COVID deaths still declining

[oxmixmudd]

Your confidence isn't a guarantee of anything other than that you're confident.

Any claim to the contrary is a willfully-deceptive lie.

To claim to not have a disease that is known to have 20 to 40% aysmptomatic population is ignorance.

To do so wrt a potentially fatal disease, and then take aggressive action that potentially endangers others based on that assumption is gross negligence.

People go to jail every day for just such behavior.

[oxmixmudd]

Your confidence isn't a guarantee of anything other than that you're confident.

Any claim to the contrary is a willfully-deceptive lie.

To claim to not have a disease that is known to have 20 to 40% aysmptomatic population is ignorance.

To do so wrt a potentially fatal disease, and then take action aggressive action that potentially endangers others based on that assumption is gross negligence.

People go to jail every day for just such behavior, especially when it involves alcohol, drugs, or an automobile.

[Mountain Man]

Stop lying:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2009758

http://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/...issionShip.pdf

https://www.healio.com/news/primary-...mon-in-covid19

https://elifesciences.org/articles/58728

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323514/

https://www.ejradiology.com/article/...145-5/fulltext

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...b4ab-116191806

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7119514/

First of all, you know better than to falsely accuse someone of lying.

Secondly, your sources pull the usual "asymptomatic versus pre-symptomatic" bait and switch by deceptively conflating the two conditions.

[Mountain Man]

To claim to not have a disease that is known to have 20 to 40% aysmptomatic population is ignorance.

To do so wrt a potentially fatal disease, and then take action aggressive action that potentially endangers others based on that assumption is gross negligence.

People go to jail every day for just such behavior, especially when it involves alcohol, drugs, or an automobile.

So do you plan to wear a mask for the rest of your life on the slim chance that you might unknowingly have a deadly disease that could infect someone else? Are you prepared to never come within 6-feet of another person until the day you die? Will you limit your public interaction through self-quarantine, leaving the house only when absolutely necessary to reduce the chance that you could be responsible for getting another person sick? To do any less would be gross negligence and worthy of incarceration, right, hypocrite?

[Roy]

So, because you don't know which "some" they are, it is assumed that everyone is one of the "some".

No, it's assumed that everyone includes the "some", and any individual might be one the "some".

Again, it assumes that those "callous idiots" are carriers. If you do not have it, you are putting no one at risk.

Some of them definitely are carriers. Because there are known examples of people being infectious and asymptomatic, anyone who hasn't been isolated, hasn't tested negative and isn't taking precautions is putting people at risk.

You didn't use to be this stupid.

[oxmixmudd]

First of all, you know better than to falsely accuse someone of lying.

Secondly, your sources pull the usual "asymptomatic versus pre-symptomatic" bait and switch by deceptively conflating the two conditions.

You are aware there is ample scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission. I and others have made the point repeatedly and directly to you. So you are lying. Whether you choose to believe that evidence is irrelevant, you know it exists.

The links themselves simply show the fact that there IS ample evidence yet again. These are scientific papers. What you call a 'bait and switch' is simply - again - evidence of your own ignorance and foolishness. WRT mask wearing and the concept of the potential to spread the virus without knowing one is sick (the topic in this group of posts), it doesn't matter of one is presymptomatic, asymptomatic, or simply having a mild response that one believes to be an allergic reaction to pollen. The simple fact is that in all those cases, virus is shown to be shed with the potential to infect others. In several of the papers, actual percentages are given wrt the amount of infection that occurred in that mode. Those percentages were in many if not all cases double digits. So this is not an insignificant issue, and mask wearing is a very important part of preventing it.

[Bill the Cat]

No, it's assumed that everyone includes the "some", and any individual might be one the "some".

And other "some" are those of us who have recovered from it and are more than likely no longer carriers.

Some of them definitely are carriers.

So, because "some" are, then ALL must act like they are. Even those of us who have already recovered and probably are no longer susceptible to reinfection.

Because there are known examples of people being infectious and asymptomatic, anyone who hasn't been isolated, hasn't tested negative and isn't taking precautions is putting people at risk.

