re: CDC report: Covid is not airborne spread, rendering masks useless

These are the same people that told us mask were useless so why should anyone with a brain believe them. The reason I said with a brain is so many people today can’t think for themselves. What ever narrative the MSM is pushing they know that so many people live there lives according to what they are being told

:sigh:

we...as in "society"

quote:

---

Since science and all, I assume that nationwide mask mandates will be lifted tomorrow

---

Whats this mean? You think a nationwide mask mandate will be enacted today?

quote:

---

Reasonable people would just accept the fact that covid caused a lot of deaths this year, wouldn't they?

---

Sure, but that wasn't your question. Reasonable people don't believe all 200k covid attributed deaths would not have happened without covid.

The Spanish flu and Swine flu disproportionately impacted younger people relative to standard flu types, so your dismissive response doesn't always work out like you're saying. If you're implying that covid is much more similar to the standard flu types, well OK.

quote:

---

Sure, but that wasn't your question. Reasonable people don't believe all 200k covid attributed deaths would not have happened without covid.

---

How many of them do you think would have happened this year regardless? Keep in mind that people misunderstand statistics and life expectancy figures, and life expectancy once you reach the initial expectancy of ~78 is another 10 years. People don't seem to realize that if a ton of 78-year-olds die then the life expectancy figures will fall.

quote:

---

The Spanish flu and Swine flu disproportionately impacted younger people relative to standard flu types, so your dismissive response doesn't always work out like you're saying.

---

I acknowledged that there are rare diseases which do skew toward younger deaths.

quote:

---

If you're implying that covid is much more similar to the standard flu types, well OK.

---

I didn't so much imply as I flat-out stated that covid kills the population along roughly the same age curve as natural causes on the whole. It's just curious that people continue to bring up the "life expectancy" argument as if it has any bearing on the magnitude of the disease. A disease that kills a hundred 80 year olds and a disease that kills a hundred thousand 80 year olds both support the silly argument that it only kills old people, but one is clearly more deadly than the other.

This thread started yesterday.

How many 180s since?

I can't answer your question directly of course, but enough data and anecdotes have come out that leads me to believe deaths are being overstated by a not insignificant amount. I'm curious on your thoughts on the recent data released/discussed on the sensitivity of the covid tests. From what I've seen, the sensitivity is so severe, that a huge number of positives would not have registered with a normal level of sensitivity.

Sorry to turn the question back on you, but if the tests were more similar to those administered for suspected flu or other viral cases, what do you think the official count would look like? Is it fair to count a covid death for a positive test that was sensitive enough to pick up non-living viral load, for example, and do you suspect this is a rare or common situation?

quote:

---

if the tests were more similar to those administered for suspected flu or other viral cases, what do you think the official count would look like?

---

For total cases? I don't know, I don't pay much attention to the case counts. The asymptomatic rate is so high that it might be decades before we get even close to an accurate estimation. And I don't think it even has any bearing on anything other than to help us reach herd immunity.

quote:

---

Is it fair to count a covid death for a positive test that was sensitive enough to pick up non-living viral load, for example

---

"Fair" in what way? As far as using it to set policy? I lean pretty heavily toward a conservative approach rather than a heavy-handed one. That said, if total deaths in a given period are a statistically significant amount higher than expected, we have to attribute them to a cause, and that cause is covid.

And personally, even at the ~5X flu death rate, that is still far closer to an "everyone take sensible precautions, distance, wash hands, wear masks, etc" approach rather than a "shut the world down" approach IMO. I would have to see probably another factor of 5 severity before I would agree with major closures.

quote:

---

do you suspect this is a rare or common situation?

---

Obviously I think it is relatively rare given the total deaths we have seem from all causes. I just think things would be a lot better if everyone was more realistic about everything. Don't fear-monger, and don't downplay it. Just be real about shite instead of calling each other stupid for "picking a side".

quote:

---

For total cases? I don't know, I don't pay much attention to the case counts. The asymptomatic rate is so high that it might be decades before we get even close to an accurate estimation. And I don't think it even has any bearing on anything other than to help us reach herd immunity.

---

Covid deaths come exclusively from covid cases, correct? So either the "real" covid death figure is proportionately lower, or the CFR is exponentially higher.

quote:

---

And personally, even at the ~5X flu death rate

---

My point is if you increased the sensitivity of standard flu tests (or decreased it for covid tests) that number would likely not be 5x, assuming cod was determined consistently as well.

quote:

---

Covid deaths come exclusively from covid cases, correct?

---

Uh huh.

quote:

---

So either the "real" covid death figure is proportionately lower, or the CFR is exponentially higher.

---

I don't know what you're getting at. It is my opinion that CFR is irrelevant because total case counts are inaccurate due to high rates of asymptomatic (and untested/unconfirmed) cases. I base my IFR estimation on covid deaths vs typical flu deaths, mostly. Just as an example, NYC had excess deaths of around 20k, which given the population of around 8m that places a lower bound on covid IFR at 0.25-0.3%, on the assumption that every single resident has already contracted covid. An estimation of 0.5%, or 5x average flu, seems reasonable doesn't it?

quote:

---

My point is if you increased the sensitivity of standard flu tests (or decreased it for covid tests) that number would likely not be 5x, assuming cod was determined consistently as well.

---

The problem is that fewer than 25% of flu cases are ever actually tested and confirmed. The rest are just estimated and assumed based on excess deaths and hospitalization data.

My assumption is that we will end up seeing around 200k excess deaths this year. I base this on the idea that most additional covid deaths through year end will be pretty much offset by a reduction in deaths from seasonal flu (because covid already picked off the low hanging fruit that flu usually nabs). Also assuming that covid has mostly run its course, and that it achieved an infection rate similar to seasonal flu, then 200k is about 5X more than the 30-40k flu typically kills.

The point is it's really hard to overlook such a large number of excess deaths, or explain them away in any way besides covid. Testing rates don't matter, testing accuracy doesn't matter much, etc. In other words, if we knew nothing of covid, and if we weren't testing for it at all, we would end up assuming the flu was 5X worse than average this year just based on total deaths.