The Coronavirus, not the beer

thethe said:
[Tw]1249045360313618433[/tw]
Click to expand...


Wow, people had COVID-19 in mid-March, and it was spreading in February? This is a game changer. Why does this dude only post screenshots instead of actually linking to articles? Oh, because he wants to skip over parts that discredit his narrative:

Stanford’s virology lab, looking retroactively at some 2,800 patient samples collected since January, did not find the first COVID-19 cases until late February — from two patients who were tested Feb. 21 and Feb. 23. Neither of those patients, the researchers note in a letter published by the Journal of the American Medical Assn., would have met existing criteria for COVID-19 testing.
Click to expand...

Here's more info on that Stanford Study:

The researchers found that the burden of COVID-19 in the Bay Area prior to mid-February was low. Only two of nearly 3,000 people with respiratory-disease symptoms who were tested in early 2020 at Stanford Health Care or affiliated clinics for common respiratory viruses were infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is basically conclusive evidence against the "we've all had it forever" theory. I'm sure thethe will stop pushing it now..

SAV, is there like a high council meeting we can hold to ban twitter disinfo threads from this moron (Edit: Berenson, not our beloved thethe)?
 
Last edited:
“This wasn’t recognized because we were having a severe flu season,” Smith said in an interview. “Symptoms are very much like the flu. If you got a mild case of COVID, you didn’t really notice. You didn’t even go to the doctor. The doctor maybe didn’t even do it because they presumed it was the flu.”


------

I would agree that the tweet is misleading because of the screen grab. The Stanford testing is a large sample. Is that from the area local area? Is there a large break out there now?
 
Some of the very first cases in the country were in Solano and Santa Clara counties. Both are in the bay area.
 
thethe said:
“This wasn’t recognized because we were having a severe flu season,” Smith said in an interview. “Symptoms are very much like the flu. If you got a mild case of COVID, you didn’t really notice. You didn’t even go to the doctor. The doctor maybe didn’t even do it because they presumed it was the flu.”


------

I would agree that the tweet is misleading because of the screen grab. The Stanford testing is a large sample. Is that from the area local area? Is there a large break out there now?
Click to expand...

Bay Area has thousands of confirmed cases at this point, though CA had the earliest shutdown orders in the country and it looks like things haven't spiraled out of control there.

It is a study of 2888 people:

a) In the Bay Area
b) With respiratory symptoms severe enough to seek care
c) Tested negative for other common respiratory virus
d) From Jan 1. to Feb. 26.

And there were only 2 total COVIDs, from late Feb.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Bay Area has thousands of confirmed cases at this point, though CA had the earliest shutdown orders in the country and it looks like things haven't spiraled out of control there.

It is a study of 2888 people:

a) In the Bay Area
b) With respiratory symptoms severe enough to seek care
c) Tested negative for other common respiratory virus
d) From Jan 1. to Feb. 26.

And there were only 2 total COVIDs, from late Feb.
Click to expand...

Does that mean as of late February COVID was not widespread in the bay area?
 
Could be something specific in the methodology biasing the results, but that definitely seems to be what the study shows. Even the doc in the article was surprised by how low the numbers were:

“I was a little surprised the prevalence was so low, but it was consistent with what our public health officials in California were observing through normal surveillance methods,” Pinsky said. “Our positives came about the same time that they were identifying an uptick in COVID-19 diagnoses.” The Bay Area’s first COVID-19 diagnosis was made in early February.
Click to expand...

I found the actual report:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764364

EDIT: Would loooove to see this for NYC; Columbia where you at?
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
Some of the very first cases in the country were in Solano and Santa Clara counties. Both are in the bay area.
Click to expand...
I think there is an advantageous incentive to be the first due to fear of the unknown (is this a 10% death rate, 1%, egads!!). Being a Bay Area resident, everyone freaked out when we heard about the Santa Clara patient. I think this area was particularly receptive to social distancing orders than other parts of the country and the results reflect this.

My family in Utah, on the other hand, started having cases in their community when there was a general consensus in a ~1% death rate. That fear factor isn’t as motivating.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Bay Area has thousands of confirmed cases at this point, though CA had the earliest shutdown orders in the country and it looks like things haven't spiraled out of control there.

It is a study of 2888 people:

a) In the Bay Area
b) With respiratory symptoms severe enough to seek care
c) Tested negative for other common respiratory virus
d) From Jan 1. to Feb. 26.

And there were only 2 total COVIDs, from late Feb.
Click to expand...

It certainly wasnt widespread there but there still could have been a seed earlier than those dates which would still yield that type of statistical representation.

Even with a late feb confirmation on 2 cases that would indicate an original infection within that community months earlier.

As the article mentioned there wasnt even consideration of the CCP virus when peolle demonstrated flu like symptoms. That's not some quack saying it either.
 
thethe said:
How dare Trump *checks notes*

Follow the constitution!
Click to expand...

It's possible for the federal government to provide laidership on this while staying withing the confines of the constitution. States and local governments will have to coordinate on this and federal laidership (not to mention funding for efforts to test, trace and quarantine) would be helpful. There is a risk that a state following best practices would not be put at risk by neighboring states running not-so-good practices.

I don't see this as a situation where fidelity to the constitution requires a hands-off approach by los federales.
 
nsacpi said:
It's possible for the federal government to provide laidership on this while staying withing the confines of the constitution. States and local governments will have to coordinate on this and federal laidership (not to mention funding for efforts to test, trace and quarantine) would be helpful. There is a risk that a state following best practices would not be put at risk by neighboring states running not-so-good practices.

I don't see this as a situation where fidelity to the constitution requires a hands-off approach by los federales.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a 'handoff' process. Some governors from both sides of the aisle have had positive (and negative) things to say. Federal government has to protect their greatest cities first and then risk assess got concentrations of infection. They cant hold anyone's hands.
 
thethe said:
It certainly wasnt widespread there but there still could have been a seed earlier than those dates which would still yield that type of statistical representation.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The data clearly undercuts the "we've all had it for months so it's not dangerous" theory.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Irrelevant. The data clearly undercuts the "we've all had it for months so it's not dangerous" theory.
Click to expand...

Not sure why that fact is irrelevant.
The spike in infection in the last month is where 'everybody's gets it so late February and mid march is when it would pop.

There have been numerous other data points that conflicts this and it's more recent blood samples which is later in the virus infection spread so not sure why those wouldnt be weighed more. I'll let you figure that one out.
 
Can't wait for the constitutional exegesis for why handling national emergencies isn't exactly the purpose of the Federal Government.

I'm pretty sure sturg was just mistakenly given a copy of the Articles of Confederation at some point.
 
thethe said:
Not sure why that fact is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Maybe read the next sentence.

There have been numerous other data points that conflicts this and it's more recent blood samples which is later in the virus infection spread so not sure why those wouldnt be weighed more. I'll let you figure that one out.
Click to expand...

This is incomprehensible. But color me "not shocked" that even in the face of straightforward data your opinion is unchanged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top