@PitchingFan posted:The weird part is none had symptoms, either those that tested positive or those that were apartment mates. It is just weird that the ones who tested positive are free men before the ones who tested negative.
I wonder how the new CDC information out this weekend will affect college athletics?
Thats the problem, you don't have to have symptoms.
What new CDC information out this weekend?
@TPM It’s the 6% crap. For some reason, people in certain circles believe that if you catch COVID-19 and die, it shouldn’t count as a COVID-19 death if you have any other conditions that may have contributed to your death, either preexisting (say, COPD) or that you caught once the COVID-19 infection was in place (say, pneumonia). The claim is that if only 6% of COVID deaths tracked by CDC died of “COVID only”, then that means that it as deadly as the XXX (insert boogeyman) is making it out to be.
Nothing has changed, unfortunately.
@Senna posted:@TPM It’s the 6% crap. For some reason, people in certain circles believe that if you catch COVID-19 and die, it shouldn’t count as a COVID-19 death if you have any other conditions that may have contributed to your death, either preexisting (say, COPD) or that you caught once the COVID-19 infection was in place (say, pneumonia). The claim is that if only 6% of COVID deaths tracked by CDC died of “COVID only”, then that means that it as deadly as the XXX (insert boogeyman) is making it out to be.
Nothing has changed, unfortunately.
Well, that's one interpretation.....
Is this thread about to go off the rails? CDC is just stating facts. Too many Americans have co-morbitities of course.
Did anyone see the NY Times article yesterday that says the Covid PCR test is likely too sensitive? "The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who maybe carrying relatively insignificant amounts of he virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious." The article was about the need for more widespread, rapid testing which makes sense but I found that interesting.
Sons school has over 5,000 tests and just 3 positives from students - not sure if its the same person testing multiple times or 2 or 3 total people but amazing result.
I don't wholly buy into the 6% being the qualifier but they did make a change. I just have a problem with the numbers being excellerated. How can a person who dies in a wreck or dies of cancer or a heart attack be a Covid death? If it fits into the main Covid qualifiers then maybe but if they have large pre-existing conditions then Covid was a minimal factor not THE reason. If you are referring to people in certain circles, those of us who want the truth to be told, then put me in that circle. I'm tired of the lies that are being told to put people in fear and make bad decisions. It is no different than saying that certain circles believe that everyone who died in the past 6 months died of Covid whether they ever tested positive or not. If it was not THE main factor of their death then they did not die of Covid. That is no different than a person who has cancer dying in a car wreck. That is not a cancer death. Just give us the truth, not your agenda. Be the medical professionals that you are supposed to be is my statement to the medical community.
I posted this on Facebook, and so I'll post it here, too:
From the CDC site:
Comorbidities
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. For data on comorbidities, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm…
6% of the deaths where COVID-19 is the only cause mentioned equals (out of 182,149 deaths as of 1:02 PM 8/30/2020) is a grand total of 10,929. That means that 171,221 had underlying issues that contributed to their passing. All tragic deaths, and may God be with them all. The greatest number of deaths were in people over 55, especially in people over 65. But the hysteria created by the media is worse than the facts bear out. Pay attention to your favorite news outlet to see if they cover this story.
“Thank you very little.”
- Ty Webb
Ok, sorry I asked but let's leave the politics out of it.
Thank you.
@FL-KY Baseball Dad posted:For data on comorbidities, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm…6% of the deaths where COVID-19 is the only cause mentioned equals (out of 182,149 deaths as of 1:02 PM 8/30/2020) is a grand total of 10,929. That means that 171,221 had underlying issues that contributed to their passing. All tragic deaths, and may God be with them all. The greatest number of deaths were in people over 55, especially in people over 65. But the hysteria created by the media is worse than the facts bear out. Pay attention to your favorite news outlet to see if they cover this story.
