Active cases != new cases. Active cases would be impacted by individuals no longer requiring treatment.
Active cases != new cases. Active cases would be impacted by individuals no longer requiring treatment.
jamin wrote:
Go to "Active Cases"
March 29th: 52,683
March 30th: 52,740
52,740 - 52,683 = 57
I appreciate the clarification
I’ll concede the active case growth is small, but to be 100% transparent, I’d be a LOT happier if the active case number was at least say ~104 people higher.
jamin wrote:
LRC note: The video is from March 19 and the professor said the worst case scenario for Germany was 30 deaths per day. They are now approaching 100 deaths per day
Deaths from what? only COVID-19 itself, or counting other things while infected with SARS-CoV2 asymptomatically, as happens in Italy?
Did you bother finding out before acting to shut down debate? Is every thread in this forum to be about your opinions?
Change in active cases is the reasonable definition.
If 1 person was entering a hospitsal for every 2 discharged, no one would say "Our number of patients keeps climbing!!!"
and how about the number of body bags going out the back? How's that doing?
jamin wrote:
Change in active cases is the reasonable definition.
If 1 person was entering a hospitsal for every 2 discharged, no one would say "Our number of patients keeps climbing!!!"
That's not what you said though. You said there were only 57 new cases. That is a factually incorrect statement.
You are not very intelligent.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Deaths from what? only COVID-19 itself, or counting other things while infected with SARS-CoV2 asymptomatically, as happens in Italy?
Did you bother finding out before acting to shut down debate? Is every thread in this forum to be about your opinions?
Can you cite a source indicating they are doing this in Italy? Or are you making it up because that’s the only way to reconcile overwhelming data with you nonsensical beliefs?
Wait, the only logical explanation is you have first hand knowledge because you are a doctor or medical examiner in Italy. I’m sorry I doubted you Dr. Bad Wiggins! Thank you for saving the elderly in Italy and educating the world on the hoax in your spare time. You are a true hero.
seattle prattle wrote:
and how about the number of body bags going out the back? How's that doing?
Please bump all the threads where you were ever moaning about the tens of thousands of viral pneumonia body bags going out the back of US hospitals in previous flu seasons.
On the positive side, if you examine the last two graphs, their circumstance is clearly improving. That is great news, though the number of daily deaths is shocking and nothing to be complacent about.
seattle prattle wrote:
and how about the number of body bags going out the back? How's that doing?
Currently, at its peak, only about 5% higher than on an ordinary day a German hospital, as the professor explained.
jamin wrote:
Change in active cases is the reasonable definition.
If 1 person was entering a hospitsal for every 2 discharged, no one would say "Our number of patients keeps climbing!!!"
“I’m sorry, I misspoke. What I meant was the growth in active cases has slowed.” Jamin
You can quote that, delete some code and pretend you said it and we can all be cautiously optimistic that Germany is slowing the spread!
he is wrong though wrote:
jamin wrote:
Change in active cases is the reasonable definition.
If 1 person was entering a hospitsal for every 2 discharged, no one would say "Our number of patients keeps climbing!!!"
“I’m sorry, I misspoke. What I meant was the growth in active cases has slowed.” Jamin
You can quote that, delete some code and pretend you said it and we can all be cautiously optimistic that Germany is slowing the spread!
Right? What do you think the University of Washington is reporting for new students this year - the number of incoming students enrolled or the net change in enrollment?
Another doc, Ron Paul, M.D., discusses the hysteria and its implications for our health and personal Liberty
You mean this Ron Paul, and I quote from Wikipedia:
"Statements about responses to COVID-19
On March 16, 2020, Ron Paul criticized the government, media, and public responses to the coronavirus pandemic in a column for his website. [200] He dismissed claims of a death rate higher than the flu as "a claim without any scientific basis." and said that the "chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration is without a doubt Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health," who Paul claimed was "serving up outright falsehoods to stir up even more panic." He concluded his column by saying, "People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax."[201]"
I'll pass. Especially since i find myself listening to reputable new sources at the moment, PBS News Hour.
Need a link for that one?
And by the way, we are so very fortunate to have the likes of Anthony Fauci at our service.
Hey Jamin,
I think you mistyped something in the post where you admitted you were wrong and it ended up creating a link to some nonsense.
Anyway, honest question: Do you actually listen to/read all the stuff you post? I don’t mean to sound condescending or anything, but if you are really listening to that you really might want to just step back for a bit. One source had all sorts of logical fallacies, one was a couple weeks old and refuted with current facts, the original video was a stretch at best and within weeks will probably prove false by even the most generous interpretation. Now you’re just posting an opinion piece by a clearly biased source.
