re: So all the new science is pointing out COVID isn't as bad as the normal Flu

quote:

---

Lol, grownup here youngster. A virus don't give 2 shits about what year it is and no amount of technology will do any good for something that has never been seen. Just ask 1918, 1890, 1770, 1720, 1545, 1346, 541...and on an on.

---

Of all the dumb things I've read in the past few weeks, this might be the winner. You don't think technology can speed up the ability to find treatments, vaccines, etc.? Technology can't help save patients?

quote:

---

Paul Allen

---

Calling someone else stupid? Pot meet kettle

quote:

---

Wasn't this the guy who used a bunch of bunk tests that have been banned for being unreliable?

Buckeye vol has been on this dudes arse

---

These Stanford scientist’s have been doing a lot of poor science lately.

And I wouldn’t say the test is necessarily unreliable, if the manufacturer’s data is correct, although the fact that it’s an unapproved Chinese test and banned from exports makes me skeptical.

That being said, the scientists failed to calculate the correct specificity for the test (e.g., LGG & LGM both negative) and very unscientifically picked the highest single one (LGG, 369/371=99.46%) but failed to include the other test (LGM, 368/371=99.19%), and worse failed to include the COMBINATION OF THE TWO, which we can estimate as the product of the two (0.9946*0.9919=99.66%, ~366/371), which means about 45 of the 50 positive cases are false positive.

So their crude prevalence rate of 1.5% (50/3330) is actually 10 times lower (0.15%; 5/3330), which is only 3 times the case confirmed infection rate. And maybe some convenient adjustment can get it to 5 times that, but that’s a long ways from 50 times the infection rate that they estimated.

And that’s all on top of a sampling process that recruited individuals via targeted faceboook ads who then had to volunteer to join the study, which likely resulted in a sample that was more likely to be infected than the general population.

It’s bad science, but people eat it up apparently. And the researchers have been in the news for weeks and penning OPEDs with arguments that conveniently supported what their poor science found. In fact, they made even more asinine claims (0.01% IFR, which is now impossible since that would mean about 390 million infected in the USA alone).

quote:

---

I genuinely believe that some people on here want this to be bad so they can say gotcha.

---

Not at all. I think people would get a lot further if they were honest and said something like...

This virus is probably going to cause a good amount of pain and suffering over the next 12-18 months but we all need to get back to work soon to prevent a lot more additional pain and suffering.

Rather than

It’s muh flu bro

quote:

---

How stupid do you all feel

---

quote:

---

be cause

---

Typo idiot

quote:

---

m curious if these small scale studies are really indicators but I would not be surprised, the main concern here wasn't that the mortality would be so much greater than the flu but that it would be more infection therefore create certain problems for the medical system and kill many more

---

This.

And this has been repeated one million fricking times and yet there are still STILL people so fricking stupid that they can’t comprehend it, like the OP, and keep making idiotic brain-dead opinions about it.

Keep preaching, Idiot OP.

Many of us have, sadly most of the nation are weak bitches and scared

gee. brilliant. there is no vaccine. that is the problem and this spreads easier than the flu. stop listening to donald.

quote:

---

Why not go back in your post history and actually read the articles from the threads you are posting in?

---

Which articles would you like me to read lmao.