• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Non-Political Coronavirus Thread

06deacon said:
I have no reason to think the data you cited is wrong.

My thought as a non-scientist is the spiking cases in areas with strained or low hospital resources. So more cases now —> more hospitalizations soon —> less treatment capacity —> more % of deaths. That’s based on nothing but my opinion on the data. Seems to be rafi bomb’s read too. Your interpretation of the death data suggests you believe it supports your continued assertion that it’s a nothingburger libs owned common cold. When it’s just point in time data.

Did I mention I’m not a scientist? Neither are you. And your posting history on this matter is...less than unbiased when it comes to cherry picking data. Sorry I’m not ready to crown you king of the libs when we haven’t even reached halftime of the covid fight. Wear a mask.
Click to expand...

States have been reopening since early/mid-May, yet the daily number of deaths has been consistently falling that entire time and continues to fall. If it is a 2-week lag, then those numbers are already factored in. Not to say it can't or won't spike back up, but the massive Memorial Day death toll didn't happen, and Memorial Day didn't overwhelm the hospitals, why is July 4 different? They same types of "holy shit look at them partying" videos were circulating then too.

We are testing more and getting more positive cases, but the number of deaths are still going down. That means it is not as deadly as portrayed to most people. I don't understand why it is somehow wrong to admit that, like it makes you lose your lib street credit.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I understand it completely. In my mind, it is okay to recognize that it is a serious situation that has affected and will continue to affect and kill a lot of people, while also recognizing that the media hype around it often runs in the wrong direction, and this Board tends to follow said media hype. You all have no problem glazing over the posts of the one dumbass who just posts bare links to whatever sky-is-falling nonsense gets shat into his feed, yet if somebody posts any data or reports indicating that it might not be as bad as portrayed by the media you react as if it cannot possibly be true.

Did you look at the link to the CDC data? Accounting for the timing between positive deaths and death, and deaths and death certificate issuance, the number of deaths is still going down, despite the increase in positive cases (as Rafi agreed). How are you disputing that? Who is the airhead? It is only #science when it fits your narrative and you believe it, right?
Click to expand...

The number of deaths should be expected to go down as a pandemic such as this one matures. Doctors learn stuff pretty quickly, and a few hot spots where comprehensive, focused care really was a problem have calmed down, so less people are dying from the same disease. You need to know that when you use words like "despite" in your arguments, it's very telling. It sort of casts you in the same light as the media (which I agree with you is largely made up of selfish imbeciles) you rail against: Hoping for a reaction without really understanding medicine or statistics. The number of positive cases and the number of deaths aren't supposed to be in lockstep, nor are they competing with one another to tell a pandemic's story. They're just two statistics in a huge story.

It's also important to recognize that the number of deaths is only one reason people make decisions. Lots of people just don't want to go to the hospital. Lots more just don't want to be linked in any possible way to someone they care for dying.
 
WhatUTalkinBout Willis said:
The number of deaths should be expected to go down as a pandemic such as this one matures. Doctors learn stuff pretty quickly, and a few hot spots where comprehensive, focused care really was a problem have calmed down, so less people are dying from the same disease. You need to know that when you use words like "despite" in your arguments, it's very telling. It sort of casts you in the same light as the media (which I agree with you is largely made up of selfish imbeciles) you rail against: Hoping for a reaction without really understanding medicine or statistics. The number of positive cases and the number of deaths aren't supposed to be in lockstep, nor are they competing with one another to tell a pandemic's story. They're just two statistics in a huge story.

It's also important to recognize that the number of deaths is only one reason people make decisions. Lots of people just don't want to go to the hospital. Lots more just don't want to be linked in any possible way to someone they care for dying.
Click to expand...

There are many factors but my guess as to the main factor contributing to the falling death rate is who is getting sick. Older and more vulnerable people continue to be super careful. Younger, healthier people are increasingly throwing caution to the wind. So more people are getting sick but fewer are dying. Makes sense to me.
 
Seen in a vintage clothing store in Phoenix.
Ebuca0dWkAM1bBH
 
 
Over 56,000 new cases on July 2. That's about the same number as the EU had over the past two weeks combined every day and in every country.
 
Hydroxychloroquine lowers COVID-19 death rate, Henry Ford Health study finds

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...oquine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate/5365090002/

“We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring," said Zervos, division head of infectious disease for the health system who conducted the study with epidemiologist Dr. Samia Arshad.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system’s six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of those who did not receive the drug died.
Click to expand...
 
 
knowell said:
Someone get Rafi over here to debunk this. No positive news allowed.
#banstugotz
Click to expand...

Such a dumb comment, and it really speaks to your mindset. I prefer the truth - you seem to want someone to blow sunshine up your ass.

The first clue that there might be major problems with this study is that it’s published in a very low quality journal - in fact the 62nd ranked journal in infectious diseases. Now, sometimes good studies end up in bad journals, but not often. So, you have to read the article (which I did and you did not).

This is a retrospective study, which can pose major issues. For example, treating physicians may have decided some people were beyond treatment so they didn’t give them hydroxychloroquine or other treatments, and it appears that’s what happened to some degree. In addition, the hydroxychloroquine group also received steroids at twice the rate of the control group, so the benefit may have actually been from steroids. These issues mean that, unfortunately, not a lot of good info was gleaned from this study.

I am more than ready to embrace positive news. Remdesivir, decadron, and the potentially lowered death rate are all positives. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to look at new data and not use a critical eye. It’s perfectly understandable that many don’t know how to read medical literature, but that doesn’t mean they should attack those that do.
 
Rafi, 62nd rated? Has KemPom expanded ratings into medical/journals journals?
 
RJKarl said:
Rafi, 62nd rated? Has KemPom expanded ratings into medical/journals journals?
Click to expand...

Ha, now that would be good!

It’s based on a metric called the impact factor. All journals have them, and it’s how journals are compared. As one might expect, impact factors have flaws, but they can be somewhat helpful.

I had never heard of the journal this study is in, so I looked it up by impact factor and it’s #62 in the infectious disease category.
 
Impact factor has been around longer than Kenpom and it’s a pretty straightforward metric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top