914 replies to this topic

[Mind]

The trouble with the Stanford test is that the antibody test can't differentiate between coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and coronavirus that causes the common cold and that makes the data worse than worthless... Unless you want to know if you've had a cold in the past. I don't have time to post references but for anybody that is interested, the info on this well known issue with the antibody test is easily found.

 

Is that the case with every antibody test being used around the world? What about the PCR testing for the active virus? All suspect?

 

I only ask becasue the Stanford data seems to go along with a lot of other randomized testing from other states and other countries.

 

In Boston. 100% of people tested in a homeless shelter were asymptomatic: https://www.boston25...HCUAARBO4YWO64/

 

Then there was the Navy ship where 60% of those tested were asymptomatic.

 

In the one outbreak town in Germany, they found the mortality rate was 0.37%

 

One hospital in Chicago found an infection rate among those tested for antibodies to be 30 to 50%.

 

I caught wind of another testing campaign in Kansas that had similar results - a much lower mortality rate.

 

This is obviously a more deadly disease with a higher mortality rate, but how much deadlier than the seasonal flu is important to determine for public policy decisions.

[xEva]

We are not actually past that point.

 

 

we are at the point when we have enough data we can trust to realize that our models were wrong and that our (overre)actions were based on wrong estimates.

 

It is high time we rethink our steps and be ready to quickly adjust them. Otherwise, the price we are paying, both in $ and lives --and for what?-- is just way too high.

 

Those losers at WHO and CDC should be called to answer in front of something like a Nuremberg trial. First they downplayed the danger, then they misinformed and procrastinated in calling it a pandemic. Finally they did it, as if an afterthought, and immediately overestimated the impact -- and this error, by far, is the worst of their crimes. They were supposed to be the experts. That dishevelled head of WHO is a grotesque symbol of the whole panel's incompetence.
 

Edited by xEva, 20 April 2020 - 09:54 PM.

[Hip]

we are at the point when we have enough data we can trust to realize that our models were wrong and that our (overre)actions were based on wrong estimates.

 

It is high time we rethink our steps and be ready to quickly adjust them. Otherwise, the price we are paying, both in $ and lives --and for what?-- is just way too high.

 

Those losers at WHO and CDC should be called to answer in front of something like a Nuremberg trial. First they downplayed the danger, then they misinformed and procrastinated in calling it a pandemic. Finally they did it, as if an afterthought, and immediately overestimated the impact -- and this error, by far, is the worst of their crimes. They were supposed to be the experts. That dishevelled head of WHO is  a grotesque symbol of the whole 'panel of experts' gross incompetence.
 

 

What data are you referring to which you say shows that the Imperial College London model, which the UK and US based their policy decisions on, is wrong?

 

 

 

The WHO's major error was on the face masks. But they offered good advice regarding urging nations to test as much as possible. 

 

And the WHO can only call out a pandemic when the pandemic actually occurs. They cannot call it earlier than that, otherwise if it a pandemic did not appear, they would be criticized for overreacting. 

 

It's up to nations to take precautionary steps when early warning signs of a possible pandemic appear. Countries like Taiwan have sophisticated pandemic detection units constantly scanning the world for possible incipient pandemics. Whereas Trump actually closed down the US pandemic response unit a few years ago. That unit probably cost next to nothing, but Trump closed it down. But other Western countries did no better than the US. Trump though at least did one good thing, with shutting down travel from China, even when the WHO criticized this.

 

I agree with you that Western countries did not act soon enough, and did not prepare in advance, but I do not agree that they overestimated the impact, once they finally got their act together.  

 

 

The US spends up to a third of a $trillion a year on counter-terrorism, scanning the world's communications networks for the slightest sign of terrorist plots against the West. But by and large, terrorist bombs and plots only kill a handful of people (9/11 being the exception). So that's a huge amount money spent on what is actually a very low number of deaths.

 

Whereas pandemics can kill tens of millions, yet when there were obvious signs of a potential pandemic in Wuhan back at the beginning of this year, Western leaders did nothing. 

 

So we spend $trillions to prevent a few people being blown up by terrorists, while putting our heads in the sand when a potential pandemic appears on the horizon. Go figure.

Edited by Hip, 20 April 2020 - 10:32 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Is that the case with every antibody test being used around the world? What about the PCR testing for the active virus? All suspect?

 

I only ask becasue the Stanford data seems to go along with a lot of other randomized testing from other states and other countries.

 

In Boston. 100% of people tested in a homeless shelter were asymptomatic: https://www.boston25...HCUAARBO4YWO64/

 

Then there was the Navy ship where 60% of those tested were asymptomatic.

 

In the one outbreak town in Germany, they found the mortality rate was 0.37%

 

One hospital in Chicago found an infection rate among those tested for antibodies to be 30 to 50%.

 

I caught wind of another testing campaign in Kansas that had similar results - a much lower mortality rate.

 

This is obviously a more deadly disease with a higher mortality rate, but how much deadlier than the seasonal flu is important to determine for public policy decisions.