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous interpretation. Comorbidities contribute to death in all sorts of medical issues. Some of these are entirely internal: if you are overweight with diabetes and have a heart attack, you're more likely to die. That's all within your body. Does that mean you didn't die of a heart attack? Or, some are entirely unrelated, as in PitchingFan's example - if you have cancer and die in a car accident, the cancer was irrelevant.
In the case of COVID, the coronavirus comes from outside, and yes, your co-morbidities make it more likely you will die. If there were no coronavirus, you wouldn't die of COVID. It's pretty obvious.
Since well over 50% of the US population has some kind of co-morbidity* that makes COVID serious and potentially fatal, what is even the point of this kind of analysis? To say we only have to protect the people with co-morbidities? That's a lot of people. And that is why 70+% of people in this country are seriously worried about this disease.
Another thread derailed - although this one was about COVID anyway.
*40% of Americans over the age of 20 are obese. 10% of the US population have diabetes, 33% have high blood pressure, 5% have COPD, 8% have asthma, 49% have heart disease, 15% have kidney disease. 13% are over the age of 65. Who on this site is not high-risk?
@anotherparent posted:Sorry, but this is a ridiculous interpretation. Comorbidities contribute to death in all sorts of medical issues. Some of these are entirely internal: if you are overweight with diabetes and have a heart attack, you're more likely to die. That's all within your body. Does that mean you didn't die of a heart attack? Or, some are entirely unrelated, as in PitchingFan's example - if you have cancer and die in a car accident, the cancer was irrelevant.
In the case of COVID, the coronavirus comes from outside, and yes, your co-morbidities make it more likely you will die. If there were no coronavirus, you wouldn't die of COVID. It's pretty obvious.
Since well over 50% of the US population has some kind of co-morbidity* that makes COVID serious and potentially fatal, what is even the point of this kind of analysis? To say we only have to protect the people with co-morbidities? That's a lot of people. And that is why 70+% of people in this country are seriously worried about this disease.
Another thread derailed - although this one was about COVID anyway.
*40% of Americans over the age of 20 are obese. 10% of the US population have diabetes, 33% have high blood pressure, 5% have COPD, 8% have asthma, 49% have heart disease, 15% have kidney disease. 13% are over the age of 65. Who on this site is not high-risk?
I disagree with your 70% are seriously worried about it. I know way more who view it more as an inconvenience than seriously worried about it.
therefore protect the vulnerable and the weak...no need to shut down the country
@FL-KY Baseball Dad posted:I posted this on Facebook, and so I'll post it here, too:
From the CDC site:
...
ComorbiditiesTable 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. For data on comorbidities, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm…
6% of the deaths where COVID-19 is the only cause mentioned equals (out of 182,149 deaths as of 1:02 PM 8/30/2020) is a grand total of 10,929. That means that 171,221 had underlying issues that contributed to their passing. All tragic deaths, and may God be with them all. The greatest number of deaths were in people over 55, especially in people over 65. But the hysteria created by the media is worse than the facts bear out. Pay attention to your favorite news outlet to see if they cover this story.
Crickets so far. Good news doesn’t pay the bills.
@TPM posted:Ok, sorry I asked but let's leave the politics out of it.
Thank you.
Since when is giving statistics from the CDC political?
@anotherparent posted:Sorry, but this is a ridiculous interpretation.
CDC stats are not an interpretation. They are not ridiculous. What they are is data. Data which should be used by people to make decisions about their own behavior.
What I find even more interesting and provocative are the overall deaths sorted by age. Take a look. Also look at the information presented above the graph. 
we've been told to follow the data and the science...until it doesnt fit an agenda anymore
@edcoach posted:therefore protect the vulnerable and the weak...no need to shut down the country
I agree, and I have posted before that I think colleges should be open.
BUT . . . since 50% of the population is in the "vulnerable and weak" category, how exactly do we protect them? Especially since most of those people live with others who might get infected and bring home the virus to them. That seems to be the $50 million question.
@TerribleBPthrower posted:I disagree with your 70% are seriously worried about it. I know way more who view it more as an inconvenience than seriously worried about it.
