Alberio said: "I'm pretty sure we don't know the true numbers as hospitals have actually started calling deaths COVID-19 caused when the patients had many underlying factors and were likely to die from any of those. "
Likely to die from these underlying factors, Alberio? Last I heard from the docs is that the underlying factors make you more susceptible to getting the virus, and give you a far lesser chance of surviving if you do get it. I've just given you my source of my opinion, what's the source of yours, other than you want it to be so to justify your "the sky is not falling" theory? Yes, the dead were likely to die from any of the underlying causes at some point, because we all die from underlying causes except all those the virus has killed who didn't have underlying factors to begin with, but were all those with underlying factors all likely to die from them within the same 3 months? Really! And if it's only 40,000 who have died, is that suddenly a victory?
Alberio said: "Why, because of the money paid from the Corona Virus fund." I haven't the foggiest notion what this sentence means.
Alberio said: "I also believe nobody really knows how many people have had the virus and survived and were never tested." I agree, but I don't understand it's relevance to your position. Moreover, how does that diminish the fact that over 1 million are known to have gotten the virus and over 60,000 (or maybe only 40,000 if that makes you happy) have died from it in just a few months?
Alberio said: " Until we have herd immunity, this economy will produce many more deaths due to drugs, alcoholism, abuse and other social ills." Please cite your sources, other than from 45. What are the reputable academic studies that have shown this? Fox News and conspiracy theorists don't count. Maybe you're right, but I want sources, not opinion. Last time I checked, 40,000 or 60,000 (as of Apr. 29,2020) deaths is a pretty big number. Please tell me how many have to die before you believe the sky is falling?
Is it 74,000 by August (the latest projection under that model's assumptions) that the White House is now using, or 1,000,000, or 6,000,000? The lieutenant governor of Texas said in relation to the economy and the number of deaths from the virus that "some things are more important than life." Please go tell that to the families of the 40,000. Their sky sure fell.
Albiero said: "You are not required to mingle unprotected, so stay sheltered in place if that works for you."
Oh, I will my friend, I will. And again, I urge you to mingle among the church crowd and the restaurants and the ski slopes (Oh, wait, the ski slopes closed because of the sudden number of deaths of those without underlying factors to begin with.) and report back to us in a few weeks. But you have to give this a fair test and do your mingling in a place where there are many cases of the virus. Mingling in a county with 5 cases in three months is hardly a fair test compared to those of us living in urban areas.
As for the relation of all this to photography, Canon staff are working from home, my doctors are working from home, Adobe staff are working from home, Mike's camera staff are working from home and their stores are closed. Somebody thinks there's a problem.
But you feel free to mingle and live long and prosper.
Certainly rcarol. Sorry if I caused any confusion.
Gallimaufry wrote:
Alberio said: "I'm pretty sure we don't know the true numbers as hospitals have actually started calling deaths COVID-19 caused when the patients had many underlying factors and were likely to die from any of those. "
Likely to die from these underlying factors, Alberio? Last I heard from the docs is that the underlying factors make you more susceptible to getting the virus, and give you a far lesser chance of surviving if you do get it. I've just given you my source of my opinion, what's the source of yours, other than you want it to be so to justify your "the sky is not falling" theory? Yes, the dead were likely to die from any of the underlying causes at some point, because we all die from underlying causes except all those the virus has killed who didn't have underlying factors to begin with, but were all those with underlying factors all likely to die from them within the same 3 months? Really! And if it's only 40,000 who have died, is that suddenly a victory?
Alberio said: "Why, because of the money paid from the Corona Virus fund." I haven't the foggiest notion what this sentence means.
Alberio said: "I also believe nobody really knows how many people have had the virus and survived and were never tested." I agree, but I don't understand it's relevance to your position. Moreover, how does that diminish the fact that over 1 million are known to have gotten the virus and over 60,000 (or maybe only 40,000 if that makes you happy) have died from it in just a few months?
Alberio said: " Until we have herd immunity, this economy will produce many more deaths due to drugs, alcoholism, abuse and other social ills." Please cite your sources, other than from 45. What are the reputable academic studies that have shown this? Fox News and conspiracy theorists don't count. Maybe you're right, but I want sources, not opinion. Last time I checked, 40,000 or 60,000 (as of Apr. 29,2020) deaths is a pretty big number. Please tell me how many have to die before you believe the sky is falling?
Is it 74,000 by August (the latest projection under that model's assumptions) that the White House is now using, or 1,000,000, or 6,000,000? The lieutenant governor of Texas said in relation to the economy and the number of deaths from the virus that "some things are more important than life." Please go tell that to the families of the 40,000. Their sky sure fell.
Albiero said: "You are not required to mingle unprotected, so stay sheltered in place if that works for you."
Oh, I will my friend, I will. And again, I urge you to mingle among the church crowd and the restaurants and the ski slopes (Oh, wait, the ski slopes closed because of the sudden number of deaths of those without underlying factors to begin with.) and report back to us in a few weeks. But you have to give this a fair test and do your mingling in a place where there are many cases of the virus. Mingling in a county with 5 cases in three months is hardly a fair test compared to those of us living in urban areas.
As for the relation of all this to photography, Canon staff are working from home, my doctors are working from home, Adobe staff are working from home, Mike's camera staff are working from home and their stores are closed. Somebody thinks there's a problem.
But you feel free to mingle and live long and prosper.
Alberio said: "I'm pretty sure we don't know ... (
show quote)
I got this from the directly from the NIH:
"Alcohol-Related Deaths:
An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. The first is tobacco, and the second is poor diet and physical inactivity."
That means that more than 88,000 people die from tobacco annually and the same for poor diet and physical activity. I'm not taking sides. I'm just putting out some facts as published by the NIH, not #45. But you can look it up for yourself if you have any doubts about these numbers.
rcarol, I don't doubt the numbers you've presented, but 1), please note that these are annual figures. The covid deaths have happened (and are still happening) in less than 3 months. And 2) while the NIH numbers are enlightening and show the seriousness of drinking while living, they don't have anything to do with the covid lockdown causing more deaths from alcohol-related causes, as floated by 45 and Alberio. The NIH numbers will be useful for a before and after comparison, should anyone reputable ever publish such a study.
Gallimaufry wrote:
rcarol, I don't doubt the numbers you've presented, but 1), please note that these are annual figures. The covid deaths have happened (and are still happening) in less than 3 months. And 2) while the NIH numbers are enlightening and show the seriousness of drinking while living, they don't have anything to do with the covid lockdown causing more deaths from alcohol-related causes, as floated by 45 and Alberio. The NIH numbers will be useful for a before and after comparison, should anyone reputable ever publish such a study.
rcarol, I don't doubt the numbers you've presented... (
show quote)
I think that our president is a little overly sensitive regarding alcohol considering that his brother died at a relatively young age due to alcoholism.
rcarol, from your posts you seem to be a nice person. So let me say I'm sorry his brother died, but I don't have anything else to say concerning how this fact relates to the topic we've been discussing.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.