 

I've read quite a few sources in recent days about issues with the antibody tests.  Various sources fault the false positives discussed below as due to coronavirus antibodies due to the common cold.  Here is a quick sample with a quick google (many more references on this issue have been discussed all over the net)  Bold mine:

 

https://www.nytimes....body-tests.html

 

 

Antibody Test, Seen as Key to Reopening Country, Does Not Yet Deliver

 

The tests, many made in China without F.D.A. approval, are often inaccurate. Some doctors are misusing them. The rollout is nowhere close to the demand.

 

Officials fear the effort may prove as problematic as the earlier launch of diagnostic tests that failed to monitor which Americans, and how many, had been infected or developed the disease the virus causes.

 

Criticized for a tragically slow and rigid oversight of those tests months ago, the federal government is now faulted by public health officials and scientists for greenlighting the antibody tests too quickly and without adequate scrutiny.

 

The Food and Drug Administration has allowed about 90 companies, many based in China, to sell tests that have not gotten government vetting, saying the pandemic warrants an urgent response. But the agency has since warned that some of those businesses are making false claims about their products; health officials, like their counterparts overseas, have found others deeply flawed.

 

And the federal guidance that does exist is so confusing that health care providers are administering certain tests unaware that they may not be authorized to do so. Some are misusing antibody test results to diagnose the disease, not realizing that they can miss the early stages of infection.

 

“People don’t understand how dangerous this test is,” said Michael T. Osterholm, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota. “We sacrificed quality for speed, and in the end, when it’s people’s lives that are hanging in the balance, safety has to take precedence over speed.”

 

Even as government agencies, companies and academic researchers scramble to validate existing tests and create better ones, there are doubts they can deliver as promised.

 

Most tests now available mistakenly flag at least some people as having antibodies when they do not, which could foster a dangerously false belief that those people have immunity.

 

See article for complete text

 

Edited by Hebbeh, 21 April 2020 - 12:15 AM.

[Hebbeh]

More:

 

https://www.npr.org/...n-miss-the-mark

 

The Food and Drug Administration doesn't set standards for these kinds of tests, but even those that meet the government's informal standard may produce many false answers and provide false assurances. The imperfect results could be a big disappointment to people who are looking toward these tests to help them return to something resembling a normal life.

 

Another problem is that test results are wrong much more frequently than you might expect. While tests may truthfully say they are more than 90% accurate, in practical use they can often perform far below that level.

 

The test he's using, produced by Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech in China, boasts a specificity of 99%, which means it only falsely says a blood sample contains antibodies against the coronavirus 1% of the time. But despite that impressive statistic, a test like that is not 99% correct, and in fact in some circumstances could be much worse.

 

"It is kind of a strange thing," admits Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a scientist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who studies issues surrounding tests and screening. "An antibody test is much more likely to be wrong in a population with very little COVID exposure."

 

Here's a simple way to look at it. Say you are running a test that gives five falsely positive results in a group of 100 people. That doesn't sound too bad. But consider this. If 5% of those 100 people were actually infected with the coronavirus, you should get five correct test results (true positives), along with the five false positive results.

 

While the manufacturer can rightly claim the test is 95% specific, in this population "the test will be wrong half the time," Welch says. "Half the people will be falsely reassured."

 

 

 

And test results can be considerably worse.

 

 

[xEva]

What data are you referring to which you say shows that the Imperial College London model, which the UK and US based their policy decisions on, is wrong?

 

 

I refer to all the data trickling in that show that the actual death rate is far lower than what has been assumed. It's the German data, the Texas data, the Santa Clara data. It's in line with our very first, the Diamond Princess data. They all converge to 1% or MUCH LESS. The highest death rate of 1% belongs to the Diamond Princess; it is in line with their much older cohort.

 

The apparent death rate, even though higher than 'regular' yearly flu outbreaks, does not call for closing down the world.

 

I am watching the Swedish numbers with interest. At the moment, they have 1.5k deaths, which is 3-20 times higher than similar in size countries with similar number of confirmed cases.  It would be interesting to see the same numbers in the end of the year, and then again in the end of 2021. My hunch is Swedes will fare very favorably among the rest.

 

 

What you say about Taiwan only confirms that the WHO proved itself worse than useless. The US is considered the world leader so in absence of the WHO leadership it was up to the CDC to call the shots. From what I have seen the rest of the world was only too happy to look up to the US and, by and large --even Russia!-- they just copied the Americans, often to a t, with a short delay. So it looks like those experts at the CDC have failed us all terribly. Unforgivably.

 

I hope we can still cut the losses if we act swiftly. Otherwise, the consequences of the mess we are still in the process of getting into are too awful to even contemplate.

Edited by xEva, 21 April 2020 - 12:39 AM.

[Hebbeh]

More:

 

https://www.usatoday...ded/2988440001/

 

Dr. Raed Dweik, chairman of the Respiratory Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said some of the tests he has seen aren't accurate enough to determine whether someone is truly immune to the coronavirus.

