Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Be a big boy, go check out the WHO  website, and get an un- cherry-picked perspective on the normal responses for pandemics, seasonal flu ,, and compare to the covid event. 

The Chinese actually blocked off the area /roads , around the virology lab ,all the way back in October! .. (which has been determined by records of cell phone usage. )

Pick your favorite insult and I'll respond, that's a 3Bob rant that you have going on there. 

 

Jokes aside, I'm still waiting for you to produce supporting evidence. Don't be like trump & pompeo doing that tango thang saying one minute they have overwhelming expert-vouched evidence, and then typically backtracking a few days later. 

 

And while you're at it, show where what I wrote insulted you. 

And I wont even call you out on that "be a big boy" taunt, cos I already know the kind of people that need to resort to such el-cheapo lines. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that hard to work out where the virus originated, it's where the first batch of deaths occurred in a hospital. It wasn't here in the UK as I work at the hospital and we had no cases, while China was reporting a load of deaths. You have thousands of regular people working at hospitals all with access to social media, you can't cover up a bunch of people dying from an unknown disease these days. So very unlikely it originated in the US or Europe.  

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is certainly not hard evidence of anything because there's no way the US cdc could ever bungle, what with fool proof diagnositic capabilities. Yup. 

 

Quote

 

The director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told a congressional hearing Wednesday that some deaths from coronavirus have been discovered posthumously.

Robert Redfield responded to Rep. Harley Rouda's inquiry during the US House Oversight Committee discussion on the novel coronavirus response.

Rouda asked Redfield if it's possible that some flu patients may have been misdiagnosed and actually had coronavirus. He asked, "So we could have some people in the United States dying for what appears to be influenza when in fact it could be the coronavirus?"

Redfield replied that "some cases have actually been diagnosed that way in the United States today."

---

Here is the transcript of the discussion.

Rep. Harley Rouda: Without test kits, is it possible that those who have been susceptible to influenza might have been miscategorized as to what they actually had, is it quite possible that they actually had COVID-19?

CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield: The standard practice is the first thing you do is test for influenza, so if they had influenza they would be positive... "

HR: But only if they were tested? So they weren't tested, we don't know what they had?

RR: Correct.

HR: OK. And if somebody dies from influenza, are we doing postmortem testing to see whether it was influenza or whether it was COVID-19?

RR: There is a surveillance system of deaths from pneumonia, that the CDC has; it's not in every city, every state, every hospital.

HR: So we could have people in the United States dying for what appears to be influenza when in fact it could be the coronavirus or COVID-19?

RR: Some cases have actually been diagnosed that way in the United States today.

 

 

Edited by C T
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

Donald Trump, duly elected? 

 

Yeah, right.

 

 

Russians again? 

They just released transcripts ,under oath, by Rice, McCabe, Schiff, and a slew more, all saying they had no evidence to prove the Russians colluded with Trump. They just lied and insinuated to the public when they were not under oath. 

Not to mention two and a half years of investigations coming up empty. 

And there's no evidence they actually ex-filtrated anything at all ,off the DNC server. 

 

And most obviously, the Dossier was disparaging to Trump! 

 

The Russia claim has been thoroughly debunked. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, C T said:

This is certainly not hard evidence of anything because there's no way the US cdc could ever bungle, what with fool proof diagnositic capabilities. Yup. 

 

 

Hey Wow, we hit a point of agreement ! The CDC missed the first cases here in December..but the release was still in Wuhan- in October. 

I postulate this was the thing the Speaker was waiting for when she sat on the impeachment process, but that's just speculative. 

The CDC wasn't up to speed until there was a 'heads up' that the 'China virus' was a thing to be concerned about. 

The deaths just looked like flu, perhaps they assumed it wasn't A or B, which they perhaps tested for, but it didn't raise flags anyhow. 

So yes I think for right now the CDC missed their cue. 

Maybe Xi told them to. 

But, 

They caught on the second round, which would explain the existence of two strains here. (two founder events)

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, C T said:

 

Jokes aside, I'm still waiting for you to produce supporting evidence. Don't be like trump & pompeo doing that tango thang saying one minute they have overwhelming expert-vouched evidence, and then typically backtracking a few days later. 

