The Wuhan virus—how are we doing? - Page 52 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15128061
I know you right-winger fascists hate reality.

The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World
The Swedish COVID-19 experiment of not implementing early and strong measures to safeguard the population has been hotly debated around the world, but at this point we can predict it is almost certain to result in a net failure in terms of death and suffering. As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world (not including tiny Andorra and San Marino). But perhaps more striking are the findings of a study published Oct. 12 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which pointed out that, of the countries the researchers investigated, Sweden and the U.S. essentially make up a category of two: they are the only countries with high overall mortality rates that have failed to rapidly reduce those numbers as the pandemic has progressed.

Yet the architects of the Swedish plan are selling it as a success to the rest of the world. And officials in other countries, including at the top level of the U.S. government, are discussing the strategy as one to emulate—despite the reality that doing so will almost certainly increase the rates of death and misery.

Countries that locked down early and/or used extensive test and tracing—including Denmark, Finland, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and New Zealand—saved lives and limited damage to their economies. Countries that locked down late, came out of lock down too early, did not effectively test and quarantine, or only used a partial lockdown—including Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Spain, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K.—have almost uniformly done worse in rates of infection and death.

https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/

Sweden is now starting to have a Second Wave, incidentally. You right-wing fascists are morons.
#15128077
Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world

Virtually all of the 11 countries with a higher mortality rate than Sweden... had enforced lockdowns and other economy-killing measures.

Was that your point? Or do you even bother to make points anymore?

Image
#15128078
Wulfschilde wrote:Trump haters are basically the only people left pushing for (or even enacting) draconian lockdowns. No one else is behind it anymore and the data hasn't supported it for several months at least.


Not true, there are plenty of Trump haters that are against draconian lockdowns. Don't be so quick to bucket people like that, this is one of the big problems with people these days. This sort of language encourages further polarization. I know plenty of Trump haters that aren't freaking out or calling for hard lockdowns. Personally, I am a Trump hater, and am not for shutting everything down (I am for shutting certain things down though and other measures).

Anyway, as a side note, I do find it rather odd that at least in the media they still occasionally bring up the absurd idea that if we lock down, we would eradicate the virus. What virus on earth has been eradicated without a vaccine or herd immunity?
#15128086
^^ Sigh

Science trips a lot of people up. Don't fret Rich. We will protect you from yourself eventually. Adults have always done that for children and those who are not quite exactly.....
#15128198
Rancid wrote:Not true, there are plenty of Trump haters that are against draconian lockdowns. Don't be so quick to bucket people like that, this is one of the big problems with people these days. This sort of language encourages further polarization. I know plenty of Trump haters that aren't freaking out or calling for hard lockdowns. Personally, I am a Trump hater, and am not for shutting everything down (I am for shutting certain things down though and other measures).

Anyway, as a side note, I do find it rather odd that at least in the media they still occasionally bring up the absurd idea that if we lock down, we would eradicate the virus. What virus on earth has been eradicated without a vaccine or herd immunity?

Not sure if Drlee actually thinks you're Rich or if he's mocking you :lol:

Yeah, I am sure you are technically right about this but there is still a strong correlation.
#15128203
Nazism, COVID-19 and the destruction of modern medicine: An interview with Vera Sharav

Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav, renowned champion of human rights and expert in biomedical research ethics, Ms. Sharav offers rare and valuable insights into the public health arena and state of emergency affecting each and every one of our lives. She also draws parallels between what happened in Nazi Germany and what’s happening in our society today — and discusses why it’s more important than ever for us to take a stand.
#15128241
OK folks. Here is a question for those who oppose mask mandates. This is not a hypothetical.

I am on my way to the clinic/feeding project. I am the manager of this clinic. We will have doctors, nurses, and many volunteer college students including medical students there. Should I require them to wear a mask or leave? Should I require those who come for food or care to wear a mask or leave?

Enough of your hypothetical discussion about rights. What is the right thing to do in a real situation?
#15128243
Drlee wrote:^^ Sigh

Science trips a lot of people up. Don't fret Rich. We will protect you from yourself eventually. Adults have always done that for children and those who are not quite exactly.....


I'm not rich.

I don't blame doctors for calling for massive lock downs (not all doctors are calling for this by the way), as their job is to prioritize health. However, there are other parameters than just health that should be considered if one were to truly follow science and not get tripped up by it. ;)

Wulfschilde wrote:Not sure if Drlee actually thinks you're Rich or if he's mocking you :lol:

Yeah, I am sure you are technically right about this but there is still a strong correlation.



Not sure what's up with that. I'm not sure why he suggested that "science trips me up" either. When it comes to decision making of any kind, you don't look at just one metric (COVID infections and death), you have to look at other metrics too (effect to economy, to mental health, school systems, etc), then with that more holistic view, you see if you can come to a balanced solution (i.e. balance priorities). The people are that are calling for lockdowns for an extended period of time are simply looking at one metric in isolation and trying to make decisions on that alone. That's fine, but that is not what a true scientist would do, you have to look at the whole picture. You have to look at the opportunity cost of lockdowns, you don't just jump in to decisions.

The data is all there, and it's not that science is tripping me up. It's really more about policy, what does society at large want to prioritize? Health, economy, school systems, jobs, whatever. The opinions will run the gamut because everyone will attach different weights of priority on these different items. Just because someone doesn't put 100% of the priority on infections/death, does not mean they are "tripped up by science." The science isn't what's even being disputed here (at least for me personally).
#15128339
Sorry Rancid. A lot of posts happened after I wrote my comments about Rich's post. I did not mean that comment to apply to you.

Interesting point. Not a single anti-mask person bothered to discuss my options. Why? Because they know what simple logic and good sense tells me to do.
#15128340
Here's the latest weekly update:

Image

For Red State/Blue State:

US ave. deaths per million (increase, change in rate)
  • Red States 619.4 (21.3, +0.7)
  • Purple States 466.4 (18.9, +2.6)
  • Blue States 786.3 (9.4, +0.3)

If they were included on my weekly chart above, Blue States would rank 11th out of 90 (+0), Red States 24th (+0), and Purple States 35th (-1).
#15128350
Another profoundly idiotic post by @Doug64

Meaningless except to someone ignorant of science, epidemiology and common sense. You know. A Republican Trump supporter.
#15128358
@Drlee

What do you see as errors in the spreadsheet posted by @Doug64?

My two main criticisms is that he uses the wrong numbers to calculate the ratio of flu deaths to Trump virus deaths, and his oddly arbitrary method of divvying up the US states but not, for example, Canadian provinces.
#15128360
Drlee wrote:OK folks. Here is a question for those who oppose mask mandates. This is not a hypothetical.

I am on my way to the clinic/feeding project. I am the manager of this clinic. We will have doctors, nurses, and many volunteer college students including medical students there. Should I require them to wear a mask or leave? Should I require those who come for food or care to wear a mask or leave?

Enough of your hypothetical discussion about rights. What is the right thing to do in a real situation?

I don't believe in absolute rights. I have spoken out against the wicked notion of self ownership. If we allowed individuals absolute self ownership over their own bodies then government would no longer have the right to conscript its citizens or even non citizens. There are obviously situations where masks should be compulsory, but that is a very long way from me supporting extensive compulsory masks for Covid.

As for your situation, I have no where near sufficient information to make a judgement call. But even if I had more information I would probably avoid giving an opinion. Better choices are generally more focussed choices. I'm no extremist libertarian, but in this crisis I am part of a group of people who want much less centralised decision making and much more devolved / lower decision making, but that does not mean complete anarchy. That does not mean no one has authority over others.

My view and I've had this view from very early on, although I have perhaps become more confident of it, is not that we should adopt a herd immunity strategy, but that we will adopt a herd immunity strategy. Will this not result in deaths and perhaps in long term health problems for a significant number of people. Yes but public opinion will shift towards herd immunity anyway. We are already seeing this shift in a number of ways.

The move to herd immunity will not be led by honest courageous people of integrity like myself. No the move to herd immunity will be done under other guises. We saw this with the Black lies matter demonstrations. We see it in France with the big demonstrations after the recent Muslim attack. :lol: Love it they are making a total mockery of the Lock Down as the BLM supporter did earlier. The British government introduced the rule of six as a cover for opening the universities, when cases were already rocketing after the opening of Schools. Now the Labour left Mayor of Manchester has refused to implement the Tear 3 lockdown on Manchester. Its part of the Johnson's latest wheeze "The tears of a clown" policy. Of course Andy Burnham doesn't say he's against the lock down, he just wants more money, but he also sort of says that its not necessary.

Oh no I say to all the lock down lovers its not people like me you need to worry about. There was never enough of us to stop the lock downs. No the people you need to worry about are the one's virtue signalling their lockdown ideological purity.
#15128455
Once again, old people don't give a fuck about COVID even though they are the prime candidate to get killed by it.

At a coffee shop, waiting for my coffee, standing 10ft from other people. Random old dude comes up to me and wants to start chatting. Generally speaking, I don't mind this, but not now dude. Of course, I chatted with him cause I'd feel like a dick if I didn't. :lol:

Porque yo soy Latino man. You talk to elders when they address you. That's just how I was raised. :lol: :hmm:
#15128473
@Rancid

Every single time I run the risk of being infected, it is because some person is talking politely to me with no mask and I cannot find a way to just walk away. My mother’s voice just keeps saying “eso no se hace.”
#15129113
Sivad wrote:Death case definition - Belgium, Spain, Sweden, USA


:lol:


The one thing I have found interesting on this, is how people compare COVID data between countries without actually realizing that they are not apples to apples comparisons given everyone is counting their cases wildly different. Ultimately, the proper way to do it, is to go back on the data, and estimate a prorate or derate on each country to get them on roughly equal terms (i.e. account for the differences in measurement techniques, measurement philosophy, and measurement errors), then you can start comparing more reasonably. This is what I do in my job almost every day (in applicable cases, it's not always possible if the data is garbage altogether), yet I don't see it happening here. Or rather, I'm sure plenty of scientists are doing this, but it's not getting reported out, the media just runs with the raw non-apples numbers.

This is why I chuckle when I hear people talk about how horrible the US cases are and how great some other countries might be without even actually understand how each country has counted their data (or if they even counted to the same level of vigor). When I see countries side by side, it just doesn't mean a whole lot to me, and shouldn't mean a whole lot. Unless, it's properly validated and adjusted. Everyone is just running with the numbers like it's all perfect. Garbage in, garbage out.

But alas, everyone that claims to be scientific, isn't and when actual scientist come out talking about this sort of thing, they get ignored because it doesn't fit the propaganda/narrative they want to be true. :lol: :*(
#15129121
Drlee wrote:Another profoundly idiotic post


If Drlee says it's profoundly idiotic then it's probably something worth taking a look at. If Drlee says it's something worth taking a look at then it's probably profoundly idiotic.
#15129124
My only complaint about @Sivad is that I think he could make his points a little more civil. Aside from that, I think Sivad's points should be valued and looked at. It is only when we challenge the findings of scientific studies that we can address them properly, make adjustments, and get closer to what the truth is. This is the foundation of a properly functioning scientific discovery system.

This reminds me of short sellers in the stock market. A lot of people misunderstand them. They get labeled as parasites and monsters that want to take down companies. However, they are a vital part to a healthy stock market, because short sellers help to expose bad companies sooner rather than later. They are mechanism that helps keep companies in check (don't be sneaky and hide shit, because a short seller will find it and expose it). I think the same is important in science. People that properly criticize/question the "mainstream" science should be heard, assuming it's a reasonable complaint/criticism, which often, they are reasonable questions.

However, in my opinion the problem isn't entirely scientists, it's the way the media reports on science that's a bigger problem. After all, there are scientist coming out and supporting some of the stuff Sivad has been pointing out. I have personally seen numerous articles in my own field (electrical/computer engineering) where the tech media just completely misses the point and conclusion of some new technology/research paper/etc. etc. I mean, they can be wildly off base.

Last, I also do not believe that the misreporting on science is intentional (at least most of the time it's not). I really think it's just incompetence and science illiteracy and a hubris that mixed in with it. Often, the harder these so called journalists call them selves people of science, the more illiterate they are on science (especially the math/statistics stuff).
#15129135
Rancid wrote:People that properly criticize/question the "mainstream" science should be heard, assuming it's a reasonable complaint/criticism, which often, they are.

However, in my opinion the problem isn't entirely scientists, it's the way the media reports on science that's a bigger problem. After all, there are scientist coming out and supporting some of the stuff Sivad has been pointing out.


Social media is now censoring anyone who goes against covid-19's Sacred Doctrines even more so than they were before.

Twitter removed Scott Atlas' tweet about the mask bullshit.

Twitter Removes Face Mask Tweet From Trump’s Covid-19 Coronavirus Advisor Scott Atlas

As you can see, @albamonica described Atlas as “a neuroradiologist who doesn’t specialize in infectious disease or epidemiology.” Despite not having nearly as deep expertise in pandemic response as someone like Anthony Fauci, MD, who is the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or anyone who has been actually referred to as a pandemic expert before 2020, Atlas has apparently become one of Trump’s main Covid-19 coronavirus advisors.


Bill Gates doesn’t specialize in infectious disease or epidemiology either, but we take his ever word as if it had been handed down to Gates from YAHWEH himself.

I found this Off-Guardian article from a tweet from someone. When I clicked on it, I had to first be warned by Twitter that visiting this link was dangerous and that I had to click a tab way down below in small letters to acknowledge the risks of visiting a dangerous website. It's the same warning you find from Twitter when you click on a Bitchute link that someone has posted.

