I wrote, “(from what article?)”

I see that you liked to it. Sorry, I should have read more carefully.

But the statistics in that article are still wrong.

Even though Covid-19 has probably infected fewer than 20 million Americans, so far, it has already killed one quarter of a million of them, and it continues to kill about 700 more, each day.

For comparison, a typical seasonal flu infects about 29 million Americans, and kills about 37,000 of them. Here’s a spreadsheet:
https://sealevel.info/CDC_Influenza_stats_Table1_2010-11_thru_2018-19_as_of_2020-04-04.html

One of the big reasons the flu usually infects less than 30 million Americans is that about half of all Americans get the flu jab, each year, including a disproportionately high percentage of those most vulnerable.. Until a vaccine is available, Covid-19 has the potential to infect many more people than the flu does.

The good news is that an army of scientists are furiously working on vaccine development. At last count, no fewer than 180 different vaccines were under development! Here’s a very, very informative “tweetorial,” by an expert, which could be entitled, “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Coronavirus Vaccines* (*but were afraid to ask)”

Tweet #1:
https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1310372301314101250

Tweet #138 (the last tweet):
https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1310435247243304962

Whole thread, unrolled by ThreadReaderApp:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310372301314101250.html
(Best format, if you block the ads, e.g., with uBlock Origin.)

Whole thread, unrolled by Rattibha:
https://rattibha.com/thread/1310372301314101250

Whole thread, unrolled by Threader:
https://threader.app/thread/1310372301314101250

According to this CDC page…

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

…between Feb 1 and Oct. 14, we lost 910 young adults, ages 18-29, to Covid-19 (and only 102 to flu). Among 30-49 year-olds, we’ve lost 9,365 to Covid (and only 568 to flu).

They also list 379 deaths of 18-29 year-olds, and 4,214 30-49 year-olds, due to “Pneumonia and Covid-19,” but I don’t know whether those deaths are already included in the Covid-19 deaths, so I won’t count them. (I sent the CDC a question, asking them to clarify that.)

The CDC page doesn’t break out the numbers of deaths from each cause for ages 18 and 19, but the Covid-19 death rate is low among teenagers, so it is safe to say that at least 800 of the 910 deaths among 18-29 year-olds were in their 20s. That means there were at least 9,365+800 = 10,165 deaths of 20-49 year-olds.

The stats you cited (from what article?) claim that the survival rate among 20-49 years old is 99.98%. But that is impossible. Here’s how you can tell that it is impossible:

There were at least 10,165 deaths in that age group. If the survival rate were 99.98% that would mean 9,998 recoveries for every 2 deaths, which is 50,814,835 recoveries, just among 30-49 year-olds.

it is not possible that there could have been 50 million recoveries among 30-49 year-olds. There are only about 84 million Americans in that age range, in total, so that would be over 60% of them.

There have been only 5,457,912 identified recoveries, so far, of all ages, in the entire country. Many people have had the disease without being diagnosed, but not THAT many. Serology tests suggest that about 5% of U.S. citizens (15-20 million) have been exposed to Covid-19, so far, not 60%.

A good friend of mine lost his sense of smell and taste a few years ago. I think it was SARS, or it could have been the bird flu.He was VERY sick for a week or two.. He went to several doctors last year about this, but nothing can be done.

He gave up flying because he would have been unable to smell a fire or something like that while piloting a plane

My wife’s aunt lost her sense of smell and taste at least 30 years ago.

No, but I don’t see any difference between Covid death rates in the US, where such inflation of numbers of Covid deaths is claimed, and other jurisdictions, where no reasons for such inflation of the death count has been suggested.

If I was working on a lean six sigma project using data with the reliability of the COVID reporting data, given the false positives, lack of clarity of causes of death, and inherent bias in the data caused by the economic incentive to over report, I’d be laughed out of the room. Much as you like to deride it as a significant issue. it is another nail in the coffin for the reliability of the data.

Unless you can unequivocally state that COVID was the cause of death, the death statistics are junk.

Again, the number of deaths clearly NOT COVID related reported as COVID related pollute any data analysis.

Sensationalism overtook science.

By The Way #1: While you believe there is much more overreporting than I believe is the case, I am not repudiating your position as I am not aware of good studies which address it one way or the other. Hence I am open to your position. What I do know is that the “6% story” has no bearing on the question.

BTW #2: I doubt you understand my views on the whole COVID-19 situation, though I don’t see how such views are pertinent to a discussion of facts.

BTW #3: The mainstream media did a horrible job explaining away the “6% story”, for the most part claiming that the entire 94% balance had preexisting comorbidities, the vast majority of which may have affected the course of the disease but would not have killed the patient at that time, and that those comorbidities (such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes) were quite common in the overall population. Very few stories caught on to the fact that the 94% balance included those for which no preexisting comorbidities were given yet an appropriate immediate cause of death (such as respiratory or cardiac arrest) was listed. The report did not separate those two categories.

You’re being VERY dismissive of my understanding of the report. Your bias towards the media created panic that is COVID 19 is palpable.

I understand completely the report. The question of the skewed data will never be removed, because, like you, any researched in the present is going to be biased in regards to the accuracy of the data, and that bias is going to skew perceptions and filters of the data.

The point remains that the data for COVID is absolutely and utterly polluted with junk. False positives abound, illustrated best by the false positives that came to the surface with the testing of NFL players. False reporting of deaths is rampant, given the economic incentive to report the death as COVID. Report the death as COVID related, and Uncle Sugar picks up the bill. Report the death as, for instance congestive heart failure, and now you have to deal with bureaucrats and insurance companies to collect your money. (or gang violence, or vehicular accident, the news stories aren’t tough to find.)

People have been scared by a media circus and social media botfarms into believing that this is the 21st century’s bubonic plague.

I absolutely agree that we need good studies attempting to determine the rate of overreporting / underreporting of COVID-19 deaths, but the “6% of Death Certificates Fail to Include Either a Preexisting Comorbidity or a More Immediate Cause of Death than COVID-19” story is not it. All it tells you is that at least 6% of those death certificates were incomplete, as COVID-19, like cancer, should *never* be an immediate cause of death.

Being mislead about that particular report (not even a report so much as a minor note in one section of the Weekly PRovisional Count report) is understandable given how it has been reported. Some of the confusion comes from the expansive use of the term “comorbidity”, which includes conditions which are independent of COVID-19 (such as obesity or diabetes or COPD which are predictive of poorer outcomes for COVID-19 patients) *and* conditions which are related to COVID-19 (such as ARDS=Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome or Respiratory Failure which a previously health patient may develop because of COVID-19).

Andrew_W are you aware of any studies attempting to determine the rate of over/underreporting, other than those which compare reporting rates to excess death numbers? I’m thinking of something like an audit of a randomly selected sample of reported COVID-19 deaths, comparing the death certificate with detailed medical records and possibly even interviews of relatives & caregivers, in an attempt to determine how causal/influential COVID-19 itself was in the death.

My best guess is that there probably is some overreporting where a patient with an otherwise terminal (in the short-term) illness came down with COVID-19 and was classified as a COVID-19 victim even though they would have die at the nearly the same time without COVID-19, but that these were far outnumbered by underreporting early in the pandemic when tests were in short supply. Later on I suspect there has been a degree of overreporting, though probably not to the degree that you (commodude) suspect. I’d love to see a proper study address this, but the “6% story” tell us nothing on that subject.

I enjoy good debate. So long as the other party is willing to do so as well.
Too often, people degrade the debate to “I am right, you are stupid”.

‘Phobe’ and ‘denier’ are both used to accuse people of being biased and not looking at the evidence rationally, God knows that’s something humans are prone to doing, though it’s always the others doing it.

Don’t accept the arguments for a Carbon Credit system? Oh, you must be a Climate change – denier.
Don’t accept every single step they want to impose for lock downs, vote by mail, wear your mask in your sleep, and while you drive? You must be a Covid – denier.

It is used the same way “-phobe” has been used.

Don’t support the forced baking of a cake by a Christian baker? You must be a homo – phobe.

These words are not used to enable or expand debate, but rather to shut it down.

Being “on the right side of history” is another one of those useful things.

As for Bernards repeated concerns about a comment calling for extrajudicial killings: I think an asinine comment that is plainly refuted serves a better purpose than being censored.

It’s very useful to have labels for describing people, groups of people, ideas, etc. But like most tools, labeling can be misused. Labeling is tricky when your goal is to make an accurate claim about a specific person (other than perhaps a politician who is actually aiming to fit a specific label). Someone on this forum may hold many very liberal views, but on the other hand be very strongly pro-life. I see people jumping to all kinds of conclusions about others on this forum based on very limited facts. This particular comment by Mr. Zimmerman seemed to be jumping to conclusions based on his labeling of Bernard:

“However, like all leftists and Democratic Party partisans these days, you project. If you had your druthers, I am certain you would work to censor me.”

It’s just not a strong argument. It doesn’t convince me that Bernard wants to censor speech. I agree some liberals believe in censoring speech, but I know other’s who are very strongly supportive of freedom of speech.

If you label someone and then conclude that they believe x, y, and z based on the label, you’re likely to get some things wrong. It’s a useful shortcut when necessary, but on a forum with real people or with actual friends it’s not something I would want to do.

https://quillette.com/2020/09/26/the-bias-that-divides-us/

As to the specific word, “Denier”, that is not a word that is normally associated with formal name calling but it is used as a weapon if someone is arguing from the Left. And that is precisely why I threw my two cents in.

Just the other night a Liberal Democrat friend while at dinner said exactly the same thing to me’ “Why do you have to label people?”. I label people, not call people names, in order to properly frame an honest conversation.

You disagree with me and my label or classification of you? Then explain to me why I am wrong.

And if I were to live by his distorted rules then there is no moment in our conversation where there can be an honest and revealing conversation. Why? Because he being a Liberal has already defined the rules of the conversation and has created the allowed terms and parameters of the conversation.

And that is just a way to manipulate and avoid the conversation that my friend is really unable to competently participate in. This is the way of the Left, reject it in the strongest terms, without calling anyone a derogatory name that is.

Both insults are mild, and I wouldn’t censor either use. They may not be the most valuable comments here, but they are far from the worst. Mr. Zimmerman’s comment on possibly banning Bernard just struck me as an over reaction based on the actual insult of calling someone a denier and I wanted to put in another perspective.

Also I think its dangerous to only ban name calling whe someone deems that it is intended to be inflammatory vs when the name calling is “accurate”. As I pointed out before, the advantage of banning name calling is that it is easy to define. Once you put in qualifiers for name calling that supposedly accurately identifies someone, you get into the same trouble as banning insults in general.

If I were to end my post with:

“Please don’t be a part of the problem you dopey #######”. (Son of an unmarried woman, born out of wed lock)

That would be an example of name calling.

However, if I classified you as a Liberal Democrat, or a Leftist, or a Marxist, based on your stated positions that you yourself promote and defend, that is not name calling. Please make the distinction.

Do you see the difference. One is incendiary and demeaning and the other is attempting to accurately describe someone political agenda and what they are promoting in order to have a productive conversation.

You want to argue about the fine points related to the label? Then fine.

But that is not name calling, and by trying to cast the practice as being name calling is distractionary and serves to illustrate that you are unable to make a proper distinction in order to have a productive conversation. And that just promotes confusion and not being able to have any conversation at all.

And at that point we have just what we all see in the media today, chaos and confusion and not journalism in order to serve a political agenda.

Please do not be a part of the problem.

You allow insults all over the comment section. I agree with that decision, although I don’t think the insults are generally useful and they make the comment section less valuable. Censoring insults in general is impractical and would do more harm than good. Name calling is just one type of insult, but it does have the advantage that it is pretty well defined and hence easier to censor without doing damage to everyone’s ability to express their thoughts. I must agree that calling someone a “denier” is technically name calling. I also agree that as an insult it doesn’t provide much value. But it is certainly much milder than many of the insults allowed. I would also like to point out that you called Bernard a “Leftist”. I personally consider this name calling as much as calling someone a “Denier”. If you can, it would be more valuable if you explained how Bernard has expressed specific attitudes you consider “leftist” and how those specific attitudes support your conclusion that he would censor you. Can you do that? Otherwise I believe you are simply name calling.

It matters, because there is and was an economic incentive to list cause of death as COVID. Once you incentivize it, the numbers are corrupted and useless. False positive tests, people who died from blunt fore trauma and gang violence, all play a part in inflating the numbers of positives and numbers of “deaths” from COVID.

The data is highly corrupted.

And Rose, your attempt to correct commodude is commendable, but will bear no fruit. That particular lie about COVID and the ‘actual’ death rate has become a favorite talking point among conservatives. They know it is false. They just don’t don’t care. It fits their narrative, so they keep saying it. But it doesn’t really matter anyway. Even if they accepted the reality that the current death count was accurate, they fall back to the premise of this thread – the death rate is low and only the elderly and sick are vulnerable. Never mind that even a death rate of 1-3% among the elderly translates to an awful lot of deaths if millions of people are infected. They were old or sick and so their lives are somehow worth less, or they should have been isolating better in order to avoid the virus so that the rest of us can get back to normal. Never mind that many of them can’t isolate and need to work because they have no other source of income and there is currently no government assistance. Never mind that nursing homes across the country have not been provided with testing and other supplies that they need to keep their residents safe – that is the job of the free market and not the gubment.
If you are elderly or have medical issues and do not have the resources to lock yourself in an apartment for six months, conservatives feel that you should be willing to throw yourself on the fire in order to keep the Dow Jones going.

You appear to have been confused by the reporting on this.

Just as the immediate cause of death for a cancer patient is never the cancer itself but instead something like cardiac arrest brought about by organ failure which was caused by the cancer, so too should COVID-19 never be listed as the immediate cause of death on a death certificate. The CDC analysis you refer to says 94% of COVID-19 related death certificates listed preexisting comorbidities (including things such as diabetes or obesity, but also more serious conditions such as kidney failure or COPD) and/or immediate causes of death (such as cardiac or respiratory arrest). Unfortunately, that particular analysis shed no light at all on the important question of just how many of the COVID-19 related fatalities would have died at roughly the same time were it not for the virus.

The only thing you can conclude about the 6% is that at least that percentage of the death certificates were incomplete, failing to list a precise immediate cause of death, most likely because the patient died unobserved by medical personnel and an autopsy to determine the specific immediate cause was deemed unwarranted. (Grandma is already dead, a COVID-19 PCR test came back positive, and she display serious symptoms of the disease leading to her death. Does it really matter if her lungs gave our before her heart?)

Let me also add, you immediately reveal yourself when you assume I will censor your comment. I do not do that, as long as the person is civil. Thus, your comment is here for all to read.

However, like all leftists and Democratic Party partisans these days, you project. If you had your druthers, I am certain you would work to censor me.

Bernard: You are being very intellectually dishonest when you say these government officials merely “don’t like Trump.” No, what they did was lie, commit perjury, threaten blackmail, submit false evidence to the FISA court, collude with the Russians, all in an effort to overthrow a legally elected president.

As some other commenters noted in that thread, such actions can easily be construed as treason, which by the way carries a death penalty.

Calling for their murder is of course wrong. However, that commenter was at least being more honest than you about this particular situation.

Moreover, at some point the abuse of power by government officials needs to be addressed, harshly if necessary. I want them indicted and properly tried before a jury of their peers. The evidence is clear so it should be an open and shut case.

If however we no longer have a legal system, and these corrupt treasonous FBI officials get off scot free, than you (as well as all of us) should be warned, what that commenter said will become the norm. And woe to us all if that should happen.

This comment probably won’t see the light of day either, but whatever. Clearly this is not a place for rational discussion and debate.