patrick.net

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

Onvacation says

Either you died FROM or WITH.

WITH = FROM, just reported twice?

Apparently.

The data the CDC puts out implies that most people die FROM and only a small percentage die WITH.

Onvacation says

The data the CDC puts out implies that most people die FROM and only a small percentage die WITH.

While it has been a while since I looked at the NYC public health department database, which has a much slicker presentation then back at the start of the hysteria, they even defined comordidities to include, as I recall, diabetes, COPD, hypertension, possibly one or two more conditions. And what they reported was directly opposite to what you are saying that the CDC reports, that is, that older folks without comorbidities had very low mortality risk. But older folks with comorbidities had significant mortality risk.

It stands to reason that as you age, the abuse you have visited upon your body adds up, combined with just a bad choice of parents. Ubelievable!

WookieMan says

I still don't know how I didn't/haven't gotten it.

I think the stats said ~30% of cases are completely asymptomatic? So 1 in 3 in chance you had it but didn't know.

Tho...I'm assuming 30% applies to all ages, which probably isn't a good assumption. I would guess younger/healthier people are more likely to be asymptomatic.

I think it was Clif High who said that since the vaccines, not only the funeral industry, but estate lawyers saw their business jump massively in Washington state. Because there are some older parents who have older children, he also said the estates were sometimes collapsing to the grandchildren and peripheral heirs because the vaccines nailed two generations.

My wife has a gym friend who told her two friends, a husband and a wife, had just died very close together. They both had cancer remission for years, and were healthy, but got vaccinated, and within months after vaccines, both of their cancers returned and they are dead, lasted less than a year after vax.

Onvacation says

My point is, how can FROM be almost as much as WITH which is what they quote as TOTAL deaths.

I'm not clear what you mean here. Are you saying that when they say "this month X total people died of covid" that X always equals the WITH category deaths?

I mean the word "of" in the above quote to mean those who died "while having covid" - so both those who died directly from covid, as well as those who maybe covid pushed them over the edge - in either case, they died and they had covid near their time of death.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

And what they reported was directly opposite to what you are saying that the CDC reports, that is, that older folks without comorbidities had very low mortality risk. But older folks with comorbidities had significant mortality risk.

Comorbidities are not included in CDC data. What did you think I was saying?

The fact is more than one in three people that Onvacation says

Update 91%

I forgot to include covid deaths among people over 85.

One in four Covid Deaths were from people over 85. The total percentage of deaths from covid among people 50 and over was 93%. 75% of covid victims were over 65. It was more deadly to old people.

If you trust the CDC and believe the data.

Onvacation says

Comorbidities are not included in CDC data. What did you think I was saying?

WITH what, then, if not comorbidities? How does Yeardon put it - you're at death's door, and something will push you over the edge. If not COVID, then community acquired pneumonia, perhaps.

Hircus says

Onvacation says

My point is, how can FROM be almost as much as WITH which is what they quote as TOTAL deaths.

I'm not clear what you mean here. Are you saying that when they say "this month X total people died of covid" that X always equals the WITH category deaths?

Check out the graph below.

They count WITH separately from FROM. It's confusing and I can't find any clarification from the CDC.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

WITH what, then, if not comorbidities?

I'm Just graphing the CDC data.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

WITH what, then, if not comorbidities? How does Yeardon put it - you're at death's door, and something will push you over the edge. If not COVID, then community acquired pneumonia, perhaps.

Are you implying the pandemic was manipulated?

Onvacation says

Are you implying the pandemic was manipulated?

If he isn't, I am!

We didn't have a pandemic. It's all bullshit. Remember when two hospital ships from the military were anchored and left unused? Remember the panic for ventilators, which were never used, and were just sent to a landfill? Nobody knows anybody that died from it at work.

I am quite certain there was a new disease, but it just another cold/flu - maybe initially a bit more dangerous, but it attenuated. Now it's just another stupid coronavirus. It's just silly.

richwicks says

We didn't have a pandemic. It's all bullshit. Remember when two hospital ships from the military were anchored and left unused? Remember the panic for ventilators, which were never used, and were just sent to a landfill? Nobody knows anybody that died from it at work.

I agree.

There was never a serious pandemic. Fauci and Daszak maniupulated a bat virus in Wuhan to make it much more contagious and somewhat more dangerous, but 99.8% of the population were never in danger. The version Fauci and Daszak created was about twice as bad as the normal flu (which kills about 0.1% of people who get it) but now the original Wuhan virus is gone.

I still do not know anyone who died from the virus, or even anyone who got seriously ill.

The virus has likely a lower mortality than the flu. 80% of deaths were just bullshit other deaths while "testing positive" within 30 days or so (whatever that means, with enough rounds of pcr everyone is positive). Plus a novel virus hits harder in the beginning, there is a lot of immunity against the flu in the population, the same is true for sars cov 2 by now. Maybe in the very beginning it hit harder than the flu, but it's hard to tell with all the propaganda out there and fake tests. Having had both (always unjabbed) I can def say that the flu is worse.

The deaths from the flu went to zero in 2020, while a respiratory illness with similar characteristics caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The CDC statistics have zero credibility.

Patrick says

I still do not know anyone who died from the virus, or even anyone who got seriously ill.

I do! They were vaxxed.

Misc says

The deaths from the flu went to zero in 2020, while a respiratory illness with similar characteristics caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The CDC statistics have zero credibility.

Not zero but they did dive. If you believe the CDC data.

Onvacation says

Check out the graph below.

They count WITH separately from FROM. It's confusing and I can't find any clarification from the CDC.

I don't see anything wrong with it, which is why I'm asking you to clarify, because I feel like maybe I'm missing the obvious. Assuming your answer to my question is "yes":

The way I look at it, there's probably 3 categories here:

1) "died with covid / multiple causes / death spiral"
2) "died directly from covid"
3) "BOTH 1&2"

They only show us 2 categories in the dataset, which are #2 & #3.
#2 is called "FROM" and #3 is called "WITH".
#1 is not provided. #1 = #3 minus #2 (edit - #1 is your calculated difference)

Although, I would have thought many more deaths would be in #1 vs #2, but the data implies the opposite, making me not feel confident.

If you start printing enough tens of thousands of dollars of fiat money for each sample of a particular cause of death, I would hazard the thought that the hospitals would be happy to kill as many patients as possible and assign them that cause of death, no matter any inconvenient facts of the situation.

It's just the same bribery crap that has infiltrated the foreign occupied foreign city state of Washington DC.

Multiple citizen journalists illustrated completely empty covid tents and nearly empty emergency rooms and waiting areas. The hospitals were gorged with fake Covid bux and didn't need the rest of the business.

Everyone I know who got seriously sick with Covid went one of two ways:
1)avoided hospitals and recovered at home, sometimes hiring medical workers to get them oxygen and iv drips as well as appropriate medications. Every single one of these people recovered even the ones in their 80s!
2)went to the hospital and most of them got put in a ventilator. Of these, over half of them died. Of the ones given Remdesivir, over half died.

I did know of two people who died. My wife’s ex brother in law (late 50s) and his brother both died of Covid. He refused ivermectin. I don’t know why. He’s dead now.
The other one was a coworker I didn’t really know. Obese and unhealthy and ventilated at the hospital with Remdesivir. Dead!

Hircus says

The way I look at it, there's probably 3 categories here:

1) "died with covid / multiple causes / death spiral"
2) "died directly from covid"
3) "BOTH 1&2"

They only show us 2 categories in the dataset, which are #2 & #3.
#2 is called "FROM" and #3 is called "WITH".

My analyses of the data indicates very few comorbidities contributed to the death toll, which is the opposite of what we saw and common sense would indicate. You can see in this chart that 90% of the WITH people died FROM covid.

I would further conject that the line I call difference is actually the people that died without any apparent comorbidities.

Covid is the hyena. It takes old the sick and old.

FURTHERMORE we know that first spike of covid deaths was from nursing homes and non treatment. The CDC's data implies that very few of these people had comorbidities and died FROM not WITH.

The COVID mind-fuck is turning lots of people into immunologists or epidemiologists, at least those who seek to understand. Not that that is a bad thing. And newly emergent infectious disease does affect the elderly more, but the 2009 H1N1 pandemic had an interesting twist, verifying the power of natural immunity and immune memory. The mortality rate for the 2009 outbreak was greatest in the 50-59 age group, but decreased in older age groups because these oldsters had been exposed to related strains that swept thru when they were much younger, and so they had pre-existing immunity, while the heading into oldsterism 50-59 age cohort had less exposure to the earlier viruses, not having been hatched yet at the time.

"Adults aged 50–59 years had the highest fatality due to 2009 H1N1; older adults may have been spared due to pre-existing immunity. However, once infected and hospitalized in intensive care, case-fatality ratios were high for all adults, especially in those over 60 years. Vaccination of adults older than 50 years should be encouraged."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3071719/

"H1N1 swine flu doesn't seem to be a big problem for seniors unless that person has a chronic underlying condition, says Thomas Yoshikawa, MD, professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

Most H1N1 cases are occurring in younger people. "It appears that older persons, who have been exposed multiple times in their life time with various flu outbreaks, may have residual immunity of which some of it is against this H1N1 flu strain," Yoshikawa tells WebMD."

However, underlying health problems like heart and lung diseases or a compromised immune system "confers an increased risk of influenza, whether it's swine flu or another type of flu," says Sean X. Leng, MD, PhD, a geriatrician conducting research on influenza immunization in older adults and assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features/swine-flu-and-the-elderly

So if younger, get out into the environment. Enjoy life. Don't shelter in place, it may kill you when you are older. Don't be obese, smoke, or neglect your health. And stay the fuck out of the hospital.

Onvacation says

Are you implying the pandemic was manipulated?

I can't explain the rationale behind the insanity that gripped this country, but our institutions clearly are compromised. And murderers do start fires to hide their crimes.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

However, once infected and hospitalized in intensive care, case-fatality ratios were high for all adults

So it's better to stay home and take Nyquil and drink lots of liquids until you feel better.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

Onvacation says

Are you implying the pandemic was manipulated?

I can't explain the rationale behind the insanity that gripped this country, but our institutions clearly are compromised.

I think I can explain the insanity.

Our institutions are clearly compromised and a large percentage of the population aren't aware of it and continue to listen to these corrupt institutions believing they are truthful and not corrupt.

It's a combination of corruption, and naivety. Apparently corruption + naivety = societal insanity. I think we've had societal insanity for at least 22 years. That's at least when I first became aware of it. It's very likely that society has been insane longer than I've been aware of it as well. I only became dimly aware of it 22 years ago, and it's certain I was part of it as well. 22 years ago, climate change and CO2 emissions were going to kill us all, or so I believed.

The election of Bush was my first REAL awakening, to realize all our media is propaganda.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

So if younger, get out into the environment. Enjoy life. Don't shelter in place, it may kill you when you are older. Don't be obese, smoke, or neglect your health. And stay the fuck out of the hospital.

This all that should have been promoted. I'm in a small town and see the same 6-10 people walking the dog or running. 2k people.... Maybe they take different routes on the other side of town, but no one moves!

My one neighbor who walks his dog is in his 70's. He's fucking awesome. He's a kindred spirit so to speak. He yells at his mower when doing yard work and also his dog when he's walking him. Basically it will be me at 70. We'll chat for an hour if we cross paths when he's walking. Really cool old dude, but has a temper like a mother fucker and it makes me smile. I don't know why... lol. He's happy, but gets pissed at stuff, much like me.

Tangent aside, covid is a virus of being unhealthy if you die. Not much else to it. I don't know anyone personally that has died from it, but everyone that has gotten it really has little to no issues. Some are unhealthy as well. I think age is factor 1 and then your comorbidities. If you have 2+ co's (diabetes, heart disease, asthma, lupus, etc) you're likely in for at least a rough bout of it or you could die.

Onvacation says

My analyses of the data indicates very few comorbidities contributed to the death toll, which is the opposite of what we saw and common sense would indicate. You can see in this chart that 90% of the WITH people died FROM covid.

I agree. Like I said, I would think deaths with comorbidities would be the majority, but the data according to your definitions shows the opposite. I'm assuming you didn't accidentally swap the data columns.

Have you done any research into what specifically those columns mean? I think you might be making faulty assumptions about what those 2 categories mean. I've dealt with a decent amount of data sets in my life, and often the title of some column of data does not well describe the data - they're often wildly different, and frequently leads to "WTF why is it named this???". So many times a column has a simple name but ends up being a mishmash of other stuff added and removed as time went on and business rules evolved, eventually leading to bizarre column names and combinations of columns, including historical columns that store a previous version that is included for backwards compat or different use cases. That might be the case here. How do you know which category includes comorbidities, and which comorbidities, and under which scenarios, each column covers? They may BOTH cover comorbidities for all we know, but have some different rules.

Hircus says

Have you done any research into what specifically those columns mean? I think you might be making faulty assumptions about what those 2 categories mean.

The data dictionary CDC provided is vague. I tried to find more info online with no luck.

Hircus says

How do you know which category includes comorbidities, and which comorbidities, and under which scenarios, each column covers? They may BOTH cover comorbidities for all we know, but have some different rules.

The data does not include info on comorbidities.

I think the worldwide proliferation of live on camera collapses and deaths of hundreds of major and minor media celebrities would be enough evidence for anyone with two functioning brain cells that the clot shot is a killer more than a cure.

None of these people, as well as anyone in the medical profession, is allowed to admit the reason for the collapse and/or deaths.

I believe that the principle of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be suspended during this time of universal, ubiquitous censorship.

This shit is going on, it is real, it is coming for you and everyone you love. Though you might have your heads in the sand, they can still stick you with the clot shot in your collective asses, or is that in fact your brains?

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

However, once infected and hospitalized in intensive care, case-fatality ratios were high for all adults, especially in those over 60 years.

A cynical person might think the tens of thousands of dollars in federal funding per patient to administer lethal treatments like ventilators and Remdesivir had something to do with this.

All we know is that when Remdesivir doesn't do the trick in the ICU units, they have huge supplies of "The Pillow Man" pillows to finish the job.

It sure would be interesting to get a simple database with every victim of Covid-19.

NAME | BIRTHDATE | DEATHDATE | ADDRESS | TREATMENTS | COMORBIDITIES

Looked for it but couldn't find it. There were only a million US victims. It would not be hard to do and a lot of questions could be answered.

Onvacation says

Looked for it but couldn't find it.

Now you will be audited.

HeadSet says

Now you will be audited.

We're all on the list now. Process crimes are now worse than robbery.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/impactful-saturday-august-17-2024

In a way, the science mags are running into the same problem media had back during covid, when every new, more terrifying variant, arriving like clockwork every eight-point-three minutes, stretched the journalistic thesaurus to the breaking point. Alarming, dire, dangerous, dreadful, fearsome, formidable, horrifying, and so on until they reached the end of the alphabet: worrisome.

Then they went back to the beginning and started over, patiently and methodically working their way back through the letters, but Newsweek prematurely jumped the queue and ejected the “Doomsday variant.” It was all downhill from there, and reporters limply accepted they’d shot their wad and became a spent force.

This phenomenon is only ‘new’ in the sense that, as we’ve become increasingly mentally vaccinated to media alarmism through a long-term desensitization process, they’ve steadily increased the frightfulness-volume setting to a deafening ’11.’

I fondly recall how, back in the halcyon 90’s, enjoying the post-Soviet peace dividend, media would run much simpler doomsday stories like “Formica: The Silent Killer.” Or my personal, all-time favorite, even beyond covid (to which I’ve now devoted a substantial chunk of my career), the Venn-diagram convergence of about six attention-grabbing media gambits: “Is Your Bra Killing You?”

https://www.newsweek.com/america-covid-response-was-based-lies-opinion-1785177

America's COVID Response Was Based on Lies

By Scott W. Atlas
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution

... We must acknowledge the abject failure of the Birx-Fauci policies. They were enacted, but they failed to stop the dying, failed to stop the infection from spreading, and inflicted massive damage and destruction particularly on lower-income families and on America's children. ...

Numerous experts—including John Ioannidis, David Katz, and myself—called for targeted protection, a safer alternative to widespread lockdowns, in national media beginning in March of 2020. That proposal was rejected. History's biggest public health policy failure came at the hands of those who recommended the lockdowns and those who implemented them, not those who advised otherwise.

The tragic failure of reckless, unprecedented lockdowns that were contrary to established pandemic science, and the added massive harms of those policies on children, the elderly, and lower-income families, are indisputable and well-documented in numerous studies. This was the biggest, the most tragic, and the most unethical breakdown of public health leadership in modern history.

In a democracy, indeed in any ethical and free society, the truth is essential. The American people need to hear the truth—the facts, free from the political distortions, misrepresentations, and censorship. The first step is to clearly state the harsh truth in the starkest possible terms. Lies were told. Those lies harmed the public. Those lies were directly contrary to the evidence, to decades of knowledge on viral pandemics, and to long-established fundamental biology.

Here are the 10 biggest falsehoods—known for years to be false, not recently learned or proven to be so—promoted by America's public health leaders, elected and unelected officials, and now-discredited academics:

1. SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has a far higher fatality rate than the flu by several orders of magnitude.

2. Everyone is at significant risk to die from this virus.

3. No one has any immunological protection, because this virus is completely new.

4. Asymptomatic people are major drivers of the spread.

5. Locking down—closing schools and businesses, confining people to their homes, stopping non-COVID medical care, and eliminating travel—will stop or eliminate the virus.

6. Masks will protect everyone and stop the spread.

7. The virus is known to be naturally occurring, and claiming it originated in a lab is a conspiracy theory.

8. Teachers are at especially high risk.

9. COVID vaccines stop the spread of the infection.

10. Immune protection only comes from a vaccine.

None of us are so naïve as to expect a direct apology from critics at my employer, Stanford University, or in government, academic public health, and the media. But to ensure that this never happens again, government leaders, power-driven officials, and influential academics and advisors often harboring conflicts of interest must be held accountable.

It wasn't based on LIES, it was based on PSYOPS. That is how it is listed in 'Satan's Inversion Dictionary and Thesaurus".