• 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!

Which is more dangerous : Covid or the Covid vaccines?

Which is more dangerous? Covid or the Covid vaccines?

  • Covid

  • Covid vaccines


Results are only viewable after voting.
I addressed his link.

Nah, you claimed to have debunked it and figured nobody saw you fail to grasp the concept of population density.

It was a hilarious and pretty impressive thing for an adult.

😄
 
I gave you the data. Per 100k people: NY had a death rate of 41.4 deaths; Texas had a death rate of 49. Thats pretty simple to understand. If you don't get it I can't help you. Its common for MAGATS to be unable to accept reality. This data is from the CDC:


From your link.

We standardised infection rates for population density and death rates for age and the prevalenceof major comorbidities to facilitate comparison of states’ successes in mitigating the effects of COVID-19. We regressedthese health outcomes on prepandemic state characteristics (such as educational attainment and health spending percapita), policies adopted by states during the pandemic (such as mask mandates and business closures), and populationlevel behavioural responses (such as vaccine coverage and mobility).

Although adjusted for differences in age-distribution and population size, rankings by state do not take into account other state specific population characteristics that may affect the level of mortality.

Their adjusted number is different than your other adjusted number.

What's the actual number?

I answered your question. You answer mine.
 
And yet your own paper says the studies on US data contradict their own findings.


Texas obviously, but your numbers are wrong. I already posted the actual numbers. It doesn't matter if you do it per hundred or per million. The ranking won't change.

So you can take this math and multiply it by a million, a hundred, or a hundred thousand, and New York will still be higher than Texas.

Texas
14,573/31290831 = 0.000465727

New York
11,129/20201249 = 0.000550907
Link? The CDC link contradicts this information. So does the Lancet link provided by another poster.
 
Link? The CDC link contradicts this information. So does the Lancet link provided by another poster.

Contradicts what?

I used the total deaths from your CDC link and divided it by the population of the two states.

Feel free to pull the populations from here. There's no voodoo math.

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html

You don't realize you've posted two links that try to standardize the deaths in the states using their own criteria, and each study producted different numbers.
 
From your link.





Their adjusted number is different than your other adjusted number.

What's the actual number?

I answered your question. You answer mine.
Sure. The actual number for the CDC data is: NY: 41.4 deaths per 100k; Texas: 49 deaths per 100k. These are age adjusted numbers, not raw numbers, as the link I posted clearly states. Do you think its reasonable to correct for older populations(for example) when considering death rates, knowing that the older a person is the more likely he or she is to die from the disease? Or is every infected person at equal risk of dying in your world....? Which is the more relevant data then?
 
Last edited:
So your response to questions about population density is a paper about data out of India. Did you even read your own link or do you just Google the phrase you want to be true and just copy the first thing you find. This is the second time you've done this. 🤣

You can calculate it yourself if you like.

I've addressed it repeatedly. I'm not sure you grasp any concept at all.

I find intentional ignorance of COVID to be entertaining.
 
Sure. The actual number for the CDC data is: NY: 41.4 deaths per 100k; Texas: 49 deaths per 100k. These are age and comorbidity adjusted numbers, not raw numbers, as the link I posted clearly states.

I know. I pointed it out to you. Remember?

I'm not entirely sure you were aware of what you posted in any of your links, or maybe you did and hoped I wouldn't examine them.

Do you think its reasonable to correct for older populations(for example) when considering death rates? Or is every infected person at equal risk of dying in your world....?

And reward new york for the nursing home debacle? I think not. new york lost a larger percentage of its population to COVID than Texas did. There's just no way around it.

What else should we adjust for. Race, gender...who gets brought back to life doing that?
 
I know. I pointed it out to you. Remember?

I'm not entirely sure you were aware of what you posted in any of your links.



And reward new york for the nursing home debacle? I think not. new york lost a larger percentage of its population to COVID than Texas did. There's just no way around it.

What else should we adjust for. Race, gender...who gets brought back to life doing that?
When you correct for known variables you obtain more meaningful data sets. It is well known that age is the single most important risk factor in deaths from Covid. If one population has an average age of 80 and another population has an average age of 40 the death rates are dramatically different. For the under 40 group the mortality rate is 96 per 100k; for the 80 year old population the rate is 3253 per 100k. That is why the CDC corrects for age when providing these statistics, and normal people get this. Simple fact: NY has an older population than Texas. That needs to be taken into consideration since age is the single most important factor in determining whether a person will die from covid or survive. You obviously have a problem with this. Too bad.
My preference would be to include other confounding factors such as race, socioeconomic factors etc, but logistically that was apparently not possible. They got the most important one.

Age​

Age remains the strongest risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes, with risk of severe outcomes increasing markedly with increasing age. Based on data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) at NCHS (Risk for COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death By Age Group), compared with ages 18–29 years, the risk of death is 25 times higher in those ages 50–64 years, 60 times higher in those ages 65–74 years, 140 times higher in those ages 75–84 years, and 340 times higher in those ages 85+ years. Notably, these data include all deaths in the United States that occurred throughout the pandemic, from February 2020 to July 1, 2022, including deaths among unvaccinated individuals.

 
When you correct for known variables you obtain more meaningful data sets. It is well known that age is the single most important risk factor in deaths from Covid. If one population has an average age of 80 and another population has an average age of 40 the death rates are dramatically different. For the under 40 group the mortality rate is 96 per 100k; for the 80 year old population the rate is 3253 per 100k. That is why the CDC corrects for age when providing these statistics, and normal people get this. Simple fact: NY has an older population than Texas. That needs to be taken into consideration since age is the single most important factor in determining whether a person will die from covid or survive. You obviously have a problem with this. Too bad.
My preference would be to include other confounding factors such as race, socioeconomic factors etc, but logistically that was apparently not possible. They got the most important one.

You've literally only brought this up in your past two posts. You tried the population density argument but that fell apart, then you tried to tell me the percentage of sick who die is what really matters(per capity doesn't matter), and you weren't aware that the data was "adjusted" until I pointed it out to you pages ago, and even then you didn't realize until this page. In fact you weren't even aware you CDC link was per capita data until I told you.

Adjusting for any confounding factors is guesswork. Which is why your two links produced completely different numbers. It also rewards new york for bad policy, and the "adjustment" doesn't bring anybody back to life.

new york had more deaths relative to the state's population than Texas. It's undeniable.
 
relative to the state's population
If you are arguing about statistics, you have to accept how stats are adjusted for apples to apples comparisons. If you reject that standard, you shouldn't use stats.
 
If you are arguing about statistics, you have to accept how stats are adjusted for apples to apples comparisons. If you reject that standard, you shouldn't use stats.

You should follow the conversation. We're discussing the quality of COVID response. new york turned nursing homes into death row, and this "adjustment" is waving that away and trying to say old people die anyway.

Not here.

new york had so many covid deaths it lost a house seat.
 
You've literally only brought this up in your past two posts. You tried the population density argument but that fell apart, then you tried to tell me the percentage of sick who die is what really matters(per capity doesn't matter), and you weren't aware that the data was "adjusted" until I pointed it out to you pages ago, and even then you didn't realize until this page. In fact you weren't even aware you CDC link was per capita data until I told you.

Adjusting for any confounding factors is guesswork. Which is why your two links produced completely different numbers. It also rewards new york for bad policy, and the "adjustment" doesn't bring anybody back to life.

new york had more deaths relative to the state's population than Texas. It's undeniable.
I don’t give a rats ass if you believe I understand what is in the CDC data.
I will wind this debate up with one last analogy and a question.
When I read medical studies about the efficacy of drugs in trials one of the first things I look at is whether or not they adjusted for confounding variables in the study. It’s not sufficient to simply look at the conclusion. The devil is always in the details. You have to dissect the study to see if it’s valid-for example, did they choose study participants who were unusually healthy without significant comorbities? This is known as “cherry picking”. Or were comorbidities corrected for in the study. Studies that didn’t correct for comorbidities are pretty useless.
It’s known that age is the single most important factor in whether or not someone will die from covid-by far. States that have mostly 20 year olds will have a very low death rate compared to states with mostly 80 year olds (obviously an exaggeration to make a point).
Do you think that data that corrects for age is more useful in determining covid death rate in a population than raw data in terms of how adequate the response of a given state was to the pandemic?
 
For those who say the vaccine is more dangerous, did then President Trump do a disservice to the American people with Operation Warp Speed? After all President Trump takes credit for getting the vaccine out for use so quickly.
 
The vaccine is favorable to use if a persons body would be harmed by the side effects of the virus..
The problem with that logic is that you won't know until AFTER they get sick.
At that point they are not only sick themselves, but also contagious, thereby spreading the disease.
The reason we invented vaccines is to prevent sickness.

People who are already not healthy and near the end of life.
Plenty of healthy and young poeple get sick for preventable diseases all the time.

It is favorable not to vaccinate people who have good immune systems if they would weather it well.
I have a friend who also told me the solution to every health problem is 'the immune system'. It isn't. He found that out

The reason is there are too many possible side effects that are permanent.
No, there aren't.
 
There's no "they." There's a balance in nature, and we are testing the limits of it, with both overpopulation and environmental impact. You're making that typical hypocritical argument that liberals make. You want to think you can control every outcome through collective force without addressing the actual cause. The cause of the pandemic was manmade, as was its spread. But due to nature's harsh proclivity to capitalize on weakness and strength, it mutated and will again. Vaccines are ineffective. If you want to politicize it, fine, but your position is essentially irrelevant
Post #330

So, only liberals support mandating certain vaccines?

