinking. It usually turns out to be correct about 50% of the time. I 'do' lean toward an increase though.

In any case, it's held up well enough to keep Trump looking bad and it's not going to decrease to any significance in the next 12 days. It could actually reach 1000 to 2000 a day and that will be a crushing statistic for Trump.

Remember Trumpers, it's a fake virus!

 

[pamak]

I tend to mostly ignore predictions that are based on political wishful thinking. It usually turns out to be correct about 50% of the time. I 'do' lean toward an increase though.

In any case, it's held up well enough to keep Trump looking bad and it's not going to decrease to any significance in the next 12 days. It could actually reach 1000 to 2000 a day and that will be a crushing statistic for Trump.

Remember Trumpers, it's a fake virus!

Obviously,you did not examine the coding of the model, so you speculate about its political wishful thinking.

In any case, I provided you the source. You can track it over a period of time to see how close its predictions match real-life data. I will also point out that this model is constantly calibrated to better fit projections based on newly released data. So, just mark a day, say a month frm now, see the projected number of daily deaths as it is calculated today and check again the projections daily as we approach that day to see how far off it is from the initial projection you see today . At least then, you can have some data to make an evaluation instead of speculting about the existence of "political wishful thinking" within the model.

And do not get me wrong: I am not saying that models cannot be way off. I am saying that despite their weaknesses, they should not be summarily dismissed. As they say "all models are wrong but some are useful."

 

[Montgomery]

Obviously,you did not examine the coding of the model, so you speculate about its political wishful thinking.

In any case, I provided you the source. You can track it over a period of time to see how close its predictions match real-life data. I will also point out that this model is constantly calibrated to better fit projections based on newly released data. So, just mark a day, say a month frm now, see the projected number of daily deaths as it is calculated today and check again the projections daily as we approach that day to see how far off it is from the initial projection you see today . At least then, you can have some data to make an evaluation instead of speculting about the existence of "political wishful thinking" within the model.

And do not get me wrong: I am not saying that models cannot be way off. I am saying that despite their weaknesses, they should not be summarily dismissed. As they say "all models are wrong but some are useful."

The more you say, the more I get you wrong. What the fk are you on about now?

 

[Luce]

Do you have any examples where there were no co-mortality causes, proven?

What possible difference would that make?