- Joined
- Jun 30, 2015
- Messages
- 13,914
- Reaction score
- 4,086
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Oh, Jack can and likely will give you all sorts of bullshit sources for his lies. He's been doing it for CAGW for years.
Oh, Jack can and likely will give you all sorts of bullshit sources for his lies. He's been doing it for CAGW for years.Do you have a link establishing it is "categorically true" that deaths in the U.S. due to COVID are overstated?
It's drivel because he's lying about this assertion being established as "categorically true" and offers nothing to back it up. You're defending him with.....nothing to back that assertion up. And if someone makes an argument based on lies, why do we care about his opinion?
LMAO.You've even started parroting one of your ****ing Dirtbag's favorite ways of lying, i.e.: "A lotta people say......." Stop denying you're in a cult when it's been so glaringly obvious for years.
There are any number of links to articles covering this question from a couple of weeks ago. Most are written from the point of view that deaths are not overstated. It is nonetheless certain, as a simple matter of probability, that deaths from C-19 have been overstated, even if only by a small increment. Why? If only 6% of reported C-19 deaths listed C-19 as the only CoD then the other 94% listed co-morbidities. Of that 94%, it would be extraordinary if C-19 were actually the principal CoD 100% of the time. These are judgment calls, even without including the possibility of error. And finally, in light of hospital funding opportunities tied to C-19 engagement it's easy to see the incentive to prioritize C-19 as a CoD. None of this requires a conspiracy theory or even an imputation of bad faith or dishonesty.Do you have a link establishing it is "categorically true" that deaths in the U.S. due to COVID are overstated?
It's nice you're changing the hack's argument to make it less intellectually dishonest, but it's also dishonest on your part. He's not saying that it's possible or arguable that deaths are overstated, and then presenting a case, he's asserting it as FACT, "categorically true", that readers must accept without a shred of evidence. It's hackery.
That's ain interesting question and shows how irrelevant the issue of contagion for COVID is. Cancer can be the result of damned near anything. Sunlight causes cancer. Food causes cancer. Breathing causes cancer. Taking medication causes cancer. Having sex causes cancer. Literally ANYTHING can be the root cause of a cancer you end up diagnosed with. Heck, you can be born with a genetic predisposition to certain cancers. In that regard cancer is WAY more dangerous and way more deadly than COVID but we do next to nothing to protect everyone from cancer. We treat cancer as if it's our responsibility to take precautions against but with COVID it has been decided that the government MUST be the one held responsible for every single death. The reason for that is rather obvious, the panic is due to TDS instead of common sense.
These numbers on the survival rate of folks who get Covid-19 came out this week from the CDC:
View attachment 67296403
I'm sorry, but with numbers like this the government (aka states) should end all mandatory shut-downs and restrictions. It's time to restore individual freedom and allow people to choose how they want to live their lives and how they want to address Covid-19.
.
Yes, because Hitler was trying to stop a plague.
This is honestly the stupidest thing posted this year.
There are any number of links to articles covering this question from a couple of weeks ago.
Most are written from the point of view that deaths are not overstated. It is nonetheless certain, as a simple matter of probability, that deaths from C-19 have been overstated, even if only by a small increment. Why? If only 6% of reported C-19 deaths listed C-19 as the only CoD then the other 94% listed co-morbidities. Of that 94%, it would be extraordinary if C-19 were actually the principal CoD 100% of the time. These are judgment calls, even without including the possibility of error. And finally, in light of hospital funding opportunities tied to C-19 engagement it's easy to see the incentive to prioritize C-19 as a CoD. None of this requires a conspiracy theory or even an imputation of bad faith or dishonesty.
Oh, Jack can and likely will give you all sorts of bullshit sources for his lies. He's been doing it for CAGW for years.
And just as millions of people who've "recovered" from covid-19 may be left with brand new "pre-existing conditions" you can be sure that if Republicans do manage to gut the PPACA insurance companies will either refuse to offer insurance to these people or make the premiums so high as to make health insurance out of reach. And they keep telling us we're mean to call them evil.Seems I recall there are reports on the potential long term effects on people of all age groups who survived CV19. They already know that the heart, lungs and brain can be damaged. It is too early to know other long term effects. The Mayo report is just one of many that are done.
Long COVID questions and answers
COVID-19 can have lasting symptoms that affect many parts of the body. Learn more about the symptoms and effects of long COVID.www.mayoclinic.org
Those who had CV19 and recovered. You may not be out of the woods yet on health issues.
Yes, smokers now need to do so outside. The case rate for lung cancer is now right around what it was in 1975, before all the "stuff" we did to prevent lung cancer. That's also with a LOT less smokers than there were back then.That's absurd, actually. We do all kinds of things to protect against cancer, catch it early, and more. When was the last time you saw someone smoking on a plane? That's a decent parallel because that guy smoking on the plane impacts himself and others, and it's been banned for years. Now to fly you have to wear a mask, so you don't infect others. Where's the difference.
And no one argues 'every single death' is government's fault. And is the "panic" in Israel due to TDS? In New Zealand? France? The UK? Is the entire world reacting irrationally because of TRUMP?
My goodness, the arguments get worse and worse as we go along.
