Coronavirus COVID-19

Political discussions
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:26 am Some notes on COVID-19 deaths data:

COVID-19 deaths are defined in a manner consistent with the way CDC has counted influenza deaths for many years. Here, from https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm, is how CDC defines influenza deaths:
Seasonal flu-related deaths are deaths that occur in people for whom flu was likely a contributor to the cause of death, but not necessarily the primary cause of death.
Here, from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/faq.htm, is how CDC defines COVID-19 deaths:
Deaths are attributed to COVID-19 when Coronavirus Disease 2019, COVID-19, or other similar term(s) are reported as a cause or contributing cause of death on the death certificate.
You can get an idea as to what a contributing cause is by looking at the death certificate completion instructions at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf. You can see instructions specific to classifying COVID-19 deaths at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf.

It is not a situation in which everybody who dies with COVID-19 is classified as a COVID-19 death. In order for a death to be so classified, a professional completing a death certificate has to conclude that COVID-19 was, at least, a contributing cause. They are not, in the end, going to classify someone as being a COVID-19 death because they had tested positive for COVID-19 then their house got hit by a tornado.

I suppose one could say they should not include the contributing cause thing. But nobody complained about it when they were doing that with influenza deaths for many years. In fact, early on, people where trying to downplay the significance of COVID-19 by comparing the number of COVID-19 deaths to influenza deaths. Bottom line is that, based on classifying deaths in the same way as we've long classified influenza deaths, we were, over the past week, at a COVID-19 death rate of 91,823. When we consider that the highest point estimate for seasonal influenza deaths, counted the same way, over the past 11 influenza seasons (2010-2011 through 2021-2022) is 52,000 (2017-2018), it becomes obvious that we are, in relative terms, still in a very serious situation with COVID-19.

I just don't understand the psychology behind people insisting on being in denial about the significance of this disease. And I am distressed by the fact that the denial of reality comes mostly from the conservative side. The conservative side has become the "denial of reality" side on my fronts and, as someone who is philosophically conservative, it's hard for me to watch the degradation.
No. You are incorrect. Covid deaths have NOT been counted like flu. It's pretty simple. In that past you had to have clinical symptoms present in addition to laboratory positive tests. Flu is still requiring that, while with Covid, you get 3 different options with the one used the most is simply having a positive PCR test - no symptoms need to be present. I'm not going to paste the conditions, you can follow the link.

Covid:
https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-defin ... 2019-2021/
Case Classification
Suspect
Meets supportive laboratory evidence†† with no prior history of being a confirmed or probable case.
†† For suspect cases, jurisdictions may opt to place them in a registry for other epidemiological analyses or investigate to determine probable or confirmed status.

Probable
Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic linkage with no confirmatory or presumptive laboratory evidence for SARS-CoV-2, OR
Meets presumptive laboratory evidence, OR
Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory evidence for SARS-CoV-2.

Confirmed
Meets confirmatory laboratory evidence
Flu:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv- ... ach%20week.
Case Definitions
Definitive diagnosis of influenza requires laboratory confirmation in addition to signs and symptoms. Case definitions for influenza-like illness are nonspecific for influenza and vary depending on the purpose for which they are used. A case definition of fever 100°F or greater, oral or equivalent, and cough and/or sore throat is used by CDC in its U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet), in which healthcare providers report the total number of patient visits and the number of patients seen for ILI each week.
So you can see where if you overclock a PCR test and turn in falsely positive, it still counts as proof. Even though it's even listed on the CDC that a person ALSO can have viral debris from previous COVID infection for up to 90 days.

