Ok, I'll show you where you're wrong. Some patients had more than one of the pathologies listed. DUH If you had bothered to read the data either on the Breitbart article or the original Italian website, you'd have noted this instead of focusing on the source of the article and trying to find fault with the source.
you are wrong. only some of each of those groups disagree. some agree. But, I don't expect you to be honest.
I see a lot of medically educated, trained and experienced people on this board openly giving medical advice and scientific analysis. Not. How many of those people with pre x would have continued living, with their conditions, if not for Covid? Second point, about half of the population in America has a pre x. So there’s that too. As a side note I find myself visiting this forum less and less because stupidity is all fun and games until people start dying by the tens of thousands. Then I find I don’t really got respect for you dumb ass right wingers.
This isn't entirely true. There are scientists and health experts now saying that the cost of the lockdown to health might be greater than those it saved.
I think you are framing this as a death vs open issue. I don't see that. If letting the low risk group out months ago would have increased overall deaths.... there should be data supporting that concept by now. I have not even seen any data that says there was any benefit to locking down the low risk group - once the hospitals were empty. we know many of the experts now implicitly agree. Nothing has substantially changed in terms of a vaccine or data or anything... yet... Fauci and many experts are now in favor of opening up. We could have opened up for the low risk group 60 days ago because nothing substantial or measurable has changed.
I did look at the original article in the Italian website , it happen to be in Italian. That's why i asked H4M. Why did you have to be like a biatch ?
Gee, I'm sorry. You've shown yourself so dumb so often around here that when I saw it this time, I couldn't help but point out something so obvious, a 12 year old with a C in statistics could have gotten it. The graph posted in the OP is in English and is the same thing as the Italian data. It even says it in the OP text...look, I'll quote it for you: The average number of comorbidities among all Italian deaths with the coronavirus was 3.1, ISS revealed. Just 15 percent of fatalities occurred with the presence of just one other serious pathology, while 21.4 percent died with two other pathologies, and 59.6 percent with three or more pathologies. In all seriousness, Spike - all you do is rush in to make a post trying to demean Trump or pile on when someone else with TDS makes an idiot statement, and you never add any value. I'm not sure whether this is because you are incapable of adding any value or whether you're just too quick in your response that you don't spend the time and thought trying to understand something. I'm guessing - and it is only a guess - that it is the former.
Multiple comorbidities per patient. Someone w/a bad heart will have hypertension, maybe diabetes, maybe respiratory failure. If I were to guess. Didn't bother to read what we've known since the start of the outbreak.
Who knows, they might have fallen and cracked their heads open. Not the point. Also not the point what's on the death certificate. Point, as jem alluded to, is that they were at a much higher risk of dying so we might want to do a better job of isolating those actually at risk of fatality rather than shutting down the entire country. I dunno, maybe if you're in a nursing home, 80 and diabetic, you might hope they don't put a Covid infected guy in the room with you. Might work.