• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I thought that with the lessoning of COVID deaths there would be less disinformation posted.

I was clearly wrong.

If any part of "The Aviator" is to be trusted as even partially based on factual biographical details of Howard's life, we can then state that Howard Hughes suffered a massive case of OCD driven germophobia based on the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918, which is now suspected to have been an ancient form of SARS and not really influenza.
If we go on that, we can expand a historical view of how the epidemic tortured the psyche of millions around the world, just as The Black Death did in the Dark Ages.

It's a safe bet that, thanks to the rabble rousing from the COVID anti-vaccine extremists, we will be hearing this nonsense for several generations hence, just as we heard evil twisted nursery rhymes based on millennia old plagues, NO SPITTING signs on city streets and legions of paranoiacs running around based on 1918 sanitary laws in reaction to the epidemic of that time.
 
The infection fatality of COVID is 0.03% across all age segments on average, not 2%.

For very young people it's as low as 0.002%, and increases exponentially with age.

Please see this link, offered by Stanford University Meta-Research Center. It is a safe bet to assume that they know what they are doing, and are a left-leaning University, if that matters to you. It seems to matter to a lot of people.
That includes those that are vaccinated, which push the case fatality rate much lower. Hell, even if being vaccinated only reduced on average the amount of sick days you have to take from work by a couple of days on average, it would still be foolish not to get vaccinated because of the extraordinarily low likelihood of any serious adverse effects from the vaccines.

Moreover, we really don't know what the actual case fatality rate for COVID is, vaccination rates have pushed it much lower as have the fact that newer variants are less serious. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
 
The guilty and cowardly will continually try to justify their poor choices to make themselves feel better.
 
That includes those that are vaccinated, which push the case fatality rate much lower. Hell, even if being vaccinated only reduced on average the amount of sick days you have to take from work by a couple of days on average, it would still be foolish not to get vaccinated because of the extraordinarily low likelihood of any serious adverse effects from the vaccines.

Moreover, we really don't know what the actual case fatality rate for COVID is, vaccination rates have pushed it much lower as have the fact that newer variants are less serious. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I didn't say say anything about being vaccinated. I, myself have three shots. I'm just trying help inform people of the numbers, which are often misrepresented.
 
Incorrect. That number is derived by the actual number of infections.
23-03-13 A1 - G8 + CHINA COVID TABLE.JPG
Total US cases
=
105,602,997

Total US deaths
=
1,148,785

1,148,785 ÷ 105,605,997
=
1.0878028072591369976839478159559%

Total US population
=
336,216,210

1,148,785 ÷ 336,605,997
=
0.34128476920748384646278301452841%​

Are you sure of your "facts"? I'm sure of mine.
I find your continued personal attack on me disheartening, I ask that you refrain. I hold no ill will. I'm only trying to help people accurately track reality by citing authoritative sources, and I assure you that I know exactly what I am talking about.
If you were "trying to help people accurately track [sic] reality" then you would be well advised to know what you are talking about.

Having a good grasp of basic statistical analysis and knowing what the terms you are using would be a good start.
I don't claim that 100% of people have had COVID, but it's very, very close.
Your next paragraph contradicts that statement
Please see this CDC link citing a 96% prevalence estimate in the pediatric population as of December, 2022. Hence, taking the population at this point is completely within bounds.
Did you know that "having antibodies against 'Disease X'" and "contracting 'Disease X'" do NOT mean the same thing?

Of course you didn't.
Once again, I'm not the one creating these numbers. I'm quoting them here for you, but they are from the CDC and Stanford University. It's going to difficult to debunk this with some excel sheets you've filled out. Why is this so hard to accept? These are accurate, authoritative sources.
The numbers are one thing, an analysis by someone who doesn't have a clue what the numbers actually mean (and doesn't even know what the terms they are using mean) is something else again - especially when the person pushing the "analysis" is doing so in order to push a political agenda.