 

And while you're at it, show where what I wrote insulted you. 

And I wont even call you out on that "be a big boy" taunt, cos I already know the kind of people that need to resort to such el-cheapo lines. 

Prove it didn't originate in China. 

Like Jetsun said, that's really the likely origin , the onus is on generating a more plausible choice. 

Edited by Stosh
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Russians again? 

They just released transcripts ,under oath, by Rice, McCabe, Schiff, and a slew more, all saying they had no evidence to prove the Russians colluded with Trump. They just lied and insinuated to the public when they were not under oath. 

Not to mention two and a half years of investigations coming up empty. 

And there's no evidence they actually ex-filtrated anything at all ,off the DNC server. 

 

And most obviously, the Dossier was disparaging to Trump! 

 

The Russia claim has been thoroughly debunked. 


“The Moon Landing and photos of earth from NASA have been thoroughly debunked. There’s no evidence that the earth is round.”

 

28 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Just why do you think black voters are so lame that they can't manage to produce ID , and show up? 

 

”Just why do you think republicans are so fearful  that they can’t ignore any opportunity to utilize gerrymandering and prevent others from voting against them?”

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stosh said:

Just why do you think black voters are so lame that they can't manage to produce ID , and show up? 

 

Lame; contemptible, inferior, weak etc. So characterizing black voters as lame is way out of line here! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Lame; contemptible, inferior, weak etc. So characterizing black voters as lame is way out of line here! 

 

The only thing lame here are the arguments made by Stosh talking about how actual facts are "disproven" by his information that he regards as a facts instead, much like someone insists that Elvis is still alive after seeing an impersonator driving through a McDonald's. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

trump sold out and betrayed America to Putin on international TV, anyone who sees different than that recorded fact is thicker than a brick and has a mind and heart that is FUBAR of any norm, but not beyond karma. 

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Despite early concerns by experts, this brilliant Caligula chose to downplay the seriousness of the epidemic. 

He straight up lied repeatedly to the public and denied the virus was anything to be alarmed about. "Hoax", he screamed. 

Fact is, in his mind, only the economy and his power-hold mattered. Who knows how long has he been denying the presence of the infection in the US. The timeline keeps moving back, and CDC has admitted misdiagnosis. Numerous reports indicated that he was given ample forewarns which he kept dismissing. I guess this is China's fault too lol. Its not me saying this, but testimonial after testimonial shows how he puts self interest above the public's. 

 

 

The Snake

 

:lol::ph34r:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stosh said:

Hey Wow, we hit a point of agreement ! The CDC missed the first cases here in December..but the release was still in Wuhan- in October. 

 

Oh, now its October?? Woohoo... 

What next, September? August? lol

 

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

The CDC wasn't up to speed until there was a 'heads up' that the 'China virus' was a thing to be concerned about. 

The deaths just looked like flu, perhaps they assumed it wasn't A or B, which they perhaps tested for, but it didn't raise flags anyhow. 

 

Amazing! Well done! 

 

7 hours ago, Stosh said:

So yes I think for right now the CDC missed their cue. 

Maybe Xi told them to. 

 

Yep, every single US govt body is on Xi's payroll. Even trump, but its all an act to dupe guys like you into thinking you're fighting a worthy cause. Heck, the whole US administration is just a front for the CCP. There are trumpsters who are actually CCP plants hiding behind the curtain, just waiting for when trump next hugs Xi in a kiss and make up move before they (the :ph34r:+:ph34r:+:ph34r:) jump out to scare you with a "peek a boo" lol. Watch out! You've been warned :lol:

 

Hats off to your incredible imagination, Stosh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, C T said:

 

Oh, now its October?? Woohoo... 

What next, September? August? lol

 

 

Amazing! Well done! 

