“Excess Deaths” from COVID
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Is Isolation Killing America’s Nursing Home Residents?
Families tell how the social isolation of being locked down in long-term care during COVID has negatively effected resident's physical and mental health.
geez posting about seton hall basketball on a seton hall message board. crazy.
not even sure why merge humors your echo chamber at this point. i guess the low hanging fruit is tasty.
yes and how are long term nursing homes populations doing with covid? doh!!Is Isolation Killing America’s Nursing Home Residents?
Families tell how the social isolation of being locked down in long-term care during COVID has negatively effected resident's physical and mental health.www.aarp.org
Honestly, take a read of this thread and start at the beginning.
"As mentioned last year, many saw this coming"
What do you think 85 was referring to when he said "as mentioned last year"? You don't think he is talking about something he said last year? What did he mean by "this"?
I asked him multiple times to explain what he was talking about specifically so I wouldn't misrepresent his position. His unwillingness to do so doesn't mean that I was trying to project something on him, it means that was all anyone reading this thread would be left with... That is why I specifically asked if he was talking about government imposed restrictions as that was what he was talking about here last year.
He went on to cite the increase in the non-Covid causes and seemed to be implying (again that is why I was asking him to actually state his opinion multiple times) that these were all non Covid related - but that is not what the CDC said. The CDC specifically said these may be Covid related deaths or non-Covid indirectly related deaths "Estimated numbers of deaths due to these other causes of death could represent misclassified COVID-19 deaths, or potentially could be indirectly related to COVID-19"
Overdose deaths increased by about 21,000 from 2019 to 2020.
Synthetic opioid deaths increased by about 20,000 from 2019 to 2020.
Are there lots of things contributing to those numbers? Absolutely. My only objection was the people who point to government restrictions as the cause. On that note... Here is a post from 2017 on the topic.
Being that we were expecting things to get far worse back in 2017, why are we acting surprised by these numbers and pointing to the pandemic as the cause of the increase?
Yes. Timing doesn't really make much sense based on when the deaths were occurring.
Well, for example - I don't really think it makes much sense to assume people in Florida and Texas would be commuting to a more restrictive state normally because that would be one hell of a commute.
So no, I wouldn't consider people overdosing in those states to be impacted from restrictions of other states.
How do you get "government restrictions" from "many saw this coming"?
Over the past two years I have shared many opinions of health care leaders on the effect of decisions on our long term health, collateral deaths, etc. You seem to want to make this about just about state imposed restrictions and isolation, which is just one aspect. There have been numerous articles/studies (some in this thread) which indicate that it was a contributing factor. Why is that so hard to understand?
I said clearly, I believed the conclusions presented were supported by the data the author presented. Why is that so hard to understand?
You like the word "implying"....it's a way of saying that you don't know....just be honest.
One more time...I agree with these conclusions. These are all things I "mentioned" last year. Why is this so hard to understand?
The United States on the whole has an unusually high rate of chronic health conditions, such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease, and has a long-recognized "health disadvantage" compared with other wealthy nations.
That disadvantage was exacerbated by a weak and scattershot response to the pandemic, Woolf said. Other countries that reacted more quickly or took more aggressive postures to control viral spread early on were able to limit their death toll as well as long-term economic impacts, he said.
"We did not handle it well. That's glaringly obvious," he said. "The other countries got hit by the same virus, but no country has experienced the number of deaths we have, and even if you adjust for population, we are among the highest in the world."
It's just a topic I'm interested in so I am willing to talk about it and share my views.
Can't control if others want to call people names and act like a bully from a bad 80s movie though.
Of course I don't know what you are intending to imply. That is why I asked you what you meant.
Because over those two years. You focused on the unintended consequences of the imposed restrictions.
We both agree with that conclusion. Just for different reasons.
merge with so many kill shots. its evident and proven over many topics that he posts completely biased narratives that hes not only unable to support, but is actually proven against with his own words and sources. amazing. get ready for deflections, the wizard of oz curtain has been pulled back up on his ivory tower.
Two years ago you were not saying we needed more aggressive postures to control the spread. Your go-to phrase at the time was "common sense while living your life" so it's interesting to see how you now believe we should have had MORE restrictions early on. This study contradicts what you said earlier.
And I have answered you now several times. You just don't like my answer....admit it.
No I didn't. That's in your head.
Different reasons than the author? Because I agree with the author, so you may need to clarify that.
You know all of your posts are still here, right? For example..
It's "in my head" in the sense that I have a good memory I suppose.
As knowknow pointed out, it is the part where the article says "Other countries that reacted more quickly or took more aggressive postures to control viral spread early on were able to limit their death toll as well as long-term economic impacts, he said."
The idea that we should have taken more aggressive measures has has not been your position here.
Did you not see the word "some" in my post? And sure, you can cherry pick a post, but you ignore all of the other posts I made about other actions I was critical about that contributed to hospitalizations and deaths.
You have selective memory and like to cherry-pick certain comments.
