John Hopkins: 2700+ died in the last 24 Hours In The U.S.

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

outside of the midwest easily the weakest link in the country.

I guess when counting COVID deaths we are lagging behind the glorious east coast states and places like Michigan and Chicago. We poor southern hicks just can't die FAST ENOUGH! I guess we'll just have to watch New York and the surrounding areas lose another 500+ per day to get a grasp on this whole thing. Maybe one day we can aspire to account for 50% of the total deaths per day in the country for days on end and make up 1/3rd or more of the total deaths in the country overall.

Yes as I stated we do have big refrigerated trucks to fill. Hopefully we too can sit atop a pile of minority bodies and use them for internet points. Yes, hopefully we can do better in life, as well as you all do in dying.

Godspeed.

 

[thekingsmen]

Air pollution, congenital defects, additives and preservatives in food, etc.

Bad diets, obese, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, we can go on but tell it to these folks Rona is the only death bringer.

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

Yes you right about this, but people with diabetes as well. The younger people who died usually have asthma and it not something that can be cured.

The obese, diabetics and people with heart disease are getting hit pretty hard. Many of those people are people of color. Many working in essential jobs where they can't shelter in place and social distancing is a disaster or not even attempted.

A virus seemingly tailor made to exploit the American condition.

 

[thekingsmen]

What is there to gain by inflating the numbers? What advantages does that give them?

Live in D.C. and don't know how white politicians operate?

 

[thekingsmen]

I don't have hours of my life to devote to a video that might be completely irrelevant. Either give me a timestamp or, better yet, show me the information in written form. There ain't no scientific info in the world that is limited to video.

Another excuse with long winded posts. Just admit you don't know what you claim to know.

 

[The M.I.C.]

The obese, diabetics and people with heart disease are getting hit pretty hard. Many of those people are people of color. Many working in essential jobs where they can't shelter in place and social distancing is a disaster or not even attempted.

A virus seemingly tailor made to exploit the American condition.

They’re saying that there’s now more than thirty strains of this motherfukker..so this shyt has become the Baskin Robbins of the virus world. So one strain might not fukk with you if you get it but it may get your girl who you fukking who has a heart defect and vice versa. If a second wave comes through, it’ll be interesting to see how things unfold..firstly, if folks thought this lockdown is/was bad..shyt, nikkas will be lucky to even step out they doors without issues.

 

[Wild self]

Air pollution, congenital defects, additives and preservatives in food, etc.

Has that been prove ? That still doesnt explain people having vegetarian diets and exercise regularly just keep on dropping like that. Thats why those countries have a long life expectancy rate for their citizens. Maybe that rumor of the HIV strain being in the Rona does hold some weight.

 

[The M.I.C.]

Dead are they? Hopefully they suffered most terribly.

I’m still screaming reading this

 

[Wild self]

They’re saying that there’s now more than thirty strains of this motherfukker..so this shyt has become the Baskin Robbins of the virus world. So one strain might not fukk with you if you get it but it may get your girl who you fukking who has a heart defect and vice versa. If a second wave comes through, it’ll be interesting to see how things unfold..firstly, if folks thought this lockdown is/was bad..shyt, nikkas will be lucky to even step out they doors without issues.

If that is true about the upcoming 2nd wave, then society is done for. Not even the wealthy can benefit from that when their workers are dropping dead and no one can pay taxes. Dead people =less customers.

 

[MBwithadream]

My brother recovered thank the Lord

 

[inndaskKy]

You're the second person today to send me that link with that same info, I'm interested where you got it if you can share.

But you're looking at the wrong info. Why would you look at the numbers across all Europe when not all of Europe is having an unprecedented pandemic right now? Why aren't you looking at the specific countries? You should be using this link and scrolling down to the country-specific numbers:

EURO MOMO

You can see there that the TOTAL death rates for Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK all hit new peaks unlike anything in recent history, and with an unprecedented speed as well. Again, those are TOTAL death rates, shyt you can't just cook like that.





This is the best part because the truth is the exact opposite.

Look at those charts in that link again. Look at all those countries I pointed out with the big death peaks. What do you notice about each one? Notice how even though COVID is still ravenging through them, after their initial peaks, when the countries went on lockdown their death numbers DROPPED. If lockdown caused excess mortality, then the death rates should have gone UP after the lockdown, not down. How do you explain that?

Even better, look at the countries that called for a lockdown even though their coronavirus death rates weren't high. Look at Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Finland. What do you notice about all of them? Their death rates have fallen well BELOW average, indicating that without a virus to kill a bunch of people, lockdowns clearly SAVE lives.

And basic logic tells you that's true. If people are practicing lockdowns and social distancing, then not just COVID but other diseases are gonna stop spreading too. Car accidents in Cali have dropped by half, I'm sure the same is true everywhere. Fewer interactions with other people means fewer opportunities for violent death. And probably most of all, so many people not going into work has significantly reduced peak stress, so stress-triggered illnesses (including strokes and heart attacks) are going to be down. There's a reason Mondays are the worst days for heart attacks.

The data is right in front of you. Countries with big corona outbreaks had a big peak in their death rates that was only brought down after lockdown. Countries without big corona outbreaks had their death rates fall below normal due to lockdown. You gotta go where the data leads.

What do you notice about the countries that went on lockdown before they had had huge numbers of COVID-19 deaths?

I was looking at the data for those countries specifically. Again, check the data for early 2017. I did not say that lockdown measures cannot bring down excess mortality in the short term. I said that lockdown measures can cause extra deaths, meaning deaths that would not have happened without the lockdown and that this makes it more difficult to interpret excess mortality rates without context. Of course a country in lockdown will have its mortality rate affected. Just think of things like traffic deaths as you mention, work related deaths etc. going down when there's less traffic and work being done. These types of numbers going down may mask the effect of deaths caused by the lockdown measures themselves. This in itself says nothing about what number of corona deaths have been prevented but, more importantly, even if it does have some impact which I'm willing to concede it likely does prevent some infections in the short term at least, this does not justify the need for lockdown measures. My point in bringing up the EUROMOMO numbers was simply to point out that spikes in excess mortality rates in the affected countries is not unprecedented but actually a regular occurence particularly in the countries that have been hit hardest in Europe. Bringing the mortality rate of the whole population down by any means necessary is not desirable though. It's madness to ask people to stay indoors in order to have less traffic deaths.


As for the numbers going up in some countries: first of all, it has only been the last 2 weeks that the numbers have spiked. Up until then numbers were normal, so again it is of crucial importance to find out what part of the rise in deaths can be contributed to corona itself and what part to the measures being taken. You can't assume linearly from the numbers of excess mortality in countries with few corona deaths going down that the effect of the measures and their contribution to mortality rate are successful, if only because the measures taken in countries have been different and the demographics and other relevant aspects of each country are different.

But to repeat: there are already concrete signs that the lockdown measures are costing lives that would otherwise not have been lost. Cardiologists have already been ringing the alarm about the consequence that people in need of immediate medical attention are not seeking help apparently because they are afraid to come to the hospital and that it's affecting the rate of deaths from heart attack. Long term the consequences can be huge too which is not reflected in the current numbers yet. I know of a hospital where cancer diagnoses went down by a third (more than a thousand less) since the lockdown measures although I'm not sure if that information has been made public yet. That's just one disease, one hospital breh. The worldwide effects of these measures are massive and extreme. I'm afraid that we will be hearing many official reports of this kind very frequently in the months to come.
I saw there was a thread on the UN warning for a major effect on starvation numbers. I didn't see an explanation given there yet for how the measures could be having that effect and it might just be them using this opportunity to get people to care more about the starvation problem, but if there is such a link, just think what we have really risked rushing into these measures on the basis of the evidence that we had.

I've already pointed out the evidence is EXACTLY the opposite. From the data I've seen literally every country that went into lockdown without a major COVID outbreak showed a drop in mortality, not an increase. And countries that went into lockdown during their outbreak fairly quickly showed their mortality rates drop too. So I'm really calling bullshyt here.




Because it's funny to me, you're posting an obvious piece of political propaganda spoken by a Republican politician and disseminated by a known propaganda source, and you think that is the best evidence for your position when the actual document itself is clearly out in public with hundreds of thousands of copies. So why not post the document, why post some local right-wing politician telling us how the document "made him feel" rather than telling us what it actually said? Because what it said was almost certainly innoculous and reasnable and right in line with normal mortality attribution.




A quick lookup gives the appearance that he is likely quite smart and also quite arrogant, and has made most of his reputation by constantly saying that the rest of his field is usually wrong about most eveything. His most famous paper is literally titled, "Why Most Published Research Findings are False". So he does have a pretty large contrarion bias.

Reading up on his study, it carries assumptions so large as to make the conclusions meaningless. I'd love if you could timestamp the video for me and address my following questions.

