Coronavirus Information...who do you trust?

[BrownAssClown]

(07-13-2020, 09:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t trust the death count. My neighbor is listed as a COVID death. Weighed over 600 lbs. Hospitalized at least five times in the last two years. Almost died twice. Called the paramedics one night and they said it’s probably COVID. Two nights later they call again and this time he’s barely conscious. He goes to the hospital and they test him. He dies the next day before his results came back. No word on the test results to his 71 year old mother on the results. Death certificate comes in and just says COVID-19. He died of kidney failure. Anytime they tried to put him on dialysis his BP dropped to a fatal level. Zero mention of kidney failure. Are we supposed to believe they didn’t inform his 71 year old mother whom he lived with that he had COVID?  Now I don’t have a problem listing COVID if it contributes to a death, but I don’t think he even had it.

My brother's father-n-law died just over 2 months ago "most likely" from Covid-19. He was a Japanese man that lived in Sendai, Japan. He was 85 and fell ill and was taken to the hospital and died there a few days later. The reason I say "most likely" is because on his death certificate it list "pneumonia" as the cause of death, but he tested positive for Covid-19 while in the hospital, I don't know if Covid was listed as a contributing factor though. My brother's in-laws told him that the virus is worse and more widespread there than the Japanese government is reporting also. They believe the man that came to the house to sell my brother's father-n-law fish( yes...they have door-to-door fish salesman in Japan) passed the virus to him, because that man also tested positive for Covid-19 and it was the only person he had been in contact with during that whole month.
I wouldn't doubt there are times Covid is not the cause of death, but I just wonder how many of the over 500,000+ people worldwide that tested positive and died would still be alive right now if it wasn't for this virus, I would wager most of them.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

I trust nobody. Everyone seems to have an agenda. Ranging from controlling the populace with fear to blowing it off almost entirely.

[Dill]

(07-14-2020, 12:33 AM)BrownAssClown Wrote: I wouldn't doubt there are times Covid is not the cause of death, but I just wonder how many of the over 500,000+ people worldwide that tested positive and died would still be alive right now if it wasn't for this virus, I would wager most of them.

I think you are likely right. Or why would hospitals suddenly need mobile morgues to handle the extra bodies. There would be no "extras" if people were just dying of normal causes at the normal rate.

At least twice on CNN I have heard doctors speak of patients brought to over crowded hospitals, dying before they were tested, and not recorded as corona virus deaths.

That the disease more seriously affects people who have other conditions not only complicates counting, but spurs conspiracy theories and distrust of authorities--especially when combined with supposed "agendas" to tank the economy and make Trump look bad.

[treee]

I trust science. I don't think the world is 6000 years old and I believe that dinosaur bones are real. So when 1000s or 10000s of scientists come to a consensus about something, I believe that thing to a near-full extent. I also think it is demonstrably true that trusting scientists is a partisan issue these days, which is sad and alarming.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(07-13-2020, 09:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t trust the death count. My neighbor is listed as a COVID death. Weighed over 600 lbs. Hospitalized at least five times in the last two years. Almost died twice. Called the paramedics one night and they said it’s probably COVID. Two nights later they call again and this time he’s barely conscious. He goes to the hospital and they test him. He dies the next day before his results came back. No word on the test results to his 71 year old mother on the results. Death certificate comes in and just says COVID-19. He died of kidney failure. Anytime they tried to put him on dialysis his BP dropped to a fatal level. Zero mention of kidney failure. Are we supposed to believe they didn’t inform his 71 year old mother whom he lived with that he had COVID? Now I don’t have a problem listing COVID if it contributes to a death, but I don’t think he even had it.

During Covid’s first few weeks, reported deaths by heart failure, kidney failure and other ways of death were up over 400% in some areas. If anything, the deaths are under reported, IMO.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(07-14-2020, 03:51 AM)treee Wrote: I trust science. I don't think the world is 6000 years old and I believe that dinosaur bones are real. So when 1000s or 10000s of scientists come to a consensus about something, I believe that thing to a near-full extent. I also think it is demonstrably true that trusting scientists is a partisan issue these days, which is sad and alarming.

Republicans trust scientists too . . . Just only the ones that have been bought out by oil companies to publicly say “no connection between fossil fuels and global warming.” They don’t even need to provide proof, just say it on a cable news program so it can be repeatedly blasted all over as evidence to argue against the main stream media and their conspiracy against capitalism.

I know we’re talking about Covid . . . Just throwing a jab out there.

[GMDino]

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Director of Social Media posts cartoon and message on FB attacking the nation’s leading infectious disease expert for telling the truth about this deadly pandemic. https://t.co/lqwUFHTCYP pic.twitter.com/gR3oHoV1eH

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 14, 2020

 

[Dill]

(07-13-2020, 10:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: A friend of ours posted some information about someone who thought they had the virus (all the symptoms and treatments) but ended up testing negative for the antibodies.  During our online conversation about why why it matters that in the end he did not have it when obviously other  do and did she said she doesn't trust the FDA, CDC or WHO about almost anything.  I asked who she DOES trust and didn't really get a good answer but it's not "the media" either.

In response to this and your second post about the game show host whose distrustful tweet Trump re-tweeted--I have a developing hypothesis about the breakdown of social authority in the U.S.

During my adolescence in the '60s, the country was more divided than today, but more trusting in secular authority. In 1963, when I first became aware of political divisions, people had greater trust of institutions like the government (especially the Exec and military), major news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC), scientists, and the universities who produced the latter. Locally, people grew up trusting parents, teachers, and ministers.

People got their news at 12 pm, 5 pm, and 10 pm, with rather little difference between sources. And from daily papers. "The Left" was a memory of something McCarthy had attacked.

There were conspiracy theorists and crackpots who believed "the Left," called "Communists," were infiltrating schools/universities and water supplies, destroying our faith in God, and inciting "the negro" to rebel, but these were plainly fringe voices with little social authority. The "liberal press" with its higher journalistic standards gave them no platform. Nor did universities.  Goldwater was soundly defeated in '64.

By 1969, trust in the government had taken a terrible hit over Vietnam, then much exacerbated by the US retreat from Vietnam--the first time the US had "lost" a war, supposedly. Universities were in turmoil, criticized from within for their complicity with the government and Vietnam. The Civil Rights movement birthed a more hostile (to the establishment) black power movement, alongside a youth counterculture that questioned all forms of authority, beginning with parental. The Watergate scandal then really put a cap on all this, as the guy who promised to oppose all these insidious new trends by standing for "the silent majority," calling broad swaths of young voters "the left," and hating on the free press, turned out to be a nasty devious crook. For adults who came of age in the '30s, '40s, and '50s, the US seemed to be imploding from within as all forms of traditional authority were undermined.

Out of this turmoil the second New Right was born, coalescing around the core of Goldwater/Nixon voters, who began blaming "the liberal press" and universities for the crisis in authority, and set about consciously funding/creating alternative authority, first with think tanks to compete with universities and then, by the 1980s, with new talk radio outlets hammering "the left" and rewriting the history of Vietnam and Civil Rights. (B-zona had a great post about this moment a couple years back, and changing FCC rulings which enabled it.) Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum managed to stop the ERA, and Jerry Falwell created a "Moral Majority" organization courted by Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, who won two terms as president, in part by mainstreaming fringe talking points about Vietnam and the Panama Canal, and in part by embracing Nixon's "Southern Strategy," standing up to liberals.

Cable news began with CNN in 1980, but had relatively few viewers until the Gulf War of 1991, when millions were suddenly watching round the clock news. 1996 saw the entry of cable Fox News into direct competition with "the liberal press," during the decade the internet began to establish itself as an alternative source of news and other information. This coincided with the Clinton scandals and the sharp downward turn in civil discourse associated with Gingrich's ascent to the Speakership. And the EXXON assault on Climate science, taking their lead from the Tobacco industry and funding Alt-climate science so the public could see that "scientists disagreed" over global warming. "The Left," as a broad designation for whomever "hated America" by opposing right wing policies, was again frequently heard in public discourse. The Republican party lurched increasingly rightward as the Gingrich generation was itself ousted by ever more radical Republican Congressmen. Dem conservatives continued to join the Republicans, laying the groundwork of the "party of no" and Congressional paralysis.

I.e., from 1996 on, "the fringe" moved from the fringe of US politics to the center, where it has remained since, strongly backing Bush's invasion of Iraq and his War on Terror--until it became Obama's war. And actively disinforming the public about a range of issues from voter fraud to climate change to US history to foreign policy. With 8 years of Obama came non stop frontal attack, mostly faux scandals about the "worst president in history" propped up by a supposedly lying, openly partisan liberal press. During this period the Ailes (Nixon's tv producer) technique of reversing the charges leveled at Right Wing politicians was perfected by news commentators like Sean Hannity* ("the Left" is debasing political discourse with their personal attacks!) Other players advanced in this space as well, like Alex Jones Info Wars, along with internet forums where, unlike this one, personal attack was given free reign.

Trump works the space created by this vacuum of authority, attacking the most reliable sectors of the press, the intel community, the courts, science, and voting policy (recognizing these are most dangerous to him), and he is successful with a significant mass of voters, who have difficulty sorting out competing truth claims, especially via "faith-based" vetting. Corollary to the latter is a very unscientific way of assessing "errors" in scientific authority, visible now in Trump's attack on the medical establishment, national and international.

*Hannity, who back in 2003 frequently called those who opposed the Iraq war "traitors," now opines that the "deep state" likely led us into that war, not Bush and a clique of Neocons.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-14-2020, 09:17 AM)GMDino Wrote:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Director of Social Media posts cartoon and message on FB attacking the nation’s leading infectious disease expert for telling the truth about this deadly pandemic. https://t.co/lqwUFHTCYP pic.twitter.com/gR3oHoV1eH

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 14, 2020

 

The funniest part of that is Scavino claiming to be a colleague of Fauci’s.

Scavino works as a professional internet troll.

Fauci graduated at the top of his medical class before Scavino was born and has been the Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease since Scavino was eight years old.

[Dill]

(07-14-2020, 03:51 AM)treee Wrote: I trust science. I don't think the world is 6000 years old and I believe that dinosaur bones are real. So when 1000s or 10000s of scientists come to a consensus about something, I believe that thing to a near-full extent. I also think it is demonstrably true that trusting scientists is a partisan issue these days, which is sad and alarming.

6000 years is certainly pushing it. I figure closer to 5,400. 

All authorities agree now, even homosexual scientists--Dinosaur bones ARE real.  

[BengalHawk62]

I get my news from trusted sources like my Conservative Facebook friends......



With the alleged “second wave” of the virus spread comes the second wave of hype. In Iowa, the numbers are still next to nothing.

There have been 19 deaths of people between 18-40. That’s a .0006% death rate.

There have been 77 deaths between 41-60. That’s a .003 death rate.

There have been 305 deaths between 61-80. That’s a .02 death rate.

There have been 354 deaths over 80. That’s a .02 death rate.

There have only been 50 people confirmed to have died without preexisting conditions. That’s a .001 chance of dying of the virus.

Looking at the graph, it’s clear the death rate has been declining.

So you are more likely to die of a heart attack or a stroke worrying about dying of Covid 19, than dying of Covid 19. Shut off your TV and relax. Something is going to kill you, but it’s extremely unlikely it will be this virus.

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2020, 11:53 AM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I get my news from trusted sources like my Conservative Facebook friends......



With the alleged “second wave” of the virus spread comes the second wave of hype. In Iowa, the numbers are still next to nothing.

There have been 19 deaths of people between 18-40. That’s a .0006% death rate.

There have been 77 deaths between 41-60. That’s a .003 death rate.

There have been 305 deaths between 61-80. That’s a .02 death rate.

There have been 354 deaths over 80. That’s a .02 death rate.

There have only been 50 people confirmed to have died without preexisting conditions. That’s a .001 chance of dying of the virus.

Looking at the graph, it’s clear the death rate has been declining.

So you are more likely to die of a heart attack or a stroke worrying about dying of Covid 19, than dying of Covid 19. Shut off your TV and relax. Something is going to kill you, but it’s extremely unlikely it will be this virus.

Yeah, your calculations are off. To get the death rate, we need to calculate what percentage of people in each age group that tested positive, died. For that, we get these numbers from the Iowa website: https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/case-counts

Total positive cases: 35,830

The percentages break down as such:
0-17: 5% or 1792 cases
18-40: 48% or 17,198 cases
41-60: 30% or 10,749 cases
61-80: 12% or 4300 cases
80+: 4% or 1433 cases

Then, we look at the deaths in Iowa, found here: https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/outcome-analysis-deaths

So, a total of 755 deaths in Iowa as of the data this morning, which is a 2.1% death rate, overall. Because you only calculate the death rate based on the positive cases.

So here are how many deaths each age group had:
18-40: 3% or 23 deaths
41-60: 10% or 76 deaths (your number was 77, which could be discrepancy due to rounding, but I'll use the lower numbers to make you feel better)
61-80: 40% or 302 (your number was 305, I'll use the lower one)
81+: 47% or 354 (I came up with 355 due to rounding, but we'll use the lower one, again)

So what does that mean for the death rate in each age group? Well, here is how you actually calculate a death rate:
0-17: 0 deaths in 1792 cases (0/1792) means 0%
18-40: 23 deaths in 17,198 cases (23/17,198) means 0.1%. Pretty good, but a bit higher than what you had at 0.0006%.
41-60: 76 deaths in 10,749 cases (76/10,749) means 0.7%. Still pretty good, but again higher than your 0.003% rate.
61-80: 302 deaths in 4300 cases (302/4300) means 7.0%. That's a pretty good jump, there. 7 out of every 100 cases between the ages of 61-80.
80+: 354 deaths in 1433 cases (354/1433) means 24.7%, or about one-quarter of those over 80 die from COVID-19. A little higher than 0.2%.

So, I understand that not everyone uses statistics every day or really understands how to read them, let alone calculate them, so I get your underselling of the death rate. But this is how death rates are actually calculated for these sorts of things. A death rate is reflective of how likely something is to kill you, not how likely you are to die from it whether you may or may not come in contact with it. It's a statistic used to highlight how the disease itself can impact you if you contract it. The hope is that by seeing how this disease can impact you if you contract it, you will at least be smart about things. Especially if you happen to have an elderly relative you will at least wear a mask to protect them.

[BengalHawk62]

(07-14-2020, 12:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, your calculations are off. To get the death rate, we need to calculate what percentage of people in each age group that tested positive, died. For that, we get these numbers from the Iowa website: https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/case-counts

Total positive cases: 35,830

The percentages break down as such:
0-17: 5% or 1792 cases
18-40: 48% or 17,198 cases
41-60: 30% or 10,749 cases
61-80: 12% or 4300 cases
80+: 4% or 1433 cases

And the inevitable response from the conservative friend.......

.......that’s fine and dandy....but it doesn’t change one damn thing about the percentage of the population in this state who have died from Covid 19. If I stand naked grabbing a barbed wire fence during an electrical storm my chances of getting hit by lightning go up dramatically. But...I don’t do that. So talking about the survival rate after the fact doesn’t begin to speak about the infinitesimal chance of dying of Covid 19 in the state of Iowa. The very obvious bottom line is 755 people out of a population of 3,123,899- 3,155,070 (depending the source used for Iowa’s population) leaving the entire population with a .024 chance of dying from Covid 19. I choose to not hype the information.

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2020, 03:01 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: And the inevitable response from the conservative friend.......

.......that’s fine and dandy....but it doesn’t change one damn thing about the percentage of the population in this state who have died from Covid 19. If I stand naked grabbing a barbed wire fence during an electrical storm my chances of getting hit by lightning go up dramatically. But...I don’t do that. So talking about the survival rate after the fact doesn’t begin to speak about the infinitesimal chance of dying of Covid 19 in the state of Iowa. The very obvious bottom line is 755 people out of a population of 3,123,899- 3,155,070 (depending the source used for Iowa’s population) leaving the entire population with a .024 chance of dying from Covid 19. I choose to not hype the information.

But if you use this viewpoint to ignore social distancing guidelines or recommendations from health agencies about wearing a mask, you are essentially standing naked grabbing a barbed wire fence during an electrical storm. That's the point health agencies have been trying to make. Conservative or liberal, that doesn't matter. Science isn't, or rather shouldn't be, political.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-14-2020, 12:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, your calculations are off. To get the death rate, we need to calculate what percentage of people in each age group that tested positive, died. For that, we get these numbers from the Iowa website: https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/case-counts

Total positive cases: 35,830

The percentages break down as such:
0-17: 5% or 1792 cases
18-40: 48% or 17,198 cases
41-60: 30% or 10,749 cases
61-80: 12% or 4300 cases
80+: 4% or 1433 cases

Then, we look at the deaths in Iowa, found here: https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/outcome-analysis-deaths

So, a total of 755 deaths in Iowa as of the data this morning, which is a 2.1% death rate, overall. Because you only calculate the death rate based on the positive cases.

