Run away from no-mask people

[jobo]

LOL. Slavery is simply the clearest example I could think of where people can make choices but we would (probably) agree are not enjoying any freedom or personal liberty. And, while I'm not entirely surprised, I'm still disappointed that even in this example we cannot agree that slaves were not free. That's sad and also darkly humorous.

, but i did agree

freedom of choice must mean that what ever you choose you are free,setting up a false dichotomy about slavery is intellectual dishonesty on your part, they wernt free until the state said they were., then they wernt free till the state stopped pretending they were free and actually gave them equal freedoms, about 1970 give or take

 

[jobo]

So, that's "I'm just gonna call it circular, because I'm not paying attention to it and don't have any real point."

Gotcha.

but ive been paying attention with baited breath waiting for you to provided some science since about march, dont tell me i missed it, can you link it please

 

[jobo]

No way. We've had several contractors and folks come into the house. They wear a mask, we stay at least 6 feet away from them at all times, and we limit where they go. We pay attention to what they touch so that we can wipe that stuff down after they leave. We aren't over-zealous about it, and don't act crazy. But we are careful.

if thats not over zealous what is ?

 

[lklawson]

Feel better?

No. Humanity still sucks.

 

[jobo]

Will you let someone coming through your front door and inside your house without mask on?

I decide to hang a sign on my front door.

ive been doing my level best to catch since about April, and nothing, this thing is dam hard to catch, unless i didst notice perhaps, i did feel a bit rough for two or free days in june, perhaps that was it ? bit of a non event if it was

 

[Gerry Seymour]

if thats not over zealous what is ?

All pretty easy stuff to do.

 

[lklawson]

Hey, can anyone share some actual data from experts that suggest we shouldn't wear masks, or that masks don't do anything, or that masks are a bad idea? Kirk makes a good point. Those of us who listen to experts might just be listening to the wrong experts. @lklawson , some links would be helpful.

Have you seen the NYT article suggesting that the COVID testing is miscalculated and is giving between 60-ish-% and 90% false positive? That would mean that COVID19 is actually less transmissible than a medium-to-heavy Flu season. And few people are suggesting masking up everyone person for a Flu season.

There are others, of course, but I'm kinda depressed about how this is turning into two factions fighting with each other and apparently COVID just being a proxy for other arguments.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

ive been doing my level best to catch since about April, and nothing, this thing is dam hard to catch, unless i didst notice perhaps, i did feel a bit rough for two or free days in june, perhaps that was it ? bit of a non event if it was

Some folks get infected and never show symptoms. Some estimates (hard to say with any certainty without really high levels of testing) put the asymptomatic people as the large majority of those infected. And some folks have very mild symptoms (which might actually be almost the same as "asymptomatic").

The problem is you never know if you have it and can infect until after you've been that way for a while.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Have you seen the NYT article suggesting that the COVID testing is miscalculated and is giving between 60-ish-% and 90% false positive? That would mean that COVID19 is actually less transmissible than a medium-to-heavy Flu season. And few people are suggesting masking up everyone person for a Flu season.

There are others, of course, but I'm kinda depressed about how this is turning into two factions fighting with each other and apparently COVID just being a proxy for other arguments.

If that were true, the virus would be both less infectious and more lethal than currently thought.

 

[lklawson]

If that were true, the virus would be both less infectious and more lethal than currently thought.

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

Apparently the CDC says you shouldn't run the cycle more than 30 times at the absolute most and most of the testing is running 35 to 40 cycles.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

Apparently the CDC says you shouldn't run the cycle more than 30 times at the absolute most and most of the testing is running 35 to 40 cycles.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Interesting. That may account for a lot of the "asymptomatic" folks. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Steve]

if thats not over zealous what is ?

It's pretty easy, actually.

 

[Steve]

Have you seen the NYT article suggesting that the COVID testing is miscalculated and is giving between 60-ish-% and 90% false positive? That would mean that COVID19 is actually less transmissible than a medium-to-heavy Flu season. And few people are suggesting masking up everyone person for a Flu season.

