Coronainsanity

[Gulo Blue]

257,953 as of yesterday, with this massive caveat.

"COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD?10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death ? or when it is listed as a ?probable? or ?presumed? cause ? the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation."

As I have said before, I would like to know the ratios of "cause of death", "probable", and "presumed."

"It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.

Again, the same interest in these distinctions would be useful to know. It would help answer the question "how many people."

Yeah. So I'm asking, if, at the end of the year, the total deaths in the US is around what it was in 2019 +35k (for typical annual increase) + something close to the number coded covid 19, then will you feel the coding was appropriate?

 

[byco42]

Yeah. So I'm asking, if, at the end of the year, the total deaths in the US is around what it was in 2019 +35k (for typical annual increase) + something close to the number coded covid 19, then will you feel the coding was appropriate?

I already think the coding is "appropriate." I just want to see more of a breakdown of it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I already think the coding is "appropriate." I just want to see more of a breakdown of it.

Maybe I've got your take on it wrong, but it seems like you're opposed to mask rules and rules restricting gatherings.

 

[byco42]

Maybe I've got your take on it wrong, but it seems like you're opposed to mask rules and rules restricting gatherings.

It's chasing the tail, IMO. Masks are, as stated by the NEJM, largely "symbolic." I'm opposed to the selective restrictions on gatherings -- time and place, number of people -- and the arbitrary means and methods in which its enforced. And the locations. And that I can actually eat at a restaurant, where the proliferation of germs and lack of sanitation is rampant (I have first-hand experience, as does my wife), to me, nullifies the entire effort, and renders COVID restrictions to the level of the absurd.

Where I live, there's a 10 p.m. curfew, but not for all businesses:

"Some exceptions — places that can remain open — include grocery stores, health care facilities, pharmacies, gas stations, construction and manufacturing sites and childcare. Places may remain open from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. for workers, as long as “no guests are admitted onto the premises,” according to the governor’s office.

Restaurants, breweries, distilleries and wineries also may continue take-out and delivery after 10 p.m."​

Of course, no chance for transmission of the virus with takeout and delivery of food, apparently. And I can still get on an airplane.

This NC Exec Order 180 only illustrates to me the folly of the attempt to contain the virus with masks when there are so many exceptions, in addition to those stated in EO 169 2.4., which basically says I can refuse to wear one outright, so long as I am truthful about the reason.

"Should not wear a Face Covering due to any medical or behavioral condition..."

Maybe I'm claustrophobic.

Bottom line ... all the open windows makes closing the doors moot. So open the doors.

 

[Gulo Blue]

But you do respect the value of covering your mouth when you sneeze? That's hard for me to follow.

 

[Michchamp]

It's chasing the tail, IMO. Masks are, as stated by the NEJM, largely "symbolic." I'm opposed to the selective restrictions on gatherings -- time and place, number of people -- and the arbitrary means and methods in which its enforced. And the locations. And that I can actually eat at a restaurant, where the proliferation of germs and lack of sanitation is rampant (I have first-hand experience, as does my wife), to me, nullifies the entire effort, and renders COVID restrictions to the level of the absurd.

Where I live, there's a 10 p.m. curfew, but not for all businesses:

"Some exceptions — places that can remain open — include grocery stores, health care facilities, pharmacies, gas stations, construction and manufacturing sites and childcare. Places may remain open from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. for workers, as long as “no guests are admitted onto the premises,” according to the governor’s office.

Restaurants, breweries, distilleries and wineries also may continue take-out and delivery after 10 p.m."​

Of course, no chance for transmission of the virus with takeout and delivery of food, apparently. And I can still get on an airplane.

This NC Exec Order 180 only illustrates to me the folly of the attempt to contain the virus with masks when there are so many exceptions, in addition to those stated in EO 169 2.4., which basically says I can refuse to wear one outright, so long as I am truthful about the reason.

"Should not wear a Face Covering due to any medical or behavioral condition..."

Maybe I'm claustrophobic.

Bottom line ... all the open windows makes closing the doors moot. So open the doors.

I think some of us are having trouble gauging your position because you say here you're in favor of more stringent, logically consistent, and (presumably) legally enforced regulations (since there's not going to be any other way to get recalcitrant Americans to comply), YET you only argue and disagree with those of us that also support those things, or at least don't
consider this a "plandemic," "same as the flu," or public health measures to be "tyranny."