Facebook labels 2+2=4 “misinformation

Social media giant’s “fact-checkers” are selling falsehoods and re-writing history

n the 5th of October, the WHO’s Dr Michale Ryan claimed “about 10%” of the global population had been infected with Sars-Cov-2. With an alleged death toll of roughly 1 million, that puts the infection-fatality ratio at roughly 0.14%.

He said it, we reported it. The maths is not disputable. And yet Facebook has flagged it as “misinformation”:

This is based on an article by Health Feedback, an “independent” fact-checker, which is shoddy, inaccurate and dishonest.

I’ll take these points in reverse order.

1. They rely on old data for IFR estimates. Their choices of data sources are incredibly poor. They cite a twitter thread from February for the IFR of flu, instead of any studies or journals.

They also cite the CDC’s IFR number for COVID, without mentioning it’s based on a “meta analysis” from May which has never been peer-reviewed and included modelling data rather than being based purely on seroprevalence studies.

2. They ignore all the most recent IFR studies. Literally dozens of studies have been done on the IFR of Sars-Cov-2 to this point, many of them published and peer-reviewed in just the last few weeks. The average IFR in these studies has been much lower than 0.68% (usually between 0.1 and 0.2).

The “recent studies” healthfeedback cite are from June at the latest. They also never mention the immunological studies which suggest up to 80% of people may already have mucosal or cellular-based immunity, potentially dropping the IFR even further.

3. They don’t know how averages work. Health Feedback claim:

the 0.14% IFR estimate fails to account for the extensive IFR variability between populations due to a different distribution of risk factors such as age, ethnicity, access to healthcare, and underlying health conditions in each population


Which is total nonsense. Of course the IFR accounts for those differences. Some people are more at risk from Covid than others, some people are at almost no risk. The IFR takes those differences into account, and produces an average overall chance of death. That’s how averages work.

4. They LIE about what Dr Ryan said. In the introduction of the health feedback article, the author writes [our emphasis]:

yan said that, according to the WHO’s best estimates, the virus that causes COVID-19 could have infected up to 10% of the global population.

Adding later:

The claim incorrectly estimates the IFR for COVID-19, because it includes recent data and assumes that 10% of the population was infected by the virus, which was the upper bound of an estimate from the WHO of the global frequency of COVID-19 infections.

And then a third time:

The claim that COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the flu is based on a misinterpretation of the WHO’s estimate that a maximum of 10%

These are all LIES.

Ryan never, ever, said it was an “upper bound”. And the author of the “fact-check” knows this, because they very carefully never quote his actual words.

In fact, they go out of their way to avoid it. The only time they quote Dr Ryan directly is when they give him space to lie about what he said, which he did on October 12th [again, our emphasis]:

I believe what I said was that many studies had demonstrated that 10% or less of people had been infected

Dr Michael Ryan didn’t say “up to 10%”, he didn’t say it was a “maximum” or an “upper bound”. And he certainly didn’t say “10% or less”.

He said this:

Our current best estimates tell us that about ten percent of the global population may have been infected by this virus.

“About 10%” is their “current best estimate”.

“Current best estimate”, or “best guess”, is a point estimation. A statistical term with a solid definition. It means the most likely value of all posited values. It is not, and never has been, a “maximum” or an “upper bound”.

5. They cynically attempt to disguise this lie. Health Feedback lied, and they know they lied. More than that, they deliberately use a secondary source to try and cover-up their lie.

They don’t link to our original article, but instead link to an archived version of Zero Hedge’s reblog of the article.

Unlike our original, Zero Hedge does not quote Dr Michael Ryan directly OR link to the audio of him speaking. This means that Health Feedback chose to link to a source which does not show up their lie. That cannot be accidental.

They also label the author of the claim as “anonymous”, and never mention either myself or OffG, despite both my name and our URL being prominently displayed on Zero Hedge.

This, again, can only be done to make sure people don’t read our original article and see that Health Feedback lied.

Health Feedback deliberately and cynically lied about the claim, and then linked to second-hand sources to cover up that lie.

Is this “fact-checking”? Or is that manipulation and obfuscation?

Who is really spreading “misinformation” here?

•They LIE about what Dr Ryan said.
•They cynically attempt to disguise this lie.
•They don’t understand how averages work.
•They ignore all the most recent IFR studies.
•They rely on old data for IFR estimates

  • 1
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 69
Election 2020

Absolutely. He is so full of himself. I am getti[…]

My reflections on 2020 AD

Say what one will, when it's all said and done, Pr[…]

American Empire in Decline: https://youtu.be/AMAO[…]

I was lucky ....... Very lucky

Star Wars .... :eek: I don't know how anyone i[…]