Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Toast]

You might be wearing it wrong

Very good Bruce.

 

[Kenshin]

No, I don’t believe having ”only” 40% (a huge sample size in medical terms) makes it flawed as we have been talking about risk factors for death. So unless you believe that there are a very large number of women who are dying in the UK with coronavirus without being diagnosed I am bemused by how you think the data would change with 100% sample size - perhaps you can walk me through your logic?

Table 1 in the article breakes down the raw numbers ie those diagnosed as being infected and those who died. Consistent with most data I have seen there were slightly more women diagnosed 8647989 (50.1%) compared to 8630403 men yet significantly more men died 6162 vs 4764 women.

Given that this is a disease that we also know has a bigger impact the older you are, and there are a lot more over 80s women around than old men, don’t those raw numbers raise a huge flag to you?

There are complex reasons why men might be more vulnerable, still not fully understood and I’ve discussed several of them in this thread including the smoking bit way back in April. It is probably a mixture of biological and behavioral factors rather than one simple explanation, thought this cdc article was helpful.

Men and COVID-19: A Biopsychosocial Approach to Understanding Sex Differences in Mortality and Recommendations for Practice and Policy Interventions

Preventing Chronic Disease (PCD) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal established by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. PCD provides an open exchange of information and knowledge among researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and others who strive to...

www.cdc.gov

It is the “doesn’t affect males males more” that I am calling bollocks on as it very clearly does, not why it might affect males more which I feel is a far more interesting and useful discussion to have.

why it might affect males more which I feel is a far more interesting and useful discussion to have.

So I'm not allowed to dispute that? You seem very one sided in that belief that the mere disagreement is met with WRONG without allowing me any room for discussion on my side? That's a little unfair isnt it?

But more on that front you openly admit that you haven't included the why in your argument. Which would be fine but then the why probably takes it away from simple genetics and more into a deeper reasoning. Which is what I'm offering you, that you can't just say it affects men more when you don't even know the why in it. That's a ridiculous argument to make , anyone can claim anything and therefore never have to justify it.

as we have been talking about risk factors for death

I've been talking about catching covid 19 rather than simply dying from it. Have you factored in all external factors into your argument such as smoking history as an example or have you just been throwing that figure at me as a blanket number?

What if women were more likely to catch the virus but because of external factors such as age , previous medical information or even smoking history (which is statistically male everywhere in the world ) that's why men die more?

If you don't open the information to very variable factor then it's not very accurate is it?

By simply basing on your opinion on the number of deaths you are in fact ruling out the major factor of those deaths being over 75, where statistically men die anyway earlier than women. So if that is the case statistically, you are going to get a figure that is skewed especially when combined with the exagerated numbers scenario that is currently in place .

am bemused by how you think the data would change with 100% sample size - perhaps you can walk me through your logic?

Well if you added in the missing 60% of information then you have a much more detailed picture. Especially in people who get the virus rather than simply die from it.

Now given there is an urgent enquiry as the numbers have been allegedly exagerated , what if the death figures then alter to a more accurate level in the future and therefore balance between sex? Have you factored that into it?


See now here is the thing. You are so quick to call bollocks on a different opinion to yours yet you openly admit that you have no idea of varying factors in your information. That logic is flawed in itself because you have not got the full information. I am simply pointing out that perhaps regurgitating those figures at me and either not knowing (or dismissing as it seems) any other factors to get to that conclusion, is a flawed argument.

Why is that the case? I challenge you on your statistics based on actual intelligent questions and it's bollocks in your words? If you found out that every proportionality higher male death was due to the significant increase in smoking history and in some cases respiratory issues as a result , would you still say men are more affected or would you then admit that maybe I have a point?

 

[Old Blue 2]

This is like @Old Blue 2 suggesting opinion polls are worthless because they didn't ask every single Brexit voter!

Somebody poked you with a sharp stick and woke you up, Brucie?

I'll take your opinion over everyone else's in the country! Wot! You don't believe me?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Coronavirus: Boris Johnson warns of Europe 'second wave' amid Spain row

Boris Johnson says it is up to individuals to decide where to travel as he hints at further restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

Johnson back on his favourite ground of xenophobia as he begins priming more "blame Europe" rhetoric.

He really is a vile odious creep of a person. Johnson would do well to look how he and his cronies are not managing our first wave before pointing fingers.

 

[duncs pigeon]

Coronavirus: Boris Johnson warns of Europe 'second wave' amid Spain row

Boris Johnson says it is up to individuals to decide where to travel as he hints at further restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

Johnson back on his favourite ground of xenophobia as he begins priming more "blame Europe" rhetoric.

He really is a vile odious creep of a person. Johnson would do well to look how he and his cronies are not managing our first wave before pointing fingers.

If we do have another wave, wonder where he will disappear to this time.

 

[davek]

Coronavirus: Boris Johnson warns of Europe 'second wave' amid Spain row

Boris Johnson says it is up to individuals to decide where to travel as he hints at further restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

Johnson back on his favourite ground of xenophobia as he begins priming more "blame Europe" rhetoric.

He really is a vile odious creep of a person. Johnson would do well to look how he and his cronies are not managing our first wave before pointing fingers.

He's got some brass neck talking about acting quickly. He murdered tens of thousands of people in this country with his 'take it on the chin' 'herd immunity' BS.

Utter vermin.

 

[Barnfred 55]

There's a whole load of misinformed wham in this thread these days. I blame the Summer sunshine.

I blame knobheads lol

 

[LinekersLegs]

why it might affect males more which I feel is a far more interesting and useful discussion to have.

So I'm not allowed to dispute that? You seem very one sided in that belief that the mere disagreement is met with WRONG without allowing me any room for discussion on my side? That's a little unfair isnt it?

But more on that front you openly admit that you haven't included the why in your argument. Which would be fine but then the why probably takes it away from simple genetics and more into a deeper reasoning. Which is what I'm offering you, that you can't just say it affects men more when you don't even know the why in it. That's a ridiculous argument to make , anyone can claim anything and therefore never have to justify it.

as we have been talking about risk factors for death

I've been talking about catching covid 19 rather than simply dying from it. Have you factored in all external factors into your argument such as smoking history as an example or have you just been throwing that figure at me as a blanket number?

What if women were more likely to catch the virus but because of external factors such as age , previous medical information or even smoking history (which is statistically male everywhere in the world ) that's why men die more?

If you don't open the information to very variable factor then it's not very accurate is it?

By simply basing on your opinion on the number of deaths you are in fact ruling out the major factor of those deaths being over 75, where statistically men die anyway earlier than women. So if that is the case statistically, you are going to get a figure that is skewed especially when combined with the exagerated numbers scenario that is currently in place .

am bemused by how you think the data would change with 100% sample size - perhaps you can walk me through your logic?

Well if you added in the missing 60% of information then you have a much more detailed picture. Especially in people who get the virus rather than simply die from it.

Now given there is an urgent enquiry as the numbers have been allegedly exagerated , what if the death figures then alter to a more accurate level in the future and therefore balance between sex? Have you factored that into it?


See now here is the thing. You are so quick to call bollocks on a different opinion to yours yet you openly admit that you have no idea of varying factors in your information. That logic is flawed in itself because you have not got the full information. I am simply pointing out that perhaps regurgitating those figures at me and either not knowing (or dismissing as it seems) any other factors to get to that conclusion, is a flawed argument.

Why is that the case? I challenge you on your statistics based on actual intelligent questions and it's bollocks in your words? If you found out that every proportionality higher male death was due to the significant increase in smoking history and in some cases respiratory issues as a result , would you still say memn are more affected or would you then admit that maybe I have a point?

I’m one sided in that all the data I have seen, both raw numbers and controlled for other factors like smoking, show men are at greater risk of serious complications and death from coronavirus than women. If you show me data that contradicts that then of course I’ll be open to changing my mind as “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” but so far you haven’t provided any evidence simply made the following declarations that there are no gender differences

“It affects males more , yet it doesn't.

and

The news has been misleading people for months yet everyone soaks it in without ever questioning it. Covid-19 is both sexist and racist, the first virus in history to affect people based on both skin colour and sex. Except that's not true either.”

Is it possible that the existing data will change - sure. Is it possible that it is all entirely explained by other factors as you raised in this

“If you found out that every proportionality higher male death was due to the significant increase in smoking history and in some cases respiratory issues as a result , would you still say men are more affected”

I’d say it was an example of “correlation does not imply causation” lol and that no, there was not a gender difference.

But studies like that Nature one controlled for those issues and found gender was statistically still a risk factor.

And you youself seem open to some gender differences, at least in catching it “What if women were more likely to catch the virus” so I find it a bit odd that you are so adamant that there are no differences in how it affects the genders in severity.

 

[Barnfred 55]

It's more than voted for our torturous suicide glorious trading with the world reclaiming sovereignty fishing for ourselves giant lorry parks in Kent...........

Wrong thread Bruce

 

[BlueStevie35]

All settings - 119 is the announced figure, up 112 on yesterday (as Tuesday is when the weekend backlogs are recorded) but up also by 9 on last Tuesday causing the 7 day rolling average to rise to 65.14. The earlier hospital figure sees that 7 day rolling average fall slightly to 14.71

 

[davek]

All settings - 119 is the announced figure, up 112 on yesterday (as Tuesday is when the weekend backlogs are recorded) but up also by 9 on last Tuesday causing the 7 day rolling average to rise to 65.14. The earlier hospital figure sees that 7 day rolling average fall slightly to 14.71

The latest graph on infections and deaths underlines that there is an upswing in the rolling average.

The opening up of pubs and restaurants will see a sharp climb again.

Johnsn knows it, and he's thwowing a lot of BS around about holidays to cloud that fact.

 

[verreauxi]

I’m one sided in that all the data I have seen, both raw numbers and controlled for other factors like smoking, show men are at greater risk of serious complications and death from coronavirus than women. If you show me data that contradicts that then of course I’ll be open to changing my mind as “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” but so far you haven’t provided any evidence simply made the following declarations that there are no gender differences

and

Is it possible that the existing data will change - sure. Is it possible that it is all entirely explained by other factors as you raised in this
I’d say it was an example of “correlation does not imply causation” lol and that no, there was not a gender difference.

But studies like that Nature one controlled for those issues and found gender was statistically still a risk factor.

And you youself seem open to some gender differences, at least in catching it “What if women were more likely to catch the virus” so I find it a bit odd that you are so adamant that there are no differences in how it affects the genders in severity.

There have been so many studies on covid that there are now meta-analyses (summary studies of the numerous primary studies); these meta-analyses show that men are more likely to both contract more severe cases and die relative to women. Some of the primary studies have also occurred in countries where smoking rates among men/women are equal, such as Sweden and Denmark, but men still are more likely to die from Covid relative to women.

 

[Prevenger17]

Well if you haven't tested all cases in the world then you are making assumptions based on only a select amount of data, which makes it inaccurate?

Doesn't it?

Can't say oh this proves X Y Z if you have only got a select amount of information.




But it's select data. Data that is both out of date and not inclusive to everyone.

So you can't just make assumptions based on anything other than all the information , otherwise you are guessing.


Because far more people catch the virus then die from it.

If we are only saying severe cases prove men are more likely to die from the virus then it proves nothing other than guesswork.

Given that

A) statistically women live longer than men
B) the vast majority of deaths is in the over 75 bracket.

Which combined together gives you a different outlook onto the effects of the virus at that age group onwards.

But I guess that factor doesn't matter either does it?

If you only base it on serious cases then that's dismissing every single person who doesn't die with the virus , which would be a different pool altogether?

 

[Kenshin]

I’m one sided in that all the data I have seen, both raw numbers and controlled for other factors like smoking, show men are at greater risk of serious complications and death from coronavirus than women. If you show me data that contradicts that then of course I’ll be open to changing my mind as “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” but so far you haven’t provided any evidence simply made the following declarations that there are no gender differences

and

Is it possible that the existing data will change - sure. Is it possible that it is all entirely explained by other factors as you raised in this
I’d say it was an example of “correlation does not imply causation” lol and that no, there was not a gender difference.

But studies like that Nature one controlled for those issues and found gender was statistically still a risk factor.

And you youself seem open to some gender differences, at least in catching it “What if women were more likely to catch the virus” so I find it a bit odd that you are so adamant that there are no differences in how it affects the genders in severity.

But none of that matters if you openly admit that you don't consider any variable to the data and dismiss any opposition to it as bollocks.

You have proven what I was saying a week or so ago. You aren't interested in a discussion , you want to be right and me be wrong. You are happy to throw data at me as facts yet when I present flaws in said data or offer variables you haven't considered might change the validity of the data you then try to shoot me down.

Except you know I am talking sense now. You may not agree with me and that's fine, but you know I have a point.

There are many variables that these statistics do not allow for. Saying men are more affected without any reason as to why is a ridiculous standpoint. It's as I say, regurgitating figures without giving them a seconds thought as to how valid they are. given the date the information was collected , like I say it's not even up to date information.

I haven't threw statistics back at you which means you miss the point in what I'm saying. I'm not offering you the truth, I'm questioning your version of it. I have offered several different varying factors that the information you provide doesn't include. I offer various variables based on sex that oppose what you say , doesn't make them any less valid.

But most importantly , the fact you tried to show me up like a tit and I have backed my points up is the most amazing thing of all here. Your information doesn't factor medical history , non death covid-19 patients , patients who didn't know they had it so were never tested , 60% of a population , many weeks of missing information , smoking history , I could keep listing them. There is no value in the what without the why, the numbers are meaningless under all those circumstances.

Which is funny because if I offered you an inaccurate piece of information as evidence you would try to rip me apart. If I offered you any evidence of my own you would dismiss it anyway so why even bother? So I question yours and you know I'm making sense even though you don't agree.

You know that information is flawed and doesn't give a legitimate answer to anything. It's not genetics for example if an 80 year old former (or current) smoker who happens to be male dies from covid-19. Because at 80 they are more likely to die anyway , because decades potentially of smoking renders the lungs damaged in a way a respiratory virus can attack them more efficiently. This isn't their genetics , their DNA making them more susceptible to a virus it's their life choices.

The information is flawed. You want to give me an accurate piece of information to change my mind. Go and get me the stats that are non smokers according to their ratio in the UK male/female and their death rate. Cross that with the rate of infection with male/female in non smokers.

Then take the smokers and do the same. But remove the 75 plus side because it's pretty much a given that age plays a huge role in death once you hit that age bracket.

Once you have all of that over everyone who has had covid-19 then you get an accurate statement to back up what you are saying. Just saying these numbers prove it and remove all variable factors as to why those figures exist has no grounds. You know that deep down, you know I have a point that there are far too many variable factors not included in that Information.

 

[Kenshin]

View attachment 95863

The funny thing is that I do actually have a point in what I'm saying.

And I think you know that. Otherwise I'd have been met with far shorter responses.

Just because you don't agree doesn't make my opinion any less valid.