Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

The odd comment in a right wing rag no-one under the age of 50 reads disappears like a pebble thrown into the ocean.

I agree in a sense that Labour needs to build a new narrative. But it does that by winning an election and governing. As long as there people who feel fondly for Thatcher still alive and voting in strength who are never going to change that view, a spot of rhetoric to keep them happier to win that election is neither here nor there. And eventually they'll die of old age and such lip service can end.

If Labour's still talking up Thatcher after it wins an election, then I'll be bothered.

The odd comment doesn't mean much in the context of handling public perceptions, sure. I care more about actions than words-- but his actions thus far, expelling party members for faint left-wing sympathies, also contribute to the impression that he doesn't intend for his party to represent the (centre)-left.

And sure, if the election comes and he then switches tack and improves things, my complaints will melt away. But the last time Labour echoed the conservatives in order to win a convincing victory, they didn't shift back to humane government after taking power-- we got PFI and oil wars instead.

I mean, they'll get my vote because the only credible alternative is inarguably worse. But these are among the reasons I couldn't be a member. They make it clear they don't want me.

 

[Silvanus]

A word to the wise, Keir Starmer: whoever advised you to praise Thatcher got it wrong | John McTernan

He’s avoiding complacency, but there’s little point chasing diehard Tories. Focus on offering everyone else real change, says political strategist John McTernan

www.theguardian.com

Interestingly, even Blair's political secretary argues Starmer is wrong to go down this path, and that he risks alienating actual supporters to court ones that simply will not switch.

It happened because Starmer is listening to focus groups of swing voters. But the brutal truth is that there are no swing voters left – when support for the Tory party has fallen to 25%, there is no longer a pond to fish in. You’re convening groups of voters who are undecided whether to vote Tory, stay at home or opt for Nigel Farage and the Reform party. Sure they have views on what would make them listen to Labour – but they will never switch.

The priority for Starmer is to talk to the 45% of the voters he has won over and to reassure them that he is the change they want to see in the world of British politics.

 

[BrawlMan]

Some people really need to get an actual life and stop talking. If this person is that "offended" by that early scene in Spider-Verse, then they need quit watching movies altogether.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this non-sequitur.



...Which your source would disregard, since it only looks at absolute numbers and ignores pre-existing trends and other influences.



Because the 'adjustment' you were making was just caring less when the people were older. That's not a meaningful statistical weighting adjustment, it's just a callous value judgement.



Ooh, well let's look at that in more scientific detail!

The Conundrum of Low COVID-19 Mortality Burden in sub-Saharan Africa: Myth or Reality?

The demographic age structure of sub-Saharan Africa contributes significantly to the low morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 compared to other regions in the world.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, we have myriad external factors affecting the relatively low mortality rate in Sub-Saharan Africa, including a different demographic burden, possible undercounting due to poorer infrastructure, and existing cross-protection from prior coronaviruses.

Now, plenty of Sub-Saharan African countries did implement lockdowns. And if we were to follow your line of logic, we would have to conclude that the better performance against Covid in SSA was down to their public health initiatives-- including lockdowns-- and disregard all those pre-existing factors. So if anything, utilising your own approach to this would be shooting yourself in the foot.

Excess deaths has to use pre-existing trends, it's sorta baked in. It's amount of deaths they expect to have based on several factors, then the excess part is deaths above (or below) that number.

No, it's not. If one state has 10% elderly and another state has 20% elderly, if both states do the exact same covid measures, the state with the higher percentage of elderly will have more deaths. The more deaths doesn't mean the state did worse. It's like trying to say Africa did an amazing job with the pandemic when it's just that they have a super young population.

If they have an issue attributing deaths to covid properly, you have the excess deaths to look at unless you're saying they aren't counting just deaths properly either.

Oh god, where to start.

Firstly, if the protection for mortality is down to 83%, bear in mind that the people who do the dying are the vulnerable ones. Therefore, vulnerable people have a hugely disproportionate effect on the overall death rate. Therefore, the 83% overall de facto represents the most vulnerable people.

Secondly, vaccine boosters have been available and encouraged for the vulnerable every six months. It's a safe assumption most are using it.

Thirdly, you cite a paper which states that after 20 weeks, the protection from death offered by the vaccine remains at over 90% in the over-65s. (Bear in mind we're discussing the USA, and it did not approve the Oxford vaccine where the protection is 82% at 20 weeks). Once again, you have failed to read a scientific paper properly.

Thirdly, to draw your attention back to the scenario, the IFR you argued mathematically suggests everyone has been infected with covid 9 times. Therefore, their immune systems have theoretically been "refreshed" with a "booster" (of infection itself) every few months - and that's even if they don't also have vaccines, so the waning of those papers doesn't apply.

Fourthly, I'm also just overjoyed to see you arguing that the effectiveness of immunity to covid declines over time, because this is another area where you claimed it wouldn't happen and we'd remain blissfully protected years into the far future, and you regularly dissing boosters as unnecessary, etc. Also that you repeatedly argued infection was more effective than a vaccine, which - by your logic - also means that vaccines are an underestimate for protection. This is of course funny for you abruptly turning on your own claims when they've suddenly become inconvenient for you to hold. And also what I mean when I say you do not have a coherent overview of the topic, just a lot of independent little claims that don't really fit together.



We are better than you at it. You are merely delusionally overconfident and obstinate.

Exactly... "oh god, where to start"

You do realize the non-vulnerable in the studies are the vast majority of participants right? They are upping the death mortality number and causing it to be disproportionately higher then if it were just the vulnerable. Also, just because you're over 65 doesn't mean you're in the vulnerable group. For example, Paul Offit that is over 70 doesn't get boosters because he knows they are pointless as well.

You think people are actually getting boosters!?!? I got a single shot because the rest are pointless. I know you mean the vulnerable, but they ain't getting it either (probably in higher numbers than a normal person), have you seen the uptick rates on these boosters in the US?

I chose the Pfizer stats because it was the most popular I think everywhere (especially here). You/we are talking about US numbers to begin with and you saying my IFR just can't be true. You bad math suggested everyone has been infected 9 times.

Most people are blissfully protected for years, it just doesn't stop infections but it's just a cold for the vast majority of people, that's what matters. CDC's own numbers showed natural infection was stronger... But again, if you're vulnerable, you have immune system issues that most people don't have. It's why the data for boosters have never shown any benefit to normal people and only benefits in the vulnerable.

You gonna admit like common sense stuff like masks don't work outside or it was obvious the virus was airborne long before it was made official?

Correct.





Note: I don't agree with her on trans issues.

Yeah, Ana has "woken up" from the woke shit that doesn't work. IIRC, everyone in her condo complex had to take out loans to pay for the electric car charging stations that California has mandated.

 

[Silvanus]

Excess deaths has to use pre-existing trends, it's sorta baked in. It's amount of deaths they expect to have based on several factors, then the excess part is deaths above (or below) that number.

No, excess deaths are deaths above what would be expected under 'normal' conditions. If there are trends outside of that 'normal'-- as there very often are-- then those are not going to be included in the baseline.

No, it's not. If one state has 10% elderly and another state has 20% elderly, if both states do the exact same covid measures, the state with the higher percentage of elderly will have more deaths. The more deaths doesn't mean the state did worse. It's like trying to say Africa did an amazing job with the pandemic when it's just that they have a super young population.

What is this in response to? You seem to just be.... making my argument for me, by pointing out how excess deaths alone are a poor metric for considering the efficacy of lockdowns.

If they have an issue attributing deaths to covid properly, you have the excess deaths to look at unless you're saying they aren't counting just deaths properly either.

Oh, so you're arguing the 'excess deaths' are just a comparison metric to use alongside actual covid deaths?

Because that's completely at odds with what your source was arguing, and seemingly at odds with what you yourself were arguing a few posts ago. Honestly I think you just got muddled and forgot what your position was.

 

[Ag3ma]

Exactly... "oh god, where to start"

You do realize the non-vulnerable in the studies are the vast majority of participants right? They are upping the death mortality number and causing it to be disproportionately higher then if it were just the vulnerable. Also, just because you're over 65 doesn't mean you're in the vulnerable group. For example, Paul Offit that is over 70 doesn't get boosters because he knows they are pointless as well.

Okay, let me try to explain to you how this works. The majority of people who die from covid are those at higher risk, for obvious reasons. About sixth-tenths of all the people who died of covid in the UK were over 80, and just over nine-tenths were over 60. Therefore, when comparing mortality, death rates are overwhelmingly weighted towards the 80+ age group. So when we say that for over-65s there was a ~90% reduction in deaths, it simply cannot be much worse than 90% for the over-80s, because they represent about two-thirds of deaths of over-65s.

So let's try demonstrating that point by plugging in some example numbers.

According to the paper you cited, the protection for under-65s is 91.9% at 20 weeks. For over-65s it's 90.2%. Given the protection value for under-65s, it seems unlikely that the protection for 65-79s is much better, so we'll call it 92% for convenience. So, let's imagine in an unvaccinated population there would be 1000 deaths in over-65s. Around a third are 65-79, so 333 deaths in 65-79 age range, and 667 deaths in 80+ age range. With vaccination, the overall mortality in over-65s has dropped from 1000 to 98 deaths (because 90.2% of 1000 were saved by the vaccine). If the vaccine was 92% effective in 65-79s, we can calulate that (1-0.92)*333 = 27 deaths in the 65-79 age range. Therefore 98-27 = 71 deaths in the over-80s range. This means 71/667 = 10.6% of over 80s died compared to unvaccinated, so the vaccine was 89.4% effective in over-80s, i.e. 90% as near as matters.

