Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle 
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 107

Thread: Fake pandemic?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Den of Iniquity
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    OH snap, it's a two month old article so does that not make it valid?
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Because of the age of the article, and the testing it was referencing, it specifically wasn't referring to the question Dr. Blix was answering, you illiterate dolt!

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    I did not imply that she was suggesting the 800K was actually half.
    Yes you did! In your very first post!

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    She really believes the numbers but her statement calls into question the accuracy of testing which is not 100% accurate
    There is no question about it - most tests aren't 100% accurate. And as I said previously, what Dr Blix said isn't in dispute here!

    TO REPEAT:

    I know EXACTLY what she said, WHAT she was responding to, and WHY she made reference to first-responders and healthcare workers with early-on contact.

    YOU. DO. NOT.

    You claimed this pandemic was fake (it is not), suggested Dr Blix had a Freudian slip (she did not), and that her statement implied the U.S. infection rate was half of what is being reported (it does not).

    AND SO, ONCE AGAIN:

    The offer still stands - admit that you have no idea what she was talking about and that your baseless argument is motivated by your blind following of political and idealogical hacks and demagogues, and I will be more than happy to explain it to you.

    But - as I already said - Past is Prologue.

  2. #22

    Default

    Resident DOC on being irrelevant, unspecific and insensitive to his/her ignorance offers help to google answers for inquiring minds?? NO Thanks, again missing the whole point in that the test are NOT 100% accurate! Also when you get in line for your digital certificate (embedded chip) vaccine know that vaccines also are not 100% guarantees.... see FLU vaccine... now go bababaaabbawahhaha like the lamb that you are. Woohhh!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Panshot View Post
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Because of the age of the article, and the testing it was referencing, it specifically wasn't referring to the question Dr. Blix was answering, you illiterate dolt!



    Yes you did! In your very first post!



    There is no question about it - most tests aren't 100% accurate. And as I said previously, what Dr Blix said isn't in dispute here!

    TO REPEAT:

    I know EXACTLY what she said, WHAT she was responding to, and WHY she made reference to first-responders and healthcare workers with early-on contact.

    YOU. DO. NOT.

    You claimed this pandemic was fake (it is not), suggested Dr Blix had a Freudian slip (she did not), and that her statement implied the U.S. infection rate was half of what is being reported (it does not).

    AND SO, ONCE AGAIN:

    The offer still stands - admit that you have no idea what she was talking about and that your baseless argument is motivated by your blind following of political and idealogical hacks and demagogues, and I will be more than happy to explain it to you.

    But - as I already said - Past is Prologue.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Den of Iniquity
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
    Resident DOC on being irrelevant, unspecific and insensitive to his/her ignorance offers help to google answers for inquiring minds?? NO Thanks, again missing the whole point in that the test are NOT 100% accurate! Also when you get in line for your digital certificate (embedded chip) vaccine know that vaccines also are not 100% guarantees.... see FLU vaccine... now go bababaaabbawahhaha like the lamb that you are. Woohhh!!
    You are an idiot.

    Worse than that, you are an uneducated idiot.

    Worse the THAT, you are an uneducated idiot spreading misinformation to other idiots.

    You don't need a doctorate to identify the dangers of misinformation.

    You are the embodiment of that danger.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panshot View Post
    You are an idiot.

    Worse than that, you are an uneducated idiot.

    Worse the THAT, you are an uneducated idiot spreading misinformation to other idiots.

    You don't need a doctorate to identify the dangers of misinformation.

    You are the embodiment of that danger.
    I think you just describe Fox News and most Trump voters! Lol

  5. #25

    Default

    you hear the number of test given
    but why never the number of people tested

    maybe just a statistical number somewhere hidden deep in cyberspace

    but if you check you'll find it's a lot more than 1 test per person say a dozen

    so out of 330,000,000 how many people have really been tested

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Den of Iniquity
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by capoisok View Post
    you hear the number of test given
    but why never the number of people tested

    maybe just a statistical number somewhere hidden deep in cyberspace

    but if you check you'll find it's a lot more than 1 test per person say a dozen

    so out of 330,000,000 how many people have really been tested
    Finally, an honest inquiry.

    So, let's hold off on the "numbers" - we'll get back to those in a bit.

    * * * * *

    First, it's important to understand that there are two types of testing:

    Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing (NAAT) - You may have heard it called RNA, NA, active virus/active body testing. This checks to see if an individual is currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19.

    Serology (Blood Serum) Testing - Also known as antibody testing. This checks to see if you were previously infected with COVID-19, and now possess the antibodies for it.