So here are how many deaths each age group had:
18-40: 3% or 23 deaths
41-60: 10% or 76 deaths (your number was 77, which could be discrepancy due to rounding, but I'll use the lower numbers to make you feel better)
61-80: 40% or 302 (your number was 305, I'll use the lower one)
81+: 47% or 354 (I came up with 355 due to rounding, but we'll use the lower one, again)

So what does that mean for the death rate in each age group? Well, here is how you actually calculate a death rate:
0-17: 0 deaths in 1792 cases (0/1792) means 0%
18-40: 23 deaths in 17,198 cases (23/17,198) means 0.1%. Pretty good, but a bit higher than what you had at 0.0006%.
41-60: 76 deaths in 10,749 cases (76/10,749) means 0.7%. Still pretty good, but again higher than your 0.003% rate.
61-80: 302 deaths in 4300 cases (302/4300) means 7.0%. That's a pretty good jump, there. 7 out of every 100 cases between the ages of 61-80.
80+: 354 deaths in 1433 cases (354/1433) means 24.7%, or about one-quarter of those over 80 die from COVID-19. A little higher than 0.2%.

So, I understand that not everyone uses statistics every day or really understands how to read them, let alone calculate them, so I get your underselling of the death rate. But this is how death rates are actually calculated for these sorts of things. A death rate is reflective of how likely something is to kill you, not how likely you are to die from it whether you may or may not come in contact with it. It's a statistic used to highlight how the disease itself can impact you if you contract it. The hope is that by seeing how this disease can impact you if you contract it, you will at least be smart about things. Especially if you happen to have an elderly relative you will at least wear a mask to protect them.

So 1% of the population of Iowa has contracted COVID. Not a lot.  Or a lot more people have contracted it than we know about and the death rate is far lower.  Which one do you think it is?  I notice people like to talk about all the unknown cases to show us how contagious it is, and known cases to show us how deadly it is.

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2020, 03:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So 1% of the population of Iowa has contracted COVID. Not a lot.  Or a lot more people have contracted it than we know about and the death rate is far lower.  Which one do you think it is?  I notice people like to talk about all the unknown cases to show us how contagious it is, and known cases to show us how deadly it is.

Given how rural Iowa is, I'd guess that the infection rate is low. Any time you have a population that is more spread out there will be a lower infection rate.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-14-2020, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Given how rural Iowa is, I'd guess that the infection rate is low. Any time you have a population that is more spread out there will be a lower infection rate.

OK go with Ohio.  64,013 cases.  A population of 11.7 million.  That's a .5% rate.

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2020, 03:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: OK go with Ohio.  64,013 cases.  A population of 11.7 million.  That's a .5% rate.

I don't know what to tell you. I'm not following all of it super close other than local news. There are so many variables in how the infection rate is affected there is no way to be certain. It could very well be under reporting both in Iowa and Ohio, but that also could mean there are deaths that were really linked to COVID-19 that they don't know about. When cases go unreported you can't say it will push the numbers one way or the other because you really don't know. We can only work with the numbers we have.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-14-2020, 04:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know what to tell you. I'm not following all of it super close other than local news. There are so many variables in how the infection rate is affected there is no way to be certain. It could very well be under reporting both in Iowa and Ohio, but that also could mean there are deaths that were really linked to COVID-19 that they don't know about. When cases go unreported you can't say it will push the numbers one way or the other because you really don't know. We can only work with the numbers we have.

That's fine.  Work with the numbers we have.  It's not a very commutable (right word?) disease.

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2020, 04:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's fine.  Work with the numbers we have.  It's not a very commutable (right word?) disease.

Actually, the ease with which is spreads is the main problem with it, not the mortality rate.

Here is how the CDC puts it:

Quote:COVID-19 seems to be spreading easily and sustainably in the community (“community spread”) in many affected geographic areas. Community spread means people have been infected with the virus in an area, including some who are not sure how or where they became infected.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#Spread

We are constantly learning new things about this virus and how it behaves. That's why we have so many unanswered questions.