Latest FB nonsense. "Only 6% died of COVID-19"

There are about 50 weeks in a year, so the chances of having COVID-19 at the time of death and having them be unrelated is 1 in 25, or 4%.

Why use a year as the denominator?

The probability that a person will die during a particular time period in the future is unrelated to how long it takes the earth to circle the sun.

Not sure where to post this but probably fits best here since I just read it on Fb. However, I don’t think it is nonsense. Quite the opposite.

For those in our society who suggest that people being cautious are cowards, for people who refuse to take even the simplest of precautions to protect themselves and those around them, I want to ask, without hyperbole and in all sincerity:

How dare you?

How dare you risk the lives of others so cavalierly. How dare you decide for others that they should welcome exposure as “getting it over with”, when literally no one knows who will be the lucky “mild symptoms” case, and who may fall ill and die. Because while we know that some people are more susceptible to suffering a more serious case, we also know that 20 and 30 year olds have died, marathon runners and fitness nuts have died, children and infants have died.

How dare you behave as though you know more than medical experts, when those same experts acknowledge that there is so much we don’t yet know, but with what we DO know, are smart enough to be scared of how easily this is spread

5 Likes

Well as a third party I have to judge whether your assessment of what information is most relevant is correct or whether the experts have it right. I’m going to go with the established expertise every time. It isn’t that they can never be wrong but objectively there is more reason to trust their judgement. In the area of science, I have no problem with respecting authority. There are times when humility is called for.

I hope you realize the words you attributed to me were actually those of the author I was quoting, Amy Wright. Believe me, I’m not insulted. She expresses the way I feel in the matter better than I ever could and she has obviously given the matter more thought than I. But still, got to give credit where credit is due. Also the part you quoted is more pointed and brusque than I would choose to address you personally.

2 Likes

Only 6% are KNOWN to have died from COVID-19, that doesn’t mean that it’s KNOWN that ONLY 6% did. It’s also known that those who die in car accidents that have COVID-19 are counted toward COVID-19 deaths! Hospitals get more money if it’s a COVID-19 death, promoting cheating!

Not true. About the cheating part. Get your facts straight.

4 Likes

Starting off your post with a falsehood is not a good look.

5 Likes

I never addressed anything to you. My reaction was to the article you posted and the part that made me react the most. I was not saying that people should or shouldn’t trust the authorities. I was simply questioning some matters. I am doing a thorough literature survey and will post for people what I have found in the library archives of the NIH…

Okay! Sounds good!

1 Like

What makes you think you can trust what’s in the archives? :grin:

Well at least this part was addressed to me. Good luck in your search. Will you be searching only for information which confirms what you already believe or really looking to take in all the data and weight it fairly? I’m sure others have also researched that data and for various purposes, for example comparing efficacy of treatments in studies of adequate size with balanced subgroups. I think I’d most like to hear from the researchers who are most open to assessing the data fairly.

3 Likes

My reaction was to this last part of what MarkD posted:

“How dare you?

How dare you risk the lives of others so cavalierly. How dare you decide for others that they should welcome exposure as “getting it over with”, when literally no one knows who will be the lucky “mild symptoms” case, and who may fall ill and die. Because while we know that some people are more susceptible to suffering a more serious case, we also know that 20 and 30 year olds have died, marathon runners and fitness nuts have died, children and infants have died.

How dare you behave as though you know more than medical experts, when those same experts acknowledge that there is so much we don’t yet know, but with what we DO know, are smart enough to be scared of how easily this is spread

The advice I have heard is consistent with most of the advice from: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/how-to-boost-your-immune-system

who say: “Every part of your body, including your immune system, functions better when protected from environmental assaults and bolstered by healthy-living strategies such as these:

** Don’t smoke.*
** Eat a diet high in fruits and vegetables.*
** Exercise regularly.*
** Maintain a healthy weight.*
** If you drink alcohol, drink only in moderation.*
** Get adequate sleep.*
** Take steps to avoid infection, such as washing your hands frequently and cooking meats thoroughly.*
** Try to minimize stress.”*

The last point is hardly mentioned by doctors on the net. I don’t know about television because I don’t watch TV.

And yet we find:

This paper: https://www.apa.org/research/action/immune discusses how Stress Weakens the Immune System

Right at the start it says:

In the early 1980s, psychologist Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, PhD, and immunologist Ronald Glaser, PhD, of the Ohio State University College of Medicine, were intrigued by animal studies that linked stress and infection. From 1982 through 1992, these pioneer researchers studied medical students. Among other things, they found that the students’ immunity went down every year under the simple stress of the three-day exam period. Test takers had fewer natural killer cells, which fight tumors and viral infections. They almost stopped producing immunity-boosting gamma interferon and infection-fighting T-cells responded only weakly to test-tube stimulation.”

Doctors have not said anything of this to people about covid 19

But they have said something else the paper say:

The meta-analysis also revealed that people who are older or already sick are more prone to stress-related immune changes.

