America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by bgz. 27 replies replies.
Covid19 positivity rate is incredibly misleading
Speyside2 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,373
Yesterday roughly 1M people were tested, roughly .333% of our population.

Who goes and gets a test? Sick people, some people exposed to Covid19, and mandated people. Who doesn't get tested Healthy people and asymptomatic people. Common sense dictates in the daily untested population the infection rate is vastly lower than the infection rate of tested people.

No one knows what the true daily infection rate is. Just my opinion, it is magnitudes of order less than what is listed daily. Say the positivity rate of the USA was 5% for the last 20 days. That would mean every American was infected over those 20 days.

If my math or logic is wrong, please point it out to me.
RayR Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Well....there's that "333% of our population" thing. Just sayin'

But of course, the numbers are fudged to make it look like the positive rate of infections is greater than what they are.
Gotta keep the sheeple spooked. 😷🐏 🐑
frankj1 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
waste water is a better predictor of surges and fades in infections.
Stogie1020 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 5,320
The numbers can be misleading, but unfortunately, they can mislead in both directions... Unless we test EVERY person at the same time at a regular interval, we won't have truly accurate numbers.

Two obvious flaws (one in each direction):
1. Covid positive person who does not get tested due to no or mild symptoms never adds to the "positivity" rate...
2. Covid positive person who gets tested two or more times within a single infection period will likely get counted twice, falsely increasing the positivity rate ...
BuckyB93 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
You're just coming to this realization? This has been the deal along. Infection rates are only based on the number of people who think they might have caught the bug and have been tested. Those that are completely healthy and have no symptoms don't get tested.

It's like trying to track the number of broken legs. Only those that think they broke a leg and get x-rayed are counted and reported. The dude just walking down the street doesn't get x-rayed (no reason to) so he doesn't get counted as part of the non-broken leg population.

A real scientist would say... based on the number of people tested today, X% tested positive for COVID. Y% of the positive were serious infections and hospitalized BECAUSE of COVID, Z% were mild and told to stay home, rest, drink plenty of fluids and maybe prescribed a common antibiotic to hedge off any respiratory infection just in case."

But... our "experts" have told us that even those that don't show signs of COVID should be assumed that they have COVID so mask up and be fearful of those that don't have signs of COVID since having no symptoms means you probably have it and don't know it.

This is virus is so deadly that folks that don't have symptoms still have the Rona without knowing it. That is what the Kool-aid COVIDians tell us, that is what the MSM tells us, that is what the CDC tells us, that is what the WHO tells us...

Listen to the "experts"
Speyside2 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,373
Bucky, I look at much in the world and look for facts. Why did I post that article for you? It was statistically interesting about how many approved drugs that took a normal time frame for approval and had much more statistical evidence over a much longer time span fail, and or create significant aide effects, and or cause significant long term illness problems or death. I thought you would find the article interesting, factual, and logical.

I utilize proven factual science, and what I think to be unaltered raw data. I had not logically thought this through. I am tired of hearing the positivity rate is much higher. I used logical and critical thought to reach my conclusion. I always think I should point out when I was wrong on any issue that I made strong statements about or had a very strong opinion about.

That I only saw this now, I really don't give a f*ck about. What I do care about is truth, personal honesty/integrity, and my ability to change.
HockeyDad Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
frankj1 wrote:
waste water is a better predictor of surges and fades in infections.


You should stop drinking waste water.
HockeyDad Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
Using Covid infection rates to justify government actions has been a “Big Lie” from the very beginning.
HockeyDad Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
Every time you see a commercial from lawyers saying: “Have you ever been prescribed drug X? You may be eligible for….”

That’s was FDA approved drug and almost certainly not an emergency use authorization.
frankj1 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
HockeyDad wrote:
You should stop drinking waste water.

but it's so yummy as a mixer with that horse dewormer
8trackdisco Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,075
Moderna says their latest jab is good for children under the age of six.

In related news, watch for reports of women getting their fetuses injected with the Safe and Effective vaccines prior to aborting them.
MACS Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
frankj1 wrote:
but it's so yummy as a mixer with that horse dewormer


I understand you're making a joke.

But the "horse dewormer" has been proven quite effective in peer reviewed studies. Another case of "misinformation" at the jump becoming factually true after studies.

Lets forget the guys who created it (for people) were awarded the nobel prize.

Dr. John Campbell goes over the studies and tells you why they're trustworthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz4adJXLHgA&t=229s
BuckyB93 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
Why not shoot up the kids? Without the shot and if normally healthy they have a very, very small risk of bad things happening to them. But hey, inject them anyway. Plus the Moderna vax is "up to" 44% effective for preventing an infection for children 6 month to 2 yrs old and a whopping 38% effective for 2-5 yrs of age.

See, here's were the choice of words come in. "Up to 44%" as CNBC and Moderna state... is a spin to sound promising (not really, though, the odds are less than a coin flip). Contrast that verbiage with a headline that said "In a Best Case Controlled study a Maximum of 44%..." That doesn't sound so great now does it but it's still accurate.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/03/23/covid-moderna-vaccine-for-young-kids-up-to-44percent-effective-against-omicron.html

"None of the children developed severe illness from Covid and the majority of breakthrough cases were mild, according to the biotech company."

I didn't read the study but I'm guessing that this includes the control group that didn't get injected. Otherwise, I'm sure, they would have highlighted and emphasized that non-vax kids were knocking on death's door without the vax.

"Moderna will ask the Food and Drug Administration to grant emergency use authorization for the vaccine for children under 6 years old as soon as possible, CEO Stephane Bancel said in a statement."

Why not? Get them all injected with this serum even though it doesn't really work. We need more data on a different sector of the population. Plus if they get emergency use authorization (this is a key distinction), that means they get to implement it now and wait for further results later. (Does this ring a bell in anyone's memory banks?)

"The highly mutated omicron variant has significantly reduced vaccine effectiveness from its high-water mark of around 94% when the shots were first authorized for adults in December 2020, causing many more breakthrough infections."

But hey, why let a good scare go to waste... there's tons of money to be made here.

Meanwhile, Pfizer is lobbying for the FDA to authorize a 4th round of shots.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/13/health/pfizer-vaccine-4th-dose/index.html

"But protection after three doses is "not that good against infections" and "doesn't last very long" when faced with a variant like Omicron. It is necessary, a fourth (dose) for right now," Bourla told CBS.

Yep, you read that right and it might be worth repeating in case your head is in the sand. The makers of this miracle cure are admitting that 3 doses are not that good against infections and that it doesn't last very long. Digest that little morsel for a bit.

"We are just submitting those data to the FDA, and then we'll see what the experts also would say outside Pfizer," Bourla told CBS.

Here we go again with the "experts" B.S. Have we not had enough of this crap. Are we still going to continue or resurrect crap that has been going on for far too long?
Mike3316 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-05-2022
Posts: 329
HockeyDad wrote:
Every time you see a commercial from lawyers saying: “Have you ever been prescribed drug X? You may be eligible for….”

That’s was FDA approved drug and almost certainly not an emergency use authorization.

Which is exactly why big pharma got the gov't to mandate jabs while simultaniously granting them immunity from any liability. Great work if you can get it. :-"
Mike3316 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 02-05-2022
Posts: 329
BuckyB93 wrote:
Why not shoot up the kids? Without the shot and if normally healthy they have a very, very small risk of bad things happening to them. But hey, inject them anyway. Plus the Moderna vax is "up to" 44% effective for preventing an infection for children 6 month to 2 yrs old and a whopping 38% effective for 2-5 yrs of age.

See, here's were the choice of words come in. "Up to 44%" as CNBC and Moderna state... is a spin to sound promising (not really, though, the odds are less than a coin flip). Contrast that verbiage with a headline that said "In a Best Case Controlled study a Maximum of 44%..." That doesn't sound so great now does it but it's still accurate.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/03/23/covid-moderna-vaccine-for-young-kids-up-to-44percent-effective-against-omicron.html

Here we go again with the "experts" B.S. Have we not had enough of this crap. Are we still going to continue or resurrect crap that has been going on for far too long?

Another headline could (and would more accurately) read - assuming they weren't trying to put a good spin on it - "The Moderna 'vax' was 56% INEFFECTIVE at preventing COVID infection in children 6 mos to 2 yrs old and a STAGERRING 62% ineffective for ages 2-5."

And yes - they're going to continue to push 'boosters' for a vaccine that does not prevent the infection or transmition of the disease for which it is intended. By EVERY metric previously used in medicine these shots are a disaster. But the "experts" can't be wrong nor can they admit that over the past 2 years they have totally destroyed society as we know it and be held accountable for their dismal failure.
bgz Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Politics is boring...

Still talking about covid shots.

pssst, nobody gives a sh*t whether you get the jab or not.
BuckyB93 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
bgz wrote:
Politics is boring...

Still talking about covid shots.

pssst, nobody gives a sh*t whether you get the jab or not.


Unless you've been living under a rock, a lot of people including the biggest employer in the US - the government - gives a s*it if you got the jab or not .

In case you forgot (short term memory loss is a side effect of being a stoner), the government tried to force all private businesses with 100+ employees to get the jab along with all government employees (20+ million), contractors, subcontractors, and any organization that receives federal aid. Public schools are forcing students to get the jab - a rather large population in the US to the tune of 50+ million kids.

That's a pretty big swath of the population that gives a s*it if you got the jab or not with a vax that doesn't work and has no history of working. Also, we have essentially zero information on any long term side effects as a result of being injected with this unproven biotechnology.
BuckyB93 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
One away from
BuckyB93 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
(Covid) NINE! teen.
MACS Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
AND... Brewha... Brewha gives a sh*t if you get the shot. He says you're socially irresponsible and want to kill granny if you don't get it.

Wonder how he feels now that the laundry list of side effects is out? And that studies now show natural immunity is a lot better and Ivermectin actually works...

And who's not gonna have any of those side effects? *this guy*.
RMAN4443 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
MACS wrote:
AND... Brewha... Brewha gives a sh*t if you get the shot. He says you're socially irresponsible and want to kill granny if you don't get it.

Wonder how he feels now that the laundry list of side effects is out? And that studies now show natural immunity is a lot better and Ivermectin actually works...

And who's not gonna have any of those side effects? *this guy*.

or this guy...Beer
HockeyDad Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
Ima have them side effects by government mandate.
BuckyB93 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
RIP HockeyDad.

So if sometime down the road, people die as a result of side effects of the vax or a different illness that was exacerbated as a result of the vax... do we count them as a COVID death?
Mike3316 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-05-2022
Posts: 329
BuckyB93 wrote:
RIP HockeyDad.

So if sometime down the road, people die as a result of side effects of the vax or a different illness that was exacerbated as a result of the vax... do we count them as a COVID death?

Of course. They've counted basically anyone that has died of anything in the past 2 years as a "COVID related death." Heck - my wife's aunt passed away in the middle of 2020. She had stage 4 liver cancer. Becuase of the lockdowns she missed her chemo treatments for like 3 months - which essentiall killed her. The hospital actually had the nerve to mark on her death certificate her passing was 'covid -related'. When her daughter asked what the hell THAT meant since her mother had cancer and not COVID. The hosptial told her that becuase she didn't get her chemo as a result of COVID her death got counted as a 'covid-related' death. I'd be curious to know how many OTHER deaths in the past 2 years had something like that happen. OR like 2 other people that I know that passed away completely unrelated to COVID but after they were dead their families were told that they had tested positive for COVID post-mortem and therefore THEY too were counted as COVID deaths.
bgz Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Highly doubt wally world made anyone get a shot... highly doubt MACS' wife made him get one... yet.

And Mike... you should fit right in here with these guys that like to spew what ever carlson the tucker tells them to.

I love arguing with regurgitated thoughts... I love arguing with regurgitated thoughts.
HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
If you get the fourth booster it will make you not want to listen to Carlson Tucker.
bgz Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I guess I don't need one then!
Users browsing this topic
Guest