What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting piece of data that's not getting any discussion, straight from the folks at CDC on Wednesday:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...bZXCwSRP2OmqsI

Comorbidities

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.

So ... 6% of 180,000 is just a little bit under 11,000. Remember when Dr. Birx mentioned back in April how "we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality" in the counting of COVID-19 deaths?

Yeah, I'd say that a 1,500+% boost (11,000 to 180,000) is a "very liberal approach" ...
 
ScoobyDoo said:
We're in exactly the same spot we were in March. Good ****ing job, America.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you are on Team #WetTheBed that might be true.

Back in reality.
-Back in March/April New York was the epicenter of the World (and to date that hasn't been surpassed, not even close). Are you saying there is a comparable now? And since there isn't how about you share what you think is the worst hot spot right now in the Country?

-Hospitals are back to normal now.

-Deaths are back to historical levels.

-The only thing you are holding on to right now is a bunch of college kids testing positive, asymptomatic and by any statistical measure none needing medical attention.

-And so easy to predict you will be peeing your pants after Labor Day when a single individual asymptomatic "case" is presented on the news about Billy the middle school student.
 
Last edited:
net presence said:
1820....What the hell do mean by saying, "you don't test positive for Covid-19"? That's literally contrary to what EVERY person in the medical community world wide says about a positive test.

But hey 1820, you and Chuck keep spouting your inaccurate garbage. You both continue to prove your lack of intelligence with every post you make.
Click to expand...

More info for you to chew on. I don't remember when I started posting, sometime in May? The issues with the testing are something I have been bringing up for over 100 days. The New York Times is finally covering it. They really have no choice, the troves of data and information are overflowing and spilling out everywhere. It is going to be interesting watching all the tap dancing and damage control. This will be one of many issues being brought to light.

And just think the guy lacking intelligence has been pointing to all these issues for over 100 days. This whole thing has been an information and data disaster of epic proportions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html

Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time.


The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations. (And most tests are set at a 40!)

In Massachusetts,from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

The number of people with positive results who aren’t infectious is particularly concerning, said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “That worries me a lot, just because it’s so high,” he said, adding that the organization intended to meet with Dr. Mina to discuss the issue.
 
Last edited:
Chuck Murray said:
Interesting piece of data that's not getting any discussion, straight from the folks at CDC on Wednesday:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...bZXCwSRP2OmqsI

Comorbidities

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.

So ... 6% of 180,000 is just a little bit under 11,000. Remember when Dr. Birx mentioned back in April how "we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality" in the counting of COVID-19 deaths?

Yeah, I'd say that a 1,500+% boost (11,000 to 180,000) is a "very liberal approach" ...
Click to expand...

By this logic, there has never been a single death from AIDS. Good to know.
 
1820....Oh, and about your response to me from earlier this evening. First, we're all well aware you've been harping about testing for the last three months. that doesn't make that Trump trope any more valid or accurate. You do realize that, in relation to "inaccurate testing", you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If I recall correctly, you also have been a big proponent of the "Sweden" model, in which, the idea was to try and get to "herd immunity" as soon as possible. Now hold that thought for a moment...

Let's say for argument's sake that, your point about bout the possibility that a significant amount of those testing positive didn't have enough viral load to be infectious to others....

Next, can we also agree that regardless of how infectious any one person is or ever was while infected, they still very likely have at least some immunity for a few months? Right? Right?...

And, haven't you also been on the whole, "there's no reason to test asymptomatic people just because they came in contact with someone who was infected"??

Let me tie all these things together; if you think we should be going the "herd immunity" route, you should want us testing as many people as possible every day. Especially IF, repeat IF -- I'll wait to see if Dr. Mina's study holds up -- so many of these positives aren't actually infectious to anyone else.

Next, to your response to my using Osterholm's Op Ed comments; yes, his opinion has evolved since April 22nd. You obviously don't understand this but, actual intelligent people aren't afraid to admit they don't know everything. AND, actually adjust their opinions and perspectives when faced with new and better information.

You also stated that, "from a public health perspective there is zero reason to shutdown the Country right now based on how that article lays it out just three weeks ago." Really?? The reason to shut down is because until we get to 1 positive for every 100,000 per day, we can never truly safely open the country without a vaccine. That's based on research over the last 100 years in regards to other pandemics that have occurred in that time. You know, actually scientific research?

And, in regards to Peru or Israel's lockdowns not being effective; you do realize that the main reason either of those didn't work was because the citizenry didn't actually stay locked down. Funny, you don't mention the numerous other countries that chose to lock down (far more that did than didn't), where they effectively knocked the virus down to that 1 in 100,000 per day infection rate, and are still at very low levels of infection. Interesting that you wouldn't mention those...

Yes, there are false-positives and false-negatives. However, the majority of the those are in relation to the anti-body tests. Plus, there are a number of new tests coming on line that are supposedly going to have a far higher level of accuracy. The new saliva test developed by Yale in conjunction with the NBA Players Association, is supposedly 100% accurate if it says you're positive and, if it says your negative it's accurate 9 out of 10 times.

Finally, you do realize that literally 98% plus of all of the scientific and medical experts with legitimately respected knowledge in relation to this virus are saying this thing is a very big deal. They're all also saying that we need to be testing in far greater daily numbers than we currently are, that there should be a national mask mandate, that another 6 week lockdown is our best bet at actually getting the virus under control, that we shouldn't be opening schools up full bore, among a number of other things. So please explain to me why it is YOU think they are taking these more cautious positions? Do you REALLY THINK that 98% plus of the world's legitimate experts in regards to this virus are just part of the DEEP STATE and that they're willing to completely screw up the world's economies just to make sure Trump doesn't get re-elected?!? If not, please explain why all of these extremely learned people -- all of them with FAR, FAR more knowledge of the virus than you -- are taking the positions that they are.
 
Chuck Murray said:
Interesting piece of data that's not getting any discussion, straight from the folks at CDC on Wednesday:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...bZXCwSRP2OmqsI

Comorbidities

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.

So ... 6% of 180,000 is just a little bit under 11,000. Remember when Dr. Birx mentioned back in April how "we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality" in the counting of COVID-19 deaths?

Yeah, I'd say that a 1,500+% boost (11,000 to 180,000) is a "very liberal approach" ...
Click to expand...


Chuck...are you that lazy that you're actually using links to Q'anon conspiracy tweets/articles now. Seems kind of beneath you....actually...no it doesn't.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/30/p...mpression=true


Twitter removes QAnon supporter's false claim about coronavirus death statistics that Trump had retweeted

"The tweet, from "Mel Q," copied from someone else's Facebook post, claimed that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had "quietly" updated its numbers "to admit that only 6%" of people listed as coronavirus deaths "actually died from Covid," since "the other 94% had 2-3 other serious illnesses."

That's not what the CDC said.

"The CDC's latest regular update to a public statistics page on the pandemic said that for 6% of the deaths included in its statistics, "Covid-19 was the only cause mentioned" on the deceased person's death certificate. That is not at all the same thing as saying only 6% of reported Covid-19 deaths "actually died" from Covid-19. It simply means that the other 94% were listed as having at least one additional factor contributing to their death."

"For example, the other 94% includes people whose death certificate listed both Covid-19 and obesity, both Covid-19 and diabetes, or both Covid-19 and heart disease -- among other conditions."

Nice try though Charles....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top