As Covid deaths approach a quarter of a million...

I am happy to admit when I make a mistake. Which question did I miss?

 

Disneyland
The beaches
the airports

Yeah, "stupid is as stupid does" and accepting this level of risk unnecessarily is stupid.

Now you're getting upset with me for reporting the obvious linkage between strongly Trump regions and and large covid outbreaks.
This is not a surprise. This was predicted back in March/April when Trump decided that masks and distancing were to be the symbols
of this Covid fraud. Not wearing masks and not distancing became dual badges of "honor" among the Trumpinistas.
But, the virus doesn't respect your ideology. It looks for ways to spread and when you make it easy to spread, by doing stupid stuff, you get outbreaks.
The stupider and the more wide spread the behaviors, the faster the virus spreads.
These outbreaks were predicted based on the behaviors of Trump followers.

 

No! Every single peer reviewed scientific study shows that the number of dead have been severely undercounted.

A couple of examples.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.19545
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2767980


Peer reviewed studies. Not anecdotes. Not hypoteticals. The number of people that died this year has a spike not attributable to the reported cases of Coronavirus.

 

I'll copy-paste the corresponding post.

You said: "Those who ignored Trump altogether had all the facts they needed to avoid a virus."

What "facts" did they have, and how would having those facts allow them to avoid the virus?

And if you don't listen to government experts on Pandemics for guidance, who do you listen to?

 

Peer reviewed does not mean they were checked for accuracy. Right?

 

Yes they are checked for accuracy.

 

The citation is a non sequitur: it does not prove your original point: that the numbers of deaths reported are those who have from from the Chinese Virus. I have provided a quote from the spokesman of the Oregon Health Authority that states the methodology of how they are counting COVID deaths.

Please try again.

 

You said something to the effect that the peer reviewer was not allowed to indicate agreement or disagreement with the study.

 

You provided an anecdote, I provided links to two of many studies (there are more, but those two I happened to have on hand) that prove that the number of dead because of Covid are very much undercounted. I can also provide studies that show that Trump's inaction is responsible for at least 120 thousand of the dead. So you can stop calling our strain of the virus "China Virus" and start calling it what it is: the Trump Virus.

 

They don't. Peer-reviewers only check the methodology. They also don't necessarily check the accuracy of the data (usually they check the trustworthiness of the sources). But the data is checked very thoroughly. Not only by the authors themselves, but by thousands of students and junior peers around the world who read the studies and would just loooove to get their name on the news for discovering a mistake, to the embarrassment of the authors.

 

You provided links that did not back up your point that these numbers of deaths are from COVID. You just provided links that say there was a spike in death this year than normal. That does not in any way back up your assertion that the number of COVID deaths are those who have died from the Chinese Virus, as opposed to with the Chinese Virus. There are other reasons for the higher death rate, such as people dying from suicide because they lost their jobs because of the Democrat lockdowns. But, no, no, no, they must all be from COVID, right? Give me a break.

If this disease was so dangerous, you would not be mum, as you have been, with these protests / riots. You would not have been mum about the large celebrations across the country over Biden's supposed win. You were mum because you agree with the political context of those events--plain and simple.

You know this disease has been politically weaponized.

 

Therefore when you emphasize peer review in bold print as an authority for the accuracy of the study, it means very little..

 

Didn't read thread, just silly dishonest OP.

Remember folks, As -alleged- extremely -comorbid- COVID deaths approach (insert made up number here), just remember that half of those "deaths" are in two states, two near infinitely corrupt states.

So are the Soprano states of NY and NJ lying? or the rest of the country? No "c" answer possible. Make up your own minds.

 

That's how science works. All sciences. You define all variables. Identify dependent variables, controlled variables and what's left are independent variables. Science uses deductive reasoning. It's not perfect, but it works.

Nonsense! You think scientist don't account for suicides? Which have increased, BTW. But they are easily accounted for.

Almost everybody wore masks. They were in the open. It was definitely dangerous, but unavoidable. And not as bad as Trump's Covid infection parties. Some of them indoors. And the Creep in Chief mocking people who wore masks. All this completely avoidable.

But the fact that you are changing the subject indicates that you now understand that the number of dead are undercounted (not overcounted), which was my goal. So my job is done. Thanks for playing....

 

The trustworthiness in the accuracy of the study is incremented by the fact that it was in a peer-reviewed publication and everything that entails. Including, but not limited to, the fact that it was peer-reviewed. It's further incremented by the fact that it remains in the publication's database (especially when it's controversial). But the main factor is the fact that studies before and after it, which meet the same requirements, are consistent with its findings. Studies are meaningless if they are not replicated, or are themselves replications. By different teams using different methodologies.

Anyway... that's a completely different topic. So this is as far as I can go without getting the mods on my neck for derailing the thread.

 

Not really. What's left are not independent variables. Independent variables usually happen later. They aren't just what is left. Sometimes, as in the case of climate change, they have declared the study complete before there are any independent variables even though only independent variables can truly verify the accuracy of the study.

 

However, by your own admission, peer review does mean it is an accurate study. Therefore throwing the term in like it proves something is misleading.

 

Yes.

 

I believe most people would have preferred the Americans be evacuated rather than leaving them a hot spot.

 

To you. To the rest of humanity peer-reviewed scientific studies are quite trustworthy.

 

Courtesy of Donald J Trump!

 

Why would they believe that if what you say is true?

 

Thank you for the randomness.

The link you provided just said there was a higher than usual amount of death this year. You're attributing that excess to COVID; I'm arguing that there are other factors, such as suicide, which has gone up this year, due to Democrat lockdowns.

As the great philosopher Brandy once said, "Everybody knows almost doesn't count."

Unavoidable? How so? They literally could not have celebrated the way they did. In fact, they did not have to celebrate at all. It was completely avoidable! But, again, it's a political context that you like, so it's okay.

I already beat you in this argument 2 posts ago. I'm just entertaining myself at this point.

 

Yet no one has traced an uptick to Trump rally most if which were outdoors. Note stupid is believing that Trump rallies are super spreaders based only on assumption, while leftist cop hate rallies sponsored by BLM aren't super spreader events, well because virus respect your political views.

 

Since Chinese officials disclosed the outbreak of a mysterious pneumonialike illness to international health officials on New Year’s Eve, at least 430,000 people have arrived in the United States on direct flights from China, including nearly 40,000 in the two months after President Trump imposed restrictions on such travel, according to an analysis of data collected in both countries.

The bulk of the passengers, who were of multiple nationalities, arrived in January, at airports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Seattle, Newark and Detroit. Thousands of them flew directly from Wuhan, the center of the coronavirus outbreak, as American public health officials were only beginning to assess the risks to the United States.

Flights continued this past week, the data show, with passengers traveling from Beijing to Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, under rules that exempt Americans and some others from the clampdown that took effect on Feb. 2. In all, 279 flights from China have arrived in the United States since then, and screening procedures have been uneven, interviews show.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-travel-restrictions.html