Coronavirus

The 15,500 death count is not the confirmed deaths. That includes assumed COVID deaths. The current death count is 10,290. Also there are only 141,754 cases in nyc.

The numbers in the arcticle NJ is quoting look jumbled between state, city, and even different definitions for the NYC. For example 10xs the confirmed cases would be a 17% of population. 10xs would be way at the lower end of the seralogy studies. There have been studies in Boston, Santa Clara Co., LA Co., and a county in CO. They all showed results in the same range of 20-85xs. Some were more in the lower end 20-50xs. None of the areas were hit like NYC.

Therefore, the best conclusions I can draw are that NY was hit with a more virulent strain. There is a study that supports that too. Or the article isn't reporting the possible range of the seralogy study. 10xs is probably the low end of the range. Probably range of 10 to 20 or 50xs.
 
NJlonghorn said:
According to the article, Newsom was asked to release thousands of inmates, and he refused. He did, however, grant 21 clemency applications that were in the works before the coronavirus pandemic. Yawn.
Click to expand...

Why leave out that over a dozen of the 21 are convicted murderers?
"Yawn" as long as they move in next to some poor schlub and not you, right?
 
Horn6721 said:
But Clean
To NJ letting out convicted killers of children and pregnant women is just a "Yawn."
Click to expand...

Thousands of convicted criminals ask for mercy. A few are shown it -- in each case, decades after their convictions. I don't know the details of the individual cases, so I can't comment on them. But what has been reported so far is a gotcha, not a real story.

Just curious -- would you do away with the pardon / clemency power altogether? I.e., once someone is convicted of murder, they stay in jail no matter what? If not, what would your standard be?
 
Monahorns said:
The 15,500 death count is not the confirmed deaths. That includes assumed COVID deaths. The current death count is 10,290. Also there are only 141,754 cases in nyc.
Click to expand...

Wrong. As shown on the Worldometers.info link I posted just above, the confirmed + probable number for New York is 20,861 through yesterday. In prior days, around 75% of reported cases have been confirmed and 25% probable, so your 15,500 number sounds about right for confirmed cases.

Also, your use of "assumed" instead of the actual term -- "probable" -- reveals an obvious and unjustified bias. As I've posted previously, the probable cases are based on fairly specific CDC guidelines. I'm sure there will be isolated cases where they were fudged, but when someone dies with COVID-like symptoms and the death certificate lists COVID as the cause of death, I'm comfortable with the "probable" label even if no blood test was given.

Monahorns said:
The numbers in the arcticle NJ is quoting look jumbled between state, city, and even different definitions for the NYC.
Click to expand...

The Worldometer cite primarily reports figures by state. They did give some raw data broken down for NYC only, but those numbers were not used in the calculations of the 0.78% death rate. Check the math -- it is based entirely on state-wide data.

Monahorns said:
For example 10xs the confirmed cases would be a 17% of population. 10xs would be way at the lower end of the seralogy studies. There have been studies in Boston, Santa Clara Co., LA Co., and a county in CO. They all showed results in the same range of 20-85xs. Some were more in the lower end 20-50xs. None of the areas were hit like NYC.
Click to expand...

The ratio of actual cases to confirmed cases is driven largely by how much testing has been done. New York has done more testing than anywhere else in the world, so you would expect their ratio to be lower. That is borne out by the data released yesterday.

Will there be other places where the ratio is higher? Of course. But that would be in places that haven't done enough testing to catch as large a fraction of the overall cases as New York has.

Monahorns said:
Therefore, the best conclusions I can draw are that NY was hit with a more virulent strain. There is a study that supports that too.
Click to expand...

That may prove to be true. But so far, no state has released data as thorough or reliable as what New York released yesterday. That's the best we have to go by at this time.
 
Clean said:
Wow, child killers in there too. I'm sure they'll be able to contribute to society.

Reminds me of when Texas paroled a bunch of murderers, including Kenneth McDuff, back in 1989. McDuff was a serial killer who was convicted of a triple murder, but had killed others too. He went on to kill another 6 or 7 women after his release before he was stopped.

Good luck with that California.
Click to expand...

Do you know anything about the people Newsome released, or the crimes they were alleged to have committed? How egregious was the conduct? Were there mitigating circumstances? How solid was the evidence? Were there irregularities at the trial?

Until I know more about an individual case, I am not going to get worked up about the fact that a governor granted clemency to a tiny number of convicted felons, no matter what the underlying crime may have been.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Do you know anything about the people Newsome released, or the crimes they were alleged to have committed? How egregious was the conduct? Were there mitigating circumstances? How solid was the evidence? Were there irregularities at the trial?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. But they (a few of them) murdered children and a pregnant woman. What mitigating circumstances would make that all right in your book?
 
Clean said:
No, I don't. But they (a few of them) murdered children and a pregnant woman. What mitigating circumstances would make that all right in your book?
Click to expand...

(1) First and foremost, I would want to know how strong the evidence at trial was, and whether new evidence has surfaced since then. Maybe a defense was raised that would work under modern law, but didn't work back then. These types of considerations are often the basis for clemency.

(2) There is a big difference between some murders and others. For example, some people get convicted of murder for things that could arguably be classified as accidents, or recklessness. Other murders are committed in cold blood. The fact that two acts were given the "murder" label by a judge or jury does not make the two acts equivalent.

(3) In terms of mitigating circumstances, the sky is the limit. Was the defendant provoked? Did the defendant show immediate remorse and cooperate with the police? Was mental illness involved? These circumstances wouldn't justify letting the person off altogether, but could justify letting the person off after they've already served 20+ years.
 
NJ
Valid points .
I still think letting go people convicted of killing children is more than a yawn.
I guess all the convicted child murderers released could have been wrongly convicted. I hope for the victims families' sake Newsome looked into each case closely

As we have seen in other places where they let convicted people out there have been devestating results including murder.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Do you know anything about the people Newsome released, or the crimes they were alleged to have committed?
Click to expand...
If they were convicted and sentenced, is it appropriate to use the term "alleged"? I'm curious for the legal perspective here - not weighing in one way or the other on Gov Newsome or the people who were released.
 
NJlonghorn said:
According to the article, Newsom was asked to release thousands of inmates, and he refused. He did, however, grant 21 clemency applications that were in the works before the coronavirus pandemic. Yawn.
Click to expand...
It's yawn until your daughter is murdered.

Now I know you'll argue that corona will kill more, but a death from natural causes is not in the same ball park as murder. I'm not afraid of dying from corona. If it's my time, so be it, but I can't imagine being murdered. We're all going to be exposed to corona at some point, but if 25% of New Yorkers have it, then the death rate is actually lower than the regular flu.
 


tenor.gif
 
Run Pincher said:
It's yawn until your daughter is murdered.

Now I know you'll argue that corona will kill more, but a death from natural causes is not in the same ball park as murder. I'm not afraid of dying from corona. If it's my time, so be it, but I can't imagine being murdered. We're all going to be exposed to corona at some point, but if 25% of New Yorkers have it, then the death rate is actually lower than the regular flu.
Click to expand...

No, if 25% of New Yorkers have it, then the death rate is 0.43%, which is 3x higher than the highest flu season estimates.
 
Horns11 said:
No, if 25% of New Yorkers have it, then the death rate is 0.43%, which is 3x higher than the highest flu season estimates.
Click to expand...
Rate may be lower when >50% infected because nursing home deaths have front-runned the pandemic. In other words, infection rate in nursing homes likely higher than general population
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top