What's your COVID-19 gameplan?

justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
GOT ANTIBODIES? - Not so fast.

Excerpt from:
"Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19

"At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. As new evidence becomes available, WHO will update this scientific brief."

 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
No, because we’ve been limiting travel and practicing social distancing. If we did nothing, then yes, easily. There’s an argument to be made for when to open various states/cities that aren’t hit hard, or have gotten over the hump of the worst of it when that happens, but yes, if we did absolutely nothing and relied purely on the building of herd immunity to stop it, we’d be looking at probably 250k to 1mil dead. But doing absolutely nothing from the start would have been really dumb.
I don't think anyone suggested "doing nothing". Some people assume that if you question a total shutdown that you advocate "doing nothing".

So you think there would be more deaths in the long run with a natural herd immunity?
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I don't think anyone suggested "doing nothing". Some people assume that if you question a total shutdown that you advocate "doing nothing".

So you think there would be more deaths in the long run with a natural herd immunity?
I have said, ad nauseam, that you have valid points about when to open various parts of the economy/country...

And yes, if we just did nothing and let herd immunity run its course, very densely populated areas would quickly have become overwhelmed and hospitals wouldn’t have been able to properly treat everyone, significantly driving up the death rates.

For example, NYC may have to approach things differently than rural Arkansas would. Population density plays a big role in things like this, as does the prevalence of people who rely on public transit to travel, etc. There may not be a single “best” one-size-fits-all approach to something like this.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I have said, ad nauseam, that you have valid points about when to open various parts of the economy/country...

And yes, if we just did nothing and let herd immunity run its course, very densely populated areas would quickly have become overwhelmed and hospitals wouldn’t have been able to properly treat everyone, significantly driving up the death rates.

For example, NYC may have to approach things differently than rural Arkansas would. Population density plays a big role in things like this, as does the prevalence of people who rely on public transit to travel, etc. There may not be a single “best” one-size-fits-all approach to something like this.
I agree...in Indianapolis the reported cases and deaths are much, much higher than here in my small city of 64,000-- 70 miles east of indy...we have only had 4 deaths in entire county and everyone of them had severe illness prior to virus.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
I have said, ad nauseam, that you have valid points about when to open various parts of the economy/country...
I never stated "do nothing" and you never said that I did.....so I wasn't referencing my statement about me or you....it was a general perception and many people make these giant leaps and assume. I wish they would just stop as if this is black/white, right/wrong issue.

And yes, if we just did nothing and let herd immunity run its course, very densely populated areas would quickly have become overwhelmed and hospitals wouldn’t have been able to properly treat everyone, significantly driving up the death rates.
I agree with this as I stated before but you then I also want to look at this from the perspective of:

1. Its not that herd immunity isn't working, its the lack of care and overload that is the problem.

2. If there are adequate facilities, do we let natural herd immunity run its couse?

That seems to be Sweden is attempting.

For example, NYC may have to approach things differently than rural Arkansas would. Population density plays a big role in things like this, as does the prevalence of people who rely on public transit to travel, etc. There may not be a single “best” one-size-fits-all approach to something like this.
Completely agree.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
So you think 800,000 people will die of COVID-19 in the US?
The point is that there is easily the potential, and could be. With only 0.33% confirmed infections we have 50,000 deaths. The flu typically gets 15x the number of infections and is somewhere between half and 1/3 as infectious.

And those flu infections don't include "unconfirmed cases" which more than double the number to 10% of the population.

So if you want to say that infections are 50x higher - well you are still looking at 16.66% of the population infected with a disease that is 3x as infectious as the flu - which still means that WITH interventions, we are probably looking at, best case scenario, 100,000 deaths. Which would make everyone who advocated for a lockdown look foolish - but what if there was no lockdown?

And what if, instead if 50x like the antibody articles are showing, it is 5x like the Wuhan study showed when it estimated that 80% was asymptomatic? Then even with these lock down's, we may be looking at 1M deaths.

I think, based on the evidence at hand, with the restrictions we are probably looking at 150-300k dead before February of 2021. If I had to put a handicap I would say around 200k. I really hope I am wrong and it is less, but I would not be surprised if my numbers are conservative.

And that may seem crazy - I get it. But if I told you 50-60,000 Americans would be dead in the next 45 days on March 15th, you would have said no way I bet.

My numbers could be hit at the rate we just saw, in around 3 months. Right now the numbers I am seeing are showing between 1500-2000 deaths a day while we have these restrictions. Is it that hard to believe that with a couple weeks at 28,000/week we will soon be headed toward 1/4 million deaths?

Those are numbers that we actually have, not based on some non-peer reviewed article released to a news outlet by an authors who have been previously advocating for relaxing restrictions. Although, even allowing for those articles, the numbers don't look good.

Believing this will get better right now is unfounded. What will make it better?

Immunity? Yeah, that may or may not work. We are not sure.

A vaccine? I don't have high hopes - we haven't been able to come up with a lot of vaccines in the last 100 years. 18 months is optimistic.

Maybe the answer is something simple, like don't let your vitamin D levels become insufficient? I don't know.

I don't think anyone suggested "doing nothing". Some people assume that if you question a total shutdown that you advocate nothing.

So you think there would be more deaths in the long run with a natural herd immunity?
But you are. We have already established that the ONLY scientifically valid method of treating this disease right now is avoidance. And the best way to avoid this is to stay the heck away from others.

So if you are not advocating for that, than what alternative can you be suggesting?

Just let it wash over us?

I am not sure what the alternative is, but if you have one...teach me because I would love to go out to dinner.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I don't think anyone suggested "doing nothing". Some people assume that if you question a total shutdown that you advocate "doing nothing".

So you think there would be more deaths in the long run with a natural herd immunity?
I am going to say more on this because, yeah - defining total shut down can be hairy. I am in new England and the area I am in is part of the darkest area on that map in the link I posted. But we still have take out, was mart, home depot, grocery stores, etc.

We are not locked down like NYC, which is even worse - but it is hard to say what alternative they have there either. I am all for maintaining rights. I have said earlier in the thread - millions of people have died for those rights and I will not give them up easily. But even without anyone watching me, I don't want to go anywhere, not do most people in my area. Even some restaurants that kept take out open have decided to close up of their own doing.

I get the argument about rights and if I NEED to go out, you better believe I am going to do it and good luck to any law stopping me. But I haven't seen that where I am.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
it is also possible that a great many 'AT RISK' persons were infected before restrictions were put into place-this could be inflating the death rate.

also medical professionals were late telling the general population to wear masks which could have saved many lives and kept the infection rate much lower, imo.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I agree with this as I stated before but you then I also want to look at this from the perspective of:

1. Its not that herd immunity isn't working, its the lack of care and overload that is the problem.

2. If there are adequate facilities, do we let natural herd immunity run its couse?

That seems to be Sweden is attempting.



Completely agree.
I can agree with this...which is what I said in my post earlier today, it isn't just about the number of lives, it is about resources.

Not sure why everyone thinks Sweden is a good model to throw out there though. They have some of the lowest infection rates with some if the highest death rates.

Everyone has tried to avoid restrictions, until they couldn't.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Side Note:

Speeding violations have gone up 85% from last year, and I can tell. Were we live people are driving like their going to a fire. It's crazy. My wife is literally scared to drive these days. It's not a great combination of old people and speeding. They are not even obeying stop signs more than ever. I've seen it quite a bit.

Anyone else witness this kind of behavior so much more prevalent as late?
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
The point is that there is easily the potential, and could be. With only 0.33% confirmed infections we have 50,000 deaths. The flu typically gets 15x the number of infections and is somewhere between half and 1/3 as infectious.
You can literally throw out any confirmed infection number if you doing any projection model since we don't know as testing is only applied to those showing symptoms at this point. You have 8.9 million people in NYC yet 800,000 that have been tested. You simply can't do a projection on testing...you could do a projection on actual deaths compared to total population which would actually give you a more predictable number...and that would be an extremely aggressive projection given that most of the country isn't going to have the same infection rate as the most populated city in the country.



So if you want to say that infections are 50x higher - well you are still looking at 16.66% of the population infected with a disease that is 3x as infectious as the flu - which still means that WITH interventions, we are probably looking at, best case scenario, 100,000 deaths. Which would make everyone who advocated for a lockdown look foolish - but what if there was no lockdown?

And what if, instead if 50x like the antibody articles are showing, it is 5x like the Wuhan study showed when it estimated that 80% was asymptomatic? Then even with these lock down's, we may be looking at 1M deaths.

I think, based on the evidence at hand, with the restrictions we are probably looking at 150-300k dead before February of 2021. If I had to put a handicap I would say around 200k. I really hope I am wrong and it is less, but I would not be surprised if my numbers are conservative.
Its very tough to follow your logic as this is all over the place.

And that may seem crazy - I get it. But if I told you 50-60,000 Americans would be dead in the next 45 days on March 15th, you would have said no way I bet.
It really depends on what.

Of a new virus nobody really knew of? Well sure, you would be crazy to bet on that.

My numbers could be hit at the rate we just saw, in around 3 months. Right now the numbers I am seeing are showing between 1500-2000 deaths a day while we have these restrictions. Is it that hard to believe that with a couple weeks at 28,000/week we will soon be headed toward 1/4 million deaths?
If we looked at numbers in a linear fashion yes...but it usually doesn't work like that.

