And Texas Caves In

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

cptqueeg wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

cptqueeg wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Epidemiologist: Coronavirus could be ‘exterminated’ if lockdowns were lifted

Good read. And from an epidemiologist too.

The interview was done on 4/1/20 and his "numbers" are way low compared to our actual reality on 4/19/20. And he has the audacity to call his "numbers" science as well as comparing someone in a position of authority that has to prepare the federal govt for reality to somebody with no actual responsibility except to promote himself.

How long have you been an epidemiologist? I think I will trust an Epidemiologists opinion over an RV.neter's opinion. But that's just my opinion. :B

If you read the interview you wouldn't need to rely on my opinion. The facts 18 days after the interview don't resemble what he predicted. In other words he's already been proven wrong.

New study by Stanford scientist says coronavirus no more deadly than common flu.

There are those pesky scientists again. From Stanford university now.

Dr. Loannidis wrote:
The conclusions of the study were expressed by Ioannidis in a recent interview:


If you compare the numbers that we estimate to have been infected, which vary from 48,000 to 81,000 versus the number of documented cases that would correspond to the same time horizon, around April 1st, when we had 956 cases documented in Santa Clara County, we realize that the number of infected people is somewhere between 50 and 85 times more compared to what we thought, compared to what had been documented. Immediately that means the infection fatality rate, the chance of dying, the probably of dying if you are infected diminishes by 50 to 85 fold because the denominator in the calculation becomes 50 to 85 fold bigger. Our data suggests that COVID-19 has an infection fatality rate that is in the same ball park as seasonal influenza. It suggests that even though this is a very serious problem, we should not fear. It suggests that we have solid ground to have optimism about the possibility of eventually re-opening our society and gaining back our lives…Sooner rather than later with full control and a data driven approach.

I read the study through a reputable source, Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0

Let’s look at the problems with the study:
- #1 problem: Not peer-reviewed science
- 3300 volunteers were recruited through Facebook; 50 had antibodies.
Small sample sets can represent a large population if they are a well-designed random sample; recruiting volunteers through Facebook is not a true random sample.
- that sample set is supposed to extrapolate to cover a population in the local area of 2 milllion people
- that sample set is supposed to cover the entire country where other areas of the country have more health issues such as obesity
- What is the false positive rate of the antibody test. That can significantly skew results.

I would not accept any results until they have passed a peer review process.