They monetarily incentivized testing for COVID and changed the rules in what constitutes a positive. As I've said before, if they simply wanted to catch all possible infections, I'm good with that, but you do not get to say two different metrics are actually the same.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

Disturbing admiital from a high ranking Pfizer Director of R&D for Strategic Operations and MRNA Scientific Planning. Just start at about the 3:15 mark of the video on Tucker in the RCP link:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ng_on.html
Course the media is trying to ignore the story, and something that probably would have been banned on twitter before Musk took over. Whole Project Veritas video below as of now been viewed 42 million times in 4 days:
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

BDKJMU wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:01 pm Disturbing admiital from a high ranking Pfizer Director of R&D for Strategic Operations and MRNA Scientific Planning. Just start at about the 3:15 mark of the video on Tucker in the RCP link:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ng_on.html
Course the media is trying to ignore the story, and something that probably would have been banned on twitter before Musk took over. Whole Project Veritas video below as of now been viewed 42 million times in 4 days:
I'm not sure what to think of this yet. So many things going on.

He's an MD that is willing to lie about gain of function testing to impress a date? What the hell does that say about the average MDs ethics? Even if you want to cut MDs slack, which you should not, what does it say about the sort of employee Pfizer hires and places in influential positions...if true.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

BDKJMU wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:01 pm Disturbing admiital from a high ranking Pfizer Director of R&D for Strategic Operations and MRNA Scientific Planning. Just start at about the 3:15 mark of the video on Tucker in the RCP link:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ng_on.html
Course the media is trying to ignore the story, and something that probably would have been banned on twitter before Musk took over. Whole Project Veritas video below as of now been viewed 42 million times in 4 days:
Wanted to explain what is going on here. Pfizer knows it's exceptionally difficult to predict what strain of COVID will be circulating when they bring a new formulation to market, so they are trying to predict by passing COVID through monkeys to see what variants come out.

That way, if they can accurately predict, the booster that comes to market won't be so far behind the circulating variants.

Now it's just a matter of whether we want Pfizer doing such a thing.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

Cochrane Review is complete and tells us what has always been known.
Here is the big summary finding. With 276,000 participants in RCTs or cluster RCTs, masking does nothing. No reduction in influenza like or Covid like illness and no reduction in confirmed flu or COVID. That’s stone cold negative. See those effect sizes and confidence intervals.
Vinay takes a little victory home as he's been spot on the whole time. Separate to hm being proven correct, He points out that Fauci is over billions of dollars and could have funded multiple RCT's, but decided on zero. Mr Science wasn't interested.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p ... is-damning
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

Very interesting response. You'd think he would just say his heart checked out fine, but it was unfortunately one of those freak accidents where he got hit at the wrong time.

Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:56 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:26 am Some notes on COVID-19 deaths data:

COVID-19 deaths are defined in a manner consistent with the way CDC has counted influenza deaths for many years. Here, from https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm, is how CDC defines influenza deaths:



Here, from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/faq.htm, is how CDC defines COVID-19 deaths:



You can get an idea as to what a contributing cause is by looking at the death certificate completion instructions at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf. You can see instructions specific to classifying COVID-19 deaths at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf.

It is not a situation in which everybody who dies with COVID-19 is classified as a COVID-19 death. In order for a death to be so classified, a professional completing a death certificate has to conclude that COVID-19 was, at least, a contributing cause. They are not, in the end, going to classify someone as being a COVID-19 death because they had tested positive for COVID-19 then their house got hit by a tornado.

I suppose one could say they should not include the contributing cause thing. But nobody complained about it when they were doing that with influenza deaths for many years. In fact, early on, people where trying to downplay the significance of COVID-19 by comparing the number of COVID-19 deaths to influenza deaths. Bottom line is that, based on classifying deaths in the same way as we've long classified influenza deaths, we were, over the past week, at a COVID-19 death rate of 91,823. When we consider that the highest point estimate for seasonal influenza deaths, counted the same way, over the past 11 influenza seasons (2010-2011 through 2021-2022) is 52,000 (2017-2018), it becomes obvious that we are, in relative terms, still in a very serious situation with COVID-19.