Those are numbers that we actually have, not based on some non-peer reviewed article released to a news outlet by an authors who have been previously advocating for relaxing restrictions. Although, even allowing for those articles, the numbers don't look good.
Have no idea where you are getting this from. The first anti-body tests that both US tests are based on...originated from the German government.

The people who conducted these studies aren't authors.



Immunity? Yeah, that may or may not work. We are not sure.
No, we are sure. Its literally what a vaccine is and there ARE people who have been infected with COVID-19 and recovered without any medical treatment at all. That in itself tells you natural immunity does work.

A vaccine? I don't have high hopes - we haven't been able to come up with a lot of vaccines in the last 100 years. 18 months is optimistic.
We haven't?

Maybe the answer is something simple, like don't let your vitamin D levels become insufficient? I don't know.
Youtube censors that recommendation now.



But you are. We have already established that the ONLY scientifically valid method of treating this disease right now is avoidance. And the best way to avoid this is to stay the heck away from others.
Avoidance isn't a treatment. Its a recommendation. And you're wrong it being the ONLY method. If it was the ONLY method of treatment you wouldn't have people walking around that have contracted and recovered without any treatment and in most cases no knowledge of them having it at all.

So if you are not advocating for that, than what alternative can you be suggesting?

Just let it wash over us?
Yes, do nothing, pray and let nature takes it course. 🤦

Its as if you don't read anything that I type...at all.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, Admin thinks that SOME places don’t need near-total lockdown, while some highly densely populated areas like NYC may need more intensive measures. And that the time to loosen these measures may vary by area, depending on population density and the number of cases in said areas?
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, Admin thinks that SOME places don’t need near-total lockdown, while some highly densely populated areas like NYC may need more intensive measures. And that the time to loosen these measures may vary by area, depending on population density and the number of cases in said areas?

You win the prize!
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
In fact, this is what John Hopkins believes and is roughly what I believe.

What will it take to achieve herd immunity with SARS-CoV-2?
As with any other infection, there are two ways to achieve herd immunity: A large proportion of the population either gets infected or gets a protective vaccine. Based on early estimates of this virus’s infectiousness, we will likely need at least 70% of the population to be immune to have herd protection.

  • In the worst case (for example, if we do not perform physical distancing or enact other measures to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2), the virus can infect this many people in a matter of a few months. This would overwhelm our hospitals and lead to high death rates.
  • In the best case, we maintain current levels of infection—or even reduce these levels—until a vaccine becomes available. This will take concerted effort on the part of the entire population, with some level of continued physical distancing for an extended period, likely a year or longer, before a highly effective vaccine can be developed, tested, and mass produced.
  • The most likely case is somewhere in the middle, where infection rates rise and fall over time; we may relax social distancing measures when numbers of infections fall, and then may need to re-implement these measures as numbers increase again. Prolonged effort will be required to prevent major outbreaks until a vaccine is developed. Even then, SARS-CoV-2 could still infect children before they can be vaccinated or adults after their immunity wanes. But it is unlikely in the long term to have the explosive spread that we are seeing right now because much of the population will be immune in the future.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Rural America Could Be the Region Hardest Hit by the COVID-19 Outbreak

Rural areas may end up being among the hardest hit regions due to their demographics and lack of resources.

The 15 percent of people in the United States who live in rural areas are largely a higher-risk population that’s particularly vulnerable to serious outcomes with COVID-19.

In addition, many people in rural areas live 30 or more miles away from the nearest hospital.

“Systems that are under stress during routine times will be more stressed during disasters and times of crisis. Sometimes we forget those systems that are at the brink,” said Tricia Wachtendorf, PhD, director of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware.

Rural health systems already stretched financially are therefore particularly vulnerable, but so are rural areas that don’t have as deep a bench of resources to tap when times get tough.

“When you start thinking about recovery trajectories and impacts, the extent to which there is community functioning before a disaster has strong implications in that recovery trajectory post-disaster,” Wachtendorf told Healthline. “That goes right down the spectrum: transportation systems, employment support, hospitals and public health, food security — all the key systems. If those are low pre-disaster, those are going to have substantial effects on what communities experience during the disaster, as well as their post-disaster recovery.”
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
You can literally throw out any confirmed infection number if you doing any projection model since we don't know as testing is only applied to those showing symptoms at this point. You have 8.9 million people in NYC yet 800,000 that have been tested. You simply can't do a projection on testing...
Seriously? Aren't you the one using a non-peer reviewed "study" to say how many more people are infected than the WHO and CDC numbers are showing? And now you're saying, "Well, you can't do projections because it doesn't test everyone"?

LMAO - Weren't you the one using a group of 3300, poorly selected individuals to somehow obtain useful data?

OF FRIGGIN' COURSE WE DON'T TEST EVERYONE. Have you ever had the flu? Did you go in and get tested? Because, they don't test everyone, and most people don't even go to the doctors for it. By most estimates, only about 40-50% of the actual cases are ever "confirmed".

So, I compared confirmed cases to confirmed cases and hypothesized, unconfirmed cases to hypothesized unconfirmed cases.

In any scenario, including an incredibly rosie-eyed best-case scenario which involves a lot of asymptomatic, infected people - this is worse than the flu.

Anyway, you can literally throw out any denominator you want, and use any questionable study that found subjects on Facebook to form your hypothesis of why the basis of an argument that the death rate is as low as you'd like to believe.


you could do a projection on actual deaths compared to total population which would actually give you a more predictable number...and that would be an extremely aggressive projection given that most of the country isn't going to have the same infection rate as the most populated city in the country.
Perhaps you missed it, so I will restate....

Using basic math - I did do a projection of total population. You know, using the % of the total population that is infected with the flu, which would be optimistic to apply to another disease with an R0 2-3X as high. I didn't get my subject's on Facebook though, and I only have just over 900,000 of them. Oh, wait, isn't that closer to the total population than 3300?

The percent of the population currently infected, vs. the death toll is reasonably known. Even using your Facebook group that was promised free testing - 4% at most. 50,000 people have died. Even if you think only 8% of the population will get this in the next 10 months, it's going to likely kill 100,000 people this year. And those are extremely optimistic numbers.

And stating that infection rates are lower in other areas and higher in NYC I can agree with - it will be transmitted much more quickly there. But again, maybe you missed it - we have direct Flu to Covid comparisons to NYC itself above - we are already more than double the flu deaths in NYC from Covid. Maybe more than triple depending where you're getting your numbers from.

As you can see, I am being very conservative with my math here. I'm even giving into some of the claims that so many uncounted people are infected. And even with that, this is looking like it will be catastrophic (if it isn't already).

Its very tough to follow your logic as this is all over the place.
It's really hard to have to explain every step, but here goes.

We have 323,000,000 people in the US. Right now, a little over 900,000 are confirmed infected - let's just say 1M.

1,000,000 / 323,000,000 = .00309 = 0.31%. I Rounded up to 0.33%.

The "study" you keep referencing has headings that say "50-85x higher" infections rates than are being reported. I mean, I will concede a little, but 85x is maybe pushing it. So, 50X0.33% = 16.5%.

16.5% of the population = 323,000,000 X 0.165 = 53,295,000 infections so far.

55,156 deaths/53,295,000 = .1% of the infections.

Given the R0 of 5.7 for Covid-19 and the flu's R0 of 1.3 - I think saying that Covid should infect 3X the population is pretty conservative and doesn't even take into account any exponential growth. So, if the flu infects about 35,000,000 - we're looking at just over 100M infections in the US - or about 30% of the population.

We are halfway there according to your study. at halfway we have over 53,000 deaths in the US. 2X53,000 = 106,000 deaths in this relatively rosie picture. And by relatively, I mean...extremely.

In order to come up with that, I've had to play all the sig figs in order to create the lowest outcomes, assume an OUTRAGEOUS number of asymptomatic infections based on some crazy study. The better questions: do you REALLY believe over 50M people in the US have already had Covid?? Or over 85M per some of the articles???? If so, then why the heck is anyone complaining about social distancing? Cuz they aren't doing it.

It really depends on what.

Of a new virus nobody really knew of? Well sure, you would be crazy to bet on that.
That is my point, I would have seemed crazy to bet on it back then. Now it has happened. Now we have data showing what has happened and people are grasping at straws and saying, "This study says the denominator is 50-85X higher than the CDC or WHO says! The death rate is only going to be 0.1%".

But the data points to more coming down the pike from this. Do you really think we're going to have a pandemic l like this, and be done with it in 2 months? I seriously hope you are right. I really, really do.


If we looked at numbers in a linear fashion yes...but it usually doesn't work like that.
Correct, they aren't linear. Extrapolating in a linear fashion skews the numbers to show a lower death level and lower risk. The more infections we have, THE MORE WILL COME. That's how infectious disease works. A sick person infects a number of non-sick people. The more people you have that are sick, the more chances to spread the infection, and with an R0 above 1 - this grows at an increasing rate. With an R0 above 5, this means that 1 person will infect more than 5 people, and those 5 people will infect 25 more people, and those 25 will infect 125 more people - so just by the time 4th iteration you have 156 infected people. Of course it doesn't work in the real world like this if you can keep people quarantined, etc.




Have no idea where you are getting this from. The first anti-body tests that both US tests are based on...originated from the German government.