Just to really ram the point home, let's imagine in the situation above that the vaccine saved 100% of 65-79s. That would mean all the 98 deaths were in over-80s, so 1 - (98/667) = 85.3% of over-80s were saved by the vaccine. That's still close enough to 90% to not make it worth seriously quibbling about.

* * *

When I think that you are nothing but a meaningless word salad of talking points, it's precisely the fact that on the one hand you start quibbling about the effectiveness of vaccines because you want to prove me wrong on one point, and then in the same breath argue that Paul Offitt doesn't feel he needs a booster because he's both been vaccinated and had covid and thinks that's enough.

So, which is it? Are they highly effective, or are they not? You can't pick and choose as it suits you.

Never mind that you've basically not really answered anything, you've just moved on to another pet topic you want to drone on and on about. And misrepresented Paul Offitt, who thinks that vulnerable people should get the boosters. If he decides he's fine then that's up to him, but he definitely is on record supporting boosters for those at high risk.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, excess deaths are deaths above what would be expected under 'normal' conditions. If there are trends outside of that 'normal'-- as there very often are-- then those are not going to be included in the baseline.



What is this in response to? You seem to just be.... making my argument for me, by pointing out how excess deaths alone are a poor metric for considering the efficacy of lockdowns.



Oh, so you're arguing the 'excess deaths' are just a comparison metric to use alongside actual covid deaths?

Because that's completely at odds with what your source was arguing, and seemingly at odds with what you yourself were arguing a few posts ago. Honestly I think you just got muddled and forgot what your position was.

They base what expected deaths are on the last X amount of years so if deaths are trending upward, the expected deaths would be higher than last year for example. And that's literally the point of something happening in a year that's not normal will show a change in expected deaths and have an excess in either direction. And a pandemic would obviously show a change because it's not normal.

I said it's a good starting point, better than just covid deaths, which you guys keep wanting to use.

Excess deaths are overall better than covid deaths because of many issues, not that they are close to perfect but still better. The Africa article jumps around with a bunch of different theories so it will odds at with anyone's take on Africa and covid. Some of them are weird like saying it might not be because the young age due to India, but India's population has a lot more health issues (namely diabetes) than Africa so it's not that good of comparison. Fact is Africa has low covid deaths and no one knows for sure why.

Okay, let me try to explain to you how this works. The majority of people who die from covid are those at higher risk, for obvious reasons. About sixth-tenths of all the people who died of covid in the UK were over 80, and just over nine-tenths were over 60. Therefore, when comparing mortality, death rates are overwhelmingly weighted towards the 80+ age group. So when we say that for over-65s there was a ~90% reduction in deaths, it simply cannot be much worse than 90% for the over-80s, because they represent about two-thirds of deaths of over-65s.

So let's try demonstrating that point by plugging in some example numbers.

According to the paper you cited, the protection for under-65s is 91.9% at 20 weeks. For over-65s it's 90.2%. Given the protection value for under-65s, it seems unlikely that the protection for 65-79s is much better, so we'll call it 92% for convenience. So, let's imagine in an unvaccinated population there would be 1000 deaths in over-65s. Around a third are 65-79, so 333 deaths in 65-79 age range, and 667 deaths in 80+ age range. With vaccination, the overall mortality in over-65s has dropped from 1000 to 98 deaths (because 90.2% of 1000 were saved by the vaccine). If the vaccine was 92% effective in 65-79s, we can calulate that (1-0.92)*333 = 27 deaths in the 65-79 age range. Therefore 98-27 = 71 deaths in the over-80s range. This means 71/667 = 10.6% of over 80s died compared to unvaccinated, so the vaccine was 89.4% effective in over-80s, i.e. 90% as near as matters.

Just to really ram the point home, let's imagine in the situation above that the vaccine saved 100% of 65-79s. That would mean all the 98 deaths were in over-80s, so 1 - (98/667) = 85.3% of over-80s were saved by the vaccine. That's still close enough to 90% to not make it worth seriously quibbling about.

* * *

When I think that you are nothing but a meaningless word salad of talking points, it's precisely the fact that on the one hand you start quibbling about the effectiveness of vaccines because you want to prove me wrong on one point, and then in the same breath argue that Paul Offitt doesn't feel he needs a booster because he's both been vaccinated and had covid and thinks that's enough.

