|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 7, 2021 23:15:51 GMT
#1: Covid-19 isn't the common cold
#2: It is a highly infectious, lethal disease and should be treated as such. Wear the damned mask, social distance, wash hands and get fucking vaccinated.
#3: See number 1 and 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Apr 7, 2021 23:16:54 GMT
#1: Covid-19 isn't the common cold #2: It is a highly infectious, lethal disease and should be treated as such. Wear the damned mask, social distance, wash hands and get fucking vaccinated. #3: See number 1 and 2. The truth will set you free. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13554 |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 7, 2021 23:48:14 GMT
Here's my rebuttal
Flu deaths from various pandemics
Covid-19 deaths worldwide in a single year
Moral of story: Don't fuck around with pandemics. They'll kill ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Apr 8, 2021 13:54:05 GMT
#1: Covid-19 isn't the common cold #2: It is a highly infectious, lethal disease and should be treated as such. Wear the damned mask, social distance, wash hands and get fucking vaccinated. #3: See number 1 and 2. The truth will set you free. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13554You claimed earlier in the thread that the infection rate was 35%. That link there says 20-27ish%, which is significantly less. The study also admits to being flawed, because of skewed data(ie no data from outside Europe and America). I love how you link shit that 1) doesn't support you, and 2) even if it did, doesn't say that we shouldn't take precautions. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Apr 8, 2021 17:49:26 GMT
You claimed earlier in the thread that the infection rate was 35%. That link there says 20-27ish%, which is significantly less. The study also admits to being flawed, because of skewed data(ie no data from outside Europe and America). I love how you link shit that 1) doesn't support you, and 2) even if it did, doesn't say that we shouldn't take precautions. LOL No, I didn't. We're talking IFR and CFR - fatality rates. No one should care about rates of transmission unless the rates of fatality are significant. The IFR and CFR are sub-1%. What this study suggests is that experts whose models governments relied on to establish a crisis need for lockdowns and universal masking were wrong. The analysis of their models, data sets, and methodologies need to be looked at again because the models and conclusions were built around desired end results that don't actually match the data. The data suggests many more infections than officially recorded, based upon seroprevalence, which makes the IFR significantly less than purported - making the true global IFR on par with a bad seasonal flu, with the caveat that they only have data from primarily the US and Europe. This strongly leads to the realization that in 3rd world countries, they aren't testing people to the same extent and they aren't being reported as having dead bodies spilling out of hospitals - which then leads to the realization that the estimates of global infection are even more underreported which then leads to the possibility that IFR is even less than this study's estimate. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that modelers are using shoddy or inconsistent data to build models that don't reflect reality - and governments are erroneously relying upon their models and expertise to drive public policy. You don't shoehorn the data to fit your desired model. You revise your model to better match the data. This is basic science 101: ask question, hypothesize, devise experiment, record data, analyze data, draw conclusions, rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Apr 8, 2021 20:57:57 GMT
You claimed earlier in the thread that the infection rate was 35%. That link there says 20-27ish%, which is significantly less. The study also admits to being flawed, because of skewed data(ie no data from outside Europe and America). I love how you link shit that 1) doesn't support you, and 2) even if it did, doesn't say that we shouldn't take precautions. LOL No, I didn't. We're talking IFR and CFR - fatality rates. No one should care about rates of transmission unless the rates of fatality are significant. The IFR and CFR are sub-1%. What this study suggests is that experts whose models governments relied on to establish a crisis need for lockdowns and universal masking were wrong. The analysis of their models, data sets, and methodologies need to be looked at again because the models and conclusions were built around desired end results that don't actually match the data. The data suggests many more infections than officially recorded, based upon seroprevalence, which makes the IFR significantly less than purported - making the true global IFR on par with a bad seasonal flu, with the caveat that they only have data from primarily the US and Europe. This strongly leads to the realization that in 3rd world countries, they aren't testing people to the same extent and they aren't being reported as having dead bodies spilling out of hospitals - which then leads to the realization that the estimates of global infection are even more underreported which then leads to the possibility that IFR is even less than this study's estimate. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that modelers are using shoddy or inconsistent data to build models that don't reflect reality - and governments are erroneously relying upon their models and expertise to drive public policy. You don't shoehorn the data to fit your desired model. You revise your model to better match the data. This is basic science 101: ask question, hypothesize, devise experiment, record data, analyze data, draw conclusions, rinse and repeat. First, 500k+ is very, VERY significant. Especially since it would be massively worse without masking and social distancing. Second, the study does not at all suggest that any of it was universally wrong. It suggests only that 20-27ish percent of the population has been infected..........maybe. It does not show that it was wrong for us to prevent far more from getting Covid. Only stupid sociopaths think that. Third, third world countries lie like mother fuckers about this sort of thing. They also don't really have much in the way of hospitals, so huge numbers can die without being reported at all. They're just getting buried in local villages. We don't have any numbers, so it takes a grade a idiot to think that the 3rd world counties prove anything right now. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Apr 8, 2021 22:58:22 GMT
No one should care about rates of transmission unless the rates of fatality are significant. Except this virus plays havoc with your intire system and has done things that aren't fatal, but significantly increase health risks moving forward, such as weakening of the heart, liver, kidney, and other organ damage, as well as causing memory issues, onset of Alzheimer's when those people may not have even been susceptible to Alzheimer's and other memory lose problems often associated with dementia in people who exhibited no symptoms prior to contracting COVID. So yes, the long-tail on this virus is still something to beware of, and that it's so easily spread is something to worry about. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Apr 8, 2021 23:18:52 GMT
