- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@no1marauder saidIts called google (try it sometime).
Then what "co-morbidities" are you relying on for your unsubstantiated claim that most who died from COVID would have passed away in the "very near future regardless of COVID"?
https://www.jwatch.org/na51296/2020/04/03/how-comorbidities-affect-covid-19-severity-us
"To compare the effects of age and comorbidity on a U.S. population of COVID-19 patients, an analysis was performed on 7162 ( 5.8% ) of a total 122,653, reported as of March 28, 2020, for whom information on underlying health conditions or risk factors was known. Among these patients, 37.6 % were judged to have one or more underlying conditions or risk factors.
These comorbidities were more common in those requiring hospitalization ( 71% ) and intensive care ( 78% ) than in those not requiring hospitalization ( 27% ). The most commonly reported conditions were diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease, and cardiac disease. Patients ≥65 years of age with or without underlying conditions were 2 to 3 times more likely to require hospitalization and admission to intensive care than were those 19 to 64 years of age. Data on patients who died were too sparse to establish case-fatality rates and their relationship to comorbidities, but the vast majority of deaths ( 94% ) occurred in patients with underlying conditions."
I added the emphasis so you wouldn't miss it. And before you say anything about Diabetes, I clearly stated Diabetes was a factor in the elderly population.
Contrast that list with the CDC top 10 causes of death:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm
Have a Good Day Sir (or Mam)
19 Apr 20
@eladar saidBut these have died of something they caught quite recently. You do realise it’s only March and Sweden is one of the most naturally socially distanced nations on the planet.
Natural causes, many of which would be dead soon enough.
How many people die in Sweden every year?
Found it, about 90k people
19 Apr 20
@earl-of-trumps saidtry reading eladers posts about the elderly not having long to live anyway before playing the ‘wannabe duchess’ card, it’s gonna get really old really quick.
@no1marauder said "Yes, most of the deaths in Sweden are of the elderly, who's lives are apparently worthless to right wingers: "
Here comes another wannabe D64!!
Nice shot, man. Nice.
19 Apr 20
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidSo you are saying only have lock downs for people living in high density cities?
But these have died of something they caught quite recently. You do realise it’s only March and Sweden is one of the most naturally socially distanced nations on the planet.
In any case, Sweden is the only country testing the free country model. So far, Sweden's results are comparable to the authoritarian state approach.
19 Apr 20
@eladar saidIf you consider their closest neighbors Finland and Norway users of the "authoritarian state approach", Sweden's results are hardly "comparable"; they are far worse and likely to get even more so.
So you are saying only have lock downs for people living in high density cities?
In any case, Sweden is the only country testing the free country model. So far, Sweden's results are comparable to the authoritarian state approach.
19 Apr 20
2 edits
@joe-shmo saidAnd that supports your claim that a majority would have died in the "very near future" how?
Its called google (try it sometime).
https://www.jwatch.org/na51296/2020/04/03/how-comorbidities-affect-covid-19-severity-us
"To compare the effects of age and comorbidity on a U.S. population of COVID-19 patients, an analysis was performed on 7162 ( 5.8% ) of a total 122,653, reported as of March 28, 2020, for whom information on underlying health conditions or risk f ...[text shortened]... of death:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm
Have a Good Day Sir (or Mam)
Oh, this part:
"Data on patients who died were too sparse to establish case-fatality rates and their relationship to comorbidities".
Or this:
"Patients ≥65 years of age with or without underlying conditions were 2 to 3 times more likely to require hospitalization and admission to intensive care than were those 19 to 64 years of age."
19 Apr 20
@no1marauder saidYou are a liar. Simple enough.
If you consider their closest neighbors Finland and Norway users of the "authoritarian state approach", Sweden's results are hardly "comparable"; they are far worse and likely to get even more so.
19 Apr 20
@kevcvs57 saidItaly is the country putting Carona virus patients I to old folks homes.
try reading eladers posts about the elderly not having long to live anyway before playing the ‘wannabe duchess’ card, it’s gonna get really old really quick.
Too bad the truth of what I said earlier, that 80 somethings generally do not have much linger to live. If you cannot face facts, it is no wonder you hold the views you hold.
19 Apr 20
@eladar saidRight wingers amusingly call people "liars" on this site for making easily provable statements of fact that contrast with the propaganda they have gullibly accepted without question.
You are a liar. Simple enough.
Deaths per 1 million population:
Finland: 17
Norway: 30
Sweden: 152
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
19 Apr 20
@eladar saidIn the US, an 80 year old man can expect to live on average another 8 1/3 years; a woman 9 3/4. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Italy is the country putting Carona virus patients I to old folks homes.
Too bad the truth of what I said earlier, that 80 somethings generally do not have much linger to live. If you cannot face facts, it is no wonder you hold the views you hold.
They'd have about a 5% chance of dying in that year.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
19 Apr 20
@no1marauder saidSo do they after catching Covid! It’s a 7.8% mortality rate for people 80 and above. Why are you not compiling this?
In the US, an 80 year old man can expect to live on average another 8 1/3 years; a woman 9 3/4. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
They'd have about a 5% chance of dying in that year.
19 Apr 20
@joe-shmo saidSo what?
So do they after catching Covid! It’s a 7.8% mortality rate for people 80 and above. Why are you not compiling this?
Why should we accept a more than doubling of the number of deaths for older Americans? What is gained by doing so?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
19 Apr 20
@no1marauder saidTo the first point: We’ll just wait and see.
And that supports your claim that a majority would have died in the "very near future" how?
Oh, this part:
"Data on patients who died were too sparse to establish case-fatality rates and their relationship to comorbidities".
Or this:
"Patients ≥65 years of age with or without underlying conditions were 2 to 3 times more likely to require hospitalization and admission to intensive care than were those 19 to 64 years of age."
To the next: > 65 Thats 2 to 3 times more likely to be hospitalized or need intensive care. That does not say “2 or 3 times more likely to die”
You are grasping a straws.
19 Apr 20
@joe-shmo saidI'm trying to grasp where anything you've presented supports your statement that the majority of people who died of COVID would have died in the "very near future" even if they hadn't caught COVID.
To the first point: We’ll just wait and see.
To the next: > 65 Thats 2 to 3 times more likely to be hospitalized or need intensive care. That does not say “2 or 3 times more likely to die”
You are grasping a straws.
Obviously, I'm failing since you have produced nothing of any sort to support such a claim. Maybe you should simply withdraw it.