I just don't understand the psychology behind people insisting on being in denial about the significance of this disease. And I am distressed by the fact that the denial of reality comes mostly from the conservative side. The conservative side has become the "denial of reality" side on my fronts and, as someone who is philosophically conservative, it's hard for me to watch the degradation.
No. You are incorrect. Covid deaths have NOT been counted like flu. It's pretty simple. In that past you had to have clinical symptoms present in addition to laboratory positive tests. Flu is still requiring that, while with Covid, you get 3 different options with the one used the most is simply having a positive PCR test - no symptoms need to be present. I'm not going to paste the conditions, you can follow the link.

Covid:
https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-defin ... 2019-2021/
Case Classification
Suspect
Meets supportive laboratory evidence†† with no prior history of being a confirmed or probable case.
†† For suspect cases, jurisdictions may opt to place them in a registry for other epidemiological analyses or investigate to determine probable or confirmed status.

Probable
Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic linkage with no confirmatory or presumptive laboratory evidence for SARS-CoV-2, OR
Meets presumptive laboratory evidence, OR
Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory evidence for SARS-CoV-2.

Confirmed
Meets confirmatory laboratory evidence
Flu:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv- ... ach%20week.
Case Definitions
Definitive diagnosis of influenza requires laboratory confirmation in addition to signs and symptoms. Case definitions for influenza-like illness are nonspecific for influenza and vary depending on the purpose for which they are used. A case definition of fever 100°F or greater, oral or equivalent, and cough and/or sore throat is used by CDC in its U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet), in which healthcare providers report the total number of patient visits and the number of patients seen for ILI each week.
So you can see where if you overclock a PCR test and turn in falsely positive, it still counts as proof. Even though it's even listed on the CDC that a person ALSO can have viral debris from previous COVID infection for up to 90 days.

They monetarily incentivized testing for COVID and changed the rules in what constitutes a positive. As I've said before, if they simply wanted to catch all possible infections, I'm good with that, but you do not get to say two different metrics are actually the same.
What I am talking about is that if the disease is judged by a professional to be a factor in the death it is counted as a death associated with that disease.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

Belgian goalkeeper dies after saving penalty
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sport ... 023-02-14/
Another dealth due to the so called vaccine?
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

I finally got it. My wife is a realtor so she mixes with people a lot. She got symptoms and tested positive on January 31. i figured I'd get it since I slept with her and she woke up with symptoms and I was all snuggled up with her. She got on Paxlovid that evening. I think I may have started feeling symptoms on February 2 but definitely by February 3. Tested positive and started on Paxlovid that day.

We both were pretty much feeling fine after two days on Paxlovid. I got better and stayed better. My wife had a classic Paxlovid rebound. It started on February 10. We looked it up and it said it's not severe when that happens. And it wasn't. But it did mean she had to go through the isolation followed by wearing a mask for a while stuff again. Tomorrow is her last day of the second isolation.

For me it never got bad at all. i did have some mental clarity and fatigue issues. But I didn't lose my sense of taste/smell, didn't have respiratory symptoms except for a little bit of post nasal drip, didn't have coughing, and my temperature never got above something like 99.5. My impression is that the Paxlovid knocked it down before it could really get going. Both of us experienced a kind of unpleasant bitter/metallic taste in our mouths while we were on Paxlovid. But I can live with that.

We both had our bivalent boosters in September. I don't know how much of a factor that was. Also think the current strains aren't as serious as the earlier ones were. All I know is that, all things said, it was a very minor thing for us. Not even as bad as a cold for me. Had my wife not already tested positive I probably wouldn't have even thought anything was going on unless and until it got worse. And, maybe because I was quickly on Paxlovid, it never got worse.

Maybe a little worse for my wife. But my only high risk factor is that I am 65. She's 65 and has other risk factors. in fact we'd read that she was more at risk of having the Paxlovid rebound because of that. All in all, though, she never lost her taste, never ran a fever out of the 99s, coughed a little but not much, sneezed some. Never had any trouble breathing or anything.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 6:23 pm I finally got it. My wife is a realtor so she mixes with people a lot. She got symptoms and tested positive on January 31. i figured I'd get it since I slept with her and she woke up with symptoms and I was all snuggled up with her. She got on Paxlovid that evening. I think I may have started feeling symptoms on February 2 but definitely by February 3. Tested positive and started on Paxlovid that day.

We both were pretty much feeling fine after two days on Paxlovid. I got better and stayed better. My wife had a classic Paxlovid rebound. It started on February 10. We looked it up and it said it's not severe when that happens. And it wasn't. But it did mean she had to go through the isolation followed by wearing a mask for a while stuff again. Tomorrow is her last day of the second isolation.

For me it never got bad at all. i did have some mental clarity and fatigue issues. But I didn't lose my sense of taste/smell, didn't have respiratory symptoms except for a little bit of post nasal drip, didn't have coughing, and my temperature never got above something like 99.5. My impression is that the Paxlovid knocked it down before it could really get going. Both of us experienced a kind of unpleasant bitter/metallic taste in our mouths while we were on Paxlovid. But I can live with that.

We both had our bivalent boosters in September. I don't know how much of a factor that was. Also think the current strains aren't as serious as the earlier ones were. All I know is that, all things said, it was a very minor thing for us. Not even as bad as a cold for me. Had my wife not already tested positive I probably wouldn't have even thought anything was going on unless and until it got worse. And, maybe because I was quickly on Paxlovid, it never got worse.

Maybe a little worse for my wife. But my only high risk factor is that I am 65. She's 65 and has other risk factors. in fact we'd read that she was more at risk of having the Paxlovid rebound because of that. All in all, though, she never lost her taste, never ran a fever out of the 99s, coughed a little but not much, sneezed some. Never had any trouble breathing or anything.
Good to hear you and your wife handled it well. Hopefully your immune system got trained well and it gives you a good amount of time before reinfection, and when that happens, that is mild as well.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

BDKJMU wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:11 pm
The CDC has been "all in" for years. I wouldn't expect them to change now.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by kalm »

BDKJMU wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:00 am
What’s it say about long Covid and organ damage?
Image
Image
Image
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by houndawg »

JohnStOnge wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 6:23 pm I finally got it. My wife is a realtor so she mixes with people a lot. She got symptoms and tested positive on January 31. i figured I'd get it since I slept with her and she woke up with symptoms and I was all snuggled up with her. She got on Paxlovid that evening. I think I may have started feeling symptoms on February 2 but definitely by February 3. Tested positive and started on Paxlovid that day.

We both were pretty much feeling fine after two days on Paxlovid. I got better and stayed better. My wife had a classic Paxlovid rebound. It started on February 10. We looked it up and it said it's not severe when that happens. And it wasn't. But it did mean she had to go through the isolation followed by wearing a mask for a while stuff again. Tomorrow is her last day of the second isolation.

For me it never got bad at all. i did have some mental clarity and fatigue issues. But I didn't lose my sense of taste/smell, didn't have respiratory symptoms except for a little bit of post nasal drip, didn't have coughing, and my temperature never got above something like 99.5. My impression is that the Paxlovid knocked it down before it could really get going. Both of us experienced a kind of unpleasant bitter/metallic taste in our mouths while we were on Paxlovid. But I can live with that.

We both had our bivalent boosters in September. I don't know how much of a factor that was. Also think the current strains aren't as serious as the earlier ones were. All I know is that, all things said, it was a very minor thing for us. Not even as bad as a cold for me. Had my wife not already tested positive I probably wouldn't have even thought anything was going on unless and until it got worse. And, maybe because I was quickly on Paxlovid, it never got worse.

Maybe a little worse for my wife. But my only high risk factor is that I am 65. She's 65 and has other risk factors. in fact we'd read that she was more at risk of having the Paxlovid rebound because of that. All in all, though, she never lost her taste, never ran a fever out of the 99s, coughed a little but not much, sneezed some. Never had any trouble breathing or anything.
...tested positive today, a little sore throat and sneezing is it so far. Probably caught at a benefit for the local animal shelter last weekend
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

houndawg wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 4:18 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 6:23 pm I finally got it. My wife is a realtor so she mixes with people a lot. She got symptoms and tested positive on January 31. i figured I'd get it since I slept with her and she woke up with symptoms and I was all snuggled up with her. She got on Paxlovid that evening. I think I may have started feeling symptoms on February 2 but definitely by February 3. Tested positive and started on Paxlovid that day.

We both were pretty much feeling fine after two days on Paxlovid. I got better and stayed better. My wife had a classic Paxlovid rebound. It started on February 10. We looked it up and it said it's not severe when that happens. And it wasn't. But it did mean she had to go through the isolation followed by wearing a mask for a while stuff again. Tomorrow is her last day of the second isolation.

For me it never got bad at all. i did have some mental clarity and fatigue issues. But I didn't lose my sense of taste/smell, didn't have respiratory symptoms except for a little bit of post nasal drip, didn't have coughing, and my temperature never got above something like 99.5. My impression is that the Paxlovid knocked it down before it could really get going. Both of us experienced a kind of unpleasant bitter/metallic taste in our mouths while we were on Paxlovid. But I can live with that.

We both had our bivalent boosters in September. I don't know how much of a factor that was. Also think the current strains aren't as serious as the earlier ones were. All I know is that, all things said, it was a very minor thing for us. Not even as bad as a cold for me. Had my wife not already tested positive I probably wouldn't have even thought anything was going on unless and until it got worse. And, maybe because I was quickly on Paxlovid, it never got worse.

Maybe a little worse for my wife. But my only high risk factor is that I am 65. She's 65 and has other risk factors. in fact we'd read that she was more at risk of having the Paxlovid rebound because of that. All in all, though, she never lost her taste, never ran a fever out of the 99s, coughed a little but not much, sneezed some. Never had any trouble breathing or anything.
...tested positive today, a little sore throat and sneezing is it so far. Probably caught at a benefit for the local animal shelter last weekend
Stop fucking the dogs. That'll keep you from catching COVID.

All joking aside, best wishes your case is mild.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by houndawg »

SeattleGriz wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:14 pm
houndawg wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 4:18 pm

...tested positive today, a little sore throat and sneezing is it so far. Probably caught at a benefit for the local animal shelter last weekend
Stop fucking the dogs. That'll keep you from catching COVID.

All joking aside, best wishes your case is mild.
I wouldn't have known I had it if my wife hadn't tested positive
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

houndawg wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:34 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:14 pm

Stop fucking the dogs. That'll keep you from catching COVID.

All joking aside, best wishes your case is mild.
I wouldn't have known I had it if my wife hadn't tested positive
Glad it's been that mild, that you didn't really notice. Now, best wishes for your wife as well that it's a mild case.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by houndawg »

SeattleGriz wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 4:32 pm
houndawg wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:34 pm

I wouldn't have known I had it if my wife hadn't tested positive
Glad it's been that mild, that you didn't really notice. Now, best wishes for your wife as well that it's a mild case.
We're over it, thank you :thumb:
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

Fauci came out with a paper recently that I want to talk about, but just haven't had the gumption to post. Some really good things to talk about. I'll get to it soon...and no, I'm not going to say Fauci admitted the vaccines were a failure like some sites. It's good stuff to understand.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

NYC reportedly sells nearly $225M worth of COVID supplies for just $500K

City officials auctioned off nearly $225 million worth of surplus COVID-19 medical equipment and safety gear for just $500,000 — or a paltry 0.2 cents on the dollar, according to a stunning report Tuesday.

The bargain-basement sales included nearly 3,000 mechanical ventilators that cost taxpayers $12 million but were unloaded as “non-functioning medical equipment for scrap metal” at a rock-bottom price of just $24,600 on Jan. 24, according to nonprofit news website The City.

It reportedly took 28 truckloads for a Long Island junk dealer to haul off the once-scarce devices, which former Mayor Bill de Blasio had predicted would help the Big Apple “beat this crisis and prepare for the next.”

“This is a story about doing the impossible,” de Blasio bragged on April 21, 2020. “We’d never made a ventilator before — and so we made thousands. We learned it would take a year — and so we did it in a month.”

De Blasio’s administration also overpaid for items that included 50,000 face shields at $6.70 each, compared to an average price at the start of the pandemic of $3.67, The City said, citing information from city Comptroller Brad Lander.

They’re now part of a massive lot of 701,000 face shields that were reportedly put up for auction last week with an opening bid of just $1,000, or 0.14 cents each.

De Blasio’s administration also overpaid for items that included 50,000 face shields at $6.70 each, compared to an average price at the start of the pandemic of $3.67, The City said, citing information from city Comptroller Brad Lander.

They’re now part of a massive lot of 701,000 face shields that were reportedly put up for auction last week with an opening bid of just $1,000, or 0.14 cents each.

The City blamed the epic markdowns on de Blasio’s decision to waive any oversight of his panic purchases, preventing then-Comptroller Scott Stringer from scrutinizing the emergency contracts.….
https://nypost.com/2023/02/21/nyc-sells ... just-500k/
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

Took a a look at the State by State vaccinated rate data in a different way to see if I could see evidence of vaccinated rate serving as a proxy indicator for likelihood of following public health recommendations in general. The idea is that people who are more likely to follow vaccination recommendations are also more likely to follow other recommendations such as masking and social distancing when such things are recommended. I did Spearman correlation analyses for vaccinated and boosted rate as of 8/31/2022 (that's the latest date for which the source I use has vaccinated rate data) and death rates over five different periods.

I consider vaccinated and boosted rate as of 8/31/2022 an indicator of tendency to follow vaccine recommendations to that point.

The end of the story is that the results again show that States with higher vaccination rates had lower death rates. But there are some indications that some of the association is due to something other than vaccination.

The five periods are:

1) The entire pandemic through 11/6/2022. The end date is based on a 67 day lag period that is explained in the description of period 2.

2) The period starting with when I roughly estimated that vaccination effects should have started and ending with 11/6/2022. The start of the period is 2/19/2022. That is based on the first vaccination being on 12/14/2022 and a 67 day lag period. The lag period is based on 28 days to complete a two dose mRNA vaccine initial series, 14 days following the second does to develop immunity, a 6 day COVID-19 incubation period, and a 19 day period between onset of symptoms and death is death is going to happen. I also added the lag period to the end of the period for which I have vaccinated and boosted rate data. Thus 11/6/2022. There are arguments for doing otherwise but no reasonable lag at the end of the period would make a difference in the bottom line results.

3) The period from the start of the pandemic through the day before vaccine effects were estimated to have started. That is through 2/18/2021. The idea is that, if there is a significant correlation with 8/31/2022 vaccinated and boosted rate, it shouldn't be because the vaccines caused it. A significant correlation raises the possibility that the vaccination rate correlation is to some extent an indicator of people who are more likely to be vaccinated also being more likely to engage in other behaviors to avoid COVID-19.

4) The period from the start of the pandemic through the day before the first vaccine was administered. That is through 12/13/2020. I did this one because I did get a significant correlation for period 3 above. i wanted to see if it would hold if i completely eliminated the possibility of ANY vaccination effect by ending the period before the first vaccine was administered. As you will see below, i did not get a significant correlation when I did that.

5) The period from the date of the first vaccination through the day before I estimated that vaccine effects should start. That is 12/14/2020 through 2/18/2021. I did that as a "what the heck is going on" thing.

I also did Pearson's correlations because they are more relatable to some multiple regression analyses I did. Here are the results (yellow highlight means coefficient is significant at 95% confidence in a two-tailed test):

Image

As expected, the highest coefficients are associated with the period during which vaccine effect was expected to be prevalent. That suggests vaccines did have an effect. Also, there is no significant correlation between vaccine rate and death rate for the period ending before the first vaccine was administered. But what happened between the time when the first vaccine was administered and the point at which it was estimated that vaccine effects would be observed is interesting and unexpected. Only a small percentage of the population would have even received one shot during that period. Yet, we see that there is no significant correlation for the period before the first shot was administered.