I'm only quoting polls. Fox News poll from July 19 showed 86% of respondents being concerned about the virus spreading, 81% report wearing a mask all or most of the time when in public, 71% favoring a national mask-wearing order indoors, 59% favor a national stay-in-place order for everyone except essential workers, etc. They haven't published a more recent poll on this issue. I guess it comes down to your definition of "seriously concerned."
@RoadRunner posted:CDC stats are not an interpretation. They are not ridiculous. What they are is data. Data which should be used by people to make decisions about their own behavior.
Data is data. Saying that because 90% of people who die of COVID had underlying conditions means trying to prevent that is "hysteria" is interpretation.
id say the vulnerable stay home as much as possible and people around them wear masks, sanitize, social distance etc..weve had other diseases/viruses break out way worse numbers wise and didnt shut down everything
Those who are truly concerned should be staying home. I don’t view most people I see doing everyday things as “seriously concerned”. Just because you wear a mask doesn’t make you seriously concerned.
There are people who are “seriously concerned” who take a lot of precautions and do everyday things. My grandmother is 92 and has asthma. She is seriously concerned and hasn’t left her house since February. She takes every precaution imaginable to avoid the Covid. She may not recover even with treatment. A ridiculously high number of people will recover with treatment.
Iowa just shut down all athletics for a week. 93 positive tests among athletes last week with a positivity rate of 11.4%.
Here's the problem with "trusting the numbers" etc., at leasts in Iowa. I report the numbers for my county daily in my online newspaper. For the county, I pull them from the Department of Public Health. The way they track the numbers has changed repeatedly.
Last week we found out that if you got tested in March and were negative, then tested again in August and were positive, it counted your positive test on the March number — a problem when the governor says the positivity rate in your community determines if you do online or in person school. Then they decided that instead of counting antigen positive tests among "undetermined" they should be added into the overall number, which resulted in my county getting about 123 additional positive tests in a day — a big change in a place with just 772 positives since March.
The deaths for our county were 1, then 2, then 3, then 2, now 5. Hard to figure that one out, but then last night, the number of deaths in Iowa suddenly went down by more than 200 on their web site, then it went back up to more than it was originally.
I don't know who to believe any more, but I was interested to see this article that on the different in beliefs between Republicans and Democrats. Here's the full article, but I thought the paragraph below was key.https://www.niemanlab.org/2020...c255f034d2-396350581
Our research found that Democrats and Republicans held genuine but different beliefs, not just about values or policies, but about basic facts.
In essence, differences are no longer really driven by politics, but are deeply ingrained in each of us. It's depressing, but explains a lot of the debate on COVID threads on this web site.
The difference in "facts and beliefs " between Republicans and Democrats is due to the fact that we no longer have a functioning news media in this country. People get their news, on both sides, from infotainment outlets who peddle editorial commentary tuned to play in a specific echo chamber as actual news. Objectivity is dead....
If you want to know what someone really thinks, check out what they said when no one was listening.
Back when no one was listening, 2001 thru 2019, planners didn't contemplate locking down entire societies for a virus such as this one.
Governments panicked in mid-March--and tossed the carefully prepared plans into the circular file-- after the publication of the Imperial College of London report.
NY Times, 3/17/20:
"American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public."
@22and25 posted:The difference in "facts and beliefs " between Republicans and Democrats is due to the fact that we no longer have a functioning news media in this country. People get their news, on both sides, from infotainment outlets who peddle editorial commentary tuned to play in a specific echo chamber as actual news. Objectivity is dead....
I don't think people are interested in real news, they want whatever fits their already established beliefs. That I think is part of the point of the study — people now believe so much in their core beliefs that no one can agree on any facts. It's a problem in trying to have a functioning society.
And objectivity never really lived. Thirty years ago my town had one newspaper published twice a week. On Mondays it published Republican editorials and on Wednesday it was Democratic. I sometimes think that might be the way to go.
40% of Americans over the age of 20 are obese. 10% of the US population have diabetes, 33% have high blood pressure, 5% have COPD, 8% have asthma, 49% have heart disease, 15% have kidney disease. 13% are over the age of 65. Who on this site is not high-risk?
A sad commentary on how many people don’t take care of themselves. A lot of it is lack of self discipline.
@Iowamom23 posted:
I don't think people are interested in real news, they want whatever fits their already established beliefs. That I think is part of the point of the study — people now believe so much in their core beliefs that no one can agree on any facts. It's a problem in trying to have a functioning society.
And objectivity never really lived. Thirty years ago my town had one newspaper published twice a week. On Mondays it published Republican editorials and on Wednesday it was Democratic. I sometimes think that might be the way to go.
IMO we are really underestimating how much the Information Revolution has altered society. The ability to curate one's own news feed and read and react to news immediately has destroyed the logic that used to govern political behavior: consume information usually from a center-left or center-right source, think about it for a while, discuss it with your friends, and then form and test an opinion. That now happens in under a minute, and the news sources are increasingly extreme b/c they're rewarded for extremism (clicks, likes, ad revenue). It's pretty interesting to think about imo.
@RoadRunner posted:CDC stats are not an interpretation. They are not ridiculous. What they are is data. Data which should be used by people to make decisions about their own behavior.
But using data would be following the science rather than emotion. We can’t have that!
@Iowamom23 posted:
I don't think people are interested in real news, they want whatever fits their already established beliefs. That I think is part of the point of the study — people now believe so much in their core beliefs that no one can agree on any facts. It's a problem in trying to have a functioning society.
And objectivity never really lived. Thirty years ago my town had one newspaper published twice a week. On Mondays it published Republican editorials and on Wednesday it was Democratic. I sometimes think that might be the way to go.
A big problem is people disrespecting and shouting down anyone who disagrees with them. There would be a lot more communication if people responding to something they disagree with, “Why do you believe that to be true?”
I have a friend whose parents, his wife and he have received every paycheck from the government or government funding. Of course he believes in big government. It pays the bills.
My father finished his career as part owner of a small company. I’ve owned small businesses for 36 years. I’m for less regulation and small government. It makes sense to anyone who owns a business.
My friend and I will never agree on big versus small government. So when we arrive there we back off ... because we’re friends.
@Iowamom23 posted:
I don't think people are interested in real news, they want whatever fits their already established beliefs. That I think is part of the point of the study — people now believe so much in their core beliefs that no one can agree on any facts. It's a problem in trying to have a functioning society.
And objectivity never really lived. Thirty years ago my town had one newspaper published twice a week. On Mondays it published Republican editorials and on Wednesday it was Democratic. I sometimes think that might be the way to go.
Hasn't this been the way of this whole mess? Most only looking for opinions that reinforced their own.
Still, you have to love it when people clamored about "going with the science" when there really was none. Now that there really is some science and data, many of those same people reject the science as insignificant.
@22and25 posted:Well, that's one interpretation.....
It is the right interpretation. Any other interpretation is incorrect.
Here's the exact wording from the CDC on how death certificates are filled out. You can find it at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf
"The cause-of-death section consists of two parts. Part I is for reporting a chain of events leading directly to death, with the immediate cause of death (the final disease, injury, or complication directly causing death) on Line a and the underlying cause of death (the disease or injury that initiated the chain of morbid events that led directly and inevitably to death) on the lowest used line.
Part II is for reporting all other significant diseases, conditions, or injuries that contributed to death but which did not result in the underlying cause of death given in Part I. The cause-of-death information should be YOUR best medical OPINION. A condition can be listed as “probable” even if it has not been definitively diagnosed."I
It works like this:
As for Part II, that's where all the other items go that contribute to the death. So items like obesity, smoking, etc. will go there.
All of these deaths, no matter where COVID-19 is listed, are because of COVID-19, regrettably.
If you don't understand it, here's something that may help, grim and regrettable as it may be:
Everyone knows that Chadwick Boseman died on Friday (rest in power). And you will undoubtedly read that he died of colon cancer. But what killed him wasn't necessarily the cancer in his colon. Rather, it was in all likelihood the spread of the cancer to the lymph nodes, and then on to other organs (such as the liver or pancreas). So while line 1 of Part I of his autopsy may list something such as liver failure as the immediate cause of death, the primary underlying cause will be colon cancer. Hence, he died because of colon cancer.
People rarely die in a vacuum, and the death process is often complex as hell. And COVID-19 seems hellbent on finding new and innovative ways to challenge the body.
I hope this helps to explain why any other interpretation of the death statistics is incorrect, and why there is no smoking gun, nor light at the end of the tunnel in this CDC data.
Senna, that was a lot of effort to try to be "right". What you don't realize is that you simply proved the point many here have been making. Covid has killed about 10,000 otherwise healthy people. That is tragic no doubt but not worthy of continuing to lock down large segments of society. The rest, according to the CDC, had on average 2.6 comorbidites. Since you seem to have an interest in breaking down the CDC data for the rest of us to understand, perhaps you could tell us what those common comorbidites were and what segment of the population is most effected by them in general. Here is a hint, the death rate by age will give you this answer. 5 to 40 year olds don't have hypertension, advanced cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes, etc in large numbers. Those that do can take measures to isolate themselves until herd immunity or a vaccine.
Cancelling activities, sports and school for 5 to 40 year olds is not consistent with the data as we understand it today. If they get Covid they will be fine if they even get sick at all.
In my house, among the two parents we have 4 co-morbidities, and no, not because of lack of discipline. So yes, the young people will be fine with covid, we just have to make sure they don't come into the same part of our house with us. How exactly does that work with young kids? Who maybe live with grandparents, too? I think colleges should be open and playing sports. We could put all the young kids into boarding schools and let them all live together, play sports, do whatever they want. Or, maybe we should put the 50% of the adult population with co-morbidities in quarantine camps, and let everyone else do what they want. But as long as all those K-12 kids are living with less-young people with risk factors, then your vision doesn't match with reality.
@anotherparent posted:In my house, among the two parents we have 4 co-morbidities, and no, not because of lack of discipline. So yes, the young people will be fine with covid, we just have to make sure they don't come into the same part of our house with us. How exactly does that work with young kids? Who maybe live with grandparents, too? I think colleges should be open and playing sports. We could put all the young kids into boarding schools and let them all live together, play sports, do whatever they want. Or, maybe we should put the 50% of the adult population with co-morbidities in quarantine camps, and let everyone else do what they want. But as long as all those K-12 kids are living with less-young people with risk factors, then your vision doesn't match with reality.
So keep your K-12 kids at home and isolated, it's a choice with easy accommodations that don't effect the millions of K-12 kids who live in a household with mid 40's and younger adults with no comorbidites.
That 50% of adults number you guys keep trotting out his heavily skewed toward the older population.
For those in serious search for the news, here’s a tip. It’s what I do every day multiple times. I keep 2 conservative leaning news sites and 2 liberal leaning sites up as 4 separate tabs on my iPad which is my main connection to the internet and news. If a story exists on all 4 sites, it’s news. Assuming you lean one way or the other, everything you’ll else you’ll find (largely hate) will either piss you off or make you happy - which is it’s sole intent.
@DanJ posted:For those in serious search for the news, here’s a tip. It’s what I do every day multiple times. I keep 2 conservative leaning news sites and 2 liberal leaning sites up as 4 separate tabs on my iPad which is my main connection to the internet and news. If a story exists on all 4 sites, it’s news. Assuming you lean one way or the other, everything you’ll else you’ll find (largely hate) will either piss you off or make you happy - which is it’s sole intent.
I set up Flipboard (an app) with news categories of interest. It gives me news and opinion from both sides. The mistake a lot of people make is confusing news with opinion. Unfortunately, news is now laced with opinion.
@anotherparent posted:In my house, among the two parents we have 4 co-morbidities, and no, not because of lack of discipline. So yes, the young people will be fine with covid, we just have to make sure they don't come into the same part of our house with us. How exactly does that work with young kids? Who maybe live with grandparents, too? I think colleges should be open and playing sports. We could put all the young kids into boarding schools and let them all live together, play sports, do whatever they want. Or, maybe we should put the 50% of the adult population with co-morbidities in quarantine camps, and let everyone else do what they want. But as long as all those K-12 kids are living with less-young people with risk factors, then your vision doesn't match with reality.
The reality is that society has already put accommodations into place for those that need accommodations. (For example, if your kids live with grandma, maybe they should have online vs in person school). We have done a phenomenal job innovating ways to identify and help those that are vulnerable. Those that are vulnerable have the right to knowledge and to decide how they want to live. People that are not vulnerable also have a right to live.
People make decisions about their health daily. What to eat. What supplements to take. Are the medications prescribed worth the risks of the side effects? Should I have a risky surgery? How many of our sons have had a surgical procedure that they would not have considered, except to extend their playing career? They all could have died from the anesthesia, infection or any number of complications.
@22and25 posted:So keep your K-12 kids at home and isolated, it's a choice with easy accommodations
That would be funny if it weren't tragic. I'll give you kids eighth grade and up, but for every kid under that age keeping a kid "home and isolated" means the "easy accommodation" of figuring out which parent is going to work from home, if that's possible and if it's not, how are they going to make sure the kids are cared for while home and isolated?
None of this is easy. Please don't pretend it is.
@Iowamom23 posted:That would be funny if it weren't tragic. I'll give you kids eighth grade and up, but for every kid under that age keeping a kid "home and isolated" means the "easy accommodation" of figuring out which parent is going to work from home, if that's possible and if it's not, how are they going to make sure the kids are cared for while home and isolated?
None of this is easy. Please don't pretend it is.
Serious question: are you suggesting to keep all kids home because some families have that difficult choice?
@Iowamom23 posted:That would be funny if it weren't tragic. I'll give you kids eighth grade and up, but for every kid under that age keeping a kid "home and isolated" means the "easy accommodation" of figuring out which parent is going to work from home, if that's possible and if it's not, how are they going to make sure the kids are cared for while home and isolated?
None of this is easy. Please don't pretend it is.
Not pretending anything. In the context of the point I was quoting it's really quite simple. That context was the parents have comorbidites that put them at risk and they don't want the kids bringing Covid home. If parents are staying home to protect the family from Covid due to a household member's comorbidites, they are home to provide supervision and direction on home based school options. If the parents are going out to work then they probably appreciate the option of sending their kids to school.
When we take those options away, particularly when the science doesn't support it, we are making it more complicated than it needs to be.
@22and25 posted:Senna, that was a lot of effort to try to be "right". What you don't realize is that you simply proved the point many here have been making. Covid has killed about 10,000 otherwise healthy people. That is tragic no doubt but not worthy of continuing to lock down large segments of society. The rest, according to the CDC, had on average 2.6 comorbidites. Since you seem to have an interest in breaking down the CDC data for the rest of us to understand, perhaps you could tell us what those common comorbidites were and what segment of the population is most effected by them in general. Here is a hint, the death rate by age will give you this answer. 5 to 40 year olds don't have hypertension, advanced cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes, etc in large numbers. Those that do can take measures to isolate themselves until herd immunity or a vaccine.
Cancelling activities, sports and school for 5 to 40 year olds is not consistent with the data as we understand it today. If they get Covid they will be fine if they even get sick at all.
You said that my original post was one interpretation. Perhaps you meant to say that this proves that “C-19 is not as deadly to those without preexisting conditions/under XX age”. I don’t disagree with that statement. Don’t think anyone would. This has been a common “known” for 4 months.
But as for the original claim (not yours) of “This news is HUGE and should change entirely the way we deal with covid 19”, which is what I was addressing nearly a page ago? Not the case. Nothing has changed.