 

That's because antibodies for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 look very similar to other coronavirus antibodies that cause illnesses, such as the common cold.

 

Tests could mistakenly identify antibodies as being for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, producing a false positive. Dweik said it will take more time to develop a test that can accurately detect the right antibodies.

 

 

https://www.google.c...chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Hip]

I refer to all the data trickling in that show that the actual death rate is far lower than what has been assumed. It's the German data, the Texas data, the Santa Clara data. It's in line with our very first, the Diamond Princess data. They all converge to 1% or MUCH LESS. The highest death rate of 1% belongs to the Diamond Princess; it is in line with their much older cohort.
 
The apparent death rate (0.02-0.3%), even though somewhat higher than 'regular' yearly flu outbreaks, does not call for closing down the world.

High quality data (eg, age-adjusted Diamond Princess data) puts the death rate around the 0.5% mark, which is 5 times more lethal than seasonal flu at 0.1%. We will no doubt get more accurate figures as time goes on.

But it's not just the death rate which is an issue: it's also the fact that a pretty large percentage of the population with coronavirus require hospitalization. I've seen figures of 5% of infected people requiring hospitalization, and a third of those requiring ICUs. Most will survive, but it nevertheless puts massive strain on the hospital system, and so the system would without doubt collapse if measures were not put in place to limit the amount of people who are infected at the same time.

 

During regular seasonal flu, we do not have 5% of our population in hospital, so this makes coronavirus very different to flu.



But as I have mentioned before, all this talk of whether the severity of the pandemic warrants lockdown only distracts us from the real issue, which is the question of why the West did not follow the highly successful Asian model of pandemic control, which allowed them to minimize death, avoid lockdown and keep open for business.

This issue is not resolved. We in the West are still not following the Asian model. Since this pandemic may go on for at least another 12 months, if we do not start following the Asian model soon, we are going to cripple our economy AND have a lot of death.

So rather than argue whether the coronavirus death rate is 0.5% or 0.6% or whatever, we should be all writing to our leaders, urging them to follow the model of Asian countries like Taiwan.



 

What you say about Taiwan only confirms that the WHO proved itself worse than useless. The US is considered the world leader so in absence of the WHO leadership it was up to the CDC to call the shots. From what I have seen the rest of the world was only happy to look up to the US and, by and large --even Russia!-- they just copied the Americans, often to a t, just a few weeks later. So it looks like those experts at the CDC have failed us all terribly. Unforgivably.
 
I hope we can still cut the losses if we act swiftly. Otherwise, the consequences of the mess we are still in the process of getting in are too awful to even contemplate.

 

I think the WHO's major error was the face mask advice. But they've also given good advice. And don't forget it was the WHO that tackled the Ebola outbreak in Africa, and prevented it from becoming a pandemic. Nobody else seemed to care about Ebola at the time, just carrying on in their own indifferent ways, while the WHO was on the frontline, saving the world from an Ebola, with many of their doctors being killed by that virus. So the WHO may have made an error with face mask advice, but they do good, and Trump is very wrong to cut their funding.

 

Glad to see the US CDC showing some common sense, though, and overriding the WHO advice not to wear face masks or face coverings. The CDC now recommend some form of face covering in public. But it should go further: they should make it a law to cover your face in public, not just a recommendation. And the US government should be setting up new factories to make masks for everyone in the US.

 

The UK government is well behind the curve, and have still not recommended any form of face covering. The UK government don't seem to be thinking for themselves, they just follow the WHO advice, and the politicians extricate themselves from blame by saying "we are following the scientific advice". 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 21 April 2020 - 01:16 AM.

[Hip]

This article explains that the strains of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus found in the US are generally milder than the more deadly strains found in Europe. The exception seems to be New York, which has the more deadly European strains.

 

 

This may explain the lower death rate found in Santa Clara County, California, which was 0.12% to 0.2%. Ref: here.

 

Whereas the death rate found in Gangelt, Germany was 0.37%. Ref: here.

 

The death rate in New York will likely be similar to the Gangelt death rate.

 

Thus apart from in New York, the milder virus found in the US may allow for slightly less restrictions being placed on the populace, compared to Europe, which has a nastier virus, and thus needs to take more severe measures.

Edited by Hip, 21 April 2020 - 04:34 AM.

[smithx]

But most importantly, there seems a lack of understanding that by the time this pandemic is over, everyone 'destined' to die from this virus will die -- unless you sequester them and them only for 2-3 years.

 

This would be true only if there are no effective treatments developed in the interim, which is almost certainly not going to be the case.

With the massive number of clinical trials now underway, it's very likely that at least a few treatments will be found which will significantly reduce the mortality and morbidity rate of this disease.

 

So "flattening the curve" if done right, not only saves lives by reducing the load on hospitals, but also by buying time with which we can get a better understanding of the disease and develop better treatments.

 

 

[shp5]

So "flattening the curve" if done right, not only saves lives by reducing the load on hospitals, but also by buying time with which we can get a better understanding of the disease and develop better treatments.

 

yes. and even if it is only the simple act of lying patients in prone position and giving them O². I am very taken aback by the complete conviction with which xEva speaks, when still so much is unknown, and much of what is known is probably wrong or misleading.

[BlueCloud]

 

The US is considered the world leader so in absence of the WHO leadership it was up to the CDC to call the shots. From what I have seen the rest of the world was only too happy to look up to the US and, by and large --even Russia!-- they just copied the Americans, often to a t, with a short delay. 

 

You really, really, really need to start expanding your news sources beyond Fox news and Trump’s twitter feed. It is so ignorant and uninformed, it looks almost like a parody or a caricature. This level of ignorance shouldn’t exist anymore in 2020, in the age of Internet.

I’m out of this flat-earthers thread for good.

 

” Ignorance is strength “ 1984
 

Edited by BlueCloud, 21 April 2020 - 11:05 AM.

[pamojja]

An other update from the "Fact about Covid-19" article. Subsumming studies, experts and articles with less coverage in the mass-media. Please do check the given sources for yourself for verifying if it got it right.

 

April 21, 2020

Medical updates

• Stanford professor of medicine John Ioannidis explains in a new one-hour interview the results of several new studies on Covid19. According to Professor Ioannidis, the lethality of Covid19 is „in the range of seasonal flu“. For people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk even in the global „hotspots“ is comparable to the daily car ride to work, while for healthy people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk is „completely negligible“. Only in New York City was the mortality risk for persons under 65 years of age comparable to a long-distance truck driver.
• Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, warns in a new article that the damage caused by the lockdown could be greater than that caused by the virus. The peak of the epidemic had already been reached in most countries before the lockdown, Professor Heneghan argues.
• A new serological study in Los Angeles County found that 28 to 55 times more people had Covid19 than previously assumed (without showing significant symptoms), which reduces the danger of the disease accordingly.
• In the city of Chelsea near Boston, about one third of 200 blood donors had antibodies against the Covid19 pathogen. Half of them reported having experienced a cold symptom in the last month. In a homeless shelter near Boston, just over a third of the people tested positive, but nobody showed any symptoms.
• Scotland reports that half of the (stocked up) intensive care beds have remained empty. According to officials, the admission of new patients is „levelling off“.
• The emergency room in Bergamo’s municipal hospital was completely empty at the beginning of this week for the first time in 45 days. In the meantime, more people with other diseases than „Covid19 patients“ are being treated again.
• A report in the medical magazine Lancet comes to the conclusion that school closures to contain corona viruses have no or only a minimal effect.
• A nine-year-old French child with corona infection had contact with 172 people, but none of them were infected. This confirms earlier results that corona infection (unlike influenza) is not or hardly ever transmitted by children.
• The German emeritus microbiology professor Sucharit Bhakdi gave a new one-hour interview on Covid-19. Professor Bhakdi argues that most media have acted „completely irresponsibly“ during the Covid-19 epidemic.
• The German Initiative for Care Ethics criticises blanket bans on visits and painful intensive care treatment of nursing patients: „Even before Corona, around 900 old people in need of care died every day in German homes without being taken to hospital. In fact, palliative treatment, if at all, would be more appropriate for these patients. () According to all we know about Corona so far, there is not a single plausible reason to continue to value infection protection higher than the basic rights of citizens. Lift the inhuman visiting bans!“
• The oldest woman in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen died last week at the age of 109. She survived the „Spanish flu“ of 1918, was not corona-infected and „for her age she was doing very well“. The „corona isolation“, however, had „very much affected her“: „She faded without the daily visits of her family members.“
• The Swiss cardiologist Dr. Nils Kucher reports that in Switzerland currently about 75% of all additional deaths occur not in hospital but at home. This certainly explains the largely empty Swiss hospitals and intensive care units. It is also already known that about 50% of all additional deaths occur in nursing homes. Dr. Kucher suspects that some of these people die of sudden pulmonary embolism. This is conceivable. Nevertheless, the question arises as to what role the „lockdown“ plays in these additional deaths.
• The Italian health authority ISS warns that Covid19 patients from the Mediterranean region, who often have a genetic metabolic peculiarity called favism, should not be treated with antimalarial drugs such as chloroquine, as this can lead to death. This is a further indication that the wrong or overly aggressive medication can make the disease even worse.
• Rubicon: 120 expert opinions on Corona. Worldwide, high-ranking scientists, doctors, lawyers and other experts criticize the handling of the corona virus. (German)

Classification of the pandemic

In 2007, the US health authorities defined a five-tier classification for pandemic influenza and counter-measures. The five categories are based on the observed lethality (CFR) of the pandemic, from category 1 (<0.1%) to category 5 (>2%). According to this key, the current corona pandemic would probably be classified in category 2 (0.1% to 0.5%). For this category, only the „voluntary isolation of sick persons“ was envisaged as the main measure at the time.

In 2009, however, the WHO deleted serverity from its pandemic definition. Since then, in principle, every global wave of influenza can be declared a pandemic, as happened with the very mild „swine flu“ of 2009/2010, for which vaccines worth around 18 billion dollars were sold.

The documentary TrustWHO („Trust who?“), which deals with the dubious role of the WHO in the context of „swine flu“, was recently deleted by VIMEO.

Swiss chief physician Pietro Vernazza: Simple measures are sufficient

In his latest contribution, the Swiss chief physician of infectiology, Pietro Vernazza, uses the results of the German Robert Koch Institute and ETH Zurich to show that the Covid19 epidemic was already under control before the „lockdown“ was even introduced:

„These results are explosive: Both studies show that simple measures such as the renunciation of major events and the introduction of hygiene measures are highly effective. The population is able to implement these recommendations well and the measures can almost bring the epidemic to a halt. In any case, the measures are sufficient to protect our health system in such a way that the hospitals are not overburdened“.

Reproduction rate in Switzerland (ETH/Vernazza) Switzerland: Cumulative total mortality in the normal range

In Switzerland, cumulative total mortality in the first quarter (until April 5) was at the mean expected value and more than 1500 deaths below the upper expected value. Moreover, by the middle of April the total mortality rate was still more than 2000 deaths below the comparative value from the severe flu season of 2015 (see figure below).

Cumulative mortality compared to medium expected value 2010 to 2020 (BFS) Sweden: Epidemic ending even without lockdown

The latest figures on patients and deaths show that the epidemic is coming to an end in Sweden. In Sweden, as in most other countries, excess mortality occurred mainly in nursing homes that were not protected well enough, the chief epidemiologist explained.

Compared to other countries, the Swedish population may now benefit from higher immunity to the Covid19 virus, which could better protect them from a possible „second wave“ next winter.

It can be assumed that by the end of 2020, Covid19 will not be visible in the Swedish overall mortality. The Swedish example shows that „lockdowns“ were medically unnecessary or even counterproductive as well as socially and economically devastating.

Test-positive deaths in Sweden (FOHM/Wikipedia) Anecdotes vs. evidence

In the face of a lack of scientific evidence, some media increasingly rely on gruesome anecdotes in order to maintain fear in the population. A typical example are „healthy children“ who allegedly died of Covid19, but who later often turn out not to have died of Covid19, or who were seriously ill.

Austrian media recently reported about some divers who, six weeks after a Covid19 disease with lung involvement, still showed reduced performance and conspicuous imaging. One section speaks of „irreversible damage“, the next explains that this is „unclear and speculative“. It is not mentioned that divers should generally take a 6 to 12 month break after serious pneumonia.

Neurological effects such as the temporary loss of the sense of smell or taste are also often mentioned. Here too, it is usually not explained that this is a well-known effect of cold and flu viruses, and Covid19 is rather mild in this respect.

In other reports, possible effects on various organs such as kidneys, liver or brain are highlighted, without mentioning that many of the patients affected were already very old and had severe chronic pre-existing conditions.

Political updates

• WOZ: When fear rules. „With drones, apps and demo bans: In the wake of the Corona crisis, fundamental freedoms are being eroded. If we don’t watch out, they will remain so even after the lockdown – but the extreme situation also offers reason for hope.“ (German)
• Multipolar: What is the agenda? „The government praises itself, spreads slogans of perseverance and at the same time slows down the collection of basic data that would allow the reliable measurement of the spread and danger of the virus. In contrast, the authorities are acting quickly and decisively in expanding questionable instruments, such as new „corona apps“ for collective pulse measurement and contact tracing“. (German)
• Professor Christian Piska, expert for public law and legal tech in Vienna: „Austria has changed. Very much so, even if most people seem to just accept it. Step by step, whether the economy is booming or not, we are suddenly living with police-state conditions and severe restrictions on our basic and human rights, which would be a perfect match for dictatorial regimes. () This is Pandora’s box, which once opened, may never be closed again.“ (German)
• More than 300 scientists from 26 countries warn of „unprecedented surveillance of society“ by corona apps violating data protection. Several scientists and universities have already withdrawn from the European contact tracing project PEPP-PT due to a lack of transparency. Recently it became known that the Swiss company AGT is involved in the project, which had previously set up mass surveillance systems for Arab states.
• In Israel, about 5000 people (with a distance of 2m each) demonstrated against the measures of the Netanyahu government: „They talk about an exponential increase of  corona cases, but the only thing that increases exponentially are the people who stand up to protect our country and our democracy“.
• Madrid-based Irish journalist Jason O’Toole describes the situation in Spain: „With the military visible on the streets of Spain it’s hard not to describe the situation as martial law in all but name. George Orwell’s Big Brother is alive and well here, with the Spanish police monitoring everybody using CCTV or by flying drones overhead. A staggering 650,000 people were fined and 5,568 arrested during the first four weeks alone. () I was shocked when I watched one video clip of a cop using heavy force to arrest a mentally ill young man who was apparently just walking home with bread.“
• OffGuardian: The disturbing developments in UK policing.
• In a new article, US investigative journalist Whitney Webb writes on „How The US National Security State Is Using Coronavirus To Fulfill An Orwellian Vision“: „Last year, a government commission called for the US to adopt an AI-driven mass surveillance system far beyond that used in any other country in order to ensure American hegemony in artificial intelligence. Now, many of the “obstacles” they had cited as preventing its implementation are rapidly being removed under the guise of combating the coronavirus crisis.“
• In a previous article, Whitney Webb already dealt with the central role of the „Center for Health Security“ at Johns Hopkins University in the current pandemic management as well as its role in previous pandemic and bioweapons simulations and its close links to the US security apparatus.
• The idea of using a pandemic to expand global surveillance and control instruments is not new. As early as 2010, the American Rockefeller Foundation described a „lock step scenario“ in a working paper on future technological and social developments, in which current developments are anticipated with impressive accuracy (pages 18ff).
• „The truth about Fauci“: In a new interview, US virologist Dr. Judy Mikovits talks about her experiences with Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is currently playing a major role in shaping the US government’s Covid19 measures.
• Aid organisations warn that „far more people“ will die from the economic consequences of the measures than from Covid-19 itself. Forecasts now predict that 35 to 65 million people will fall into absolute poverty, and many of them are threatened with starvation.
• In Germany, 2.35 million people are predicted to be on short-time working in 2020, more than twice as many as after the financial crisis of 2008/2009.

Graphs and rest at site..

 

Edited by pamojja, 22 April 2020 - 09:53 AM.

[BlueCloud]

An other update from the "Fact about Covid-19" article. Subsumming studies, experts and articles with less coverage in the mass-media. Please do check the given sources for yourself for verifying if it got it right.

 

yes, the link to the given sources seem right. But this mysterious "Swiss Propaganda Research" seems to be itself a propaganda group, with a severe bias. There is no information anywhere about who they are , apart from a page saying "SPR is run by independent academics and receives no external funding." . 

ALL the articles they list seem to be entirely cherry picked with the sole intent to try to prove that the coronavirus is no more significant than a simple flu, that all the measures adopted by these countries are more dangerous than the virus. Nothing in this website seems neutral. For all we know the website could be run by Scientology or any sort of ideological lobby group. Anyone in the world can create a website and call themselves "Swiss Research academics that receives no external funding" 

 

Any group/website that pretends to be a neutral "Propaganda Research " with no identification whatosever on who runs it and who writes in it , you can be sure that they ARE some sort of propaganda group. For what purpose? I have no idea.

 

 

 

 

( and oh, yes, I said I'm out of this thread, so this is my last post. I apologize to those 5 people who felt offended by the idea that God's word..umm.. I meant Trump's Twitter feed alone isn't a sufficient source of information about the rest of the world. And for insinuating that the rest of the world is laughing at him. Not at all. Everyone is looking UP to him. Because he knows a lot of words. Like, many many words, some of them are great words. A lot of scientists and doctors around the world ask him "Donald, how come you know all these things and all these words ?" . Well, it's because he knows a lot of things, and you know, maybe that's how he knows so many many things. And when you know so many things and so many words, they let you grab them by the pussy. I mean the words, not the scientists. Although maybe the scientists too... I don't know.. )

Edited by BlueCloud, 22 April 2020 - 02:14 PM.

[pamojja]

Any group/website that pretends to be a neutral "Propaganda Research " with no identification whatosever on who runs it and who writes in it , you can be sure that they ARE some sort of propaganda group. For what purpose? I have no idea.

 

As usual. If one never tried to verify the sources of mass-media articles, obviously twisted to neglect an important part for a comprehensive understanding. One doesn't have any arguments against more authorative data, and just takes to sweeping character assassinations instead.

 

All facts, reported in the mass-media or posted by anonymous investigative jounalists, are standing by themself. And can only proven wong with better data and arguments. Not ad hominems.
 

Edited by pamojja, 22 April 2020 - 04:53 PM.

[ymc]

Based on the available information, an age-adjusted death rate around 0.5-1% is the consensus of the scientific community.

There was a research that concluded South Korea only detected 50% of the cases, this will mean it also has a 0.5% death rate.

I don't think there is much room to further discuss the true death rate under a unbroken healthcare system.

 

In reality, what makes coronavirus scary is not the death rate but the 5.7 R0 that leads to exponential growth that overwhelms the

healthcare system no matter how advanced it is.

 

Initially, CDC and the western medical community believed 2.2 R0 estimate from Chinese research. Therefore, there was quite a strong

voice to just treat it as a more serious flu and shoot for herd immunity. As a result, we are at what we are now.

[pamojja]

[Heisok]

Hi pamojja, I know that we have to do the work.

 

Never-the-less a quick summary of what you are posting would help?

 

Many post expect us to blindly follow links. Almost a click bait situation.

 

Normally, that is not how you operate.

 

Thanks.

