Coronavirus Outbreak

[mike]

I will say one thing about the data on this chart. Russia is currently ranked at down at #52 with 173 deaths per million, and China is at #175 with 3 deaths per million. I personally think data from some countries has to be strait up garbage. The US is obsessed with carefully tabulating all the deaths. Countries like China are likely obsessed with the opposite. I don't think it's possible to really know the true numbers from some parts of the world.

[MaxPC]

What do you think my point was?

Peter, in following your posts, I saw examples of apagogical usages. In my post I simply pointed out that the reality of USA abortion numbers (more than 61 million babies aborted in the 47 years since Roe v Wade) made your apagogicals appear less of the reductio ad absurdum extreme and were in reality supported logically by actual numbers.

Vis a vis the COVID-19 numbers, the number of abortions each year in the past 47 years (average of 1,311,246+ babies aborted per year) sets a rather stark comparison.

If you were indeed seeking to use apagogical statements, my response applies. If you were being sincere in highlighting the issue of abortions, my statement still applies. At least in my mind's eye.

In that case, your response does not express agreement with my point.

Or so you think....

[mike]

The third wave of recorded daily cases of the virus is now seeing record-breaking numbers. However, the upward curve is still shows a slower rate of growth than the first two waves.



And the other good news is that, although there has been just a little upward movement in the daily new deaths count, there is still not a real upward trajectory to speak of. So far, this third wave in cases just is not causing much increase in deaths.

That of course may change.



And the all-important excess deaths data still lags. The most recent US data in this chart is now 7 weeks old. On September 6, the US excess deaths numbers were down to +10% over expected. As I mentioned before, it will be quite interesting to see whether that downward trend continues to a point where we see the number go negative.

The two big increases in excess deaths, peaking at +45% in April and +27% in August correspond with the two waves of the virus that we have had in the US.

[mike]

As the sort of control in this global experiment, Sweden has now dropped down another spot in terms of deaths/million to 17th place.



It has seen a second spike in daily new cases of the virus:



However it has seen no increase in reported daily new deaths from the virus, and it's 7-day average of daily new deaths has been THREE OR LESS -- get that -- since July 31. That's three months. If this continues, Sweden will continue dropping further and further down in the rankings.



Compare that to the UK which is seeing an insane increase in the virus cases, and also a rise in deaths:



(Rise is from 7 deaths per day average on Aug 21 to 178 per day on Oct 25)

[Biblical Anabaptist]

Some interesting observations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F8wGN7 ... E_W-5gRU40

[ken_sylvania]

And the all-important excess deaths data still lags. The most recent US data in this chart is now 7 weeks old. On September 6, the US excess deaths numbers were down to +10% over expected. As I mentioned before, it will be quite interesting to see whether that downward trend continues to a point where we see the number go negative.

Would you be open to a new conspiracy theory? Perhaps the data is being withheld because excess deaths have gone negative, and the deep state is not willing to release data that might show that Trump was right about the virus being under control...

[Judas Maccabeus]

Some interesting observations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F8wGN7 ... E_W-5gRU40

I have heard that view on masks before, it makes a very high degree of sense, it reduces the viral load, and therefor reduces the severity of the disease. It also aligns with the data from New York, as unmasked subway riders likely got huge doses of virus, and the concentrations of cases was in neighborhoods where the subway was a principle means of transport. That severity of infections is related to viral dose would be typical of many viruses. Pre Jenner smallpox inoculations worked that way.

As to the "Great Barrington" concepts, aiming for herd immunity has numerous problems. No one has actually figured out how to protect vulnerable people if you allow the virus to circulate widely in the community. Workers have to come and go and unless you are going to isolate the workers along with the patients (This has actually been done for awhile in the UK) you will not be able to protect them, even with rigorous testing. The recent experience at the white house showed that. The only way to protect the vulnerable is to prevent the virus from circulating in the community.

So, if you ask me lockdowns are a last resort, but may be necessary at times. Achieving herd immunity without a vaccine caries much too high a price for me to be able to endorse that approach. The majority opinion what I have described. There has been considerable pushback as to the ideas in the "Great Barrington" declaration.

I frankly cannot see how someone who is "Pro Life" can support the "herd immunity" concept without a vaccine. But that may just be me, and my need of consistency.

J.M.

[Biblical Anabaptist]

Some interesting observations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F8wGN7 ... E_W-5gRU40

I have heard that view on masks before, it makes a very high degree of sense, it reduces the viral load, and therefor reduces the severity of the disease. It also aligns with the data from New York, as unmasked subway riders likely got huge doses of virus, and the concentrations of cases was in neighborhoods where the subway was a principle means of transport. That severity of infections is related to viral dose would be typical of many viruses. Pre Jenner smallpox inoculations worked that way.

