Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[Vanoi]

You rephrased his own people's direct reporting with lazy spin.

Don't bother. No one cares about covid until it kills someone you know or care about.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

You've had that argument refuted so many times in this thread it's not funny. There's stubbornly clinging to untenable beliefs, then there's this fantasyland.

Economist neatly summed it up:




But you're right. Kid's health is on their parents. But these kids simply wouldn't have died when they did without Covid. They lost decades of life, and any opportunity to turn their health around because of Covid. So sure, they have conditions that might end up killing them, but we all die sometime, and Covid does a good job of bringing that date closer if you have underlying conditions that might not have killed you so soon otherwise.

My 52-year-old uncle would probably not have died of a heart attack, if he did not suffer from diabetes, a horrible diet and an even more terrible lifestyle (addicted to hookers). My 70-year-old grandfather would probably not have died of lung cancer, if he hadn't been smoking for 5 decades. My 42-year old cousin would not have required life-saving heart surgery, if he didn't weigh like 140kg at 1.80m because of eating tons of fats and processed carbs without ever exercising. Such is life, friend.

Work out, take care of your nutrition, spend time in nature, teach your kids to do the same, like Stario does, and your immune system will be strong enough to cope with all sorts of viruses and diseases. Don't do that and cultivate the "underlying conditions" that will make you mortally vulnerable to slightest perturbation in your surroundings. The rest of us have no reason to accept being caged and treated like Guinea pigs nor to sacrifice our lives, our livelihoods and our liberties in order to protect some blobs of malfunctioning cells devoid of any semblance of vitality.

[wanderwegger]

100% agree. We should solely think about ourselves. Everyone who has cancer deserves it. Children born with diabetes and asthma were chosen to be weak by god. Why should we not totally focus on ourselves. Protecting the weakest amongst us and decency are long outdated ideas. It’s every man for himself on this world. As long as you hang out in the sun and drink a little bleach everyday you will be able to keep all viruses at bay without vaccines etc.

My 52-year-old uncle would probably not have died of a heart attack, if he did not suffer from diabetes, a horrible diet and an even more terrible lifestyle (addicted to hookers). My 70-year-old grandfather would probably not have died of lung cancer, if he hadn't been smoking for 5 decades. My 42-year old cousin would not have required life-saving heart surgery, if he didn't weigh like 140kg at 1.80m because of eating tons of fats and processed carbs without ever exercising. Such is life, friend.

Work out, take care of your nutrition, spend time in nature, teach your kids to do the same, like Stario does, and your immune system will be strong enough to cope with all sorts of viruses and diseases. Don't do that and cultivate the "underlying conditions" that will make you mortally vulnerable to slightest perturbation in your surroundings. The rest of us have no reason to accept being caged and treated like Guinea pigs nor to sacrifice our lives, our livelihoods and our liberties in order to protect some blobs of malfunctioning cells devoid of any semblance of vitality.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Everyone who has cancer is almost certainly going to die anyway, Covid would at worst rob them of a couple of miserable years of existence in pain, suffering, chemotherapy and agony. What a tragedy! It almost brings tears to my eyes, just like the heroic self-sacrifice of that brave 90-year old Belgian woman, who asked that her ventilator should be given to younger patient instead (probably some 78-year old from the same nursing home), rightfully earning the media acclaim for her selflessness! Children are not born with diabetes, but they might get diabetes from eating tons of junk food and drinking tons of sugary soda drinks. At any rate, whoever suffers from diabetes, asthma, heart diseases and what not, they should stay at home themselves, wear masks themselves, vaccinate themselves, implant microchips into themselves; it's not society's responsibility to protect them and at all costs at that, especially from a virus that barely outranks the mortality rate of seasonal flue. Also, prioritizing aberration and yeast life does above normalcy and vitality does not make one decent, it makes them a bioleninist that works to drag mankind towards the mud, biologically, culturally and politically, consciously or not.

[antaeus]

Everyone who has cancer is almost certainly going to die anyway

I hate to break it to you my friend... And you might want to sit down before you read on... You're also going to die at some point.

My 52-year-old uncle would probably not have died of a heart attack, if he did not suffer from diabetes, a horrible diet and an even more terrible lifestyle (addicted to hookers). My 70-year-old grandfather would probably not have died of lung cancer, if he hadn't been smoking for 5 decades. My 42-year old cousin would not have required life-saving heart surgery, if he didn't weigh like 140kg at 1.80m because of eating tons of fats and processed carbs without ever exercising. Such is life, friend.

Work out, take care of your nutrition, spend time in nature, teach your kids to do the same, like Stario does, and your immune system will be strong enough to cope with all sorts of viruses and diseases. Don't do that and cultivate the "underlying conditions" that will make you mortally vulnerable to slightest perturbation in your surroundings. The rest of us have no reason to accept being caged and treated like Guinea pigs nor to sacrifice our lives, our livelihoods and our liberties in order to protect some blobs of malfunctioning cells devoid of any semblance of vitality.

Just for clarity of conversation before we move forward. Are you actually suggesting that someone who has an otherwise manageable condition deserves to die early of Covid?

[Stario]

Just for clarity of conversation before we move forward. Are you actually suggesting that someone who has an otherwise manageable condition deserves to die early of Covid?

Lets get back to Sweden..."only 6% of cases did a death not involve a co-morbidity".
This should tell you the main culprit is NOT 'Covid19', it's the 'comorbidities' IE. heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, obesity etc. If we focused on fixing/eliminating the comorbidities instead, then 94% of these deaths could've been avoided!

100% agree. We should solely think about ourselves. Everyone who has cancer deserves it. Children born with diabetes and asthma were chosen to be weak by god. Why should we not totally focus on ourselves

I think this is where most countries got it wrong apart from countries like Sweden -the key difference here is 'Voluntary' vs 'Involuntary' social distancing.
If you're going to strip away my 'rights' and 'freedoms' (with force if needed, as some footage around the world has shown), then the sacrifice is perhaps worth it, even if "children born with diabetes need to die/people with cancer need to die", in order for those freedoms + right to be protected.
Lastly, but perhaps just as important it implies the government knows whats best for me, and I have no right or perhaps have neither the intelligence to know/choose otherwise...again the key word here is 'Voluntary' vs 'Involuntary'.


In other much welcomed news 17,000 protesters march on Berlin against corona virus lockdowns/curbs. Good too see people (be it only a small minority of people - probably mostly consisting those individuals of more than three standard deviations to the right of the mean when it comes to IQ distribution), are finally starting to get it- no FUN being imprisoned in your own home with your freedoms + rights stripped :-< (albeit maybe a little too late now as what the next decade caused by an economic depression in the EU will bring wont be good for most).

[PointOfViewGun]

Lets get back to Sweden..."only 6% of cases did a death not involve a co-morbidity".
This should tell you the main culprit is NOT 'Covid19', it's the 'comorbidities' IE. heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, obesity etc. If we focused on fixing/eliminating the comorbidities instead, then 94% of these deaths could've been avoided!

This line of thinking is one of the most stupid line of thinking this forum has ever seen. It's utterly idiotic. It's also misleading and an outright lie. There is a reason why you could not give a straight answer anytime you're asked if those people with heart diseases, diabetes or obesity would die this year without COVID19 or not. Why? Because the answer provides a damning result for your position. Furthermore, you keep on talking as if these conditions are only true for a tiny fraction of the population when collectively they make up a majority. Even Trump doesn't make arguments as stupid as yours here.

[Stario]

This line of thinking is one of the most stupid line of thinking this forum has ever seen. It's utterly idiotic

I disagree with you. Were are focusing on a virus that contributes to only 6% of the total deaths in Sweden (where comorbidities do not exist), plus has a predicted infection fatality rate of 0.06% (akin to seasonal influenza), instead of focusing on the biggest culprit/killers IE. comorbidities such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, lung disease etc. Point being, without these comorbidities 94% of deaths (in the case of Sweden), could've been prevented.

There is a reason why you could not give a straight answer anytime you're asked if those people with heart diseases, diabetes or obesity would die this year without COVID19 or not.

You do realise that comorbidities such as 'Cancer' alone (let alone if we were to combine multiple comorbidities IE. Cancer plus lung disease etc.), cancer ALONE! kills almost 10 million people worldwide each year? So yes 10 million people every year die from their comorbidities -such as Cancer- ALONE!!! (without Covid19), again Covid19 is not the main culprit it's the comorbidities IE, cancer, obesity, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes etc.

In the case of Sweden 94% of these death are preventable if we were to eliminate all these comorbidities, and certainly more lives would still be saved if we were could reduce each of these comorbidities even by as little as 20% (we don't have to talk about 100% elimination), because that would be unrealistic in the real world. But even reducing Cancer alone by 20% would save almost 2 million people a year; and this is just cancer alone, I am not talking about reducing other comorbidites by 20% IE. obesity, diabetes, lung & heart disease etc.