[pamojja]

The unique perspective of an US respirator operator. Following an interview by https://www.corbettreport.com/ with https://off-guardian.org
 

[gamesguru]

The US sure is leading the way.  Soon we'll be leading in deaths per capita... this MIT model is predicting 2k deaths a day for about 3 weeks, then closer to 1k for a while after that

[Hip]

The unique perspective of an US respirator operator. Following an interview by https://www.corbettreport.com/ with https://off-guardian.org

 

Pamojja, why are your coronavirus references so Mickey Mouse? Surely you can do better than that. 

 

In terms of media bias, the OffGuardian has been rated as:

We rate OffGuardian a Strong Conspiracy and Moderate Pseudoscience website that also promotes Russian propaganda

 

 

 

Coronavirus Science According to Mickey Mouse

 

 

 

I suggest checking your coronavirus sources with mediabiasfactcheck.com, and make sure they are not a pseudoscience or conspiracy theory media site. And it would be good to if they were also high on the scale of factual reporting.

 

It's interesting that one of the highest sources on the scale of factual reporting is PBS Newshour, which is classed as VERY HIGH on factual reporting, and also they do not have any strong political bias (they have a slight to moderate liberal bias).

Edited by Hip, 24 April 2020 - 01:18 AM.

[gamesguru]

Take the Fox News detox challenge, 30 days of pure NPR and PBS

[BlueCloud]

As usual. If one never tried to verify the sources of mass-media articles, obviously twisted to neglect an important part for a comprehensive understanding. One doesn't have any arguments against more authorative data, and just takes to sweeping character assassinations instead.

 

All facts, reported in the mass-media or posted by anonymous investigative jounalists, are standing by themself. And can only proven wong with better data and arguments. Not ad hominems.
 

character assassinations ? You do not find a website that calls themselves “Swiss Propaganda Research by a group of academics” , whith zero information on who these academics are, even a tiny little bit odd ? That sounds perfectly normal and ordinary to you ?  I have NEVER seen a serious academic journal or academic research group that hides the names of the authors, or doesn’t at least provide some sort of credentials on where they’re based, what university, etc...Never. Even researchers in sensitive fields like cryptography or IT security list their credentials.

 

i mean, this isn’t just some ordinary Wordpress blog that says “ hi, I’m just ordinary Joe Blow and i want to tell you my view on things”. Most of us here are also giving our opinions, but we do not pretend to be the “ Luxembourg Geopolitical Research Association , by a group of academics with no external funding”

Why should we not question that, since it’s extremely unusual ? It’s astonishing that the thought hasn’t even crossed your mind.
i did say that the links do seem to point out to the sources they mention. That is not what is in question.

 

( and there was no ad-hominem, the last part of my post wasn’t aimed at you )
 

Edited by BlueCloud, 24 April 2020 - 08:59 AM.

[BlueCloud]

Some new ideas in fighting the virus suggested by Mr Trump : bringing powerful light or UV inside the body ( thru skin, or maybe some other way ) , and injecting a disinfectant like bleach. Very interesting innovative ideas. Since “all countries just copy the americans, with a short delay”, no doubt research will start swiftly on this, with great success.

https://www.bbc.com/...canada-52407177

 

I’ll humbly admit I may have underestimated him in my previous posts. Mea Culpa.

Edited by BlueCloud, 24 April 2020 - 08:15 AM.

[pamojja]

Sure, when one doesn't have any arguments against such giants in integrity, from John Ioannidis to Edward Snowden, one is only left with redicule of those reporting about.

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 24 April 2020 - 10:07 AM.

[BlueCloud]

Sure, when one doesn't have any arguments against such giants in integrity, from John Ioannidis to Edward Snowden, one is only left with redicule of those reporting about.

 

Pamojja, are you behind that website ? because frankly I don't quite figure out how you could rationally expect people to believe any group or entity that claims to be what they are ( especially with grandiose authoritative claims such as Swiss Propaganda Research Academics), just because it said so on their page  while not providing any verifiable credentials whatsoever. And then comparing it ironically to Snowden ( who knows a thing or two about manipulation and fake entities on the Internet. And is a real person with a real name )... Giants of integrity are recognized as such precisely because we can verify their credentials and verify they are who they claim to be.

The only options I can think of are :

 

- You are very naive or new to the Internet ( but I don't believe you are )

- You are involved with that website, but for some reason you don't want to say so.

- Another option you may provide ? Is there something we're missing here ?

 

 

Edited by BlueCloud, 24 April 2020 - 11:14 AM.

[pamojja]

- Is there something we're missing here ?

 

Checking the sources? Which ironically contains experts from John Ioannidis to Edward Snowden, beside so many others. to all claims giving sources, for verifying oneself. And you just admitted to never even having looked at.

 

 

An other update from the "Fact about Covid-19" article. Subsumming studies, experts and articles with less coverage in the mass-media. Please do check the given sources for yourself for verifying if it got it right.

 

April 21, 2020

Medical updates

• Stanford professor of medicine John Ioannidis explains in a new one-hour interview the results of several new studies on Covid19. According to Professor Ioannidis, the lethality of Covid19 is „in the range of seasonal flu“. For people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk even in the global „hotspots“ is comparable to the daily car ride to work, while for healthy people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk is „completely negligible“. Only in New York City was the mortality risk for persons under 65 years of age comparable to a long-distance truck driver.
• Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, warns in a new article that the damage caused by the lockdown could be greater than that caused by the virus. The peak of the epidemic had already been reached in most countries before the lockdown, Professor Heneghan argues.
• ...
• ...
• ...
• ...

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the corona crisis is used for the massive and permanent expansion of global surveillance. The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist Professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.

 

Graphs and rest at site..

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 24 April 2020 - 11:40 AM.

[gamesguru]

For people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk even in the global „hotspots“ is comparable to the daily car ride to work, while for healthy people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk is „completely negligible“.

 

That's just not even true, and John just lost some credibility.

 

There are about 3000 auto-related deaths in the US per day.  Even if my age bracket can only expected 300 deaths in the US per day due to COVID-19, that means it's not negligible.. it's just 10x as unlikely as leading causes like heart disease.  Negligible means 100-1000x at least.

 

The only reason he's partially correct is the rigorous social distancing measures we've tried to impose.  But it's too soon to let up the gas now.

 

The way I can describe it is you're parachuting out of a plane and you think it's going well.  "Oh, this parachute has slowed my descent. Guess I can take it off now!"

[BlueCloud]

Checking the sources? Which ironically contains experts from John Ioannidis to Edward Snowden, beside so many others. to all claims giving sources, for verifying oneself. And you just admitted to never even having looked at.

 

No, for the nth time, I'm not talking about the sources or the articles. I'm talking about the freaking website "Swiss Propaganda Research", like you know, websites don't make themselves, and you keep pretending not understanding that . It's ok, it's clear  that you are behind it or involved with it. Which is no big deal, but you could just say so.

[pamojja]

My own updated calculation of the state all countries affected:

 

15.04a.png

15.04b.png

15.04c.png

 

4 weeks ago (18 March) - there were 20 countries that had tested at least 1000 Covid positives. Only Italy had a somewhat unusual mortality rate at that time, compared to its very low rate in 2017. 5% of countries.
 
9 days later (27 March), there were already 43 countries with more than 1000 Covid positives tested. Of these, the countries with high pneumonia mortality have risen to 3 (San Marino, Italy and Spain). 7% of countries.
 
Only 5 days later (April 1st) there were 50 countries with more than 1000 positive covids, and already 7 countries with remarkably high mortality. 14% of the countries affected. A doubling in 5 days!
 
Now after 2 more weeks 87 countries with more than 1000 positive tested. 14 countries with higher mortality. 16% of the countries affected. It has really slowed down!

 

10 days later there are 110 countries with above 1000 positives. Only 13 countries with higher mortality. With 13% of countries affected, its now clearly declining already. (below shreenshots in 4 parts, click each to enlarge and see details)

 

 25.04a.png   125.65KB   1 downloads

 25.04b.png   110.83KB   0 downloads

 25.04c.png   110.8KB   0 downloads

 25.04d.png   107.84KB   0 downloads

 

The majority of all by covid affected countries - 97 (83.4% of the world population)- experienced only 30% of the 2017 average influencia and pneumonia mortality-rate (calculated for those affected countries and the individual time period). Only 13 countries (4.1% of the world-population) experienced till now an in average 7 times higher mortality. For all these 110 covid-affected countries that amounts to 20% higher mortality than in 2017.

 

However, calculated for all countries of this world it is now only at about 60% of those who died in 2017 of influenzia/pneumonia in 2017 in equal periods.

 

I could identify 25 countries with lockdown and daily deaths plateauing, in average after 14 days.
On the opposite site could only identify 6 countries where no information about lockdown has been puplished.

The difference from the first covid-death untill deaths plateaued between these 2 groups was 30 days with lockdown, and 33 days without lockdown.

That in itself is not a significant difference at all. Especially since it's a comparison of 25 to only 6 very disparate countries.

Also at this point it simply can not be known, if regions now with lower deaths wont experience a much worse second peak. Especially with desparate attemps to flatten the curve (ie. strict lockdown, instead of sensible meassures shown to work already for example in Taiwan, South Korea, Hongkong and Japan).

 

Now we stand at 94 countries with clear lockdowns. Only 16 countries where I couldn't find any information about lockdowns implemented.

 

With lockdown since the first reported covid death: 26 days untill mortality plateaued.

 

Without lockdown: 19 days.

 

Again, I wouldn't read too much into this result. Lockdowns have been mostly implemented because of panic by being worse affected. And therefore clearly self-selected for much worse outcome. Additonally, 31 countries reached their highest mortality within the last 10 days only, and therefore might increase again (almost all under lockdown).

 

Those mortality numbers - though not really reliable in itself, since other then ever before covid-deaths are even counted by mere suspicion - do also absolutely not lent themself for the justification of brude-lockdowns. In comparison to more targeted meassures (social distancing, mask where impossible, protection of the most vulnerable etc..).
 

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 25 April 2020 - 12:36 AM.