Jump to content

Do you need to vent about things COVID-19?


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:
18 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's Biden who has the public option within his health plan -- this would cover all people sick from Covid and not leave some without care as Trump's "plan" does:

https://joebiden.com/healthcare/#

Don't even need to read it to know it's wrong. Trump's got the plan to handle COVID. It's why he allowed COVID to infect him at all, so he could learn about it and outsmart it. Duh.

buyer's remorse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*****ing *****ed up mother *****ers are *****ing the whole *****ing *****ed up ****sucking *****head *****s. And then some.

Cutting in with a rando side comment because I haven’t kept up - I’m tired of all the conspiracy theories behind it, and all the Americans on my feeds (note: I am also an American) pointing fingers at

One thing that really irritates me to no end is noticing some companies taking advantage of this virus..Mine being one of them.. They put everyone on furlough when it all first began and saying i

Posted Images

Just now, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Scroll down to case and mortality by country. There's a full list of countries.

I did, it's showing what I posted..

The way they should compare when they decide to break down the European union and compare it to all 50 states is, pick a state and say that state is worse than Germany.. rather than say,all these little states in the European union each have less deaths than the whole United states..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

We may have a worse death toll but not a worse case fatality rate per 100,000 population than many advanced countries..We're at like 2.8%.. We're lower than the European union which is at 4.7%.. [...]

There's no such thing as "case fatality rate per 100,000 population" -- it doesn't make sense. Case fatality rate is inherently the percentage of cases that lead to death. The US has never been anywhere near the worst there because it's a function of the quality of care provided to cases of the disease -- and because there's been a steady improvement as more is learned about the disease, it's a fair proxy for how early in the pandemic the initial case curve peaked, at least among advanced nations.

That site has another whole graph and table about fatalities per million population. There are a few countries that have done worse than the US -- tiny San Marino and Andorra, but also Brazil and Spain and a few others -- but for comparison, the US is at about 640 deaths per million, Italy: 596, EU: 338, Canada: 253, Germany: 114, etc.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

There's no such thing as "case fatality rate per 100,000 population" -- it doesn't make sense. Case fatality rate is inherently the percentage of cases that lead to death.

You've given the perfect example to demonstrate that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

Now it all fits...what I've read elsewhere.....that the US has 4% of the world's population but 25% of the world's cases.  In other words, something is very wrong in the way we've handled Covid here.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You've given the perfect example to demonstrate that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

Now it all fits...what I've read elsewhere.....that the US has 4% of the world's population but 25% of the world's cases.  In other words, something is very wrong in the way we've handled Covid here.

Yeah, BLM instigating protests and riots during a pandemic was probably not the best thing for keeping the case count down.

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

There's no such thing as "case fatality rate per 100,000 population" -- it doesn't make sense. Case fatality rate is inherently the percentage of cases that lead to death. The US has never been anywhere near the worst there because it's a function of the quality of care provided to cases of the disease -- and because there's been a steady improvement as more is learned about the disease, it's a fair proxy for how early in the pandemic the initial case curve peaked, at least among advanced nations.

That site has another whole graph and table about fatalities per million population. There are a few countries that have done worse than the US -- tiny San Marino and Andorra, but also Brazil and Spain and a few others -- but for comparison, the US is at about 640 deaths per million, Italy: 596, EU: 338, Canada: 253, Germany: 114, etc.

In the U.S. you have 50 states each handling it differently, just like each country does anywhere else.. How it is handled is up to each governor of their state, not one president..

Comparing a big chunk of a continent that has 50 different leaders running each part of it as a whole, to  a big chunk of a continent broken down to each country..

All I'm saying is, Take each state and break it down on it's own and then compare.. you'll see different numbers from each one..

I always see the 50 states put up against one country when it's convenient.. Then when it's convenient the other way, it's the U.S. put up against a union of countries..

If it's going to be as a whole, All it is, is number of confirmed cases divided by number of confirmed deaths. Doesn't matter if it's per 100,000 or per million..

 7,560,010 confirmed cases divided by 212,103 confirmed deaths is 2.8%

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:
38 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You've given the perfect example to demonstrate that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

Now it all fits...what I've read elsewhere.....that the US has 4% of the world's population but 25% of the world's cases.  In other words, something is very wrong in the way we've handled Covid here.

Yeah, BLM instigating protests and riots during a pandemic was probably not the best thing for keeping the case count down.

You really have some BLM fixation don't you?  I remember when you said the idiots who won't wear masks don't do so because of BLM being so forceful.

btw, outdoor events don't spread the virus much...especially when moving.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You really have some BLM fixation don't you?  I remember when you said the idiots who won't wear masks don't do so because of BLM being so forceful.

btw, outdoor events don't spread the virus much...especially when moving.  

I may have mentioned BLM twice in the past couple months whereas we get a dose of your Trump troubles daily. Thinks you need a mirror if you want to start pointing fingers at being fixated. 

From numbers I have seen, democrats and minorities had/have higher incidences of contracting Covid than conservatives in the USA. "Tis a reasonable assumption to chalk that up to their higher potential for being involved in those protests and riots even if the protesters weren't the ones showing the actual symptoms, they still brought it home with them eventually and gave it to their immediate family. There were also plenty of file pictures showing protesters and rioters not wearing masks or any other sort of PPE.

Edited by Arielle Popstar
Learning to spell after the fact :)
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:
15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You really have some BLM fixation don't you?  I remember when you said the idiots who won't wear masks don't do so because of BLM being so forceful.

btw, outdoor events don't spread the virus much...especially when moving.  

From numbers I have seen, democrats and minorities had/have higher incidences of contracting Covid than conservatives in the USA. "Tis a reasonable assumption to chalk that up to their higher potential for being involved in those protests and riots even if they actual protesters weren't the ones showing the actual symptoms, they still brought it home with them eventually and gave it to their immediate family. There were also plenty of file pictures showing protesters and rioters not wearing masks or any other sort of PPE.

Give me a break....the Rose Garden Massacre  (nomination of Barrett for the supreme court) was a super-spreader event because few were masked....we have very little government at top levels left atm not infected with Covid.

Plus, the majority of Democrats weren't out on the streets protesting....the US population is HUGE and those out on the streets made up only a small fraction. Your theory holds no water. That could be a motto for most of your theories btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the various Covid-19 rankings deficient. Deaths/100K is probably the best of the popular metrics, but it still misses some nuance. I added median household income to a C-19 chart, to construct an $/100K metric. Here's my reasoning. The higher the median income a country has, the better the health care you'd expect to find there. Though first world countries will have higher median incomes, they should also have lower mortality rates. If I multiply the mortality rate by median household income, I get a number that reflects both. When I do that, here's the top 20 list.

image.thumb.png.7da402a5a08d971e7cc58fdbd8c2c562.png

Notice that Germany has about the same median income as the US, but lost 1/6th the number of people/100K. Sweden, who's approach was to effectively do nothing other than isolate vulnerable facilities, did about as well as we did.

If I sort by median income, here's the top 20...

image.thumb.png.50dcac6d0ff75f689dde1aa74637b338.png

If I reduce the data set to the top 20 countries, by median income, then sort on Income*Deaths/100K...

image.thumb.png.bfb489c1d0c16be305626e139e465a24.png

None of this accounts for the economic impact of each countries method of fighting Covid-19. Given that many countries have rebounded faster and further than the US, I don't expect we'd look any better on that metric.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The higher the median income a country has, the better the health care you'd expect to find there

Not for all the uninsured people we have in the US compared to other countries -- they have no health care for the most part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

7,560,010 confirmed cases divided by 212,103 confirmed deaths is 2.8%

I pretty much ignore "cases" because that's an uncontrolled independent variable. Metrics based on that are approximately useless. In the extreme, if you never tested anyone, you'd have zero cases. That has been Trump's line of reasoning and he's right.

I don't see it reported much, but I think "excess deaths" is an interesting metric.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:
5 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The higher the median income a country has, the better the health care you'd expect to find there

Not for all the uninsured people we have in the US compared to other countries -- they have no health care for the most part.

I said "expect", didn't I?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Madelaine McMasters said:
5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:
8 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The higher the median income a country has, the better the health care you'd expect to find there

Not for all the uninsured people we have in the US compared to other countries -- they have no health care for the most part.

I said "expect", didn't I?

Didn't you factor your assumption into your charts though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I find the various Covid-19 rankings deficient. Deaths/100K is probably the best of the popular metrics, but it still misses some nuance. I added median household income to a C-19 chart, to construct an $/100K metric. Here's my reasoning. The higher the median income a country has, the better the health care you'd expect to find there. Though first world countries will have higher median incomes, they should also have lower mortality rates. If I multiply the mortality rate by median household income, I get a number that reflects both. When I do that, here's the top 20 list.

image.thumb.png.7da402a5a08d971e7cc58fdbd8c2c562.png

Notice that German has about the same median income as the US, but lost 1/6th the number of people/100K. Sweden, who's approach was to effectively do nothing other than isolate vulnerable facilities, did about as well as we did.

If I sort by median income, here's the top 20...

image.thumb.png.50dcac6d0ff75f689dde1aa74637b338.png

If I reduce the data set to the top 20 countries, by median income, then sort on Income*Deaths/100K...

image.thumb.png.bfb489c1d0c16be305626e139e465a24.png

None of this accounts for the economic impact of each countries method of fighting Covid-19. Given that many countries have rebounded faster and further than the US, I don't expect we'd look any better on that metric.

That might have been what they were making before many were sent home and shutdowns everywhere.. hehehe

A lot of those people in the U.S. are still on unemployment or homeless right now.. some states are opened back up and some still have a lot shut down..

from state to state it's different. That's why it's hard for me to compare each country to all our states as handled in one way..

Each governor handled their own state their own way..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Didn't you factor your assumption into your charts though?

There are no assumptions in my charts, just the data. Slow down and read what I wrote. It's reasonable to think that first world nations with high incomes would have good C-19 outcomes. The data suggests... otherwise.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:
4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Didn't you factor your assumption into your charts though?