People make mistakes, admitting it, learning from it and trying to be a better person may not immediately fix problems in your life, but people worth knowing will respect you for it.
Quote from N24 (31.3.2020), latest data from the Robert-Koch-Institute, translation with Google:
"The RKI has clinical information on around 41,000 patients. The evaluation has shown that the average age of the infected is 47 years. 52 percent of them were male, 48 percent female. The most common symptoms were cough (43 percent) and fever (41 percent). Many cases would have an easy course.
According to the evaluation of the clinical data, the average age of the dead in Germany is 80 years. 506 of the 583 dead (87 percent) were 70 years or older. The youngest deceased was 28 years old, said Wieler and referred to previous illnesses."
I am not an expert and I don't want to look cynical, but I personally deduce from the data that Sucharit Bhakdi's opinion about the government measures (at least in Germany) is correct; it is undue. Basically, similar far-reaching measures would have to be taken in the future for every virus with a similar mortality rate and no society can cope with this.
News from Germany wrote:
I am not an expert and I don't want to look cynical, but I personally deduce from the data that Sucharit Bhakdi's opinion about the government measures (at least in Germany) is correct; it is undue. Basically, similar far-reaching measures would have to be taken in the future for every virus with a similar mortality rate and no society can cope with this.
Please explain how you ‘deduce’ this? Copying numbers and then pasting your opinion is in no way ‘deduction.’ None of the data you included provides any comparative analysis on what would have happened in restrictions weren’t in place. You also don’t even have any definitive data on the mortality rate with the restrictions or anything illustrating any long term economic impact. Unless your assertion is that no cost is worth saving any old people, there are at least a couple steps missing in your deduction.
Bhakdi’s assertion was based on a ‘worst case scenario’ of 3000 dead in 100 days. My claim is that current data suggests there will be more than 3000 deaths in Germany. Without conceding any of the other points Bhakdi makes if his original assumption is provably false, then the argument is not applicable.
Ex. If it’s not cloudy out, it won’t rain therefore we don’t need an umbrella... you can’t then look outside see it pouring rain say it’s to dark and rainy out to see clouds so I deduce an umbrella is unnecessary!
jesseriley wrote:
I guess they just care about their elders, whereas you’d clearly like to kill them all. And it’s not even your country. Nice.
And I guess you can't take it if other people don't agree with you, to which you react with hysterical exaggerations and insane insinuations. Where do I say that I want to do what you write?
Do your allegations also apply to the Swedish government?
Anyway, I stop posting here. Forgive me that I am not having your opinion.
Good morning, Jamin!
Just checking in with you again. Which Seattle hospital is nearly empty and laying off most of their staff right now? You mentioned the 98115 zip code. I, along with several others, are intrigued by your claim and wish to do a little digging to verify it?
he is wrong though wrote:
News from Germany wrote:
I am not an expert and I don't want to look cynical, but I personally deduce from the data that Sucharit Bhakdi's opinion about the government measures (at least in Germany) is correct; it is undue. Basically, similar far-reaching measures would have to be taken in the future for every virus with a similar mortality rate and no society can cope with this.
Please explain how you ‘deduce’ this? Copying numbers and then pasting your opinion is in no way ‘deduction.’ None of the data you included provides any comparative analysis on what would have happened in restrictions weren’t in place. You also don’t even have any definitive data on the mortality rate with the restrictions or anything illustrating any long term economic impact. Unless your assertion is that no cost is worth saving any old people, there are at least a couple steps missing in your deduction.
Bhakdi’s assertion was based on a ‘worst case scenario’ of 3000 dead in 100 days. My claim is that current data suggests there will be more than 3000 deaths in Germany. Without conceding any of the other points Bhakdi makes if his original assumption is provably false, then the argument is not applicable.
Ex. If it’s not cloudy out, it won’t rain therefore we don’t need an umbrella... you can’t then look outside see it pouring rain say it’s to dark and rainy out to see clouds so I deduce an umbrella is unnecessary!
+1, and very well written and nice job of explaining.
While i agree with everything you've said, clearly, I want to add one other concern of my own.
What kind of prediction is it of Bhadi to spread his time period over such a long duration? He averages the death over 100 days. That is probably longer than the virus will be active, so it is misleading. My point is that if he were to pick a more understandable time frame like a month (say 30 days), we would understand the full scope that this killing virus is inflicting on the country and their health care system in a real and understandable metric.
Thank you for the time you put into this, and looking forward to your future insights.