COVID deaths still declining

[Ronson]

The Spanish Flu lasted for two years or more, and we now know far more about viruses than was known in the early 20th century when virology was still very much in its infancy.

They wore crazy masks


53382fa949c6ad72e4073c249b05cace.jpg

[shunyadragon]

I forget where I found it, but the number of deaths necessary to match the Spanish Flu would have to be something like 50 -100 Million Americans. I don't think we have reached that number yet.

No, it is obvious that COVID-19 is not a comparable pandemic than the 1917-1920 pandemic. I do not know of anyone making this claim. This pandemic is number 2 for the 20th and the 21st century and a worse pandemic than the 1957 flu and the 2003 flu pandemic.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

They wore crazy masks


[ATTACH=CONFIG]46384[/ATTACH]

Your lighthearted contribution is duly noted.

[Mountain Man]

That leads to the question, why did God create the virus?

Ah, it's the "problem of evil" canard.

[Ronson]

Your lighthearted contribution is duly noted.

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

[whag]

Ah, it's the "problem of evil" canard.

It’s not a canard if the world’s greatest philosophers and religious thinkers also wrestled with it.

If fact, one of the reasons you deny evolution is because of the implications of natural evil preceding the fall.

[Cow Poke]

That leads to the question, why did God create the virus?

Cute. I believe we already have threads on that.

[Bald Ape]

For those who have feared that the number of coronavirus cases is going to lead to continuing high rates of deaths...

Have the current severe reduction of deaths finally convinced you that we are not having the problem of confirmed cases leading to 1% rates of deaths?

How much longer do you need to prove that increased "cases" are not leading to "continuing" epidemic numbers of deaths?

By the end of June / start of July, the 7-day average death rate had fallen below 500 deaths per day. This is the same time we saw daily cases rise to record-setting levels (see Sparko's post above for visual).

My "doom and gloom" expectations:

• Hospitalization numbers will surge about 2-3 weeks behind the case-count surge. We're seeing the start of that surge now. By this time next week (7/15), I expect many cities will be constructing "overflow" hospitals and health care professionals across the country will be forced to engage in triage (deciding which patients do or don't receive scarce life-saving treatments).
• Death numbers will surge about 1-2 weeks behind the hospitalization surge. Over the next week, we'll see hints of this (maybe a couple 1-day spikes over 1,000). Between 7/15 and 7/22, the 7-day-average will start climbing swiftly and steadily.
• BY the end of July, the 7 day average will have climbed to around 1500-2000 per day. Only by early August will the effects of the renewed lockdown efforts (currently underway) dampen this increase - peak will probably hit around Aug 7, probably shy of the daily records set in April, but still in the 2000 - 2500 ballpark.
• Due to the the haphazard and half-hearted nature of this renewed lockdown, I expect the daily death tolls will not fall back below 1000 until some time in September.
• Adding this all up, my "most likely scenario" expectation is that our current death count of 132,000 will rise to 155,000 by the end of July and climb over 200,000 by the end of August. By the time we're casting ballots in November, it'll be double what it is today.

"Money where my mouth is" time.

To answer mikewhitney's original question "How much longer do you need to prove that increased "cases" are not leading to "continuing" epidemic numbers of deaths?", I'd say end-of-July. If in response to the on-going case-count surge, the 7-day-average daily death toll hasn't climbed over 1,000 by Aug 1, that will prove to me that COVID is nowhere near as deadly as I feared it to be. If it stays at or below 500 per day for the rest of July, I'll openly apologize on this thread for having been duped into the liberal agenda and for failing to see COVID-19 as the hoax it truly is.

Let me reverse this. mikewhitney and others seem confident that COVID isn't nearly as deadly as it's made out to be; that doom-and-gloom predictions like mine above are absurdly out of step with reality. Same timeline - end of July: will you openly admit that COVID is far more deadly than you believe if the 7 day-average quadruples to over 2000 by end-of-July? If not 2000, what number would it take to prove to you that you were wrong about the deadliness of COVID?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ah, it's the "problem of evil" canard.

A difficult concept to explain for those who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benign Supreme Being.

[whag]

Ah, it's the "problem of evil" canard.

A difficult concept to explain for those who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benign Supreme Being.

It’s much more difficult for anti-evo creationists like MM to process cruelty in nature prior to “creation” of human beings. Hence, why he regards evolution as a hoax.

[EvoUK]

It’s much more difficult for anti-evo creationists like MM to process cruelty in nature prior to “creation” of human beings. Hence, why he regards evolution as a hoax.

Does he actually? I've seen him be cagey when asked directly about if he believes that sort of nonsense, but haven't yet seen him stating it outright. How many of the other usual suspects believe that rubbish?

[Ronson]

Does he actually? I've seen him be cagey when asked directly about if he believes that sort of nonsense, but haven't yet seen him stating it outright. How many of the other usual suspects believe that rubbish?

Perhaps he is OEC

[whag]

Does he actually? I've seen him be cagey when asked directly about if he believes that sort of nonsense, but haven't yet seen him stating it outright. How many of the other usual suspects believe that rubbish?

I think you’ll find that most creationists regard biological evolution as a hoax in order to avoid the implications of natural evil antedating the introduction of humans. A cognitive dissonance naturally arises there, so he must believe that consilient evidence is simply perverted scientism trying to undermine Christianity.

[whag]

Perhaps he is OEC

OEC or YEC, he still must dismiss biological evolution, which highlights a ton of logical problems in his teleological view.

[Ronson]

OEC or YEC, he still must dismiss biological evolution, which highlights a ton of logical problems in his teleological view.

OEC doesn't necessarily dismiss evolution.