COVID-19 Pandemic

[Blunderbuss]

The Guardian.

Having just read it myself I would say it is a very good article.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

Having just read it myself I would say this is a very good article.

You do realise that this is the exact article Patrick has just posted that I've already read ?

[Blunderbuss]

You do realise that this is the exact article Patrick has just posted that I've already read ?

Of course. I’m just saying despite it appearing in the ‘Grauniad’ it can be taken seriously, and I found it very persuasive.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

Of course. I’m just say despite it appearing in the ‘Grauniad’ it can be taken seriously, and I found it very persuasive.

I too found it persuasive in being quite a seriously good laugh.

Its not often that someone discusses the assorted contributing factors to a persons death that have been officially verified as being true and then completely omits the majority of them in their final analysis as to what ultimately caused their demise. .

[Blunderbuss]

I too found it persuasive in being quite a seriously good laugh.

Its not often that someone discusses the assorted contributing factors to a persons death that have been officially verified as being true and then completely omits the majority of them in their final analysis as to what ultimately caused their demise. .

Okay each to his own, I guess. Maybe I read it differently because I’m an Australian living with a chronic lung condition and I’m not at all keen to catch Covid and find out if I’ll end up as an ABS statistic that people can argue endlessly about.

[Patrick Byrom]

I too found it persuasive in being quite a seriously good laugh. Its not often that someone discusses the assorted contributing factors to a persons death that have been officially verified as being true and then completely omits the majority of them in their final analysis as to what ultimately caused their demise. .

The important word being "contributing", of course. Lots of chronic conditions (such as obesity) make you more vulnerable to illness, but won't actually kill you.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

The important word being "contributing", of course. Lots of chronic conditions (such as obesity) make you more vulnerable to illness, but won't actually kill you.

Sure, but Covid has also made a significant amount of people sick who have failed to perish, so your point doesn't appear to be particularly substantial.

The author here is making a thoroughly foolish and erroneous deduction that just because Covid flu is an important catalyst for what contributed to deaths, that nothing else deserves consideration simply to oppose rival political commentators. That is not a smart policy and something readers shouldn't be endorsing.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

Okay each to his own, I guess. Maybe I read it differently because I’m an Australian living with a chronic lung condition and I’m not at all keen to catch Covid and find out if I’ll end up as an ABS statistic that people can argue endlessly about.

People argue about all sorts of silly and superficial things, so it wouldn't a first and definitely won't be the last time either.

I suspected seniors might also be unhappy with the reference to existing conditions simply because they might interpret it as an implication of something that could have been controlled previously which isn't helpful either.

For me personally, I dont see those I interact with arguing over the relative merits of the data, simply because it doesn't interest me (or anyone I know) and it clearly has no bearing on rectifying outcomes so its really a non-starter of a conversation.

[Patrick Byrom]

Sure, but Covid has also made a significant amount of people sick who have failed to perish, so your point doesn't appear to be particularly substantial.

If they don't die, then nothing can be a contributing factor to their death

... Its not often that someone discusses the assorted contributing factors to a persons death that have been officially verified as being true and then completely omits the majority of them in their final analysis as to what ultimately caused their demise. .

The author here is making a thoroughly foolish and erroneous deduction that just because Covid flu is an important catalyst for what contributed to deaths, that nothing else deserves consideration simply to oppose rival political commentators. That is not a smart policy and something readers shouldn't be endorsing.

You need to read what the author said again, so I've repeated it below. He specifically says that other factors "put you at an increased risk of dying" - that's hardly the same as "nothing else deserves consideration", which you accuse him of saying.

A good article on some pandemic myths which seem popular with right-wingers. This is obvious, but many people still don't get it:

While various health conditions and other factors such as age can put you at an increased risk of dying if you catch Covid, it is an increased risk, not a guaranteed death sentence. To put it another way – if it weren’t for Covid these people would not have died when they did.

EDIT: From that Guardian piece: 'Again, the ABS report states in clear terms that this is not the case: “The majority [2,556] of these 2,639 deaths were due directly to Covid-19”.'

[Patrick Byrom]

... I suspected seniors might also be unhappy with the reference to existing conditions simply because they might interpret it as an implication of something that could have been controlled previously which isn't helpful either.

