So - who here has had Covid ??

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

hmmmm at first it was necessary to lock down just to kinda get a better idea what the heck was going on....now we again are starting to close up again and other countries have gone to lockdown again....this is a no joke type thing going on....sure there are going to be a billion thoughts etc but the reality of it is here...just take a look....stay healthy all.

Did you read the article or just look at the picture?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Did you read the article or just look at the picture?

read the article....The fact that Covid-19 kills more than flu is quickly evident by “the number of deaths that exceed what is seen in typical years.”

I will insure my little thuddy thuddy fills the freezer come November....hope the deer don't lockdown....

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Did you wear your chin diaper while driving? It keeps you safe from other drivers don’t ya know.

Clean underwear and a face diaper....just in case of an accident. Selfish not to..

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

read the article....The fact that Covid-19 kills more than flu is quickly evident by “the number of deaths that exceed what is seen in typical years.”

I will insure my little thuddy thuddy fills the freezer come November....hope the deer don't lockdown....

Ok, you do realize we are talking about death rate? There is a huge difference between death rate and number of deaths, so to say covid is a deadlier sickness than the flu is a false statement when they both have roughly the same death rate.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Ok, you do realize we are talking about death rate? There is a huge difference between death rate and number of deaths, so to say covid is a deadlier sickness than the flu is a false statement when they both have roughly the same death rate.

time will tell....this bugger is relatively new....or is it

[KegRiver]

I take it that the conciseness is the Toronto Sun report is fake news.

I guess the numbers must be right then. After all the majority is always right.
That is why we have JT for Prime minister, the majority chose so he must be the right guy for the job.

[Ken07AOVette]

Covid is still being compared to 'flu'?

I dont see numbers from the first 8 months of the first 'flu'.

Maybe in 30 years the argument will be relevant?

[HVA7mm]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Covid is still being compared to 'flu'?

I dont see numbers from the first 8 months of the first 'flu'.

Maybe in 30 years the argument will be relevant?

Here's a good summary of the history of the flu, so the argument may already be a bit relevant and increase the more we learn about COVID 19.

The History of Influenza
Amanda Yasgar January 3, 2018 4 Comments

Clinical Micro, Microbiology1918 flu, Influenza, Spanish Flu


Influenza has a long and sordid record of menacing humans. Throughout the progression of science and the understanding of medicine, multiple instances of the flu have impacted various regions around the world. Some outbreaks have been more deadly and widespread than others, but our understanding has always grown. The flu has wreaked such worldwide havoc throughout history that two major conditions have been established to classify an outbreak as a full-blown pandemic. A flu pandemic needs to be both an entirely new strain of influenza A, and must spread to multiple continents and countries.

The first known reference to the flu comes from ancient documents written by Hippocrates as early as 412 BC. Known as the “father of medicine”, he described flu-like symptoms being experienced in northern Greece. In 1357 AD the word for influenza was born from the Italian word for “influence.” At that time, it was the common consensus that flu outbreaks were being influenced by the alignment of the stars. However, high quality historical data dating this far back is scarce and often difficult to interpret. Many respiratory illnesses have symptoms like those of the flu, so it can be challenging to categorize outbreaks dating back more than 300 years.

There are thought to have been 31 known instances of flu pandemics since the first unanimously agreed outbreak in 1580. This strain originated in Asia and swept across Africa, into Europe, and ultimately into America. There was a high mortality rate associated with this virus. European historical documents noted that within six months the infection had spread throughout all of Europe. Rome reported 8,000 deaths and much of Spain was severely impacted as well. In the Americas, over 90% of the population was sickened by the outbreak. A common method of treatment at this time was known as bloodletting which consisted of bleeding those who were ill until they were weak, pale and occasionally unconscious. It is highly likely that this healing practice contributed to the overall mortality rate of this major outbreak.

The 18th century experienced three major global flu outbreaks. The last pandemic of the three, dating 1781-1782, was the most severe. Originating in China, tens of millions of cases of infection were reported worldwide while the virus spread as quickly as modern transportation at the time would allow. Doctors were still ill-equipped to handle the disease. The majority of the medical community believed the flu was caused by the synchronization of certain atmospheric factors. Medical journals show theories attempting to correlate things like wind speed, temperature changes and barometric pressure with an influx of influenza illness. It would be another 160 years before a vaccine is developed.

