So the study doesn’t show that?
that would be a conclusion you drew, or at least drew from some random twitter poster?
Can I discount you as a reliable source of info going forward?
California ER Doctors Corona Virus Briefing is Jaw Dropping
- Thread starter royhobbs2
- Start date
that would be a conclusion you drew, or at least drew from some random twitter poster?
Can I discount you as a reliable source of info going forward?
I see you popped in below Roy. Do you want me to explain the issue to you?
Wow... it's interesting to watch this unfold. People who generally claim to be politically "left" are almost always adhering to the government agencies and their predictions/advice. Those on the "right" are not as likely to just accept the CDC, WHO, and every other government-funded bureaucracy medical institution.
It's interesting to see how people are able to be manipulated... by either side, in either direction.
There's very little, if any, objective "average person."
It's interesting to see how people are able to be manipulated... by either side, in either direction.
There's very little, if any, objective "average person."
I think there is a difference between those who value science and those who are science skeptics. Unfortunately that divide is a right left divide in the US
So neither of you can answer the question?
Two. Two COVID deaths among active military.
No it doesn’t Roy. Just because some doofus twitter user says so does not make it so
yes it certainly does
287 deaths divided by 165,000 Miami Dade cases gives you a mortality rate on par with the flu and that is data from the University of Miami study.
So you can continue to lie all you want, you just look like an idiot.
287 deaths divided by 165,000 Miami Dade cases gives you a mortality rate on par with the flu and that is data from the University of Miami study.
So you can continue to lie all you want, you just look like an idiot.
Last edited:
No Roy it doesn’t. No reputable scientific organization has claimed that. Even had they made that claim it would be subject to question because of the reliability of current antibody testing. Allowing for that question You quoted some random lady on twitter who claimed that. She of course provided neither data or methodology. You provided a supposed methodology which if she had used would be flawed.
The University Miami scientists stated their numbers "with 95% confidence" and it matches up perfectly with the USC and Stanford studies.
The rates could be even lower as up to 220,000 could be positive according to the study.
You don't want to accept reality because of your political agenda. Your nonsense is tiresome.
The rates could be even lower as up to 220,000 could be positive according to the study.
You don't want to accept reality because of your political agenda. Your nonsense is tiresome.
I’m not arguing about the studies and the conclusions they drew. I am disputing the extrapolation you made from those studies.
In your Miami conclusion how are you accounting for the nearly 11 k who have tested positive and what per cent of them will die.
Absolutely spot on. Natural herd immunity is a myth.
Antibodies, on the other hand, that are artificially induced? Now those are the real deal.
And that assumes that everyone who has tested positive and not yet passed will recover. I do not believe that to be the case
You don’t know that and in fact the idea that the vast majority who have tested positive have mild symptoms flies in the face of all observed facts
That's the sum of your "argument"
You are asking silly questions because you refuse to accept the results of the studies.
No. I refuse to accept what you have concluded from the studies because you have made flawed assumptions
Ok you don't believe it. Yea whatever im sure Stanford, USC, Univ Miami and the two ER doctors are all lying.
The ER doctors say in the video that after looking at all the studies, the corona virus has a mortality rate no greater than the flu. They are just making "false assumptions" too right ?
The ER doctors say in the video that after looking at all the studies, the corona virus has a mortality rate no greater than the flu. They are just making "false assumptions" too right ?
If death reports are being falsified, yes.
Well I must comment here. While I don’t agree with their certainty of their data, I do agree with much of it in principal.
Let’s start with this. Our hospital has had a number of COVID deaths. But our volumes are down significantly overall. And we aren’t anywhere close to being overwhelmed either in the ED or in the hospital ICU. The total number of COVID cases I have diagnosed in our urban ED in the last 2 weeks? Zero. And I have probably tested a few really marginal ones just to increase my data set. I’ve probably tested 60. My colleagues have had a few for sure though.
Next, if we have a code, as we go in, we are assuming it COVID even if it sounds like it may have been something else. Mainly to prevent our staff from needless risk. I don’t personally know however the details of the death certificates on those that come in dead and leave dead. And how or whether they were tested postmortem.
Now also to add some balance.... it is clear that certain areas of the country have far more issues than the majority. Probably related to poverty, ethnicity, population density, Mass transit etc... and I am sure it is hell there. We have all read about it. If you have a city that has millions of people, even a flu CFR that occurs in a short period, can be overwhelming. Hence the ‘flatten the curve” calls.
But I also think we need to do some tests of concept. Specifically opening up right now, nearly back to normal, in certain less dense areas of the country.
Data....The county I live in has an overall death rate of 0.01 % That is defined as the total deaths divides by the total population. And right now case growth is largely linear.
Analysis....We have shut down an entire state economy for a disease that 99.99 percent of our population aren’t going to die from. Now, have the measures we have taken brought us these numbers? I’m sure they have. But we have no way to know what they would have been without them. (Except for maybe looking at Sweden).
Comments.....I’m simply pointing out this.... where I live, the impact this disease is actually making doesn’t appear to be as significant as the mitigation efforts themselves. For almost everyone. Except for the few that have died. And that’s a damn shame for sure. I mean that deeply. But JFC why don’t we ban fast food then if our entire strategy is to avoid death? I’m sure that in this period we’d have seen nearly as many deaths from heart attack as we have had from COVID. In my area. Leave out New York etc.... they simply aren’t analogous to much of any other states in the US.
So, in my opinion only , it’s time to get back to work, open stuff up, and continue some reasonable mitigation like hand washing, masks, and simple social distancing and see what happens. If things go reasonably well then we start decreasing restrictions until we are back to concerts, sporting events, political rallies etc.
So you all may think these guys are nuts because they are contrarians but there is some real validity to what they are saying and have observed. Knock it off with the assumptions about motive. They are ‘in the fight’ therefore allowed to opine from that position. A position that very very few on here are actually in.
Let’s start with this. Our hospital has had a number of COVID deaths. But our volumes are down significantly overall. And we aren’t anywhere close to being overwhelmed either in the ED or in the hospital ICU. The total number of COVID cases I have diagnosed in our urban ED in the last 2 weeks? Zero. And I have probably tested a few really marginal ones just to increase my data set. I’ve probably tested 60. My colleagues have had a few for sure though.
Next, if we have a code, as we go in, we are assuming it COVID even if it sounds like it may have been something else. Mainly to prevent our staff from needless risk. I don’t personally know however the details of the death certificates on those that come in dead and leave dead. And how or whether they were tested postmortem.
Now also to add some balance.... it is clear that certain areas of the country have far more issues than the majority. Probably related to poverty, ethnicity, population density, Mass transit etc... and I am sure it is hell there. We have all read about it. If you have a city that has millions of people, even a flu CFR that occurs in a short period, can be overwhelming. Hence the ‘flatten the curve” calls.
But I also think we need to do some tests of concept. Specifically opening up right now, nearly back to normal, in certain less dense areas of the country.
Data....The county I live in has an overall death rate of 0.01 % That is defined as the total deaths divides by the total population. And right now case growth is largely linear.
Analysis....We have shut down an entire state economy for a disease that 99.99 percent of our population aren’t going to die from. Now, have the measures we have taken brought us these numbers? I’m sure they have. But we have no way to know what they would have been without them. (Except for maybe looking at Sweden).
Comments.....I’m simply pointing out this.... where I live, the impact this disease is actually making doesn’t appear to be as significant as the mitigation efforts themselves. For almost everyone. Except for the few that have died. And that’s a damn shame for sure. I mean that deeply. But JFC why don’t we ban fast food then if our entire strategy is to avoid death? I’m sure that in this period we’d have seen nearly as many deaths from heart attack as we have had from COVID. In my area. Leave out New York etc.... they simply aren’t analogous to much of any other states in the US.