I wonder if it's a reflection of people who are more likely to be vaccinated being also very careful during that time frame because it was also about the worst time in terms of deaths during the pandemic. But I doubt if there is a way to ever know.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

I went ahead and looked at New York vs. Florida for the period following when vaccines were estimated to have started having an effect.

If you look at the whole pandemic through 11/6/2022, Florida's death rate was 3838 per million population while New York's was 3781. So Florida's death rate was 1.5% higher than New Yorks.

But, if you look at the death rate for the period when vaccines were estimated to be having an effect (2/19/2021 - 11/6/2022), DeSantis Land's death rate was 80% higher than New York's was. 2388 vs. 1323.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

Now a note on catching up on the Ivermectin thing. I was anticipating the Results of the ACTIV-6 trials as that is a highly credible effort.

Didn't end well for Ivermectin proponents. First we had the initial effort fail to show an Ivermectin benefit. See https://www.startribune.com/ivermectin- ... 600181627/.

Of course Ivermectin opponents pulled the same kind of stuff that they usually pull:
Boulware said he expects ivermectin proponents to dismiss the latest results because of the lower dosage, but that they are "moving the goalpost" because he consulted with some of them at the outset of ACTIV-6 in early 2021 and they supported the dosage at that time.
So there was a trial with a hither dosage and greater duration of treatment. Here's a story on how that turned out: https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/s ... 9-symptoms
A study led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) in partnership with Vanderbilt University found no differences in relief of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms between participants taking ivermectin and participants taking a placebo. These results confirm findings from a previous arm of the study that tested a lower dose and shorter duration of ivermectin.
Contrast that to a clinical trial in Paxlovid: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2118542

I did my own thing with the initial results (3 of 389 in the treatment group vs. 27 of 385 in the placebo group). They say p <0.001. That doesn't really capture it. The z score for that is -4.498180966. The p value derived from that is 0.00000343. That's 99.999657% confidence.

If Ivermectin really worked like it's proponents say it does, that's the kind of thing you'd be seeing. And you're not. When it's tested through legitimate, controlled experiments it fails.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23236
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by houndawg »

JohnStOnge wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:56 pm Now a note on catching up on the Ivermectin thing. I was anticipating the Results of the ACTIV-6 trials as that is a highly credible effort.

Didn't end well for Ivermectin proponents. First we had the initial effort fail to show an Ivermectin benefit. See https://www.startribune.com/ivermectin- ... 600181627/.

Of course Ivermectin opponents pulled the same kind of stuff that they usually pull:
Boulware said he expects ivermectin proponents to dismiss the latest results because of the lower dosage, but that they are "moving the goalpost" because he consulted with some of them at the outset of ACTIV-6 in early 2021 and they supported the dosage at that time.
So there was a trial with a hither dosage and greater duration of treatment. Here's a story on how that turned out: https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/s ... 9-symptoms
A study led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) in partnership with Vanderbilt University found no differences in relief of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms between participants taking ivermectin and participants taking a placebo. These results confirm findings from a previous arm of the study that tested a lower dose and shorter duration of ivermectin.
Contrast that to a clinical trial in Paxlovid: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2118542

I did my own thing with the initial results (3 of 389 in the treatment group vs. 27 of 385 in the placebo group). They say p <0.001. That doesn't really capture it. The z score for that is -4.498180966. The p value derived from that is 0.00000343. That's 99.999657% confidence.

If Ivermectin really worked like it's proponents say it does, that's the kind of thing you'd be seeing. And you're not. When it's tested through legitimate, controlled experiments it fails.
Were the subjects shining UV light up their ass correctly?
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
Post Reply