Coronavirus!

[thecampster]

11 hours ago, bleachkit said:

What are you talking about? Both articles are dated yesterday. They are specifically citing recent Covid-19 antibody data. Articles from the Wall Street Journal and Nature are the conspiracy bubble? Nature is considered the premier science journal in the world. You keep quoting how are many are dead. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE DEBATING. We are debating the fatality rate. That means the percentage of those infected with Covid-19 that ended up dying from it.

That you do not understand that the 2 are related is mind-boggling. In order to sustain your theory that everyone already has it, you must than also accept it kills viciously a very small subset of the population.  Saying everyone has it but its killed 33,000 and shown symptoms in in 700000 is a much more fantastic claim than saying its only infected 8% so far. Let me explain.

33,000 is .01% of the population and 700,000 is .2% of the population. Here is your claim.  That pretty much everyone already has it, but it only shows symptoms in .2% of people...1 in 500 show symptoms and 1 in 10,000 the symptoms ravage their bodies.  Being old or immuno-compromised raises your chances but pretty much anyone...healthy/young, old/frail can get it and it can kill them. There is no known correlation but good news is it randomly shows symptoms in 1 in 500 people. Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds to anyone with medical training?  Because I do, my micro-biologist daughter-in-law who runs a testing lab laughed and shook her head when my son told her what was being said here. Things that kill viciously don't go asymptomatic in 99.99% of people. Bleach, take a second and realize what you are proposing. You are suggesting playing roulette with people's lives.

For example, take the nursing home in Seattle where this presented very early in the process.

"As of March 18, a total of 167 confirmed cases of Covid-19 affecting 101 residents, 50 health care personnel, and 16 visitors were found to be epidemiologically linked to the facility. Most cases among residents included respiratory illness consistent with Covid-19; however, in 7 residents no symptoms were documented. Hospitalization rates for facility residents, visitors, and staff were 54.5%, 50.0%, and 6.0%, respectively. The case fatality rate for residents was 33.7% (34 of 101). As of March 18, a total of 30 long-term care facilities with at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 had been identified in King County."

 

Let me make this really simple. 101 cases. All people at the home were tested.  101 residents, 34 dead. 7 infected showed no symptoms. You were 5 times more likely to die than not show symptoms. 50 health care professionals were infected. 25 were hospitalized (ie. acute respiratory symptoms).  So 50% of the health care professionals...scrubbing the snot out of their hands, wearing protective gear, taking precautions, young enough to work, etc were hospitalized.

You are reading propaganda man. These are hard facts and this is what can and would happen if we just let this thing loose. Wait for summer, high humidity and ample sunlight. The numbers of actual cases reported in controlled settings don't even remotely support the hypothetical model studies you are citing.

Edited April 19, 2020 by thecampster

[bleachkit]

1 hour ago, thecampster said:

That you do not understand that the 2 are related is mind-boggling. In order to sustain your theory that everyone already has it, you must than also accept it kills viciously a very small subset of the population.  Saying everyone has it but its killed 33,000 and shown symptoms in in 700000 is a much more fantastic claim than saying its only infected 8% so far. Let me explain.

33,000 is .01% of the population and 700,000 is .2% of the population. Here is your claim.  That pretty much everyone already has it, but it only shows symptoms in .2% of people...1 in 500 show symptoms and 1 in 10,000 the symptoms ravage their bodies.  Being old or immuno-compromised raises your chances but pretty much anyone...healthy/young, old/frail can get it and it can kill them. There is no known correlation but good news is it randomly shows symptoms in 1 in 500 people. Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds to anyone with medical training?  Because I do, my micro-biologist daughter-in-law who runs a testing lab laughed and shook her head when my son told her what was being said here. Things that kill viciously don't go asymptomatic in 99.99% of people. Bleach, take a second and realize what you are proposing. You are suggesting playing roulette with people's lives.

For example, take the nursing home in Seattle where this presented very early in the process.

