MIT researchers develop an AI model that can detect Covid-19 in asymptomatic individuals

[TheBigFatClown]

You know every time you post I picture you rolled up in a ball cowering under a bed in a room layered in Duct tape and clutching a picture of your Mommy.

Hehehe, I'm not sure what to make of your comment. I thought that was all the people who fear COVID-19. I haven't flinched since it came on the scene so....I dunno...there ya go. Did you misquote the wrong person? Please, share some of your thoughts with us.

 

[Endymio]

Written by "some journalists" with clearly stated sources.

Yes, but the sources don't say what the journalists claim they do. The study is publicly published, and you can read it yourself. I understand why this particular author may wish to misrepresent the results, but why assist him?

 

[scavengerspc]

Hehehe, I'm not sure what to make of your comment. I thought that was all the people who fear COVID-19.

True a lot of people are afraid of the pandemic. But you and those like you fear pretty much anything around you. And I am sure the pandemic is not the first time.

 

[Squid Surprise]

You do know that you don't treat the flu, don't you?

You treat the symptoms that the flu causes. Same with covid. You treat the symptoms. There is no cure for the flu. The vaccines out there for the flu are only about 30-40% effective, if that. And that's if they guessed correctly as to what strain(s) might be more influential.

I haven't had a flu shot for decades and I haven't gotten sick from the flu either. I tend to be a carrier for a lot of things - such as Streptococcus bacteria.

Wife and daughter, they always get flu shots and they always come down with the flu. My son and I don't. He'll probably be a lot like me and be a carrier for a lot of things.

I probably had covid go through my system as well back in mid/late November and early December last year when folks at my work were getting awfully sick and after being tested for the flu, they were all told it wasn't the flu. It was some "other" virus that's been going around.

The "first" case of covid wasn't in Wuhan like you've been told, it's been circulating for a some time now.

The flu shot is actually between 40-60% effective..

Vaccine Effectiveness: How Well Do Flu Vaccines Work? | CDC

Influenza vaccine effectiveness questions and answers - CDC

www.cdc.gov

And while we’d obviously prefer 95-100%, that’s still a VAST improvement over 0...

While I’m glad you haven’t gotten sick - there’s no telling how many people HAVE gotten the flu from being in contact with you... or being in contact with someone who was in contact with you... understand?!?

That’s how diseases work...

Now please, either post something that has some basis is scientific fact (and provide the link!), or stop trolling and spreading misinformation.

Real people are getting sick and dying every day - there were just under 1000 cases in Ontario today - and many think Canada is doing better than most places!

 

[Endymio]

Trying to reach herd immunity by largely “living your life” will sacrifice a large segment of our society

With Covid's current case mortality rate, and the fact that herd immunity is generally reached at about 40% of the population, the total US death toll equates to about 480,000. Which means, starting from today, your lifetime risk of death from the common flu is, for anyone less than age 65 or so, higher than it is from Covid. And, for children, even your current risk of death from the flu is higher than it is from Covid.

A vaccine won't change that Covid figure sharply, as one must assume its efficacy will be somewhere in the 50-75% range, and certain areas of the country (I.e. NYC) are already near herd immunity anyway.

The flu shot is actually between 40-60% effective..

Did you not read his post? Flu shots aren't a treatment for the flu.

 

[Endymio]

there’s no telling how many people HAVE gotten the flu from being in contact with you... or being in contact with someone who was in contact with you... understand?!?

There are well over 1,000 infectious diseases. Do you take all possible steps to prevent your spreading each and every one of them? I already know the answer to that is no, and that you yourself have almost certainly infected countless others with diseases that they then passed on to others, with potentially fatal results.

Given the propensity with which you judge others, how do you live with yourself?

 

[Squid Surprise]

There are well over 1,000 infectious diseases. Do you take all possible steps to prevent your spreading each and every one of them? I already know the answer to that is no, and that you yourself have almost certainly infected countless others with diseases that they then passed on to others, with potentially fatal results.

