[paradox]

....

[paradox]

...those stats are every death. We’ve had 300,000 more deaths overall this year than we would have had if averages held.

Exactly. That's the point. Sit down. Relax. Listen to the Bare Naked Ladies. Pop open a Sam Adams Winter Lager. And, by all means, enjoy the game. Go Flames!

[stokesjokes]

Thank you, I will. Or I will lie in bed just like Brian Wilson did.

[paradox]

Well, you know what they say. Statistics don't lie--but liars use statistics. Not you personally, but statisticians, in general.

[RubberMallet]

weve averaged 75k more deaths per year each year since like 1990. that it would be 300k more than last year is pretty clear that its been a serious event. once/if we get past it, i think 2021, 2022 may have different numbers. but a year or 2 is a year or 2 of prolonged life. a tragedy regardless.

[paradox]

That would be the assumption. However, the "overall" death rate is stable and essentially the same as last year.

[stokesjokes]

You need to stop repeating that as if it’s true. The only source I can find that agrees with you, which is probably your source or your source’s source, is this:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U ... death-rate

Notice the disclaimer at the top: “ NOTE: All 2020 and later data are UN projections and DO NOT include any impacts of the COVID-19 virus.”

The overall death rate hasn’t actually been calculated for 2020, it’s been projected before COVID.

The only thing close I can find from the CDC is this:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/mort ... hboard.htm

That suggests that, even in Q1 of 2020, the overall death rate was rising, and of course we have all the stats I posted earlier.

[flamehunter]

Over the next hundred years there will be a near 100% death rate. Y'all better be ready. That's the only stats that really matter.

[paradox]

You need to stop repeating that as if it’s true. The only source I can find that agrees with you, which is probably your source or your source’s source, is this:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U ... death-rate

Notice the disclaimer at the top: “ NOTE: All 2020 and later data are UN projections and DO NOT include any impacts of the COVID-19 virus.”

The overall death rate hasn’t actually been calculated for 2020, it’s been projected before COVID.

The only thing close I can find from the CDC is this:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/mort ... hboard.htm

That suggests that, even in Q1 of 2020, the overall death rate was rising, and of course we have all the stats I posted earlier.

It's all projection and conjecture at this stage. However, approximately 2 million die each year from serious preexisting health conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, pulmonary disease, etc. These numbers will inevitably collide to some extent because these are the very people who are C19 at-risk fatalities. Will the historical death rate take a hit? If so, what's the worst case scenario--a 1970s rate? Would that be enough to crush our economy and trample on our personal liberities?

[stokesjokes]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... deaths.htm

This will give you a whole run down on the excess death methodology. It’s not projection and conjecture, it’s comparing actual death totals this year vs. what we would be projected to have had without COVID. Since these are excess deaths, this already takes into account the expected amount of people who would have died from the conditions you mentioned.

It’s harmful to repeat claims without looking into them. You said before that “liars use statistics.” Maybe take a hard look at where you heard the misleading claim about death rates and ask yourself what they have to gain by lying.

I don’t have an answer about the economy because I know that harm to the economy can cause human suffering.
However, on the “civil liberties” front, you have to ask yourself if you value your civil liberties more than your neighbor’s health. If claiming your rights is more important, that’s an idol that needs to be dealt with.

[paradox]

My position is to protect the vulnerable. We didn't do that in the beginning because "experts" panicked. Scientists & mathematicians are just as prone to irrationality, fear, & panic as others.

[stokesjokes]

I’d like to know what panicked means to you. It seems like those who took it seriously were dismissed as panicking, so we didn’t do what we should have when it could have actually made a difference. If we had done full-lockdown for a couple weeks in the beginning we could have been better off like most other countries have been. As it stands, we’ve been stuck in this middle ground of half-measures that has kept us restricted longer while still allowing it to spread.

[paradox]

"Panicked" would be the early models coming out of Europe. It all turned out to be human folly at the public's expense.

[stokesjokes]

Source?

I know there was the model that predicted several million dead if we did absolutely nothing to mitigate the spread, but that doesn’t seem that far-fetched when we’re looking at at least 300,000 confirmed dead by the end of the year.

[Purple Haize]

Source?

I know there was the model that predicted several million dead if we did absolutely nothing to mitigate the spread, but that doesn’t seem that far-fetched when we’re looking at at least 300,000 confirmed dead by the end of the year.

And 200k in 6 months if we did everything perfect. We know are told 500 k by the end of February unless we have a National Mask Mandate. These models have been and are incredibly inaccurate and have lost or at least should have lost all credibility

[thepostman]

What can't be argued is that the virus is spreading nationwide at the highest rate since the start of the pandemic.

We are still arguing about the same things we were nsck in March/April.

The government shouldn't have go mandate it, but how many times does the CDC have to put out guidance about mask wearing when you can be socially distanced before people start doing it? Even if it is only marginally effective, it seems like the least we can do to help slow the spread.

I just don't get it. I didn't get it back in March/April and I don't understand it even more so now.

Hopefully things go smoothly with the vaccine because people are going to continue to do what people do.

[paradox]

As mentioned earlier, there are at least 2 million vulnerable people in the US. That's where the focus should be. Quarantine only the vulnerable, and not the healthy.

[stokesjokes]

Source?

I know there was the model that predicted several million dead if we did absolutely nothing to mitigate the spread, but that doesn’t seem that far-fetched when we’re looking at at least 300,000 confirmed dead by the end of the year.

And 200k in 6 months if we did everything perfect. We know are told 500 k by the end of February unless we have a National Mask Mandate. These models have been and are incredibly inaccurate and have lost or at least should have lost all credibility

Go look at the stats, from start of April to end of October (6 months), we had 200k dead. Sounds like the model worked fine to me.
*edit* I just went back and looked at your link from Dr. Birx a while back, which is from March 30th, so April to October is kinda perfect. She said between 100k and 200k if we did things almost perfectly, so the real number being at 200k allows for plenty of “imperfection” in our response. Big win for the model on this one.

And we will be at 300k for sure by the end of December, that’s without daily deaths continuing to increase like they are right now. 500k might be on the high end of the probability range by the end of February, but don’t be shocked. If the trend line continues, we can get there.

Here’s the chart showing the coming wave:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths

And at this point, IMO, we are less likely to take any corrective action to change that course. Everyone’s tired of COVID restrictions, me included.

[TDDance234]

COVID fatigue is real.

This current wave is Halloween and Election induced. The numbers are going to go nuts after Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years gatherings.

[Purple Haize]

Source?

I know there was the model that predicted several million dead if we did absolutely nothing to mitigate the spread, but that doesn’t seem that far-fetched when we’re looking at at least 300,000 confirmed dead by the end of the year.

And 200k in 6 months if we did everything perfect. We know are told 500 k by the end of February unless we have a National Mask Mandate. These models have been and are incredibly inaccurate and have lost or at least should have lost all credibility

Go look at the stats, from start of April to end of October (6 months), we had 200k dead. Sounds like the model worked fine to me.
*edit* I just went back and looked at your link from Dr. Birx a while back, which is from March 30th, so April to October is kinda perfect. She said between 100k and 200k if we did things almost perfectly, so the real number being at 200k allows for plenty of “imperfection” in our response. Big win for the model on this one.

And we will be at 300k for sure by the end of December, that’s without daily deaths continuing to increase like they are right now. 500k might be on the high end of the probability range by the end of February, but don’t be shocked. If the trend line continues, we can get there.

Here’s the chart showing the coming wave:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths

And at this point, IMO, we are less likely to take any corrective action to change that course. Everyone’s tired of COVID restrictions, me included.

That’s my point. For all the brouhaha of the US (Trump) messing up the Covid response, we did pretty darn good. We had the nursing home and ventilator learning curve and ramping up a therapeutic treatment strategy but on the whole we did a good job. Yet if you listen to all the talking heads we were awful. They were the people who were predicting millions of deaths because we reopened to soon. I’m too lazy to find the quotes of those predicting 1 million dead by years end or something. But the “worst case scenario” numbers keep getting lower and lower. So now the question becomes what is the end game? We have data with no context. There are no relevancies in the number of cases or deaths. Just numbers meaning statistically nothing. Is the end game 0 Covid deaths? If so that’s never going to happen. Flatten the curve? We sorta did that but are seeing a spike now. So until we know an end game we have no way of putting these numbers in context. And when we under shoot the 500k number no one will say “hey! We did ok”. So that is why I’m highly skeptical of models

[stokesjokes]

I thought your point was that the models “ have been and are incredibly inaccurate and have lost or at least should have lost all credibility.”

I used your own example to prove that the modeling was accurate. Now you’ve changed your argument to “Trump’s response was actually pretty good,” which we aren’t debating. I get the mixed messages from the media part, but how does that sow distrust in the models? It seems like it should just sow distrust in the media and how they’ve misused the models.

[thepostman]

Not only did PH change his tune on modeling, he tried to use the fact that the model @stokesjokes referenced was correct that it somehow means our response was good.

It has never been good.

[Purple Haize]

I thought your point was that the models “ have been and are incredibly inaccurate and have lost or at least should have lost all credibility.”

I used your own example to prove that the modeling was accurate. Now you’ve changed your argument to “Trump’s response was actually pretty good,” which we aren’t debating. I get the mixed messages from the media part, but how does that sow distrust in the models? It seems like it should just sow distrust in the media and how they’ve misused the models.

Models said if we did everything perfect (which we did not) we could still expect 100-200 thousand deaths. So we didn’t and still got within that number. If we did nothing there would be upwards of 4 million dead. It seems that we should have been a lot closer to that 4 million than that 200k based on the modeling.
Now we are being told that we will have a cumulative 500k dead by Feb 28 if we keep doing what we are doing (which ironically is strong mask and social distance enforcement). That means we need...one moment as I break out my abacus....500k - minus 243k equals 257k divided by 108 (number of days till D day) 2,287 deaths a day from Rona. That number obviously increasing every day we don’t hit that mark. Yesterday was a “bad” day with almost 1200 but the 9th was a “good” day with less than 800. I think our highest day in awhile has been 1600 and our lowest 400
So yeah, that’s another model that is going to be way off. And again no end game in sight. What are these numbers supposed to tell us?

[Purple Haize]

Not only did PH change his tune on modeling, he tried to use the fact that the model @stokesjokes referenced was correct that it somehow means our response was good.

It has never been good.

Then according to the Model we should have been closer to 4 million dead. Unless the model was wrong

[thepostman]

what model? You talk in circles sometimes and I am not sure exactly what you're referring to.

The United States has the most COVID deaths worldwide, there is no way to spin that we somehow nailed it with our COVID response.

But at this point, like I said earlier, I just hope the things continue to go well with the vaccine because we are still arguing about the same things we did back in March/April.