7 ms·

I'm really not sure where the disconnect is, because all of that seems highly reasonable to me. Yes, I'm saying people avoided preventative care because they w

by toolz 5y ago

I'm really not sure where the disconnect is, because all of that seems highly reasonable to me. Yes, I'm saying people avoided preventative care because they were scared to go near hospitals - this is not a controversial topic, it's clear that is true. I'm not sure about your point with respiratory infections but covid goes on the death certificate with a recent positive test even if you died in a car accident. No, I've never suggested "coincidence" with case counts and hospitalizations. It seems quite intuitive to me that false positives are happening at a similar rate as usual and more hospitalizations just means more false positives in the hospital. You get false positives with high CT - there have been multiple studies confirming this fact at this point, it's not a controversial statement as far as I'm aware.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
> I'm not sure about your point with respiratory infections but covid goes on the death certificate with a recent positive test even if you died in a car accident. > No, I've never suggested "coincidence" with case counts and hospitalizations. It seems quite intuitive to me that false positives are happening at a similar rate as usual and more hospitalizations just means more false positives in the hospital. You get false positives with high CT - there have been multiple studies confirming this fact at this point, it's not a controversial statement as far as I'm aware. But these positives come BEFORE the hospitalizations and deaths. I don't feel like you're understanding the order of events - high cases AND then hospitalizations after weeks. You keep describing events where people are retroactively proven to have COVID - this isn't the case. These are people who test positive and then later enter hospital.
- toolz 5y ago
  I think you may misunderstand my point. I'm not claiming covid doesn't go up and increase hospitalization - I'm simply saying there are a lot of false positives. Of course there are real cases that precede hospitalizations, but that correlation does nothing to show there aren't massive false positives. The more covid is spreading, the more real cases but also the more false positives. You need covid virus in the patient to test positive. A false positive means the patient isn't sick with covid, not that there exists no covid on that patient. covid spread increases -> hospitalizations go up - we both agree on this point covid spread increases -> false positives increase due to more viral spread that will attack asymptomatic/immune individuals (we do know that other coronaviruses have cross immunity with cv19 so it's not uncommon to be asymptomatic due to preexisting immunity)
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    > A false positive means the patient isn't sick with covid, not that there exists no covid on that patient. > false positives increase due to more viral spread that will attack asymptomatic/immune individuals Ok, so it sounds like you're making the argument that a patient, who has COVID in their system, but is asymptomatic and tests positive would be considered a false positive, even though they can still spread the virus?
    - toolz 5y ago
      Please cite your source that positives at >40ct can still be infectious since I've already provided evidence strongly disagreeing with your assertion here.
      - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        You supplied a single study for evidence and then an imgur link. I wasn't even aware that there was doubt that asymptomatic spread was a thing. I realize now the issue - I believe that someone who has a COVID 19 infection, symptomatic or not, is someone infected with COVID 19, and you've decided that they aren't until they show symptoms. How do you feel about HIV? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease... https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/01/11/asymptomatic-spread https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/01/11/asympt...
        toolz 5y ago
        At no point did I say or suggest people not showing symptoms are incapable of infecting someone with cv19. I'm not sure where you've come to the conclusion this conversation was ever about asymptomatic spread. PCR tests have nothing to do with symptoms. However, I am very familiar with the study you've linked. If you can even call it a study - it's more like a fantasy model based on the data of other studies the researchers appear to not even have read! They cite numbers from multiple papers that can't be found in those papers anywhere. There might not be a more embarrassing study I've read than this one. There first citation to Lee et. al. claims the paper found 100% infectiousness of asymptomatic individuals, yes 100%. here's a quote from the actual paper > Although the high viral load we observed in asymptomatic patients raises a distinct possibility of a risk for transmission, our study was not designed to determine this (you'll note at nowhere in the paper is there anything resembling 100% spread in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic...this number is purely fabricated from thin air) another citation from that paper is a citation to char et. al. that says the paper claims 40-140% infectiousness for asymptomatic individuals...again let's read the actual paper they cite here's a quote from the paper > In the household setting, symptomatic case-patients had 2.7 times the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to their close contacts, compared with asymptomatic and presymptomatic case-patients so the above paper deals with household settings and finds roughly 1/3 in a household setting...this paper very generously makes up numbers again to cite to this paper...embarrassing. the cite mc evoy et. al. as having a finding of 40-70% which they got right! horray! so 2/3 papers they use to determine their asymptomatic infectious number for their modeling are just garbage citations that don't resemble the findings of the source paper at all this paper is worse than useless. again, their model sets the infectiousness rate of asymptomatic individuals based on 3 citations - 2 of which are fabricated...garbage...utter garbage.
thebruce87m 5y ago
QUESTION: Are people who have died in car accidents counted as COVID-19 deaths? ANSWER: No. There is a two-level system in place to make sure death counts are accurate. www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/covid-deaths-car-crash-comorbidities-coronavirus-death-total-counts-john-hopkins-study/65-e3842ed2-f753-4a15-8b97-c2ae75c2b2ce
- toolz 5y ago
  Incorrect, they are absolutely counted as covid deaths early on and will likely be re-categorized later, your article even says as much - later corrections are easy for car crashes, but they are not easy for misdiagnosis either way the context of the conversation is about early trends so my point still stands and is validated by the article you've linked, even.
  - thebruce87m 5y ago
    Misdiagnosis can go either way, not always in favour of covid. Early trends showed severe undercounting when later compared to excess mortality, probably due to low testing capacity at the start. See here for some more information on the undercounting: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-... You’ll have to point out in the previous article where it agrees with your point on car crashes counted as covid deaths, it does not show this in the version of the article that is presented to me.
    - toolz 5y ago
      your linked article simply shows gross deaths above baseline are not entirely accounted for by covid - that's not surprising in the least when you disrupt the entire world you'll have deaths from the disruption alongside covid. It makes no attempt at showing covid is undercounted. If anything I would use that as an argument to show lockdowns may very well be doing substantial harm and causing massive death. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that not a single country in the top 30 excess mortality during the pandemic is a country that avoided stringent lockdowns. Correlation != causation of course, but it's a logical thought to investigate and there's plenty more evidence towards lockdown's doing more harm than good (considering the evidence they prevented spread at all is lacking) as for your request - I never said the article agrees with my point about car crashes counted as covid deaths, I said it agrees with me that the correction happens later.

by toolz 5y ago

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

> I'm not sure about your point with respiratory infections but covid goes on the death certificate with a recent positive test even if you died in a car accident. > No, I've never suggested "coincidence" with case counts and hospitalizations. It seems quite intuitive to me that false positives are happening at a similar rate as usual and more hospitalizations just means more false positives in the hospital. You get false positives with high CT - there have been multiple studies confirming this fact at this point, it's not a controversial statement as far as I'm aware. But these positives come BEFORE the hospitalizations and deaths. I don't feel like you're understanding the order of events - high cases AND then hospitalizations after weeks. You keep describing events where people are retroactively proven to have COVID - this isn't the case. These are people who test positive and then later enter hospital.

toolz 5y ago
I think you may misunderstand my point. I'm not claiming covid doesn't go up and increase hospitalization - I'm simply saying there are a lot of false positives. Of course there are real cases that precede hospitalizations, but that correlation does nothing to show there aren't massive false positives. The more covid is spreading, the more real cases but also the more false positives. You need covid virus in the patient to test positive. A false positive means the patient isn't sick with covid, not that there exists no covid on that patient. covid spread increases -> hospitalizations go up - we both agree on this point covid spread increases -> false positives increase due to more viral spread that will attack asymptomatic/immune individuals (we do know that other coronaviruses have cross immunity with cv19 so it's not uncommon to be asymptomatic due to preexisting immunity)
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  > A false positive means the patient isn't sick with covid, not that there exists no covid on that patient. > false positives increase due to more viral spread that will attack asymptomatic/immune individuals Ok, so it sounds like you're making the argument that a patient, who has COVID in their system, but is asymptomatic and tests positive would be considered a false positive, even though they can still spread the virus?
  - toolz 5y ago
    Please cite your source that positives at >40ct can still be infectious since I've already provided evidence strongly disagreeing with your assertion here.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      You supplied a single study for evidence and then an imgur link. I wasn't even aware that there was doubt that asymptomatic spread was a thing. I realize now the issue - I believe that someone who has a COVID 19 infection, symptomatic or not, is someone infected with COVID 19, and you've decided that they aren't until they show symptoms. How do you feel about HIV? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease... https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/01/11/asymptomatic-spread https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/01/11/asympt...
      - toolz 5y ago
        At no point did I say or suggest people not showing symptoms are incapable of infecting someone with cv19. I'm not sure where you've come to the conclusion this conversation was ever about asymptomatic spread. PCR tests have nothing to do with symptoms. However, I am very familiar with the study you've linked. If you can even call it a study - it's more like a fantasy model based on the data of other studies the researchers appear to not even have read! They cite numbers from multiple papers that can't be found in those papers anywhere. There might not be a more embarrassing study I've read than this one. There first citation to Lee et. al. claims the paper found 100% infectiousness of asymptomatic individuals, yes 100%. here's a quote from the actual paper > Although the high viral load we observed in asymptomatic patients raises a distinct possibility of a risk for transmission, our study was not designed to determine this (you'll note at nowhere in the paper is there anything resembling 100% spread in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic...this number is purely fabricated from thin air) another citation from that paper is a citation to char et. al. that says the paper claims 40-140% infectiousness for asymptomatic individuals...again let's read the actual paper they cite here's a quote from the paper > In the household setting, symptomatic case-patients had 2.7 times the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to their close contacts, compared with asymptomatic and presymptomatic case-patients so the above paper deals with household settings and finds roughly 1/3 in a household setting...this paper very generously makes up numbers again to cite to this paper...embarrassing. the cite mc evoy et. al. as having a finding of 40-70% which they got right! horray! so 2/3 papers they use to determine their asymptomatic infectious number for their modeling are just garbage citations that don't resemble the findings of the source paper at all this paper is worse than useless. again, their model sets the infectiousness rate of asymptomatic individuals based on 3 citations - 2 of which are fabricated...garbage...utter garbage.

thebruce87m 5y ago

QUESTION: Are people who have died in car accidents counted as COVID-19 deaths? ANSWER: No. There is a two-level system in place to make sure death counts are accurate. www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/covid-deaths-car-crash-comorbidities-coronavirus-death-total-counts-john-hopkins-study/65-e3842ed2-f753-4a15-8b97-c2ae75c2b2ce

toolz 5y ago
Incorrect, they are absolutely counted as covid deaths early on and will likely be re-categorized later, your article even says as much - later corrections are easy for car crashes, but they are not easy for misdiagnosis either way the context of the conversation is about early trends so my point still stands and is validated by the article you've linked, even.
- thebruce87m 5y ago
  Misdiagnosis can go either way, not always in favour of covid. Early trends showed severe undercounting when later compared to excess mortality, probably due to low testing capacity at the start. See here for some more information on the undercounting: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-... You’ll have to point out in the previous article where it agrees with your point on car crashes counted as covid deaths, it does not show this in the version of the article that is presented to me.
  - toolz 5y ago
    your linked article simply shows gross deaths above baseline are not entirely accounted for by covid - that's not surprising in the least when you disrupt the entire world you'll have deaths from the disruption alongside covid. It makes no attempt at showing covid is undercounted. If anything I would use that as an argument to show lockdowns may very well be doing substantial harm and causing massive death. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that not a single country in the top 30 excess mortality during the pandemic is a country that avoided stringent lockdowns. Correlation != causation of course, but it's a logical thought to investigate and there's plenty more evidence towards lockdown's doing more harm than good (considering the evidence they prevented spread at all is lacking) as for your request - I never said the article agrees with my point about car crashes counted as covid deaths, I said it agrees with me that the correction happens later.