Matrix Games Forums

The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

While data released Tuesday point to a slowdown in the increase of cases, with a 12.6% rise, a separate study shows Italy could be underestimating the real number of cases by testing only patients presenting symptoms.

According to the GIMBE Foundation, about 100,000 Italians have contracted the virus, daily Il Sole 24 Ore reported. That would bring back the country’s death rate closer to the global average of about 2%.

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

American intelligence agencies report to the President that China......wait for it...LIED about the numbers...thus hampering public health decisions worldwide and making containment impossible.

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... gence-says

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I just read this, with the size of this thread I can't be sure it hasn't already been posted.

Coronavirus: The California Herd

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

American intelligence agencies report to the President that China......wait for it...LIED about the numbers...thus hampering public health decisions worldwide and making containment impossible.

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... gence-says

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

From Mrch 18, 2020:

99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says

The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

While data released Tuesday point to a slowdown in the increase of cases, with a 12.6% rise, a separate study shows Italy could be underestimating the real number of cases by testing only patients presenting symptoms.

According to the GIMBE Foundation, about 100,000 Italians have contracted the virus, daily Il Sole 24 Ore reported. That would bring back the country’s death rate closer to the global average of about 2%.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... italy-says

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

American intelligence agencies report to the President that China......wait for it...LIED about the numbers...thus hampering public health decisions worldwide and making containment impossible.

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... gence-says

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If by "controlling the discussion" you mean "trying to steer us away from politics," I've certainly done that. But the discussion in here has been robust, with very few "steerings" needed.

While a commendable exercise, it is worth highlighting that you have not been appointed a moderator on the forum. Unsure then why you feel the need to act as one, when they have demonstrated that they can and do involve themselves where needed. The moderator has been absent when many of the most offensive political comments and posts have been made.

I don't ignore your post, but I don't like diverting the thread with lengthy chains of two parties posting "you said this" and "I said this" repeatedly. Already, that's what's happening here. Create another thread if you wish to go off on tangents. I've said that before. If that's controlling, so be it.

The need for excessive quoting is driven by your consistent attempts to misrepresent, distort and dismiss points that I have raised. If you were to cease with rhetoric and address the actual points raised then it would not be required and a more fluid discussion could emerge. You have consistently misrepresented points that I have raised.

Our previous discussions have not gone well (Climate Change and some of the things in here), leading me to not want to get into lengthy discussions on tangential issues in here.

Our previous discussions have not gone well precisely because of the behaviour on your part I have outlined previously. Our previous discussions have not gone well precisely because of your behavior, as described here.

I disagreed with your comments about the poor in the US not having access to healthcare.

That has been noted.

I pointed out the reasons for my thoughts.

Which were supported only by anecdotal evidence.

How things have played out, at least to this point, have supported my views. There has been no evidence that the poor have been denied healthcare, at least to any statistically relevant extent.

I provided a range evidence from the U.S Census, CDC and NCBI that demonstrated that this was not the case.

Given that it was quite some time ago, happy to repost to refresh the discussion:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... sured.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/access ... h-care.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6125037/

I would like to correct you on a point of language on discussion to healthcare. Denying is not quite the correct terminology from my reading on the subject; a more accurate term should be something like structural barriers to accessing healthcare. As I pointed out, as others pointed out, and as circumstances have borne out, the poor haven't been denied healthcare or had structural barriers in accessing healthcare. Anyone who shows up at an emergency room is treated. Everybody (with of course minimal exceptions) knows it. There are times when somebody can't get to an emergency room because they don't have a car or they are so sick they can't drive, or because they might have legal problems so that they're afraid to go, but nobody is denied basic healthcare because they can't pay.

Truly, I think we ought to take this elsewhere. Or, I can be excused, if there's a pressing need to engage in political discussion or contretemps in here.

You keep reiterating that this discussion is supposedly political.

The above posted links are all firmly focused on technical and statistical matters related to healthcare. The only manner in which this discussion could turn political is if you make it so. I am more than content with sticking strictly to a technical, statistical and structural discussion on the topic. Good. We can drop this back and forth then?

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Any discussion of US healthcare systems will almost inevitably be "political" because it is a major schism between the Right and the Left.

You would have more luck with an apolitical discussion of abortion.[:)]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I just read this, with the size of this thread I can't be sure it hasn't already been posted.

Coronavirus: The California Herd

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Any discussion of US healthcare systems will almost inevitably be "political" because it is a major schism between the Right and the Left.

You would have more luck with an apolitical discussion of abortion.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

American intelligence agencies report to the President that China......wait for it...LIED about the numbers...thus hampering public health decisions worldwide and making containment impossible.

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... gence-says

One thing that strikes me is that China seemed to react swiftly and strongly enough to confine the outbreak to a particular region within their own country.

The question then raises itself - how in contrast did it get out and spread so far internationally? Were the Chinese withholding information and frustrating the kinds of measures that could have pinned the virus down when it started appearing elsewhere? Or was enough information available but our governments in 'the West' were somewhat complacent and slow to act?

I'd suspect that there is truth in both of those suggestions and that it is going to be difficult to unpick exactly where the balance lies.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

"The California Herd" in the National Review: "California governor Gavin Newsom has assured his state that over half of the population — or, in his words, 56 percent — will soon be infected. That is, more than 25 million coronavirus cases are on the horizon, which, at the virus’s current fatality rate of 1–2 percent (the ratio of deaths to known positive cases), would mean that the state should anticipate 250,000–500,000 dead Californians in the near future. Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti predicted that this week Los Angeles would be short of all sorts of medical supplies as the epidemic killed many hundreds, as is the case in New York City."

How will there be 100k to 200k American dead but 250k to 500k Californians dead?

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

American intelligence agencies report to the President that China......wait for it...LIED about the numbers...thus hampering public health decisions worldwide and making containment impossible.

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... gence-says

One thing that strikes me is that China seemed to react swiftly and strongly enough to confine the outbreak to a particular region within their own country.

The question then raises itself - how in contrast did it get out and spread so far internationally? Were the Chinese withholding information and frustrating the kinds of measures that could have pinned the virus down when it started appearing elsewhere? Or was enough information available but our governments in 'the West' were somewhat complacent and slow to act?

I'd suspect that there is truth in both of those suggestions and that it is going to be difficult to unpick exactly where the balance lies.

Well ... first, the virus was in circulation before being noticed as a novel coronavirus for about two months.

Secondly, the first doctors to communicate loudly that this was a new virus and measures needed to be taken were silenced, forced to sign retractions of their messages, and one has now disappeared completely (the director of surgery IIRC in a Wuhan hospital.

Thirdly, it was then after New Year when things were actually shut down, and that is a time when Chinese travel all over the place.

So when they did shut it up, yes, it was effective. We now wonder how effective though, since the residents of Wuhan are questioning mortality numbers, infection numbers are now objectively in question due to the Chinese not counting those positive results that were asymptomatic.

So the end product is that they screwed up in a number of ways, but seemingly still got it under control, although we don't even really know that now that the numbers are so off.