Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Corona Virus

Ja Rhule

By Ja Rhule,
in Huddle Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Tbe Grand Master

Tbe

Posted
Posted
Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

No. They think we're under-counting. Likely by a lot.

Exactly, that’s my point. Even if someone believes that hospitals are over counting deaths, that number wouldn’t be enough to overcome the huge numbers of people who died at home.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wolfcop Grand Master

Wolfcop

Posted
Posted

On the flip side of that, there are a ton of asymptomatic/undiagnosed mild cases cases so the death rate might still be about the same, which is higher than the flu, but not high enough to cripple the economy for years. Those who are high risk should stay at home. Otherwise, folks have to get things going again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paa Langfart Grand Master

Paa Langfart

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Wolfcop said:

On the flip side of that, there are a ton of asymptomatic/undiagnosed mild cases cases so the death rate might still be about the same, which is higher than the flu, but not high enough to cripple the economy for years. Those who are high risk should stay at home. Otherwise, folks have to get things going again. 

That horse has left the barn.  The economy's is going to be crippled for years. About 40%of our population has at least one condition that puts them at high risk.  About half of them will totally change their lives until there is a vaccine or proven treatment.  Any one who thinks the economy is going back to the good old days are living in la la land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paa Langfart Grand Master

Paa Langfart

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, CaliPanthers said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/denver.cbslocal.com/2020/05/14/coronavirus-montezuma-county-coroner-alcohol-poisoning-covid-death/amp/

Within a week, local Montezuma County Coroner George Deavers determined Yellow had died of acute alcohol poisoning, his blood alcohol measured at .55, nearly twice the lethal limit.

“It was almost double what the minimum lethal amount was in the state”, said Deavers, during an interview with CBS4.

But Deavers said that before he even signed the death certificate, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had already categorized Yellow’s death as being due to COVID-19 and it was tabulated that way on the state’s website.

“I can see no reason for this”, said Deavers.

Yellow’s death is the latest in Colorado raising eyebrows over the way the CDPHE is reclassifying deaths that runs contrary to what doctors and coroners initially ruled.

Last month, a CBS4 Investigation revealed the state health department reclassified three deaths at a Centennial nursing home as COVID-19 deaths, despite the fact attending physicians ruled all three were not related to coronavirus.

  Yep. Its just a little flu folks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kass Mentor

kass

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, CaliPanthers said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/denver.cbslocal.com/2020/05/14/coronavirus-montezuma-county-coroner-alcohol-poisoning-covid-death/amp/

Within a week, local Montezuma County Coroner George Deavers determined Yellow had died of acute alcohol poisoning, his blood alcohol measured at .55, nearly twice the lethal limit.

“It was almost double what the minimum lethal amount was in the state”, said Deavers, during an interview with CBS4.

But Deavers said that before he even signed the death certificate, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had already categorized Yellow’s death as being due to COVID-19 and it was tabulated that way on the state’s website.

“I can see no reason for this”, said Deavers.

Yellow’s death is the latest in Colorado raising eyebrows over the way the CDPHE is reclassifying deaths that runs contrary to what doctors and coroners initially ruled.

Last month, a CBS4 Investigation revealed the state health department reclassified three deaths at a Centennial nursing home as COVID-19 deaths, despite the fact attending physicians ruled all three were not related to coronavirus.

And this case would be representative of and show what? So how many of these 100.000 deaths are over reporting? 

The over or under reporting is very easily proven by comparing the death toll 2020 with a combination of let's say, the last five years and see if there is any spikes in dead people. 

Wait, didn't NY Times already do this kind of experiment... 

Conclusion,  under reporting... 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
45catfan Grand Master

45catfan

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Tbe said:

Exactly, that’s my point. Even if someone believes that hospitals are over counting deaths, that number wouldn’t be enough to overcome the huge numbers of people who died at home.

People dying at home were largely assumed to have COVID-19 if autopsy's were foregone.  It was easier at the height of the pandemic in places like NYC just to code deaths COVID-19 and move on.  Sure a sizable portion of them were deaths due to the virus, but not in every case.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cookinbrak Grand Master

cookinbrak

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Wolfcop said:

On the flip side of that, there are a ton of asymptomatic/undiagnosed mild cases cases so the death rate might still be about the same, which is higher than the flu, but not high enough to cripple the economy for years. Those who are high risk should stay at home. Otherwise, folks have to get things going again. 