So, which is it? Are they highly effective, or are they not? You can't pick and choose as it suits you.

Never mind that you've basically not really answered anything, you've just moved on to another pet topic you want to drone on and on about. And misrepresented Paul Offitt, who thinks that vulnerable people should get the boosters. If he decides he's fine then that's up to him, but he definitely is on record supporting boosters for those at high risk.

YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT. The entire group (including young, normal, old, vulnerable, etc) don't have a 90% reduction in death (it's only for a month or 2), let alone the vulnerable only group (which wanes faster in). The first month is a freebie because you can't even catch covid in that month basically, that's why there was a 90+% mortality reduction so early. Once you get a few months off that "honeymoon" period, the mortality reduction is not 90% (or close to it).

In the case of protection from death the model estimated for BNT162b2 a decrease from 92% (95% CI 90–93) at 0–2 months to 83% (95% CI 81–86) at 7–8 months.

I know how to math, I'm not questioning the math (I didn't even get to that actually) because you base assumption that all the math is based off isn't true.

The vaccine is highly effective in those that have normal functioning immune systems. It's just common sense that vaccine or natural infection protection isn't 90+% in mortality reduction in the vulnerable group if you had all those deaths post vaccine/natural infection in the cold season during 2021 - 2022. You did a paragraph of math to try to prove something common sense will tell you. Just like it was common sense masks aren't needed outside and covid was airborne, yet you kept pushing back on those and explaining detailed droplet analysis and shit, doctors knew in China it was airborne by how it was spreading. And if covid was droplet-based (you know, spread via big droplets that wouldn't be airborne since you'll go into technicalities when they aren't needed), masks would be highly effective but it was obvious they weren't.

 

[Silvanus]

They base what expected deaths are on the last X amount of years so if deaths are trending upward, the expected deaths would be higher than last year for example. And that's literally the point of something happening in a year that's not normal will show a change in expected deaths and have an excess in either direction. And a pandemic would obviously show a change because it's not normal.

Dude, that's simply not how excess deaths are calculated. If a country's situation is already abnormal, then it would be ridiculous and misleading to take that as a baseline on which to calculate excess deaths.

Look at it this way. Using your approach, if you were to consider 'excess deaths' today, you'd have to give a negative figure, because the pandemic's peak occurred 'in the last X years'. That's obviously absurd.

I said it's a good starting point, better than just covid deaths, which you guys keep wanting to use.

...right, but then you typed out a whole passage about how unreliable and poor excess deaths are as a metric.

Excess deaths are overall better than covid deaths because of many issues, not that they are close to perfect but still better. The Africa article jumps around with a bunch of different theories so it will odds at with anyone's take on Africa and covid. Some of them are weird like saying it might not be because the young age due to India, but India's population has a lot more health issues (namely diabetes) than Africa so it's not that good of comparison. Fact is Africa has low covid deaths and no one knows for sure why.

It doesn't 'jump around'-- it gives various credible possibilities, and acknowledges the limitations of our knowledge. Even you acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge when you say 'noone knows for sure why'-- though looking for a single reason is always going to be a fool's errand, and the truth will be a mixture of several of those reasons.

My point is that your source doesn't want to acknowledge that complexity or limitation. It just wants to ascribe everything to public health policy and call it a day, which is simplistic waffle it uses to grind its axe.

I know how to math

Absolute lol.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Dude, that's simply not how excess deaths are calculated. If a country's situation is already abnormal, then it would be ridiculous and misleading to take that as a baseline on which to calculate excess deaths.

Look at it this way. Using your approach, if you were to consider 'excess deaths' today, you'd have to give a negative figure, because the pandemic's peak occurred 'in the last X years'. That's obviously absurd.



...right, but then you typed out a whole passage about how unreliable and poor excess deaths are as a metric.



It doesn't 'jump around'-- it gives various credible possibilities, and acknowledges the limitations of our knowledge. Even you acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge when you say 'noone knows for sure why'-- though looking for a single reason is always going to be a fool's errand, and the truth will be a mixture of several of those reasons.

My point is that your source doesn't want to acknowledge that complexity or limitation. It just wants to ascribe everything to public health policy and call it a day, which is simplistic waffle it uses to grind its axe.



Absolute lol.

Obviously, the next so many years they aren't going to put expected deaths higher because of the pandemic a couple years back. It's just not a computer program that doesn't know any better, it's human beings that are doing this. The explanation was for in normal times obviously, and the change during the pandemic in excess deaths would be a decent starting metric. Sure, the excess deaths will be a bit hard to estimate the next few years after the pandemic because they don't really know what how much death to expect from covid after the pandemic.

Yet better than just covid deaths. You remember when you guys yell at me for not liking some new law or idea because I say it'll barely help and you all say it's better than nothing? Excess deaths is better than nothing.

Look at what happens here when instead of using covid deaths, you use excess deaths.

Japan and US are worlds apart on pandemic mortality

A comparison of COVID and excess mortality across the G7

pandem-ic.com

Whatever anyone thinks the reason for low covid deaths in Africa is, the article has a response to that that is basically "it might not be that because..." so the article is at odds with any theory (that's what I meant by jumping around). It's probably the young age just due to that being the simplest explanation and it's super well known the mortality rate up exponentially as age goes up. Sure, there's more factors that go into it, but age is probably the main factor.

 

[Silvanus]

Obviously, the next so many years they aren't going to put expected deaths higher because of the pandemic a couple years back. It's just not a computer program that doesn't know any better, it's human beings that are doing this. The explanation was for in normal times obviously, and the change during the pandemic in excess deaths would be a decent starting metric. Sure, the excess deaths will be a bit hard to estimate the next few years after the pandemic because they don't really know what how much death to expect from covid after the pandemic.

Yes, in normal times. That's exactly what I said. It was you that argued it would just be based on the past X number of years.

Yet better than just covid deaths. You remember when you guys yell at me for not liking some new law or idea because I say it'll barely help and you all say it's better than nothing? Excess deaths is better than nothing.

But you're only saying it's better because it's more useful for the argument you're putting forward; not for any substantial reason. Excess deaths as a metric is subject to far more confounding variables, is far harder to pin down and define and identify actual causes. It's worse in the sense that it makes for messier, less reliable statistics.

Look at what happens here when instead of using covid deaths, you use excess deaths.

Japan and US are worlds apart on pandemic mortality

A comparison of COVID and excess mortality across the G7

pandem-ic.com

View attachment 10280

View attachment 10281

You... get larger but less reliable, less attributable numbers. Yes, we know.

Whatever anyone thinks the reason for low covid deaths in Africa is, the article has a response to that that is basically "it might not be that because..." so the article is at odds with any theory (that's what I meant by jumping around). It's probably the young age just due to that being the simplest explanation and it's super well known the mortality rate up exponentially as age goes up. Sure, there's more factors that go into it, but age is probably the main factor.

Acknowledging uncertainty is not "jumping around" or "being at odds with any theory". It's just intellectual honesty in our situation.

 

[Ag3ma]

YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT.

Actually, it's you who isn't getting it.

I know how to math,

You may be able to do arithmatic and so on, but you don't seem to have a mathematical, critically analytic filter that you can apply to data.

Although honestly, a lot of the problem is that you do not properly read or understand the sources that you use.

The vaccine is highly effective in those that have normal functioning immune systems. It's just common sense that vaccine or natural infection protection isn't 90+% in mortality reduction in the vulnerable group if you had all those deaths post vaccine/natural infection in the cold season during 2021 - 2022. You did a paragraph of math to try to prove something common sense will tell you.

The reason I explain complex stuff is because the world is complex, and in order to be properly understood, that complexity should be engaged with.

What people think is "common sense" is often wrong. It's all too frequently about drawing seemingly obvious but shallow conclusions. The statement "correlation is not causation", for instance, is one of the most frequently rebukes to things that many people claim are "common sense", because they have mistaken a correlation for causation. In this sense, you employing "common sense" as an argument is an appeal to ignorance. One that benefits you, because on past record I do not think you are adequately equipped to engage with the complexities.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes, in normal times. That's exactly what I said. It was you that argued it would just be based on the past X number of years.



But you're only saying it's better because it's more useful for the argument you're putting forward; not for any substantial reason. Excess deaths as a metric is subject to far more confounding variables, is far harder to pin down and define and identify actual causes. It's worse in the sense that it makes for messier, less reliable statistics.



You... get larger but less reliable, less attributable numbers. Yes, we know.



Acknowledging uncertainty is not "jumping around" or "being at odds with any theory". It's just intellectual honesty in our situation.

Yes, and...? Why would say the US or Japan or Sweden or Germany excess deaths before the pandemic have to be anything other than "past X number of years" to have a proper excess death estimation? After the pandemic, that won't be a good way to gauge excess deaths but we aren't talking about that.

It's a better way to compare because each country counted covid deaths differently, but they still counted all deaths as deaths obviously.

It was jumping around from theory to theory, I don't know why you argue about every little thing said instead of focusing on the main point all the time... Point is Africa had lower covid deaths because it has a lower average age, is that the only reason or the whole story? Most likely not.

Actually, it's you who isn't getting it.



You may be able to do arithmatic and so on, but you don't seem to have a mathematical, critically analytic filter that you can apply to data.

Although honestly, a lot of the problem is that you do not properly read or understand the sources that you use.



The reason I explain complex stuff is because the world is complex, and in order to be properly understood, that complexity should be engaged with.

What people think is "common sense" is often wrong. It's all too frequently about drawing seemingly obvious but shallow conclusions. The statement "correlation is not causation", for instance, is one of the most frequently rebukes to things that many people claim are "common sense", because they have mistaken a correlation for causation. In this sense, you employing "common sense" as an argument is an appeal to ignorance. One that benefits you, because on past record I do not think you are adequately equipped to engage with the complexities.

Here you fucking go, this is my point. Even if you combine 2020 and 2021 deaths into one year to help your argument, we got 825,000 deaths in one year (again, I know 2 years). Now if you just compare 2022 deaths, 267,000, to that bigger number, it didn't come close to getting to 90% reduction in deaths (it's 68% reduction). If you keep them split by year like normal, it's even worse. That's why I said it's fucking common sense that the vaccine/natural immunity didn't reduce deaths by 90%. The math doesn't even fucking come close. I didn't do the numbers before because like I said, it's common fucking sense. This is complex how? You're so focused on the results in a study, you're not seeing what's going on around you. Why would I actually believe a study that says mortality reduction is 90% when that doesn't make any sense? Assuming they didn't make a basic math mistake, I'm sure that 90% reduction was true for the parameters of the study, but the parameters of the study and the parameters of the real world are 2 different things. Or if the study is actually right, then the way the US counts covid deaths is completely wrong then.

More than 267,000 people died of Covid-19 in 2022, according to preliminary data from Johns Hopkins University, compared with more than 350,000 Covid-19 deaths in 2020 and more than 475,000 Covid-19 deaths in 2021.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/health/covid-death-reporting-2022/index.html

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, and...? Why would say the US or Japan or Sweden or Germany excess deaths before the pandemic have to be anything other than "past X number of years" to have a proper excess death estimation? After the pandemic, that won't be a good way to gauge excess deaths but we aren't talking about that.

Any number of reasons could cause fluctuation above or below the baseline. A particularly good or bad flu season; a summer heatwave; flooding; energy outages in winter. The number of deaths fluctuates significantly year by year.

It's a better way to compare because each country counted covid deaths differently, but they still counted all deaths as deaths obviously.

...and they also experiended drastically different situations quite aside from Covid. Say one country experienced a heatwave or regional drought, unrelated to covid. The excess deaths rise, and your source rushes to attribute it all to public health policies surrounding covid.

It was jumping around from theory to theory, I don't know why you argue about every little thing said instead of focusing on the main point all the time... Point is Africa had lower covid deaths because it has a lower average age, is that the only reason or the whole story? Most likely not.

Definitely not. And yet your source, since it looks solely at excess deaths and then attributes them directly to the public health response to covid, would disregard those factors like age. Every time you reiterate that there are other reasons for the mortality rate, you undermine your own source, which wants to attribute everything to one.

 

[Ag3ma]

Here you fucking go, this is my point. Even if you combine 2020 and 2021 deaths into one year to help your argument, we got 825,000 deaths in one year (again, I know 2 years). Now if you just compare 2022 deaths, 267,000, to that bigger number, it didn't come close to getting to 90% reduction in deaths (it's 68% reduction).

Right, but once again, you fail to consider the bigger picture.

In 2020 and 2021, we had a range of measures (lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc.) for infection control and general heightened awareness and risk mitigation in the general public. In 2022, there were next to none of these because they were all replaced by vaccines as the risk mitigation (and not forgetting full vaccination was only ~70%). Thus covid was much more free to run rampant infecting people in a way that it was not priorly. You can even see this in official statistics: reported covid cases in late '21 / early '22 were vastly higher than any previous period.

You can see the same in many other countries. To take an extreme cases to illustrate the point, in Australia, virtually everyone who has died of covid died after 2021 - because Australia was immensely successful at restricting covid spread until mass vaccination. But once it vaccinated and opened up so covid flooded in, inevitably people were going to die even with vaccination just because orders of magnitude more people were getting infected.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Any number of reasons could cause fluctuation above or below the baseline. A particularly good or bad flu season; a summer heatwave; flooding; energy outages in winter. The number of deaths fluctuates significantly year by year.



...and they also experiended drastically different situations quite aside from Covid. Say one country experienced a heatwave or regional drought, unrelated to covid. The excess deaths rise, and your source rushes to attribute it all to public health policies surrounding covid.



Definitely not. And yet your source, since it looks solely at excess deaths and then attributes them directly to the public health response to covid, would disregard those factors like age. Every time you reiterate that there are other reasons for the mortality rate, you undermine your own source, which wants to attribute everything to one.

They do not fluctuate significantly.

So the G7 countries experienced drastically different situations than covid in 2020?

I never said excess deaths was anywhere near close to perfect, just said it was better than covid death numbers; excess deaths is the better starting point.

Right, but once again, you fail to consider the bigger picture.

In 2020 and 2021, we had a range of measures (lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc.) for infection control and general heightened awareness and risk mitigation in the general public. In 2022, there were next to none of these because they were all replaced by vaccines as the risk mitigation (and not forgetting full vaccination was only ~70%). Thus covid was much more free to run rampant infecting people in a way that it was not priorly. You can even see this in official statistics: reported covid cases in late '21 / early '22 were vastly higher than any previous period.

You can see the same in many other countries. To take an extreme cases to illustrate the point, in Australia, virtually everyone who has died of covid died after 2021 - because Australia was immensely successful at restricting covid spread until mass vaccination. But once it vaccinated and opened up so covid flooded in, inevitably people were going to die even with vaccination just because orders of magnitude more people were getting infected.

I combined 2 years worth of deaths into one year to give every possible leeway, and the numbers still aren't close to 90% mortality reduction. You can tell the measures didn't do much because you had states fully open in the US vs states with tons of restrictions and still no huge differences in covid deaths. Most people I knew were back to regular life a month or so after March 2020 and that's a blue state walking distance from Chicago. You're grossly overestimating how much risk mitigation was doing. Also, haven't we been told every new strain of covid is less deadly? So, in 2022 that 90% mortality reduction should be even higher. And I'll let you take a random guess as to when testing and rapid tests became made very readily available. I never got tested once because it's rather pointless, stay home if you're sick (that's it, it's not rocket science, what does it matter if it's the cold, flu, covid), plus my insurance is literally lower because I never "officially" got covid.

 

[Silvanus]

They do not fluctuate significantly.

Yes they do. Take a look at what a difference a bad flu season can have on excess deaths in the winter.

So the G7 countries experienced drastically different situations than covid in 2020?

Yes, obviously. The US was already experiencing >400,000 excess deaths per annum before covid. That's a rate dramatically higher than in Europe or other high-income countries-- and it was already increasing between 2017 and 2019.

I never said excess deaths was anywhere near close to perfect, just said it was better than covid death numbers; excess deaths is the better starting point.

And I said that's bollocks, because its subject to inordinately more confounding variables. The sole reason you're harping on about it is because it would be useful for your argument-- you've given no substantial reason to trust it as a metric.

 

[Gergar12]

So Biden is under pressure due to inflation, and while almost all Americans are employed it isn't easy to find jobs as a recent grad I happened only to have part-time remote work right now, and I am guessing the arts, and science college at my university is recommending jobs. Great.

Here's the link by the way that they sent.

https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/companies-actively-hiring/?cm=EMAIL_LIFECYCLE

I then proceeded to automatically(Using UI-Path) search every one of those companies using google plus the city of the university that I attended, and have lived in for most of my life. (Columbus Ohio and OSU).

What I found is pretty sad, and funny at the same time.

Most of these jobs weren't in my city, and a lot of those that were either only require a high school degree and are in retail, or restaurants(Word of thumb: retail, hotels, and restaurants are notorious for lower wages in America, and require you to make manager to even approach white collar pay which people in my generation of Gen Z( I am on the edge of Gen Z, and millennial) hate.

The ones that were in my city that paid a good wage like your salesforces require you to be a developer with 5 to 7 years of experience, and no internships don't count. How many college grads with a BA, BS, or BSA have 5 to 7 years of experience in Sales Forces as a dev???

And it's not an attack on the school, the OSU executive who sent this, or SalesForce. They are all doing what they can in a broken economy. I don't blame OSU for giving people hope even if it's false. I don't blame the poor OSU employee for giving people hope either and doing what she or he can. And I don't blame Salesforce for not wanting to teach someone 5 to 7 years of experience of knowledge in today's economy.

It's a bad economy in some ways, but it's the bitter medicine many Americans have to shallow, that I have to swallow. If we lower interest rates too soon we get stagflation, if we kowtow to the Saudis and or the Russians for more oil/low prices that sets a bad precedent. This could easily be fixed by Biden kowtowing to dictatorships across the ocean, but he won't because he and his advisors are playing the long game.

And yes corporate profits are part of this too, but they are likely bulking up to prepare for a possible recession.

Eventually, this will end, and we as Americans will have high-speed trains and less dependence on fossils from countries that murder people for land or dissent.

 

[Ag3ma]

<snip>

This is all just a load of anecdotal bollocks.

