- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/18/20 at 7:28 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I think it was typical off the cuff dumbass insecure Trump to mention it
Does far more harm than good to mention this
How does this cause harm?
Posted on 5/18/20 at 7:33 pm to MikeyFL
quote:
No, he stated facts. We have two solid studies now that have conclusively demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine has no statistical benefits, but it can cause death among people with pre-existing conditions. The original French study that indicated potential benefits had a deeply flawed methodology
Haha. Have you looked at those two “conclusive” studies to see why they aren’t great studies?
Posted on 5/18/20 at 8:10 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I’m talking about data (states with the lowest per capita test rates, highest positive test rates, abnormally high case fatality rates) tend to have a higher percentage of excess deaths that are categorized as non-COVID, whether they’re among the hardest hit states (New Jersey) or not (Ohio, Texas, Virginia). And some places had less extreme lockdown (Texas) policies.
I'm not sure I'm following. I assume you were attempting to use testing/fatality data to identify states having more Covid deaths in people who aren't tested and thus showing up as excess non-Covid mortality.
I'm not sure how easy it is to make that determination because states are using different criteria for counting Covid deaths. Some count test positive fatalities, some count test positive fatalities plus "probable" (with undoubtedly some variability in what counts as probable), some only count test positive with Covid clinically deemed to be the cause of death. Plus, I assume all states are testing any patient who presents to a physician or testing site with symptoms, so differences in overall per capita testing wouldn't necessarily translate to equal differences in per capita testing of patients who ended up dying.
This post was edited on 5/18/20 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 5/18/20 at 8:22 pm to wdhalgren
quote:I’m saying that there are a few states (and nations) that have noticeably higher excess mortality that is categorized as non-COVID than others.
I'm not sure I'm following. I assume you mean some states have more Covid deaths in people who aren't tested and thus showing up as excess non-Covid mortality.
And there are also some crude metrics to determine whether states (and nations) are missing cases as a result of limited testing.
And there appears to be a relationship between the two, which would makes me think that when both occur, then those excess deaths are more likely to be COVID than other places.
So until they’re able to better assess the excess mortality data to estimate which deaths are more likely covid related or not, my assumption is that those places that meet those criteria are missing more COVID deaths than places who don’t. And it’s assuredly neither 0% or 100% anywhere, just more likely in certain places than others.
This post was edited on 5/18/20 at 8:25 pm
Posted on 5/18/20 at 8:34 pm to buckeye_vol
Your writing style is harder to follow than it should be.
It’s to the point that I rarely make it through one of your lengthy posts, understanding your point or what side of an issue you are for or against.
And when things are unclear, most people figure you’re making shite up or have an agenda.
It’s to the point that I rarely make it through one of your lengthy posts, understanding your point or what side of an issue you are for or against.
And when things are unclear, most people figure you’re making shite up or have an agenda.
Posted on 5/18/20 at 8:42 pm to Bullfrog
quote:Best I can tell, buckeye_vol is just on the "side" of data and truth. Maybe instead of trying to decide whether to agree or disagree, first try to understand.
It’s to the point that I rarely make it through one of your lengthy posts, understanding your point or what side of an issue you are for or against.
Posted on 5/18/20 at 8:44 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Did Sweden continue doing elective procedures, or did they empty out the hospitals and clinics like we did in this country.
Sweden didn't implement the same level of proactive measures we or most other countries did with hospitals. However, they moved personnel and tried to clear hospital space when many hospitals began to near capacity. Swedish hospitals have a lot of autonomy--no direct government "health czar" making the call-- so different ones in different areas reacted differently.
Most of what happened is a lot more the effect of Covid cases coming in than any prescriptive government directive (which many in Swedish are now criticizing, especially in how that affected hospitals pushing against Covid patients from nursing homes being transferred to hospitals).
Sweden had a death rate over the past 2 months around 30% higher than normal whereas neighbor Norway (with drastic shutdowns like in the US) before many cases were there had an increase of around 2%.
There's just not much evidence to say that any large majority of these extra deaths are people dying of other causes only because of the shutdown and not Covid. Or just as significantly, dying not from Covid but their chances diminished due to the effects rampant Covid cases had on the emergency health response system.