"As of March 18, a total of 167 confirmed cases of Covid-19 affecting 101 residents, 50 health care personnel, and 16 visitors were found to be epidemiologically linked to the facility. Most cases among residents included respiratory illness consistent with Covid-19; however, in 7 residents no symptoms were documented. Hospitalization rates for facility residents, visitors, and staff were 54.5%, 50.0%, and 6.0%, respectively. The case fatality rate for residents was 33.7% (34 of 101). As of March 18, a total of 30 long-term care facilities with at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 had been identified in King County."

 

Let me make this really simple. 101 cases. All people at the home were tested.  101 residents, 34 dead. 7 infected showed no symptoms. You were 5 times more likely to die than not show symptoms. 50 health care professionals were infected. 25 were hospitalized (ie. acute respiratory symptoms).  So 50% of the health care professionals...scrubbing the snot out of their hands, wearing protective gear, taking precautions, young enough to work, etc were hospitalized.

You are reading propaganda man. These are hard facts and this is what can and would happen if we just let this thing loose. Wait for summer, high humidity and ample sunlight. The numbers of actual cases reported in controlled settings don't even remotely support the hypothetical model studies you are citing.

Dude, first of all. I never said EVERYONE has/had it. I said a sizeable percentage of the population has/had it. I dont know the exact number. But it is far, far greater than the number of confirmed cases. To support your case, you are a using nursing home from a month ago. The articles I cited are not propaganda. They are not from some bogus right wing conspiracy type website. Nature is the most widely read and respected scientific journal. It is using a serological study of thousands of people, conducted by Stanford University. Bottom line is, the fatality rate I am claiming, (0.2 to 0.3%) versus the fatality rate you are claiming (5%), are an ocean apart. So I will let the facts play out. But please do not dismiss findings as I post them as "propaganga". I will only report links from governmental agencies, like the CDC or NIH, or an established universities (Stanford, Johns Hopkins, etc). 

[JayBirdHawk]

Quote

Scientists at the University of Oxford say they should have at least a million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by September this year.

The UK government, which is backing the project, said there were "no guarantees" and it was not possible to put a date on a vaccine.

The first patients are expected to take part in the Oxford trials next week.

However, it is still too soon to know whether it will be either safe or effective.

Most experts still estimate it will take 12 to 18 months to develop and manufacture a vaccine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52329659

[AHawks89]

This thread has to be a classic. Love reading these biased "sources" that people depend on.

Hope all is staying healthy. God Bless. 

[bleachkit]

11 minutes ago, AHawks89 said:

This thread has to be a classic. Love reading these biased "sources" that people depend on.

Hope all is staying healthy. God Bless. 

My sources are all above board. I cited a Stanford University study, published in Nature. One of the premier Universities, and the premier scientific journal. 

[Lurker]

I don’t think you can definitively rule out the idea of the coronavirus circulating in some areas of the US before it was confirmed (maybe it hasn’t since November as claimed by some, but maybe for a month before it was confirmed) or there being a lot more asymptomatic people than what’s been reported. It just needs a lot more research and it might be a couple years before a conclusion is come to.

Does it seem a little crazy if it’s true given what we know for sure right now? Yeah it does, I’ll admit that, but there’s some circumstantial stuff I’ve seen that most certainly doesn’t rule it out, even including a death. A rise in negative flu tests with this flu season that hasn’t been explained (that include more negatives for other problems), NBA players testing positive for the coronavirus and not really being affected all that badly, prisons recently massively testing some prisoners and getting hundreds of positives with most of them being asymptomatic, Brazil reexamining a death that occurred about a month before they identified their first coronavirus patient and changing the cause of death from pneumonia to coronavirus (you would hope they had a DANG good reason to, like maybe they retested some things, because if their doctors are correct, there’s no telling who and how many down there that don’t know), and finally, these antibody studies that are just now beginning.

If the idea is true it was going around a bit earlier than confirmed, yes, it’s quite likely that we saw deaths that were classified as pneumonia deaths that were actually coronavirus deaths early in 2020. We may never know for sure there because some of the samples from those patients might have already been disposed. 

I have also seen it theorized that we MIGHT have seen a milder version circulate that mutated sometime earlier this year, but with that theory it would have been here earlier than what my theory is (it was circulating a month before confirmed). But something that I would be curious about here would be has there been a rise in pneumonia deaths along with those unexplained negative flu tests (*oops).

Edited April 19, 2020 by Lurker

[Spud2nique]

13 hours ago, bleachkit said:

An example of a conspiracy would be claiming the NBA has instructed their referees to go easy on Luka Doncic in order to protect a budding white superstar.

This is the truth. It’s like WWF. The refs understand beforehand that Luka if fragile and they have certain rules to follow when calling his game. “Fragile Luka rules” is what they call it I believe  

#whitemencanjump #Lukacant #nohopsluka

[AHawks89]

10 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

My sources are all above board. I cited a Stanford University study, published in Nature. One of the premier Universities, and the premier scientific journal. 

I'm not saying you haha. I haven't even really read this thread as much because politics are being involved. When you start posting CNN links is where it has to stop. Nonetheless, I just hope people are staying healthy.

[Spud2nique]

30 minutes ago, AHawks89 said:

This thread has to be a classic. Love reading these biased "sources" that people depend on.

Hope all is staying healthy. God Bless. 

I forgot to make the popcorn first. 

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, AHawks89 said:

I'm not saying you haha.

 

[bleachkit]

24 minutes ago, AHawks89 said:

I'm not saying you haha. I haven't even really read this thread as much because politics are being involved. When you start posting CNN links is where it has to stop. Nonetheless, I just hope people are staying healthy.

My angle isn't political. Are you a conservative? Most conservatives don't trust CNN. Like liberals don't trust Fox news, etc. I personally am non-partisan. My final link will be from the CDC or NIH. Right or wrong, they have the last word on this.

Edited April 19, 2020 by bleachkit

[bleachkit]

24 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

This is the truth. It’s like WWF. The refs understand beforehand that Luka if fragile and they have certain rules to follow when calling his game. “Fragile Luka rules” is what they call it I believe  

#whitemencanjump #Lukacant #nohopsluka

Trae cant jump either. And if the Hawks had taken Luka, half the board would have Luka avatars. Arguing basketball is more fun.

Edited April 19, 2020 by bleachkit

[thecampster]

3 hours ago, bleachkit said:

Dude, first of all. I never said EVERYONE has/had it. I said a sizeable percentage of the population has/had it. I dont know the exact number. But it is far, far greater than the number of confirmed cases. To support your case, you are a using nursing home from a month ago. The articles I cited are not propaganda. They are not from some bogus right wing conspiracy type website. Nature is the most widely read and respected scientific journal. It is using a serological study of thousands of people, conducted by Stanford University. Bottom line is, the fatality rate I am claiming, (0.2 to 0.3%) versus the fatality rate you are claiming (5%), are an ocean apart. So I will let the facts play out. But please do not dismiss findings as I post them as "propaganga". I will only report links from governmental agencies, like the CDC or NIH, or an established universities (Stanford, Johns Hopkins, etc). 

you can't claim a fatality rate on people who are not infected. You can't claim people are infected without an actual test. Very, very simple. In my world, no one on any other planet is showing symptoms so yah....this thing isn't dangerous as all. The reason it isn't dangerous for them is because they haven't encountered it yet.  Studies of 68 people on a street who test positive for coronavirus antibodies of some sort isn't capable of being extrapolated to a population of 320 million.

[bleachkit]

1 hour ago, thecampster said:

you can't claim a fatality rate on people who are not infected. You can't claim people are infected without an actual test. Very, very simple. In my world, no one on any other planet is showing symptoms so yah....this thing isn't dangerous as all. The reason it isn't dangerous for them is because they haven't encountered it yet.  Studies of 68 people on a street who test positive for coronavirus antibodies of some sort isn't capable of being extrapolated to a population of 320 million.

Ok man. Be ready for some compelling antibody data, it's coming.

