How Come "Excess Mortality Rates" in Europe Have Not Increased In The Last Two Weeks?

rojo wrote:

All of these arguments of “but they had a pre-existing condition” is startling to really piss me off - as if that makes the death “acceptable.” Yes if someone is 85 and about to die, I get it. But if they are a 35 year old with diabetes, or 35 and a father of two and had a childhood organ transplant, then you are happy to die even though they would have lived for another 30 years?

I had to delete like several posts when the 1980 NCAA 110h runner up died as many were like “What pre-existing condition did he have?” I think it’s just a way for healthy middle aged people to feel better about themselves. They think, “It’s not going to kill me’. That’s statistically true but there are some totally healthy 35 year olds dying.

First off your inference that those who are citing pre-existing conditions also believe some deaths are "acceptable" is just that- a logical fallacy.

inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological or emotional reason and then impugning someone's motives has no place in a rational discussion about any issue- particularly one where what should be driving policy is a large scale epidemiological assessment not someone's particular emotional reaction.

That you state "there are some" is both vague and in this case by the factual data quite erroneous-there are statistically virtually none globally.

Individual cases are simply not the way to fashion any reasonable policy that impacts billions of people. Certainly you see the absurdity of this.

Another point to consider is the testing itself. Even putting aside the reality of false negatives and false positives that come with such things the fact of how the tests are being administered disqualifies them from being an accurate metric.

Testing exclusively symptomatic people for your sample size would never pass even the first hurdle of peer review. It's literally rigged.

I don't recall seeing anyone who claimed any of this to be acceptable- and if you are saying that all of these deaths are unacceptable and it pisses you off shouldn't the energy be spent on getting rid of the very system that creates the milieu for these viruses instead of chasing around one "killer virus" after the next from season to season. That means radically restructuring the entire mode of production that has created such a miasma as we see in N Italy e.g. and as far as I can tell that is a mode of production you have historically supported.

Allen - what pre-existing conditions do you have? What pre-existing conditions do your parents, siblings, children have?

Number 1 baby! wrote:

Allen - what pre-existing conditions do you have? What pre-existing conditions do your parents, siblings, children have?

Whatever they may be if they are severe enough they will shorten my lifespan for sure.

Whatever they may be they would be caused by living next to an oil refinery and near enough to nuclear waste. Lot of cancers from those areas.

I'm for dramatically restructuring the economy so that these hazardous conditions no longer exist. That then eliminates these pre-existing conditions which allow viruses to replicate. Are you?

Best to look at these things on a systemic basis not an individualized basis to avoid confusion. If you only observe individual situations you will never come to any sensible conclusion.

Allen53 is barely coherent at this point.

Totally lost track of the argument the goalposts have changed so many times

Harambe wrote:

Allen53 is barely coherent at this point.

Totally lost track of the argument the goalposts have changed so many times

Yes, hard to know what he’s getting at.

Harambe wrote:

Allen53 is barely coherent at this point.

Totally lost track of the argument the goalposts have changed so many times

Have not once moved any goal posts.

The statistics are pretty straightforward up to this point and do not support the responses we have seen to date.

Appeals to emotion and individual anecdotes are not a solid foundation for basing public policy.

Maybe you have a case in there somewhere but you are not very good at making it.

Go back to the original article here. There is nothing difficult to understand about the thesis.

Nice job dumbing it down for them even though it still went over their heads.

Things looking suspect in Germany:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrR10vOdmXs&t=541s

Allen53 wrote:

The statistics are pretty straightforward up to this point and do not support the responses we have seen to date.

If anything, they show the 2019-20 flu season was the mildest since at least 4 years ago. Look at that huge spike in December/January 2016.

rojo wrote:

All of these arguments of “but they had a pre-existing condition” is startling to really piss me off - as if that makes the death “acceptable.” Yes if someone is 85 and about to die, I get it. But if they are a 35 year old with diabetes, or 35 and a father of two and had a childhood organ transplant, then you are happy to die even though they would have lived for another 30 years?

I had to delete like several posts when the 1980 NCAA 110h runner up died as many were like “What pre-existing condition did he have?” I think it’s just a way for healthy middle aged people to feel better about themselves. They think, “It’s not going to kill me’. That’s statistically true but there are some totally healthy 35 year olds dying.

Rojo, you could put a stop to these posts any time you want to.

Apparently it doesn't piss you off enough to actually do anything about it.