Posted on 5/18/20 at 8:47 pm to Bullfrog
quote:I am not a great writer.
Your writing style is harder to follow than it should be.
quote:
It’s to the point that I rarely make it through one of your lengthy posts, understanding your point or what side of an issue you are for or against.
Of all my poorly written posts, I don’t think this one is especially confusing though. quote:Well that’s their prerogative then.
And when things are unclear, most people figure you’re making shite up or have an agenda.
Posted on 5/18/20 at 9:06 pm to wm72
quote:
which many in Swedish are now criticizing
Is it because that’s the language with which they use to make complaints in Sweden?
Haha.
(Typo joke.)
Posted on 5/18/20 at 9:15 pm to lsupride87
quote:indeed.
I think it was typical off the cuff dumbass insecure Trump to mention it
Posted on 5/18/20 at 9:52 pm to GOP_Tiger
This is very nice -- an elegant statistical method to estimate the global IFR. Basically, as countries increase testing and the testing sample gets closer to approximating the general population, the CFR approaches the IFR.
The formula comes up with a global IFR of 1.04%, though there a few assumptions in the study that I do not necessarily agree with.
LINK
The formula comes up with a global IFR of 1.04%, though there a few assumptions in the study that I do not necessarily agree with.
LINK
Posted on 5/18/20 at 11:44 pm to MikeyFL
quote:
We have two solid studies now that have conclusively demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine has no statistical benefits, but it can cause death among people with pre-existing conditions.
Wuhan virus causes death among people with preexisting conditions.
Surely you aren't including the VA review of treatment after the fact that happened to use this medicine and that included patients with pre-existing and deteriorating conditions before treatments including heart & lung conditions treated with this as they got worse by doctors trying to help based on what they saw in front of them at the time including some already on ventilators (it was not a study before or during treatment) or the Albany Preliminary study results that suggested medicine doesn't work for very sick coronavirus patients but "patients who were taking hydroxychloroquine were also not statistically more likely to develop heart problems", so what were the "two solid studies now that have conclusively demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine has no statistical benefits but it can cause death among people with pre-existing conditions"?
This post was edited on 5/18/20 at 11:56 pm
Posted on 5/19/20 at 12:11 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
I’m saying that there are a few states (and nations) that have noticeably higher excess mortality that is categorized as non-COVID than others.
I think I have the gist of it. But like I said, states (and nations) use different criteria to assign cause of death. Those states, or nations with higher non-Covid excess mortality may be correctly assigning that mortality to another cause or indeterminate. Those states with more Covid excess mortality may be erroneously including "probable" cases.
quote:
And there are also some crude metrics to determine whether states (and nations) are missing cases as a result of limited testing.
This is where you lose me. As far as I know, no states are incapable of testing (or are declining to test) anyone who presents with valid symptoms, especially people at increased risk for complications. So they'll all test virtually everyone who gets potentially virus related symptoms, seeks care, and goes on to die. Differences in excess mortality, of any cause in this environment, is more likely related to degree of physical isolation or availability of health care than per capita testing rates.
This post was edited on 5/19/20 at 12:21 am
Posted on 5/19/20 at 12:48 am to wm72
quote:
Sweden didn't implement the same level of proactive measures we or most other countries did with hospitals. However, they moved personnel and tried to clear hospital space when many hospitals began to near capacity. Swedish hospitals have a lot of autonomy--no direct government "health czar" making the call-- so different ones in different areas reacted differently.
Most of what happened is a lot more the effect of Covid cases coming in than any prescriptive government directive (which many in Swedish are now criticizing, especially in how that affected hospitals pushing against Covid patients from nursing homes being transferred to hospitals).
Sweden had a death rate over the past 2 months around 30% higher than normal whereas neighbor Norway (with drastic shutdowns like in the US) before many cases were there had an increase of around 2%.
There's just not much evidence to say that any large majority of these extra deaths are people dying of other causes only because of the shutdown and not Covid. Or just as significantly, dying not from Covid but their chances diminished due to the effects rampant Covid cases had on the emergency health response system.
So according to you, Sweden, which didn't enforce social distancing or business closures and didn't "implement the same level of proactive measures we or most other countries did with hospitals", has high excess mortality mainly due to Covid-19 deaths.
