Posted on 07/07/2020 8:27:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The most dangerous flaw in the modern news media is their now constant vulnerability of becoming deeply invested in a particular narrative at the very start of a large story, and then having the ensuing tunnel vision prevent them from adjusting their reporting as new facts become available.
I am referring here to the news media’s obsession with using “new cases” as by far the most common, and often only, data point for evaluating how the nation is coping with the coronavirus crisis.
For more than two weeks, ever since June 19, when new cases in the United States went back over 30,000 in one day, we have been constantly bombarded with stories of how the virus is “spiking” in “record” numbers in many of the states (like California, Texas, Florida, and Arizona) that were not hit hard in the “first wave.”
Across the country, our number of new cases has indeed exploded to new levels during this time period (though, magically, the media tells us, very little, if any, of this “surge” can be blamed on Black Lives Matter protests/riots), and the news media, both at the national and local levels, have used these statistics to essentially create panic porn. The resulting public anxiety has caused several states to reverse their re-openings and cast a pall over major decisions currently being made all over the country, not just with regard to recreation options, but specifically with respect to the future of schools and major sporting events.
Obviously the “new case” data point is both real and relevant, but it is also now extremely misleading. By incompetently using the same measure of what a “positive” virus test meant in April, to what it now means in July, the news media is in the process of, quite effectively, sabotaging America’s recovery
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Dood, why would you include non vulnerable samples in a calculation of death vulnerability? And you really should check join dates before lashing out.
When you compute national pregnancy rates, you don’t include men in the calculation. That’s just bizarre.
If you want to know how many people over 65 die of ALL causes, you don’t include 20 year olds. Because they aren’t relevant to the calculation.
That is true of this disease. It’s a disease of old age. Why would you include the young in calculations about a disease of old age.
I believe you misunderstand us "flubros" in that we understand the math all to well.
Our argument has been from the very beginning of this politically motivated fiasco that the elderly are at risk, and they should be isolated from the general public instead of the destructive and unnecessary current measure of shutting everything down and everyone in.
Possible health effects include permanent lung damage, kidney damage, stroke.
These people are not measured by statistics that only show total cases and deaths.
MARCH 20, 2020 — A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years.
The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease.
In New York City, an estimated (from the New York Post) 10,000 out of 18,000 deaths were in nursing homes for old folks. That will make that the the majority of deaths occurred in nursing homes. From Cuomo deliberately infecting them by sending in infected people.
Cuomo deliberately started counting nursing home deaths as hospital deaths after the scandal broke out.
Old folks in nursing homes with preexisting conditions should of course remain there.
Sick and elderly will continue to get treatment in hospitals.
Everybody else back to work.
I have definitely heard of this. This type of severe damage was mentioned as early as March, IIRC. The term "glass lung" is sometimes used.
The identification of this type of damage pops up periodically. And yet it never gets a lot of traction. I would think the media would be all over this. Sort of like showing rooms full of Polio victims living in iron lungs. I have to wonder how much of this damage is real if the media only tangentially mentions it once every three weeks or so. That doesn't feel right. Why not make a bigger deal out of it?
Of course.
We include ALL samples in death rates calculations. ALL samples have been included by everybody from the get go, including the CDC. That is why they had lockdowns for EVERYBODY in New York, NJ, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan etc.
Nobody has ever left out young folks out of anything in counting death rates or lockdowns(unfortunately).
You are nuts. Totally insane.
Our argument has been from the very beginning of this politically motivated fiasco that the elderly are at risk, and they should be isolated from the general public...
The current leftist plan is to isolate 90+% ...
Just like Valley Fever in the Southwest
Yup,plenty of panic right here on FR.
Thry seem to simple minded to differentiate between contracting the chop suey virus and dying from the chop suey virus. It seems beyong them to understand the fact most new cases found are asymptomatic and in young people whose exposure almost NEVER results in death. The number is so low it is statistically irrelevant but yet they screech on in their quavering fear and panic filled bleats thay “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE”!!!
“But regardless, understand the math. Get the young out of the denominator. They aren’t in the numerator so they don’t belong in the denominator.”
And they don’t belong in the lockdowns either. The public or those whichnhave at least ONE functioning brain cell KNOW who is in danger.
In any case to assess an accurate “death rate” the total number of infections needs to be known not just the number of seniors.
“That doesn’t feel right. Why not make a bigger deal out of it?”
Because the numbers are statistally insignificant. If they were not so then it would in fact be a big deal.
I think that in the rush to counter the manipulated “cases” numbers hospitalizations should bev the leading indicator since they are harder to manipulate. But infections of younger people also carry serious risks. Even the young who do recover are often left with varying degrees of organ damage (primarily in the lungs) that will be with them for the rest of their lives.
If you calculate it that way, won't you tend toward something like 100% mortality? That's only useful if you want to scare people.
The number of cases is spiking (because of increased testing and the identification of asymptomatic cases). But the death rate isn't going up -- most people are not really vulnerable.
Most people are not so focused on the concept of "death vulnerability" but I see you care about that. Very well.
Your denominator would begin with The Elderly.
Further, you might want to narrow to The Elderly Obese.
But to really find the "death vulnerability" you would want to narrow your Denominator to "The Elderly Obese with Multiple Co-morbidities Living in Nursing Homes".
If that's your denominator, then the "death vulnerability" approaches 100% and then it's easy to make people panic.
But, bottomline, it's just the flu.
“The number of cases is spiking (because of increased testing and the identification of asymptomatic cases). But the death rate isn’t going up — most people are not really vulnerable.”
That’s precisely the point. They aren’t vulnerable. Why include them? Casualty rates on a battlefield won’t include the population back home. They aren’t vulnerable.
Should the young lockdown? It somewhat doesn’t matter because by now everyone is aware of who is vulnerable. People avoid crowds so they don’t kill their parents at home. They know they won’t die themselves. Airlines and cruise ships are not locked down by the government. But they are still empty or flying at 25% 2019 passenger traffic, because people are decent and don’t want to kill their parents.
As for comorbidities, the list I saw of those definitely included obesity and high bp and diabetes (which doesn’t absolutely require obesity) and high cholesterol and pretty much everything just about everyone 60+ has. So you don’t narrow things down by adding comorbidities because those are so common at older age. It’s the ultimate overlap.
As for it’s just flu, you have to go see the Excess Deaths page at the CDC. They compare deaths this year for the month of March, and then April and then May etc to the average death count for those months year 2015-2019. The older age group was way above the multi year average — and that average included flu. Yup, there is some overlap, but the numbers pre lockdown were spiking for all 65+ age groups. This virus ADDs deaths to flu. It’s not flu.
Cases are bullshit, no question. Stimulus package pays hospitals to declare admitted patients to be covid+. So that parameter is bullshit too. It is Excess Deaths that tell the tale. Post lockdown, they are dipping. Post re-open, the data is not in yet. You can look state by state, Texas is generating a lot of excess deaths post reopen. Arizona too. Florida doesn’t look so bad, but their numbers are delayed.
The denominator is the number of people who test positive for the virus. Period.
You simply have it wrong. If your interest is deaths, then only those vulnerable to death from that cause are relevant.
This is really straightforward stuff.
Besides which, we’re going to see a death spike today higher than all days since mid June. This isn’t good.
By definition, the mortality rate is the number of deaths divided by the number who contract it. That’s the definition of it. Period. Whatever you’re talking about is not the definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.