Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	CRD....Help Me
Date:	5/4/2021 11:03:24 PM

Explain why the CDC would publish this chart if it is a bunch of lies? Based on all the charts you posted, how many have died from Covid related and how many have tested positive? Martini obviously does not have a clue but as a doc I assume you have the answer.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	CRD...Don't Believe Him..He Doesn't Want Help
Date:	5/5/2021 9:28:54 AM

I have explained over and over that he is misusing these numbers regardless of their accuracy.  He really believes the following: 1) that the number of positive cases in his table represents the number of people that have gotten the virus; 2) that the number of deaths listed in the table as having occurred as a result of the virus actually all happened because of the virus; and 3) that your chances of dying can be determined by dividing the number of deaths listed in the table by the number of positive tests. 

He does not and apparently will never understand how the mortality rate is determined.  And no amount of evidence, including from the CDC itself, can make him understand the concept of mortality rate......I have tried over and over with no luck.  Who knows, maybe he will believe you.  I certainly hope so.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Trying to help you, Fish
Date:	5/5/2021 2:04:29 PM (updated 5/5/2021 2:09:46 PM)

1.  Fish, I again challenge you to go back through the archives and find my quote that says that this data is false.  Anyone, including you and Archie can go to the CDC COVID Data Tracker and get this info.  

2.  Your level of inquisition and mine are far different.  You and Archie simply want a simple CDC factoid that you can quote that demeans Trump and his response to the pandemic.  Nothing else.  You can't convince me otherwise. 

3. I, otoh, have a vastly different methodology and strategy, because I want facts that show the biological and epidemiological characteristics of this disease that will affect my behavior.  Hence the IFR, for example.  I am not looking for a "gotcha" statistic.  Neither is MM.  I have no problem with your previously posted chart.  I will add, however, the COVID death stats in you chart are far from accurate for a number of reasons, which you could identifiy if you read my link.   That particular set of CDC data is elementary and of no use to me, but evidently, you and Archie are impressed enough by it to keep highlighting this now for months.  Go for it Fish.  But let us all know when this data that you have digested leads to a definitive conclusion regarding your COVID strategy that does not mention Trump.  Tough impersonating a scientist, isn't it Fish?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Trying to help you, Fish
Date:	5/5/2021 2:29:03 PM

That's the thing that he either does not understand or does but refuses to admit it.  Even if you take these numbers at face value (which I do not for all the reasons I've cited) they are being misused and misunderstood by the likes of Goofy.  And I have explained it to him over and over.  It is explained very well in the May 2020 CDC document.  When he critiqued my response by saying it was old data and I pointed out what his tables showed at the time the CDC put their best estimate mortality rate at less than 0.4% he simply ignored that and went back to his original argument.  I don't know of any way to reach him because of his TDS.  He is incapable of logical thought and lacks even rudimentary critical thinking skills or he would have given up a while ago.  And I am quite sure he was cheered on by other leftists that I have on ignore.  Maybe you have reached him but I am not optimistic.

It's the same thing with the masks.  They think of everything in ideological terms.  I don't like masks because I am a conservative.  In reality nothing could be further from the truth.  I don't like masks because based on the studies I have read they don't protect people the way they are being touted by the media and the government.  That is anti-science and I am just not inclined to roll over and do what they tell me to do just because......I need proof and to date no one has provided it although there is plenty of data and studies that contend that masks don't work. 

But when you view every aspect of life through the lens of ideology it makes you do and say really dumb things.....like driving around in your car all by yourself wearing a truple mask....or continuing to misrepresent the relevance of the number of positive cases and deaths attributed to the virus in some database.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/5/2021 3:25:34 PM

My post had nothing to do with or refer to Trump. It was simply a statement that was on Google. I have no interest in trying to convince you otherwise.

"Today's total from Google....32,000,000 cases in US with 573,000 deaths. 1.8% of those with COVID died. 10% of the population contracted the virus."

As to your challenge..."Fish, I again challenge you to go back through the archives and find my quote that says that this data is false.”

“the COVID death stats in you chart are far from accurate for a number of reasons, which you could identifiy if you read my link.” To me, if something is far from accurate than it is false.”  Once again, I maybe missing something.?

Obviously, the numbers from CDC are not accurate but represent their best from data received. The test numbers can be low if multiple tests for the same person are in the count which would lower the mortality rate. They are numbers coming from all over the country. As to the deaths, we know they include deaths that include a diagnosis of COVID and COVID and complications.

I will be apologizing to those I know who lost loved ones to COVID that my numbers posted online by CDC are not accurate and that should make them feel better as I refer them to your charts and the .2% and maybe less from Martini.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Classic response....absolutely classic
Date:	5/5/2021 3:44:19 PM

"I will be apologizing to those I know who lost loved ones to COVID that my numbers posted online by CDC are not accurate and that should make them feel better as I refer them to your charts and the .2% and maybe less from Martini."