 

 

Yep, every single US govt body is on Xi's payroll. Even trump, but its all an act to dupe guys like you into thinking you're fighting a worthy cause. Heck, the whole US administration is just a front for the CCP. There are trumpsters who are actually CCP plants hiding behind the curtain, just waiting for when trump next hugs Xi in a kiss and make up move before they (the :ph34r:+:ph34r:+:ph34r:) jump out to scare you with a "peek a boo" lol. Watch out! You've been warned :lol:

 

Hats off to your incredible imagination, Stosh. 

Thanks for the compliment. 

October is just when they cordoned off the virology lab.

If the origins were even sooner, I dunno, but that event is fixedly known.

 

 

You didn't tell why a China origin is less likely than a US one. 

Big time dodge. 

 

It's well known that key people have been swayed by Chinas soft power offensive/ belt and road initiative, even the NBA and WHO . That's their mode. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Lame; contemptible, inferior, weak etc. So characterizing black voters as lame is way out of line here! 

Then you shouldn't have done it. 

You think requiring ID, excludes black voters,,therefore you think black voters have no ID to present. So they have no jobs, no residence, no car, or they have felony convictions, preferentially.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Americans who are older and poor often don't have jobs, at least not ones that give picture ID's.  Don't have cars or drivers license and that as a whole individual voter fraud is relatively rare.  Institutional/Political shenanigans done by both sides are responsible for most voter fraud/suppression. 

 

I think voting areas and mail in ballot should have the penalty for falsification printed loud and proud in the front; how many thousands of dollars in fines and/or possible prison sentence (cumulative) for any false voting.  As well a public data base and/or public outing for anyone who's guilty.

 

That being said, the question is, In reality is there more voting fraud then people excluded because they have no ID?  With limited study I get the feeling that ballot fraud is quite rare, and would be even more so if the penalty was advertised louder.  I assume ballot fraud is fewer then those disenfranchised by not having a picture ID.  It'd interesting to get data on it, though I don't care enough to spend time on it, though it'd probably only take a minute or two. 

 

Activists on both sides could find out areas and groups at risk and create some sort of sanctioned and cheap ID.  It's too bad getting out the honest vote is tied so much to politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to live testimony of Dr. Bright, there were lots of basic preparations the US needed to have done to stay alert and prepared for an epidemic, but shamefully neglected. Accountability 00 --- Blame and deflection 999999.99 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, C T said:

 

 

 

Despite early concerns by experts, this brilliant Caligula chose to downplay the seriousness of the epidemic. 

 

 

 

Had to look up Caligula.

 

By the Senate?  Really?  That would really be something  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stosh said:

Then you shouldn't have done it. 

You think requiring ID, excludes black voters,,therefore you think black voters have no ID to present. So they have no jobs, no residence, no car, or they have felony convictions, preferentially.


I shouldn’t have done what? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13222

 

Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

Problems with early estimates and responses to the COVID‐19 epidemic

 

  • A highly flawed nonpeer‐reviewed preprint claiming similarity with HIV‐1 drew tremendous attention, and it was withdrawn, but conspiracy theories about the new virus became entrenched
  • Even major peer‐reviewed journals have already published wrong, sensationalist items
  • Early estimates of the projected proportion of global population that will be infected seem markedly exaggerated
  • Early estimates of case (infection) fatality rate may be markedly exaggerated
  • The proportion of undetected infections is unknown but probably varies across countries and may be very large overall
  • Reported epidemic curves are largely affected by the change in availability of test kits and the willingness to test for the virus over time
  • Of the multiple measures adopted, a few have strong evidence, and many may have obvious harms
  • Panic shopping of masks and protective gear and excess hospital admissions may be highly detrimental to health systems without offering any concomitant benefit
  • Extreme measures such as lockdowns may have major impact on social life and the economy (and those also lives lost), and estimates of this impact are entirely speculative
  • Comparisons with and extrapolations from the 1918 influenza pandemic are precarious, if not outright misleading and harmful
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bax44 said:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13222

 

Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures

Problems with early estimates and responses to the COVID‐19 epidemic

 

  • A highly flawed nonpeer‐reviewed preprint claiming similarity with HIV‐1 drew tremendous attention, and it was withdrawn, but conspiracy theories about the new virus became entrenched
  • Even major peer‐reviewed journals have already published wrong, sensationalist items
  • Early estimates of the projected proportion of global population that will be infected seem markedly exaggerated
  • Early estimates of case (infection) fatality rate may be markedly exaggerated
  • The proportion of undetected infections is unknown but probably varies across countries and may be very large overall
  • Reported epidemic curves are largely affected by the change in availability of test kits and the willingness to test for the virus over time
  • Of the multiple measures adopted, a few have strong evidence, and many may have obvious harms
  • Panic shopping of masks and protective gear and excess hospital admissions may be highly detrimental to health systems without offering any concomitant benefit
  • Extreme measures such as lockdowns may have major impact on social life and the economy (and those also lives lost), and estimates of this impact are entirely speculative
  • Comparisons with and extrapolations from the 1918 influenza pandemic are precarious, if not outright misleading and harmful
 

 

 


I suggest reading the entire paper instead of cherry-picking to fit your bias and understand what the writer is really saying. 
 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, ralis said:


I suggest reading the entire paper instead of cherry-picking to fit your bias and understand what the writer is really saying. 
 

 

 

Thats hilarious. You dont even know what my "bias" is first of all, if I have any. Second of all, I did read the entire thing, did you? The paper pretty much calls into question almost every aspect of this...."pandemic." Good try, though. Ill post the rest of it so that your obvious attempt at deflecting is exposed.

Edited by bax44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more from the same paper, lest anyone think Im trying to portray imaginary "bias".

 

4 EXAGGERATED EXPONENTIAL COMMUNITY SPREAD

At face value, the epidemic curve of new cases outside China since late February is compatible with exponential community spread. However, reading this curve is very difficult. Part of the growth of documented cases could reflect rapid increases in numbers of coronavirus tests performed. The number of tests done depends on how many test‐kits are available and how many patients seek testing. Even if bottlenecks in test availability are eventually removed, the epidemic curve may still reflect primarily population sensitization and willingness for testing rather than true epidemic growth. China data are more compatible with close contact rather than wide community spread being the main mode of transmission.

5 EXTREME MEASURES

Under alarming circumstances, extreme measures of unknown effectiveness are adopted. China initially responded sluggishly, but subsequently locked down entire cities.9 School closures, cancellation of social events, air travel curtailment and restrictions, entry control measures and border closure are applied by various countries. Italy adopted country‐level lockdown on March 8, and many countries have been following suite.

Evidence is lacking for the most aggressive measures. A systematic review on measures to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses found insufficient evidence for entry port screening and social distancing in reducing epidemic spreading.10 Plain hygienic measures have the strongest evidence.10, 11 Frequent hand washing and staying at home and avoiding contacts when sick are probably very useful. Their routine endorsement may save many lives. Most lives saved may actually be due to reduced transmission of influenza rather than coronavirus.

Most evidence on protective measures comes from nonrandomized studies prone to bias. A systematic review of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza risk found only two randomized trials, one on hand sanitizer and another on facemasks and hand hygiene in household members of people infected with influenza.11

6 HARMS FROM NONEVIDENCE‐BASED MEASURES

Given the uncertainties, one may opt for abundant caution and implement the most severe containment measures. By this perspective, no opportunity should be missed to gain any benefit, even in the absence of evidence or even with mostly negative evidence.

This reasoning ignores possible harms. Impulsive actions can indeed cause major harm. One clear example is the panic shopping which depleted supplies of face masks, escalation of prices and a shortage for medical personnel. Masks, gloves and gowns are clearly needed for medical personnel, and their lack poses healthcare workers' lives at risk. Conversely, they are meaningless for the uninfected general population. However, a prominent virologist's comment12 that people should stock surgical masks and wear them around the clock to avoid touching their nose went viral.

7 MISALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

Policymakers feel pressure from opponents who lambast inaction. Also, adoption of measures in one institution, jurisdiction or country creates pressure for taking similar measures elsewhere under fear of being accused of negligence. Moreover, many countries pass legislation that allocates major resources and funding to the coronavirus response. This is justified, but the exact allocation priorities can become irrational.