1. He seems to have based his findings on Santa Clara County, which only has 88 confirmed coronavirus deaths. However, the TOTAL death rate in Santa Clara County in March went up by 20%, indicating hundreds more extra deaths than previously known. In fact, doctors are already noting numerous patient deaths in retrospect which were likely caused by coronavirus in Santa Clara County in February and March before testing was widespread. In his calculations did Dr. John use just the low 88 confirmed deaths or the more likely estimates which will be several times higher?

Overall deaths in Santa Clara County were up 20% in March


2. Medical researchers have previously pointed out that viral disease severity is often a product of the initial infectious dose. People infected by large doses of the virus (such as contact with sick people in hospitals or in especially crowded settings or with long periods of contact, like workplaces, churches, clubs, etc.) often have more severe cases of the disease, while people infected by small doses of the virus (casual contact on the street, or at a distance, or from touching an infected object) often have far more mild cases. It has not yet been proven that this is true for COVID-19, but the high severity of cases among hospital workers and the fact that Spanish Flu, SARS, and MERS all appear to have behaved this way makes it likely.

What is viral load and why are so many health workers getting sick?
How 'viral load' and genetics could explain why young people have died from coronavirus
Influenza Infectious Dose May Explain the High Mortality of the Second and Third Wave of 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic

So, when Dr. John calculates a death rate for Santa Clara County, does he take into account that social distancing and the lockdown may have significantly reduced the typical infectious dose experienced, and thus reduced the average severity of the disease dramatically compared to without a lockdown?


3. Does Dr. John address the 300% increase in death rates in NYC, totally unprecedented, and explain how that is possible if it is "no worse than a flu"? Does he address the spikes in TOTAL deaths among every European country that has been seriously affected and explain why those spikes never occured in previous flu seasons?


I would love answers to any of those three questions.

Finally, I read one of his early papers and came across this line:

That is just laughably alarmist. He seriously thinks that society is going to break down? Mental heath is going to degrade? We could face war and a meltdown of the social fabric?

He wrote all that on March 17, long before his studies had shown any results. It was part of a long article in which he criticized every model that had come out and every measure that had been taken to fight the disease. So it was quite clear that he already had a motive to tilt his interpretations of the data in a certain way long before he had any data to back up those interpretations.

1. Again, you can't just blindly ascribe a rise in deaths as a death due to corona instead of some other cause, especially in a time with such extreme measures affecting the population in all sorts of ways. They used the official confirmed numbers of course as they should. But their study was not so much about determining the fatality rate (although they did calculate it also obviously because it's interesting) but about determining the infection rate. If you want to see a good discussion of what are perceived to be the flaws of their methodology I suggest checking the comments here. The study is obviously going to be controversial but I'll ask you for the evidence-based studies showing that corona virus is more lethal than regular influenza and we'll compare relative flaws in methodology.

There are many points on which their method can be criticized but the thing is that we have to do the same for the determination of the deaths. I don't think the possible errors in their methodology are more serious than the flaws in the way in which corona deaths are being counted nor in the estimation of how many infections there have really been.

2. No one can take into account such an effect. If you're gonna demand that, no studies would ever get done. But viral load has actually been pointed to by some epidemiologists as one of the reasons why it would have been better to let the virus spread through schools without a lockdown rather than through hospitals with a lockdown.

3. He does name NYC as an outlier but his point is that it is normal to have geographically different outcomes in some areas but this does not mean the entire population runs the same risk. The point I made earlier about cardiologists ringing the alarm held true for NYC too I believe. Deaths attributed to heart disease have spiked since lockdown measures. Also, the panic caused by fear of the virus is overwhelming hospitals in NYC also. You can't ascribe all those effects to the deadly nature of the virus. Ioannidis goes into it a bit in the video but if you don't have the time to watch it, I don't have the time to look for the timestamp frankly.

Post the evidence.

As for where people got the EUROMOMO I don't know. I believe this site mentions it, which has been going around quite a bit among people who are skeptical of the fatality of the virus and who are looking for a place to start tracing counterarguments as well as this site. Although some of the stuff on the latter veers off too much into emotional conspiracy thinking, it is still a good place to sift through information presenting a more skeptical view. The latter has a good collection of references to actual epidemiological studies being done. Don't have the time right now to collect the best links in this post, maybe I'll add them later if I have the time.

 

[GunRanger]

Obesity is the number one at risk condition. Of course America os getting wrecked

 

[Bossino]

I guess when counting COVID deaths we are lagging behind the glorious east coast states and places like Michigan and Chicago. We poor southern hicks just can't die FAST ENOUGH! I guess we'll just have to watch New York and the surrounding areas lose another 500+ per day to get a grasp on this whole thing. Maybe one day we can aspire to account for 50% of the total deaths per day in the country for days on end and make up 1/3rd or more of the total deaths in the country overall.

Yes as I stated we do have big refrigerated trucks to fill. Hopefully we too can sit atop a pile of minority bodies and use them for internet points. Yes, hopefully we can do better in life, as well as you all do in dying.

Godspeed.

Wasn't speaking on COVID when address regional ranking, I was talking damn near every quantifiable metric of quality of life under normal circumstance, but I wouldn't expect you to be in the mindset to understand that, last you'll here from me as well as last I'll read from you.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Another excuse with long winded posts. Just admit you don't know what you claim to know.

How stupid do you have to be to write that AFTER he explained the important part of the video, I did the background research, and then responded to it in explicit detail? You're gonna get on me for not responding to a 1:15 video AFTER I already responded to the pertinent info in the video?

I swear your reading comprehension gotta be among the worst on this entire board.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I was looking at the data for those countries specifically. Again, check the data for early 2017.

I posted the link for that data already, and none of the countries I listed had mortality peaks as high or as steep in 2017 as they just did right now. Look at the z-scores for excess mortality:

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

France hit 12.29, they had never been over 11.24 before.
Belgium just hit 14.16, they had never been over 9.09 before.
Italy hit 18.32, they had never been over 10.29 before.
Netherlands hit 16.66, they had never been over 11.26 before.
Spain hit 18.03, they had never been over 12.50 before.
Sweden hit 7.49, they had never been over 5.24 before.
Switzerland hit 11.79, they had never been over 10.12 before.
UK (England) hit 18.49, they had never been over 11.15 before.

I did not say that lockdown measures cannot bring down excess mortality in the short term. I said that lockdown measures can cause extra deaths, meaning deaths that would not have happened without the lockdown and that this makes it more difficult to interpret excess mortality rates without context.

Breh, that's the most meaningless point you can make. It's like a butterfly effect, ANY action can cause deaths that might not have happened without that action. Maybe I order a pizza, which causes the delivery guy to cut off a driver, which pisses that guy off so he goes home and beats his wife who then offs herself. Or anything else.

You can't base policy on random speculation, you have to look at the overall numbers. And looking at the numbers, the lockdowns clearly brought down overall mortality in countries with big outbreaks AND in countries without big outbreaks. Speculating "but maybe some deaths occurred that wouldn't have occurred otherwise even though overal mortality went down" is a useless waste of time.

As for the numbers going up in some countries: first of all, it has only been the last 2 weeks that the numbers have spiked. Up until then numbers were normal, so again it is of crucial importance to find out what part of the rise in deaths can be contributed to corona itself and what part to the measures being taken.

Just completely and utterly false.

Italy's TOTAL mortality numbers began spiking upwards in the first week of March, the exact same week that their Coronavirus deaths first started spiking. Italy didn't go into lockdown until the 2nd week of March (March 9 specifically), and their Coronavirus deaths really didn't plateau until March 21st and stayed up there until around April 4-5, when they started dropping significantly. However, while the TOTAL mortality rate peaked the same time the coronavirus deaths peaked (March 23rd-29th), total mortality started dropping the very next week, even while coronavirus deaths hadn't started dropping yet. This indicates that the lockdown had not just stopped the increase in coronavirus deaths, but was lowering total mortality as well even while coronavirus deaths hadn't had time to fall yet.

You can go through each country and see the same thing. Spain's TOTAL mortality began spiking from March 9-15, even though they didn't go on lockdown until March 14. Their Coronavirus deaths didn't peak until April 2nd, but their total mortality actually peaked on March 23-29 and then went DOWN the next week. How could total mortality go down even before Coronavirus mortality went down? Only if lockdown was having a positive effect on other deaths too. Now, even though Coronavirus deaths are still over 400/day there, their total mortality is down to a point much lower than mid-March when Coronavirus deaths were only up to 200/day. How could Total Mortality be dropping so much faster than Coronavirus Mortality? Only if the lockdowns were having a positive effect on ALL mortality, not just coronavirus.

But to repeat: there are already concrete signs that the lockdown measures are costing lives that would otherwise not have been lost.

Breh, that anecdotal shyt doesn't mean shyt unless you have TOTAL data to back it up. If the TOTAL mortality when down significantly across the board, then the overall effect was positive. And all the evidence is that total mortality has gone down for coronavirus deaths AND non-coronavirus deaths. Any anecdotal bullshyt like "But I heard some doctor say this" doesn't mean anything unless we're looking at the overall picture.

