Wear a freaking mask already

I just wonder why the CDC doesn't speak in terms of "PROOF."

 

I didn’t find a long post of details. Just one on using Rhode Island as an example. And yes I want to discuss the RI part too but would like the whole ball of wax first. Could you guide me to the specific post so I can read everything you’ve offered before commenting? I will say I think 2 out of 3 is too low just based on the huge number of people who are mild or asymptomatic and are never tested. Also, I used a 20% very conservative false negative rate in my calculations but demonstrated its much higher. Possibly over 50%. Remember there is only about a 24-48 hour period in the whole shedding period of up to and over 14 days where it is 20%. At other periods it’s a much higher false negative rate. In my opinion using PCR data at all is way too inaccurate for a variety of reasons. Anyway, I’ll keep looking but not sure what key words will lead to a successful search for your specific post. If the part on false positives is covered in your previous post I’ll read it there. Otherwise I’d like to see you flesh that out a bit.

One study pushed hard by the “there will never be long lasting immunity” crowd a while back showed disappearance of antibodies tested for in common antibody tests but claimed some neutralizing antibodies stayed around longer. Most studies I’ve read see disappearance in about 40% in two months. I guess it may not be true but I’ve not seen anything to disprove it.

So to double check my work I just searched for info again on antibodies and found this from a few days ago I wasn’t aware of.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/c...o-not-fade-quickly-new-study-finds-2020-09-01

Very interesting, good news, and explains why antibodies seemed to disappear between tests in previous studies. My theory still holds true though because at any testing point you are still going to miss the percentage between initial and second wave antibodies. There is still the question of if these second wave antibodies are identical to the first wave or would require a different test. Antibody testing is tough because IgG and IgG antibodies form in different timeframes with C19 than other viral infections. I’m not clear on how much that effects various types of antibody tests from initial formation as well as fading standpoint.

I see the study authors concur PCR isn’t a very good way to determine infection rates.

Yes that is a very important point. I haven’t dug into the new information on low shedding in mild or asymptomatic cases. If this is due to cross reactivity of coronavirus T cells it may be very good news in this respect. Either way, the difference in how killer T cells and antibodies work and what that means to reinfection is vital to this discussion. Per the link above, if there are second waves of antibodies, that is likely great news on the memory B cell side of the equation as well. It means the body will not have to initially rely solely on killer T response in reinfections as antibodies can be quickly produced if the virus is encountered again.

I just wish people were motivated to think things through for themselves. I guess we aren’t all wired the same.

 

LOL, it's funny to see the MSM preaching against herd immunity. Many on the street talk about it, but the gatekeepers of the official narrative act like they are losing control of the narrative.

Sounds like something straight out of Anthony's maw.

 

That's what you get when you imply to your followers that there is a democratic hoax.

Sure. He's the POTUS. If an advisor says something that isn't correct, the POTUS should have said, "well, no, I want to be more prudent than that, Dr. Fauci. Let's take some measures just in case.

No. They just got an earlier outbreak. While many of these countries did control the virus to a certain degree (true that in Spain it is escaping control, again), the virus continues to spread in the US so hold on, and compare when it's all said and done. Just looking at trends, it does look like we'll end up much worse than the countries you're mentioning. For example, we're about to pass Italy in deaths by million of the population, us with 583, them with 588.

No, of course not. Trends are important. Again, give it a few more days and we'll surpass Italy. They only had 7 deaths there, yesterday. Give it a few more weeks and we'll surpass most of the others, too.

So you still insist that somehow, by miracle, those duties were being held elsewhere, huh? That, even AFTER you said I'm probably right. You don't seem to be able to concede a point, unlike me (I've conceded a few points to you). Methinks, you should concede this one and move on from this part of our discussion, because I'm clearly right about this.

You're engaged in selective quoting again.

What exactly do you suppose the opinion of experts should have been? "President, we don't need this pandemic preparedness group, there will be no pandemics. Pandemics are a figment of Democratic imagination." Yeah, right. The thing is, Trump is automatically against any Obama initiative. By the way, did you hear about the ridiculous man-child thingy that Trump hired an Obama impersonator just to be able to yell at him "You're fired!"? LOL. If this is true, it's truly laughable. Except that when he dismantles the preparedness group, people die.

