Coronavirus· Page 8 · PACKERSHOME

KRK
Veteran Member Topic Starter

4 years ago

There are very compelling charts/graph etc in the article which, I remain, to stupid to figure out how to post...highlights of text below.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-cdc-confirms-remarkably-low-coronavirus-death-rate-media/
Horowitz: The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate. Where is the media?
Daniel Horowitz · May 22, 2020

Most people are more likely to wind up six feet under because of almost anything else under the sun other than COVID-19.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html that should be earth-shattering to the narrative of the political class, yet it will go into the thick pile of vital data and information about the virus that is not getting out to the public. For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26%. Officials estimate a 0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26% — almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.

Plus, ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.

More importantly, as I mentioned before, the overall death rate is meaningless because the numbers are so lopsided. Given that at least half of the deaths were in nursing homes, a back-of-the-envelope estimate would show that the infection fatality rate for non-nursing home residents would only be 0.1% or 1 in 1,000. And that includes people of all ages and all health statuses outside of nursing homes. Since nearly all of the deaths are those with comorbidities.

The CDC estimates the death rate from COVID-19 for those under 50 is 1 in 5,000 for those with symptoms, which would be 1 in 6,725 overall, but again, almost all those who die have specific comorbidities or underlying conditions. Those without them are more likely to die in a car accident. And schoolchildren, whose lives, mental health, and education we are destroying, are more likely to get struck by lightning

In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK

Cheesey
Preferred Member

4 years ago

#72

Again, you ignore the science dude. Many countries are in the clinical trial stages of COVID-19 vaccines, with medical journals (Lancet, for example, less than a week ago) reporting the clinical trial results so far have been promising for these vaccines. Governments of countries are literally underwriting scientific efforts to develop a vaccine at a remarkable rate, not to mention the investment banks underwriting deals for life science companies working towards COVID-19 treatments and vaccines in an otherwise dead period for global capital markets. Moderna literally had a $1.3 billion dollar public offering last week on the strength of its vaccine trials with the optimistic forecasts having an emergency vaccine ready by December.

There will be a vaccine. There is literally ample evidence suggesting this, along with actual clinical trials that have resulted in anti-bodies developing in those that were given the vaccines in trials. The common-cold cure has nothing to do with what the science says right now about COVID-19.

I get you have an opinion - but there isn't a point in asserting your opinion on vaccines as fact. Particularly when the science doesn't back up the opinion strongly. And I don't mean to suggest your conclusion is wrong - I'm all for opening the country up before then (and Georgia is a prime example of opening up not being doom and gloom, despite what many (including I) thought was a wrong decision to open up early). But your opinion on a COVID-19 vaccine is not supported by the facts.

Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers

Dude, 🤪 yes, they are saying they are close to a vaccine. But “close” doesn’t mean it’s a done deal, does it? And “science” believes we evolved from a rock “millions of years ago”. So my faith in science is not 100%.
Do I hope you are right, and they come up with one soon? Yup! But being as they are trying to do this quickly, how will they have any idea the long term side effects of the vaccine? They usually take years to come up with vaccines, and take years testing it to see what it might do to people long term.
I do hope you are right.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

4 years ago

#73

A few days ago I heard the Fed is considering reducing the listed side effects to the few that are probable and serious. (My words not theirs)
Seems that they are concerned the side effect message is being lost on the masses with so many stupid and unlikely ones.

Originally Posted by: wpr

I think that's a good idea. Someone ignorant like myself hears possible death as a side effect for medicine for diarrhea (just a random example, not true) I'm gonna be like yeah ya know what, I'm gonna just deal with the squirts for a few days, eat some Chicken Noodle Soup and call it good. When in fact driving a car also has a side effect of possible death and that possibility could be ten fold higher!

One thing regarding vaccines and such is I ask the doctor what the Number Needed to Treat is. When the doctor tells me my daughters need X, Y, Z shots, she knows to give me sheets of information for me to read over. I then look up studies (be careful doing this, not every study includes the data or sample size!) and ask the doctor. One of them was I read some bad side effects for a vaccine she recommended. She told me its true, those side effects do happen ... WHEN .. the 2nd and 3rd shots are not taken at the appropriate time. She said as long as 2nd shot is taken X weeks after first, and 3rd shot taken Y weeks after 2nd shot, the risks drop dramatically. I was able to find information that supported that.

I hate doing that to the doctor (who is THE professional), but a lot of times it is more so for my peace of mind. I just wish it was easier to find truthful information.

When it comes to COVID-19 I struggle with taking a vaccine for it. I want to because I don't want to be a carrier that give sit to someone else who cannot battle through it. I don't want to because scientifically altering things in my body feels wrong. But, I eat processed shit so... just shows you how little I know about all of it. lol.

wpr
Preferred Member

4 years ago

#74

I hate doing that to the doctor (who is THE professional), but a lot of times it is more so for my peace of mind. I just wish it was easier to find truthful information.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

The Dr probably wishes she had more patients/parents like you. Most don't give a damn or put the whole burden on the Dr when it's really your child.
The treatment wasn't available when my daughter was young. A few years ago I saw one of the commercials and told my wife, "damn, I hope we didn't mess this up. How did we miss getting her the treatment?" She told me it wasn't available then.

So, good job Z.

KRK
Veteran Member Topic Starter

4 years ago

#75

Aside here.

Does it bug any of you that the television ads for any drug spend 15+ seconds talking about the side effect. It's a frigging prescription drug!!! The Dr. prescribing it and the pharmacist should both know what they are and they are on the label.

The extra 15 seconds in ads just drives up the cost of drugs.

Before you take any drug, or consume anything for that matter, find out the side effects. If you don't think they are worth the risks, don't take them.

In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK

Cheesey
Preferred Member

4 years ago

#76

Originally Posted by: KRK

Did you also notice that while they are telling you the 30 side effects, they play “cutesy” music and show smiling happy people?😁

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

4 years ago

#77

Does it bug any of you that the television ads for any drug spend 15+ seconds talking about the side effect.

Originally Posted by: KRK

It's required by law. And all it does is foment distrust and anxiety.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

4 years ago

#78

It's required by law. And all it does is foment distrust and anxiety.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

That’s ok......I’m sure they have a pill for that!
😂😂😂

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

4 years ago

#79

It's required by law. And all it does is foment distrust and anxiety.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

Especially to those who have no damn clue whatsoever. (such as me)

wpr
Preferred Member

4 years ago

#80

It's required by law. And all it does is foment distrust and anxiety.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

I've been listening to a podcast by an Adman out of Canada called "Under The Influence". It's pretty interesting. He has mentioned several times about the Feds requiring equal time for listing the side effects of meds. (I have heard 9 seasons worth of episodes in the past month so I can not quote him verbatim.) Canadian laws are much more restrictive when it comes to Rx ads but I don't remember the particulars.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (5h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (6h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (13h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS