Let's focus on COVID deaths

[HappyJoy]

It is very simple.
Every single established epidemic in the past always was ended by herd immunity.
Whether it was Polio or Ebola, the infection got too greedy and used up all of its local hosts, so then died out.
That is also what ends every seasonal flu.
But with covid-19, we prevented that by "flattening the curve".
Which then prevented the spike that normally burns out the available local hosts.
And then by conserving hosts, that allows the epidemic to last essentially forever.
So instead of 50k death in March, we flattened it to 30k per month, forever.
Not a smart move.

We got a vaccine for polio, I don't remember there ever being herd immunity for it or Ebola. What?

No the last Polio epidemic was in 1948, and we did not get the Salk vaccine until 1957, after it was 95% over.
With all epidemics, not just Polio and Ebola, it was herd immunity that ended it, like Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, Avian flu, SARS, MERS, etc.
But a vaccine also relies on herd immunity.
Any time you do not need 100% of the population to be immune and still kill off the pathogen, that is herd immunity.
Ebola also is fought with quarantine, but what ends it in the quarantines area is herd immunity.
The virus is too greedy and is so infectious that is uses up all the available local hosts too quickly.
They it runs out, and dies.
That would have also happened to covid-19 in March, is we had not deliberately conserved hosts, so that the virus would not run out, and could last forever.

You're an idiot if you think that Ebola can be contained with herd immunity. Ebola kills damn near everyone that is infected. Those that survive are very few. What? You want the whole world to die?

You clearly do not understand what herd immunity is or how epidemics work.
The point is that Ebola always has been ended by herd immunity.
When something is that lethal, it quickly kills off its hosts, so then can't easily spread.
Herd immunity does not mean everyone has to get it, but that in the local area where the virus exists, there is no one left to host the infection.

Quarantine is not in conflict with herd immunity.
They easily work together, just as vaccines can as well.
But the point is that "flattening the curve" is what does NOT work at all, because it deliberately stretched out the epidemic and makes it last longer, which not only kills the maximum number of people, but also makes it much harder to end the epidemic.
Anything fast is good, anything that is slow and makes it last longer is bad.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?

 

[Rigby5]

San Francisco, always a crowd pleaser, had 621 people die of drug overdoses so far this year.

Last year, 441 people died of drug overdoses — a 70% increase from 2018. Meanwhile, there has been 173 deaths from COVID-19 in the city so far....and Nancy has her ice cream.

Overdose deaths far outpace COVID-19 deaths in San Francisco.

So, what you are saying is that people are stuck in their houses and ODing because of depression or lack of anything else to do?

It it not just lack of recreation, but the tension of having their businesses fail, jobs lost, mortgages foreclosed, rental eviction, etc.
Drug use is a function of depression and escape from a horrible reality.
This whole lock down was a terrible idea for dozens of reasons.
I doubt the economy will ever recover.
The only people left with any money will be Pfizer, Moderna, etc.

Ok, now if you don't mind go back to the link that you provided and quote the portion of the article that gives the cause.

EDIT: Not you but the OP.

Good point.
While I would like to blame the lock down, the stats for last year make that a hard sell.
{... Last year, 441 people died of drug overdoses — a 70% increase from 2018 ...}
Seems fentanyl use is exploding even before the epidemic.
However, it still does show that the virus is not as significant as the fentanyl problem.

Gee, why wasn't the virus as significant as drug overdoses in a city that locked down early and has continued to take COVID seriously? Think about it.

Seems to me that when you actually compare covid-19 death rates with anything, like drug over does, suicide, heart disease, smoking, etc., then covid-19 is much less significant?
If you take 280,000 deathhs out of 330,000,000 people, that is only 0.06%.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Let’s don’t
Let’s tally every death in USA in 2020 and declare it Covid. Mostly what we are doing anyway

I just read that if a patient has a heart attack and dies, and is found to have asymptomatic covid, HIS DEATH WILL BE LISTED AS COVID

 

[Rigby5]

It is very simple.
Every single established epidemic in the past always was ended by herd immunity.
Whether it was Polio or Ebola, the infection got too greedy and used up all of its local hosts, so then died out.
That is also what ends every seasonal flu.
But with covid-19, we prevented that by "flattening the curve".
Which then prevented the spike that normally burns out the available local hosts.
And then by conserving hosts, that allows the epidemic to last essentially forever.
So instead of 50k death in March, we flattened it to 30k per month, forever.
Not a smart move.

We got a vaccine for polio, I don't remember there ever being herd immunity for it or Ebola. What?

No the last Polio epidemic was in 1948, and we did not get the Salk vaccine until 1957, after it was 95% over.
With all epidemics, not just Polio and Ebola, it was herd immunity that ended it, like Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, Avian flu, SARS, MERS, etc.
But a vaccine also relies on herd immunity.
Any time you do not need 100% of the population to be immune and still kill off the pathogen, that is herd immunity.
Ebola also is fought with quarantine, but what ends it in the quarantines area is herd immunity.
The virus is too greedy and is so infectious that is uses up all the available local hosts too quickly.
They it runs out, and dies.
That would have also happened to covid-19 in March, is we had not deliberately conserved hosts, so that the virus would not run out, and could last forever.

You're an idiot if you think that Ebola can be contained with herd immunity. Ebola kills damn near everyone that is infected. Those that survive are very few. What? You want the whole world to die?

You clearly do not understand what herd immunity is or how epidemics work.
The point is that Ebola always has been ended by herd immunity.
When something is that lethal, it quickly kills off its hosts, so then can't easily spread.
Herd immunity does not mean everyone has to get it, but that in the local area where the virus exists, there is no one left to host the infection.

Quarantine is not in conflict with herd immunity.
They easily work together, just as vaccines can as well.
But the point is that "flattening the curve" is what does NOT work at all, because it deliberately stretched out the epidemic and makes it last longer, which not only kills the maximum number of people, but also makes it much harder to end the epidemic.
Anything fast is good, anything that is slow and makes it last longer is bad.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?

I am saying lock downs are bad because they do not reduce the spread of the epidemic, but instead only slow it down. The infection rate is still greater than 1, so it is still expanding, even though as a lower rate.
So you are still allowing the situation to get worse instead of better.
It is better to let the epidemic spike early on, because then a quick fall off kills the virus off, and it is gone entirely. If we had lost 60k people to a covid-19 spike in March, that would have been worth it if that ended the epidemic in March and prevented the constant 30k deaths per month, from April to December.

 

[Snouter]

HappyJoy, is it your contention politicians today, especially in the middle of a international crisis, are capable and have time to write their own books? These are not Winston Churchill caliber intellects, they are generally democrat retards. Plus the Sfachime Killer Cuomo and his brother Fredo apparently spend a lot of their free time on the phone with Fraud Tiny Tony Fauci.

 

[HappyJoy]

San Francisco, always a crowd pleaser, had 621 people die of drug overdoses so far this year.

Last year, 441 people died of drug overdoses — a 70% increase from 2018. Meanwhile, there has been 173 deaths from COVID-19 in the city so far....and Nancy has her ice cream.

Overdose deaths far outpace COVID-19 deaths in San Francisco.

So, what you are saying is that people are stuck in their houses and ODing because of depression or lack of anything else to do?

It it not just lack of recreation, but the tension of having their businesses fail, jobs lost, mortgages foreclosed, rental eviction, etc.
Drug use is a function of depression and escape from a horrible reality.
This whole lock down was a terrible idea for dozens of reasons.
I doubt the economy will ever recover.
The only people left with any money will be Pfizer, Moderna, etc.

Ok, now if you don't mind go back to the link that you provided and quote the portion of the article that gives the cause.

EDIT: Not you but the OP.

Good point.
While I would like to blame the lock down, the stats for last year make that a hard sell.
{... Last year, 441 people died of drug overdoses — a 70% increase from 2018 ...}
Seems fentanyl use is exploding even before the epidemic.
However, it still does show that the virus is not as significant as the fentanyl problem.

Gee, why wasn't the virus as significant as drug overdoses in a city that locked down early and has continued to take COVID seriously? Think about it.

Seems to me that when you actually compare covid-19 death rates with anything, like drug over does, suicide, heart disease, smoking, etc., then covid-19 is much less significant?
If you take 280,000 deathhs out of 330,000,000 people, that is only 0.06%.

You didn't answer my question. Why would COVID deaths not be as significant as another type of death in a city that has been diligent in practicing social distancing?

What does heart disease have to do with COVID except one is contagious and the other isn't? I'm not sure. According to the CDC COVID is the 3rd highest cause of death in this country through November.

Look at the flu. For a reference just look at deaths from the flu, it's barely hanging on.

 

[Circe]

It is very simple.
Every single established epidemic in the past always was ended by herd immunity.
Whether it was Polio or Ebola, the infection got too greedy and used up all of its local hosts, so then died out.
That is also what ends every seasonal flu.
But with covid-19, we prevented that by "flattening the curve".
Which then prevented the spike that normally burns out the available local hosts.
And then by conserving hosts, that allows the epidemic to last essentially forever.
So instead of 50k death in March, we flattened it to 30k per month, forever.
Not a smart move.

Wrong. All wrong. Smallpox wasn't ended by herd immunity: it was ended (in 1980) worldwide by a vaccine and hunt for everyone at risk everywhere.
Polio never died out. It was also hunted out by a vaccine but still exists in Pakistan and such benighted places.
Seasonal flu is ended every year not by "herd immunity" or vaccine but by summer. It mutates.
The 1918 flu ended because, because. . . . . we don't know why. It just vanished. Like SARS did. They do that sometimes: the Plague of Athens, 430 BC. Neither of the first two burned up all available hosts! Wow, that would have turned it into an endemic childhood disease like measles and mumps were before vaccines.
There are a lot of good books on epidemics, Rigby. I recommend you read some of them.

 

[HappyJoy]

It is very simple.
Every single established epidemic in the past always was ended by herd immunity.
Whether it was Polio or Ebola, the infection got too greedy and used up all of its local hosts, so then died out.
That is also what ends every seasonal flu.
But with covid-19, we prevented that by "flattening the curve".
Which then prevented the spike that normally burns out the available local hosts.
And then by conserving hosts, that allows the epidemic to last essentially forever.
So instead of 50k death in March, we flattened it to 30k per month, forever.
Not a smart move.

We got a vaccine for polio, I don't remember there ever being herd immunity for it or Ebola. What?

No the last Polio epidemic was in 1948, and we did not get the Salk vaccine until 1957, after it was 95% over.
With all epidemics, not just Polio and Ebola, it was herd immunity that ended it, like Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, Avian flu, SARS, MERS, etc.
But a vaccine also relies on herd immunity.
Any time you do not need 100% of the population to be immune and still kill off the pathogen, that is herd immunity.
Ebola also is fought with quarantine, but what ends it in the quarantines area is herd immunity.
The virus is too greedy and is so infectious that is uses up all the available local hosts too quickly.
They it runs out, and dies.
That would have also happened to covid-19 in March, is we had not deliberately conserved hosts, so that the virus would not run out, and could last forever.

You're an idiot if you think that Ebola can be contained with herd immunity. Ebola kills damn near everyone that is infected. Those that survive are very few. What? You want the whole world to die?

You clearly do not understand what herd immunity is or how epidemics work.
The point is that Ebola always has been ended by herd immunity.
When something is that lethal, it quickly kills off its hosts, so then can't easily spread.
Herd immunity does not mean everyone has to get it, but that in the local area where the virus exists, there is no one left to host the infection.

Quarantine is not in conflict with herd immunity.
They easily work together, just as vaccines can as well.
But the point is that "flattening the curve" is what does NOT work at all, because it deliberately stretched out the epidemic and makes it last longer, which not only kills the maximum number of people, but also makes it much harder to end the epidemic.
Anything fast is good, anything that is slow and makes it last longer is bad.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?

I am saying lock downs are bad because they do not reduce the spread of the epidemic, but instead only slow it down

Says who? I'm grateful we don't have an Ebola outbreak here, you'd kill us all.