For example, undoubtedly research on coronavirus vaccines and potential treatments must be accelerated. However, if only part of resources mobilized to implement extreme measures for COVID‐19 had been invested towards enhancing influenza vaccination uptake, tens of thousands of influenza deaths might have been averted. Only 1%‐2% of the population in China is vaccinated against influenza. Even in the United States, despite improvements over time, most adults remain unvaccinated every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the rest. 

 

8 LOCKDOWNS—FOR HOW LONG?

An argument in favour of lockdowns is that postponing the epidemic wave (“flattening the curve”) gains time to develop vaccines and reduces strain on the health system. However, vaccines take many months (or years) to develop and test properly. Maintaining lockdowns for many months may have even worse consequences than an epidemic wave that runs an acute course. Focusing on protecting susceptible individuals may be preferable to maintaining countrywide lockdowns longterm.

9 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DISRUPTION

The potential consequences on the global economy are already tangible. February 22‐28 was the worst week for global markets since 2008, and the worse may lie ahead. Moreover, some political decisions may be confounded with alternative motives. Lockdowns weaponized by suppressive regimes can create a precedent for easy adoption in the future. Closure of borders may serve policies focused on limiting immigration. Regardless, even in the strongest economies, disruption of social life, travel, work and school education may have major adverse consequences.

The eventual cost of such disruption is notoriously difficult to project. A quote of $2.7 trillion13 is totally speculative. Much depends on the duration of the anomaly. The global economy and society is already getting a major blow from an epidemic that otherwise (as of March 14) accounts for 0.01% of all 60 million annual global deaths from all causes and that kills almost exclusively people with relatively low life expectancy.

10 CLAIMS FOR ONCE‐IN‐A‐CENTURY PANDEMIC

Leading figures insist that the current situation is a once‐in‐a‐century pandemic.14 A corollary might be that any reaction to it, no matter how extreme, is justified.

This year's coronavirus outbreak is clearly unprecedented in amount of attention received. Media have capitalized on curiosity, uncertainty and horror. A Google search with “coronavirus” yielded 3 550 000 000 results on March 3 and 9 440 000 000 results on March 14. Conversely, “influenza” attracted 30‐ to 60‐fold less attention although this season it has caused so far more deaths15 globally than coronavirus.

Different coronaviruses actually infect millions of people every year, and they are common especially in the elderly and in hospitalized patients with respiratory illness in the winter. A serological analysis16 of CoV 229E and OC43 in 4 adult populations under surveillance for acute respiratory illness during the winters of 1999‐2003 (healthy young adults, healthy elderly adults, high‐risk adults with underlying cardiopulmonary disease and a hospitalized group) showed annual infection rates ranging from 2.8% to 26% in prospective cohorts, and prevalence of 3.3%‐11.1% in the hospitalized cohort. Case fatality of 8% has been described in outbreaks among nursing home elderly.17 Leaving the well‐known and highly lethal SARS and MERS coronaviruses aside, other coronaviruses probably have infected millions of people and have killed thousands. However, it is only this year that every single case and every single death gets red alert broadcasting in the news.

11 COMPARISONS WITH 1918

Some fear an analogy to the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed 20‐40 million people.18 Retrospective data from that pandemic suggest that early adoption of social distancing measures was associated with lower peak death rates.19 However, these data are sparse, retrospective and pathogen‐specific. Moreover, total deaths were eventually little affected by early social distancing: people just died several weeks later.19 Importantly, this year we are dealing with thousands, not tens of millions deaths.

12 LEARNING FROM COVID‐19

The Box 1 summarizes the problems with inaccurate and exaggerated information in the case of COVID‐19. Even if COVID‐19 is not a 1918‐recap in infection‐related deaths, some coronavirus may match the 1918 pandemic in future seasons. Thus, we should learn and be better prepared. Questions about transmission, duration of immunity, effectiveness of different containment and mitigation methods, the role of children in viral spread, and assessment of the effectiveness of vaccines and drugs are essential to settle timely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites