Lockdown Proponents Are Science Deniers
05-31-2020, 02:00 PM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Position: Pilot
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by MaxQ
Not sure where this 43% number comes from.
NYC deaths about 21,000. NYC nursing home deaths about 3,000. That’s about 14.5 %.(admittedly still a very high percent, but a long ways from 43%)
43% May be national? I can’t refute it, but it sounds unlikely.
NYC deaths about 21,000. NYC nursing home deaths about 3,000. That’s about 14.5 %.(admittedly still a very high percent, but a long ways from 43%)
43% May be national? I can’t refute it, but it sounds unlikely.
“And 42% could be an undercount. States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital, even if they were originally infected in a long-term care facility. Outside of New York, more than half of all deaths from COVID-19 are of residents in long-term care facilities.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#4b00123574cd
05-31-2020, 02:23 PM
#82
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Originally Posted by MaxQ
Not sure where this 43% number comes from.
NYC deaths about 21,000. NYC nursing home deaths about 3,000. That’s about 14.5 %.(admittedly still a very high percent, but a long ways from 43%)
43% May be national? I can’t refute it, but it sounds unlikely.
NYC deaths about 21,000. NYC nursing home deaths about 3,000. That’s about 14.5 %.(admittedly still a very high percent, but a long ways from 43%)
43% May be national? I can’t refute it, but it sounds unlikely.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#b1fbdab74cdb
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...never-be-known
https://riverdalepress.com/stories/q...irus-nyc,71677
Here is a graphic showing nursing home deaths. New York is unique in only counting as nursing home deaths those that actually died in nursing homes rather than nursing home residents who died in hospitals. They said they did this “to avoid the possibility of double counting...”
It is nonetheless estimated that the TOTAL percentage of nursing home residents who got coronavirus in their nursing home and died closely approached the rate reported for neighboring New Jersey.
Last edited by Excargodog; 05-31-2020 at 02:34 PM.
05-31-2020, 05:56 PM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by AntiPeter
This article explains the New York State undercount:
“And 42% could be an undercount. States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital, even if they were originally infected in a long-term care facility. Outside of New York, more than half of all deaths from COVID-19 are of residents in long-term care facilities.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#4b00123574cd
“And 42% could be an undercount. States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital, even if they were originally infected in a long-term care facility. Outside of New York, more than half of all deaths from COVID-19 are of residents in long-term care facilities.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#4b00123574cd
My "gut" feeling is suspicious of the 42% number. However, I have zero data to back up that presumptuous assumption. Since it comes from Forbes, and nothing to refute it with, I don't have much choice than to accept it as basically accurate, even if it doesn't fall in my "confirmation bias" zone.
I will add, I would probably dismiss the number if it came from FoxNews, Brietbart, ZeroHedge or any number of other sources I consider to be right wing propaganda. That said, I do not consider Forbes as propaganda. They are almost assuredly biased. (remember their corporate aircraft labeled "Capitalist Tool"?)That does not mean that they engage in outright propaganda. Their editors no doubt have a world view, but I am unaware of them twisting basic journalistic standards.
I mention this as I see frequent comments about the biased media. It is impossible for a thinking person with any degree of knowledge on a given subject to not bring biases into their reporting on that subject. That does not mean that you will read an inaccurate report. (assuming it is appropriately edited). One may vehemently disagree with said report, but it doesn't mean they are pushing agenda A or B just because "you' (or me) may disagree with it. The main stream established media (mostly print) has done a better job during this than they get credit for.
05-31-2020, 07:05 PM
#84
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Originally Posted by MaxQ
TomBrady, Antipeter and Excargo...Thanks for the civil responses.
My "gut" feeling is suspicious of the 42% number. However, I have zero data to back up that presumptuous assumption. Since it comes from Forbes, and nothing to refute it with, I don't have much choice than to accept it as basically accurate, even if it doesn't fall in my "confirmation bias" zone.
I will add, I would probably dismiss the number if it came from FoxNews, Brietbart, ZeroHedge or any number of other sources I consider to be right wing propaganda. That said, I do not consider Forbes as propaganda. They are almost assuredly biased. (remember their corporate aircraft labeled "Capitalist Tool"?)That does not mean that they engage in outright propaganda. Their editors no doubt have a world view, but I am unaware of them twisting basic journalistic standards.
I mention this as I see frequent comments about the biased media. It is impossible for a thinking person with any degree of knowledge on a given subject to not bring biases into their reporting on that subject. That does not mean that you will read an inaccurate report. (assuming it is appropriately edited). One may vehemently disagree with said report, but it doesn't mean they are pushing agenda A or B just because "you' (or me) may disagree with it. The main stream established media (mostly print) has done a better job during this than they get credit for.
My "gut" feeling is suspicious of the 42% number. However, I have zero data to back up that presumptuous assumption. Since it comes from Forbes, and nothing to refute it with, I don't have much choice than to accept it as basically accurate, even if it doesn't fall in my "confirmation bias" zone.
I will add, I would probably dismiss the number if it came from FoxNews, Brietbart, ZeroHedge or any number of other sources I consider to be right wing propaganda. That said, I do not consider Forbes as propaganda. They are almost assuredly biased. (remember their corporate aircraft labeled "Capitalist Tool"?)That does not mean that they engage in outright propaganda. Their editors no doubt have a world view, but I am unaware of them twisting basic journalistic standards.
I mention this as I see frequent comments about the biased media. It is impossible for a thinking person with any degree of knowledge on a given subject to not bring biases into their reporting on that subject. That does not mean that you will read an inaccurate report. (assuming it is appropriately edited). One may vehemently disagree with said report, but it doesn't mean they are pushing agenda A or B just because "you' (or me) may disagree with it. The main stream established media (mostly print) has done a better job during this than they get credit for.
You can be as paranoid as you choose about right wing propaganda - that’s on you - but you should at least make an attempt to educate yourself before assuming someone else is lying. Any number of good sources are available AND HAVE BEEN FOR SOME TIME, left leaning, right leaning, and international, that have reported on the high association of nursing home patients with coronavirus deaths both here and overseas. You ought to do a little more research before denigrating other posters or sources, IMHO.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...111_story.html
https://www.euronews.com/2020/05/08/...pe-s-care-home
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...onavirus-fight
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52188820
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/world...ntl/index.html
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.XtRvcRoiehA
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...rm-care-facili
05-31-2020, 08:16 PM
#85
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
By the numbers...
https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics...g_home_acf.pdf
Includes only those who died in the facility. Excludes those transferred to hospitals before death.
Includes only those who died in the facility. Excludes those transferred to hospitals before death.
06-01-2020, 04:23 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Position: Pilot
Posts: 516
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
