|
Originally Posted by flightmedic01
(Post 3037760)
Now that we’ve determined that the healthcare system is not being overwhelmed, the current lockdowns are useless. The purpose of the lockdowns were never meant to STOP the virus (it will spread regardless), but rather to slow the spread in order not to spike the amount of people headed to hospitals.
|
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 3037711)
How come I never see a doctor at an anti-vaccine rally?
Dr James Neunenschawnder https://youtu.be/Aj8kZ3DmaXg Dr Chris Exely https://youtu.be/WyAeQKtVr6U I could go on, but I’m gonna go work on my car. I already know the retort coming. (Not a jab at Karnak, just in general) PS: Why don’t you hear much from the other side of the debate? Well try this on; Rep. Adam Schiff Sued by Physicians for Censoring Vaccine Debate |
Originally Posted by WutFace
(Post 3037789)
"Hey! The hospitals aren't overwhelmed like they said they would be! Lift the lockdown! I was promised overwhelmed hospitals!"
|
Originally Posted by block30
(Post 3037793)
The news essentially did promise that. I’m glad we agree on something.
|
Originally Posted by WutFace
(Post 3037815)
I love that no one understands that we're in the bottom of the 2nd inning. Fans are already leaving like we've won the game. This country is so screwed.
What are we at now? North of 99% survival? Back to the paint job on the car. |
Originally Posted by WutFace
(Post 3037815)
I love that no one understands that we're in the bottom of the 2nd inning. Fans are already leaving like we've won the game. This country is so screwed.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3037708)
You “arguing” does not change reality and sensitivity per se is not the measure of merit for any lab test. The measure of merit is predictive value positive and predictive value negative, which is a function of sensitivity, specificity, and the actual rate of disease in the population being studied IAW Baye’s Theorem.
For the current PCR tests the measurement must be made during the time that virus is actually present which presents serious difficulties for detecting the MAJORITY of the infected who have few or no symptoms. Thus the predictive value of PCR testing for detecting WHETHER OR NOT THE INDIVIDUAL IS VIRGIN OR AT LEAST PARTIALLY IMMUNE, which from an epidemiological perspective of determining R0 which is pretty much the real question PCR is indeed a POS. I will concede that if there’s a patient dying with ARDS in the ICU and you want to know whether the person is dying from coronavirus, influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, adenovirus, cytomegalovirus, or herpes simplex virus, a sensitive PCR test might actually be helpful. But for determining who out there is and is not likely to get coronavirus in the future, which is the decision before the government, it’s kind of worthless as tits on a boar hog. and yeah, I know, even if antibodies are there they MAY not be protective and MAY not be long lasting, but USUALLY they are indeed at least to some extent and for some duration protective, all of which lowers the R0. UW Medicine said it was in the process of letting major health care providers know about the test that became available on Tuesday, and would be expanding communication as they roll out testing. The lab said since Abbott Laboratories developed the new antibody test, UW researchers have been working 24/7 to verify the test’s effectiveness. Scientists said Friday they found the test can determine if someone had COVID with nearly 100% accuracy. “It showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.6%,” said Alex Greniger, assistant director of the UW Virology Lab. “Diagnostically, this is one of the best tests we can offer,” he said. FYI, the University if Washington virology lab is pretty good historically. |
The initial March Imperial College London study has to date driven the policy response to COVID-19 in the US and the UK. The study predicted millions of deaths if nothing was done, since then the study has been discredited and is likely very inaccurate.
The lead study author, Dr. Neil Ferguson has made wildly inaccurate disease fatality predictions in the past, many a time. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...d-be-asked/amp |
Originally Posted by block30
(Post 3037792)
Au contraire mon frere, and hey you don’t even have to read! You can just watch and or listen and sip a beverage! What a deal! :)
Originally Posted by block30
(Post 3037792)
I could go on, but I’m gonna go work on my car.
|
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:14 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands