Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1) That is obviously a wildly partisan site that is doing their best to misinterpret data to match their views, or maybe they are just really stupid, I don't know which.

2) When someone dies from an infection (virus or bacteria)  there are of course many things that are going wrong.  Just having the infection is not what kills you, it's how the infection interferes with the proper functioning of major organs.   But if the infection were not the key factor, if someone died (e.g.) from a heart attack and just happened to also have an infection then the overall death rate would NOT go up.  But so far this year there have been 200,000 more deaths than usual.  So to claim that COID-19 is not they key factor in those deaths you have to believe there is a sudden outbreak of heat attacks, and various other cases of organ failures etc, that just happen to coincide with the rise of COID-19, but that the two are unrelated.   Is that really what you think Markinsa?

Edited by EverCurious452
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A good friend of mine's father died of pancreatic cancer a few weeks ago. Guess what the death certificate said. Covid of course. I also know the director of a large hospital here in SOCAL.  Said

Hi EV,   Dinarians do have a problem using numbers.  Worse with facts behind the numbers.   This whole RV thing is the original conspiracy ....   The more unknowns  there are in a situation

1 hour ago, EverCurious452 said:

  Is that really what you think Markinsa?

 

Yes, in part.  However partisan the site may be, there are other non partisan sites on the left that fact checked the assertions.  Plus add the below video report based on. New.York Times report.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Markinsa said:

 The source is in the video.

 

I don't believe all the hospitals are  fudging their numbers.

Here is the article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html?searchResultPosition=6 for those that would like to read it with out OAN's hysterioncics.

Note "...may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus...".  But this still means they are infected.  Even if their viral load is small enough at the time of the test that they were likely not contagious at the time of the test, that does not mean they were not contagious before (if at the time of the test they are getting over it) or that they will not be contagious in the near future (if they were just exposed soon before the time of the test).   Total cases is not "total cases that are contagious".  It would be very nice to have such a test, but we don't at present.

So this does not seem like any sort of "bombshell" to me, nor does it have anything to do with the total number of deaths.

Edited by EverCurious452
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EverCurious452 said:

So this does not seem like any sort of "bombshell" to me, nor does it have anything to do with the total number of deaths.

 

Same article:

We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.” But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said."

...

"In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so the tests being done do not report the amount of viral load.  It would be very good if they did, but they don't   Yet another indication that the entire testing infrastructure in the US is pretty bad (contrary to the administrations claims).   The length of time it takes to get a result also often greatly reduces their usefulness.  Even it it's true that many or most of the "cases" are not contagious at the time of testing it still shows that the person is infected.  The bottom line still is that the virus is spreading very fast in the US, otherwise the deaths per capita would be much lower.  Cases has always been a fuzzier statistic because it depends on who you test and how accurate the test is.  But when you're dead you're dead.  So this still does not seem to me to be some sort of amazing reveal or bombshell and again has nothing to do with the number of deaths, which is what the conspiracy folks say is wildly over reported, but it's not.  If anything its UNDER reported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.