There are no assumptions in my charts, just the data. Slow down and read what I wrote. It's reasonable to think that first world nations with high incomes would have good C-19 outcomes. The data suggests... otherwise.

I don't want to read the charts :)

But it's simply not reasonable to think that first world nations with high incomes would have good C-19 outcomes....I mean have you taken a look recently at how America has worse health outcomes in most categories lately?

I'm glad your data suggests....otherwise.  That's what I'd expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

That might have been what they were making before many were sent home and shutdowns everywhere.. hehehe

A lot of those people in the U.S. are still on unemployment or homeless right now.. some states are opened back up and some still have a lot shut down..

from state to state it's different. That's why it's hard for me to compare each country to all our states as handled in one way..

Each governor handled their own state their own way..

I used median income as a proxy for an assessment of health care systems. I don't think the last six months unraveled the last 60 years of US health care system architecture development. If it did, we're toast.

I don't have the article handy, but I just read that US GDP took a bigger hit, and is recovering more slowly, than China, Japan, South Korea and much of Europe. It's hard to find a way to make the US look good in all this, no matter how you slice the data.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

 7,560,010 confirmed cases divided by 212,103 confirmed deaths is 2.8%

Yeah, and Canada's is 5.5% because Canada brought down the curve earlier, back when COVID was much more lethal. Since then (until very recently again) Canada had relatively few of those less-likely-to-be-fatal cases to boost the denominator. Meanwhile, the US still keeps racking up more and more cases which now each have a lower probability of death because of improved treatment.

(It's actually even messier than that. Besides reducing the case fatality rate, improved treatment has extended the length of time between contracting the disease and dying from it, for fatal cases. Hence, populations with actively growing case counts now will have artificially low fatality rates because so many of those case deaths just haven't happened yet.)

Because US healthcare is relatively advanced nationwide, I don't really think case fatality rate is particularly subject to the actions of state governors, although due to transportation, migration patterns, and urban density, some parts of the country (e.g. NY, NJ, MA, ...) got the first part of the first wave back when there was little treatment available, so their case fatality rates may be quite a bit higher than the rest of the country.

State governors can, however, reduce case counts per capita by instituting measures to contain spread (mandated masks, workplace protections, etc). That should be borne out in the numbers, but there are so many other variables affecting spread that I agree, it's probably buried in the noise.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't want to read the charts :)

But it's simply not reasonable to think that first world nations with high incomes would have good C-19 outcomes....I mean have you taken a look recently at how America has worse health outcomes in most categories lately?

I'm glad your data suggests....otherwise.  That's what I'd expect.

My expectation that quality of health care correlates to median income is independent of the data and based on potentially flawed "common sense". Rich people can afford stuff like medicine and doctors, right?

There are countries that perform as you'd expect. Look at New Zealand.
There are countries that do not perform as you'd expect. Look at the US and Sweden.

There are endless complications thwarting such simple analyses as mine, but I find my $income/100K metric to be more illuminating than straight deaths/100K.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Yeah, BLM instigating protests and riots during a pandemic was probably not the best thing for keeping the case count down.

Contact tracing has shown almost 0 infections as a result of BLM gatherings.
- that is a bit odd, but it's also the data. I guess wearing masks helps. 😉

Most of them come from larger public gatherings WITHOUT masks.

Weddings, Hitler's MAGA rallies, 'coming out parties' for nominees, school openings, that sort of thing.

Edited by Pussycat Catnap
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Give me a break....the Rose Garden Massacre  (nomination of Barrett for the supreme court) was a super-spreader event because few were masked....we have very little government at top levels left atm not infected with Covid.

Plus, the majority of Democrats weren't out on the streets protesting....the US population is HUGE and those out on the streets made up only a small fraction. Your theory holds no water. That could be a motto for most of your theories btw.

Well there you go, you proved my point in that your Rose Garden Massacre is a small example of what happens when a bunch of people get together without social distancing and a few not wearing masks. The RGM was a microcosm of what happens everyday in all the Democrat cities as a result of the continued protesting and riots. Very small wonder the USA has such high case counts and deaths. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

Contact tracing has shown almost 0 infections as a result of BLM gatherings.

Most of them come from larger public gatherings WITHOUT masks.

Weddings, Hitler's MAGA rallies, 'coming out parties' for nominees, that sort of thing.

Bet you got that from CNN and other left leaning media.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Bet you got that from CNN and other left leaning media.

Anyone who thinks CNN is left leaning is not worth bothering with anymore...

CNN is center-right.

If you want Center-left look for Vox. Ezra Klein in particular is the best example the USA has of deep-dive centrist media analysis in his podcasts.
(my mind often jumbles Vice and Vox as the words are similar, so I had to edit this to Vox...)

If you want closer to almost left look at DailyKos (they not only endorsed Clinton over Sanders in 16, they banned Sanders supporters - thus marking them as more centrist than left).

If you want actual left, you've got Berkeley's KPFA, or look overseas.

Edited by Pussycat Catnap
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...