So, in my opinion only , it’s time to get back to work, open stuff up, and continue some reasonable mitigation like hand washing, masks, and simple social distancing and see what happens. If things go reasonably well then we start decreasing restrictions until we are back to concerts, sporting events, political rallies etc.
So you all may think these guys are nuts because they are contrarians but there is some real validity to what they are saying and have observed. Knock it off with the assumptions about motive. They are ‘in the fight’ therefore allowed to opine from that position. A position that very very few on here are actually in.
Valuing science is a noble value. But, most here who are valuing science are really just valuing other people's opinions or claims based upon their grasp of science. People trust the source that makes them feel good.
Just keep hiding under your bed. You will not be missed.
I agree with your sentiment in large part, but where you lose me is the assumption that 99.9% of your population won't die from this. That's a very aggressive extrapolation that isn't backed up by data. Your calculation (total deaths/total population) uses a static denominator with a numerator that will continue to grow. If you have a population of 100,000 and deaths, today, of 100 that's a .1% rate. But that number will grow while the population doesn't which affects the rate.
Because testing is so sparse the vast majority of the 100,000, in this case, haven't been tested. Some may have had the virus and be temporarily immune (that's still not understood) but many will not have. Thus, the only numbers that can tell us something are the number that have been tested, the number of confirmed cases and the number of confirmed deaths (or hospitalizations if we want to track that). Those numbers give a better indication of how likely one is to get the virus and what the severity might be.
Testing is the key to opening up safely. Both to prevent outbreaks and to ease fears the public will have. I agree things like elective surgeries and some businesses should be opened up and monitored closely. I don't believe doing so will have a significant impact on an economic recovery until widespread testing is available.
Hopkins says 11,005 Miami Dade cases.
295 deaths
2.68% mortality
Your serology tests, just like the studies for Santa Clara, etc, are based on flawed accuracy claims. That information has been posted in many threads; they are unreliable estimates of spread UNTIL the serology testing has been fully verified on its false-positive tendencies. No test is 100% certain on false negatives/false positives. And when you are testing in an area with low spread, the false-positives amplify apparent case rates.
'Artificially'?
No. Tests that are nonspecific and pick up RELATED antibodies which are NOT unique to COVID-19.
Whole lotta threads on here posting the info on the false positive rates of some of these tests. Some as bad as 16% false positive (84% specific).
Good analysis. I agree. But if it goes up even 10x it still isn’t a reason to shut everything down this long.
Your number is 10 fold off. I know it was an example. This is a more accurate example. In a county with a population of 100k and deaths of 10.
Now say we go back to normal and deaths are 100. Now we see the 99.99% changes to 99.9%.
I am not of the belief that we do whatever we need to to protect even 1 death. I feel for any family affected by this virus. As I would from a death of any cause. But we are humans and we die. Some will today. From lots of causes. But from a public health standpoint it’s time to get back to it. This simply hasn’t been the massive tragedy projected. In my area. Which is why,in select areas, it’s time to open up.
Who "verifies" the false-positive tendencies??? Surely not the same ones responsible for producing and administering the ineffective tests themselves, I hope. This country has botched the handling of this virus in just about every possible way.
Normally, no. It's reviewed by FDA and requires independent studies.
In this case, FDA has allowed 'self-verification' for these kits to be released. Basically with a 'buyer beware' sticker on them.
Which areas would you "open up" in?
rt.live
I see two states with Rt numbers low enough to "open up", where the 95% CI on their spread rate is approaching 1 (OH and CT). And it's entirely possible that lack of testing is pushing numbers lower than they actually are for many of the other states.
If your 95% CI on spread rate isn't <1, preferably <0.5 (which would clearly indicate control of the spread), then "opening back up" means you'll see big rebounds. Many areas have already seen those rebounds. When your 50% CI goes above one, it means you have a 50/50 likelihood of actual containment, regardless of where the point estimate sits.
How many COVID deaths among active military, Karl? Is it "a hell of a lot more than you think" as you stated some time ago? Is 2 (yes, 2) a hell of a lot more?
