Covid-19 News

  • 300 bot account of Covid Globalist Mafia tweet the exact same tweet asking for internet censorship for people worried about vaccines


    http://www.investmentwatchblog…e-worried-about-vaccines/



    Covid Globalist Mafia is developing a digital passport for international travel that will show if you have been vaccinated


    https://www.investmentwatchblo…you-have-been-vaccinated/



    Globalism works just like mafia


    https://www.nationofchange.org…sm-works-just-like-mafia/


  • The thing is though, there’s a definite pattern formed by all these ‘foolish people’:



    The majority of those dying in the red states now are in nursing homes, or under the care of their families who bring the virus home. Are they "foolish"?


    Misleading chart BTW. It is from June 1 until 24 Nov. Had we done a chart earlier in the pandemic, it would have colored blue. Then we could have mocked them. Same "old" people are dying everywhere,, only thing that matters is what color their state is on the map.


    Looking at how the virus is resurging everywhere here in the US; give it few months and we can show how foolish those New Yorkers are...again. :)

  • The majority of those dying in the red states now are in nursing homes, or under the care of their families who bring the virus home. Are they "foolish"?


    Misleading chart BTW. It is from June 1 until 24 Nov. Had we done a chart earlier in the pandemic, it would have colored blue. Then we could have mocked them. Same "old" people are dying everywhere,, only thing that matters is what color their state is on the map.


    Looking at how the virus is resurging everywhere here in the US; give it few months and we can show how foolish those New Yorkers are...again. :)

    The fact is you don't know anything about the disease from these statistics. You are in a simulation with bad data.


    For example, with PCR set to 37-40 you don't know a false positive from a true positive. We have good data that at 37 only 3% of tests have a live virus (meaning could be cultured). Of the 849 people in South Dakota who died so far from Covid -- what percentage tested positive and died, vs actually had a live virus. People do die.


    What the cases are is uncertain. Could some of those be Covid - sure I'd buy that. But many could be "totally fine" people who wanted to be sure their asthmatic cough wasn't Covid, or have RSV, or who knows what else.


    All discussions that try to peer beyond the veil aren't going to work. The foundation is broken and fraudlent.

  • Of the 849 people in South Dakota who died so far from Covid -- what percentage tested positive and died, vs actually had a live virus. People do die.

    No matter, they were mostly very old, and in some kind of assisted care. All would have died within a short time...pandemic, or not. Such is life. You will die also, and unfortunately I well before you. Even the youngest member here will follow us.


    I understand what you say about the true false positive stats. Those are legitimate concerns, but in this political climate will not be sorted out until well after the dust settles.

  • Assuming they are sick with a respiratory infection, how do you know they aren't with comorbidities, or parainfluenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, adenoviruses, influenza viruses. As it gets colder, people do get sicker every year -- what is the excess flu+cold like admissions to hospital vs the avg the same time the past 5 years?

    Extraordinary counterfactual speculation about the worldwide death toll.


    This is doing exactly what epidemiologists suggested it would - in winter social distancing is worse, cold weather makes virus hang around for longer - transmission goes up.

    COVID is now well tested pretty well everywhere and we know the case rate

    Death curves follow case curves very closely - but with 3 week lag and modified by demography of those who are actually catching the disease.


    Navid: many people have compared death rates with typical seasonal excess and the difference corresponds well with the COVID deaths. asking questions, as you do, is good. Repeatedly asking the same questions when they have been answered many times before is a rhetorical trick that has no merit. if you believe it yourself then your level of self-delusion is unusually high.


    https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/…ty-in-england-latest.html


    In that link you can see, uptodate for the Uk, how excess deaths are picking up again as the virus infection rate climbs. the US will be quite similar although overall shape different because they did not sharply reduce the virus over the Summer. Deaths are still below the march/April peak, which is because deaths lag cases, and also we now have better treatment. Remember however that in the human cost of COVID you must count not just mortality but long COVID, so deaths are only part of the story.

  • Ok, so my main reason in coming back here (correcting counterfactual speculation from Navid etc is not interesting) is the astrazeneca vaccine news.


    This is fascinating, and we can do some actual research from publicly available info and tease out important subtleties missed in all the standard reporting.


    Being lazy I looked for others to do the math. i found it eventually here.


    https://www.sciencemediacentre…azeneca-covid-19-vaccine/


    “Two late phase trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 are referred to in the press-release by AstraZeneca: one in UK (12,400 participants analysed, to nearest 100), the other in Brazil (10,300). The trials were designed somewhat differently: for example, the vaccine trial in Brazil seems to have compared two full doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 versus vaccine-control, whereas the “half-dose, full dose” regimen is a feature of the UK trial. Design-differences explain, in part, why the number who received the “half-dose, full dose” regimen is only 24% of those who were randomized to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2,741/11,636). As details matter, such as within-country controI group, I shall refrain from further comment until the paper is available to read.”


    The vaccine efficacy is quoted in all the reports as 70%, but with subgroup efficacy 62% (two full doses) or 90% (half dose followed by full dose).


    Now, first, this 70% result is good news and strong. I'm not denying this is a useful vaccine much better than winter flu jab (30%-50%), which still has utility.


    what interests me is the subgroup analysis. The above quote is saying, in scientificese, "don't believe this claim until you see the details". And I don't. It is still quite likely to have merit. I hope it does. But here is why you should be cautious.


    (1) the half + full dose data comes from a small number of the total patients: 26%. Of those 2741 only a few actually got COVID. The headline figures we have been given are unclear. Are they comparing the half-priming-dose group with the overall control rate? Or with the UK control rate? the problem is that this trial was not designed to evaluate different doses. the half-dose people were all in the UK - the result of a mistake! But the COVID infection rates will be different in different countries so you have to compare half-dose rate with a comparable control set. it is not clear, as the above link notes, whether this has been done.


    (2) We are not told the statistical significance of the subgroup data. With 1/4 the participants it will be less than the whole group data.


    (3) File drawer effect. Also the p-value problem. You can get better results from subgroups randomly, simply by having enough subgroups to choose from an cherry-picking. In this case that does not seem likely, but it is something to be aware of.


    So, this is fascinating because the numbers released so far just do not make sense (at subgroup level) without much more analysis than has yet been given. I await more information with some personal interest since I myself am likely to get this vaccine and a 90% vaccine is a good deal better than a 70% vaccine.

  • The majority of those dying in the red states now are in nursing homes, or under the care of their families who bring the virus home. Are they "foolish"?


    Misleading chart BTW. It is from June 1 until 24 Nov. Had we done a chart earlier in the pandemic, it would have colored blue. Then we could have mocked them.


    The majority of people dying everywhere on the planet, are the elderly and those in nursing homes.

    Are they and their families particularly foolish? Unlikely.

    In the US, are these deaths predominantly happening in red states? Absolutely.

    Is it foolish to sacrifice people to appease a political 'ideology'? I think 'foolish' is overly generous.


    Regarding that chart there is a brilliant animated version that shows the whole timeline, although its format prevents reposting it. Link here: https://dangoodspeed.com/covid/total-deaths-since-july

    Yes the earlier stages show a different pattern, but they don't have international airports in Nebraska et al, and again, IMO its hard to argue with how the cookie is currently crumbled.


    Quote from Shane D.

    Same "old" people are dying everywhere,, only thing that matters is what color their state is on the map.


    Well yes, that's the point i'm trying to make. Roseland claimed politics has nothing to do with covid outcomes... But the statistics suggest otherwise.

  • The fact is you don't know anything about the disease from these statistics. You are in a simulation with bad data.


    For example, with PCR set to 37-40 you don't know a false positive from a true positive. We have good data that at 37 only 3% of tests have a live virus (meaning could be cultured). Of the 849 people in South Dakota who died so far from Covid -- what percentage tested positive and died, vs actually had a live virus. People do die.


    All discussions that try to peer beyond the veil aren't going to work. The foundation is broken and fraudlent.


    Settle down Don Junior. You are essentially arguing that all statistical research is invalid, because of some other statistics that you are unable to provide a link to? 😂 Get a grip lad.

  • Thanks THH

    AstraZeneca Manufacturing Error Clouds Vaccine Study Results


    https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020…neca-error-study-results/


    In a surprise, the group of volunteers that got a lower dose seemed to be much better protected than the volunteers who got two full doses. In the low-dose group, AstraZeneca said, the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective. In the group that got two full doses, the vaccine appeared to be 62% effective. Combined, the drugmakers said the vaccine appeared to be 70% effective. But the way in which the results were arrived at and reported by the companies has led to pointed questions from experts.

  • No matter, they were mostly very old, and in some kind of assisted care. All would have died within a short time...pandemic, or not. Such is life. You will die also, and unfortunately I well before you. Even the youngest member here will follow us.


    I understand what you say about the true false positive stats. Those are legitimate concerns, but in this political climate will not be sorted out until well after the dust settles.

    Shane you may feel that way but I'm going in a different direction


    Tel Aviv University study finds hyperbaric oxygen treatments reverse aging processTel Aviv University study finds hyperbaric oxygen treatments reverse aging process


    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub…20November%2018%2C%202020.


    The researchers found that a unique protocol of treatments with high-pressure oxygen in a pressure chamber can reverse two major processes associated with aging and its illnesses: the shortening of telomeres (protective regions located at both ends of every chromosome) and the accumulation of old and malfunctioning cells in the body. Focusing on immune cells containing DNA obtained from the participants' blood, the study discovered a lengthening of up to 38% of the telomeres, as well as a decrease of up to 37% in the presence of senescent cells.


    I'm building one in my shed.

  • Answer the questions, provide data, and come back to us. I've already looked and I know the data is awry.


    We would expect that deaths of pneumonia+colds+flus would trend up right now. We don't need your sloppily gating thought with words like "rhetorical trick" and "repeatedly asking the same questions" and "self-delusion."

  • Settle down Don Junior. You are essentially arguing that all statistical research is irrelevant, because of some other statistics, that you are unable to provide a link to? 😂 Get a grip lad.

    Ah the old paternalistic strategy. This isn't a debate, but a high school punk fest. You've shown your true colors and want to play hall monitor on the internet. Get a real job.

  • More on ivermectin


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Answer the questions, provide data, and come back to us. I've already looked and I know the data is awry.


    We would expect that deaths of pneumonia+colds+flus would trend up right now. We don't need your sloppily gating thought with words like "rhetorical trick" and "repeatedly asking the same questions" and "self-delusion."

    Navid - I'm beginning to understand how scientists in the US must have felt the last 4 years.


    My post you quote RE: Covid-19 News


    • Contained a detailed and interesting UK graph of excess deaths up till Nov 10th, showing excess deaths in 1st and 2nd peak in UK
    • Pointed out (and I'm sure you would accept) theta the 3 week delay between cases and deaths means that you need to wait 3 weeks before an alarming high increase in cases leads to the same in deaths.
    • Did not link worldometer data in US cases but you can surely remember?


    I can understand your not liking my critique of your post. In that post you made contrafactual assertions with no evidence. Here you are doing the same. You would expect that deaths would trend up 3 weeks (or more, depending on local reporting) after cases. You would also need to factor in the fact that people die all the time. The graph I showed of excess deaths in the UK is only just starting to tick up due to that lag and the fact that these graphs are usually a few weeks old by the time we look at them. So that is a total delay of 5 weeks. The US winter rise has been broadly comparable in onset time to the UK winter rise. I agree I do not have detailed US arguments here. Neither do you. You would need a precise graph of excess deaths vs time which we could then compare with a precise graph of cases with time. More difficult in US than UK because of decentralisation and different policies adopted in different states.


    If your critique of me is that I am answering for the UK not the US then I accept that. But most would say that the winter rise in COVID cases is a shared phenomenon and exact data showing how excess deaths relate to the COVID rate, such as I posted, in one country, will therefore surely answer it for another?