I put that clown on Ignore a long time ago.
Another series of posts you have ignored. If you recall, I was suggesting that we should have taken very strict measures at the onset of the pandemic to buy us time, including stopping all international flights, faster response on nursing homes and ring-fencing areas where the first infections began showing up (like New Rochelle, NY). I wasn't proposing going to Chinatown and hug them like Pelosi. It's all there in my posting history for you to search.
Must we go through this again? You were saying no such thing at the onset of the pandemic. Here you are on March 14, 2020
These are not the words of someone who supported taking strict measures at the onset of the pandemic to buy us time.
How about this one?
Or this one
I'm not cherry picking. You have just been specifically very critical of the restrictions imposed.. and you are posting a link about "excess deaths" now to support your criticisms and concerns regarding the unintended consequences.
LOL.
Cherry-picking and I site it as a reason (but not the only one).....which is true. You are "implying" that I said its the only reason.
Another Cherry-pick where I site it as a reason (but not the only one)...which is true. You are "implying" that I said its the only reason.
Yes you are. That's the definition of Cherry-picking. How about those posts I referred to where I brought up other issues?
Yup, ignore all those posts. That's what Cherry-pickers do.
Aren't you a proponent of evolving as the science and data change? You can change your views, but I can't change mine? interesting.....
Carry on...this is fun.
Last edited:
Sounds like you did not read the post.
Excess deaths were defined as all deaths in excess of the normal death rate.
The cited article went on to say the majorly of those deaths we due to covid and a smaller portion due to collateral damage like isolation etc.
You and your posse have hijacked the article and are stating that it only referred to collateral deaths.
The OP merely said that those collateral deaths should be considered when making decisions. he doesn't say that is the dominant or only factor, only that it is a factor. I don't disagree with that.
Clearly, restrictions were needed and the restrictions saved more lives then they cost. That is a good thing. However, we should be cognizant that at some point that balance may flip and the damage from restrictions is more than the damage from Covid.
Related to that, I do not think we know the damage being caused to children. It seems they are a low risk with the disease but the potential damage from wearing masks and other factors is high.
The point of the cdc's reporting and the purpose of the article in the OP was to discuss the excess on top of Covid which you can see here.
Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19
Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.
www.cdc.gov
That's not an accurate read.
They reported the excess in addition to Covid and said that Covid deaths may be underreported. They did not say they were from collateral damage.
And again, look at the link I posted. Click "Excess deaths with and without COVID-19" and then "Update dashboard" Scroll down and look at when the green bar crosses the red line.
You'll notice that these deaths were primarily occurring during Covid waves.
If you want to believe that people developed heart conditions at some point because of Covid restrictions (even in states without any) and then happened to die during a Covid wave, that's fine... but really quite a stretch.
No one hijacked anything. That was the entire point of this thread.
85 quoted only one section from the article. The quote was about the "13 other, non-covid causes of death that were inflated during the pandemic"
He started this thread off by talking about the additional heart disease related deaths... implying that these were collateral deaths.
Of course... but 85 was also the one posting that story about Covid restrictions only saving 0.2% of lives a couple weeks ago.
Sorry, posting stories showing the restrictions saved 2,000 lives but cost us an additional 200,000? and then pretends he doesn't have a specific narrative he is (and has been) pushing?
Masking kids may have been critical
Most everyone here if not everyone agreed that the initial shutdowns were critical. Some believed to avoid a “run on the hospitals”. Some believed for that and other reasons.
i will say that the argument that covid deaths were underreported (auditor says this) is ironic in that merge says it literally and 85 and others including me in SOME respects imply it. How do we not see the irony in that?
can’t we all just get in a handshake line and shake hands?
Let me try again.
It was a cause, not the cause.
Perhaps written this way makes it clearer:
It was A cause not THE cause.
Last edited:
and like I said.. the only support someone would have to make that argument is correlation and an assumption.
No consideration for what would have happened without a pandemic.
No consideration for what would have happened with a pandemic and no imposed restrictions.
You're convinced. I'm not. It's fine.
1. That was not the entire quote.
2. You are making the wrong implication. You are trying to imply that he said, "ALL" excess heart and blood pressure related deaths we due to covid restrictions.
Go back and read the OP. There is nothing to imply that.
Are you going to argue that NONE of these excess deaths were caused by restrictions?
Like I said in a previous post, the restrictions caused collateral damage including death and economic hardships, however the benefits of the restrictions outweighed the damage. Not one will ever no if the optimal balance was achieved and if not, how far off was it.
The collateral damage is increasing (delayed effect on economy and health now kicking in) and the danger of pure Covid damage has decreased.
Weight Gain
Less Exercise
Isolation (on may fronts)
Supply Chain
Loss of Businesses
Loss of Jobs
Effect on Children
Labor Market turned upside down
etc.