Thanks Goofy for not disappointing us and adding this last line.  Absolutely perfect example of an emotional, anti-science statement.  The implication of course is that people like me and CRD are heartless because we understand and follow the science. 

Let me tell what is heartless.  Frightening people with incorrect numbers that overstate their actual risk if they contract the virus.  That is heartless.  Ruining the lives and livelihoods of innocent people by fear mongering and needelssly closing down their businesses.  That is heartless.  Screaming at and shaming people who actually follow the science and are not mind-numbed idiots believing what the media tells them.  That is heartless.  And making statements like the above about people who understand and follow the science is likewise heartless.

But I guess on a more positive note, at least maybe you will stop with the fear mongering by incorrectly throwing around data and drawing improper conclusions about the actual risk this virus represents.  That would be positive....not that I'm counting on it having any lasting effect.  

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Classic response....absolutely classic
Date:	5/5/2021 5:09:32 PM

Maybe he can use a gopro or something when he goes to apologize to someone who has lost someone about MM and his numbers - Ill bet we could post it on youtube and it go viral as they knock his block off.

I am sure instead of an apology he would just say they deserved it since they probably did not live their life in a mask 24/7/365+ and counting.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Classic response....absolutely classic
Date:	5/5/2021 5:20:31 PM

But I guess on a more positive note, at least maybe you will stop with the fear mongering by incorrectly throwing around data and drawing improper conclusions about the actual risk this virus represents. 

I have never  made any prediction or conclusion about the actual risk going forward. All I have posted is past CDC data TO DATE. Obviously, the future based on trends will be dramatically lower. We are seeing that now and .2% OR .4% are attainable on a week to week basis. That is the result of the vaccine, safe distance, washing hands , and yes, to some degree, wearing a mask.

I will be following  deaths to tested posted by the CDC going forward excluding any tests and deaths posted before May 1, 2021 expecting it will reach your posted numbers of 200 out of 100,000 rather than the posted CDC number of 1800 out of 100,000. 

I question how 200 deaths /100,000 positive tests would be classified as a pandemic.   

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Classic response....absolutely classic
Date:	5/5/2021 5:33:06 PM (updated 5/5/2021 5:35:49 PM)

Let’s start with basic definitions:

• AN EPIDEMIC is a disease that affects a large number of people within a community, population, or region.
• A PANDEMIC is an epidemic that’s spread over multiple countries or continents.
• ENDEMIC is something that belongs to a particular people or country.
• AN OUTBREAK is a greater-than-anticipated increase in the number of endemic cases. It can also be a single case in a new area. If it’s not quickly controlled, an outbreak can become an epidemic.

link

Fear mongering by not hyping something enough..... damn I have heard it all now.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/5/2021 5:38:32 PM

The CDC CFR is an approximation at this point.  The true CFR, as many epidemiologists will attest, can only be definitively identified at the end of a pandemic when the outcomes of all cases are known.  Deaths can be undercounted in some regions and overcounted in others.  Evolving periodic outbreaks can skew the number of infections noted.  These time varying errors are never reported by Google.  They just want you to accept them as fact and ask no questions.  You can cite the CFR, Fish, just simply acknowledge its limitation and accuracy.  As a mathematician once stated, 'CFR should, in effect, be used as a signal that points to stories worth investigating – and not be treated as the story itself".  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/5/2021 6:06:56 PM (updated 5/5/2021 6:19:27 PM)

The data is the result of reporting from all over the country and the CDC posts the data as they are fed it from various sources. I am sure there will be corrections as they review all the input. However, I do believe they are posting the numbers they receive and not manufacturing them. I just can't buy the CDC posting daily results going back to day one of 1.8% and another number  of .2% or less as Martini posted. There can't be 90% error ratio.

I think the best number we can obtain is number of deaths associated with the virus. The number of tests may be elusive. Total deaths of 570,000 as reported compared to the flu of 35,000 should show the impact of the virus.

If you apply CDC deaths of 570,000, you are close to .2% of the total US population.

I wish Phil could add something to the converstion...he is like a Jr WIX. Glad he and WIX post as they make me look like Winston Churchill.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Classic response....absolutely classic
Date:	5/5/2021 6:07:54 PM

Well stated MM, and while Fish is at it, maybe he can apologize to those, too, who have withered under the stress of government ordered shutdowns based upon not so accurate or appropriate data.  They might include those with new onset substance use disorders involving opioids or alcohol,  those with mental health morbidities, fear, worry, panic, anxiety, depression, those family members who have lost loved ones due to suicide, not to mention the mental health of our children who have been prevented from important socialization over the past year.  

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	GOOF-COMMIE
Date:	5/5/2021 9:35:57 PM

Now dats some funny chit there…..you Winston Churchill!  You get your butt racked everyday on this forum, but you think you superior to all…….that’s more like a Hiden Joey Biden mentality!!!

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/6/2021 8:12:18 AM

I do add to the conversation - you just seem to subtract from most of them.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/6/2021 9:14:50 AM

Goofy, you don't understand how mortality rate is calculated.  It isn't based on the total population.  It is based on the projected total number of cases and projected deaths from the virus.  These have to be estimated for the reasons that were mentioned by others, the numbers you are citing don't capture all the infections nor do they properly characterize the deaths that actually occur from the virus.  MrH is but one of likely hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of infections that occurred but were never reported to any agency.  Someone got sick, never got tested and got better. Many likely happened before they even knew the virus was here and were even testing for it.  The increase in the reported number of infections was a function of two things: 1) the spread of the virus; and 2) the increase in testing.  I can assure you many people had the virus before testing began and many people have had the virus since then and were never tested.  That is why the CDC has to estimate actual mortality rates because the data that you are citing is incomplete and in many cases erroneous.  Here's but one other example.  My borther recently got the Wuhan virus and was tested four times.  Three times he tested positive before he finally got a negative test and could go back to work.  All those positive tests were reported and included in the total number of positive tests, but it was only one person and one infection.

So the CDC has a methodology for adjusting for all these factors and estimating the actual number of cases which is then used to determine a projection of the actual risk of succumbing to a particular virus.  Hence, they provide a range based on varying input parameters and provide their best estimate which usually falls somewhere near the middle of the range.  The actual could be on the higher end or on the lower end....but no way it is 1.8%....not even close.  They do this every flu season to determine the mortality rate for the strains that are happening in any particular year.  In the past all this happened behind the scenes because there was no widespread following of the reported flu cases and reported deaths.  But since this particular virus got so much attention that people like you who don't understand how this works misapply the data and come to incorrect conclusions.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/6/2021 3:57:04 PM

My only reason for mentioning the total population was to show that the only way to get close to your .2% mortality based on 570,000 deaths was to assume the entire popultion tested positve one time.

570000/330,000,000=.17%

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/6/2021 4:36:33 PM

Understood.  That's not how the mortality rate is calculated.  You will need to dive into the May 2020 CDC estimate of the mortality rate to see how they do it.  It's the same methodology they use every year for the flu and pneumonia.  But I can assure your math is wrong.....or more to the point the epidemiologists will assure you your math is wrong.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/6/2021 8:01:19 PM

My point is simply if at the end of the pandemic  the deaths are the current number of 570,000, the only way to get a number like you posted .2%  would be that everyone in the USA caught the virus.

570,000 deaths with 330,000,000 cases would be .17% which would be as you stated even less than .2%. And, that is only possible in your world.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/6/2021 8:35:25 PM

I understand your point and where you get your numbers but what you don't seem to understand is that 570,000 people have not died from the virus.  I've seen numbers that estimate that only around 6% of those listed actually died from the virus.  CDC knows this and factors that into their calculation.  And there are lots of reasons for this but simply dying and having a positive test doesn't remotely predict the mortality of the virus.  First, the number of deaths ascribed to the virus are suspect primarily due to the perverse financial incentive by hospitals to call them virus.  Second, many of those that died were a result of other factors and not the virus itself.  Third, anyone that died for any reason and had the virus at one time was listed as a virus death.  I am sure there are lots of other factors that I am not aware of but the CDC does and that's how they come up with a projected mortality rate of around 0.4% or less.  I know you can't understand this and you might want to do a little research to figure it out rather than just saying the same wrong thing over and over.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Fish says thanks for the help....but
Date:	5/7/2021 9:00:50 AM (updated 5/7/2021 9:33:59 AM)

When epidemiologists calculate these ratios, they use sophisticated statistical metanalysis techniques that takes into account ages, co-morbidities, death from COVID or with COVID, selection bias, patient demographics and so on.  So a simple calculation like the one you presented here, may seem to make sense to you or me, but to these statistical geeks, is not how they arrive at these numbers.   But I do see your point, Fish.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Time For Me To Admit Defeat
Date:	5/7/2021 5:53:26 PM (updated 5/7/2021 5:54:05 PM)

A new study estimates that the number of people who have died of COVID-19 in the U.S. is more than 900,000, a number 57% higher than official figures.

Worldwide, the study's authors say, the COVID-19 death count is nearing 7 million, more than double the reported number of 3.24 million.

The analysis comes from researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, who looked at excess mortality from March 2020 through May 3, 2021, compared it with what would be expected in a typical nonpandemic year, then adjusted those figures to account for a handful of other pandemic-related factors.

The final count only estimates deaths "caused directly by the SARS-CoV-2 virus," according to the study's authors. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Time For You To Admit Defeat
Date:	5/9/2021 8:43:52 AM (updated 5/9/2021 8:44:20 AM)

Talk about statistical gymnastics......and you and Archie had a problem with the IFR with only one supposed seroprevalence model/calculation.  This studies whole premise is based upon 6 models with the multiplier a calculation that was determined with "insufficient evidence", evidence that is "harder to prove" "evidence that is very limited" evidence that is "hard to quantify".  And to quote a study where the US COVID mortality rate is 300K more than India's despite India having a population 4.1 times greater than the US will raise many an eyebrow.  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Time For You To Admit Defeat
Date:	5/9/2021 6:28:24 PM (updated 5/9/2021 6:28:55 PM)

Chart comparing top 3 countries. Are the stats that you quote COVID only rather than COVID related?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Look at the rate of testing
Date:	5/10/2021 9:47:06 AM (updated 5/10/2021 9:57:02 AM)

The is is the problem with cherry picking information from these charts to make an argument.  The rate of testing in the U.S. per million in population is 6 times higher than India (1.377M versus 217K).  Think about that, we have tested close to 1.4M for every 1M in population and India is a paltry 217K per million.   If you assume similar infection infection rates in India that would make the total number of cases around 140 million, not the 22M in this chart, which is probably not far from the actual number of cases.  The numbers in India are a joke and CRD's raising of eyebrows is an understatement.

As for the actual deaths from COVID in this study, I would like to see them apply their statistics and all the gross assumptions to the number of cases.  I am betting their methodology would result in a shockingly high number of cases in the U.S.  And I would also point out that there is zero chance they only used deaths from the virus.  No one has that number and the most reasonable estimates I've seen put it at less than 10%.  Even the most conservative estimate of excess deaths from the virus in the U.S. in 2020 is around 375,000 (from the CDC).  Quote from the CDC study on the death rate in 2020 (my emphasis added).  "COVID-19 was reported as the underlying cause of death or a contributing cause of death for an estimated 377,883 (11.3%) of those deaths (91.5 deaths per 100,000)."  So you see that even including "a contributing cause", which essentially means they had the virus when they died, the number is only 66% of the virus deaths included in the chart.  When you whittle that down to the "underlying cause of death" it becomes a fraction of the total listed in the chart.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Look at the rate of testing
Date:	5/10/2021 4:59:43 PM

Putting all the numbers aside...the question that will never be answered is how many people died during the pandemic who would still be alive were there no pandemic. That is the only way to look at the effect of COVID. You can't look at Covid...you have to look at someone with a heart issue that was under control and was infected by Covid would be listed as a Covid death. Would they still be alive without Covid...probably yes. To me, they should then be listed as a Covid death.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Look at the rate of testing
Date:	5/10/2021 5:28:35 PM

If I were you I'd definitely put the numbers aside because they are killing your point.  But therein lies the problem.  If someone has a heart problem and develops pneumonia and they die, was it a heart attack or pneumonia?  Many of the people that died from a co-morbidity that had the virus may have just as well died from the ordinary flu (the numbers of which were down dramatically in 2020 I might add) or pneumonia or other disease.  That's why you have to look at excess deaths and when the CDC did they came up with a conservative 375,000, not counting the number of deaths from the ordinary flu which magically, mysteriously almost disappeared last year. 

So no, simply saying someone died from a heart attack and having the virus does not mean they died from the virus nor does it mean that a healthy person has the same level of risk as an unhealthy one.  One has to wonder how many excess deaths there were with previous outbreaks, like in 1968.  I doubt they have the data but it would be interesting to see.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Look at the bottom line...dammit!!
Date:	5/11/2021 9:11:11 AM (updated 5/11/2021 9:15:01 AM)

Interesting to see indeed!

According to the latest CDC numbers there were 19%+ more deaths in the US in 2020 than 2019!  Explain that all you deniers of reality.  Unless y'all can somehow convince America the increase is due to the BLM protests (LOL), methinks y'all are whipping a dead horse!  So, give us the benefit of your superior intellects and explain it MM, CRD, LnG, et all!!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Guess CRD can’t think of a rationalization.
Date:	5/13/2021 11:34:20 AM (updated 5/13/2021 12:02:01 PM)

How about regaling is with some more of that IFR malarkey.  I’m sure you can work some of that stuff into an explanation that the “cult” will swallow hook, line and sinker.