By far the most famous and lethal outbreak of influenza was the 1918 Spanish Flu. The point of origin is disputed as the virus was believed to have broken out in multiple locations simultaneously. Between 1918 and 1920, it is estimated that 50 million people worldwide perished as a result of the H1N1 virus – over three times as many deaths than recorded in WWI! Aside from the overwhelming death toll, this pandemic was unique on another aspect; 99% of deaths were under the age of 65. The morbidity was highest for those ages 20 to 40 rather than for the typically vulnerable infants and elderly. Luckily, modern medicine had taken some advances since the last major outbreaks and doctors were placing the ill into quarantine to control the spread of infection. Increased hygiene and the use of disinfectants were the best combatants until antibiotics and vaccines could be developed in the not so distant future.

Between the years of 1935 and 1960, our medical knowledge of the flu virus and how it worked grew exponentially. The Spanish Flu demonstrated the great need for an influenza vaccine, but researchers were still struggling with how to grow and maintain the virus. It wasn’t until the early 1930s that Influenza A was officially isolated by the Medical Research Council at Mill Hill in London. By 1935, scientists had discovered a method to cultivate the flu virus by using fertilized hen eggs, and from there further research went into discovering how to inactivate the virus for human vaccines. Influenza B was discovered around 1942 which lead to even greater advancements in understanding the complex nature of the virus’s ability to consistently mutate. The first inactivated flu vaccine was licensed in the United States in 1945, and contained both influenza strains A and B. By the 1960s, Europe began licensing its first flu vaccines. By the 1980s, the world was well on its way to understanding the need to annually update the vaccine composition in order to stay current with mutations occurring on the viral level.

Today, influenza activity is monitored by labs around the world under the direction of the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO gathers this data and uses it to recommend regional vaccine formulas that will be the most effective for the next upcoming flu season. Three to four strains are chosen to be targeted in the vaccines each year (two strains of influenza A and one or two strains of influenza B). Currently, scientists are working on a new influenza vaccination formula that will universally protect against all strains of the flu, regardless of the current state of mutation. Once a universal vaccine is created, one of the only remaining challenges left to face will be ensuring the rapid availability of an effective vaccine when faced with a new global influenza pandemic.

[Talking moose]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rem338win]

Very well had it prior to the big reveal in spring.

Know at least 12 persinally that have tested positive. None come even to close in negative experience compared to my experience with H1N1 and Norwalk.

The worst of it, they described it as a bad cold. They are all well recovered and back to normal. Never even considered hospitalization.

Age range is 28-62.

[Talking moose]

H1N1 knocked me for a loop! Only time I’ve been sick in the last 20 years.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Covid is still being compared to 'flu'?

I dont see numbers from the first 8 months of the first 'flu'.

Maybe in 30 years the argument will be relevant?

By first flu do you mean the common flu?

Numbers for the common flu are estimates according to what I have read.
And those numbers are not reported until at least a year after the end of the flu season being looked at.

They do this to get the best possible data to base their estimates on from what I understand.

Apparently most of that data comes in the form of death certificates and autopsy reports.

I'm sure everyone knows, most cases of the common flu never wind up in hospital and are never reported to any official in any field.

That is way I've been saying from the beginning, the numbers we are seeing for Covid are meaningless in the sense that we have no actual figures to compare them to. All we have are estimates.

With the release of the Toronto Sun report even the numbers we are getting are in question. If that report is true then we really have no idea how many have died from this and maybe no idea how many have been infected.

If they are reporting deaths as caused by covid where covid may have had nothing to do with that death.
On what bases are we to believe them when they say they never get false positives when testing for covid.

Especially in light of the fact that just a couple of weeks ago they were admitting to false positives.

I think you are absolutely right, maybe in thirty years we will know what the truth is. But I doubt very much we will know this year or next.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I know that was true of the common flu, but this new flu is the most tracked in history. They have access to death certificates and autopsy reports, why not use them?

Besides, if they are estimates why aren't they saying so?

Not only that but how is it that they can claim zero false positives on their tests but can't come up with the actual number of true covids deaths.

If they would lead us to believe death counts are fact when they are actually estimates, then on what bases am I to believe that positive test results are not also estimates?

Hey Keg.

Here is a report published by the CDC: Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020

You can read the whole thing, but here is a direct, most relevant quote:

As of October 15, 216,025 deaths from COVID-19 have been reported in the United States; however, this might underestimate the total impact of the pandemic on mortality.

Overall, an estimated 299,028 excess deaths occurred from late January through October 3, 2020, with 198,081 (66%) excess deaths attributed to COVID-19. The largest percentage increases were seen among adults aged 25–44 years and among Hispanic or Latino persons.

And here is a graphic (depicting weekly numbers of deaths from all causes and from all causes excluding COVID-19 relative to the average expected number and the upper bound of the 95% prediction interval (A), and the weekly and total numbers of deaths from all causes and from all causes excluding COVID-19 above the average expected number and the upper bound of the 95% prediction interval (B) — National Vital Statistics System, United States, January–September 2020) from the same source:



Of course, these are estimates because mo one knows how many people were actually supposed to die.

Hope this helps.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if that is a factor in recovered COVID patients coming down with other respiratory ailments later down the line.

[Kurt505]

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

Hey Keg.

Here is a report published by the CDC: Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020

You can read the whole thing, but here is a direct, most relevant quote:

As of October 15, 216,025 deaths from COVID-19 have been reported in the United States; however, this might underestimate the total impact of the pandemic on mortality.

Overall, an estimated 299,028 excess deaths occurred from late January through October 3, 2020, with 198,081 (66%) excess deaths attributed to COVID-19. The largest percentage increases were seen among adults aged 25–44 years and among Hispanic or Latino persons.

And here is a graphic (depicting weekly numbers of deaths from all causes and from all causes excluding COVID-19 relative to the average expected number and the upper bound of the 95% prediction interval (A), and the weekly and total numbers of deaths from all causes and from all causes excluding COVID-19 above the average expected number and the upper bound of the 95% prediction interval (B) — National Vital Statistics System, United States, January–September 2020) from the same source:


Of course, these are estimates because no one knows how many people were actually supposed to die.

Hope this helps.

Is that last line a misprint or are you trying to be funny. What do you mean, were supposed to die? Where did that come from.


They claim to have real numbers, now they want to claim they have estimates only?

Sounds to me like damage control. Maybe the Toronto Sun report is true.

The old, if you can't baffle them with brilliance baffle them with cow manure.

This CDC page says nothing about estimates.
It does claim this data is from reports submitted to them, supposedly from reputable sources.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra...r100klast7days

So which is it, are they using reports or estimates?

[FishHunterPro]

I know two people so far ,40 and 34 and both just felt like they had a cold. One actually lost his taste and smell though.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Can I borrow that? It's to good to not share with my friends.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

I wonder if that is a factor in recovered COVID patients coming down with other respiratory ailments later down the line.

I think number one thing people should be wondering about is whether it is a thing at all rather than taking it as a fact because it was posted on a “mem” on the web.

I am glad that you nailed the “thing number two” by wondering if there are could other factors that may account for what is happening.

Overall, I find it funny that there are lots of people with little (likely zero or less) knowledge in related fields that state their opinions as fact about what is going.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

Hey Keg.

Here is a report published by the CDC: Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020

You can read the whole thing, but here is a direct, most relevant quote:

As of October 15, 216,025 deaths from COVID-19 have been reported in the United States; however, this might underestimate the total impact of the pandemic on mortality.

Overall, an estimated 299,028 excess deaths occurred from late January through October 3, 2020, with 198,081 (66%) excess deaths attributed to COVID-19. The largest percentage increases were seen among adults aged 25–44 years and among Hispanic or Latino persons.

And here is a graphic (depicting weekly numbers of deaths from all causes and from all causes excluding COVID-19 relative to the average expected number and the upper bound of the 95% prediction interval (A), and the weekly and total numbers of deaths from all causes and from all causes excluding COVID-19 above the average expected number and the upper bound of the 95% prediction interval (B) — National Vital Statistics System, United States, January–September 2020) from the same source:



Of course, these are estimates because mo one knows how many people were actually supposed to die.

Hope this helps.

For all the people who failed to understand what this link is saying - let me paraphrase it .......

The US Governments own CDC says there are another 198,091 deaths (almost DOUBLING) what has been reported because they were UNDER REPORTED .......