Given the propensity with which you judge others, how do you live with yourself?

So you can’t argue with my points and just feel like attacking me... that’s fine... feel free to explain again why having a 70,000 seat stadium full of unmasked fans is a great idea when you get the time...

I’m a teacher - and I teach hygiene to all of my students.

And for any disease that there is a publicly available and recommended vaccine, I get the vaccine... Alas, I wish others would too.

Yes, I understand there are no treatments for the flu or covid in the strict definition of the word - but having a vaccine for the flu (not to mention 100 years of experience with it) makes Covid the far worse threat.

 

[Endymio]

feel free to explain again why having a 70,000 seat stadium full of unmasked fans is a great idea when you get the time...

I already tried to explain it to you. Pay attention this time. Those fans are all extremely low risk individuals, and furthermore they are outside. Their risk of transmission is extremely low, and a mask will not alter that. Let them enjoy their game in peace. You would do far better to worry about the woman in the grocery store next to you who, though she wears a mask, touches it often without washing her hands.

You seem blithely unaware that these lockdowns do not come free of charge, but have a very real cost: mental, emotional, and even physical. Suicide, depression and other mental health issues, homicide and violent crime, divorce, spousal abuse -- these are all sharply up. Tens of millions of children have lost a year of school and many of them will never recover from the developmental issues resulting from a year of social isolation. And all the above ignores the economic cost: hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their livelihoods, their small businesses, and their life savings. The cost is far too high, especially given the essential ineffectiveness of these lockdowns. Mankind has never been able to eradicate a highly infectious respiratory disease in the past, and Covid will be no different -- as more and more nations in Europe are finding out, as they go back into a second wave of lockdowns.

having a vaccine for the flu (not to mention 100 years of experience with it) makes Covid the far worse threat.

Wrong again. "The flu" is actually an amalgam of many thousands of different influenza strains, constantly mutating, which explains why you need a new vaccine every year, and even then the shot is sometimes less than 30% effective. Covid presently at least is mutating rather slowly, and unless that changes, the Covid threat will essentially vanish within a year, whereas the flu will keep on killing for the rest of our lifetimes.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I already tried to explain it to you. Pay attention this time. Those fans are all extremely low risk individuals, and furthermore they are outside. Their risk of transmission is extremely low, and a mask will not alter that. Let them enjoy their game in peace. You would do far better to worry about the woman in the grocery store next to you who, though she wears a mask, touches it often without washing her hands.

You seem blithely unaware that these lockdowns do not come free of charge, but have a very real cost: mental, emotional, and even physical. Suicide, depression and other mental health issues, homicide and violent crime, divorce, spousal abuse -- these are all sharply up. Tens of millions of children have lost a year of school and many of them will never recover from the developmental issues resulting from a year of social isolation. And all the above ignores the economic cost: hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their livelihoods, their small businesses, and their life savings. The cost is far too high, especially given the essential ineffectiveness of these lockdowns. Mankind has never been able to eradicate a highly infectious respiratory disease in the past, and Covid will be no different -- as more and more nations in Europe are finding out, as they go back into a second wave of lockdowns.

Wrong again. "The flu" is actually an amalgam of many thousands of different influenza strains, constantly mutating, which explains why you need a new vaccine every year, and even then the shot is sometimes less than 30% effective. Covid presently at least is mutating rather slowly, and unless that changes, the Covid threat will essentially vanish within a year, whereas the flu will keep on killing for the rest of our lifetimes.

And I replied to that argument already - maybe you should re-read all of MY posts on this thread?
Low risk is still risk - and multiplied by 70,000 makes any risk HIGH risk.

And the vast majority of Covid cases are spread through droplets, not touch - but yes, you should still be careful at the grocery store.

Lastly - I am not unaware of the cost of a lockdown - I simply believe (and most governments agree as well) that it’s worth it.