And because being a senior is an 'existing condition' which they have no control over.

For me personally, I dont see those I interact with arguing over the relative merits of the data, simply because it doesn't interest me (or anyone I know) and it clearly has no bearing on rectifying outcomes so its really a non-starter of a conversation.

You really need to read that Guardian piece again. The data is being used by right-wingers to oppose government responses to the virus - that's a very important discussion.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

If they don't die, then nothing can be a contributing factor to their death

Its funny how the Guardian conveniently omits this point that Covid doesn't necessarily cause death as that would probably put a dent in their thesis of "right-wing media bad" and "left-wing media good".

You need to read what the author said again, so I've repeated it below. He specifically says that other factors "put you at an increased risk of dying" - that's hardly the same as "nothing else deserves consideration", which you accuse him of saying.

And you really need to stop deluding yourself into believing that reading the Guardian instantly elevates you to a higher level of comprehension above your political adversaries (like practitioners of controversy such as Alan Jones) because its essentially just Fox News for rabid lefties.

The whole premise of the article is designed to remove importance from factors other than the Covid flu itself (thus negating what the "right-wing commentary" has uttered) and is just an exercise in semantics, implausible logic and the Guardians usual overtones of smugness.

Take for instance the last passage from the first post you originally posted : "To put it another way – if it weren’t for Covid these people would not have died when they did.". This follows on from actually acknowledging that other factors are present but then attempts this staggeringly huge leap of faith to frame the situation in a way that implies that everything raised previously is a moot point other than Covid. There is literally no logical connection between the summary and the previous commentary, but its the Guardian so Im not hugely shocked. .

I seriously hope you aren't wasting your money on subscriptions for this dribble because that would be a complete travesty.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

Patrick Byrom;490521]And because being a senior is an 'existing condition' which they have no control over.

Yeah, thats clearly my point, but you still don't shy away from identifying factors (old age) that have contributed to something happening simply because it may upset some people in a particular demographic. The truth is the truth irrespective of whose feelings are affected.

You really need to read that Guardian piece again. The data is being used by right-wingers to oppose government responses to the virus - that's a very important discussion.

No I dont.

The discussion that was central to this article here only entailed a dispute about the relevant importance of the factors involved in Covid deaths. It had nothing to do with how data is used to oppose government responses so it is you who should be reading things more diligently.

[MichaelBaron]

How dare some people are...to recover from Covid.

[Patrick Byrom]

Its funny how the Guardian conveniently omits this point that Covid doesn't necessarily cause death as that would probably put a dent in their thesis of "right-wing media bad" and "left-wing media good".

A fact which is directly referred to in the article!

Take for instance the last passage from the first post you originally posted : "To put it another way – if it weren’t for Covid these people would not have died when they did.". This follows on from actually acknowledging that other factors are present but then attempts this staggeringly huge leap of faith to frame the situation in a way that implies that everything raised previously is a moot point other than Covid. There is literally no logical connection between the summary and the previous commentary, but its the Guardian so Im not hugely shocked. .

A "leap of faith" justified by the ABS statistics themselves, as I've pointed out already (you did read this in the article, didn't you?):

... EDIT: From that Guardian piece: 'Again, the ABS report states in clear terms that this is not the case: “The majority [2,556] of these 2,639 deaths were due directly to Covid-19”.'

[Patrick Byrom]

... The discussion that was central to this article here only entailed a dispute about the relevant importance of the factors involved in Covid deaths. It had nothing to do with how data is used to oppose government responses so it is you who should be reading things more diligently.

Nothing!? But in the post I was replying to, you claimed that the data had nothing to do with "rectifying outcomes". But outcomes will clearly be affected by the government response. So if an interpretation of the data is used to oppose that response, then the interpretation of the data will affect the outcome.

... For me personally, I dont see those I interact with arguing over the relative merits of the data, simply because it doesn't interest me (or anyone I know) and it clearly has no bearing on rectifying outcomes so its really a non-starter of a conversation.

This is starting to seem a bit pointless. You obviously haven't read the article, so there doesn't seem to be any point discussing it with you. And when I reply to one of your posts, you don't seem to even read the post I'm actually replying to, but just reply to my reply, so I have to keep reminding you of what you just posted - wasting everyone's time.