The people who conducted these studies aren't authors.
They aren't studies either. They're news articles. But anyway, I was using "authors" as a loose means of describing the people reporting the "study".

Study Author. An individual, group, or organization primarily responsible for the content of a planned study.

There are loads of articles about all of the studies, all are flawed. The people in German didn't even preprint or try to get peer review, they went to newspapers instead. Some of the people had previously made cases to lift restrictions, and it's highly questionable if they were just trying to make results fit their own hopes.

The Standford study advertised on Facebook and was likely to attract a large number of sick individuals who were not able to obtain testing - thus skewing the results.

It goes on and on. All of the studies are highly questionable.

But, we do have numbers reported by doctors and collected by the CDC with n=900,000+ and everyone somehow wants to ignore that. As if there is some denominator that will make this all better.

No, we are sure. Its literally what a vaccine is and there ARE people who have been infected with COVID-19 and recovered without any medical treatment at all. That in itself tells you natural immunity does work.
You should call the WHO. Apparently they are wrong - what a bunch of dummies. Obviously if anyone has recovered, that itself is proof of immunity. How did they miss THAT evidence?

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/25/844939777/no-evidence-that-recovered-covid-19-patients-are-immune-who-says
[/QUOTE]



We haven't?
I believe 26 diseases can be vaccinated for at this point. That's a relatively small number.


Youtube censors that recommendation now.
I don't blame them. It was just me throwing out a statement of, "Hey, maybe it's something simple and this will all go away in a month. You know, since we're looking for easy answers."

I do believe in Vitamins C & D - but they won't prevent or cure this disease. At best, they will improve your chances of survival ...but I'll take it.

Avoidance isn't a treatment. Its a recommendation. And you're wrong it being the ONLY method. If it was the ONLY method of treatment you wouldn't have people walking around that have contracted and recovered without any treatment and in most cases no knowledge of them having it at all.



Yes, do nothing, pray and let nature takes it course. 🤦

Its as if you don't read anything that I type...at all.
Um, so no treatment IS a treatment?

"Oh, you got cancer!! I have the perfect treatment for you - JUST SURVIVE!!"

Or maybe, just forgetting you have it is the treatment?

I guess, using that logic, death is a viable treatment as well. I mean, if you die, your Covid problems are behind you.

But, more to the point, I said the only scientifically valid treatment - not the only POSSIBLE treatment. One day, we should have a treatment for it - sure. There has to be a way to treat it.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
\

I'll respond later but I've never seen someone misrepresent, misinterpret and flat make false assumptions so much as you in the last page.

Its actually ridiculous at this point.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
\

I'll respond later but I've never seen someone misrepresent, misinterpret and flat make false assumptions so much as you in the last page.

Its actually ridiculous at this point.
There’s one user, I can’t recall his username offhand since it’s a bunch of letters and numbers at random or something, who literally posts objectively incorrect math and makes easily disproven claims that “all deaths are being attributed to COVID” when they are not. I think that’s more ridiculous than anything anyone else is doing TBH.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
\

I'll respond later but I've never seen someone misrepresent, misinterpret and flat make false assumptions so much as you in the last page.

Its actually ridiculous at this point.
Bring a calculator.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
There’s one user, I can’t recall his username offhand since it’s a bunch of letters and numbers at random or something, who literally posts objectively incorrect math and makes easily disproven claims that “all deaths are being attributed to COVID” when they are not. I think that’s more ridiculous than anything anyone else is doing TBH.
Which is equally ridicuous. Its as if they ignore all reality.
 
Last edited:
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Seriously? Aren't you the one using a non-peer reviewed "study" to say how many more people are infected than the WHO and CDC numbers are showing? And now you're saying, "Well, you can't do projections because it doesn't test everyone"?
No, the government of Germany, Sweden, Denmark, etc....along with the state of New York, California, etc....are saying that.

Its literally why the anti-body tests are being conducted because everyone knows the confirmed test numbers are not accurate by the simple fact of the criteria for getting a test and the actual lack of test kits.

And right off the bat you literally misrepresent my position by stating "Well, you can't do projections because it doesn't test everyone"?"

Where have I ever said that? I said, for probably the 5th time...that the official case number out of New York, or anywher for that matter is not accurate because of the lack of tests, testing, and the criteria for actually getting a test. The governor has said this NUMEROUS times. If you have an inaccurate case number, then your projections are going to be wrong!

LMAO - Weren't you the one using a group of 3300, poorly selected individuals to somehow obtain useful data?
No, Dr. Katz in the video above was and he was using the one out of New York..the one Governor Cuomo quoted.

I don't think anyone said the tests carried out are 100% accurate but all 6 anti-body tests show one thing...many more of us have been infected and recovered that aren't in the official statistics. I don't how you can deny that at all.

