The Coronavirus, not the beer

[Tw]1285985636302770176[/tw]

The left and media knew it worked but OMB means more than peons lives.
 
so, we should listen to that educated person?

weird

how can i not be sure they haven't been indoctrinated?
 
goldfly said:
so, we should listen to that educated person?

weird

how can i not be sure they haven't been indoctrinated?
Click to expand...

Great point.

Its easy. Check the data which shows HCQ isnthe most effective treatment we have and if it was used early we never would have had to shutdown once or ever wear a mask.
Shame the left wants to destroy the nation though and a few hundred thousand peolle are just collateral damage.
 
nsacpi said:
From the Lancet paper:

There are important limitations with our data, including the fact that at or prior to May 1, 2020, many countries included in our dataset were not yet in the “plateau” or downslope phase of their individual epidemiologic curves, with border restrictions having been introduced only very recently. In the context of COVID-19, it is thought that public health interventions typically require from 2 to 3 weeks to affect outcomes, hence the impact of widespread border restrictions may not have yet been detected in our dataset [38,39]. Additionally, the relative difference in the number of cases in neighboring countries is likely to have a significant impact on whether border closures are effective. Two countries with similar epidemiologic curves and effective social distancing policies may not see a major impact from border closures, whereas two countries with very disparate epidemiologic curves may be more likely to see a significant impact from travel restrictions. In the case of full lockdowns, such a government policy may only be effective in those countries where it can be easily implemented and enforced. For example, the United States has had challenges enforcing lockdowns, with citizens in several states publicly protesting public health measures to limit viral transmission, and encouraging open revolt [40].

I would also offer as an observation that a simple comparison between countries that did full lockdowns versus those that didn't might yield some misleading results. One reason for this is countries that are hit hard by the initial wave of infections are more likely to lock down. This will make it appear that there is a positive relationship between locking down and the mortality rates. It is a tricky thing to analyze. There have been some papers that analyze this using time series data. I think that approach has a better chance of accurately measuring the impact of various interventions. But even those papers have some problems. Scientists will sometimes make the point that nature yields her secrets grudgingly. They are used to working in a world where knowledge accumulates gradually, with initial findings over a period of time either being confirmed or discarded by new data and analysis. But the world wants to know about covid-19 as fast as possible. Those two realities have been colliding in an interesting way during the past few months.
Click to expand...

thethe doesn't actually read papers and articles... he just posts Twitter headlines or reads a paragraph that is screen shotted that is selectively supporting his claims
 
"Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS!" Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted. "They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"

"CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19," the CDC says. "Facemasks should be used by people who show symptoms of COVID-19 to help prevent the spread of the disease to others."

The CDC recommendations add that "the use of facemasks is also crucial for health workers and people who are taking care of someone in close settings."
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
I should have clarified. The definition of obese is absurd in this nation. Being 30 pounds overweight is not unhealthy.

The truly obese people woild stay home. Thats the whole point. Let us healthy people kill the spread by building an immunity.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about your definition of healthy and unhealthy. I've fought with the BMI chart for years and a certain amount of fat ain't so bad.

Have you ever been 30 lbs overweight? I have. Have you ever then lost that 30 lbs and experienced a new level of health you thought wasn't possible?

I'm gonna disagree with you here (shocker, I know) and say that walking around at 30 lbs overweight, while it may not kill you quickly, will shorten your life and is thus, not optimal.
 
thethe said:
The left and media knew it worked but OMB means more than peons lives.
Click to expand...

So hyxcl works? And people in the media "knew it worked", but wanted more people to die in order to hurt OO? Is that your position?

Are you also implying that doctors and hospitals decide what drugs to give their patients based on left-leaning media?
 
Last edited:
[Tw]1285765280606625794[/tw]

Where is all the talk now that the administration taking this 9ver would lead to worse outcomes?

Just admit you guys are saps and fell for a democrat propoganda campaign to help their historically bad candidate in the upcoming election.

Its really sad what we have done.
 
thethe said:
[Tw]1285765280606625794[/tw]

Where is all the talk now that the administration taking this 9ver would lead to worse outcomes?

Just admit you guys are saps and fell for a democrat propoganda campaign to help their historically bad candidate in the upcoming election.

Its really sad what we have done.
Click to expand...

They did not take over reporting, they outsourced it to firm that does this for hospitals daily.

Safe to say the CDC has some work to do. I always held them in very high regard but there have been.....issues.
 
nsacpi said:
From the Lancet paper:

There are important limitations with our data, including the fact that at or prior to May 1, 2020, many countries included in our dataset were not yet in the “plateau” or downslope phase of their individual epidemiologic curves, with border restrictions having been introduced only very recently. In the context of COVID-19, it is thought that public health interventions typically require from 2 to 3 weeks to affect outcomes, hence the impact of widespread border restrictions may not have yet been detected in our dataset [38,39]. Additionally, the relative difference in the number of cases in neighboring countries is likely to have a significant impact on whether border closures are effective. Two countries with similar epidemiologic curves and effective social distancing policies may not see a major impact from border closures, whereas two countries with very disparate epidemiologic curves may be more likely to see a significant impact from travel restrictions. In the case of full lockdowns, such a government policy may only be effective in those countries where it can be easily implemented and enforced. For example, the United States has had challenges enforcing lockdowns, with citizens in several states publicly protesting public health measures to limit viral transmission, and encouraging open revolt [40].

I would also offer as an observation that a simple comparison between countries that did full lockdowns versus those that didn't might yield some misleading results. One reason for this is countries that are hit hard by the initial wave of infections are more likely to lock down. This will make it appear that there is a positive relationship between locking down and the mortality rates. It is a tricky thing to analyze. There have been some papers that analyze this using time series data. I think that approach has a better chance of accurately measuring the impact of various interventions. But even those papers have some problems. Scientists will sometimes make the point that nature yields her secrets grudgingly. They are used to working in a world where knowledge accumulates gradually, with initial findings over a period of time either being confirmed or discarded by new data and analysis. But the world wants to know about covid-19 as fast as possible. Those two realities have been colliding in an interesting way during the past few months.
Click to expand...

There will be denial until the very end. Just like Russian collusion.

You seem to always be one of the last to realize.

Lovkdowns will go down as one of the biggest mistakes in modern history. We are only starting to see the negative impacts of this disastrous decision.
 
Tapate50 said:
They did not take over reporting, they outsourced it to firm that does this for hospitals daily.

Safe to say the CDC has some work to do. I always held them in very high regard but there have been.....issues.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware but identifying a competent third party service provider is part of the process in taking it over.

The CDC, just like many federal agencies, are part of the deep state. Obama and Bush holdovers that know a successful trump administration is bad for business. And that business is screwing America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top