By taking measures to reduce the number of infected keeps the numbers of people in the hospital down so that we don't run out of beds and then people with other health issues also don't start dying for lack of care. Plus, we have that vaccine coming and as soon as tubby gets out of the way (he already didn't buy enough of the vaccine) we can ramp this shit up and move on with our lives. If we took your route more people would get COVID and we'd have more deaths and more people with potential long term illnesses from COVID.

The infection rate is still greater than 1, so it is still expanding, even though as a lower rate.

Right and it would be even higher if we didn't practice common sense and more deaths happening right now, like tens of thousands more.

So you are still allowing the situation to get worse instead of better.
It is better to let the epidemic spike early on, because then a quick fall off kills the virus off, and it is gone entirely. If we had lost 60k people to a covid-19 spike in March, that would have been worth it if that ended the epidemic in March and prevented the constant 30k deaths per month, from April to December.

You should start providing links and let them speak for you, cuz you suck at this. Losing 60k people in March? If 70-80% of of the people get this thing you're looking at killing off millions.

 

[San Souci]

San Francisco, always a crowd pleaser, had 621 people die of drug overdoses so far this year.

Last year, 441 people died of drug overdoses — a 70% increase from 2018. Meanwhile, there has been 173 deaths from COVID-19 in the city so far....and Nancy has her ice cream.

Overdose deaths far outpace COVID-19 deaths in San Francisco.

Of course. COVID is a fake crisis.

 

[Circe]

I just read that if a patient has a heart attack and dies, and is found to have asymptomatic covid, HIS DEATH WILL BE LISTED AS COVID

I don't know how true this is, but it is widely suspected and I worry about it, that the numbers are being manipulated to better manipulate the people. The whole thing gets very circular. If this is going on, it's gumming up the numbers bad. I hope Hopkins can do an analysis that accounts for the conflict of paying docs and hospitals more for COVID diagnoses. Whatever people actually have as a primary complaint.

We don't know anyone who has had COVID. Still.

 

[HappyJoy]

I just read that if a patient has a heart attack and dies, and is found to have asymptomatic covid, HIS DEATH WILL BE LISTED AS COVID

I don't know how true this is, but it is widely suspected and I worry about it, that the numbers are being manipulated to better manipulate the people. The whole thing gets very circular. If this is going on, it's gumming up the numbers bad. I hope Hopkins can do an analysis that accounts for the conflict of paying docs and hospitals more for COVID diagnoses. Whatever people actually have as a primary complaint.

We don't know anyone who has had COVID. Still.

I'm not buying hospitals covering up heart attacks as COVID deaths. I don't hear any wide spread reports of this, I'd think there would first need to be evidence and whistleblowers. I don't see how that works. Hospitals aren't paid per death, they are paid per patient and outside of Medicare they aren't getting more money.

Here is a good read on the subject

Hospital Payments and the COVID-19 Death Count - FactCheck.org

Q: Are hospitals inflating the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths so they can be paid more? A: Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting. FULL QUESTION Are hospitals getting 13,000 per patient if...

www.factcheck.org

 

[Carl in Michigan]

We don't know anyone who has had COVID. Still

After 10 months of this I still dont know anyone PERSONALLY who has had covid.

 

[HappyJoy]

We don't know anyone who has had COVID. Still

After 10 months of this I still dont know anyone PERSONALLY who has had covid.

I've known several, maybe you should (when this is over) go out and meet people. However in a country of 330 million people this is an illogical way of guesstimating the impact.

 

[ABikerSailor]

We don't know anyone who has had COVID. Still

After 10 months of this I still dont know anyone PERSONALLY who has had covid.

You're lucky. My next door neighbor has had several people in his family catch the virus. I also have a friend whose son has a girlfriend who caught the virus as well. Was a bit of a scary time in self quarantine waiting to see if I caught it as well.

 

[Circe]

I just read that if a patient has a heart attack and dies, and is found to have asymptomatic covid, HIS DEATH WILL BE LISTED AS COVID

I don't know how true this is, but it is widely suspected and I worry about it, that the numbers are being manipulated to better manipulate the people. The whole thing gets very circular. If this is going on, it's gumming up the numbers bad. I hope Hopkins can do an analysis that accounts for the conflict of paying docs and hospitals more for COVID diagnoses. Whatever people actually have as a primary complaint.

