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

[thekingsmen]

I


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




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?

Wait did you just use the Daily mail as a source ? when it was used by posters and was called not valid, not reliable and a tabloid news site by the very coli Kats who back you.

 

[Woodwerkz]

Ok then. Are cases going up? If cases are going up, cause for concern. If thry are dropping then hat makes more sense. We will see more deaths.

The concern is instead of seeing a Bell Curve we are going to see more of a wave pattern with a period of a plateau (late summer early fall) that gives everyone a false sense of security. These people will not adhere to a shutdown again so once it's back open it can get ugly if not contained early.

The problem is...right when Flu season will be ramping back up...45 will be in full campaign mode not paying attention be if he take that L in November he won't care anyway about people...even his supporters.

 

[thekingsmen]

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.

You already talk too damn much and about the time people get substance from you, they just read a whole damn book.

It's information you don't want to hear, so you grasp to find more excuses why you don't have time to listen to it. I told you where to go but you haven't shown up yet.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You already talk too damn much and about the time people get substance from you, they just read a whole damn book.

It's information you don't want to hear, so you grasp to find more excuses why you don't have time to listen to it. I told you where to go but you haven't shown up yet.

I've never written a single comment on here that would take more than 3-4 minutes to read, tops. He posted a video well over an hour long. You don't see the difference?

Everyone knows that written information is retained at a significantly higher level than spoken information and can be taken in about twice as fast. Plus you can scan written material for useful information far easier than you can scan a video. On top of that it's easier for me to open up an article on my laptop and still pay attention to my kids than it is to watch a long-ass video that will get interrupted numerous times. So I'm not going to watch long-ass videos, especially from a scientist who clearly will have put that information into written form if he has any competence at all. Sorry if that is offensive to the YouTube generation, but it kinda shows why you stay so ignorant about so much shyt.

 

[thekingsmen]

I've never written a single comment on here that would take more than 3-4 minutes to read, tops. He posted a video well over an hour long. You don't see the difference?

Everyone knows that written information is retained at a significantly higher level than spoken information and can be taken in about twice as fast. Plus you can scan written material for useful information far easier than you can scan a video. On top of that it's easier for me to open up an article on my laptop and still pay attention to my kids than it is to watch a long-ass video that will get interrupted numerous times. So I'm not going to watch long-ass videos, especially from a scientist who clearly will have put that information into written form if he has any competence at all. Sorry if that is offensive to the YouTube generation, but it kinda shows why you stay so ignorant about so much shyt.

I get it, it's not what you want to hear.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I get it, it's not what you want to hear.

Except that I already read and responded to the WRITTEN form of his arguments, and you knew that before you even entered the conversation. Once again, you're just full of shyt.

 

[Music Fiend]

Realistically, how long do you guys think we should "stay at home" under quarantine?

I'm with it, just wanted to see if anybody had any thoughts on how long we should be in. IMO chances are this is a 6-12 month thing and I highly doubt anybody will wait that long. But does that mean we should wait until the end of May to reassess? End of June? July? Scrap the Summer altogether and pick up in august?

 

[thekingsmen]

Except that I already read and responded to the WRITTEN form of his arguments, and you knew that before you even entered the conversation. Once again, you're just full of shyt.

Go play with the kids...spend time with them instead of making excuses here.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Realistically, how long do you guys think we should "stay at home" under quarantine?

I'm with it, just wanted to see if anybody had any thoughts on how long we should be in. IMO chances are this is a 6-12 month thing and I highly doubt anybody will wait that long. But does that mean we should wait until the end of May to reassess? End of June? July? Scrap the Summer altogether and pick up in august?

I think we have enough data to begin carefully relaxing it right now. We look at which kinds of places haven't had outbreaks (for instance low-density regions, maybe with even more latitude in the warmer regions) and we start letting people go back to work there first. We institute rules about mask wearing and social distancing, continue to emphasize the need for hand-washing and hygiene of workspace, perhaps limit the # of employees in workplaces which would become too crowded. We ramp up testing with careful monitoring, keeping the new sick leave and unemployment rules in place and being very strict regarding sick people staying home. We open up the public places where social distancing is fairly easy (parks, outdoors, beaches) and keep a lid on the ones where it is impossible (sporting events, concerts, clubs). Perhaps allow restaurants and stores to open, at least in some regions as a test period, but maybe having new buliding code rules with 4x fewer people allowed inside at a time or something. We encourage everyone who can to keep working from home and continue the school year online.

Test that partial reopening out through May, and based on the results proceed forward accordingly.

 

[inndaskKy]

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.

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.

I can see where we're talking past each other. When I say the numbers are not unprecedented, I mean that virtually every year there is a spike in excess mortalities in all those countries. This is usually mainly the effect of seasonal influenza. You are saying the number in the last week have been higher than before. But this does not show that covid-19 is more fatal than regular flu. You point to the z-scores being higher than the highest in previous years as if this shows that covid is that much more lethal than influenza. But what those numbers really indicate is the basic fact that on top of regular influenza season we now have an additional virus which is capable of inducing a similar sort of spike. As this is happening at the same time, it is not strange to see the peak number being higher than the peak from a season with influenza alone. That is what I meant by the numbers not being unprecedented. The countries that have been susceptible to influenza are seen to be susceptible to a virus with possibly a similar fatality rate. Ioannidis in the video also makes the point that in Italy last year's influenza season was relatively mild which made it possible for this year's season plus corona to kill more frail people. This does not necessarily speak to the lethality of corona virus.

And as I originally said, even that extra spike can not so easily be contributed to being due to corona virus alone. We have to consider the impact of the lockdown measures and the fear of the disease. The evidence that lockdown measures have no influence on causing deaths that would otherwise not have occurred is very weak as I have said. It is more like wishful thinking. You obviously don't agree with this point but I don't think your arguments for this are strong. See below.

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.​

You're reading way too much into total mortality dropping after lockdown measures. As we both have pointed out, this can be affected by many other non-virus related factors such as traffic deaths etc. Without looking at the actual component causes of total mortality, it makes no sense whatsoever to brag about total mortality going down after lockdown measures. Lockdown measures are obviously only meant to 'flatten the curve', not to bring down overall mortality from all causes. As for the exact periods when the deaths peaked in those countries, this was actually predicted based on the then available data by another epidemiologist who believes corona's fatality rate is similar to influenza's and who said that the numbers would start going down because it is the regular course for respiratory viruses to follow even without lockdown measures. But since it is a yet again a video, I won't bother to post it.

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.


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.

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.​

This is obvious nonsense as dicussed before. The goal of society is not to bring mortality down at all costs. That's crazy.

What's also disturbing is discounting the possible effect that the lockdown measures worldwide may have on starving people because it's not happening in America. That's irresponsible to the degree of being a crime against humanity breh.

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.

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.​

We've discussed this already. Many of the corona deaths have not been confirmed at all and have simply been claimed to be a corona death without credible evidence. Many experts have called this practice into question. Ioannidis talks about this at length in the video with many nuances. I really suggest you check out the whole video. You will also find that he is far from the arrogant ego maniac you made him out to be.

You yourself are just assuming there were more corona deaths without any credible evidence.

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

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?​

Well, my wording before was a bit unfortunate and misleading but once I clear it up it will show why your above points don't hold the weight that you think they do. Apart from the fact that the links you provided mention that regular influenza and many other viruses are known to cause cardiac injury and that it's not clear that corona virus is worse in this regard than those viruses, it is beside the point that I was trying to make earlier. I mentioned the effect on heart disease in the context of adverse effects of lockdown measures on mortality due to causes other than corona. I said deaths attributed to heart disease spiked but what I meant and should have said is that heart attacks hospitalizations have fallen dramatically and that this is interpreted as people staying home with symptoms they shouldn't stay home with which inevitably will lead to more deaths due to cardiovascular incidents.

This is an example of part of the explanation for the spike in deaths in places like NYC being due to non-covid causes. Also, this is an example of a factor that can contribute to the excess mortality numbers that is due to fear and lockdown measures rather than due to the virus. In addition, it is very possible that if those people die for those regular cardiovascular reasons and happen to have corona also, that the death will be falsely attributed to corona/covid. People would be particularly prone to making that mistake precisely because of the known link between covid and cardiac injury which in this case is irrelevant.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I can see where we're talking past each other. When I say the numbers are not unprecedented, I mean that virtually every year there is a spike in excess mortalities in all those countries. This is usually mainly the effect of seasonal influenza. You are saying the number in the last week have been higher than before. But this does not show that covid-19 is more fatal than regular flu. You point to the z-scores being higher than the highest in previous years as if this shows that covid is that much more lethal than influenza. But what those numbers really indicate is the basic fact that on top of regular influenza season we now have an additional virus which is capable of inducing a similar sort of spike. As this is happening at the same time, it is not strange to see the peak number being higher than the peak from a season with influenza alone.

Completely, utterly false, as in a total lie. Flu season already ended, so COVID-19 numbers are NOT being added to flu numbers. You can look right at those charts and see that total mortality was at baseline numbers the week the coronavirus assault hit, it was NOT already spiking from the flu. The flu already came and went back in November - February. This unprecendented spike is occuring from coronavirus alone and is completely separate from flu.

Ioannidis in the video also makes the point that in Italy last year's influenza season was relatively mild which made it possible for this year's season plus corona to kill more frail people. This does not necessarily speak to the lethality of corona virus.

The creativity in this guy's juelzing is ridiculous. He's seriously suggesting that a single mild flu season is going to leave so many frail people that it allows a massive coronavirus spike? Italy's flu seasons only kill off about 0.025% of the population, this ain't some "kill off all the frail people each year" Darwinian bullshyt, the flu doesn't even infect nearly enough people to allow that.

And how would he explain the USA, which had an especially heavy flu season this year, now being hit extra hard with coronavirus too?

And as I originally said, even that extra spike can not so easily be contributed to being due to corona virus alone. We have to consider the impact of the lockdown measures and the fear of the disease. The evidence that lockdown measures have no influence on causing deaths that would otherwise not have occurred is very weak as I have said. It is more like wishful thinking. You obviously don't agree with this point but I don't think your arguments for this are strong. See below.

You're reading way too much into total mortality dropping after lockdown measures. As we both have pointed out, this can be affected by many other non-virus related factors such as traffic deaths etc.

You need more sleep or something? Of COURSE the lockdown reduces other forms of death like traffic accidents and shyt. That's WHY lockdowns lower total mortality in addition to lowering coronavirus mortality.

How do you suggest in that first paragraph that lockdown measures will increase mortality outside of coronavirus, then suggest in the very next paragraph that lockdown measures will decrease non-virus related mortality???

As for the exact periods when the deaths peaked in those countries, this was actually predicted based on the then available data by another epidemiologist who believes corona's fatality rate is similar to influenza's and who said that the numbers would start going down because it is the regular course for respiratory viruses to follow even without lockdown measures. But since it is a yet again a video, I won't bother to post it.

Breh, I'm gonna post the data again right here: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

Meanwhile, you think scientists only publish their important findings via youtube videos and he doesn't have any actual data.

What's also disturbing is discounting the possible effect that the lockdown measures worldwide may have on starving people because it's not happening in America. That's irresponsible to the degree of being a crime against humanity breh.

America isn't locking down any country other than America, breh. This is a different calculation based on different factors in every nation.

We've discussed this already. Many of the corona deaths have not been confirmed at all and have simply been claimed to be a corona death without credible evidence. Many experts have called this practice into question. Ioannidis talks about this at length in the video with many nuances. I really suggest you check out the whole video. You will also find that he is far from the arrogant ego maniac you made him out to be.

You yourself are just assuming there were more corona deaths without any credible evidence.

Since we already debunked you here in equisite detail, and you had no response, I see little hope. It's virtually certain that coronavirus deaths are being undercounted, not overcounted, and you were already given numerous reasons why.

, it is beside the point that I was trying to make earlier. I mentioned the effect on heart disease in the context of adverse effects of lockdown measures on mortality due to causes other than corona. I said deaths attributed to heart disease spiked but what I meant and should have said is that heart attacks hospitalizations have fallen dramatically and that this is interpreted as people staying home with symptoms they shouldn't stay home with which inevitably will lead to more deaths due to cardiovascular incidents.

Breh, a link that shows me that heart attack visits to the hospital have gone DOWN 50% ain't helping your argument that lockdowns are increasing mortality. Stress levels are a big part of heart attacks and the average american feels more stress at work and during commutes than anywhere else. It's no surprise heart attacks are going down anywhere where COVID isn't bad. Show me ANY data that has heart attack deaths increasing in locked-down places without major COVID outbreaks.

This is an example of part of the explanation for the spike in deaths in places like NYC being due to non-covid causes. Also, this is an example of a factor that can contribute to the excess mortality numbers that is due to fear and lockdown measures rather than due to the virus. In addition, it is very possible that if those people die for those regular cardiovascular reasons and happen to have corona also, that the death will be falsely attributed to corona/covid. People would be particularly prone to making that mistake precisely because of the known link between covid and cardiac injury which in this case is irrelevant.

If that were true, then the spike in deaths would be happening EVERYWHERE there was a lockdown, not just in places where there was massive COVID outbreaks. But places with a lockdown that don't have massive COVID outbreaks are seeing their mortality rates stay normal or even dropping significantly, which is what is killing your entire point.

 

[Music Fiend]

I think we have enough data to begin carefully relaxing it right now. We look at which kinds of places haven't had outbreaks (for instance low-density regions, maybe with even more latitude in the warmer regions) and we start letting people go back to work there first. We institute rules about mask wearing and social distancing, continue to emphasize the need for hand-washing and hygiene of workspace, perhaps limit the # of employees in workplaces which would become too crowded. We ramp up testing with careful monitoring, keeping the new sick leave and unemployment rules in place and being very strict regarding sick people staying home. We open up the public places where social distancing is fairly easy (parks, outdoors, beaches) and keep a lid on the ones where it is impossible (sporting events, concerts, clubs). Perhaps allow restaurants and stores to open, at least in some regions as a test period, but maybe having new buliding code rules with 4x fewer people allowed inside at a time or something. We encourage everyone who can to keep working from home and continue the school year online.

Test that partial reopening out through May, and based on the results proceed forward accordingly.

My only thing with that is what about those who WFH. Workplaces are inherently social institutions if they are somewhat corporate. Do we just WFH until its all wrapped up? That makes the most sense to me.

 

[null]

@FabTrey

@GiantGonzalez just got banned for racism.

See the pattern in his old posts .. They have switched from Trump 2020 to defending Trump's Covid nonsense.

Remember this ..

you got me, you are smarter at watching the news than I am, by all means hide under a coffee table in your apartment and wait for the government to make it all better

He just got banned for

Spoiler: banned for

Trump wants you to inject Krokodil
For real tho what if he told you to inject ground up ****** cells into your bloodstream? Well you already did when you were a newborn

@Xerces is one of them too

@Wild self

 

[Wild self]

@FabTrey

@GiantGonzalez just got banned for racism.

See the pattern in his old posts .. They have switched from Trump 2020 to defending Trump's Covid nonsense.

Remember this ..



He just got banned for


@Xerces is one of them too

@Wild self

Yep, they all will go down.

 

[The M.I.C.]

Breh, the only way these nikkas are going to learn is by getting it. And all of my grandparents are dead. So I hope your whore ass grandma gets it

Dead are they? Hopefully they suffered most terribly.

Bookmarked.