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Is that last line a misprint or are you trying to be funny. What do you mean, were supposed to die? Where did that come from.


They claim to have real numbers, now they want to claim they have estimates only?

Sounds to me like damage control. Maybe the Toronto Sun report is true.

The old, if you can't baffle them with brilliance baffle them with cow manure.

This CDC page says nothing about estimates.
It does claim this data is from reports submitted to them, supposedly from reputable sources.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra...r100klast7days

So which is it, are they using reports or estimates?

The estimated excess deaths. No one one knows how many people are supposed to die any given second. They can estimate that number, however, as they have done successfully for decades. Therefore, If you have one number in your calculations that is estimate, the result is also an estimate. In other words, with no covid, there would likely be 300,000 or so less deaths in the US from mid-or late January to October 3. Hope that makes sense.

These are hard facts. There is no “Damage control” as this data is easily verifiable and testable.

Similar reports are available for most developed world and all show the same trend. For Canada, if i recall correctly, there were a few thousand excess deaths from March till June, when things went back to “normal” in terms of mortalities. I didn't look for a while at those.


I have zero doubt that there are deaths recorded as Covid deaths that were actually caused by something else. It goes the same way the other way around. Its not an exact science. Is there someone here who knows how to properly account for Covid deaths and if their method is different from what the authorities are doing now? If it is, what are the differences in your suggested methods?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Can I borrow that? It's to good to not share with my friends.

Of course!

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

that'll get the covid juices flowing.....

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

that'll get the covid juices flowing.....

You inspired me to make my first meme, thanks buddy

[HalfBreed]

Not gonna lie, I laughed hard. Gotta love a spitter...

https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/2822f...-0242ac110004/

[ESOXangler]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

H1N1 knocked me for a loop! Only time I’ve been sick in the last 20 years.

I had it too! Wiped out our whole crew of 30 in 2 days. I was fevering for 7 days and that turned into a beauty case of double pneumonia. Total time down was 3 weeks.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

The estimated excess deaths. No one one knows how many people are supposed to die any given second. They can estimate that number, however, as they have done successfully for decades. Therefore, If you have one number in your calculations that is estimate, the result is also an estimate. In other words, with no covid, there would likely be 300,000 or so less deaths in the US from mid-or late January to October 3. Hope that makes sense.

These are hard facts. There is no “Damage control” as this data is easily verifiable and testable.

Similar reports are available for most developed world and all show the same trend. For Canada, if i recall correctly, there were a few thousand excess deaths from March till June, when things went back to “normal” in terms of mortalities. I didn't look for a while at those.


I have zero doubt that there are deaths recorded as Covid deaths that were actually caused by something else. It goes the same way the other way around. Its not an exact science. Is there someone here who knows how to properly account for Covid deaths and if their method is different from what the authorities are doing now? If it is, what are the differences in your suggested methods?

What's with the supposed to die comments? No one is supposed to die, you die, there is a cause, what is that cause, end of story.

If they can't tell a dead body from a live body they are in the wrong business.

They claim to have tests that accurately show who is infected and who isn't.

They tell us how many died today, or yesterday. They don't say, " we estimate that X number are supposed to die today, they state a number as fact.

The only thing missing is why did they die. If science can't figure that out what good is it?

If that were the case all of their numbers are meaningless.

To estimate how many might die, the only alternative to have died, they must first know for sure how many of the recorded deaths were in fact due to the cause reported.

Otherwise their estimates may be based on deaths from causes other then the subject cause.

You are buying into their double speak.

Estimates are for when they have no current data or for calculating the future. Not for reporting the present when they claim to have current reports of all covid related deaths.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

What's with the supposed to die comments? No one is supposed to die, you die, there is a cause, what is that cause, end of story.

If they can't tell a dead body from a live body they are in the wrong business.

They claim to have tests that accurately show who is infected and who isn't.

They tell us how many died today, or yesterday. They don't say, " we estimate that X number are supposed to die today, they state a number as fact.

The only thing missing is why did they die. If science can't figure that out what good is it?

If that were the case all of their numbers are meaningless.

To estimate how many might die, the only alternative to have died, they must first know for sure how many of the recorded deaths were in fact due to the cause reported.

Otherwise their estimates may be based on deaths from causes other then the subject cause.

You are buying into their double speak.

Estimates are for when they have no current data or for calculating the future. Not for reporting the present when they claim to have current reports of all covid related deaths.

It appears there may be some misunderstanding, Keg.

First, we can change the words “supposed to” to “would”, if you like. It does not really matter to me which one you prefer. It’s a number of people they expect to die, regardless of the cause. The same way, they do estimates for how many they expect to be born, for example.

Second, it is an estimate only because they estimate how many people would die in a “normal” year or, in this case, a period of time from January 26 to October 3, 2020, without a pandemic, natural disasters, and so on. And they are actually pretty good at that and they have been doing that for decades. They then take the actual total number of deaths from all causes and subtract what they estimated the deaths would be over the same period of time in “normal” circumstances/with no extraordinary events. Here is the definition in their own words:

Excess deaths are defined as the number of persons who have died from all causes, in excess of the expected number of deaths for a given place and time.

Thus, they are saying that the actual number of people who died during the period from January 26 to October 3, 2020 is higher than they estimated by almost 300,000 people. It is a very significant number.

It just seemed to me that you are trying to figure things out and I thought the information I provided helps to clarify things. Not sure if it did. To me personally, it is pretty clear what they are saying: in the period of time indicated, they expected x people to die; instead, it turned out x + 300,000 died of all causes during this very same period of time. Nothing more, nothing less. Where did these excess deaths come from? Has nothing to do with what’s written in death certificates. There were 300,000 more deaths in the 8-month period than “there should have been”. Everyone can make their own conclusions. People who wrote the article (all their names, qualifications, and affiliations are in the article, if you are interested to research further) made theirs and I quoted it in my post above (the first one, with the graphic).

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Ok, you do realize we are talking about death rate? There is a huge difference between death rate and number of deaths, so to say covid is a deadlier sickness than the flu is a false statement when they both have roughly the same death rate.

Kurt,

Nah, come on, you are wrong - no matter which way you slice it .......

Death rates can be measured in a few ways - But there isn't any one single way you can measure it, to indicate the Flu is anywhere near as dangerous as Covid ........ not even close .........

So ...... let me explain ........

There's already 5 times more deaths (218,000) this year alone than has been contributed to the flu and this pandemic is only 8 months old compared to the typical year where 40,000 people die of the flu.

And that's without even having Covid for a year !!!!! ...We are forecasted to have 300,000 deaths in 12 months of Covid - as opposed to 40,000 deaths by the flu on a typical flu year.

So death rates, based on frequency - Covid is higher. WAY WAY higher.

It will be something like 800% higher - mathematically and literally.

XXX

In terms of people who contract the virus and die versus those that survive - again the story is similar, but with much higher mortality rates.

It's already 30 times higher, and predicted to be up to 50 times higher by the time we hit a full year of covid, so death rates attributed to infections is also way worse with Covid.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by EZM

Kurt,

Nah, come on, you are wrong - no matter which way you slice it .......

Death rates can be measured in a few ways - But there isn't any one single way you can measure it, to indicate the Flu is anywhere near as dangerous as Covid ........ not even close .........

So ...... let me explain ........

There's already 5 times more deaths (218,000) this year alone than has been contributed to the flu and this pandemic is only 8 months old compared to the typical year where 40,000 people die of the flu.

And that's without even having Covid for a year !!!!! ...We are forecasted to have 300,000 deaths in 12 months of Covid - as opposed to 40,000 deaths by the flu on a typical flu year.

So death rates, based on frequency - Covid is higher. WAY WAY higher.

It will be something like 800% higher - mathematically and literally.

XXX

In terms of people who contract the virus and die versus those that survive - again the story is similar, but with much higher mortality rates.

It's already 30 times higher, and predicted to be up to 50 times higher by the time we hit a full year of covid, so death rates attributed to infections is also way worse with Covid.

Is there even such thing as death rate based on frequency? I’ve honestly never heard of such a thing??? The death rate is your chance of death if you contract it as far as I knew? Anyway, you’re posting all these numbers but what do they pertain to? Alberta? Canada? North America?

To be totally honest with you, the death rate whether it’s based on frequency or not doesn’t really matter much to me right now with all the other stuff that’s going on but it’s fun to check into.