Where do you shop for groceries? A specific store, not just a chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kass Mentor

kass

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Colorado has actually been one of the more transparent states in terms of numbers. We're actually dividing our numbers between deaths "caused by COVID" and deaths "with COVID" that weren't necessarily a direct result of COVID.

Any comparison against normal death toll? To see if there is excessive number of deaths compared to other years?

And does any state provide statistics regarding the day of death.

When I have tried to find information, all I find is hmm..  "today's report is x new deaths" but it doesn't say when the people actually died.

 

Sorry for directing this to you, but if Colorado have good numbers maybe I will take a look at whatever website they use to publish this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kass Mentor

kass

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, kass said:

And does any state provide statistics regarding the day of death.

When I have tried to find information, all I find is hmm..  "today's report is x new deaths" but it doesn't say when the people actually died.

Found it. And yes, good statistics. Even death date. And no covid deaths where some of my relatives live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes21 Mentor

Wes21

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, kass said:

And this case would be representative of and show what? So how many of these 100.000 deaths are over reporting? 

The over or under reporting is very easily proven by comparing the death toll 2020 with a combination of let's say, the last five years and see if there is any spikes in dead people. 

Wait, didn't NY Times already do this kind of experiment... 

Conclusion,  under reporting... 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

 

It's a good idea, but it's not apples to apples.  Go back and look at how New York was turning away people who went tot he hospital, and how the shutdown of other types of access to medicine has led to deaths not directly COVID.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • strato
      It is time to Consider the Likelihood of WR at #19

      By strato · Posted

      We are in a unique situation here. Just my opinion. Three things: Moton’s playing health has been gradually declining as he is aging, while his contract is a drag on the payroll.  Something will give with him sooner than later but I think 2026 could be it.  So.. need a right tackle by 2027. At the latest.    Icky’s individual situation is unique as well. They would have had an extension done by now if not for the injury. We only have him for this year. With no assurance he will ever be the same player.  It would be reckless just to assume. Now we have Walker for one year. And that is a major relief. Maybe he is the answer, but the team that knows him best let him go and it was cheap for us to sign him. So how much did they value him?    We look to be needing two tackles by 2027.  And have poo for depth this year as well. So anyway we could draft a guy for 2027 RT and groom him this year, and see how Icky does, and act as needed in 2027. Spread out filling the two holes over 2 years.    Then I remember, hey if Bryce doesn’t get a Lot more consistent do they extend him? Hoping not, if he isn’t really good.    So then we are looking at the 2027 draft which people say is gonna be loaded with QBs. If we need a LT and a QB what is the pick gonna get spent on?   Taking into account the recovery success rates cited here on the Icky surgery, you might want to plan for him to not be the same player. rather than assume he will be and get caught with your pants down.  It is a tough situation.    And factor in that it is critically important to protect this QB, always, but especially this year where it is said to be make or break. And how you might feel about that.    All of it points to a real possibility that these things converge in the negative, like Bruce sucks and Icky is not the same. In that case if you want to be assured of getting LT secured, the only place you can do that through the draft could be very well be 2026 1st round.     For me, I would like to err on the side of caution.  Cover for these outcomes. It wouldn’t be fun. Added benefit is if we do have a tackle go down this year we will have a guy there. Because I don’t know what we have now.  
    • flagfootballcoach28
      Mike Kaye: “I would keep a pretty close eye on {KC Concepcion}.”

      By flagfootballcoach28 · Posted

      I agree. In a perfect world I wouldn’t want to draft another WR, but in this draft it’s fine based on the value of who will be there at #19.  All of the top tier guys worth pick #19 at other positions of need will be long gone. Only exception is Dillon Thieneman, but he’s almost a shoe in for the Vikings as the Harrison Smith replacement. Some posters on here want to draft an OT just to check a box without realizing the concerns and risk that comes along with said player. Sounds like XL to me… desperately drafting need… KC is a pretty safe player.  Produced all 3 years in college and last year in the SEC vs a lot of top corners in this years draft. He single handily dropped the South Carolina CB Brandon Cisse’s draft stock with how bad he abused him.   Sometimes it’s best to try and hit a double instead of going for the home run. This draft screams “go for the double”. Esp in the first. 
    • TheSpecialJuan
      Mike Kaye: “I would keep a pretty close eye on {KC Concepcion}.”

      By TheSpecialJuan · Posted

      Look at what the Bears have done with Caleb Williams, drafting playmaking WR's and TE's and making it easier for him to operate the offense. Conception is perfect for what the offense needs (speed and someone who can make defenders miss) and as today, April 11th, I think he's the pick @19 
×
×
  • Create New...