 

[byco42]

But you do respect the value of covering your mouth when you sneeze? That's hard for me to follow.

In any event. It's common courtesy. What is hard for you to follow? That a so-called "matter of life and death" has restrictions with countless loopholes and exceptions, up to and including "wearing a mask makes me uncomfortable" but I can be fined up to $1,000 for not wearing one?

Just another example of what Mr. Bumble said about the law. Kind of, and for a different reason.

 

[Gulo Blue]

In any event. It's common courtesy. What is hard for you to follow? That a so-called "matter of life and death" has restrictions with countless loopholes and exceptions, up to and including "wearing a mask makes me uncomfortable" but I can be fined up to $1,000 for not wearing one?

Just another example of what Mr. Bumble said about the law. Kind of, and for a different reason.

It's life and death, but it's probabilistic, butterfly flaps its wings stuff. If there's a window open killing people over here, but someone else dies because someone left the door open too, we should have checked to see if we could close the door.


If some people die because they didn't wear their seat belts, we don't say "screw it, nobody should wear seat belts".


If some masks suck and some only reduce spread from the wearer, but don't protect the wearer, we shouldn't then conclude masks are useless.


And I don't see how you can buy into 250k deaths and then turn around and call it a so-called "matter of life and death".

 

[Spartanmack]

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/15/1003576/whats-a-coronavirus-superspreader/


most people don't spread the virus much. But since we can't id the people doing the bulk of the spreading, we try to get everybody to act like it might be them. Since we're spiking again, we're not doing enough. It would be nice if we could do the easy stuff, like wear masks and don't hang out in crowded bars, before doing less desirable mitigation stuff. But officials can only turn the dials they have available. So if people refuse to wear masks and stay home over frivolousness stuff, officials end up doing things they wouldn't have to otherwise, many being things they have no authority to do, aren?t backed up by science and aren?t applied consistently, particularly when it comes to them or their pet causes.

fify

 

[byco42]

I think some of us are having trouble gauging your position because you say here you're in favor of more stringent, logically consistent, and (presumably) legally enforced regulations (since there's not going to be any other way to get recalcitrant Americans to comply), YET you only argue and disagree with those of us that also support those things, or at least don't
consider this a "plandemic," "same as the flu," or public health measures to be "tyranny."

I oppose restrictions. I do not think masks are effective. I question the motives of politicians who enact half-measures that allow any social intercourse when the rhetoric is "a matter of life and death."

It makes me question what they really think, or if they really think it.

Either shut it down or open it up. Except shutting it down only introduces more hazards and dangers and is not sustainable.

 

[byco42]

It's life and death, but it's probabilistic, butterfly flaps its wings stuff. If there's a window open killing people over here, but someone else dies because someone left the door open too, we should have checked to see if we could close the door.


If some people die because they didn't wear their seat belts, we don't say "screw it, nobody should wear seat belts".


If some masks suck and some only reduce spread from the wearer, but don't protect the wearer, we shouldn't then conclude masks are useless.


And I don't see how you can buy into 250k deaths and then turn around and call it a so-called "matter of life and death".

Withdrawn a remnant of editing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I oppose restrictions. I do not think masks are effective. I question the motives of politicians who enact half-measures that allow any social intercourse when the rhetoric is "a matter of life and death."

It makes me question what they really think, or if they really think it.

Either shut it down or open it up. Except shutting it down only introduces more hazards and dangers and is not sustainable.

Why so black and white? I don't disagree that people get it wrong in the details and should be questioned, but why not try to shut things down by weighing how risky they are thought to be against the repercussions of shutting them down? It's complicated and loaded with grey area, but why down we limit ourselves to either destroying the economy far worse than we have to or allowing far more people to die than we have to?

 

[byco42]

Why so black and white? I don't disagree that people get it wrong in the details and should be questioned, but why not try to shut things down by weighing how risky they are thought to be against the repercussions of shutting them down? It's complicated and loaded with grey area, but why down we limit ourselves to either destroying the economy far worse than we have to or allowing far more people to die than we have to?

CDC STATS ON TESTING: AO 12-8-2020

TOTAL TESTS: 204,041,505
TOTAL POSITIVE TESTS: 16,448,079
TOTAL% POSITIVE: 8.06%

Deaths: 283,000
% Deaths to Positive Tests: 1.7
% Survival rate Positive Tests: 98.3
% Deaths to Total Tests: .13
% Survival Rate to Total Tests: 99.87


How will a.) shutting down or b.) opening up affect these statistics?

 

[Gulo Blue]

CDC STATS ON TESTING: AO 12-8-2020

TOTAL TESTS: 204,041,505
TOTAL POSITIVE TESTS: 16,448,079
TOTAL% POSITIVE: 8.06%

Deaths: 283,000
% Deaths to Positive Tests: 1.7
% Survival rate Positive Tests: 98.3
% Deaths to Total Tests: .13
% Survival Rate to Total Tests: 99.87


How will a.) shutting down or b.) opening up affect these statistics?

What point does reducing the question to black/white make?


It depends on what you shut down and what measures are actually followed. Probably shouldn't shut down hospitals. But definitely kissing booths.

 

[byco42]

What point does reducing the question to black/white make?


It depends on what you shut down and what measures are actually followed. Probably shouldn't shut down hospitals. But definitely kissing booths.

And small grocery stores, but not Walmart. Churches, but not airlines.

Are there still kissing booths? I've never seen one.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And small grocery stores, but not Walmart. Churches, but not airlines.

Are there still kissing booths? I've never seen one.

Our small grocery stores and Churches are not shut down. Capacity is reduced.


Should we all follow one set of rules or should it vary from places to place depending on circumstances and details? I think the latter is more difficult, but better.


However, if you have tons of people all over making decisions, some will get it wrong. (But at least the damage of a misstep is limited in range.)


None of that to me says we should just not try to figure out what's best and then do it.

 

[byco42]

Our small grocery stores and Churches are not shut down. Capacity is reduced.

Small businesses are far more vulnerable to any disruptions than Big Boxes, and they wull be shut down before them. Churches will also be on the short list before, say, the NFL.

Should we all follow one set of rules or should it vary from places to place depending on circumstances and details? I think the latter is more difficult, but better.

State governors are not even accounting for this, and haven't in the past, and won't.

None of that to me says we should just not try to figure out what's best and then do it.

By "we" you mean "government" (I conject) ... when I'm already taking my own personal precautions, without government's assistance or input.

 

[Michchamp]

I oppose restrictions. I do not think masks are effective. I question the motives of politicians who enact half-measures that allow any social intercourse when the rhetoric is "a matter of life and death."

It makes me question what they really think, or if they really think it.

Either shut it down or open it up. Except shutting it down only introduces more hazards and dangers and is not sustainable.

You're (willfully?) ignoring the influence business lobbies - who have from the start opposed ALL restrictions, while also lobbying for immunity from lawsuits when they get their workers and customers sick - have on the process.

I have little sympathy for Cuomo, DeSantis, or hyporcites like Gavin Newsome, but to the extent there are politicians who tried to "shut it down" or have been pushing for consistent & uniform regulations (our mayor and county judge here in Houston are examples of the good ones), they're hamstrung by the business lobby and politicians more attuned to that lobby.

 

[Michchamp]

Small businesses are far more vulnerable to any disruptions than Big Boxes, and they wull be shut down before them. Churches will also be on the short list before, say, the NFL.

...

Seems like your real problem with this is that the billionaire owners of the NFL have more lobbying clout than the Church, and you wish it wasn't that way.

 

[byco42]

You're (willfully?) ignoring the influence business lobbies - who have from the start opposed ALL restrictions, while also lobbying for immunity from lawsuits when they get their workers and customers sick - have on the process.

Or it's the loose definition of "essential businesses" ... one of the most pernicious phrases loosed on a gullible citizenry.

I have little sympathy for Cuomo, DeSantis, or hyporcites like Gavin Newsome, but to the extent there are politicians who tried to "shut it down" or have been pushing for consistent & uniform regulations (our mayor and county judge here in Houston are examples of the good ones), they're hamstrung by the business lobby and politicians more attuned to that lobby.

This indicates to me that influencers far more distant and substantial than mere state governors, lobbies, and national politicians are calling the shots, then, and they are unconcerned with our well being, in any capacity. I believe this anyway, and COVID has only made it more obvious.

I mean, these politicians are the same people who enabled the burning and looting of their cities and states in the spring/summer, and then cut the power of a house hosting a party.