Bottom line, there are plenty of studies on the effectiveness of the vaccines, and they are very effective, with around 90% reduction in death assuming regular (6 monthly) boosters. This is what the studies show. You seem to think we should just believe your vapid appeals to "common sense" based on the most superficial of analyses.

Phoenixmgs: "Follow the science. No, not that science, when it disagrees with me!"

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes they do. Take a look at what a difference a bad flu season can have on excess deaths in the winter.



Yes, obviously. The US was already experiencing >400,000 excess deaths per annum before covid. That's a rate dramatically higher than in Europe or other high-income countries-- and it was already increasing between 2017 and 2019.



And I said that's bollocks, because its subject to inordinately more confounding variables. The sole reason you're harping on about it is because it would be useful for your argument-- you've given no substantial reason to trust it as a metric.

And how often do these bad flu seasons happen? Also, that's exactly why we use excess deaths to see the differences and impacts of such things. Why can we use excess deaths for a bad flu season, but not the covid pandemic?

That number doesn't make any sense. So the US experienced 400,000 excess deaths in say 2019 then? Well, in 2020, the US experienced 470,000 excess deaths. Does that mean covid didn't have much of an impact then? Because if you're gonna claim that, then that's the only logic to be gleamed from that.

No, it's the better metric easily. That's why Japan looks a lot better with just covid deaths because they didn't give a shit about testing, which means they probably labeled a bunch of covid deaths as not being covid deaths and why their deaths are a lot closer to other nations when you use excess deaths instead. But I thought I would use a stat that made Japan look good, you know, because they never locked down, never tested, and look how great they did! Wouldn't that be something I'd be wanting to argue according to you?

This is all just a load of anecdotal bollocks.

Bottom line, there are plenty of studies on the effectiveness of the vaccines, and they are very effective, with around 90% reduction in death assuming regular (6 monthly) boosters. This is what the studies show. You seem to think we should just believe your vapid appeals to "common sense" based on the most superficial of analyses.

Phoenixmgs: "Follow the science. No, not that science, when it disagrees with me!"

The real world numbers don't come close to matching your 90% number. You have no explanation other than anecdotal bollocks as well. Why can you use anecdotal bollocks? I literally put 2020 and 2021 covid deaths into 2020 and used 2022 covid deaths against that (where the 90% should be in full effect, everyone vaccinated/naturally infected/boosted/etc) and it doesn't even come fucking close to your 90% number. You do realize you are claiming that if there was no risk mitigation in 2020 (or say a complete year of the pandemic like March 2020-21), there'd be over 2.5 million US deaths from covid if literally nothing was done for the 2022 covid death number of 267,000 to be a 90% drop in mortality, right? At least a 3rd of the US got covid before vaccines and if you take the death number at say March 2021 and multiply it by 3 (to have everyone get covid before vaccines), that number gets nowhere close to 2.5 million. The math you are arguing literally makes no sense.

---

FROM SCIENCE!!!

Down to 83% at 7-8 months, and even more in the vulnerable (FROM SCIENCE!!!). It really drops once you remove the early "honeymoon" period.

In the case of protection from death the model estimated for BNT162b2 a decrease from 92% (95% CI 90–93) at 0–2 months to 83% (95% CI 81–86) at 7–8 months.

 

[Ag3ma]

The real world numbers don't come close to matching your 90% number.

Your "real world" numbers have no information except for the number of people dead in a time period. But is this enough?

Let's test out your logic by comparing the periods January - March (Q1) 2020 and April - June (Q2) 2020. In Q1 ~10,000 people died in the USA. In Q2 ~120,000 died. By your logic, this is proof that in just one quarter, contracting covid became twelve times more likely to kill a person than the previous quarter. ...Or do you think there's maybe at least one really important piece of information that might be missing?

FROM SCIENCE!!!

Right, but you're using a figure of 7-8 months to claim vaccine effectiveness drops to 83%. So with six-monthly boosters, it's never getting that low (except in a few that refuse a booster). Plus, the hypothetical situation we are using here also means that people are getting infected at least semi-regularly, so they are getting a "booster" of natural infection even more frequently. So, 90% is a reasonable figure.

Next, you're still running face first into the point I made in #6,527. The figure of "83%" includes and therefore is weighted with any lower protection in the clinically vulnerable. It's not 83% in the non-vulnerable and less in the vulnerable, it's 83% as a composite of the vulnerable and non-vulnerable. So arguing it is less than 83% in the vulnerable is entirely meaningless for the stats, because the vaccine saves 83% of people from dying of covid at 7-8 months post-vaccine and is the only number that matters. (Are you really sure you know maths? Because you seem not to.)