Last edited:
Good summary and as we have also discussed, is that we won't know the complete impact for several years with some of these items. As you stated, we are now just starting to see the results and aftermath. One thing is for certain is that we had many more COVID deaths (total and per capita) than most of the rest of the world and we are also seeing very significant increases in excess deaths now that data is available.
I am all for analysis about what worked and what didn't but in my opinion posts that argue of the unintended consequences of restrictions (or decisions) that do not consider an environment without those decisions during a pandemic are either not well thought out, or are in bad faith. And this thread isn't in a vacuum. There are two years of posts from 85 on this topic talking about the impacts from these decisions on suicides, overdoses, health, the economy etc...
I'm not rooting for restrictions, but I think we need to at least acknowledge that a pandemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions around the world on its own still impacts us in all of those collateral damage areas you listed. I just think 85 has been pushing a certain narrative about the decisions were made and seems to want to tie anything bad that happens to be a result of those decisions.
I am not sure I agree with that statement. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, Hall85 was clearly not in favor of the initial shutdowns. There were others as well.
Me, you and Pirata agree that the restrictions were needed and saved more lives than they cost. Hall85 often gives the impression that he does not agree with that statement. If he wants, he can confirm one way or the other.
Maybe.
Could probably also help if you had just explained what data you were referring to instead of dancing around with the "the data supports the conclusions" nonsense.
I have posted my answer to this at least twice. Do you want me to cut and paste it again? Once again, why is that so hard for you to understand?
I see.
I'm not his defense counsel but I also don't see why everybody went babalu on his original post in this thread.
Of the 62,000 deaths due to increased blood pressure, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose that some of those were caused by the restrictions.
Although only a data point of one, I posted about a guy in our town who committed suicide because his business took a downturn due to the restrictions. He ran a restaurant and the pressure got to him.
I'm not being argumentative here but how does one explain 62,000 increased deaths?
I'm not saying the restrictions caused all of them but I'm pretty confident in saying that the restrictions caused some of them. Whether it is 1% or 80%, I have no idea.
There are so many counterposts picking at the word "decisions". Cuomo made decisions and I think those decisions resulted in deaths that didn't have to happen. I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback and second guess all the decisions that were made. We were in uncharted territory and I believe people made the best decisions they could at the time. I do think some of those decisions were made on flawed, incomplete, and conflicting data.
The snarky references to rolodex's vs auditors didn't add much to the conversation.
I am familiar with 85's Rolodex. It includes the full C-suites of every hospital within a hundred mile radius of where we live. I know the people he interacts with in his businesses. He is not casually name dropping. I'll take his rolodex any day over the mosh pit denizen from Bayonne.
Because I asked a pretty simple question and he went the snarky route instead of just discussing the topic.
I just happen to have a difference of opinion compared to his views on the impact from restrictions compared to what would have happened without them and it spiraled from there.
Sure. I'm not making the argument that it is zero.
Obviously that is horrible. The only point I was trying to distinguish with something like that was that during a global pandemic with a raspatory virus, that would naturally impact many businesses even without any enforced restrictions.
In my opinion, 85 tends to place a lot of emphasis on the impact from the restriction side and doesn't really include thoughts on the what would have otherwise happened.
Specifically on that, I tend to view Covid infection resulting in long term heart issues as being the most likely cause.
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 - Nature Medicine
Individuals with COVID-19 are at increased long-term risk for a wide range of cardiovascular disorders, even for individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection.
www.nature.com
That is all fair.
If you're starting a list, lets add clown car, cheerleader, butt kiss, sycophants, one trick pit bull to things that don't add much as well.
Cherry picking my posts again. I posted many times early in the pandemic about the need to lock down borders and ring fence hot spots to buy times. The issues I also raised on unintended consequences was from conversations with healthcare experts that were sharing their opinions on areas that we could expect to see downstream issues from limiting movement or isolating from long term human contact. I didn’t create the term “death from loneliness “.
Some of the restrictions and decisions have been politically motivated or just bad. (ie Cuomo). And they have caused unnecessary deaths. If you want to disagree with that, go right ahead.
“Tends to”… that’s your perception. Do you want me to direct you to the hundreds of posts on being healthy and proactively addressing comorbidities as one of the effective means to avoid hospitalization or death? Much more likely to save lives (COVID and excess)….more so than some of the restrictions that destroyed peoples livelihoods
Those first three were mine and directed at posters that have no interest in discussing the issues. As much as we might disagree (or you might misunderstand) my positions I can respect the discourse. If someone acts like an ass-kissing douche, they get treated that way.Specifically on that, I tend to view Covid infection resulting in long term heart issues as being the most likely cause.
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 - Nature Medicine
Individuals with COVID-19 are at increased long-term risk for a wide range of cardiovascular disorders, even for individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection.
That is all fair.
If you're starting a list, lets add clown car, cheerleader, butt kiss, sycophants, one trick pit bull to things that don't add much as well.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
To be fair anyone who makes a living in sales in the life sciences interacts with the C-Suite and nobody else repeatedly beats their chest about it on here.