With a disease that is predicted to have an infection fatality rate of 0.06% akin to seasonal influenza (Sweden's example), the real culprit are the comorbidities IE. cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc.

Furthermore, you keep on talking as if these conditions are only true for a tiny fraction of the population

Now you're making things up!

[wanderwegger]

Where does your predicted infection fatality rate come from? I can only find numbers that low on sites for crazies who reject science.

I disagree with you. Were are focusing on a virus that contributes to only 6% of the total deaths in Sweden (where comorbidities do not exist), plus has a predicted infection fatality rate of 0.06% (akin to seasonal influenza), instead of focusing on the biggest culprit/killers IE. comorbidities such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, lung disease etc. Point being, without these comorbidities 94% of deaths (in the case of Sweden), could've been prevented.


You do realise that comorbidities such as 'Cancer' alone (let alone if we were to combine multiple comorbidities IE. Cancer plus lung disease etc.), cancer ALONE! kills almost 10 million people worldwide each year? So yes 10 million people every year die from their comorbidities -such as Cancer- ALONE!!! (without Covid19), again Covid19 is not the main culprit it's the comorbidities IE, cancer, obesity, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes etc.

In the case of Sweden 94% of these death are preventable if we were to eliminate all these comorbidities, and certainly more lives would still be saved if we were could reduce each of these comorbidities even by as little as 20% (we don't have to talk about 100% elimination), because that would be unrealistic in the real world. But even reducing Cancer alone by 20% would save almost 2 million people a year; and this is just cancer alone, I am not talking about reducing other comorbidites by 20% IE. obesity, diabetes, lung & heart disease etc.

With a disease that is predicted to have an infection fatality rate of 0.06% akin to seasonal influenza (Sweden's example), the real culprit are the comorbidities IE. cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc.


Now you're making things up!

[priam11]

He is going off a report that is literally months old. Something recent would probably make more sense but hey whatever floats his boat buuuuuut.....

https://www.euronews.com/2020/07/30/...ions-worldwide

Sweden's mortality rate is not that figure anymore and in fact, it mortality rate is higher than the US and Brazil (continuing hotspots) if broken down per Deaths per 1 million people. 568 vs 475 & 436. In fact, they are the 8th worst at the end of July so there is that.

[sumskilz]

Where does your predicted infection fatality rate come from? I can only find numbers that low on sites for crazies who reject science.

He may be correct regarding the infection fatality rate, but keep in mind that the infection fatality rate is different than the case fatality rate you normally hear. The case fatality rate is based on confirmed cases, whereas the infection fatality rate is based on everyone who has been infected whether they showed symptoms or not. This makes the latter difficult to estimate. Where his post is misleading is that he claims 0.06% is akin to seasonal influenza. In fact, the case fatality rate of seasonal flu is 0.1%, so the infection fatality of seasonal flu is considerably lower than than that, low enough that I don't think it's something anyone typically bothers to try to estimate.

For healthy people under the age of 50, the odds of death are quite low, but I think the focus on fatality rates is underestimating the potential damage quite a bit, since even people with mild cases can potentially end up with long term damage.

[Ludicus]

I have been following this discussion.For those interested, from our University Hospital. Read the full paper.
The Role of Health Preconditions on COVID-19 Deaths ... - MDPI

Conclusions
Based on the results, lethality by COVID-19 in Portuguese infected individuals was significantly associated with demographics (males; advanced age) and the preconditions Cardiac disease,Kidney disease, and Neuromuscular disorder. The present study successfully modeled the condition to assess the prognosis of each patient with high precision. Being one of the first studies in Europe not only to identify the main preconditions associated with COVID-19 lethality but also to include a model for individuals with absence of preconditions in more than 20,000 cases, this research thus represents a potential important benchmark for future studies

[caratacus]

For healthy people under the age of 50, the odds of death are quite low, but I think the focus on fatality rates is underestimating the potential damage quite a bit, since even people with mild cases can potentially end up with long term damage.

People aren't really being informed that the death rate for Covid 19 is probably only the tip of the iceberg of impacts associated with this disease. You would expect any new disease to have an initial high death toll which tapers as it adapts to the host species. However, what damage is done to those who aren't killed by it, is not yet fully understood. People think that unless they are old or have health issues, it won't affect them badly if they become infected. Evidence is mounting that this is far from being the case, and substantial numbers might go on to develop chronic illness in the future from the infection.

From ‘brain fog’ to heart damage, COVID-19’s lingering problems alarm scientists
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...arm-scientists

COVID-19 linked to heart damage in healthy people, small study suggests
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19...hy-people.html
Three quarters of recovered COVID-19 patients had signs of lingering heart damage months after their initial infection.

[PointOfViewGun]

I disagree with you. Were are focusing on a virus that contributes to only 6% of the total deaths in Sweden (where comorbidities do not exist), plus has a predicted infection fatality rate of 0.06% (akin to seasonal influenza), instead of focusing on the biggest culprit/killers IE. comorbidities such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, lung disease etc. Point being, without these comorbidities 94% of deaths (in the case of Sweden), could've been prevented.

You do realise that comorbidities such as 'Cancer' alone (let alone if we were to combine multiple comorbidities IE. Cancer plus lung disease etc.), cancer ALONE! kills almost 10 million people worldwide each year? So yes 10 million people every year die from their comorbidities -such as Cancer- ALONE!!! (without Covid19), again Covid19 is not the main culprit it's the comorbidities IE, cancer, obesity, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes etc.

In the case of Sweden 94% of these death are preventable if we were to eliminate all these comorbidities, and certainly more lives would still be saved if we were could reduce each of these comorbidities even by as little as 20% (we don't have to talk about 100% elimination), because that would be unrealistic in the real world. But even reducing Cancer alone by 20% would save almost 2 million people a year; and this is just cancer alone, I am not talking about reducing other comorbidites by 20% IE. obesity, diabetes, lung & heart disease etc.

With a disease that is predicted to have an infection fatality rate of 0.06% akin to seasonal influenza (Sweden's example), the real culprit are the comorbidities IE. cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc.

Now you're making things up!

None of that actually addresses what you quote. You're merely repeating your claims and lies in different words. You're blabbering to avoid addressing the points raised against you.

[wanderwegger]

But will he now admit to his mistake, making discussion possible, or will he insist he is still correct, making us more akin to children screaming at each other than adults using discussion in the all the ways adults do.

[antaeus]

This should tell you the main culprit is NOT 'Covid19', it's the 'comorbidities' IE. heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, obesity etc. If we focused on fixing/eliminating the comorbidities instead, then 94% of these deaths could've been avoided!

Just for clarity of conversation before we move forward. Are you actually suggesting that someone who has an otherwise manageable condition deserves to die early because of a complication arising due to Covid?

By the way, this is a yes/no question.

Not "yes.. but" not "no... but" Just yes/no.

[wanderwegger]

Stario you meant left of mean if you are referring to the many many many many studies on people like this who reject science. We have groups like this in the US too. Usually not college educated, angry as a rule, obsessed with versions of freedom which exist at the expense of others.

You are lucky how enlightened Germany is. If you had more people like this you would be as screwed as the US is.

[PointOfViewGun]

Just for clarity of conversation before we move forward. Are you actually suggesting that someone who has an otherwise manageable condition deserves to die early because of a complication arising due to Covid?

By the way, this is a yes/no question.

Not "yes.. but" not "no... but" Just yes/no.

His previous comment:

I guess mother nature (as cruel as it can be sometimes), will now do it's job & do some cleaning up...

Might provide some insight.

[Stario]

He may be correct regarding the infection fatality rate, but keep in mind that the infection fatality rate is different than the case fatality rate you normally hear. The case fatality rate is based on confirmed cases, whereas the infection fatality rate is based on everyone who has been infected whether they showed symptoms or not. This makes the latter difficult to estimate. Where his post is misleading is that he claims 0.06% is akin to seasonal influenza. In fact, the case fatality rate of seasonal flu is 0.1%, so the infection fatality of seasonal flu is considerably lower than than that, low enough that I don't think it's something anyone typically bothers to try to estimate.

0.06% is also considerably lower than 0.1% (about 40% lower). Again this is nothing more than a bad flu season.

Are you actually suggesting that someone who has an otherwise manageable condition deserves to die early because of a complication arising due to Covid?

Is that what you got from my post!? :-< ...No, not suggesting anyone "deserves to die early".

Stario you meant left of mean

No, it's as stated; 3 standard deviations to the right of the mean!

[wanderwegger]

0.06% is also considerably lower than 0.1% (infect about 40% lower). Again this is nothing more than a bad flu season.

He thinks coronaviruses and influenza viruses are the same thing. Makes sense the resulting confusion.