You do know (I hope) that people are still dying at a rate of 1,000/day, right?
Yes, smokers now need to do so outside. The case rate for lung cancer is now right around what it was in 1975, before all the "stuff" we did to prevent lung cancer. That's also with a LOT less smokers than there were back then.
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html
These numbers on the survival rate of folks who get Covid-19 came out this week from the CDC:
View attachment 67296403
I'm sorry, but with numbers like this the government (aka states) should end all mandatory shut-downs and restrictions. It's time to restore individual freedom and allow people to choose how they want to live their lives and how they want to address Covid-19.
What do you consider "surviving"? I have a nurse friend working in home health, and her visits are now frequently to middle aged covid victims...who used to have strong careers and now need tons of extra help and management at home long after they started testing negative.
ICU nurses I know say their ICU's still have about half of their population covid - they remain critically ill long after they test negative.
If I stand next to a person with cancer, I do not catch their cancer. Do you get the difference?About 1500 people die from Cancer each day in the US alone. And 3400 more people are diagnosed with cancer each day. So what is your point
Your evidence of this?If I stand next to a person with cancer, I do not catch their cancer. Do you get the difference?
I have been a critical care RN for 37 years. Never have I seen fellow staff member become seriously ill from a infection caught from a patient. We are still seriously at risk . First responders have been taken down from contacts at work. By taken down, I mean dying from contacts at work,
I people stopped whining and did what they needed to do months ago we probably could have saved 100,000 lives and our economy. We could have been nearly fully opened up and been in a workable test and trace and isolate only those needed mode.
The point is that the articles defending the CDC numbers are the ones which, in the aggregate, make the author's case.Link one or two proving the overstatement is "categorically true." Thanks!
Goodness, that's a terrible argument. What your analysis assumes without evidence is there are NO, ZERO COVID deaths that were not attributed to COVID. Of course there is a 100% chance that many, thousands, of deaths actually due to COVID related problems were not counted as such. So to know the 'true' number of COVID deaths, you need to know the undercounts AND the over counts. It's like deaths from "the flu." Very, very few death certificates list 'the flu' as the UCOD, but the CDC estimates that number based on the increase in pneumonia and other deaths that they attribute to 'the flu.' The same will be true with COVID. Especially early on when we had no testing, we know there were many COVID deaths not counted as such. How many? Who knows?
And you are misusing that 6% stat (shock!!...not). "COVID" isn't a cause of death - COVID causes one or more critical organs to fail, and that's the immediate cause of death and should be listed along with COVID. Did the person have heart failure, liver failure, stroke, heart attack, lungs fill with fluid and kill the person, etc.? If the death certificate just lists "COVID" then we don't know how that person died. I don't see how any death certificate properly completed lists only "COVID" as a cause of death.
The point is that cancer, car wrecks, heart attacks and all kinds of other stuff kills people every year too and does so at far higher rates than COVID. We deal with those things instead of hide from them, which is the way we have chosen to react to this virus.That is beside the point. We make MASSIVE efforts to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer. Lung cancer is just one of those cancers that society spends vast sums trying to mitigate any way we can.
They are all for tasing people who argue with police over masks. We are deep into Orwellian times now.The point is that cancer, car wrecks, heart attacks and all kinds of other stuff kills people every year too and does so at far higher rates than COVID. We deal with those things instead of hide from them, which is the way we have chosen to react to this virus.
The point is that the articles defending the CDC numbers are the ones which, in the aggregate, make the author's case.
And the whole question derives from the fact that 6% of death certificates list only COVID-19 as the CoD, so you'll need to rethink that argument.
I think the author's claim is thus quite defensible.
That I cannot catch cancer by standing next to a cancer patient? Only having been in the medical field for 4 years caring for cancer patients as well as caring for my mother and mother in law with cancer. If catching cancer from cancer patients was a thing, you would have oncology nurses and oncologists dropping like flies.Your evidence of this?
They are all for tasing people who argue with police over masks. We are deep into Orwellian times now.
The point is that cancer, car wrecks, heart attacks and all kinds of other stuff kills people every year too and does so at far higher rates than COVID. We deal with those things instead of hide from them, which is the way we have chosen to react to this virus.
They are all for tasing people who argue with police over masks. We are deep into Orwellian times now.
The auto manufacturers spend a lot of money on vehicle safety. The NHTSA spends around 25% of their budget on that kind of thing and part of that 25% is on writing vehicle emissions standards. Do you know what about half the the NHTSA budget goes to? It goes to grants for police departments and companies that make interlock devices and such. The government sponsors research on vehicle safety and writes regulations. That's the same thing CDC does for viruses. It doesn't "prevent" shit. It provides information so that private industries and private individuals can have some consolidated information on how to prevent their own shit.You're comparing apples to dump trucks. The appropriate reaction to a novel virus is going to be different than to car wrecks, and we spend MASSIVE sums preventing injuries from car wrecks, limit our FREEDOMS in several ways (speed limits, Stop signs, DUI laws, licensing, registration), mandate behavior on the roads, etc.
BUTWHATABOUTCARWRECKS isn't actually an argument against government restrictions on gatherings etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?