As for your statement in this post - #330 - that "Vaccines are ineffective". It's not true. Smallpox and polio come to mind.
 
I don’t give a rats ass if you believe I understand what is in the CDC data.

Of course I understand what's in the CDC data. I was the one who explained to you. You thought it was "the percentage of people who get COVID and die." You didn't know it was per capita, and you didn't know it was adjusted.
When I read medical studies about the efficacy of drugs in trials one of the first things I look at is whether or not they adjusted for confounding variables in the study. It’s not sufficient to simply look at the conclusion. The devil is always in the details. You have to dissect the study to see if it’s valid-for example, did they choose study participants who were unusually healthy without significant comorbities? This is known as “cherry picking”. Or were comorbidities corrected for in the study. Studies that didn’t correct for comorbidities are pretty useless.

Do you actually read medical studies? You didn't appear to read any of the links you posted.

1. Adjusted per capita death then saying per capita rates are useless a page laters
2. The relationship between population density and deaths in India that even said its conclusions were different than what was seen in American data.
3. Another study about per capita deaths that nobody cares about.

It’s known that age is the single most important factor in whether or not someone will die from covid-by far. States that have mostly 20 year olds will have a very low death rate compared to states with mostly 80 year olds (obviously an exaggeration to make a point).


Do you think that data that corrects for age is more useful in determining covid death rate in a population than raw data in terms of how adequate the response of a given state was to the pandemic?

Why would I think that?

1. The discussion was about COVID response. Saying that old people are more likely to die of COVID ignores the fact that specific new york policy led the death of many seniors in that state.
2. In a sample of a million Texans, 600 fewer would have died of COVID than in new york. Any argument that new york's policies would have resulted in fewer deaths in Texas is just speculation evidenced by the variation in the studies' results. I'm sure I could do a study and weight the data in a way to make it say whatever I want, but I'll just take the fewer dead.
 
Of course I understand what's in the CDC data. I was the one who explained to you. You thought it was "the percentage of people who get COVID and die." You didn't know it was per capita, and you didn't know it was adjusted.


Do you actually read medical studies? You didn't appear to read any of the links you posted.

1. Adjusted per capita death then saying per capita rates are useless a page laters
2. The relationship between population density and deaths in India that even said its conclusions were different than what was seen in American data.
3. Another study about per capita deaths that nobody cares about.






Why would I think that?

1. The discussion was about COVID response. Saying that old people are more likely to die of COVID ignores the fact that specific new york policy led the death of many seniors in that state.
2. In a sample of a million Texans, 600 fewer would have died of COVID than in new york. Any argument that new york's policies would have resulted in fewer deaths in Texas is just speculation evidenced by the variation in the studies' results. I'm sure I could do a study and weight the data in a way to make it say whatever I want, but I'll just take the fewer dead.
So in your warped opinion correcting for the single most important variable in judging the covid response in a state (age)-not to mention the fairly well established link between high death rates and high population density-adds nothing to make the comparison more relevant.
You took the CDC numbers I gave you (corrected for age, appropriately) and decided instead to use raw data to promote your agenda.
This is yet another example of why it’s impossible to try to carry on a rational discussion with MAGATS. When presented with the facts they simply deny their existence in a useless attempt to validate their false narrative. Tell you what: you go on believing that we shouldn’t consider the single most important variable when it comes to death rates and us normal people will understand how important it is.
We are done.
 
Last edited:
leftoids in new york developed Stockholm Syndrome. They willingly allowed themselves to be forced to stay at home, leave home only with their papers, and have their jobs taken away from them, and they were thanking their captors for it.

"All glory to our government, out great savior. Can we please just have a tiny check every now and then for our compliance?"

Texas reopened in May 2020 because Texans weren't going to put up with lockdown anymore, and we had fewer deaths per capita than new york.
Texas vs. New York: COVID-19 Deaths Per Capita After Reopening

Texas reopened in May 2020, while New York maintained stricter lockdown measures. Initially, Texas had far fewer deaths per capita than New York:

- As of April 26, 2020, New York had 114 deaths per 100,000 people, while Texas had only 2.3 deaths per 100,000. (Mises Institute)

However, Texas experienced significant spikes in cases and deaths in summer and winter 2020. By March 2021, Texas was averaging 232 deaths per day, ranking second in the nation behind California. (CDC)

While Texas initially had fewer deaths per capita, later surges narrowed the gap between the two states. The debate over lockdown policies remains complex with some arguing that strict measures saved lives in high-density areas like New York, while others believe early reopening helped economic recovery in states like Texas.

