TRUMP 2020!

[Leo]

there are tons of "cases" everywhere just not many deaths, imagine that.. i wknder how many times sports players will get it and get over it in 2 days before democrats realize its not really a bad threat..


famous people dead from covid? anyone?

I know three people who have died of COVID, and many more that have gotten it.

I don't think you understand how it even works.

1. The older you are, the higher risk for severe symptoms

2. The younger you are, the less likely you are to have severe symptoms

3. Some really old people have gotten COVID and showed no symptoms at all, while some young and healthy people have gotten it and died

4. People that are immune compromised will usually have more severe symptoms

5.For people above the age of 75 the death rate is 10-12%, which is about the same as the death rate for gunshot wounds

Even if you were to get COVID and you didn't die, this is not a disease that anyone should ever want. It is a horrible disease. The symptoms can be devastating. 2 of the people I know who got COVID still haven't recovered their taste. Ever had pneumonia? Well, chances are if you get COVID you will get pneumonia.

So just because you don't see any deaths in your 500 person town or wherever you live doesn't mean that COVID isn't a big issue. But again, it doesn't matter what your opinion is. Your opinion goes against scientific facts and evidence, so who gives a rat's ass what you think about it?

[The Lamb]

I have been digging into the CDC Data, and you can download data for daily new infections and deaths per day and more right from the site.

two points im seeing in the data as I chart it.

1. The rate of infection per day has grown steadily since January as one would expect for a nasty virus spreading.

2. The deaths per day have not. As an example in the U.S. Data from the CDC website.
- April 5th there were 26065 new cases that day and 1294 deaths that day
- April 6th there were 43438 new cases that day and 3154 deaths that day
- Nov 10th there were 134383 new cases that day and 1859 deaths that day
- Nov 11th there were 143408 new case that day and 1479 deaths that day.

I thought hmmmm, So i did a quick graph of the per day data and found while the infection rate has increased, the death rate is virtually flat with a small spike and drop in April. I will post as soon as im done with data if anyone wants to see.


In an effort to find out why this data doesnt seem to match the fear levels, i looked to see what others were saying. I found one graph that showed infection rate increasing and death rate close but lagging. When you read what the data is, its infections per10 mil and death rate per 100 mil being graphed together. Well thats not fair, it paints a much worse picture if you were to just glance at the graph.

One other thing I saw on other sites, is when people talk or posts stats, they speak of infection rates per day BUT they then speak of total deaths, not total per day. Im guessing the dont find a flat curve news worthy.

So for all the smarty pants out there. Why arent they reporting the flat death rate curve that is less than that April and May and just focused on total deaths and infections per day?

EDIT: Blue Stash, while i only know one person who passed from it personally, my brother, by brother in law, a co worker, and a handful of friends tested pos, my cousin has it now and my neighbor and few people i know were diagnosed wrong with no test at first. From what they have told me its about 3 days of heavy flu symptoms, and about a week after feeling tired and recovering.

[Haron]

There are obviously far fewer deaths than number of infected. This means that it makes more sense to plot deaths per hundred million and infected per million in the same graph. Otherwise the scale becomes weird, either the number of infected is over the top of your graph, or the number of deaths becomes indistinguishable from zero. So this is the obvious way to plot it, El D. Plotting deaths per million and infected per million in the same graph would simply be stupid.

Also, since the number of dead is far smaller than the number of infected, talking about the number of dead per day is not a good idea (the random variations from day to day would be too big), whereas talking about the infected per day makes sense.

Also, you are wrong about the not being any "new deaths" since the early phase. Sure, it has declined after the first spike, but if you look at the excess mortality in USA, you will see that it is around 20% for a long period. This probably at least partially because USA is so large both in population and area compared to a single European country, that the early spikes came at different times in different areas, so in USA as a whole, the early spike is lower than in most European countries, but it lasts longer.

[The Lamb]

There are obviously far fewer deaths than number of infected. This means that it makes more sense to plot deaths per hundred million and infected per million in the same graph. Otherwise the scale becomes weird, either the number of infected is over the top of your graph, or the number of deaths becomes indistinguishable from zero. So this is the obvious way to plot it, El D. Plotting deaths per million and infected per million in the same graph would simply be stupid. Yes, of coarse that makes sence for graphing but paints the wrong picture is what im saying

Also, since the number of dead is far smaller than the number of infected, talking about the number of dead per day is not a good idea (the random variations from day to day would be too big), whereas talking about the infected per day makes sense. No, cant buy that one, the deaths per day is less of a variation than infections per day, so if it makes sense to report infections per daywith large swing in numbers, it would ALSO make sense to report deaths per day, if you wanted to calm peoples nerves

Also, you are wrong about the not being any "new deaths" since the early phase. Sure, it has declined after the first spike, but if you look at the excess mortality in USA, you will see that it is around 20% for a long period. This probably at least partially because USA is so large both in population and area compared to a single European country, that the early spikes came at different times in different areas, so in USA as a whole, the early spike is lower than in most European countries, but it lasts longer. I never said there werent any new deaths, I said when graphed, i found it FLAT, meaning no real increase no real decrease and the deaths per day are largely steady with a few deviations up and down. Where did you hear the mortality in the US is 20%???? Or are you saying that worldwide, we account for 20% of the death from covid?

Also remember im only dealing with US stats from CDC about America only.

[Haron]

The 20% is the excess mortality rate in USA during most of 2020 (with variations, of course). It means that 20% more people died in this period than in an "ordinary" year (average of the last five years, I think, although it might be the last four)

[The Lamb]

Ohhhh... i see where your coming from, But saying that is misleading to the masses as well. I was gonna say, I thought we were at about 2.3% on average (throughout age ranges) I like to do the math myself and show my work lol so i will verify.

Once again the CDC data is what it is and not my opinion, but my opinion is this; the reason they dont say "And infection rates continue to clime and we reached (x) hundred thousand testing positive today for the first time, but the death rate per day hasnt changed since April" Is if you report it that way, the smart people who dont rely on twitter for their "facts", will question the need for lockdowns, shutdowns and closures since the goal was never to stop the spread of the virus but to flatten the hospitalization and death curve.

That doesnt mean its not deadly, but lately they are talking of more lockdowns based on infection rates and infection rates and death rates are not positively correlated in the data set so far. Atleast in the US based on CDC data.

[Haron]

Ohhhh... i see where your coming from, But saying that is misleading to the masses as well. I was gonna say, I thought we were at about 2.3% on average (throughout age ranges) I like to do the math myself and show my work lol so i will verify.

Once again the CDC data is what it is and not my opinion, but my opinion is this; the reason they dont say "And infection rates continue to clime and we reached (x) hundred thousand testing positive today for the first time, but the death rate per day hasnt changed since April" Is if you report it that way, the smart people who dont rely on twitter for their "facts", will question the need for lockdowns, shutdowns and closures since the goal was never to stop the spread of the virus but to flatten the hospitalization and death curve.

That doesnt mean its not deadly, but lately they are talking of more lockdowns based on infection rates and infection rates and death rates are not positively correlated in the data set so far. Atleast in the US based on CDC data.

It is not misleading at all. 20% more people died during this period. DENYING that is misleading.

And only the stupid people would take the relatively flat death curve as an argument against locking down. The time it takes from a person gets the disease until he dies, varies a lot. This is the reason why the death curve is flatter, with less clear spikes, than the infected curve. The delay in the death curve makes it less suited for saying something about the current situation. The infected curve, while still giving some delay to the real situation today, is much more suited to display the trend - are more or less people being infected? Do we need to shut down more or not? The death curve is not suited for this. The death curve is best used to give an estimate of how bad the situation months ago really were. 20% more death over a long period, is what can be seen in USA. And this is CDC data.

[The Lamb]

I think your missing what im saying here, there is ABSOLUTLY no positive correlation in the data between the amount infected and the death rate.
That should make everyone cheer! It means that as more are tested and found to have or have had it, the death rate % will continue to drop, meaning its not as bad as origionally predicted. Thats awesome!!!!!

Now reasons for this could be, better treatment, better measures to protect the elderly, and sadly the most susceptible to passing from corona did early.

Now where i am seeing a positive correlation is in amount of tests being administered to the amount of positive results, which is kinda a no shart statement

Im not denying your 20% over normal death rate, Im just saying using it is misleading. I could say that the death rate is 50% lower this year than it was from 1941-1945. That would be misleading as well because we had WWII going on lol. Its just a metric that most might not understand and the perception could be worse is all.

"In 2018, a total of 2,839,205 resident deaths were registered in the United States" and we have 241,069 corona deaths in the US as of yesterday from CDC. Show your work

Im not sure how long you feel the reported positive cases and death rate reporting has issues? If the virus just started yesterday, then yes there is a lag in reporting, but this is months of data so the death rates are acuurate. Here are the last three weeks and the last week in April straight from the CDC.
Date ----New Cases----New Deaths
Nov 11 2020---143408---1479
Nov 10 2020-----134383----1859
Nov 9 2020----122910---- 704
Nov 8 2020----105142---- 480
Nov 7 2020----93811---- 1072
Nov 6 2020----132830---- 1211
Nov 5 2020----117988---- 1135
Nov 4 2020----106537---- 1141
Nov 3 2020----88427---- 1095
Nov 2 2020----86190---- 510
Nov 1 2020----69499---- 405
Oct 31 2020----88831---- 869
Oct 30 2020----99750 ---- 1009
Oct 29 2020----90155---- 1055
Oct 28 2020----81599---- 1060
Oct 27 2020----72183---- 901
Oct 26 2020----63589---- 483
Oct 25 2020----63195---- 380
Oct 24 2020----83851---- 828
Oct 23 2020----82929---- 946
Oct 22 2020----74380---- 1009

And here is a week in April

Date ---- New Cases ---- New Deaths
Apr 30 2020---- 31787---- 2349
Apr 29 2020---- 25512---- 2552
Apr 28 2020---- 23901---- 2247
Apr 27 2020---- 23371---- 1336
Apr 26 2020---- 29256---- 1463
Apr 25 2020---- 33161---- 2020
Apr 24 2020---- 29873---- 1623

It is what it is So if we start to find that the death rate gets to the rate of flu, thats not important to know when it comes to closures and lockdowns?

PS... my and my fam were masks, use hand sani and even spray the bottoms of our shoes with Lysol after shopping. Who the hell wants to be sick

PPS...."Nearly 1.25 million people are killed worldwide in car accidents each year. That means, on average, auto accidents cause 3,287 deaths per day." Just to give perspective, and yes its apples and oranges.

[Haron]

I think your missing what im saying here, there is ABSOLUTLY no positive correlation in the data between the amount infected and the death rate.

Thank you for reminding me why I should not read, and definitely not post in, this thread.

[William one eye]

Ok its a virus. Virus' purpose is to infect anf reproduce itself.
Viruses mutate constantly. The can evolve quite quickly.

so mortality rates and rate of infection should logically be moving in opposite directions.

1 new virus of any sort will be devastating as no one has any immunity. Zero herd immunity protection.

2 as the virus mutates weaker strains will prevail.

If you kill your host fast your R naught number is low.
If your host lingers they your R naught number increases.
So weaker strain is likely to infect more people

Now if your a strain that is contagious before your host is symptomatic you R naught increases again.

Now if your a strain that also only yeilds moderate sympyoms,
The host may not even seek treatment.
This person will probably continue their daily habits and infect the maximum number of people.

Asympyomatic infection is the most likely to spread extensively
In the absences of mask use and social distancing.


Also those most at risk for health reasons are the most likely to self isolate voluntarily.
Those at lowest risk health wise are most likely to refuse to stop mass gathering.
This should also affect death counts unless your a jackass and go straight from the protest to the nursing home to tell grandpa about how you helped rip down a monument and you wipe out the nursing home.