There are others, of course, but I'm kinda depressed about how this is turning into two factions fighting with each other and apparently COVID just being a proxy for other arguments.

Well, hold on. Before you give up on humanity, I'd like to think this through. I haven't seen the NYT article about testing. I'll look for it. Testing is a pretty big issue, and getting accurate tests is really important. EDIT: I see you posted a link later. I'll give it a read.

But just think about the implications of what you're saying above. The mortality rate is the death toll as a percentage of total cases. Right now, in the USA, according to the CDC and WHO, we think there have been somewhere a little north of 8 million cases. We know that 220,000 have died. So, 1, 2, skip a few... that's a mortality rate of roughly 2.75%, more than 10x what we see with influenza according to the CDC.

If you're now suggesting that the tests are delivering a false positive by let's say 60%, that would suggest to me that we didn't have 8 million cases. Instead, we actually might have had 40% of that, which is about 3,200,000 cases. If this is true, the disease is far more dangerous than we are talking about. 220,000 as a percentage of 3.2 million would mean there is an actual mortality rate of almost 7%.

The flu comparison is one I've thought about a little. We don't wear masks to mitigate the risk of getting the flu, but we do try to mitigate risks, in particular for people who are at high risk (elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, etc). Washing hands is encouraged, and we generally have an annual flu shot that everyone is encouraged to get. If the mortality rate of influenza were higher than .3% or less, I expect we'd give it more attention. But even so, we do hear forecasts in the news when they expect it to be a bad year for influenza, and there is a heightened awareness and marketing of reasonable safety precautions.

 

[jobo]

well Manchester has now been placed in tier 3 lock down, im not even sure what that is, i think its just locked down

however the situation in Manchester is so bad they have delayed it till Friday ????????

 

[jobo]

Well, hold on. Before you give up on humanity, I'd like to think this through. I haven't seen the NYT article about testing. I'll look for it. Testing is a pretty big issue, and getting accurate tests is really important. EDIT: I see you posted a link later. I'll give it a read.

But just think about the implications of what you're saying above. The mortality rate is the death toll as a percentage of total cases. Right now, in the USA, according to the CDC and WHO, we think there have been somewhere a little north of 8 million cases. We know that 220,000 have died. So, 1, 2, skip a few... that's a mortality rate of roughly 2.75%, more than 10x what we see with influenza according to the CDC.

If you're now suggesting that the tests are delivering a false positive by let's say 60%, that would suggest to me that we didn't have 8 million cases. Instead, we actually might have had 40% of that, which is about 3,200,000 cases. If this is true, the disease is far more dangerous than we are talking about. 220,000 as a percentage of 3.2 million would mean there is an actual mortality rate of almost 7%.

The flu comparison is one I've thought about a little. We don't wear masks to mitigate the risk of getting the flu, but we do try to mitigate risks, in particular for people who are at high risk (elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, etc). Washing hands is encouraged, and we generally have an annual flu shot that everyone is encouraged to get. If the mortality rate of influenza were higher than .3% or less, I expect we'd give it more attention. But even so, we do hear forecasts in the news when they expect it to be a bad year for influenza, and there is a heightened awareness and marketing of reasonable safety precautions.

false accounting

its demographic dependent, so,, the morality rate for the old is considerable, the mortality rate for the rest of us, doesnt break one%

WHICH ARE EXACTLY THE FIGURES THAT CAME OUT OF CHINA

AND ITS JUST AS LIKELY THAT CASES HAVE BEEN UNDER REPORTED AS OVER REPORTED

 

[lklawson]

Well, hold on. Before you give up on humanity, I'd like to think this through.

Too late. I've already started the Ritual to Cthulhu.

But just think about the implications of what you're saying above. The mortality rate is the death toll as a percentage of total cases. Right now, in the USA, according to the CDC and WHO, we think there have been somewhere a little north of 8 million cases. We know that 220,000 have died. So, 1, 2, skip a few... that's a mortality rate of roughly 2.75%, more than 10x what we see with influenza according to the CDC.

If you're now suggesting that the tests are delivering a false positive by let's say 60%, that would suggest to me that we didn't have 8 million cases. Instead, we actually might have had 40% of that, which is about 3,200,000 cases. If this is true, the disease is far more dangerous than we are talking about. 220,000 as a percentage of 3.2 million would mean there is an actual mortality rate of almost 7%.

Yes. I know. There is concurrent information which suggest that the mortality rate is greatly inflated to. One example is by "symptom diagnosis" for COVID (which does seem to happen a lot) and then attaching the death. So someone dies, and, among other things, has symptoms which are consistent with COVID (or seasonal allergies) but no virology test is run. But it's still recorded as a COVID death. Another example is the difference between Flu and COVID recorded deaths. Typically when a person dies of a co-morbidity while having the Flu, it's recorded as a result of the co-morbidity. But it's the other was around with COVID. When a person dies of a co-morbidity while having COVID, then COVID is listed as the cause. I don't want to say this is "right" or "wrong" but I do want to say that it inflates the morbidity rate above that of other viruses and gives a over-large impression. If the Flu and everything else was recorded the same way, it would change how some people look at it.

The flu comparison is one I've thought about a little. We don't wear masks to mitigate the risk of getting the flu, but we do try to mitigate risks, in particular for people who are at high risk (elderly, people with underlying medical conditions, etc). Washing hands is encouraged, and we generally have an annual flu shot that everyone is encouraged to get. If the mortality rate of influenza were higher than .3% or less, I expect we'd give it more attention. But even so, we do hear forecasts in the news when they expect it to be a bad year for influenza, and there is a heightened awareness and marketing of reasonable safety precautions.

You're right that when I got the Flu back in Feb, when I was convinced it was more than just a cold after a few hours at work, I went home. I self-quarantined myself away from vulnerable populations, such as my parents and granmother.

To be honest, it was the worst Flu I've ever had, and I've gotten the Flu several times. I, literally, coughed myself unconscious at least twice. Yes, I blacked out from coughing. When not passed out I spent about a week in bed wondering if death would embrace me in her dark arms. If I'd gotten any worse, I'd would have gone to the Emergency Room or Urgent Care. And I had shortness of breath for the next month or so. Then the whole COVID thing broke and I decided to get an Antibodies test. I mean, the symptoms were so right along the lines with COVID. But, nope. No anti-bodies. Then a close friend who got the same symptoms at the same time told me that he got tested right away for the Flu and it came back positive. Either I got the Flu from him or we got it from the same third-person.

Make no mistake, the Flu can be a killer.

And yes, like I said, I self-quarantined. But no one said, "you need to wear a mask in public just in case you might have the Flu again."

I see a big double-standard.

Fortunately, I'm about half-way through the Ritual to Cthulhu now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

Too late. I've already started the Ritual to Cthulhu.

Yes. I know. There is concurrent information which suggest that the mortality rate is greatly inflated to. One example is by "symptom diagnosis" for COVID (which does seem to happen a lot) and then attaching the death. So someone dies, and, among other things, has symptoms which are consistent with COVID (or seasonal allergies) but no virology test is run. But it's still recorded as a COVID death. Another example is the difference between Flu and COVID recorded deaths. Typically when a person dies of a co-morbidity while having the Flu, it's recorded as a result of the co-morbidity. But it's the other was around with COVID. When a person dies of a co-morbidity while having COVID, then COVID is listed as the cause. I don't want to say this is "right" or "wrong" but I do want to say that it inflates the morbidity rate above that of other viruses and gives a over-large impression. If the Flu and everything else was recorded the same way, it would change how some people look at it.

You're right that when I got the Flu back in Feb, when I was convinced it was more than just a cold after a few hours at work, I went home. I self-quarantined myself away from vulnerable populations, such as my parents and granmother.

To be honest, it was the worst Flu I've ever had, and I've gotten the Flu several times. I, literally, coughed myself unconscious at least twice. Yes, I blacked out from coughing. When not passed out I spent about a week in bed wondering if death would embrace me in her dark arms. If I'd gotten any worse, I'd would have gone to the Emergency Room or Urgent Care. And I had shortness of breath for the next month or so. Then the whole COVID thing broke and I decided to get an Antibodies test. I mean, the symptoms were so right along the lines with COVID. But, nope. No anti-bodies. Then a close friend who got the same symptoms at the same time told me that he got tested right away for the Flu and it came back positive. Either I got the Flu from him or we got it from the same third-person.