We don't know anyone who has had COVID. Still.

I'm not buying hospitals covering up heart attacks as COVID deaths. I don't hear any wide spread reports of this, I'd think there would first need to be evidence and whistleblowers. I don't see how that works. Hospitals aren't paid per death, they are paid per patient and outside of Medicare they aren't getting more money.

Here is a good read on the subject

Hospital Payments and the COVID-19 Death Count - FactCheck.org

Q: Are hospitals inflating the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths so they can be paid more? A: Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting. FULL QUESTION Are hospitals getting 13,000 per patient if...

www.factcheck.org

Well, I hope you are right. A whole lot of doctor stuff IS about getting them more money --- all the regular checkups, the constant pressure to get the worthless flu shots, all the diagnostic tests and procedures and vaccinations and prescriptions of many sorts that have to somehow be "monitored" with a charge at each visit, and and and and --- over doctoring causes a lot of trouble and unneeded harmful, intrusive procedures that damage us, and it's all to increase the income of the medical industry. So I worry they are just doing it with COVID, especially since they can't get their regular source of income out of people now.

 

[Circe]

I've known several, maybe you should (when this is over) go out and meet people.

I don't know anyone who has had COVID. Knock off the snark, please.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I've known several, maybe you should (when this is over) go out and meet people.

I don't know anyone who has had COVID. Knock off the snark, please.

Again, if you don't know anyone who has had COVID, consider yourself lucky. With the current death count, approximately 1 out of every 1,000 people in this country have died from the virus.

Me? I've known several who have had it, but fortunately, nobody I know has died (yet).

 

[HappyJoy]

I've known several, maybe you should (when this is over) go out and meet people.

I don't know anyone who has had COVID. Knock off the snark, please.

Actually that was intended for the anti-social wingnut, not you.

 

[HappyJoy]

I just read that if a patient has a heart attack and dies, and is found to have asymptomatic covid, HIS DEATH WILL BE LISTED AS COVID

I don't know how true this is, but it is widely suspected and I worry about it, that the numbers are being manipulated to better manipulate the people. The whole thing gets very circular. If this is going on, it's gumming up the numbers bad. I hope Hopkins can do an analysis that accounts for the conflict of paying docs and hospitals more for COVID diagnoses. Whatever people actually have as a primary complaint.

We don't know anyone who has had COVID. Still.

I'm not buying hospitals covering up heart attacks as COVID deaths. I don't hear any wide spread reports of this, I'd think there would first need to be evidence and whistleblowers. I don't see how that works. Hospitals aren't paid per death, they are paid per patient and outside of Medicare they aren't getting more money.

Here is a good read on the subject

Hospital Payments and the COVID-19 Death Count - FactCheck.org

Q: Are hospitals inflating the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths so they can be paid more? A: Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting. FULL QUESTION Are hospitals getting 13,000 per patient if...

www.factcheck.org

Well, I hope you are right. A whole lot of doctor stuff IS about getting them more money --- all the regular checkups, the constant pressure to get the worthless flu shots, all the diagnostic tests and procedures and vaccinations and prescriptions of many sorts that have to somehow be "monitored" with a charge at each visit, and and and and --- over doctoring causes a lot of trouble and unneeded harmful, intrusive procedures that damage us, and it's all to increase the income of the medical industry. So I worry they are just doing it with COVID, especially since they can't get their regular source of income out of people now.

Sure, there are times when hospitals order unnecessary tests, I don't know how wide spread that is in actuality. I do not know of any instances where doctors on a massive scale across many hospitals change the cause of death even though the number of deaths is not how hospitals make money. This also only applies to Medicare patients as private insurance isn't paying more. So, in order for a hospital to fake heart attack deaths as COVID they would potentially also have to fake all the paperwork while the patient was alive to make it appear they have COVID as that could be checked after the fact. There just isn't any evidence that this is happening.

I don't buy it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hospitals and doctors make money if the person lives and they can keep giving them treatments. Dead people don't pay much.