My grandparents went through the Holocaust - they were effectively in a 5+ year lockdown. While they were mentally scarred, they still lived full lives with many children, grand children and great grand children...

To be “forced” into this Covid lockdown isn’t nearly as bad - I think we can “suck it up”, save lives, and be back to fairly close to normal once a vaccine has been deployed successfully .

 

[Endymio]

Low risk is still risk - and multiplied by 70,000 makes any risk HIGH risk.

Any risk? Let's examine the consequences of your argument. If any risk is high when multiplied by a large group of people, then the risk from the flu, or bacterial meningitis, or any of a hundred other infectious diseases is far too high to ever allow people in a stadium. Ever. What about the risk of a terrorist attack? Or fire? Or a building collapse? Doesn't allowing people to congregate in mass make the risk of these events much higher, and the possible results more deadly? How in the world did we ever ignore this issue so long?

To be “forced” into this Covid lockdown isn’t nearly as bad [as the Holocaust]. I think we can "suck it up".

So you're saying that anything less horrific than the Holocaust should be merely "sucked up"?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Any risk? Let's examine the consequences of your argument. If any risk is high when multiplied by a large group of people, then the risk from the flu, or bacterial meningitis, or any of a hundred other infectious diseases is far too high to ever allow people in a stadium. Ever. What about the risk of a terrorist attack? Or fire? Or a building collapse? Doesn't allowing people to congregate in mass make the risk of these events much higher, and the possible results more deadly? How in the world did we ever ignore this issue so long?

So you're saying that anything less horrific than the Holocaust should be merely "sucked up"?

I do love the moving of goal posts... but sure, I‘ll bite...

No, I don‘t think a gathering of 70,000 makes for “high risk” during normal times...

But it IS a high risk activity to go to a football game at this time when there are 70,000+ fans all sitting inches from each other.

And no, I’m not saying that anything other than the Holocaust is acceptable.... just giving something to compare to... yes, the lockdown is damaging - but again, is it as damaging as losing hundreds of thousands of lives? The US has already lost more than 230,000 people - isn’t that enough?

 

[scavengerspc]

I do love the moving of goal posts

Well, then you are in luck. Because you are in a back and forth with its king.

 

[PEnnn]

A statement true of the flu and of all infectious diseases. We could in fact eradicate every infectious disease known to man -- diseases which cumulatively kill far more individuals than Covid -- if we simply stopped all human interaction. However, we're smart enough to realize that the negative aspects of such a course far outweigh the benefits. Or, I should say most of us are smart enough to understand that.

The cemeteries are full of people who thought they were smart.

And people who think the flu is more serious than COVID are really not smart either.

Yeah, and that pesky "negative aspect" has reached a 1/4 million dead in the US alone, but don't worry, the whole thing will stop the day after the elections.

 

[Endymio]

No, I don‘t think a gathering of 70,000 makes for “high risk” in normal times.

You said, "any risk" times 70,000 is a high risk. Now you're saying something entirely different. Which is it?

But it IS a high risk activity to go to a football game at this time when there are 70,000+ fans all sitting inches from each other.

Statistically, those individuals have a higher risk of dying in an auto accident on the way to the stadium than they do of dying from Covid caught at the stadium. And, given the increase in survival rates for Covid, most of them have a higher chance of dying from the flu caught there as well. Why is one risk unacceptable to you, but a larger risk during "normal times" perfectly fine?

yes, the lockdown is damaging - but again, is it as damaging as losing hundreds of thousands of lives?

It's far more damaging, even ignoring the fact that the lockdowns aren't saving anywhere near as many lives as you pretend. The developmental harm to tens of millions of schoolchildren alone outweighs the benefits of a lockdown that does no more than delay the inevitable achievement of herd immunity.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

I do love the moving of goal posts... but sure, I‘ll bite...

No, I don‘t think a gathering of 70,000 makes for “high risk” during normal times...

But it IS a high risk activity to go to a football game at this time when there are 70,000+ fans all sitting inches from each other.

And no, I’m not saying that anything other than the Holocaust is acceptable.... just giving something to compare to... yes, the lockdown is damaging - but again, is it as damaging as losing hundreds of thousands of lives? The US has already lost more than 230,000 people - isn’t that enough?

With extra payments to doctors for deaths classified as COVID deaths it's not surprising. With a huge number of those deaths occurring in states under Democratic leadership, like New York, the number is higher than it should be also. Not entirely due to COVID-19. More due to stupidity. You said nothing at all of the demographic of those 230,000 people who are dead. Nor did you say anything about who might be responsible for some of those deaths. Anthony Faucci for telling people not to wear masks before he flip-flopped and then preached the wearing of masks? Governor Cuomo who put COVID-19 positive patients in nursing homes?

Is 230,000 people dead from a virus enough? How could we tell. Give me the numbers of people who have committed suicide, become alcoholics, drug addicts, entered into depression, require counseling for mental issues, have no jobs to feed their families because they are considered non-essential jobs. Tell me how many millions of lives are being destroyed more slowly than COVID kills and I will tell you whether 230,000 people dead from a virus that is nearing the end of it's reign of terror warrants wearing masks, social distancing and locking down millions of Americans. A virus with a case fatality rate of less than 1/3 of a percent.

When you're dead you don't have to pay any more taxes. That does not justify wrongful deaths but whose worse off? Millions of people lives have been destroyed because of lockdowns and they have to live with that the rest of their lives. Suicide, child abuse, alcoholism, drug-use, depression, all on the rise from this quackery to prevent the spread of a virus that we now know how to handle much more safely and reliably using drugs like hydroxychloroquine. Who made you God to judge and approve these lives are expendable on the off chance you might save a few thousand?

 

[Squid Surprise]

You said, "any risk" times 70,000 is a high risk. Now you're saying something entirely different. Which is it?

Any risk OF COVID... I assumed you realized that was what I meant... sorry, is that clear now?

Statistically, those individuals have a higher risk of dying in an auto accident on the way to the stadium than they do of dying from Covid caught at the stadium. And, given the increase in survival rates for Covid, most of them have a higher chance of dying from the flu caught there as well. Why is one risk unacceptable to you, but a larger risk during "normal times" perfectly fine?

First off, THEY might not die of Covid - but they'll spread it to more people... again, this is how diseases work... we want to LOWER cases so that we can end the lockdown - the lockdown you've railed about being so damaging to everyone!

If cases keep going up, the lockdown will continue.... and with people going to gatherings of 70,000+, cases WILL go up!!

It's far more damaging, even ignoring the fact that the lockdowns aren't saving anywhere near as many lives as you pretend. The developmental harm to tens of millions of schoolchildren alone outweighs the benefits of a lockdown that does no more than delay the inevitable achievement of herd immunity.

Really? You have some evidence to support this? And stop with the herd immunity.... it won't exist unless you're willing to sacrifice everyone in the "at risk" category - which in the US, is over 50 million people!!

Now honestly - go back and read my very first comment... and try to stick to replying to that argument... the rest of all this is wildly off-topic and simply creating the impression that Covid is not serious, which could cost lives down the line...

 

[Squid Surprise]

With extra payments to doctors for deaths classified as COVID deaths it's not surprising.

Really? Got some evidence for this? Is it going on in the rest of the world too? Because there are over 9 million deaths reported world wide - are all of those fake too?

And this disease isn't almost eradicated yet.... and it won't be with attitudes like yours!! Daily cases are RISING - not falling.... and they'll continue to rise...

Yes, lockdowns suck - but they're better than losing millions of people! And please, gather some evidence for the lies you want to spout, it's getting tiresome on my end refuting you...

 

[scavengerspc]

[RANT]You know there is never an advantage to stupid people but there are times where it can actually benefit the very people they disagree with. I look at tomorrows election and a truly scary thought came to me.

What if Trump and his Trumpanistas had eventually decided to mask up and keep a reasonably safe distance? Think about it, let's say one month of the lesser lights following those 2 simple guidelines and going through all that extra work of strapping a lousy piece of cloth to their faces. Americas infection rate and the death toll would be lower than it is, and probably MUCH lower. Then Trump wouldn't have to lie through his teeth to claim an effective strategy against it and he would have been looking much better in the eyes of the swing voters.

Now there is something we could all be afraid of.[/RANT]

 

[TheBigFatClown]

Really? Got some evidence for this? Is it going on in the rest of the world too? Because there are over 9 million deaths reported world wide - are all of those fake too?

And this disease isn't almost eradicated yet.... and it won't be with attitudes like yours!! Daily cases are RISING - not falling.... and they'll continue to rise...

Yes, lockdowns suck - but they're better than losing millions of people! And please, gather some evidence for the lies you want to spout, it's getting tiresome on my end refuting you...

Cases, cases, cases, oh my God, we're all gonna die. But wait...what's the case fatality rate? Oh, that is flatlining. Yep, viruses get weaker every time they mutate. The more cases the better. The quicker we achieve Herd Immunity.

No, lockdowns don't...suck...as you put it. They kill and destroy and alter lives, forever!

Evidence? How about actual doctors working in hospitals saying these things with regards to payouts for COVID deaths.

Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing - Full Video

Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing - Full Video This is a video two California medical doctors (immunologists) who presented their data concerning COVID-19. Because their findings conflicted with the globalist narrative, YouTube censors banned it.

www.bitchute.com

 

[Neatfeatguy]

The flu shot is actually between 40-60% effective..

Vaccine Effectiveness: How Well Do Flu Vaccines Work? | CDC

Influenza vaccine effectiveness questions and answers - CDC

www.cdc.gov

And while we’d obviously prefer 95-100%, that’s still a VAST improvement over 0...

While I’m glad you haven’t gotten sick - there’s no telling how many people HAVE gotten the flu from being in contact with you... or being in contact with someone who was in contact with you... understand?!?

That’s how diseases work...

Now please, either post something that has some basis is scientific fact (and provide the link!), or stop trolling and spreading misinformation.

Real people are getting sick and dying every day - there were just under 1000 cases in Ontario today - and many think Canada is doing better than most places!

Actually, the doctor my kids see she's against wearing masks, she sees no added protection from wearing them based on her many years of experience and how many people that come in and use masks and have sicknesses (colds, flu and a few covid).

She also told us there flu vaccine is actually about 30-40% effective, regardless of what the CDC reports. While she does recommend them for the very young and elderly, anyone in between it isn't really necessary. She does encourage all to get the shot, but she doesn't push it on healthy, young people.

Cases. Don't reference cases alone. How many are asymptomatic? What age range do they cover? Are the case numbers specifically for new people or do they include the same people that get tested everyday because of their work?

A few people I work with have spouses and relatives that get tested daily and even if one of them tests positive, they continue to get tested everyday day and with each test (positive) it is part of the daily case numbers given out. This skews the case numbers.

Invalid covid deaths skews the death rate.

News/stories/info that major tech companies scrub from the internet to help drive one side of this issue only helps spread false info to drive fear/control, it's disgusting.

Educate yourself, asks questions. Question the info shoved in your face. Don't just simply believe what they tell you to believe.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Cases, cases, cases, oh my God, we're all gonna die. But wait...what's the case fatality rate? Oh, that is flatlining. Yep, viruses get weaker every time they mutate. The more cases the better. The quicker we achieve Herd Immunity.

No, lockdowns don't...suck...as you put it. They kill and destroy and alter lives, forever!

Evidence? How about actual doctors working in hospitals saying these things with regards to payouts for COVID deaths.

Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing - Full Video

Dr. Erickson COVID-19 Briefing - Full Video This is a video two California medical doctors (immunologists) who presented their data concerning COVID-19. Because their findings conflicted with the globalist narrative, YouTube censors banned it.

www.bitchute.com

First off... that's from April... and has been debunked pretty thoroughly...

ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are...

www.acep.org

Two Bakersfield doctors go viral with dubious COVID test conclusions

The duo's interpretation of COVID test results lit up social media — but public health experts assailed them as statistically flawed.

calmatters.org

Anyways... I just noticed your actual nickname now... I think it speaks for itself... unless you have any REAL evidence, just go away.

Actually, the doctor my kids see she's against wearing masks, she sees no added protection from wearing them based on her many years of experience and how many people that come in and use masks and have sicknesses (colds, flu and a few covid).

She also told us there flu vaccine is actually about 30-40% effective, regardless of what the CDC reports. While she does recommend them for the very young and elderly, anyone in between it isn't really necessary. She does encourage all to get the shot, but she doesn't push it on healthy, young people.

Cases. Don't reference cases alone. How many are asymptomatic? What age range do they cover? Are the case numbers specifically for new people or do they include the same people that get tested everyday because of their work?

A few people I work with have spouses and relatives that get tested daily and even if one of them tests positive, they continue to get tested everyday day and with each test (positive) it is part of the daily case numbers given out. This skews the case numbers.

Invalid covid deaths skews the death rate.

News/stories/info that major tech companies scrub from the internet to help drive one side of this issue only helps spread false info to drive fear/control, it's disgusting.

Educate yourself, asks questions. Question the info shoved in your face. Don't just simply believe what they tell you to believe.

Personal opinion is all well and good... but let's look at actual science please - and peer reviewed medical journals (but relevant ones please Endymio)...

All of those support wearing masks, getting your flu shot and practicing social distancing.

I wish people would just get it... there's no conspiracy here... no one WANTS this!!

 

[Neatfeatguy]

First off... that's from April... and has been debunked pretty thoroughly...

ACEP-AAEM Joint Statement on Physician Misinformation

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are...

www.acep.org

Two Bakersfield doctors go viral with dubious COVID test conclusions

The duo's interpretation of COVID test results lit up social media — but public health experts assailed them as statistically flawed.

calmatters.org

Anyways... I just noticed your actual nickname now... I think it speaks for itself... unless you have any REAL evidence, just go away.



Personal opinion is all well and good... but let's look at actual science please - and peer reviewed medical journals (but relevant ones please Endymio)...

All of those support wearing masks, getting your flu shot and practicing social distancing.

I wish people would just get it... there's no conspiracy here... no one WANTS this!!

So...no conspiracies?

How about hydroxychloroquine getting dragged through the mud?

I guess when false info was reported and posted in The Lancet (2nd top rated medical journal in the world to my understanding) about how hydroxychloroquine was harmful to use even though nearly 7 decades of use did not show any of the symptoms/issues reported against it once it was suggested as a possible cure for covid.

Huh....I wonder why it was posted? Then later pulled?

Hydroxychloroquine is an inexpensive drug to produce and it's readily available. Guess that's too convenient for money making companies to try a cheap, readily available drug...they clearly value money over human lives.

No need to post links, you can dig these things up yourself with some easy searching online.

(I'm not saying hydroxychloroquine is a cure for covid and I don't know if it's even effective. I'm just simply pointing out that there is some truth to a lot of these "conspiracy theories" out there. Again, learn to educate yourself. Don't take what they shove in your face as fact unless you've come to that conclusion yourself.)

While this conspiracy theory about hydroxychloroquine getting bashed isn't all that exciting or engaging.....someone [or some group(s)] out there quickly wanted to put the kibosh on using hydroxychloroquine. Why? Most likely because it's inexpensive. It doesn't generate massive amounts of revenue that big drug companies like to line their pockets with.

How about hospitals getting paid more for treating covid and putting folks on ventilators?

Conspiracy? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's still up in the air last I looked into it. The Cares Act did approve more money to covid treated patients. It's fact that a person put on a ventilator does cost more than someone that's not....without any actual proper digging into everything at the time it happens, it's only speculation this is really happening. Are hospitals over reporting to get more money? Sure, some have to be. Kind of like police force - are all cops bad? No, most are really great, but it just takes one bad choice/person to do the wrong thing and soon all cops are treated as being bad.

How about incorrect deaths being reported as covid?

Conspiracy? Hard to say.
Lots of folks say no, lots say yes. But when the CDC outlines really vague methods to confirm if a deceased person is positive or not without a test is pretty lenient, if you ask me.

The CDC guidance says that officials should report deaths in which the patient tested positive for COVID-19 — or, if a test isn’t available, “if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.” It further indicates that if a “definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.'”

There's a lot of room to just say "Yep, that person died of covid because of a possible symptom that covid might cause." Mark it as covid even though no test was given, just because the poorly written CDC guidelines for classifying deaths from covid were given out to the health departments.

 

[Endymio]

Any risk OF COVID... I assumed you realized that was what I meant... sorry, is that clear now?

It was clear to me initially, it merely took you a few posts to admit it. To you, any risk of Covid, no matter how small, is unacceptable, yet other, much larger risks, are fine. It's a wholly illogical position, but at least you're owning it.

we want to LOWER cases so that we can end the lockdown

Yet other countries who have ended their lockdowns have gone right back into them -- France, Spain, Germany, Israel, Italy, Belgium -- the United Kingdom is the latest. No lockdown will ever eradicate a highly infectious respiratory disease ... all you can do it flatten the curve, so that hospitals are not overwhelmed. Everyone alive will eventually be exposed.

Stop with the herd immunity.... it won't exist unless you're willing to sacrifice everyone in the "at risk" category - which in the US, is over 50 million people!!

Heh, no. Not 50 million. 0.2 - 0.4 percent of that. You're off by a factor of 300X or so.

 

[Endymio]

when the CDC outlines really vague methods to confirm if a deceased person is positive or not without a test is pretty lenient, if you ask me.

There are only two developed nations in the world which allow a Covid death to be tallied without a positive test result. Of these two, Belgium is number one in reported Covid deaths, and the US comes in somewhere between 8th and 10th. There's no doubt that these two nations are overstating deaths to some degree -- you cannot decrease Type II errors without simultaneously increasing Type I 's. That's merely basic statistics.

How about hydroxychloroquine getting dragged through the mud?

I took chloroquine for over a year when I was living in an malaria-endemic area -- as did tens of millions of others -- so it was rather amusing to me to hear the media attempting to sell the narrative that it was a dangerous drug.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It was clear to me initially, it merely took you a few posts to admit it. To you, any risk of Covid, no matter how small, is unacceptable, yet other, much larger risks, are fine. It's a wholly illogical position, but at least you're owning it.

Yet other countries who have ended their lockdowns have gone right back into them -- France, Spain, Germany, Israel, Italy, Belgium -- the United Kingdom is the latest. No lockdown will ever eradicate a highly infectious respiratory disease ... all you can do it flatten the curve, so that hospitals are not overwhelmed. Everyone alive will eventually be exposed.

Heh, no. Not 50 million. 0.2 - 0.4 percent of that. You're off by a factor of 300X or so.

Glad to see your goalposts keep moving

There are about 50 million people in the US over 65 - and the fatality rate in seniors is FAR higher than .2-.4%.... it's well over 1 in 10.... so to achieve your "herd immunity", you are exposing 50 million to Covid - before a vaccine or cure is available - and are willing to KILL about 5 million of them - and many others will suffer terribly as those who don't die can still get seriously ill...

This is why just "living your life" and striving for "herd immunity" IS NOT an option - at least not one considered by even the remotely empathetic individual... even your vaunted leader isn't considering this!!

Back to my original argument - this is why having a stadium full of people right now is a BAD IDEA!!!