That was a concession. I actually assume it was Obama-related. And sure, it's an assumption, but again, History teaches us that he went after ALL Obama initiatives so it's fair to assume that this is what happened to this initiative, too.

We do. There was no relocation or else we'd have heard about it. It's just that you don't want to conceded the point.

Yes, he did, but you seem to be unable to google things efficiently. I'll help you (again). Sure, he did say "almost immune" and "virtually immune" so I concede part of your point because I slightly misquoted him, but still, the global meaning is there. What's exactly the difference between "virtually immune" and "immune"? Sure, he walked back his claim (given that people showed him how many thousands of children had contracted the disease) but before he walked it back, he did say it... and then, tried to delete the tweets and videos, which may be why from Australia you didn't notice it. Here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ren-immune-shooting-coronavirus-a9664106.html
I wonder why you defend the indefensible so much.

 

That's only one of the multiple articles. And you should also read Atlas' op ed that he published defending his (idiotic) views. And yes, of course he will deny it, since the truth would profoundly shock the sane part of American and might cost the votes of a lot of suburban moms.

Oh, that explains it. But then, stop saying that I can't substantiate my statements, because I can, and did.

Again, there HAVE been leaks, dammit! How in the hell do you suppose there's been the rumor that Atlas is behind the curtailment in testing? BECAUSE SOMEONE LEAKED IT!!!

Yeah, sure, sure... that's not what Bright says, though. Are you gullible or something? Do you actually don't see the pattern? Since when does an employer admits to maliciously firing someone? Of course the employer will say, "no, that was not it."

Yes. It is the same thing, because the way most states are allowing voting by mail (the ones that didn't have it before like Oregon did), is that they are waiving the need to state, under the penalty of perjury if it is false, any justification for voting by mail (like some sort of handicap preventing the person from going in person to a precinct) and extending it to all voters who request an absentee ballot regardless of the reason. Given that more Democrats than Republicans are requesting absentee ballots, Trump has jumped at the opportunity to curtail and disenfranchise those voters. Again, that you don't see the pattern is mind-boggling. Barr keeps saying it is conducive of fraud when there is no evidence that it's been done except in ONE case in a House district in North Carolina and... guess who did it? The Republican candidate. Also, Trump is *clearly* interested in undermining the confidence in the results of the election to be able to claim fraud and to refuse to concede, if he loses. Hey, if he wins after all votes are counted, I'm sure his idea of fraud will disappear in smoke the moment the result is announced.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

The one I found isn't that long, actually. I did a better job elsewhere but don't seem to find that one. Anyway, I found two:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-in-the-world.569531/page-480#post-1071970474
And
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-in-the-world.569531/page-481#post-1071973084

But do realize that I didn't express any certainty because I'm fully aware that my reasoning on this is indirect. Nothing that I said *proves* my point which is why I kept saying it's a guess, a gut-feeling.

Yep.

Sure, you make a good point with this. I think it's partially countered by the fact that in my hospital we don't get content with just one negative PCR and we pursue repeated testing, but I have no idea if other hospitals and clinics have the same protocols.

That's usually the case, due to B cells.

Yep.

 

Oops, I posted this in the wrong thread. Deleted, will repost elsewhere.

 

Depends upon what one means be herd immunity, from the article: “'Normally, when we talk about herd immunity, we talk about how much of the population needs to be vaccinated,' World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 technical lead Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said on Aug. 27."

When the political want to attack Trump they assume any mention of herd immunity involves more of us catching it.

 

Funny, racially decisive might be pointing out that when conservatives protest BLM...they don't usually attack innocent store front windows, burn stuff, hit cars and whine if they take off, or drag people out of cars and beat innocent people up, or hit a different race randomly in the back of the head with a brick to laughter, or harass them at gas stations and restaurants like the known DEMOCRAT PARTY TERRORIST Maxine Waters demanded of her TERRORIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Oh, wait, this is going to be deleted because I can't call a TERRORIST a terrorist.