Your argument about New York vs. Texas is disingenuous. You're comparing apples to oranges. New York's initial response was a failure, yes, but let's look at the actual data. Texas didn't deal with the same issues because its city populations were sparser than New York's city population, and initial virus outbreaks in Texas were better contained as it is less of a hub for international transportation.

In contrast, New York was able to reduce their deaths per day and per capita with their lockdown guidelines. Texas chose to reopen early, and their deaths per day and per capita far exceeded those in New York. California was a mix of both issues with population density and early reopenings compounding into a perfect storm with disastrous consequences.

Sources:
- CDC COVID-19 Mortality Data
- Mises Institute: NY vs. Texas COVID-19 Deaths
- Statista: U.S. COVID-19 Death Rates by State
 
Last edited:
Again. Didn't read your own link. Report the actual number, not the arbitrarility adjusted one that rewards new york's colossal senior citizen failure.

I think 384 is higher than 365.
Post #375


Here you go, refusing to accept death rates/deaths per capita.
 
Last edited:
Nah, you claimed to have debunked it and figured nobody saw you fail to grasp the concept of population density.

It was a hilarious and pretty impressive thing for an adult.

😄
He decided that the appropriately adjusted data I gave him wasn’t good enough so he decided to produce his own raw (less useful) data to suit his own narrative, accusing me of not knowing the details of the information I gave him in the process. He basically didn’t like the data I gave him so he made up his own.
Just to be clear: the best way to compare a state’s response to covid in terms of how many people died is deaths per 100k while adjusting for as many confounding variables as possible.
You can’t carry on a rational debate with people who live in a fantasy world.
 
Last edited:
He decided that the appropriately adjusted data I gave him wasn’t good enough so he decided to produce his own raw (less useful) data to suit his own narrative, accusing me of not knowing the details of the information I gave him in the process. He basically didn’t like the data I gave him so he made up his own.
You can’t carry on a rational debate with people who live in a fantasy world.
I think it's better argued from a timeline and location perspective. New York handles far more international travel than Texas, so an unexpected pandemic hit an unprepared geographical location particularly hard early. As New York increased preparation, Texas ignored it. Death tolls flip-flopped as a result.

Looking at an overall period of time ignores the events @tharock220 was arguing about. As usual, someone against lockdowns and other public health guidelines oversimplified the situation in order to falsely substantiate their position. It seems to be a trend.
 
Texas vs. New York: COVID-19 Deaths Per Capita After Reopening

Texas reopened in May 2020, while New York maintained stricter lockdown measures. Initially, Texas had far fewer deaths per capita than New York:

- As of April 26, 2020, New York had 114 deaths per 100,000 people, while Texas had only 2.3 deaths per 100,000. (Mises Institute)

However, Texas experienced significant spikes in cases and deaths in summer and winter 2020. By March 2021, Texas was averaging 232 deaths per day, ranking second in the nation behind California. (CDC)

While Texas initially had fewer deaths per capita, later surges narrowed the gap between the two states. The debate over lockdown policies remains complex with some arguing that strict measures saved lives in high-density areas like New York, while others believe early reopening helped economic recovery in states like Texas.

Your argument about New York vs. Texas is disingenuous. You're comparing apples to oranges. New York's initial response was a failure, yes, but let's look at the actual data. Texas didn't deal with the same issues because its city populations were sparser than New York's city population, and initial virus outbreaks in Texas were better contained as it is less of a hub for international transportation.

In contrast, New York was able to reduce their deaths per day and per capita with their lockdown guidelines. Texas chose to reopen early, and their deaths per day and per capita far exceeded those in New York. California was a mix of both issues with population density and early reopenings compounding into a perfect storm with disastrous consequences.

Sources:
- CDC COVID-19 Mortality Data
- Mises Institute: NY vs. Texas COVID-19 Deaths
- Statista: U.S. COVID-19 Death Rates by State


Texas has more than one and a half times the population, so if you want to compare the deaths multiply New York's appropriately. New York was seeing 400+ dead a day in January 2022. That's the equivalent of 600 dead in Texas, a number they never reached once. So saying "far exceeded" is being dishonest.

The effects of New York's lockdowns are still being felt. In January 2020, nine and half million people in New York had jobs. The current number still hasn't recovered.

Post #375


Here you go, refusing to accept death rates/deaths per capita.

I was told that "Deaths per capita is meaningless" by a poster who turned around an unknowingly used deaths per capita in a CDC link. Then that poster told me it was all population density and proved it by posting a link that studies done on COVID in the US said their was no association between population density and COVID deaths. Then they doubled down on the stupid and gave me another per capita link. It's all here for you to see.
 
Back
Top Bottom