[bleachkit]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective

[AHF]

Until we have thorough testing all anyone can speak to definitely are the limited subset of people who have been tested

[thecampster]

16 hours ago, bleachkit said:

Ok man. Be ready for some compelling antibody data, it's coming.

Okay, now let me take a crack at the Santa Clara study for a minute.

1. the study has not been under peer review yet and there is a very good reason for that....see below

2. the study participants were found using facebook ads. IE: people who were already Corona engaged were targeted and brought in for sampling. Meaning you can't trust the data as a true subset of any population. The only people who came in are people who wanted to participate, were expecting a test.

3. the people tested were in a densely populated county where infection rates would be higher.

4. Just where did the researchers get 3300 test kits for the antibodies for research purposes? Are the test kits accurate? Oh wait, they didn't. They were SARS tests.

5. In an obviously compromised study that brought in people who were interested in getting tested, it still showed only 1.5% of people showing the antibodies....for SARS.

6. It takes between 1 to 2 weeks after being infected for symptoms to present. (The incubation period). So even if they were testing for COVID 19, those infected but not presenting yet throw off the numbers.

7. Now the fun part....actually reading the abstract of the Stanford study. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

"Background Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County. Methods On 4/3-4/4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer's data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both. Results The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections."

 

Okay so in case you aren't good at reading, let me sum up. The researchers stated there was no data to go against for COVID-19. So they found the closest thing...SARS-COV-2 and tested for it. They found it in 1.5 % of participants. Then they looked at how many people in Santa Clara county actually were treated for SARS. Compared that with the number of people treated for COVID-19 and said....oh we must have this many people.

 

I tried explaining this earlier but you swore it was a COVID-19 test. Learn to read before spreading false information. This is exactly what people like me mean when they say false news. The study didn't test for COVID-19, it extrapolated based on numbers for SARS COVID-2 testing.

 

But lets pretend these scientist...who by the way are not supported by Stanford, it only states that some of the members are from Stanford. This isn't a Stanford official study, its funded externally and until you know who funded it, it is immediately suspect. The researchers state this later in the abstract: "Funding Statement

We acknowledge many individual donors who generously supported this project with gift awards. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the decision to prepare and submit the manuscript for publication."  Now there is a very good reason this is stated, but all research is funded by someone with ulterior motives and a well known secret in the scientific community is that if your results don't favor the desired results of the funders, you don't get more funding. That is why statements like this are added. Its a wink wink, nudge nudge to what everyone knows. The funders were looking for a specific result.

So using this obviously flawed subset lets pretend 3% of the population has antibodies. Lets also pretend 50% of people would never produce antibodies and get affected. That leaves 47% of people who haven't been exposed (16x the number currently exposed) who would contract the virus if it was just allowed to spread naturally in non optimum conditions (summer). Current deaths, 40,000....estimated deaths if 16x people get it....500,000.

Do I need to go on?

 

 

Please stop spreading propaganda. I don't care if the Vatican published it. It is not a Covid-19 study. Its a Covid 2 study. Peoples' lives are at stake. This is why we don't need people like Biden or Trump leading this. This is why you need actual doctors, immunologists leading this. Be reasonable and rational. This isn't the 1300's. Being quarantined in 2020 is a pretty cool deal. You can stream movies, play call of duty, use a toaster or air fryer. Hell, you can even have food delivered to your door, prepared to your liking.

When all of this began, I was very clear in my opinion. People would die and we need to face that first. After realizing all that entails, we need to work to minimize the social, economic impacts and reduce the total impact in terms of deaths. Opening early based on a biased study that implies Covid-19 rates based on Covid-2 testing is asinine. You've already done the hard part in quarantining for a month. a few more weeks isn't going to be an issue. Opening early would be.

Edited April 20, 2020 by thecampster

[AHF]

@thecampster

SARS-Cov-2 is Covid-19

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2

[thecampster]

44 minutes ago, AHF said:

@thecampster

SARS-Cov-2 is Covid-19

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2

different strains = different antibody tests

[thecampster]

This is why we need different test kits