As to the "Great Barrington" concepts, aiming for herd immunity has numerous problems. No one has actually figured out how to protect vulnerable people if you allow the virus to circulate widely in the community. Workers have to come and go and unless you are going to isolate the workers along with the patients (This has actually been done for awhile in the UK) you will not be able to protect them, even with rigorous testing. The recent experience at the white house showed that. The only way to protect the vulnerable is to prevent the virus from circulating in the community.

So, if you ask me lockdowns are a last resort, but may be necessary at times. Achieving herd immunity without a vaccine caries much too high a price for me to be able to endorse that approach. The majority opinion what I have described. There has been considerable pushback as to the ideas in the "Great Barrington" declaration.

I frankly cannot see how someone who is "Pro Life" can support the "herd immunity" concept without a vaccine. But that may just be me, and my need of consistency.

J.M.

Correct me if I am wrong, but, I am not sure that being "Pro-Life" necessarily requires a person to take a position of 0 risk and 0 death toll. If so we would need to outlaw automobiles. If I calculate correctly there is a 1 in 49 chance you will be involved in an automobile incident in any given year. True, not nearly all of those result in fatalities, but far too many do. We as a society have determined that the benefits of automobile use outweigh the cost of lives needed to enjoy this luxury. Being "Pro-Life" will result in us driving safely and using seat belts.

Being 'Pro-Life" could mean that I do not unnecessarily expose myself or others to the virus by avoiding unnecessary gatherings, wearing face masks at appropriate times, practicing social distancing etc.

[Soloist]

I frankly cannot see how someone who is "Pro Life" can support the "herd immunity" concept without a vaccine. But that may just be me, and my need of consistency.

J.M.

There is a flaw here as well.

How can you be pro life and refuse to accept an organ for your new born from a recently aborted child?

The logic you are using is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

That logic can be applied in ways you do not wish to go.

If the vaccine is grown on vero cells for example and someone refuses it then you can rightly lump them in with the pro-choice group for refusing an ethical vaccine.
You cannot however, lump someone who is pro life refusing to use an unethical vaccine the same.

By saying pro-choice I am not saying they are pro abortion, only pro freedom of choice. My brother said to me that he would gladly kill a dozen babies to stop covid. Is he pro choice? or pro life?

[Judas Maccabeus]

Some interesting observations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F8wGN7 ... E_W-5gRU40

I have heard that view on masks before, it makes a very high degree of sense, it reduces the viral load, and therefor reduces the severity of the disease. It also aligns with the data from New York, as unmasked subway riders likely got huge doses of virus, and the concentrations of cases was in neighborhoods where the subway was a principle means of transport. That severity of infections is related to viral dose would be typical of many viruses. Pre Jenner smallpox inoculations worked that way.

As to the "Great Barrington" concepts, aiming for herd immunity has numerous problems. No one has actually figured out how to protect vulnerable people if you allow the virus to circulate widely in the community. Workers have to come and go and unless you are going to isolate the workers along with the patients (This has actually been done for awhile in the UK) you will not be able to protect them, even with rigorous testing. The recent experience at the white house showed that. The only way to protect the vulnerable is to prevent the virus from circulating in the community.

So, if you ask me lockdowns are a last resort, but may be necessary at times. Achieving herd immunity without a vaccine caries much too high a price for me to be able to endorse that approach. The majority opinion what I have described. There has been considerable pushback as to the ideas in the "Great Barrington" declaration.

I frankly cannot see how someone who is "Pro Life" can support the "herd immunity" concept without a vaccine. But that may just be me, and my need of consistency.

J.M.

Correct me if I am wrong, but, I am not sure that being "Pro-Life" necessarily requires a person to take a position of 0 risk and 0 death toll. If so we would need to outlaw automobiles. If I calculate correctly there is a 1 in 49 chance you will be involved in an automobile incident in any given year. True, not nearly all of those result in fatalities, but far too many do. We as a society have determined that the benefits of automobile use outweigh the cost of lives needed to enjoy this luxury. Being "Pro-Life" will result in us driving safely and using seat belts.

Being 'Pro-Life" could mean that I do not unnecessarily expose myself or others to the virus by avoiding unnecessary gatherings, wearing face masks at appropriate times, practicing social distancing etc.

Heard immunity as a policy will mean uncounted necessary deaths among our most vulnerable people. I cannot accept it as an option simply due to convenience or economic gain. Period.

J.M.