Make no mistake, the Flu can be a killer.

And yes, like I said, I self-quarantined. But no one said, "you need to wear a mask in public just in case you might have the Flu again."

I see a big double-standard.

Fortunately, I'm about half-way through the Ritual to Cthulhu now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Okay, so we're on the same page with regards to the flu. So, now it's just a matter of figuring out who these other "experts" are you mentioned. I've seen some of these reports you mention that discuss co-morbidity. I didn't see any of them coming from any experts. In fact, the only ones I saw were from propaganda outlets (like actual, conspiracy theory, whackadoo sites intentionally peddling misinformation for political gain). Are you saying that there are some credible experts with evidence that the morbidity rates for COVID are lower than reported? I'd like to see that.

 

[Steve]

false accounting

its demographic dependent, so,, the morality rate for the old is considerable, the mortality rate for the rest of us, doesnt break one%

WHICH ARE EXACTLY THE FIGURES THAT CAME OUT OF CHINA

AND ITS JUST AS LIKELY THAT CASES HAVE BEEN UNDER REPORTED AS OVER REPORTED

Did your caps lock get stuck?

Personally, I'm very fond of my 85 year old dad, and I'm interested in keeping the old codger around as long as I can. I'd feel pretty rotten if I brought a disease into his home that killed him. Especially if I did it carelessly and with disregard to his health. Knowing that the morbidity (morality? ) rate is so much higher for senior citizens than the flu (by an order of magnitude), I'm genuinely confused why anyone would fail to be careful. I mean, even if you're at a reasonably low risk for serious complications, just knowing you could kill a person at the local pub seems like incentive enough to be careful.

In related news, there is something that the CDC puts out that might help this discussion related to the topic of co-morbidity. It's an excess deaths report on the CDC website that is intended to specifically address the concerns mentioned by Kirk above.
Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

There's a report on this site here that compares excess deaths including and excluding available COVID19 reports:
Tableau Public

If you look at it, you can see that for the past few years, things have gone just about according to schedule. Each bar in the chart represents a week. The image is just a quick screen grab, but you it's an interactive chart, that you can look at the link above. You'll also find the methods along with some cautions about lag times. The chart above is the USA as a whole, but you can also get really granular. It's pretty interesting, but in a nutshell, where you see the plus signs, you can see a higher than expected death rate in that week. The closer to present you get, the less accurate they are because as I mentioned above, there is a lag with reporting. But the cases go up, not down, so you can see that even based on existing data, there are more deaths than expected by a lot in the USA.

So, as an example, in week ending April 18, 2020, the CDC expected between 55,689 and 57,632 deaths. However, a total of 76,694 deaths have been reported for that week so far. 3% more people died than expected that week not including COVID19, and they estimate that between 33 and 38% more died due to the Coronavirus.

Did everyone counted have just COVID19? Certainly not. Were there any missed diagnoses? Maybe. But we know that these estimates are generally pretty close, and that there is a noticeable spike in deaths, to the tune of 33 to 38% more in that week.

Point is, if you're suggesting that the morbidity is being overestimated, the data suggests the opposite. If anything, there are likely more deaths related to covid than are being reported, because more people in general are dying than expected, even if we take out the COVID reports.

 

[Steve]

related to the excess death reports from the CDC, I noticed there was a spike in December 2017 and January 2018. Not sure what that is from, but now I'm very curious what was going on back then to cause a spike in deaths.

 

[lklawson]

related to the excess death reports from the CDC, I noticed there was a spike in December 2017 and January 2018. Not sure what that is from, but now I'm very curious what was going on back then to cause a spike in deaths.

IIRC, that was a really bad Flu season. Perhaps as much as 80,000 deaths, ims, depending on how it's counted. I think that the official totals are 800,000 hospitalized and 60,000+ deaths.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk