The Nursing Home Deaths
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:22 last edited by jon-nyc
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
-
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:30 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
The difference between their worst case of .4 and your low end range of .5 is minimal.
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:34 last edited by
It’s 25% by the way.
But the whole thread was about criticizing their ‘best estimate’.
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:39 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
It’s 25% by the way.
But the whole thread was about criticizing their ‘best estimate’.
You could be right and the CDC could be wrong that’s for sure. But to get maximum points on the rubric you need to say why they are wrong. I mean qualified individuals who presumably know what you know made the calculation.
And while you may be right on the narrow point, the big news is the death rate by age is finally coming out and it paints a very different narrative than what’s been pumped out to us.
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:40 last edited by
They haven’t released the details else I’d already have a thread about it.
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:41 last edited by
How is the death rate by age any different from what we knew from Lombardy in March?
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:42 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
How is the death rate by age any different from what we knew from Lombardy in March?
I guess Cuomo missed that.
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:43 last edited by
So you’re not going to answer?
I thought it was big news?
-
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:49 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
Are you talking about the global IFR across all ages?
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:49 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
So you’re not going to answer?
I thought it was big news?
It was until it was forgotten and we had all the young people that died profiled as evidence that this disease was going after everyone. The fear in this country became quite elevated that everyone was at risk, no?
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 02:53 last edited by
I must have never forgotten. I don’t think you did either because you never passed up a chance to ask about age or co-morbidities.
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 03:00 last edited by
Well considering what the graph of IFR looks like when plotted against age, it is clear that it makes little sense to think or talk about an IFR that applies to everybody. Which renders most uses one sees of IFR borderline meaningless.
-
Well considering what the graph of IFR looks like when plotted against age, it is clear that it makes little sense to think or talk about an IFR that applies to everybody. Which renders most uses one sees of IFR borderline meaningless.
wrote on 28 May 2020, 03:05 last edited by@Horace said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Well considering what the graph of IFR looks like when plotted against age, it is clear that it makes little sense to think or talk about an IFR that applies to everybody. Which renders most uses one sees of IFR borderline meaningless.
It would an interesting question to ask 80 years about what is the best way to protect them. Would they want 20%+ unemployment and no opportunity for youth?
-
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
wrote on 28 May 2020, 14:47 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
More evidence NYC is an anomaly.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-28/why-was-new-york-hit-so-badly-with-covid-19
-
@jon-nyc said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Sorry. You can assume everyone in NYC over 75 is positive, whether they live in a nursing home or placed in the marathon last November, and the CDC’s IFR still doesn’t make sense.
More evidence NYC is an anomaly.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-28/why-was-new-york-hit-so-badly-with-covid-19
wrote on 28 May 2020, 15:35 last edited by@Loki said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
More evidence NYC is an anomaly.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-28/why-was-new-york-hit-so-badly-with-covid-19
With New York’s outbreak eclipsing others around the world, it’s logical to look for somebody to blame.
Swell.
-
@Horace said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Well considering what the graph of IFR looks like when plotted against age, it is clear that it makes little sense to think or talk about an IFR that applies to everybody. Which renders most uses one sees of IFR borderline meaningless.
It would an interesting question to ask 80 years about what is the best way to protect them. Would they want 20%+ unemployment and no opportunity for youth?
wrote on 28 May 2020, 17:00 last edited by@Loki said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
@Horace said in The Nursing Home Deaths:
Well considering what the graph of IFR looks like when plotted against age, it is clear that it makes little sense to think or talk about an IFR that applies to everybody. Which renders most uses one sees of IFR borderline meaningless.
It would an interesting question to ask 80 years about what is the best way to protect them. Would they want 20%+ unemployment and no opportunity for youth?
Would they want wild parties being thrown on the lake with thousands of people shoulder to shoulder?
There is a middle ground, here.
-
wrote on 28 May 2020, 18:35 last edited by
The best way to protect them might be to test out the experimental vaccines on the entitled knobheads partying as though there's no tomorrow.