And the paper concludes with:

Finally, the newest findings on social stress underscore the value of good friends; even just a few close friends can help someone feel connected and stay strong. Social ties may indirectly strengthen immunity because friends - at least health-minded friends – can encourage good health behaviors such as eating, sleeping and exercising well. Good friends also help to buffer the stress of negative events.”

So, my complaint. Why have doctors not advised accordingly?

This is also in research in the National Institute of Health but it goes further. And it is not new. It should be known by all doctors.

There is a recognition that there can be both an under and an over reaction of the immune system as we see in this paper here:

“Even with this modification of the biphasic model, neither it nor the global immunosuppression model sufficiently explains findings that link chronic stress with both disease outcomes associated with inadequate immunity (infectious and neoplastic disease) and disease outcomes associated with excessive immune activity (allergic and autoimmune disease). To resolve this paradox, some researchers have chosen to focus on how chronic stress might shift the balance of the immune response. The most well-known of these models hypothesizes that chronic stress elicits simultaneous enhancement and suppression of the immune response by altering patterns of cytokine secretion ([Marshall et al., 1998]"(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361287/#R227)).

“Acute stress can suppress the virus-specific antibody and T cell responses to hepatitis B vaccine (37). People who show poor responses to vaccines have higher rate of illness including influenza virus infection. There are several other studies which demonstrated a relationship between psychological stress and susceptibility to several cold viruses (38,39). This is not surprising, as stress does suppress the immune system; latent viruses then have an easier time resurging since the body cannot defend itself any more.”

And there is also the opposite problem with stress and the immune system.

Is a “Cytokine Storm” Relevant to COVID-19?

“For these reasons, the term cytokine storm may be misleading in COVID-19 ARDS. Incorporating a poorly defined pathophysiological entity lacking a firm biological diagnosis may only further increase uncertainty about how best to manage this heterogeneous population of patients. The manifestations of elevated circulating mediators in the purported cytokine storm are likely to be endothelial dysfunction and systemic inflammation leading to fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, and hypotension. This constellation of symptoms already has a long history in critical care, known as systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and was used to define sepsis for decades. Interventions targeting single cytokines in sepsis, unfortunately, also have a long history of failure. Although the term cytokine storm conjures up dramatic imagery and has captured the attention of the mainstream and scientific media, the current data do not support its use. Until new data establish otherwise, the linkage of cytokine storm to COVID-19 may be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.”

Note: JAMA is the most widely circulated medical journal in the world

1 Like

Maybe some we can’t.
Some it seems can’t be trusted since they start out by saying:

“Systemic immune over activation due to SARS-CoV-2 infection causes the cytokine storm, which is especially noteworthy in severely ill patients with COVID-19.”

And they conclude saying:

“we do not have well-rounded understanding of the cause of the vigorous inflammatory response.”

And that the virus might only be a bystander is reinforced in this article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7211650/ 2020 May 11.

“4.1. SARS-CoV

"Since the first reports of SARS, it seemed clear that the severe clinical manifestations of the disease could not be ascribed only to the viral activity per se , but that an immune-mediated mechanism rather than a direct virus-induced damage would drive the clinical progression [67]. Indeed from the physio-pathology point of view, the most interesting observation was the demonstration that viral titers seemed to paradoxically diminish during the most severe phase of the disease both in humans and in several animal models “

And a bit further down they say:

“These data suggest that coronaviruses, and in particular SARS-CoV, have a peculiar ability to counteract the antiviral IFN response, pointing toward the fact that the severity of disease might be due to immune dysregulation, rather than to the level of viremia. This dysregulation would be characterized by an insufficient type I interferon response (too little and too late), paralleled by an aberrant pro-inflammatory chemokine secretion by alveolar macrophages, dendritic cells and pneumocytes”

Interesting that you never mention wearing a mask.

1 Like

Alas, go on vacation and miss so many good posts! Anyway, perhaps it has been pointed out already, but the same statistic of 6% died of only Covid 19 can be seen as pretty disturbing: “6% of deaths occurred in people who were previously absolutely healthy with absolutely no risk factors! It doesn’t just kill old fat diabetics, people, wear your masks!”

3 Likes

Or possibly those “Covid only” deaths represent a medical system that was so overwhelmed at the time, inexperienced people were filling out death certificates in an atypical way or people were dying before they were put under careful medical observation.

The virus is causing the cytokine storm. I don’t see why it matters if the virus is causing damage through direct effects or through inflammation. It’s like saying that someone didn’t die from being shot because they died from excessive blood loss.

5 Likes

I’m an Aussie and one of the type who are anti-maskers.

The article I posted said:
"Indeed from the physio-pathology point of view, the most interesting observation was the demonstration that viral titers seemed to paradoxically diminish during the most severe phase of the disease both in humans and in several animal models
What you are suggesting is that the virus creates conditions that effect its demise. Really!
Don’t tell you think that maybe it evolved to destroy itself. Well I hope you’re right in that case.

So you are saying that they were not stressed. They had a fully functional immune system and it just failed them?

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.