 

Why are you replying here, off-topic, to a post I posted by mistake and have deleted?
What is racially decisive?

 

Thanks for the help. I found the RI post last night but searched again this morning and still didn’t come up with the other one. So now I have a good idea of where you’re coming from.

I haven’t looked up UAE’s methodology of reporting tests but I did look into Rhode Island. You are probably aware the CDC has a disclaimer on their site warning that some states report total tests and individuals tested differently. They call for uniformity but it hasn’t happened. Anyway, Rhode Island reports every test performed on an individual on a different day as an individual tested. So when they claim 40-50% of the population has been tested that isn’t true.

For example, we concur a patient with symptoms in your hospital may be PCR tested repeatedly until a positive comes back. From other sources I’ve seen up to five times. So a patient gets tested five days in a row in Rhode Island it’s reported as a new individual each day. So the number used to compare to the whole population and claim 40-50% of all RI’ers have been tested is grossly inflated. To compound the inflation, testing targeted at asymptomatic individuals in RI is focused on high exposure individuals that are also tested repeatedly.

I think your reasoning is sound I just think Rhode Island’s claims about how much of their population is tested is way off.

There’s just so many pitfalls with non uniform
testing and reporting all we really have is gut feelings at times. My position is based mostly on watching NYC but the same thing is playing out in Sweden it seems. I’ve been saying NYC is close to herd immunity since July. I wasn’t paying much attention to Sweden then.

Your concerns on false positives for antibody tests is certainly valid. Especially back in the spring. Today there is really no excuse for false positives because there are tests with excellent specificity. I see many on the market with essentially 100% PPV and NPV at 5% prevalence. So I guess I’d suspect much less problem with false positives today than in April. I looked but can’t find information on exactly which tests are used by Sweden when randomly checking antibody prevalence. If we knew it would help you and I not have to speculate and draw more concise conclusions.

Sweden seems to be on the ball dealing with test problems. Finding errors and correcting them. I ran across this that gives me confidence they are being honest with their testing and numbers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/medica...08-sweden-uncovers-false-positives-covid-.amp

From what I’ve read it’s common so someone needing treatment for C19 isn’t denied it based on one test which we know doesn’t mean much at certain points in time.

I found this today when looking for antibody data from Sweden. He comes to the same conclusion as I on infection rate but takes a different route to get there. No mention of antibody fade or waves. He does reference T cell immunity in the absence of antibodies being twice antibodies alone.

A couple months ago I tried to find information on memory B cells with Covid and what little they did know wasn’t encouraging. This is good news.

 

I most certainly was infected with it back in March and had only a bad cough that lasted for weeks.
It did not impede my ability to do anything nor did it leave any physical damage.
I suspect that most people exposed to it show no symptoms at all.
People get sick all the time and in larger numbers but the economy somehow goes on.

 

"Oh, that explains it. But then, stop saying that I can't substantiate my statements, because I can, and did."

No, you have yet to support your claim that Atlas dictated to the CDC to change testing advice.

"Again, there HAVE been leaks, dammit! How in the hell do you suppose there's been the rumor that Atlas is behind the curtailment in testing? BECAUSE SOMEONE LEAKED IT!!!"

Again, you're yet to demonstrate that any media has reported this.

"Yeah, sure, sure... that's not what Bright says, though. Are you gullible or something? Do you actually don't see the pattern? Since when does an employer admits to maliciously firing someone? Of course the employer will say, "no, that was not it.""

Of course, that's why I'm not saying that his former employer is telling the truth and Bright is lying. I have no idea. You however seem to believe Bright. Why?

"Yes. It is the same thing, because the way most states are allowing voting by mail (the ones that didn't have it before like Oregon did), is that they are waiving the need to state, under the penalty of perjury if it is false, any justification for voting by mail (like some sort of handicap preventing the person from going in person to a precinct) and extending it to all voters who request an absentee ballot regardless of the reason."

And you're saying that Trump is somehow preventing the waiving of needing a reason?

"Given that more Democrats than Republicans are requesting absentee ballots, Trump has jumped at the opportunity to curtail and disenfranchise those voters. Again, that you don't see the pattern is mind-boggling."

Which actions from Trump form this "pattern?"

"Barr keeps saying it is conducive of fraud when there is no evidence that it's been done except in ONE case in a House district in North Carolina and... guess who did it? The Republican candidate."

One case in how many years? I've heard far more than one, but nothing which could reasonably be described as widespread.

"Also, Trump is *clearly* interested in undermining the confidence in theresults of the election to be able to claim fraud and to refuse to concede, if he loses. "

How could he claim fraud if his alleged actions to "curtail and disenfranchise" are successful?

 

Sure. He's the POTUS. If an advisor says something that isn't correct, the POTUS should have said, "well, no, I want to be more prudent than that, Dr. Fauci. Let's take some measures just in case."

So was there such an "advisor?"

"So you still insist that somehow, by miracle, those duties were being held elsewhere, huh?"

Why exactly would it take a "miracle" to reallocate the duties to other areas of government?

"That, even AFTER you said I'm probably right."

I said that you're probably right that an actual replacement TEAM wasn't established.

"You're engaged in selective quoting again."

Sorry, is this not your claim?:

"it has surfaced that Obama TRIED to replenish the stockpile of PPE but the Tea Party congressmen stopped him."

If it IS in fact your claim, do you stand by it given that the article which you cite says that "most of that money was eventually secured?" Seems to me that the Tea Party people didn't actually STOP Obama at all, but merely held things up.

"What exactly do you suppose the opinion of experts should have been? "President, we don't need this pandemic preparedness group, there will be no pandemics. Pandemics are a figment of Democratic imagination.""

You're assuming that the SOLE motivation for scrapping the team is the insane idea that "there will be no pandemics." Why can't it have been, "Mr President, we are of the opinion that this team is not necessary and the duties can be reallocated to other areas of government without affecting pandemic preparedness. In fact, we are of the opinion that this move will actually IMPROVE pandemic preparedness."

Do you want a reality check? The team which you refer to was the Global Health Security and Biodefense unit, which resided under the National Security Council. According to the Washington Post, some members of the global health and security team were merged into other units within the NSC. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly

The Washington Post also published an article by Tim Morrison, the former Senior Director for Counterproliferation and Biodefense on the National Security Council. Here is an extract:

“It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. … One such move at the NSC was to create the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate, which was the result of consolidating three directorates into one, given the obvious overlap between arms control and nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and global health and biodefense. It is this reorganization that critics have misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented. If anything, the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-didnt-dissolve-its-pandemic-response-office/

"Except that when he dismantles the preparedness group, people die."

Nice assumption! Can you prove a connection between the dismantling of the preparedness group and a SINGLE death? As you are reading this, I have to assume that you have already been confronted by my above reality check. Just FACE IT! You had EATEN UP a bunch of the leftist media lies! The scrapping of this pandemic team being one of them! I'm actually STUNNED that I've used the WASHINGTON POST in support of my argument!

"We do. There was no relocation or else we'd have heard about it. It's just that you don't want to conceded the point."

You're right - I DON'T want to conceded the point! And given my above reality check, I don't suspect that I will be conceding anytime soon! I wonder if you will be able to offer anything to counter it!

"Yes, he did, but you seem to be unable to google things efficiently. I'll help you (again). Sure, he did say "almost immune" and "virtually immune" so I concede part of your point because I slightly misquoted him, but still, the global meaning is there. What's exactly the difference between "virtually immune" and "immune"? Sure, he walked back his claim (given that people showed him how many thousands of children had contracted the disease) but before he walked it back, he did say it... and then, tried to delete the tweets and videos, which may be why from Australia you didn't notice it. Here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-covid-press-conference-children-immune-shooting-coronavirus-a9664106.html"

I'm not sure that he "walked it back" did he? Seems to me that he stood by his claim, clarifying that he really meant that they are virtually immune from dying. And you say that he "tried to delete the tweets and videos", but are you sure that you don't mean that videos were removed by Facebook and Twitter required him/his campaign to remove offending tweets?

 

Wow. That was bizarre...

So to the OP I might note this.

Yesterday Trump castigated a reporter for wearing a mask and praised another for removing his

Leadership huh?

 

Yes, I know that the vaccine manufacturers would have us believe that only THEY can deliver herd immunity. Obviously, they have a financial stake in proclaiming itself the one who delivers herd immunity. They like money like everybody does.

The trouble is that herd immunity can and does develop as part of the biological process, as we've seen in some locales here in the US and as we've seen in Sweden.

I don't know about you, but I am highly skeptical of the claims of Big Pharma and CDC. Effectively, they are known liars. Their reputation for mendacity is well established.

 

It was up when I posted, and as I hit to post it changed right then, so instead of hunting, might as well get it done.

Democrats.

And I don't know what is up with those people in Portland..., seems like they need forced busing or something, get some black people up there.
Yep, Yankees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#Since_1990

 

Herd immunity without a vaccine might mean some have a gene to pass down. Someone having the Black Death a long time ago won't necessarily protect me, so I'm waiting for the vaccine.

As long as people still spread it, outside the immune herd, I'd be worried about mutations. https://www.bing.com/images/search?...ts&form=IGRE&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

I don't think the CDC lies that much deliberately, it's like not knowing, the "no known case" kind of thing. If they do not know a dentist can give it to a patient, like Doris Day kissed Rock Hudson, the media calls the girl a slut and she must be lying about being a virgin.

 

I don't know, if he wants to catch it, from your perspective, he should go for it. I have a feeling the White House has really good ventilation, because he hasn't caught it yet.

I tried a cloth mask under my helmet the other day in the grocery store, it was comical, had to open the visor all the way, it was like a steam line busted in there. The vented ones with exhale valves aren't too bad.

 

Yes, because asking a reporter if they can remove their mask so that they can speak without being insanely muffled is "castigating!"

 

You wore your helmet in the grocery store?

 

I haven't? Well, I said it's everywhere, told you go google it, and gave you one article (I didn't have the time to copy and paste the long list) but you keep saying that from Australia you can't google American matters as efficiently. But hey, I'll do your homework for you. Here is a pretty pretty pretty serious source, none other than the prestigious British Medical Journal:

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3386

"All the docs” on the White House coronavirus task force had signed off on the changes, said Giroir, naming the task force coordinator Deborah Birx, the Food and Drug Administration chief Stephen Hahn, the infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, and a new addition, Scott Atlas, a physician from the conservative Hoover Institute at Stanford University who has argued for a swifter reopening of the economy."

Who said the above?

"Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary of health responsible for testing, confirmed on 26 August that the impetus for the change had come from the White House."

How is that for a leak? That's a leak. No doubt about it. It's even a named leak, not even an anonymous one (the guy who leaked it stands behind it, as he is probably pissed off. Probably will get fired, though. Mark his name and keep following.

This should serve as a lesson for you. Don't doubt me again on substantiation. I do NOT post BS. The fact that you can't google efficiently is no excuse for you to attack me on this or on anything else I say because what I say is always easy to substantiate for anyone with a minimum of google skills.

See above. Never doubt me again.

A pattern.

Come on, the Trump Administration through his lackey Barr is now suing not one, not two, not three, but FOUR states to stop them from doing this. Plus, the Navajo tribe. Oh, you'll doubt me, right? I'll say, google it. You'll say, you haven't found anything, right? Then I'll come back and post the links for you. I won't post them in advance just because I want to see you go through your little routine of doubting me again, then ending up with egg on your face.

Repeatedly talking against mail-in voting, and suing 4 states + a large Indian tribe, trying to stop it. Which by the way drew the ire of one of the Republican House Representatives who went to see Trump and asked him to stop his crusade against mail-in voting, because according to him, the seniors who traditionally vote Republican are the ones most fearful of showing up in person to vote on election day due to the virus, therefore Trump's boneheaded move might hurt congressional races.

What are the cases, far more than one, that you've heard of? I could google but I'll give you the pleasure of substantiating your claims, since I'm learning from you that instead of googling, the advisable stance is to challenge the other person, right? So, come on, what are the numerous cases of mail-in voting fraud you've learned of? Evidence, please?

What part of "if he loses" you don't understand? OF COURSE if he wins (helped by the curtailment and disenfranchising of the opposition) he'll say it was all legit. But if he loses he will claim fraud. Mark my words. By the way, that's EXACTLY what happened in 2016. He kept crying fraud in advance when he thought he would lose. Once he won, he said the win was legit, his votes were all legit and a popular mandate. Except that he said that he won despite 3,000,000 illegals having voted in California which is 100% preposterous. He named a committee to look into it and of course the committee disbanded without finding an ounce of evidence.

 

Yeah, it does provide more protection to the user than simply a surgical mask, can get it through eyes or any mucous membrane. And if I sneeze...inside it, nothing comes out the top and floats around like with a surgical mask. See, stuff sticks, if lucky more sticks to shield than gets around it. Plus with helmet on we are less likely to touch eyes...after touching the peas...we put back.

https://www.mysuncoast.com/2020/08/...es-addition-masks-help-prevent-spread-covid-/

 

What the hell are you talking about? Are you objecting to the spelling "advisor"? Over here in America, both "advisor" and "adviser" are acceptable spellings. It is true that "adviser" is the most used one. Whatever, I just hope your objection is not, again, semantics. I used it in the broad sense. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and in this capacity he advises the president, although he is not technically a White House adviser. Satisfied?

Again, semantics... you don't seem to understand figures of speech. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this. I used to like our debates. I'm not sure if I continue to like them; your rigidity in getting bogged down with semantics is frankly tiresome.

It's on you to prove that someone else took upon these tasks, if you keep insisting that someone probably did.

Selective quoting is when you quote a part that seems to support your claim but you don't quote a part that does not support it. I wasn't talking about you quoting me. I was talking about you saying that eventually most of that money was secured, without quoting the parts of the article that say that still, many parts got underfunded. Got it? That's why I said, read it again.

Sure. We've seen how much it improved things. [Insert sarcasm here]

I'm aware that this is the current talking point to defend the administration of that claim. It doesn't ring true, though, given this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/25/trump-coronavirus-national-security-council-149285

How is that for a reality check? LOL

And what about this? If the team still existed, could this have been better heard?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/navarro-warning-trump-coronavirus.html

Do you want another reality check? Remember Beth Cameron? She was the first one to direct that team. So, no longer having a job, she tried several times to warn Trump, but couldn't even get an audience with him.

Read this, too:

https://www.wsls.com/news/politics/...d-nsc-pandemic-unit-that-experts-had-praised/

Oh really? What about this?

"Ron Klain, who managed the government response to contain and mitigate the spread of Ebola in 2014, agreed.

"If I were back in my old job at the White House ... I'd be pushing to have us do 30 million tests — to test people in nursing homes, to test people with unexplained respiratory ailments, to test the people who regularly visit nursing homes, to test healthcare workers," Klain said recently at the event hosted by the Center for American Progress in Washington."

Don't you think that a lot of nursing home deaths could have been averted if this had been done??? And no, you didn't teach me anything with your "reality check", you just repeated the partisan talking point excuses, and my sources above debunked it.

Well, after my counter-reality check, you should. Oh, you quoted the Washington Post, right? What about reading the op ed that Beth Cameron, the former director of that team, penned? Care to concede the point after this? Here, for your reading pleasure (reproduced by the source I'm linking to, but originally published by The Washington Post):

https://theeagle.com/opinion/column...cle_8c319d59-a735-549a-9dc9-7435263df451.html

Yes, I guess you right, they were removed by others. Why am I giving him any credit? Of course, the narcissist-in-chief wouldn't be doing it himself. Yes, he almost never walks anything back, whatever the insanity he's been pushing. Thanks for reminding me of that, next time I won't believe that he was behind such retraction.

 

.