Coronovirus IV

[T.Lex]

Yeah. I think that's certainly in a lot of cases. But Holcomb did not try to make it a class b misdemeanor because he was afraid that if he didn't "do something"... If that was the fear, all he'd have to do is what most other states did. Which was to say they're mandated, but not have any real teeth behind it. Then his ass would have been covered. But no. Just out of the blue, "why don't I just make this a real ass crime with real ass criminal penalties just because I said so?" He had no political capital for that and he had no fear inducing him to do that. He went that step on his own, for whatever reason I don't know. Thankfully a political enemy called him out for it.

I'm not sure that's correct. I think the emergency powers that allow him to make an order like that also say that any violation of that order is a class B misdemeanor. He can't create criminal statutes from wholecloth. That's a legislative act.

 

[HoughMade]

Yeah. I think that's certainly in a lot of cases. But Holcomb did not try to make it a class b misdemeanor because he was afraid that if he didn't "do something"... If that was the fear, all he'd have to do is what most other states did. Which was to say they're mandated, but not have any real teeth behind it. Then his ass would have been covered. But no. Just out of the blue, "why don't I just make this a real ass crime with real ass criminal penalties just because I said so?" He had no political capital for that and he had no fear inducing him to do that. He went that step on his own, for whatever reason I don't know. Thankfully a political enemy called him out for it.

Yep. That was a mistake, but I think one based upon tone-deafness and simply inserting the standard penalty for violating an executive order in the emergency declaration context (Ind. Code § 10-14-3-34) rather than understanding how that would be taken. The Governor cannot declare what a criminal penalty is. He can only reference a criminal penalty that is already part of the law. Truth of the matter is, all he had to do was issue the order...violating it would have been a class B misdemeanor under existing law...but as with the "stay at home" order, no one was going to enforce it on its own.

I'm not sure that's correct. I think the emergency powers that allow him to make an order like that also say that any violation of that order is a class B misdemeanor. He can't create criminal statutes from wholecloth. That's a legislative act.

Um....what he said.

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure that's correct. I think the emergency powers that allow him to make an order like that also say that any violation of that order is a class B misdemeanor. He can't create criminal statutes from wholecloth. That's a legislative act.

We'll save the illegality of it to another discussion. The point here was that legal or not, he didn't do it out of fear that if he didn't do something... As I said, all he had to do to satisfy his self preservation was just implement what several other states have implemented with no criminal penalties attached. So why? What was his motivation? I do agree with Hough that often politicians do things out of the fear of not doing something. This is just an obvious counter example to that. You do what CDC suggests and you implement it like many states have, and if **** goes bad, you're covered. "Hey, I followed the protocol. Don't blame me."

 

[BugI02]

I will enthusiastically engage in self-critical analysis. Can you cite an example?

This is from an early IHME estimate but is a good example of the uncertainty of the predictions at that time

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hershs...-white-house-relies-seem-so-low/#1f0eeee22f70

To be precise, the IHME is now projecting that the eventual number of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. will be 68,841, with a confidence interval between 30,188 and 175,963.

For the following page, you can point to an individual weeks data on the interactive graph of excess death about halfway down the page and see the variability in the numbers used to parse excess death. Farther down the page, under 'Cause of death' is this quote. which seems a bit damning, especially in light of the fact that 55 - 58000 or so deaths are expected in any given week of a non-Covid year yet that would seem to indicate a grossly disproportionate percentage of all death is being attributed to Covid

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

"For the majority of deaths where COVID-19 is reported on the death certificate (approximately 95%), COVID-19 is selected as the underlying cause of death."

For whatever reasons, there are a dearth of people I can easily find who are speaking directly to what the confidence interval is for deaths attributed to Covid, but I think we can agree that they don't represent anywhere near 95% of all death or even 95% of all excess death

 

[HoughMade]

This is from an early IHME estimate but is a good example of the uncertainty of the predictions at that time

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hershs...-white-house-relies-seem-so-low/#1f0eeee22f70



For the following page, you can point to an individual weeks data on the interactive graph of excess death about halfway down the page and see the variability in the numbers used to parse excess death. Farther down the page, under 'Cause of death' is this quote. which seems a bit damning, especially in light of the fact that 55 - 58000 or so deaths are expected in any given week of a non-Covid year yet that would seem to indicate a grossly disproportionate percentage of all death is being attributed to Covid

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

"For the majority of deaths where COVID-19 is reported on the death certificate (approximately 95%), COVID-19 is selected as the underlying cause of death."

For whatever reasons, there are a dearth of people I can easily find who are speaking directly to what the confidence interval is for deaths attributed to Covid, but I think we can agree that they don't represent anywhere near 95% of all death or even 95% of all excess death

I understand that early on...and now, there is a great deal of uncertainty about...most things related to this virus...except this- we were told from the beginning that the people in greatest danger of dying were the elderly (who under normal circumstances have comorbidities) and those with certain comorbidities. This has proven to be true and is not a surprise.

...but I know you understand that "excess deaths" and "deaths caused by COVID" are 2 different things. That a given person may have died this year from something does not change the fact that they died of COVID if, in fact, it was a cause of their demise.

As long as we use proper labels so we know whether we are dealing with "excess death", which I agree is important to know, or "death due to COVID", fine.

If we want to wage a campaign of getting people from focussing on total deaths due to COVID and have more of an emphasis on "excess deaths", I'm fine with that as well as it does provide useful contextualizing information which may reduce panic, which I favor. Panic never helps anything.

...but 9,000 ish deaths with no other causes listed versus however many with 2 or 3 other causes is not an analysis of "excess death" as many comorbidities that are known to increase the likelihood of death from COVID are chronic and would not have caused death in individuals immediately or in any relevant time period. For instance, my Mom has several heart issues. She wanted to have a big party for her 40th anniversary because she did not believe (with some reason) that she would see her 50th. It has been 18 years since that party. Just one example.

Conflating the issue of having comorbidities with "excess death" is not warranted. They are related, but there is not a one-to-one relationship. If we read the 9k number or 6% or whatever as "excess death" and presume the other however many would have died from something anyway in a relevant time during the pandemic...we are reading it wrong

 

[BugI02]

What I am finding is that analysts seem tempted to attribute all excess death (which is itself an estimate derived from another estimate) to Covid this year. Given what I know or suspect about suicide rates and people opting to delay needed medical procedures, I think that is introducing more error despite the fact excess death is widely thought to be more accurate than attribution of causes of death in the individual cases

The point I wished to make is there are few numbers available that I can have a high degree of confidence in, and the range of error adds up quickly when used in combination. If only about 1/3 of deaths attributed to Covid were attributable to another cause, it would currently be no worse than the 1957 influenza

 

[Ingomike]

Yup, spun to say "only 6% died from COVID" (GateWay Pundit fake news headline) which explicitly implies that 94% died from something else.

The GWP headline was completely accurate.

"SHOCK REPORT: This Week CDC Quietly Updated Covis-19 Numbers - Only 9210 Americans Died From Covid-19 Alone - Rest Had Other Different Serious Illnesses"

Several posters have allowed their personal interpretations to define what was clearly stated.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This week the CDC quietly updated the Covid number to admit that only 6% of all the 153,504 deaths recorded actually died from Covid
That’s 9,210 deaths
The other 94% had 2-3 other serious illnesses & the overwhelming majority were of very advanced age”https://t.co/WEZxsfcnhWpic.twitter.com/e2jPEgit1o





https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...s-died-covid-19-alone-rest-serious-illnesses/

The GWP headline was completely accurate.

"SHOCK REPORT: This Week CDC Quietly Updated Covis-19 Numbers - Only 9210 Americans Died From Covid-19 Alone - Rest Had Other Different Serious Illnesses"

Several posters have allowed their personal interpretations to define what was clearly stated.

Only change to your first quote above is highlighting.

The GWP pundit title in your second quote is accurate with the "alone" modifier. I did not screen cap the GWP at the time... if it has always said that, with the "alone", then I am wrong to malign GWP. The Mel Q twitter quote that your post came from, however, DID have the wrong wording highlighted in your post above. That tweet has been deleted from Twitter, but is save in the intersphere.

 

[tsm]

Cool, its been awhile since we've had fun with numbers!

Figuring about half of the US population doesn't have any of the CDC-listed comorbidities, or ~150M. (I think that's low, because it seems like the USian population at large has at least some of those comorbidities.) So, let's say 75% of them get infected before there's a cure/vaccine/herd immunity. That would mean ~200k healthy people who end up dead. (150M * .75 * .0018)

Now let's look at those other 150M people with at least 1 comorbidity. Let's say 75% of them get infected. Let's not even use the .0282, but even round down to .02 (partly since the .03 is probably inflated, too). That's ~2.2M people. (150M * .75 * .02)

Put that together, and we're up to ~2.4M dead people from this before a cure/vaccine/herd immunity.

That's a big number.


Now let's look at the other 150M that have at least 1 comorbidity. Let's not even use the

Yep, numbers are fun, but statistics can be made to say whatever you want! How about a different approach compared to yours by inserting some history into it so we don't need to worry about comorbidities? Say we've had the pandemic going on for 6 months at this point (+ or -) and the US is at 6M confirmed cases and 183K deaths. Cases might be low and deaths might be high, but we'll assume those are accurate anyway. Best guess based on history, if nothing changes, we'll be at 12M cases and 366K deaths 6 months from now. Treatments are better today which would decrease the deaths, but opening up society more could increase cases & deaths, so assume that's not too far off. We're also ignoring that a big percentage of current deaths were from nursing homes and that stupidity from the politicians isn't likely to be repeated, but whatever. If there's a vaccine 6 months from now, then we stop at 366K dead people. Not good, but a far cry from 2.4M.

Extend the time frame as long as you want and rack up 6M cases plus 183K deaths every 6 months. Probably unlikely to get anywhere near 2.4M dead before treatments and vaccines solve the problem for everyone.

 

[HoughMade]

The GWP headline was completely accurate.

"SHOCK REPORT: This Week CDC Quietly Updated Covis-19 Numbers - Only 9210 Americans Died From Covid-19 Alone - Rest Had Other Different Serious Illnesses"

Several posters have allowed their personal interpretations to define what was clearly stated.

If that was the headline it is technically correct...except for the part about it being shocking or something.

The sub-title you get when you click on the article is either purposefully confusing or poorly written....but while another mentioned the GWP, this is not what I was referring to.

Here is one example of what I saw:

Oh and "quietly updated"...c'mon.

 

[Ingomike]

Only change to your first quote above is highlighting.

So you didn't read the article just the "hook" I posted to get attention?

I got in trouble with mods for posting too much of an article once...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So you didn't read the article just the "hook" I posted to get attention?

I got in trouble with mods for posting too much of an article once...

Yes, I did read both the tweet and the GWP article. It was late. I would not swear the GWP title matched the tweet title, hence I retract my aspersions on the GWP... well, for this particular case.

And the tweet was deleted but available elsewhere... one time Twitter got it right.

 

[jamil]

I like the word aspersions. It’s not used nearly enough on INGO.

 

[actaeon277]

Neither is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious

 

[jamil]

Neither is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious

Ya. But it’s kinda hard to work that one into a post. It has very limited uses. But “atrocious “. That has merit.

 

[Ingomike]

This chart of CDC data looks like it is over to me...

Can't wait to hear from the glass half empty crowd...

 

[actaeon277]

Ya. But it’s kinda hard to work that one into a post. It has very limited uses. But “atrocious “. That has merit.

But better use it carefully
Or it could change your life
For example, yes, one night I said it to me girl
And now me girl's my wife, oh, and a lovely thing she's too

She's, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

 

[Chewie]

But better use it carefully
Or it could change your life
For example, yes, one night I said it to me girl
And now me girl's my wife, oh, and a lovely thing she's too

She's, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

OK then.........sometimes (well more than sometimes) this place gets just a little wierd!

And that's the way, uh huh uh huh, I like it (oh my lord, the BeeGees, the shame)

 

[jamil]

OK then.........sometimes (well more than sometimes) this place gets just a little wierd!

And that's the way, uh huh uh huh, I like it (oh my lord, the BeeGees, the shame)

Uh. Wasn’t that KC and the sunshine band? Not that it’s all that better than the beegees

 

[actaeon277]

OK then.........sometimes (well more than sometimes) this place gets just a little wierd!

And that's the way, uh huh uh huh, I like it (oh my lord, the BeeGees, the shame)

KC and the Sunshine Band.

Not the BeeGees.