OF FRIGGIN' COURSE WE DON'T TEST EVERYONE. Have you ever had the flu? Did you go in and get tested? Because, they don't test everyone, and most people don't even go to the doctors for it. By most estimates, only about 40-50% of the actual cases are ever "confirmed".
The methods being carried out in these "studies" are similar to what the CDC uses to estimate flu cases. Using surveys and random samples of the population (through health care providers) coupled with FRIGGIN' hospital statistics.



But again, maybe you missed it - we have direct Flu to Covid comparisons to NYC itself above - we are already more than double the flu deaths in NYC from Covid. Maybe more than triple depending where you're getting your numbers from.
Fair point. No argument.



It's really hard to have to explain every step, but here goes.
If its hard to explain every step, its even harder to follow your train of thought when you are skipping them.






We are halfway there according to your study. at halfway we have over 53,000 deaths in the US. 2X53,000 = 106,000 deaths in this relatively rosie picture. And by relatively, I mean...extremely.
I could see that.

In order to come up with that, I've had to play all the sig figs in order to create the lowest outcomes, assume an OUTRAGEOUS number of asymptomatic infections based on some crazy study.
Multiple "Studies/Surverys". And many scientists believe the number of asymptomatic infections are higher than the study above..Dr. Katz in the video above to one of them.

The better questions: do you REALLY believe over 50M people in the US have already had Covid?? Or over 85M per some of the articles????
Absolutely possible. Consider the populations of New York, Boston, Philly, DC, Baltimore, LA, San Fran, etc...which are the hot spots.



That is my point, I would have seemed crazy to bet on it back then. Now it has happened. Now we have data showing what has happened and people are grasping at straws and saying, "This study says the denominator is 50-85X higher than the CDC or WHO says! The death rate is only going to be 0.1%".
You are lumping a lot of doctors who hold the opinion of that denominator as grasping at straws.


But the data points to more coming down the pike from this. Do you really think we're going to have a pandemic l like this, and be done with it in 2 months? I seriously hope you are right. I really, really do.
Once again you misrepresent my position and its getting tiresome.

"Do you really think we're going to have a pandemic l like this, and be done with it in 2 months?"

No. Who even stated this? Certainly not me.

”I seriously hope you are right.”

Right about what? I never mentioned this thing will last 2 months...ever.

”I really, really do.”

I never, never did.



Correct, they aren't linear. Extrapolating in a linear fashion skews the numbers to show a lower death level and lower risk. The more infections we have, THE MORE WILL COME. That's how infectious disease works. A sick person infects a number of non-sick people. The more people you have that are sick, the more chances to spread the infection, and with an R0 above 1 - this grows at an increasing rate. With an R0 above 5, this means that 1 person will infect more than 5 people, and those 5 people will infect 25 more people, and those 25 will infect 125 more people - so just by the time 4th iteration you have 156 infected people. Of course it doesn't work in the real world like this if you can keep people quarantined, etc.
Correct...as the number increases the number of infected rises which also coincides with the increasing number of immunity cases which then the number of infected starts to decrease after a certain period.


They aren't studies either. They're news articles. But anyway, I was using "authors" as a loose means of describing the people reporting the "study".
When you mention news articles and authors in the same sentence, I put them in the same context.

Correct they are not peer reviewed studies, they are surveys which the CDC uses every year, coupled with hospital reports for their official estimates.


The people in German didn't even preprint or try to get peer review, they went to newspapers instead. Some of the people had previously made cases to lift restrictions, and it's highly questionable if they were just trying to make results fit their own hopes.

The Standford study advertised on Facebook and was likely to attract a large number of sick individuals who were not able to obtain testing - thus skewing the results.

It goes on and on. All of the studies are highly questionable.
Which means you throw all the numbers out? The entire reason they are conducting these is because they know the official numbers are not accurate because a lack of tests and testing. Almost everyone agrees with this.

Like the FDA waiving regulations in various ways, I believe they are trying to get answers as fast as possible....

But, we do have numbers reported by doctors and collected by the CDC with n=900,000+ and everyone somehow wants to ignore that. As if there is some denominator that will make this all better.
Once again, who is ignoring that? I don't understand how you are jumping to that conclusion. In fact its the opposite...they see the numbers and KNOW more people have it so they are trying to actually find out how many people ARE infected because herd immunity in the long run..DOES MATTER.



You should call the WHO. Apparently they are wrong - what a bunch of dummies. Obviously if anyone has recovered, that itself is proof of immunity. How did they miss THAT evidence?
The Same WHO that said this wasn't transmuted human to human?






I believe 26 diseases can be vaccinated for at this point. That's a relatively small number.
I disagree but thats another discussion.




I don't blame them.
Interesting.


Um, so no treatment IS a treatment?

"Oh, you got cancer!! I have the perfect treatment for you - JUST SURVIVE!!"

Or maybe, just forgetting you have it is the treatment?

I guess, using that logic, death is a viable treatment as well. I mean, if you die, your Covid problems are behind you.

But, more to the point, I said the only scientifically valid treatment - not the only POSSIBLE treatment. One day, we should have a treatment for it - sure. There has to be a way to treat it.

Honestly, I can't follow your logic or even understand how you come to that argument at all...unless you actually missed the face palm emote which easily signifies sarcasm....and took me saying "just pray and nature takes it course" as literal.
 
Last edited:
GreenMachineX

GreenMachineX

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Why does anyone think herd immunity will work? Is there any evidence for it? And if there’s 8 different strains according to this:
How do different strains effect herd immunity? Is that the issue with the flu every year and why herd immunity doesn’t stick?

Serious questions.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Why does anyone think herd immunity will work? Is there any evidence for it? And if there’s 8 different strains according to this:
How do different strains effect herd immunity? Is that the issue with the flu every year and why herd immunity doesn’t stick?

Serious questions.
Herd immunity should only be attempted with vaccines, otherwise you're just getting everybody sick and rolling the dice. It's recommended to get a flu shot every year because influenza is really good at mutating and every time the population develops immunity to a strain, that's pressure to mutate and get around it to survive. Even if there was only one strain, you'd have to get boosters every once in a while, but right now the idea is that the strain used for shots is the one that researchers believe will be the biggest problem that particular year. That's one reason that you could get the shot and still catch the flu.

So it's the same with COVID-19 and multiple strains. Even if there was a vaccine now, you could possibly get the vaccine and still get infected by another strain. And it will also be difficult to determine which is the problem strain now and which will be the one we should focus on a year from now. However, a vaccine would help some--hopefully most--develop herd immunity, and that would certainly slow infections down.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Why does anyone think herd immunity will work? Is there any evidence for it? And if there’s 8 different strains according to this:
How do different strains effect herd immunity? Is that the issue with the flu every year and why herd immunity doesn’t stick?

Serious questions.
Herd immunity might be enough to provide coverage for a year or so, but yeah, given that it is a virus, we cant expect to be immune forever. We may, however develop antibodies that protect us against hybrid strains with SARS-cov2 as a part of the virus code.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Global coronavirus death toll could be 60% higher than reported
| Free to read Mortality statistics show 122,000 deaths in excess of normal levels across 14 countries analysed by the FT.


"If the same level of under-reporting observed in these countries was happening worldwide, the global Covid-19 death toll would rise from the current official total of 201,000 to as high as 318,000. To calculate excess deaths, the FT has compared deaths from all causes in the weeks of a location’s outbreak in March and April 2020 to the average for the same period between 2015 and 2019.

The total of 122,000 amounts to a 50 per cent rise in overall mortality relative to the historical average for the locations studied. In all the countries analysed except Denmark, excess deaths far outnumbered the official coronavirus death tolls. The accuracy of official death statistics from the virus is limited by how effectively a country is testing people to confirm cases. Some countries, including China, have retrospectively revised up their death tolls from the disease."

This might have been posted already. It is difficult to keep up but it may bare repeating.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
God I love New Zealand and New Zealanders so much.
You're the best.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
God I love New Zealand and New Zealanders so much.
You're the best.
We went hard for 4 weeks and it seems to have paid off. Level 3 will see retailers being able to do online orders + contactless pick up or delivery, which will for food and clothing retailers and small businesses to open up. There's been a huge drive to support local business's throughout the media, and so people have been really working together to support small businesses through the 4 weeks we were almost completely closed.

The stance is to open the economy but not the social environment.
 
Ricky10

Ricky10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Why does anyone think herd immunity will work? Is there any evidence for it? And if there’s 8 different strains according to this:
How do different strains effect herd immunity? Is that the issue with the flu every year and why herd immunity doesn’t stick?

Serious questions.
We are basically f’cked in terms of obtaining any resemblance of normalcy in our lives for quite some time. With new symptoms and impacts on our health coming to the surface as things develop, I’m not surprised there have been 8 strains identified, and likely more.

Testing in our hospital has also gotten very unreliable lately. Many people with all positive biomarkers across the board, bilateral CXR infiltrates, highly symptomatic, and differential diagnosis coming back negative have had up to 3 or 4 tests before they show a positive result.