I know of a hospital where cancer diagnoses went down by a third (more than a thousand less) since the lockdown measures although I'm not sure if that information has been made public yet. That's just one disease, one hospital breh.

Whether or not that's true (I'm not sure I buy it or that's it's representative), what da hell does that have to do with the lockdown? People are avoiding hospitals because of coronavirus, not because of lockdown. There's no rule against going to hospitals for shyt like that during lockdown, I got a friends who are having checkups, scheduling surgeries, etc. as we speak.

Imagine we didn't have a lockdown, and coronavirus cases were spiking more and hospitals were more overrun than they are right now. That would lead to MORE people avoiding hospitals and even FEWER new cancers getting diagnosed.

I saw there was a thread on the UN warning for a major effect on starvation numbers. I didn't see an explanation given there yet for how the measures could be having that effect and it might just be them using this opportunity to get people to care more about the starvation problem, but if there is such a link, just think what we have really risked rushing into these measures on the basis of the evidence that we had.

No one is starving in America and if they are our government could EASILY take care of it even during lockdown if they actually gave a fukk.

I agree that I can imagine certain countries where lockdown could lead to certain poor populations not getting food. Their governments SHOULD step up to fill in the gap, and should consider other measures if they really find that impossible (in most cases it's not impossible at all). Thankfully, most of those countries aren't having significant coronavirus epidemics. And that has absolutely nothing to do with what rich countries like the USA and western Europe do regarding their epidemics.

1. Again, you can't just blindly ascribe a rise in deaths as a death due to corona instead of some other cause, especially in a time with such extreme measures affecting the population in all sorts of ways.

It's not "blindly" when they are RECORDING EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO DIES OF CORONAVIRUS. And you still haven't shown the tiniest bit of actual evidence that any other measures are having a negative effect on population - all you have are hearsay and the actual evidence shows the exact opposite.

2. No one can take into account such an effect. If you're gonna demand that, no studies would ever get done. But viral load has actually been pointed to by some epidemiologists as one of the reasons why it would have been better to let the virus spread through schools without a lockdown rather than through hospitals with a lockdown.

It's funny that you were all salivating over this medical researcher who says that everyone else is making decisions without having enough information yet, but when I point out that he's coming to a conclusion without some very critical information that could have a huge impact, you just wave it away because it's difficult to account for? Isn't having to consider difficult to account for yet extremely important variables the entire M.O. of his critiques of everyone else?

It's not impossible to account for the effect, I already linked you a study that does it. Of course we need to know a lot more. But to declare, "Look, this virus is weak in Santa Clara therefore it's weak everywhere" is clear bullshyt when we have direct evidence that it was NOT that weak everywhere and where the strong lockdowns that came very early in Santa Clara may have had a huge impact on making it weaker there.

And you're totally ignoring that he's just assuming the 88 attributed deaths to coronavirus in Santa Clara were likely much lower than the hundreds that actually occurred, due to lack of testing in an area where there was very early spread.

3. He does name NYC as an outlier but his point is that it is normal to have geographically different outcomes in some areas but this does not mean the entire population runs the same risk. The point I made earlier about cardiologists ringing the alarm held true for NYC too I believe. Deaths attributed to heart disease have spiked since lockdown measures.

Breh, you are aware that coronavirus causes heart damage and blood clots, right? Of COURSE heart disease has spiked. But it has only spiked in areas with major coronavirus outbreaks. In places that went on lockdown but which have not have major coronavirus outbreaks yet, you ain't seeing that spike, which makes it clear that it is the coronavirus, not the lockdown, which is causing it.

Why are so many COVID-19 patients also seeing blood clots?
Coronavirus is causing blood clots and sudden strokes in otherwise healthy younger patients | Daily Mail Online
Coronavirus and the Heart
COVID-19 (Coronavirus): What It Means for the Adult with Congenital Heart Disease

Also, the panic caused by fear of the virus is overwhelming hospitals in NYC also. You can't ascribe all those effects to the deadly nature of the virus. Ioannidis goes into it a bit in the video but if you don't have the time to watch it, I don't have the time to look for the timestamp frankly.

Again, you're acting like there wouldn't be even MORE panic if we were overwhelming hospitals even more by letting the disease increase at an even higher rate.

And you seem to simultaneously be saying that panic is overwhelming hospitals and keeping people away from hospitals. That makes it difficult to believe that you have any good arguments that the situation would be better without a lockdown - how do you even know whether there would be more people going to hospitals in that case, or fewer?