No one should care about rates of transmission unless the rates of fatality are significant. Except this virus plays havoc with your intire system and has done things that aren't fatal, but significantly increase health risks moving forward, such as weakening of the heart, liver, kidney, and other organ damage, as well as causing memory issues, onset of Alzheimer's when those people may not have even been susceptible to Alzheimer's and other memory lose problems often associated with dementia in people who exhibited no symptoms prior to contracting COVID. So yes, the long-tail on this virus is still something to beware of, and that it's so easily spread is something to worry about. Which I would be concerned with if it weren't for the fact that none of the data has been recorded in such a manner that it can be trusted to be accurate. The most recent article I pointed to makes the argument that the various studies and models are demonstrably incorrect and need to be reevaluated to determine actual risks for fatal outcomes. The biggest question raised is why did the ICCRT ( who are known for doing good work) publish studies whose results are so divergent from the data used in those studies? As to people with ongoing symptoms, we've got all of these people claiming to have long covid - and a significant number of them don't actually have antibodies or a positive test result. www.statnews.com/2020/08/26/long-haulers-dilemma-many-cannot-prove-they-had-covid19/Until we have enough decent peer-reviewed studies n what is actually going on with people who've recovered and have other symptoms, there is no way to really separate anyone who may have actual lingering symptoms caused by covid from the hypochondriacs. I don't think anyone has even tried to determine if these people have some type of undiagnosed autoimmune disorder that be the actual cause (or have been stimulated by catching covid or Lyme, or any other potential invaders). The following (recent study that still needs to be validated because it's such a small data set) leads to the interesting conclusion that it's likely that people with long covid *do* have autoimmune disorders: bgr.com/2021/01/28/long-covid-symptoms-cause-explained-autoantibodies/But again - we need enough quality studies with a sufficiently large data set to separate true ongoing sufferers from the hypochondriacs... In any case, my skepticism is doesn't based on review of all of the data I've been able to find, cooked with a questioning attitude that asks uncomfortable questions that have no goid answers. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Apr 9, 2021 6:20:37 GMT
Except this virus plays havoc with your intire system and has done things that aren't fatal, but significantly increase health risks moving forward, such as weakening of the heart, liver, kidney, and other organ damage, as well as causing memory issues, onset of Alzheimer's when those people may not have even been susceptible to Alzheimer's and other memory lose problems often associated with dementia in people who exhibited no symptoms prior to contracting COVID. So yes, the long-tail on this virus is still something to beware of, and that it's so easily spread is something to worry about. Until we have enough decent peer-reviewed studies n what is actually going on with people who've recovered and have other symptoms, there is no way to really separate anyone who may have actual lingering symptoms caused by covid from the hypochondriacs. Other than the MRIs, X-rays, scarred lungs and other verifiable long term effects from many thousands of people who were verified to have Covid you mean. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 9, 2021 9:28:38 GMT
Even when it is in black and white, on paper, he still won't believe it. The Kool-aid is strong with 3cat.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Apr 9, 2021 21:47:41 GMT
Other than the MRIs, X-rays, scarred lungs and other verifiable long term effects from many thousands of people who were verified to have Covid you mean. Right? I think he's referring specifically to the non-respiratory side effects of COVID, which like Gulf War Syndrome will take time to nail down as the symptoms seem to vary wildly and be all over the internal organ map. And yeah, the studies on those are sketchy at best, because it's only been being studied in small handfuls here and there. I mean some young healthy person gets COVID, gets over it and it's no worse than the common cold, but the heart, liver, brain, etc damage may not show up for decades, that is if they don't die from or suffer from something else. And then after all that time, who's to say it was even COVID related? Mostly it's the middle-aged and older being diagnosed at this time. I suspect this will be treated like the Gulf War Syndrome, "just stress" that's ignored until medical science can conclusively nail it down. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Apr 9, 2021 22:00:50 GMT
So, here is the latest from the WHO on mask wearing. Note the 2nd screen shot (the I pulled from the Twitter post). Read it thoroughly. At present there is only limited and inconsistent evidence to support the effectiveness of making healthy people in the community. "...no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2..." "...wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of ILI... ...or LCI...". BTW, WHO and CDC have been lumping covid in with flu and other causes as all being ILI for several months now...   |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 9, 2021 22:18:23 GMT
Twitter and screenshots are not proof dear. We need real cites.
The Who on Face-masks (a real guidance)
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Apr 9, 2021 22:23:49 GMT
Twitter and screenshots are not proof dear. We need real cites.
It's a screencap off the WHOs website that he posted. But hey, you keep on denying basic scientific facts that inconveniently offer proof that what you want to believe just isn't so. apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.5-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yHere you go. Directly from the WHO. Read the whole thing. Understand what they are saying. I'll help you: we have some studies suggesting may be useful, but they are limited in size and we can't be sure of bias induction. The best studies that have been confirmed and they make no difference outside of health care settings. We're have no evidence that non-meducal cloth masks do anything, but if you make one, we'd recommended making it this way... Probablistic risk assessment based upon confirmed study results. Not best guess using unconfirmed studies with limited data where bias effects are present. If you only read the upfront piece which suggests using masks, you are missing the actual science and caveats contained in the rest of the document which clearly illustrate that they have no actual scientific evidence that they work in community settings and they recommendation is based upon engaging in health theater... "We don't have any idea if this actually works or not based upon scientific evidence, but do it anyway." |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Apr 9, 2021 22:43:05 GMT
Yes and it unequivocally states that you should wear a fucking mask dumbass. Taking one bit out of it is deceptive editing at best. The over-all article supports mask wearing!!!!!
|
|
