Coronavirus All Purpose Thread: moving on?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

The parts where it states that there is increased drug deaths as example. Counting these against the pandemic is clearly wrong. Cancer deaths are assumed to increase due to the pandemic. Proof? I have been told to show the background for everything, but that doesn’t seem to apply to others.

So, increase in drugs and drug deaths have been huge over the lady several years. I don’t socialize in any circles that would be considered to be involved in drugs, yet know two individuals that have passed due to them in the last two years.

It seems to me that this article on the face seems to support the statement, but reading it there are a number of noncovid reasons. Which is why I asked if others had actually read the article. You are the only one to respond, so I will assume the others haven’t.

The World Health Organization is estimating that nearly 15 million people were killed either by the coronavirus or by its impact on overwhelmed health systems in the past two years,

Hrmmmm......

[Raekwon]

At least it was just old people

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

The parts where it states that there is increased drug deaths as example. Counting these against the pandemic is clearly wrong. Cancer deaths are assumed to increase due to the pandemic. Proof? I have been told to show the background for everything, but that doesn’t seem to apply to others.

So, increase in drugs and drug deaths have been huge over the lady several years. I don’t socialize in any circles that would be considered to be involved in drugs, yet know two individuals that have passed due to them in the last two years.

It seems to me that this article on the face seems to support the statement, but reading it there are a number of noncovid reasons. Which is why I asked if others had actually read the article. You are the only one to respond, so I will assume the others haven’t.

You seem to be latching onto alternatives without discussing scale or causality. For example if over doses doubled you would see 166k more deaths world wide. If you said drug associated deaths doubled you would see 750k more deaths

https://ourworldindata.org/illicit-drug-use

Increases in Cancer deaths I would attribute to the pandemic as both isolation measures and overwhelmed hospitals would have reduced detection and treatment leading to more deaths.

So in terms of excess death there aren’t meaningful alternative explanations for the 15-20 million number outside of Covid and Covid adjacent.

So if we want to talk about confirmation bias ……

Also again you forgot to put the conclusion you are making from your data in your post so I assumed you intend to say that the impact of Covid globally is exaggerated which I disagree with

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by GGG

You seem to be latching onto alternatives without discussing scale or causality. For example if over doses doubled you would see 166k more deaths world wide. If you said drug associated deaths doubled you would see 750k more deaths

https://ourworldindata.org/illicit-drug-use

Increases in Cancer deaths I would attribute to the pandemic as both isolation measures and overwhelmed hospitals would have reduced detection and treatment leading to more deaths.

So in terms of excess death there aren’t meaningful alternative explanations for the 15-20 million number outside of Covid and Covid adjacent.

So if we want to talk about confirmation bias ……

Also again you forgot to put the conclusion you are making from your data in your post so I assumed you intend to say that the impact of Covid globally is exaggerated which I disagree with

Lets talk significance. Using your 750K number per year (link was only to 2019 so somewhat irrelevant) and over 2 years would equal 1.5M. 15M (as stated in the article) deaths minus the actual Covid of 6M is 9M excess deaths. 1.5M of 9M is about 17% of excess deaths. Not insignificant in my mind.

My comment is that the others were equating all the deaths to Covid and stating that it wasn't just a flu. These are two different things and it certainly seems to me to be using something that does not equate to prove ones point, which seems like confirmation bias to me.

My point had nothing to do with whether Covid impact was exaggerated. Never said that nor believed it. Just that some are using this article improperly.

[psyang]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Lets talk significance. Using your 750K number per year (link was only to 2019 so somewhat irrelevant) and over 2 years would equal 1.5M. 15M (as stated in the article) deaths minus the actual Covid of 6M is 9M excess deaths. 1.5M of 9M is about 17% of excess deaths. Not insignificant in my mind.

My comment is that the others were equating all the deaths to Covid and stating that it wasn't just a flu. These are two different things and it certainly seems to me to be using something that does not equate to prove ones point, which seems like confirmation bias to me.

My point had nothing to do with whether Covid impact was exaggerated. Never said that nor believed it. Just that some are using this article improperly.

Who is using the article improperly?

One person in this thread referenced the article to say that it would have been valuable to combat the idea that covid was "just the flu". Nothing about attributing all 15 million deaths directly to covid. The article seems to show that covid wasn't just the flu. I don't see how it was used improperly.

The article even referenced 6 million deaths attributed directly to covid, the same number you quoted. Global flu mortality is between 200-650k per year, so say 400k-1.3 million over the two year span. That's still 1/5 of covid's number. So even using direct deaths, the article shows that covid wasn't just the flu.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Lets talk significance. Using your 750K number per year (link was only to 2019 so somewhat irrelevant) and over 2 years would equal 1.5M. 15M (as stated in the article) deaths minus the actual Covid of 6M is 9M excess deaths. 1.5M of 9M is about 17% of excess deaths. Not insignificant in my mind.

My comment is that the others were equating all the deaths to Covid and stating that it wasn't just a flu. These are two different things and it certainly seems to me to be using something that does not equate to prove ones point, which seems like confirmation bias to me.

My point had nothing to do with whether Covid impact was exaggerated. Never said that nor believed it. Just that some are using this article improperly.

Sorry my mistake 13.5 million dead is meaningfully different than 15 million dead from Covid. (That also assumes overdosed doubled in the time period which I made up just to discuss magnitudes)

If we use 13.5 million instead of 15 million it moves Covid in the deadliest pandemic ranking from the 5th deadliest pandemic to the ……..

Spoiler!

The 5th deadliest pandemic

And regardless of if you wanted say 10 million or 15 million died over the two years you would probably say Covid was 10-20 times more deadly than the flu. So where is the confirmation bias?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GGG

So where is the confirmation bias?

Right here.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by GGG

Sorry my mistake 13.5 million dead is meaningfully different than 15 million dead from Covid. (That also assumes overdosed doubled in the time period which I made up just to discuss magnitudes)

If we use 13.5 million instead of 15 million it moves Covid in the deadliest pandemic ranking from the 5th deadliest pandemic to the ……..

Spoiler!

The 5th deadliest pandemic

And regardless of if you wanted say 10 million or 15 million died over the two years you would probably say Covid was 10-20 times more deadly than the flu. So where is the confirmation bias?

The article is about the excess deaths, not the total number. The actual deaths is not a major discussion point of the article. It is not about covid being the flu. I never said nor believe it is. Again my point is that people are saying they wish they had these higher numbers to counter this argument. And as I stated these are two different things.
It is funny that I haven’t disagreed with the article at all, but that doesn’t stop everyone from trying to convince me it is true. My entire point is how it is being used.

My point on significance is that in terms of excess deaths drugs are a significant portion, not insignificant as you stated.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by psyang

Who is using the article improperly?

One person in this thread referenced the article to say that it would have been valuable to combat the idea that covid was "just the flu". Nothing about attributing all 15 million deaths directly to covid. The article seems to show that covid wasn't just the flu. I don't see how it was used improperly.

The article even referenced 6 million deaths attributed directly to covid, the same number you quoted. Global flu mortality is between 200-650k per year, so say 400k-1.3 million over the two year span. That's still 1/5 of covid's number. So even using direct deaths, the article shows that covid wasn't just the flu.

Yes, but that is not what the article is about. To say that they wished they had these numbers to counter the flu argument is misuse of the article.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by GGG

So where is the confirmation bias?

Using the article to prove a point that it doesn’t prove, but the person that it is used against doesn’t know that. Seems to be what I have read on this thread as confirmation bias. If it the wrong term, then at the least it is dishonest

[GGG]

I’m out

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m out

Smartest post of the thread.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m out

Took you longer than most, but you got there. Gold star for lasting this long.

[Chonger]

Delete

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Chonger

https://vancouvertimes.org/vp-of-pfi...document-dump/

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

The mainstream media and big tech want to hide the truth. Beat them at their own game by sharing this article!

*Picard face palm*


A quick Google shows no confirmation this is real, and that site is known for sharing fake news. Go find a real source before posting dumpster filler.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

*Picard face palm*


A quick Google shows no confirmation this is real, and that site is known for sharing fake news. Go find a real source before posting dumpster filler.

No confirmation of the document dump?
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/data-is-p...ents-1.5816089

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

No confirmation of the document dump?
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/data-is-p...ents-1.5816089

You might want to read the headline of the link Fuzz was responding to again.

[ikaris]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid...nada-1.6444674

As expected, boosting when previously infected with 2 doses is essentially useless.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by ikaris

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid...nada-1.6444674

As expected, boosting when previously infected with 2 doses is essentially useless.

CBC. Pffft. Fake news.

In all seriousness, what you're saying is the vaccine is good.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by ikaris

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid...nada-1.6444674

As expected, boosting when previously infected with 2 doses is essentially useless.

That wouldn't be my main takeaway from those numbers, particularly for those that are at risk. People with an infection + 2 doses were twice as likely to be infected or hospitalized compared to people with an infection + 3 doses. Maybe you think an immediate 50% risk reduction is "useless", but I certainly don't share that opinion.