On top of that, our vented patients that all survived, need 2 consecutive negative tests to be transferred out of the unit, or to another facility such as rehab. One day they test negative, the next it’s postive, the next it’s “inconclusive”, and so forth. It’s truly ridiculous. I can only imagine how many non hospitalized patients (or drive by testing) have received false negative tests elsewhere - that don’t get retested because they only had mild symptoms and no accompanying panel of bloodwork to raise high suspicion.

I can’t help but think the sensitivity of our tests to COVID-19 is decreasing. Could it be due to the mutations, and/or is this exactly how the chinese engineered the virus to further complicate matters..
 
Last edited:
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
My wife said the Covid-19 test is 50% accurate, and always has been. It's garbage.
The anti-body test is 100% accurate.

She's the one running the lab.
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
My wife said the Covid-19 test is 50% accurate, and always has been. It's garbage.
The anti-body test is 100% accurate.

She's the one running the lab.
Did you find out if the anti body test is specifically for Covid19, or does it show antibodies for all corona viruses?
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Did you find out if the anti body test is specifically for Covid19, or does it show antibodies for all corona viruses?
Covid-19
*They order other tests for pneumonia and flu alongside
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
My wife said the Covid-19 test is 50% accurate, and always has been. It's garbage.
The anti-body test is 100% accurate.

She's the one running the lab.
The CDC and WHO says don't believe that :p
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I should quantify my reply better: The tests they have gotten. Their are so many out there, but the tests they got here in Florida are 'wonky' so that's why they order pneumonia and flu and other tests alongside for the patients. It's a satellite office of the Hospital. I can't even speak to other Hospitals in the area. Its' that confusing.

There should have been a National initiative on standardized tests for everyone and approved.
This entire every state fends for themselves is a bad idea. I suppose that's why whole countries unlike ours are not divided into so many fractional entities (States) are doing better. Look at New Zealand for a more consistent model.

I know it's a small country compared to ours.

193493
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
There should have been a National initiative on standardized tests for everyone and approved.
It would have been nice but the same problem is happening in all countries with testing.

Its why they are transitioning to the anti-body tests and the number of cases should skyrocket unofficially.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
It would have been nice but the same problem is happening in all countries with testing.

Its why they are transitioning to the anti-body tests and the number of cases should skyrocket unofficially.
Just because you have the antibodies; doesn't necessarily make you immune.
Which can also mean, if you had one strain, doesn't mean you can't get another and pass it on.
Additionally, it's thought that the number of deaths from Covid-19 is being under-reported.

Also agreed on by the WHO and CDC.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Just because you have the antibodies; doesn't necessarily make you immune.
Which can also mean, if you had one strain, doesn't mean you can't get another and pass it on.
Additionally, it's thought that the number of deaths from Covid-19 is being under-reported.

Also agreed on by the WHO and CDC.
So the WHO said this isn't transmitted from human to human and the CDC warns against anti-body tests...which you just stated are 100% accurate.

They don't seem to have a good track record.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I should quantify my reply better: The tests they have gotten. Their are so many out there, but the tests they got here in Florida are 'wonky' so that's why they order pneumonia and flu and other tests alongside for the patients. It's a satellite office of the Hospital. I can't even speak to other Hospitals in the area. Its' that confusing.

There should have been a National initiative on standardized tests for everyone and approved.
This entire every state fends for themselves is a bad idea. I suppose that's why whole countries unlike ours are not divided into so many fractional entities (States) are doing better. Look at New Zealand for a more consistent model.

I know it's a small country compared to ours.

View attachment 193493
Re NZ...absolutely, the country is entirely surrounded/isolated by ocean, and there are no "states". Much easier (and less confusion) for the NZ government to have a unified singular voice of mandate.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
when do the zombies start ?
I think we could cope much easier with zombies than this thing.
Head shot!

Edit: On second thought. The only thing easier with zombies would be 'no test needed'.
I can't imagine having to 'dispense with' a loved one; neighbor or friend whom became a zombie...

That would suck too.
 
Last edited:
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Watch and listen to this man.
It's not the flu.

"A person with #influenza spreads to 1.3-1.4 other people (R0=1.3-1.4).
After 10 rounds of infection, 14 people are infected.

R0=3 for Covid 19.

After 10 rounds of each patient spreading to 3 people, 59,000(!!) people are infected."


 
Last edited:
GreenMachineX

GreenMachineX

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Watch and listen to this man.
It's not the flu.

"A person with #influenza spreads to 1.3-1.4 other people (R0=1.3-1.4).
After 10 rounds of infection, 14 people are infected.

R0=3 for Covid 19.

After 10 rounds of each patient spreading to 3 people, 59,000(!!) people are infected."


Maybe the rest of the states will learn something from the ones that are opening up now. Humans by nature are knuckleheads though, so that’s unlikely 😂.

Although, this might be one of the few scenarios where we won’t want to say “I told you so.”
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established

Top