PS - I guess that you didn't happen to notice that I did cite the source for the data in the spread sheet. Of course, since you want to believe that I simply made them all up, you wouldn't admit it if you had.
 
Last edited:
That includes those that are vaccinated, which push the case fatality rate much lower. Hell, even if being vaccinated only reduced on average the amount of sick days you have to take from work by a couple of days on average, it would still be foolish not to get vaccinated because of the extraordinarily low likelihood of any serious adverse effects from the vaccines.

Moreover, we really don't know what the actual case fatality rate for COVID is, vaccination rates have pushed it much lower as have the fact that newer variants are less serious. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
The world wide "Mortality Rate ALL" rate for COVID-19 is 1.00% and for "Mortality Rate CLOSED" it is 1.03%. Considering that that includes countries with (single shot) vaccination rates in the low 20%s (and with [full] vaccination rates of less than 0.5%) as well as countries with (single shot) vaccination rates in the upper 90%s (and with [full] vaccination rates of more than 90%), I'd be willing to bet a beer that the world wide (and US) mortality rates are "slightly" more accurate than the 0.3% that people seeking to push a political agenda are claiming.

Of course, the link goes to "The New York Times" and not to "The Tucker Carlson Really Real Truly Truthful Institute for Honest and Truthful Reporting", so I guess that it's all lies - right?
 
I didn't say say anything about being vaccinated. I, myself have three shots. I'm just trying help inform people of the numbers, which are often misrepresented.
Yes, indeed, you are quite consistent in misrepresenting "the numbers".
 
View attachment 67440634
Total US cases
=
105,602,997

Total US deaths
=
1,148,785

1,148,785 ÷ 105,605,997
=
1.0878028072591369976839478159559%

Total US population
=
336,216,210

1,148,785 ÷ 336,605,997
=
0.34128476920748384646278301452841%​

Are you sure of your "facts"? I'm sure of mine.

If you were "trying to help people accurately track [sic] reality" then you would be well advised to know what you are talking about.

Having a good grasp of basic statistical analysis and knowing what the terms you are using would be a good start.

Your next paragraph contradicts that statement

Did you know that "having antibodies against 'Disease X'" and "contracting 'Disease X'" do NOT mean the same thing?

Of course you didn't.

The numbers are one thing, an analysis by someone who doesn't have a clue what the numbers actually mean (and doesn't even know what the terms they are using mean) is something else again - especially when the person pushing the "analysis" is doing so in order to push a political agenda.

PS - I guess that you didn't happen to notice that I did cite the source for the data in the spread sheet. Of course, since you want to believe that I simply made them all up, you wouldn't admit it if you had.

Again, these are numbers and statements by both Stanford and the CDC. They aren't my numbers and not my analysis.

Attacking me personally does little to help your argument - I'll ask again that you stop doing that, please.

I have no political right-wing agenda, I generally hold liberal values and voted for Trudeau on more that one occasion now. Yet, you made assumptions about my political affiliation because I posted numbers to correct a misconception. This seems silly to me.

Do you honestly think that your analysis is correct and represents what you think it does? Do you think that your ability to understand exceeds that of Stanford and the CDC? Do you think your excel sheets are more authoritative and accurate than those of the CDC and Stanford?

I've always responded to your posts with actual answers, but you haven't explained how any of the source material at the CDC and Stanford is wrong. Can you please stop making ad hominem attacks and speak directly to the content of the argument, please? Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude you're trolling me.
 
Again, these are numbers and statements by both Stanford and the CDC. They aren't my numbers and not my analysis.
When I see someone who simply doesn't understand what someone else's analysis means, I will continue to say so.
Attacking me personally does little to help your argument - I'll ask again that you stop doing that, please.
Demonstrating that your statement is "numerical BS" is not even close to attacking you personally.
I have no political right-wing agenda, I generally hold liberal values and voted for Trudeau on more that one occasion now.
Good for you. What is living in the riding of Papineau, in the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec like?
Yet, you made assumptions about my political affiliation because I posted numbers to correct a misconception. This seems silly to me.
I said that you were pushing A political agenda. I did not specify WHICH political agenda you were pushing.
Do you honestly think that your analysis is correct and represents what you think it does?
Basic arithmetic is basic arithmetic.
Do you think that your ability to understand exceeds that of Stanford and the CDC?
Nope, but I DO know what the terms that Stanford and the CDC use mean - which you don't appear to do.
Do you think your excel sheets are more authoritative and accurate than those of the CDC and Stanford?
Do you dispute the data?

PS - The charts and graphs that I produce are generated daily using the latest available data from official sources.
I've always responded to your posts with actual answers, but you haven't explained how any of the source material at the CDC and Stanford is wrong.
I never said that "the source material" was wrong - only that you didn't have a clue as to what that source material actually meant.
Can you please stop making ad hominem attacks and speak directly to the content of the argument, please? Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude you're trolling me.
I will continue to point out when you give every indication of simply not understanding what you are talking about.

BTW, did you know that all that is required for the human body to "produce antibodies against Disease X" is EXPOSURE to Disease X and that it is NOT required for the person to have actually contracted the disease?
 
I'll respond to the only two points that have anything to do with the content of the argument. The rest of the comments seem to be designed to be insult attempts.

Do you dispute the data?
I don't dispute the raw numbers you have. I dispute the analysis in the following ways:
  • The infection mortality cannot be calculated using deaths/official cases. This is the case fatality rate. It only counts cases that have been officially tested by PCR swab and submitted as an official case. Using this number as the denominator can only be seen as accurate if almost all cases are captured via official testing.
  • The number you've calculated is something known as case fatality, not infection fatality and results in a gross over-estimate of mortality rates.
  • I was responding to the comment of "anti-vaxxers to lick, snort ... the 2% or so who die horribly as a result", which implies exposure to COVID (not guaranteed to become a full blown case). The chances of the person in that example dying from SARS-CoV-2 exposure is not 2%, nor is it 1.03%, it is 0.03% averaged across all age groups, per the latest Stanford numbers.
So, whereas the numbers are accurate the conclusion from the analysis is not. This is why I ask you to consider whether you have enough knowledge to dispute the statements made by Stanford, yet here we are.

BTW, did you know that all that is required for the human body to "produce antibodies against Disease X" is EXPOSURE to Disease X and that it is NOT required for the person to have actually contracted the disease?
Indeed I do.

This is, however, a distinction without a difference. Infections can range from completely asymptomatic to multi-organ failure or pneumonia and death. There are people that will continually be exposed to this virus and never become ill and never develop any substantial infection. This is all beside the point. They are out there - living life and are being constantly exposed and therefor should be counted in the denominator for the above calculation.

Any detection of virus-produced antibodies in the population is a true indicator of the general deadliness of this virus within our population, which is what we are concerned with.

Accuracy matters. Reality matters. Otherwise we start living in a world where 41% of democrats think that the chances of going to hospital with COVID is 50%. They thought this, only last summer I think. The actual number is between 1% and 5%. How can people consistently hold beliefs that are 10 fold removed from reality? Maybe even 50 fold? This isn't without consequence... people shape their lives and support policy based upon beliefs that they hold, and if none of us step up to correct the record, where does that get us?

I'm not trying to be some purveyor of misinformation, I'm trying to help.
 
I'll respond to the only two points that have anything to do with the content of the argument. The rest of the comments seem to be designed to be insult attempts.


I don't dispute the raw numbers you have. I dispute the analysis in the following ways:
  • The infection mortality cannot be calculated using deaths/official cases. This is the case fatality rate. It only counts cases that have been officially tested by PCR swab and submitted as an official case. Using this number as the denominator can only be seen as accurate if almost all cases are captured via official testing.
  • The number you've calculated is something known as case fatality, not infection fatality and results in a gross over-estimate of mortality rates.
  • I was responding to the comment of "anti-vaxxers to lick, snort ... the 2% or so who die horribly as a result", which implies exposure to COVID (not guaranteed to become a full blown case). The chances of the person in that example dying from SARS-CoV-2 exposure is not 2%, nor is it 1.03%, it is 0.03% averaged across all age groups, per the latest Stanford numbers.
So, whereas the numbers are accurate the conclusion from the analysis is not. This is why I ask you to consider whether you have enough knowledge to dispute the statements made by Stanford, yet here we are.
I have more than enough knowledge to prove that what you say the conclusion is simply is not what Stanford said the conclusion was.
Indeed I do.

This is, however, a distinction without a difference. Infections can range from completely asymptomatic to multi-organ failure or pneumonia and death. There are people that will continually be exposed to this virus and never become ill and never develop any substantial infection. This is all beside the point. They are out there - living life and are being constantly exposed and therefor should be counted in the denominator for the above calculation.

Any detection of virus-produced antibodies in the population is a true indicator of the general deadliness of this virus within our population, which is what we are concerned with.
Nope, you were conflating "was exposed to COVID-19 (regardless of now slightly and dies" to "contracted COVID-19 and died due to COVID-19"
Accuracy matters. Reality matters. Otherwise we start living in a world where 41% of democrats think that the chances of going to hospital with COVID is 50%. They thought this, only last summer I think. The actual number is between 1% and 5%.
Which has what to do with the fact that you still don't know what the terms that you are using mean?
How can people consistently hold beliefs that are 10 fold removed from reality? Maybe even 50 fold?
It has happened throughout history and will continue to happen.
This isn't without consequence... people shape their lives and support policy based upon beliefs that they hold,
Well, there you and I are in agreement.
and if none of us step up to correct the record, where does that get us?
Probably further ahead than if some of us keep pushing falsehoods.
I'm not trying to be some purveyor of misinformation, I'm trying to help.
You would help a whole lot more if you would stop purveying misinformation.
 
I have more than enough knowledge to prove that what you say the conclusion is simply is not what Stanford said the conclusion was.

Nope, you were conflating "was exposed to COVID-19 (regardless of now slightly and dies" to "contracted COVID-19 and died due to COVID-19"

Which has what to do with the fact that you still don't know what the terms that you are using mean?

It has happened throughout history and will continue to happen.

Well, there you and I are in agreement.

Probably further ahead than if some of us keep pushing falsehoods.

You would help a whole lot more if you would stop purveying misinformation.
Everything I've posted is cited and credited to authoritative and trustworthy organizations. I don't understand why you won't acknowledge this. I also don't understand why you continue to imply that I don't know anything, as if that has any bearing on what these organizations publish, it just simply doesn't.

Regardless, I've posted my bit and attempted to defend the position, and that's all I can do really. I hope that others reading this exchange can further their own understanding and maybe get something positive and useful out of it. Until the next time, I suppose.
 
Everything I've posted is cited and credited to authoritative and trustworthy organizations.
Not everything. The data, yes. What the sources said the data meant, yes. What you said the sources said the data meant, no
I don't understand why you won't acknowledge this.
Possibly because you don't remember me "acknowledging" all of the above.
I also don't understand why you continue to imply that I don't know anything, as if that has any bearing on what these organizations publish, it just simply doesn't.
Since you don't appear to be able to do the simple arithmetic that you say proves your conclusion and don't appear to be able to use the forum software as intended, and since I never implied that you didn't know anything (I'm absolutely positive that you know your own name and address more often than not) - I can quite see why you don't understand what I have posted (with data sources).
Regardless, I've posted my bit and attempted to defend the position, and that's all I can do really.
True, you did make a very persistent and flailing "defence" of a "position" that your own "evidence" doesn't support.
I hope that others reading this exchange can further their own understanding and maybe get something positive and useful out of it. Until the next time, I suppose.
I rather suspect that most of them are actually able to do simple long division and percentages so I am quite sure that their understanding of the situation will increase and something positive and useful will come of your efforts. (Unfortunately, I don't think that that "positive and useful" will be quite what you would like it to be.)
 
COVID-19 is still a "pandemic" disease, of course so are the common cold and influenza.

What the situation in the US is now is that the "panICdemic" stage of the disease has passed.

By today's count, COVID-19 is down to being (only) the FIFTH most common cause of death in the US.
 
Your observation is accurate, I believe.

Because, there's nothing of note to report. The pandemic's over. The past is all they have.
The "pandemic" is not over for those of us still dealing with the effects of the vax. I find it striking that for three years we've been asked to accept the numbers without question, that we were not allowed to point out that many of the "Covid deaths" were actually deaths from heart disease or cancer or diabetes or COPD or just plain old age and that they were only called Covid deaths because the people were tested with a woefully inaccurate test post-mortem and came up positive.

Now, when someone who takes the shot dies or is sickened we are asked to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the vaccine or STFU. Where's the blind acceptance of numbers now?

I also find it striking that for two years we've been accused of being heartless murderers for not taking the vax, yet now that people are dying or being injured from it we hear no apologies.

My wife was coerced into taking one shot 17 months ago. She was in the ICU within two days and just came back from her 27th trip to a hospital. Fifth hospital, in four counties. She's been seen by over forty doctors. Only two have been willing to acknowledge that since she was fine before she took the shot and has not been fine ever since, there might be a correlation.

I'm also struck by the people who think my wife's condition is irrelevant because they took the shot and they feel fine, so obviously the shot is safe. That's kind of like saying Russian roulette is safe because you spun the cylinder, put the gun to your head , pulled the trigger and lived.
 
The "pandemic" is not over for those of us still dealing with the effects of the vax. I find it striking that for three years we've been asked to accept the numbers without question, that we were not allowed to point out that many of the "Covid deaths" were actually deaths from heart disease or cancer or diabetes or COPD or just plain old age and that they were only called Covid deaths because the people were tested with a woefully inaccurate test post-mortem and came up positive.

Now, when someone who takes the shot dies or is sickened we are asked to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the vaccine or STFU. Where's the blind acceptance of numbers now?

I also find it striking that for two years we've been accused of being heartless murderers for not taking the vax, yet now that people are dying or being injured from it we hear no apologies.

My wife was coerced into taking one shot 17 months ago. She was in the ICU within two days and just came back from her 27th trip to a hospital. Fifth hospital, in four counties. She's been seen by over forty doctors. Only two have been willing to acknowledge that since she was fine before she took the shot and has not been fine ever since, there might be a correlation.

I'm also struck by the people who think my wife's condition is irrelevant because they took the shot and they feel fine, so obviously the shot is safe. That's kind of like saying Russian roulette is safe because you spun the cylinder, put the gun to your head , pulled the trigger and lived.

A fraction of a percentage have any lasting "effects of the vax".
 
A fraction of a percentage have any lasting "effects of the vax".
It's odd that you say that. Over the last three years I've lost over two dozen friends, none of them to Covid. Two have died after taking the shot. Three have had strokes, two of them women in their forties. Several friends have not felt well since taking the shot, and I know more vaccinated people who've gotten Covid than unvaccinated people. Those who were unvaccinated got it only once, and were only slightly affected by it, whereas those who were vaccinated got it worse, and keep getting it.

The effects of the vax are being passed off as anything but the vax (heat, cold, undiagnosed pre-existing conditions -- anything but the vax), which brings me back to the point I already made: Why were we inundated by case numbers and death tolls we were not allowed to question but now that people are actually getting sick and dying it is being swept under the rug?
 
It's odd that you say that. Over the last three years I've lost over two dozen friends, none of them to Covid. Two have died after taking the shot. Three have had strokes, two of them women in their forties. Several friends have not felt well since taking the shot, and I know more vaccinated people who've gotten Covid than unvaccinated people. Those who were unvaccinated got it only once, and were only slightly affected by it, whereas those who were vaccinated got it worse, and keep getting it.

The effects of the vax are being passed off as anything but the vax (heat, cold, undiagnosed pre-existing conditions -- anything but the vax), which brings me back to the point I already made: Why were we inundated by case numbers and death tolls we were not allowed to question but now that people are actually getting sick and dying it is being swept under the rug?

Interesting how it is always the anti-vaxxers that come up with vax induced illnesses.

Not that I don't believe you.... Well, actually I don't.
 
A fraction of a percentage have any lasting "effects of the vax".
Just out of curiosity, what do you reckon caused the huge increase in 18-64 year old mortality rates in the final two quarters of 2021? It was presented as an increase compared to pre-Covid rates but Covid had been around for over a year and a half by that time. Considering that the whole vax scam was based on exponential spread and a projected 1%-6% mortality rate, shouldn't those deaths have happened in late 2019/early 2020? Or did Covid take a break during the George Floyd riots?
 
Interesting how it is always the anti-vaxxers that come up with vax induced illnesses.

Not that I don't believe you.... Well, actually I don't.
You're free to believe what you wish. It would be nice if your belief made my wife well but it won't. And obviously you missed my point. No anti-vaxxer made my vaccinated friends sick.
 
It's odd that you say that. Over the last three years I've lost over two dozen friends, none of them to Covid. Two have died after taking the shot. Three have had strokes, two of them women in their forties. Several friends have not felt well since taking the shot, and I know more vaccinated people who've gotten Covid than unvaccinated people. Those who were unvaccinated got it only once, and were only slightly affected by it, whereas those who were vaccinated got it worse, and keep getting it.

The effects of the vax are being passed off as anything but the vax (heat, cold, undiagnosed pre-existing conditions -- anything but the vax), which brings me back to the point I already made: Why were we inundated by case numbers and death tolls we were not allowed to question but now that people are actually getting sick and dying it is being swept under the rug?
I don’t think anyone is sweeping anything under the rug. We’re playing statistics, and statistics show it’s much safer to vaccinate a whole population of people and end up with better results for that society as has been shown in almost all countries including ours.

As for an individuals right to NOT vax themselves or their families for whatever reason, I’m on the fence about that. In situations where a person is employed in a job that requires public contact or contact between employees, I think an employer can decide your employment status based on your decision. Much like companies can decide that they will drug test for marijuana even if the drug is legal in your state, and not hire you, or fire you if they find it.

Deepest sympathies for your wife. I can’t imagine what I would think if my wife were in that position.
With any medication there are side effects and unintended consequences. I think what most opponents of your views think is that you use your wife’s injury to imply that the whole covid thing was a hoax and none of it is worth looking at. The deep state is not implementing the great reset or whatever.
 
I don’t think anyone is sweeping anything under the rug. We’re playing statistics, and statistics show it’s much safer to vaccinate a whole population of people and end up with better results for that society as has been shown in almost all countries including ours.

As for an individuals right to NOT vax themselves or their families for whatever reason, I’m on the fence about that. In situations where a person is employed in a job that requires public contact or contact between employees, I think an employer can decide your employment status based on your decision. Much like companies can decide that they will drug test for marijuana even if the drug is legal in your state, and not hire you, or fire you if they find it.

Deepest sympathies for your wife. I can’t imagine what I would think if my wife were in that position.
With any medication there are side effects and unintended consequences. I think what most opponents of your views think is that you use your wife’s injury to imply that the whole covid thing was a hoax and none of it is worth looking at. The deep state is not implementing the great reset or whatever.
As we've talked about elsewhere, I've been following Covid since Nov. 2019 and not seeing the numbers add up. Statistics are great but if you don't look into where the numbers come from they're meaningless.
 
Back
Top Bottom