And the US (and presumably others), which did enforce social distancing, business closures social isolation, and did restrict access to normal healthcare procedures, also has high excess mortality, mainly due to Covid-19 deaths.
Sorry, but all I get from that is that you're unable to understand the possibility of excess non-Covid deaths no matter how it's handled. In other words, this grand, unprecedented, unproven experiment is completely innocuous and we don't need to consider how much harm it's doing. I disagree completely.
This post was edited on 5/19/20 at 12:50 am
Posted on 5/19/20 at 12:51 am to wdhalgren
quote:
So according to you, Sweden, which didn't enforce social distancing or business closures and didn't "implement the same level of proactive measures we or most other countries did with hospitals", has high excess mortality mainly due to Covid-19 deaths.
And the US (and presumably others), which did enforce social distancing, business closures social isolation, and did restrict access to normal healthcare procedures, also has high excess mortality, mainly due to Covid-19 deaths.
Sorry, but all I get from that is that you're unable to understand the possibility of excess non-Covid deaths no matter how it's handled. In other words, this grand, unprecedented, unproven experiment is completely innocuous and we don't need to consider how much harm it's doing. I disagree completely.
That makes no sense at all.
Basically you've written about 30 paragraphs over the past few pages with the most salient point being "I want to believe a certain thing so I'll evade any numbers that do not support my belief"
This post was edited on 5/19/20 at 12:56 am
Posted on 5/19/20 at 12:54 am to wdhalgren
quote:Are you suggesting that a significant portion of the excess mortality is due to isolation or an aversion to seeking healthcare? From looking at the weekly deaths by state, this doesn't seem to be the case. Almost every state with few covid deaths shows no noticeable excess deaths. Deaths actually seem to be lower than usual in these states.
Those states, or nations with higher non-Covid excess mortality may be correctly assigning that mortality to another cause or indeterminate. Those states with more Covid excess mortality may be erroneously including "probable" cases.
Do you think that excess deaths due to other causes is only happening in states where covid deaths are significant? Are people avoiding emergency care only where covid is more prevalent?
This post was edited on 5/19/20 at 12:57 am
Posted on 5/19/20 at 1:03 am to wm72
quote:
That makes no sense at all.
I recapped exactly what you said.
quote:
Basically you've written about 30 paragraphs over the past few pages with the most salient point being "I want to believe a certain thing so I'll evade any numbers that do not support my belief"
Nope, I said we need to accurately determine the categories for those numbers, instead of calling them Covid by default. You've argued against that. I'm seeking accuracy, You're refusing to consider any scenario that finds fault with the response.
Posted on 5/19/20 at 1:16 am to wdhalgren
Do I think the shutdown has caused disruptions in hospital care that has almost certainly led to some of the excess deaths here and there the past two months?
Yes. I've said numerous times that it most certainly has. Not sure why you continue to say I disagree with this.
Do I also think it's nutty to argue that a lot of those uncounted excess deaths have not been caused by Covid?
Yes, downright nutty.
Yes. I've said numerous times that it most certainly has. Not sure why you continue to say I disagree with this.
Do I also think it's nutty to argue that a lot of those uncounted excess deaths have not been caused by Covid?
Yes, downright nutty.
This post was edited on 5/19/20 at 1:22 am
Posted on 5/19/20 at 1:50 am to wdhalgren
quote:"Accuracy" depends on context.
Nope, I said we need to accurately determine the categories for those numbers, instead of calling them Covid by default. You've argued against that. I'm seeking accuracy,
If you want to know the cause of death of a particular person, then the most accurate answer is arrived at by spending the time and resources necessary to determine the most likely cause for that particular case.
If you want to estimate the impact of a pandemic in near real time, then we have to take a probabilistic approach given that 100% CoD determination is not possible on a case by case basis. In this case, the most accurate method is to count probable covid deaths in the total. There will be a handful of obviously erroneously attributed deaths, but given that it's relatively rare for a person to come down with a cough and then die within weeks, it's a pretty safe bet that covid is the cause right now. I would imagine the accuracy rate on these "probables" is near 90%. And given that some covid deaths are likely to have been missed, it will probably all come out in the wash.
Page 1109 of 1190
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News