    Now it's important to note that, just because an individual was previously infected with and now has the antibodies for COVID-19, does not necessarily mean they have immunity against the disease. We simply do not know yet, and until further research and testing is done, we won't know if a previously infected person can reacquire the disease.

    * * * * *

    Now, on to test accuracy.

    As Dr. Blix pointed out, test failure rates are based on some simple concepts, but can be misinterpreted depending on who is listening. There are two factors to understand here - Sensitivity (True Positive Rate) and Specificity (True Negative Rate). These two factors determine the overall accuracy of a particular test, and they don't necessarily have to be identical for that test. For the purposes of our discussion, we will focus on Sensitivity.

    The Scenario:

    Let's assume you have a COVID-19 antibody test with a Sensitivity rate of 99%. Let's also assume you are testing 100 individuals. And let's assume that as a result of your testing, 99 individuals test positive, and 1 individual tests negative. Because you know the test is 99% accurate, you know that 1 of positives is going to be a false-positive. This means that you have 98 people who are true-positive, and 2 people who are true-negative. Of those 2 true-negatives, 1 of them (i.e. 50%) will think they have the antibodies for COVID-19.

    Now instead of just 100 people, apply that to a population of 330 million.

    3.3 million of them would be walking around (incorrectly) believing they have the antibodies for COVID-19.

    You can see why test accuracy is so important.

    * * * * *

    I will be back in a bit to finish this up.
    Last edited by Panshot; 05-06-2020 at 09:51 PM.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panshot View Post
    Finally, an honest inquiry.

    So, let's hold off on the "numbers" - we'll get back to those in a bit.

    * * * * *

    First, it's important to understand that there are two types of testing:

    Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing (NAAT) - You may have heard it called RNA, NA, active virus/active body testing. This checks to see if an individual is currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19.

    Serology (Blood Serum) Testing - Also known as antibody testing. This checks to see if you were previously infected with COVID-19, and now possess the antibodies for it.

    Now it's important to note that, just because an individual was previously infected with and now has the antibodies for COVID-19, does not necessarily mean they have immunity against the disease. We simply do not know yet, and until further research and testing is done, we won't know if a previously infected person can reacquire the disease.

    * * * * *

    Now, on to test accuracy.

    As Dr. Blix pointed out, test failure rates are based on some simple concepts, but can be misinterpreted depending on who is listening. There are two factors to understand here - Sensitivity (True Positive Rate) and Specificity (True Negative Rate). These two factors determine the overall accuracy of a particular test, and they don't necessarily have to be identical for that test. For the purposes of our discussion, we will focus on Sensitivity.

    The Scenario:

    Let's assume you have a COVID-19 antibody test with a Sensitivity rate of 99%. Let's also assume you are testing 100 individuals. And let's assume that as a result of your testing, 99 individuals test positive, and 1 individual tests negative. Because you know the test is 99% accurate, you know that 1 of positives is going to be a false-positive. This means that you have 98 people who are true-positive, and 2 people who are true-negative. Of those 2 true-negatives, 1 of them (i.e. 50%) will think they have the antibodies for COVID-19.

    Now instead of just 100 people, apply that to a population of 330 million.

    3.3 million of them would be walking around (incorrectly) believing they have the antibodies for COVID-19.

    You can see why test accuracy is so important.

    * * * * *

    I will be back in a bit to finish this up.
    A live look into Steelhead and Chucky reading what Panshot wrote above:


  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Den of Iniquity
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkShadow View Post
    A live look into Steelhead and Chucky reading what Panshot wrote above:

    It only gets better, DS.

    So the exchange:

    John Roberts: Dr. Birx, University of Southern California and the L.A. County Public Health put out a report today that suggests that the penetrance of the virus is as much as almost 40 times as what it was believed to be. That as many as 442,000 people in L.A. County may have been affected, which suggests two things. It suggests that you have a lot more people out there who could be spreading the virus, but it also suggests that the case fatality rate is more in line with the 2017/2018 flu than what weíve seen in some other areas of the world. But Iím wondering if youíve seen that, what your thoughts were.
    This was the question Dr. Birx was directly responding to. From the USC Website:

    Based on testing results from 863 adults, the research team estimates that approximately 4.1% of the countyís adult population has an antibody to the virus. Adjusting this estimate for the statistical margin of error implies about 2.8% to 5.6% of the countyís adult population has an antibody to the virus ó which translates to approximately 221,000 to 442,000 adults in the county who have been infected. That estimate is 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the county at the time of the study in early April. The number of COVID-related deaths in the county has now surpassed 600.

