Anyone worried if Corona virus keeps spreading the gyms will shut down?

mase1

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Source? Also, that would mean the death rate is actually higher than what is being reported, if you have a ton of false positives. So pick one; you’re claiming either it’s as reported, or it’s less common but more deadly.
You can believe what they tell you to. My point was numbers from all angles of the virus are very questionable from the both angles good or bad. I believe everything is overstated as gloom and doom is good for news. That is my opinion.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Random thought of the day concerning death rate. There is a difference between dying OF COVID aka China Virus and dying WITH COVID. What I would like to see is solid numbers showing death as a direct result of China virus. Not some dude with stage 4 cancer or some guy that wrecked his car and had the coof.
 

Hilltern

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
A lot of deaths may have occurred eventually or under the right circumstances lining up and it’s just that covid is that perfect storm. I’m thinking of the clinically obese, people with unmanaged diabetes, etc. In those instances, your co-morbidities are the underlying cause but you would not have died at that time had you not had covid. Maybe the same is true if you did not have the comorbidities but you can’t definitively prove that whereas you can definitively prove the inverse. So it’s not illegitimate to count them as covid deaths.
 

Hilltern

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
A lot of deaths may have occurred eventually or under the right circumstances lining up and it’s just that covid is that perfect storm. I’m thinking of the clinically obese, people with unmanaged diabetes, etc. In those instances, your co-morbidities are the underlying cause but you would not have died at that time had you not had covid. Maybe the same is true if you did not have the comorbidities but you can’t definitively prove that whereas you can definitively prove the inverse. So it’s not illegitimate to count them as covid deaths.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
A lot of deaths may have occurred eventually or under the right circumstances lining up and it’s just that covid is that perfect storm. I’m thinking of the clinically obese, people with unmanaged diabetes, etc. In those instances, your co-morbidities are the underlying cause but you would not have died at that time had you not had covid. Maybe the same is true if you did not have the comorbidities but you can’t definitively prove that whereas you can definitively prove the inverse. So it’s not illegitimate to count them as covid deaths.
It does underscore the lethality of the virus though. If you are healthy it’s low risk. If you didn’t take care of yourself medium risk. If you were already one foot in the grave it’s lethal. I still think accidents, suicides, and people with terminal illness shouldn’t be counted. They would have died with or without it.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
A lot of deaths may have occurred eventually or under the right circumstances lining up and it’s just that covid is that perfect storm. I’m thinking of the clinically obese, people with unmanaged diabetes, etc. In those instances, your co-morbidities are the underlying cause but you would not have died at that time had you not had covid. Maybe the same is true if you did not have the comorbidities but you can’t definitively prove that whereas you can definitively prove the inverse. So it’s not illegitimate to count them as covid deaths.
It does underscore the lethality of the virus though. If you are healthy it’s low risk. If you didn’t take care of yourself medium risk. If you were already one foot in the grave it’s lethal. I still think accidents, suicides, and people with terminal illness shouldn’t be counted. They would have died with or without it.
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
It does underscore the lethality of the virus though. If you are healthy it’s low risk. If you didn’t take care of yourself medium risk. If you were already one foot in the grave it’s lethal. I still think accidents, suicides, and people with terminal illness shouldn’t be counted. They would have died with or without it.
Can you prove that accidents, suicides, or people who are “terminally ill” are dying directly from something else and being counted towards the covid death #s? I’m looking specifically for those instances, nothing else.

Just because someone is terminally ill doesnt mean they wouldve died the day they died if they hadnt of contracted covid, or even the week or month. There are “terminally ill” patients (eg. Unresectable cancer that is non-responsive to chemo & radiation) who survive for months to years in this state. These people are dying of covid, regardless if you personally want to admit it because it disagrees with the agenda the political party you follow is pushing.

Id also like to hear your definition of “terminally ill” conditions that make this virus lethal. Not all cancer patients are terminally ill, nor are people with autoimmune diseases on immunosuppressants or children with congenital heart defects. Should we just not give a damn about them as a society simply because we were lucky enough to not draw that short straw in life?

On a different, yet still related topic - just being elderly, even if you’re healthy and elderly, puts you at an increased risk of dying from covid. Game time - my grandma who takes 0 meds, not because she doesnt go see a medical provider, and is 76 gets covid next week and dies. Someone tells me she didnt die from covid it was just because “she’s old”. Do you agree?
 
BamBam54

BamBam54

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
The best way to know people are really dying from covid beyond ordinary cancer, flu, disease, etc is to look at the "CDC excess death chart". There you can see the year over year average US deaths for every week of the calendar. It's a rather regular curve outside on any new major event.

There was a small but noticeable spike above the running average for an exceptionally bad flu season in Jan 2018. You can see the spike and we know what was causing additional fatalities at that time.

Same for this year... a big spike in deaths (you can't fake deaths - dead is dead) and what is the cause for all this extra death? We still have cancer, flu, lung disease, aids, etc all around the country. Still have suicides, and murder, and drowning accidents. So what was different in April/May/June that would account for the apx 135,000 new additional deaths above the relatively consistent running average in the US year after year after year??

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote




Source 1 just says that they incorrectly reported multiple days of tests as one day. Not cool or good, but there’s a reason why experts look at things like week-long trends and rolling averages. If they lumped 4-5 days into one, that day would have a higher number, but surrounding days would be lower, resulting in essentially the same rolling average. The “only” truly negative outcome from this would me public panic over a crazy 1-day spike. Actually policy should not be based on any single day data point, and no expert is doing that, only politicians and the general public who have no knowledge of how statistics work.

Second link talks about not reporting negative test results. Again, no bueno, but that doesn’t impact the total confirmed case or the death rate, as a negative case is neither the numerator nor denominator in any fraction at play here.

Source 3 sounds like the same problem as 2 of not reporting negatives, which means all reported data are positive, which is stupid as all hell, but doesn’t change the number of total positive cases.

Yes, it’s horrible practice, and it creates a rift between the data and the people, and breaks their trust and undermines their credibility to a degree, if none of those actually come close to suggesting that the TOTAL number of cases is wrong.

I hope that makes sense.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Source 1 just says that they incorrectly reported multiple days of tests as one day. Not cool or good, but there’s a reason why experts look at things like week-long trends and rolling averages. If they lumped 4-5 days into one, that day would have a higher number, but surrounding days would be lower, resulting in essentially the same rolling average. The “only” truly negative outcome from this would me public panic over a crazy 1-day spike. Actually policy should not be based on any single day data point, and no expert is doing that, only politicians and the general public who have no knowledge of how statistics work.

Second link talks about not reporting negative test results. Again, no bueno, but that doesn’t impact the total confirmed case or the death rate, as a negative case is neither the numerator nor denominator in any fraction at play here.

Source 3 sounds like the same problem as 2 of not reporting negatives, which means all reported data are positive, which is stupid as all hell, but doesn’t change the number of total positive cases.

Yes, it’s horrible practice, and it creates a rift between the data and the people, and breaks their trust and undermines their credibility to a degree, if none of those actually come close to suggesting that the TOTAL number of cases is wrong.

I hope that makes sense.
Oh what you say makes sense. I am playing devils advocate for the ones that are having a hard time taking this stuff seriously, admittedly myself included. This stuff is all over the map and not a lot of consensus. Then false reporting further destroys any credibility these agencies and departments had or what little they even had to begin with. Trust in authority and government is at an all time low and it’s not getting any better.

Don’t wear a mask, next week, wear a mask. Buy a box of masks and read the huge warning label that tells you this mask does not stop the transmission of COVID 19. Go to the VA hospital and there is a sign that advises not to be wearing surgical style masks that could be used for hospital staff. No joke I saw this yesterday at the OKC VA.

I seriously have a headache from this whole issue. I personally would like to just go ahead and catch it so I can be done with it and move on with my life.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Source 1 just says that they incorrectly reported multiple days of tests as one day. Not cool or good, but there’s a reason why experts look at things like week-long trends and rolling averages. If they lumped 4-5 days into one, that day would have a higher number, but surrounding days would be lower, resulting in essentially the same rolling average. The “only” truly negative outcome from this would me public panic over a crazy 1-day spike. Actually policy should not be based on any single day data point, and no expert is doing that, only politicians and the general public who have no knowledge of how statistics work.

Second link talks about not reporting negative test results. Again, no bueno, but that doesn’t impact the total confirmed case or the death rate, as a negative case is neither the numerator nor denominator in any fraction at play here.

Source 3 sounds like the same problem as 2 of not reporting negatives, which means all reported data are positive, which is stupid as all hell, but doesn’t change the number of total positive cases.

Yes, it’s horrible practice, and it creates a rift between the data and the people, and breaks their trust and undermines their credibility to a degree, if none of those actually come close to suggesting that the TOTAL number of cases is wrong.

I hope that makes sense.
Oh what you say makes sense. I am playing devils advocate for the ones that are having a hard time taking this stuff seriously, admittedly myself included. This stuff is all over the map and not a lot of consensus. Then false reporting further destroys any credibility these agencies and departments had or what little they even had to begin with. Trust in authority and government is at an all time low and it’s not getting any better.

Don’t wear a mask, next week, wear a mask. Buy a box of masks and read the huge warning label that tells you this mask does not stop the transmission of COVID 19. Go to the VA hospital and there is a sign that advises not to be wearing surgical style masks that could be used for hospital staff. No joke I saw this yesterday at the OKC VA.

I seriously have a headache from this whole issue. I personally would like to just go ahead and catch it so I can be done with it and move on with my life.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Oh what you say makes sense. I am playing devils advocate for the ones that are having a hard time taking this stuff seriously, admittedly myself included. This stuff is all over the map and not a lot of consensus. Then false reporting further destroys any credibility these agencies and departments had or what little they even had to begin with. Trust in authority and government is at an all time low and it’s not getting any better.

Don’t wear a mask, next week, wear a mask. Buy a box of masks and read the huge warning label that tells you this mask does not stop the transmission of COVID 19. Go to the VA hospital and there is a sign that advises not to be wearing surgical style masks that could be used for hospital staff. No joke I saw this yesterday at the OKC VA.

I seriously have a headache from this whole issue. I personally would like to just go ahead and catch it so I can be done with it and move on with my life.
I totally get being skeptical, and giving bad data really leads to doubts and to questioning more things. I don't know if I'd say that trust in government is at an all-time low, or if it should be, or if it's just more of the same but people are more aware of it now. At one point, in the 1960s the CIA considered staging acts of terror in Miami and blaming them on pro-Castro Cubans to gain support to take down Castro.

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/10/27/jfk-files-cia-plotted-kill-castro-stage-bombings-miami/
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I seriously have a headache from this whole issue. I personally would like to just go ahead and catch it so I can be done with it and move on with my life.
Theyve now been able to do studies trending antibody concentrations as one gets further out from the acute infection. These studies are showing that theres real potential for the virus to be caught a subsequent time. In science, just because theres a mechanism doesn’t mean it always pans out in the real world...but theres at least a real possibility that just catching it and fighting it off once wont allow one to “just be done with it”.
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Double post - but i did have another thought once i posted that.

I wonder if people who naturally fought it off would be more responsive to an initial vaccine. Like the natural infection could act as a first shot and the first vaccine could act as the “booster”.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
As far as the argument that there is a difference between dying from Covid and dying with Covid - I hear ya, but I doubt it would change much.

I mean, if someone dies in a car accident - they aren't going to autopsy the body and test for Covid. Now, if they don't die from the accident and they show up at the hospital and have complications that they have to figure out - then I think it's safe to say that Covid DID play a factor in the death....because it created enough of an issue that in trying to save the guy the doctors had to have him tested.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
As far as the argument that there is a difference between dying from Covid and dying with Covid - I hear ya, but I doubt it would change much.

I mean, if someone dies in a car accident - they aren't going to autopsy the body and test for Covid. Now, if they don't die from the accident and they show up at the hospital and have complications that they have to figure out - then I think it's safe to say that Covid DID play a factor in the death....because it created enough of an issue that in trying to save the guy the doctors had to have him tested.
The excess deaths line up nearly exactly, so I don’t think that’s a valid criticism TBH.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
The excess deaths line up nearly exactly, so I don’t think that’s a valid criticism TBH.
Not sure I understand? The fact that the excess deaths line up would support what I'm saying and v v.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Not sure I understand? The fact that the excess deaths line up would support what I'm saying and v v.
Yeah, I meant the logic you were describing where people talked about dying WITH it but not FROM it. That logic doesn’t check out with the data available. My bad.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Yeah, I meant the logic you were describing where people talked about dying WITH it but not FROM it. That logic doesn’t check out with the data available. My bad.
Oh, yes.

In the second paragraph I was saying that logic doesn't add up because if someone dies in a car accident, we know they are still dying in a car accident because we won't be testing dead bodies in that situation. And if someone survives and ends up in the hospital, if something does trigger a test in that situation, it must be a serious case that is causing complications and thus it could be a contributing factor.

So I'm agreeing, but maybe I'm not wording it right. Wouldn't be the first time.
 
Ricky10

Ricky10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Well, George Floyd died WITH IT and not FROM it 👮‍♂️

Other than that, the way I see things: if someone has many comorbidities like obesity, diabetes, even something like terminal cancer or all three. If they get COVID and it impacts their lungs and die of COVID pneumonia- then they died FROM COVID.

What also has to come to mind is the thrombosis that has been linked to COVID. If a positive patient presents to the emergency department with an acute pulmonary embolism or an ischemic stroke that ultimately leads to their death- it would also potentially be a an example of someone that dies FROM COVID. Surely the age and prior history of this kind of patient would play a greater part in attempting to determine that.
 
Last edited:
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
IMG_7128.JPG


@HIT4ME - thought of you when I read this on medscape tonight.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Well, George Floyd died WITH IT and not FROM it 👮‍♂️

Other than that, the way I see things: if someone has many comorbidities like obesity, diabetes, even something like terminal cancer or all three. If they get COVID and it impacts their lungs and die of COVID pneumonia- then they died FROM COVID.

What also has to come to mind is the thrombosis that has been linked to COVID. If a positive patient presents to the emergency department with an acute pulmonary embolism or an ischemic stroke that ultimately leads to their death- it would also potentially be a an example of someone that dies FROM COVID. Surely the age and prior history of this kind of patient would play a greater part in attempting to determine that.
I agree. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with the comobidities thing. If I have asthma and die from pneumonia, people don't say, "He died of asthma, it shouldn't be counted as pneumonia - he was going to die anyway."

I also think we are focused on the high, immediate death rate. The evidence of long-term impacts on cardiovasular and neurological tissues is mounting - not just in old people and not just in people with severe cases. Even younger people with mild cases are showing signs of neuro- and cardiovascular inflammation that could have long term, detrimental impacts.

View attachment 195662

@HIT4ME - thought of you when I read this on medscape tonight.
Haha, I guess I've become an official Vitamin D quack! But there is a ton of correlation and some evidence of causation, although the causation part needs work I know. It is interesting how much it comes up in research though, and how doctors are so resistant to the idea that a vitamin could cure any disease (which is ironic, because they are all known to cure diseases caused by deficiency, and maybe our definition of "deficiency" isn't complete).
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I wouldn’t say quack! Id say someone who is looking for an easy answer or contribution to the problem we have at hand!

I definitely agree with you there is a ton of correlational data that provides a signal that their could absolutely be something there (for covid, MS, cancer, CV disease, and probably others). I dont however agree that there is an inkling of data that indicates any true causation. As you’re aware, thats nearly impossible to prove in the case of covid as itd be impossible to get through an IRB with the ethical dilemma of purposely exposing a group of people to covid to see if the group of people with a D level of 45-60 nmol/L was more resistant to getting infected, showing symptoms, being hospitalized, or dying.

As you and others have stated in this thread, supplementing vitamin D is such an easy, generally low risk thing to do - i do think it should be widely recommended if one could afford it (i know its cheap, but some still likely cant).

I also tend to disagree that docs are resistant to acknowledging a vitamin could cure a disease. I think theres a certain level of skepticism about huge claims made about a vitamin, but i think if theres strong data supporting anything, on average, docs will use it in their arsenal. As you mentioned - Vitamin K is used prophylactically to prevent ICH in newborns and also to reverse some blood thinners, thiamine deficiency is widely acknowledged to be causative of warnecke-korsakoff’s which has lead to it being included in the standard of care for alcoholics when they come to the ED with altered mentation, pyridoxine deficiency is accepted as a cause of peripheral neuropathy, folate and cyanocobalamine deficiencies in megaloblastic anemias. The treatment of all of those things includes the vitamin.

Perhaps claims for vitamins do have a bit of a bigger uphill battle to gain any credence in western medicine because of the outlandish claims made by such a wide variety of herbal supplements and “complimentary medicines”. A small fraction of these things actually come close to the claims made about them, so just as there is a lack of trust towards western medicine with people who are bias towards these practices, there is also a lack of trust from western medicine in the other direction.

Anyway, kind of got to rambling there, bottom line is I agree - i think theres something there for vitamin D, but still think its too soon to say theres causation.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I wouldn’t say quack! Id say someone who is looking for an easy answer or contribution to the problem we have at hand!

I definitely agree with you there is a ton of correlational data that provides a signal that their could absolutely be something there (for covid, MS, cancer, CV disease, and probably others). I dont however agree that there is an inkling of data that indicates any true causation. As you’re aware, thats nearly impossible to prove in the case of covid as itd be impossible to get through an IRB with the ethical dilemma of purposely exposing a group of people to covid to see if the group of people with a D level of 45-60 nmol/L was more resistant to getting infected, showing symptoms, being hospitalized, or dying.

As you and others have stated in this thread, supplementing vitamin D is such an easy, generally low risk thing to do - i do think it should be widely recommended if one could afford it (i know its cheap, but some still likely cant).

I also tend to disagree that docs are resistant to acknowledging a vitamin could cure a disease. I think theres a certain level of skepticism about huge claims made about a vitamin, but i think if theres strong data supporting anything, on average, docs will use it in their arsenal. As you mentioned - Vitamin K is used prophylactically to prevent ICH in newborns and also to reverse some blood thinners, thiamine deficiency is widely acknowledged to be causative of warnecke-korsakoff’s which has lead to it being included in the standard of care for alcoholics when they come to the ED with altered mentation, pyridoxine deficiency is accepted as a cause of peripheral neuropathy, folate and cyanocobalamine deficiencies in megaloblastic anemias. The treatment of all of those things includes the vitamin.

Perhaps claims for vitamins do have a bit of a bigger uphill battle to gain any credence in western medicine because of the outlandish claims made by such a wide variety of herbal supplements and “complimentary medicines”. A small fraction of these things actually come close to the claims made about them, so just as there is a lack of trust towards western medicine with people who are bias towards these practices, there is also a lack of trust from western medicine in the other direction.

Anyway, kind of got to rambling there, bottom line is I agree - i think theres something there for vitamin D, but still think its too soon to say theres causation.
Ok, in not being careful about the nuances, I have further played into being a quack and overstated my case! Just like a quack! See the paragraph in bold from your quote - this is 100% what I believe is the case. There are so many quacks out there promoting this or that, and making unfounded promises, that it has to become a knee jerk reaction to be overly skeptical about any claim at all. And I refer to myself as a quack because on some level, I think I fall victim of this a little although I try to be reasonable with my approach and aware of my bias. The fact is, I've bought into some of the research, even though I can acknowledge that it is far from proof and needs a lot of work. Will it cure Covid or cancer or CVD? No. Do I think it has a role? At this point I don't see how it couldn't and we have enough evidence that having vitamin D out of range (high and low) will increase the risk of various diseases. But it does get back to the role - is it necessarily a cure or a treatment? Only for people who are not in the optimal range....like most other vitamin/disease combinations that are proven.

Also, I did not mean to imply there was any true evidence of causation specifically for Covid. And there is hardly any evidence for causation for many of the diseases it is claimed to have a role or correlation in.

On the other hand, there are things like this that suggest the correlation is too strong to be just correlation (in Covid):

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20087965v3

This isn't proof...just good for discussion.

Your post is excellent. Well said.
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Ok, in not being careful about the nuances, I have further played into being a quack and overstated my case! Just like a quack! See the paragraph in bold from your quote - this is 100% what I believe is the case. There are so many quacks out there promoting this or that, and making unfounded promises, that it has to become a knee jerk reaction to be overly skeptical about any claim at all. And I refer to myself as a quack because on some level, I think I fall victim of this a little although I try to be reasonable with my approach and aware of my bias. The fact is, I've bought into some of the research, even though I can acknowledge that it is far from proof and needs a lot of work. Will it cure Covid or cancer or CVD? No. Do I think it has a role? At this point I don't see how it couldn't and we have enough evidence that having vitamin D out of range (high and low) will increase the risk of various diseases. But it does get back to the role - is it necessarily a cure or a treatment? Only for people who are not in the optimal range....like most other vitamin/disease combinations that are proven.

Also, I did not mean to imply there was any true evidence of causation specifically for Covid. And there is hardly any evidence for causation for many of the diseases it is claimed to have a role or correlation in.

On the other hand, there are things like this that suggest the correlation is too strong to be just correlation (in Covid):

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20087965v3

This isn't proof...just good for discussion.

Your post is excellent. Well said.
I briefly read through the link - very interesting. I’m gonna try to set a little time aside to really read through it again.

I do think it seems a tad “salesmany” vs purely reporting findings, so that has me questioning their true intent with the report. Especially because it states that first author listed is an entrepreneur and “not a scientist”. I also think some of the stuff they say is a bit of a stretch, like: “We note with interest that on the timeline of major influenza epidemics [48] there is a 37 year period from 1920 to 1957 where no new flu strains seem to appear and no new pandemics occurred (Figure 11). This coincides with the only known period during which the population at large was routinely supplemented with vitamin D. This historical observation in alignment with our analysis verifies the causal role of vitamin D supplementation in respiratory disease pandemic prevention.”

This single observation VERIFIES a causal role...come on...(not directed at you, more towards the authors).

It also mentions up front that it hasnt been peer reviewed, so I am really eager to follow this as that process occurs.

Although im pumping the breaks just a touch, I definitely agree with you that there is very likely something there as I mentioned in my last post. And I have been supplementing 10000-25000 IU 2-3x/week.
 
Last edited:
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I briefly read through the link - very interesting. I’m gonna try to set a little time aside to really read through it again.

I do think it seems a tad “salesmany” vs purely reporting findings, so that has me questioning their true intent with the report. Especially because it states that first author listed is an entrepreneur and “not a scientist”. I also think some of the stuff they say is a bit of a stretch, like: “We note with interest that on the timeline of major influenza epidemics [48] there is a 37 year period from 1920 to 1957 where no new flu strains seem to appear and no new pandemics occurred (Figure 11). This coincides with the only known period during which the population at large was routinely supplemented with vitamin D. This historical observation in alignment with our analysis verifies the causal role of vitamin D supplementation in respiratory disease pandemic prevention.”

This single observation VERIFIES a causal role...come on...(not directed at you, more towards the authors).

It also mentions up front that it hasnt been peer reviewed, so I am really eager to follow this as that process occurs.

Although im pumping the breaks just a touch, I definitely agree with you that there is very likely something there as I mentioned in my last post. And I have been supplementing 10000-25000 IU 2-3x/week.
I briefly read through the link - very interesting. I’m gonna try to set a little time aside to really read through it again.

I do think it seems a tad “salesmany” vs purely reporting findings, so that has me questioning their true intent with the report. Especially because it states that first author listed is an entrepreneur and “not a scientist”. I also think some of the stuff they say is a bit of a stretch, like: “We note with interest that on the timeline of major influenza epidemics [48] there is a 37 year period from 1920 to 1957 where no new flu strains seem to appear and no new pandemics occurred (Figure 11). This coincides with the only known period during which the population at large was routinely supplemented with vitamin D. This historical observation in alignment with our analysis verifies the causal role of vitamin D supplementation in respiratory disease pandemic prevention.”

This single observation VERIFIES a causal role...come on...(not directed at you, more towards the authors).

It also mentions up front that it hasnt been peer reviewed, so I am really eager to follow this as that process occurs.

Although im pumping the breaks just a touch, I definitely agree with you that there is very likely something there as I mentioned in my last post. And I have been supplementing 10000-25000 IU 2-3x/week.
I agree. The mere fact it is a preprint raises a lot of questions. It isn't something I would really use as proof, but it is interesting to think about, is there a way to tease causation out of correlation data? Who knows.

I mean, they are just creating a hypothetical model, so it isn't even observation to begin with, just more hypothesis.
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I agree. The mere fact it is a preprint raises a lot of questions. It isn't something I would really use as proof, but it is interesting to think about, is there a way to tease causation out of correlation data? Who knows.

I mean, they are just creating a hypothetical model, so it isn't even observation to begin with, just more hypothesis.
Exactly. My problem with it to this point is that throughout the whole thing, not in just a “discussion” section, they give their interpretation/opinion over and over again and seem set on making the reader walk away thinking theres a causal relationship.

They even go as far to say that the fact that they “proved” their “acausal” model false, that the “causal” model they proposed has to be true. Im a bit skeptical about that way of thinking.
 

Hilltern

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
It does underscore the lethality of the virus though. If you are healthy it’s low risk. If you didn’t take care of yourself medium risk. If you were already one foot in the grave it’s lethal. I still think accidents, suicides, and people with terminal illness shouldn’t be counted. They would have died with or without it.
If a lockdown throws someone back into addiction and they die from an OD or rated depression induced suicide then I say that’s not a direct death from covid but it’s a figure we should still keep in mind when discussing the death total.
 
Ricky10

Ricky10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
If a lockdown throws someone back into addiction and they die from an OD or rated depression induced suicide then I say that’s not a direct death from covid but it’s a figure we should still keep in mind when discussing the death total.
That’s certainly a good point, and we definitely won’t see that reflected in the overall COVID death numbers we routinely hear of. We will probably see at least an estimation of those types of things at some point, or maybe there already is.

It’s not just people in lockdown either, it’s also VERY mentally and often physically taxing to be a frontline worker- some more than others. I do remember reading about an ER physician that took her own life, and I am sure there are many more people in general. Suicide is still something that is not so much talked about or blatantly publicized, which is is a pity when you consider all the ludicrous BS we are subjected to from the media.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
If a lockdown throws someone back into addiction and they die from an OD or rated depression induced suicide then I say that’s not a direct death from covid but it’s a figure we should still keep in mind when discussing the death total.
So you'd have to include ODs and suicides above the normal expected rate? There were ~48,000 suicide deaths in the US in 2019. So ~4000/month. If during the pandemic, say, there are 5000/month, you can't rationally count all 5000 as pandemic-related, perhaps "only" the extra 1000 beyond what is normal/expected. Just like the "excess death" tracking, which would include, well, just like the name suggests, all deaths above what is normally expected.
 

Hilltern

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
So you'd have to include ODs and suicides above the normal expected rate? There were ~48,000 suicide deaths in the US in 2019. So ~4000/month. If during the pandemic, say, there are 5000/month, you can't rationally count all 5000 as pandemic-related, perhaps "only" the extra 1000 beyond what is normal/expected. Just like the "excess death" tracking, which would include, well, just like the name suggests, all deaths above what is normally expected.

Well we’re dealing with an unknown quantity that you can really only estimate. Just like deaths after hurricanes for example. We finally come to a number and people should under that the number isn’t sent down as the truth from the heavens but is more so a function of us needing to decide on a number at some point for statistics, etc. Looking at excess deaths is one way of trying to get there but I don’t have any alternatives to propose. I think it is important though to consider these deaths when we discuss the pandemic just like we should consider the deaths that occur in the immediate wake of a catastrophe and not just during it. Here’s a CBS article discussing earlier estimates of 75,000 pandemic related deaths of despair. I think that number will be eclipsed as this pandemic wages on.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer

Well we’re dealing with an unknown quantity that you can really only estimate. Just like deaths after hurricanes for example. We finally come to a number and people should under that the number isn’t sent down as the truth from the heavens but is more so a function of us needing to decide on a number at some point for statistics, etc. Looking at excess deaths is one way of trying to get there but I don’t have any alternatives to propose. I think it is important though to consider these deaths when we discuss the pandemic just like we should consider the deaths that occur in the immediate wake of a catastrophe and not just during it. Here’s a CBS article discussing earlier estimates of 75,000 pandemic related deaths of despair. I think that number will be eclipsed as this pandemic wages on.
I think acknowledging this issue is important - because it is something we need to be aware of so that we can improve upon it somehow. I believe a lot of people use this as leverage to claim that the shut downs are causing these suicides though, and thus shouldn't be implemented. And this is a valid train of thought - the data should be considered - but the fact of the matter is that we don't really have much choice in the shut downs. A lot of the places that have opened back up are already shutting down again or implementing restrictions because they are seeing increasing infections that are unsustainable.

I agree that this is out there and we have to learn to live with it - but part of learning to live with it may be that we have to isolate until treatment improves. It is just reality and that reality is proving itself out over and over again, in country after country.

We don't hear much about Sweden in these arguments anymore? Where did all those people go? I mean, just a month ago it was constant, "Sweden hasn't locked down, they have it right."

I'm not saying you are doing this at all - you have valid points, and this is a tangent to why you may see some push back. It isn't because of your content, it is because of the baggage that others have attached to it. And I think that the lock down side of the debate has a lot of baggage too.
 

Hilltern

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I think acknowledging this issue is important - because it is something we need to be aware of so that we can improve upon it somehow. I believe a lot of people use this as leverage to claim that the shut downs are causing these suicides though, and thus shouldn't be implemented. And this is a valid train of thought - the data should be considered - but the fact of the matter is that we don't really have much choice in the shut downs. A lot of the places that have opened back up are already shutting down again or implementing restrictions because they are seeing increasing infections that are unsustainable.

I agree that this is out there and we have to learn to live with it - but part of learning to live with it may be that we have to isolate until treatment improves. It is just reality and that reality is proving itself out over and over again, in country after country.

We don't hear much about Sweden in these arguments anymore? Where did all those people go? I mean, just a month ago it was constant, "Sweden hasn't locked down, they have it right."

I'm not saying you are doing this at all - you have valid points, and this is a tangent to why you may see some push back. It isn't because of your content, it is because of the baggage that others have attached to it. And I think that the lock down side of the debate has a lot of baggage too.
100% agree. A lot of people saw this and used it to fit their own narrative. Meanwhile it was like God forbid we include social services that help these sort of conditions as “essential business” and God forbid we in the US follow the lead of some other countries and give people more than a $1,200 check to help offset some of these woes. Just ridiculousness all around.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
haven't been following this thread very closely and if someone already mentioned this i apologize...walmart and kroger stores nationwide will begin requiring masks starting next week.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote

Well we’re dealing with an unknown quantity that you can really only estimate. Just like deaths after hurricanes for example. We finally come to a number and people should under that the number isn’t sent down as the truth from the heavens but is more so a function of us needing to decide on a number at some point for statistics, etc. Looking at excess deaths is one way of trying to get there but I don’t have any alternatives to propose. I think it is important though to consider these deaths when we discuss the pandemic just like we should consider the deaths that occur in the immediate wake of a catastrophe and not just during it. Here’s a CBS article discussing earlier estimates of 75,000 pandemic related deaths of despair. I think that number will be eclipsed as this pandemic wages on.
They ARE actually talking about deaths above what was expected/anticipated. Did you read the actual article/paper they referenced? It predicts, based on modeling from 9 different scenarios, anywhere from 27,644 additional deaths to 154,037 additional deaths, with 75,000 being the most likely.

https://wellbeingtrust.org/areas-of-focus/policy-and-advocacy/reports/projected-deaths-of-despair-during-covid-19/

I'm also curious about if this paper is peer-reviewed or not. Is Well Being Trust an actual journal? Are there any potential conflicts of interest (not that they would inherently undermine or dismiss the study of course, just something to think about) I honestly have no idea.
 

Hilltern

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
They ARE actually talking about deaths above what was expected/anticipated. Did you read the actual article/paper they referenced? It predicts, based on modeling from 9 different scenarios, anywhere from 27,644 additional deaths to 154,037 additional deaths, with 75,000 being the most likely.

https://wellbeingtrust.org/areas-of-focus/policy-and-advocacy/reports/projected-deaths-of-despair-during-covid-19/

I'm also curious about if this paper is peer-reviewed or not. Is Well Being Trust an actual journal? Are there any potential conflicts of interest (not that they would inherently undermine or dismiss the study of course, just something to think about) I honestly have no idea.
Yeah I know they’re talking about above what’s anticipated...isn’t that the whole point? I don’t know about the credibility of that one particular piece of scholarship but it’s just a data point to get the conversation going.
 

CroLifter

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Any preppers here?

I dont only mean preppers in a literal sense, stockpiling food and ammo..

There is more to it...mental prepping. Those who prep foresaw these situations anyway so it is much easier for them to accept the reality.

From the projected deaths of despair article we can see that is a huge thing, mentally being able to handle the situation.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Yeah I know they’re talking about above what’s anticipated...isn’t that the whole point? I don’t know about the credibility of that one particular piece of scholarship but it’s just a data point to get the conversation going.
Oh, my bad, I’m agreeing with you that it’s good they evaluated numbers above expected, not just total numbers. Doing otherwise would be pushing an agenda as opposed to objective research, which it seems like this paper is not doing (that is to say they seem to be doing good research, not just pushing an agenda). Sorry for the confusion.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Any preppers here?

I dont only mean preppers in a literal sense, stockpiling food and ammo..

There is more to it...mental prepping. Those who prep foresaw these situations anyway so it is much easier for them to accept the reality.

From the projected deaths of despair article we can see that is a huge thing, mentally being able to handle the situation.
I recommend the Stoic philosophers. Marcus Aurelius, for example, talks about meditating on death and the inherent shortness of life a lot. And he and Epictetus both teach that life is limited, that death is inescapable, and to fear the inevitable is childish.

edit: and not all people who physically prepped are mentally prepared for catastrophe, not by any means. I bet some of the people who cried that they needed a haircut and a new tattoo after a few months of being in their homes but still allowed to go out for walks and to the grocery store, etc.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Jesus speaks of life in the same understanding.
Yes, but, through no fault of Jesus himself, “Christianity” has become so much more (or less) than the teachings and life of Jesus. I agree we can all learn a great deal from the teachings and life or Jesus, even without be necessarily believing in the Christian theology. Too many people, in my opinion, get bogged down in the theological details of Jesus teachings rather than their practical applications. Myself, I at one time wrestled with if you have to believe that Jesus was the Messiah or not, but I now believe that whatever you believe, if you believe anything at all in that area, you can still learn a great deal from Jesus, just as you can learn a great deal from the Stoics, or Lao Tzu, or the Buddha, if you are a Christian.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Any preppers here?

I dont only mean preppers in a literal sense, stockpiling food and ammo..

There is more to it...mental prepping. Those who prep foresaw these situations anyway so it is much easier for them to accept the reality.

From the projected deaths of despair article we can see that is a huge thing, mentally being able to handle the situation.
i have a huge stockpile of food and ammo.
 

CroLifter

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Hehe mil surplus goes a long way


@muscleupcrohn i have so much respect for Marcus Aurelius
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
david gilmour live at pompei-comfortably numb.


time to catch a fleeting glimpse.......probably my favorite solo of all time!!!
 

Similar threads


Top