And you know that everyone who isn't wearing a mask hasn't isolated, hasn't been tested, and isn't social distancing as a practice?

You didn't use to be this stupid.

You didn't used to be this gullible.

[oxmixmudd]

... So, because "some" are, then ALL must act like they are. Even those of us who have already recovered and probably are no longer susceptible to reinfection. ...

Precisely. Absolutely! Because no individual can know if one is or is not one of those spreaders. It is called being responsible.

In bold underline is not always the case, further, recent evidence shows that immunity may not last that long - which would be a game changer.

"Those of us" - did you actually test positive or obtain a positve anti-body result or other medical proof of infection, or are you just assuming that because you had a bad flu sometime between January and April you had covid?

[Sparko]

Right, "Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others." I quoted that, but in the English language, saying that something "may" happen is equivalent to saying that it "may not" happen, so it would be exactly as accurate to say, "Cloth face coverings may not help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others." I mean, the CDC dresses it up with lots of additional information, but the bottom line is that ordinary cloth masks may or may not help prevent the spread of the China flu -- probably leaning towards "not", not because masks are ineffective in an ideal situation but because that ideal situation simply does not exist in day to day life.

The fact is that simply walking past someone in a grocery store is one of the least likely ways of catching the Wuhan virus. The virus drops to the ground literally within seconds after being exhaled -- that's where the magic "six feet" measurement came from, because the time it takes the average person to traverse six feet is longer than it takes for the Wuhan virus to fall to the ground -- and your chances of walking through a cloud of China flu particles at the exact perfect moment to inhale enough of the critters actually infect you is probably about the same as winning the Powerball. Lengthy face to face interaction with an infected person? Sure, a mask will more likely than not offer some benefit, but casual interaction with the public? If you think that's too risky then you're probably one of those people who greatly overestimates his chances of winning the lottery.

(As an aside, I will never understand why people who preach "science" are so in love models when models are not science. A model is nothing more than a hypothesis. Science is about what has actually been proven with repeated observation and testing. So when someone says "science" but they really mean "models" then they're just trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.)

[DivineOb]

There's the fact that models and predictions have been not only been wrong but wildly wrong.

Of course models have error bars and of course models established early on are less accurate than ones established with more, and higher quality, data.

None of that has anything to do with your claims that models are just making things up. Stay in your lane James.

[Mountain Man]

You are aware there is ample scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission.

And yet the sources you link to conflate asymptomatic with pre-symptomatic when those are two different conditions. Even the WHO tried to muddy the issues after clearly admitting that asymptomatic transmission was rare.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/who-o...sion-very-rare

[oxmixmudd]

And yet the sources you link to conflate asymptomatic with pre-symptomatic when those are two different conditions. Even the WHO tried to muddy the issues after clearly admitting that asymptomatic transmission was rare.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/who-o...sion-very-rare

The who thing was walked back immediately. It was a mistake in communication.

And no - these sources do not conflate them, nor are they ignorant of the difference. You just don't read very well.
They actually do, in fact, explicitly differentiate between them depending on the paper you are reading.

Consider:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...84118220300402

Source: above

Previous reports revealed that there are asymptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.7,8,22 These patients can spread the virus and may represent a population that can be easily neglected in epidemic prevention. Therefore, it is important to identify asymptomatic patients with COVID-19. Since these patients are asymptomatic, careful monitoring of the natural course of the disease and contact history may only identify them. Based on the current data, we do not know whether these patients are only asymptomatic initially after contracting the disease or if they are asymptomatic throughout the course of the disease.

© Copyright Original Source

or


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7271011/

Source: above

Asymptomatic people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are of great concern as they undermine control interventions that rely on identifying symptomatic cases. However, current reports of asymptomatic infections were mostly cross-sectional case reports [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]. Do they develop symptoms later? Is an asymptomatic period a part of the natural course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), or a chronic condition? Is the asymptomatic patient in an incubation period or a subclinical infection, or are they a chronic asymptomatic carrier of SARS-CoV-2 like Typhoid Mary? These questions are of great significance for understanding the spectrum, natural history and epidemiology of COVID-19. Therefore, we followed up virologically confirmed COVID-19 patients in Shanghai Public Health Centre who had no subjective symptoms on admission.

© Copyright Original Source

The points made here are A) they do in fact differentiate them B) it doesn't matter in terms of UNKNOWING transmission of the disease which case is being represented in the data. C) regardless of which kind or asymptomatic transmission it is, the effect of masks on hindering it is the same.

Oh - there is one more point we can make. This distinction you are hammering on in terms of how the word 'asymptomatic' is used isn't something that is consistently part of the scientific literature, it's a diversion of your own manufacture used to play semantic games arguing on this site.

[Mountain Man]

So why are deaths rates not going up despite the spike in positive cases? Maybe because there really is no spike in positive cases...

After FOX 35 News noticed errors in the state's report on positivity rates, the Florida Department of Health said that some laboratories have not been reporting negative test result data to the state.

Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate, which means every single person tested was positive. Other labs had very high positivity rates. FOX 35 News found that testing sites like one local Centra Care reported that 83 people were tested and all tested positive. Then, NCF Diagnostics in Alachua reported 88 percent of tests were positive.

How could that be? FOX 35 News investigated these astronomical numbers, contacting every local location mentioned in the report.

The report showed that Orlando Health had a 98 percent positivity rate. However, when FOX 35 News contacted the hospital, they confirmed errors in the report. Orlando Health's positivity rate is only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as in the report.

The report also showed that the Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center had a positivity rate of 76 percent. A spokesperson for the VA told FOX 35 News on Tuesday that this does not reflect their numbers and that the positivity rate for the center is actually 6 percent.

FOX 35 News went on to speak with the Florida Department of Health on Tuesday. They confirmed that although private and public laboratories are required to report positive and negative results to the state immediately, some have not. Specifically, they said that some smaller, private labs were not reporting negative test result data to the state.

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fo...vid-19-results

[oxmixmudd]

So why are deaths rates not going up despite the spike in positive cases? Maybe because there really is no spike in positive cases...

After FOX 35 News noticed errors in the state's report on positivity rates, the Florida Department of Health said that some laboratories have not been reporting negative test result data to the state.

Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate, which means every single person tested was positive. Other labs had very high positivity rates. FOX 35 News found that testing sites like one local Centra Care reported that 83 people were tested and all tested positive. Then, NCF Diagnostics in Alachua reported 88 percent of tests were positive.

How could that be? FOX 35 News investigated these astronomical numbers, contacting every local location mentioned in the report.

The report showed that Orlando Health had a 98 percent positivity rate. However, when FOX 35 News contacted the hospital, they confirmed errors in the report. Orlando Health's positivity rate is only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as in the report.

The report also showed that the Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center had a positivity rate of 76 percent. A spokesperson for the VA told FOX 35 News on Tuesday that this does not reflect their numbers and that the positivity rate for the center is actually 6 percent.

FOX 35 News went on to speak with the Florida Department of Health on Tuesday. They confirmed that although private and public laboratories are required to report positive and negative results to the state immediately, some have not. Specifically, they said that some smaller, private labs were not reporting negative test result data to the state.

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fo...vid-19-results

A word of advice: look deeper than the surface and stop following along with conspiracy nuttery:

A) death rates are rising:

Daily Deaths US 07142020.jpg

B) care of patients has improved with time - driving mortality down (thankfully)

C) The demographics of the sick population has shifted toward younger victims driving mortality down (perhaps just temporarily)

[Mountain Man]

A word of advice: look deeper than the surface and stop following along with conspiracy nuttery...

It's "conspiracy nuttery" when a news station finfs copious evidence that positive China flu cases throughout Florida were being vastly over-reported?

Tell me another one, like how asymptomatic (as opposed to pre-symptomatic) people can spread the Wuhan virus when we know this is, in fact, a rare occurrence.

Next you're going to tell us that ordinary cloth can stop the spread of disease. Oh, wait, you already have!