    So, some key points:

    1. While the population sample USC and the L.A. County Department of Public Health tested is relatively small, participants were recruited via a proprietary database maintained by LRW Group (a market research firm) to ensure the sample was an accurate representation of the overall county population.

    2. This was a test for antibodies, not for (then) current morbidity rates.

    3. Mortality rates may be lower than expected for COVID-19. This has yet to be determined, because while it is certain some individuals were asymptomatic, there may have been others who did show symptoms and/or died, who were initially misdiagnosed with other communicable diseases (such as the flu).

    4. It is important to note that ongoing testing of this sort is vital to monitor for increased spread of the virus because - as we pointed out previously - we do not yet know if possessing the antibodies guarantees immunity, lifelong or otherwise.

    5. It is also important to continue this testing in order to determine the accuracy of our current testing methods - which brings us to Dr. Birx's response.

    Dr. Deborah Birx: So weíre looking at all those studies very carefully. And I think you will remember over the last three weeks Iíve been talking about the level of asymptomatic spread and my concern about asymptomatic spread. Because, with flu and other diseases when people are sick, itís easy to contact trace. When people are not sick and shedding virus, you have to have a very different approach, a very different sentinel surveillance approach, a sentinel monitoring approach, which we outlined in the guidelines. And itís why the guidelines took that very seriously. We knew that was unique for respiratory diseases, but it was because we were very concerned about the level of asymptomatic. And if you remember, we used toÖ We talked about younger age groups may have more asymptomatic disease and your asymptomatic disease may decrease with your older age groups, and that your symptomatic disease might increase with age groups. This is still our working hypothesis, we have no data right now still to support that. But itís these kinds of studies that help that. We know that New York and Detroit and other cities are very interested, which we want to also support them, in testing frontline responders, first responders and healthcare workers, because we think their exposure may have been the greatest. What we donít want to doÖ And Iím just going to do another 30 seconds on testing. These tests are not 100% sensitive or specific. And Iím going to go over this over and over again. So if you have 1% of your population infected and you have a test thatís only 99% specific, that means that when you find a positive, 50% of the time will be a real positive and 50% of the time it wonít be. And thatís why weíre really asking people to start testing in among the first responders and the healthcare workers that may have had the greatest exposure, because thatís where the test will be most reliable. And then, when we have the luxury, we can go out to broader and broader communities. But this has been the fundamental question to begin with, and has been persistent. And we will emphasize to the American people again, this is a highly contagious virus. And we donít know by looking at someone whether they have preexisting conditions or not. And so, all of us as far as protecting others must continue to do all of the recommendations to ensure that when we are in an asymptomatic state, weíre not passing the virus to others.
    The purpose, and Dr. Birx's point, is not that we want to inflate the current number of active cases. The reason why you want to test first responders and healthcare workers for antibodies is because they would have had the greatest exposure to the virus, and thus improve the accuracy of the tests. This is particularly important in regards to asymptomatic spread, because the less accurate an antibody test is, the greater the number of false readings we will end up having, and the weaker our ability to trace, prevent, and ultimately end this pandemic.

  9. #29

    Default

    If you can't scare them with one angle, work up another one. Yup FAKE Pandemic

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/covid-19-...171434208.html

    Last week

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-g...ying-home.html



    Sunlight has no adverse effect on Corona, don't go outside to kill corona!
    https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...o-to-the-beach

    Inject some liberal talking "expert" in the story to make it legit.


    Or course studies prove otherwise
    https://news.yahoo.com/sunlight-dest...200745675.html

    Yup perfectly okay to go into walmart, home depot, sam's and squeeze in between aisles in close proximity with people but don't go to the beach... wonder why when UV is said to shorten the life of covid on surfaces.

    Here's one ..running tally of the number of infections in California but NO official count on number recovered.. I guess there's 70000+ still sick and bed ridden somewhere. Hospitals are overwhelmed that's why they just sent the Mercy away from LA Ports and Comfort from NY.

    Left wing logic makes perfect sense!

  10. #30

    Default

    Yup, you said it's a fake pandemic, Steelhead, so it must be fake.

    My friend from Illinois just buried her father who tested positive for it, and they think he died from it. She and her mother caught it from her father and became very ill but they are recovering. My friend, who is in her 40s I think, had a high fever, and felt like she couldn't breathe sometimes. She found some medicine that worked to help her breathe better. She is still on it but recovering as is her mom. She also nearly fainted a couple of times.

    Meanwhile, I have two students who had family members with it. The grandmother of one of them died from it. But yeah, it must be fake since you say so. All these people are apparently just hallucinating when they say that they are sick. I guess it's social hysteria.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •