[pescadero]

You sound like a fool.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...ests/509-469e928b-ef37-4a36-9d57-daa6d4d602b9

Ummm... that is one, particular type of PCR (rapid PCR)... which isn't the only PCR, nor the most common.

... and the problem they're mostly complaining about is false NEGATIVES caused by people getting the test too early after being infected.

""A single negative rapid test isn't something that anyone should be comfortable with in terms of saying 'You absolutely do not have the disease,'" he added."

 

[Gillgitter]

I don't know, I think he may have been making fun of him. :lol:

 

[LuckyBucks]

 

[LuckyBucks]

 

[Jigawhat]

Pesc, what's your take on the latest change in the guidelines the WHO is now recommending? I am seeing quite different points of view. Some saying, this is a common occurrence as we learn more and adjust the threshold, etc.
Others saying this will definitely impact how the data is being represented going forward.

If two months ago a single positive test = a positive case. And now starting yesterday, the recommendation for low threshold results need to be confirmed with at least 2 positive tests + shown symptoms to = a positive case; it's certainly going to raise some eyebrows.

 

[BlackRhino]

You guys need to coordinate better to get your talking points more consistent.

First, the virus was going to magically disappear after election day.

When it didn't, then you all stated it would disappear after inauguration day.

When it didn't, it now seems we've moved the posts yet again to "3 months" post inauguration.

Curious, what's the next threshold?

Thanks for your broad-based due diligence.

Sent from my SM-A515U using Tapatalk

 

[pescadero]

Pesc, what's your take on the latest change in the guidelines the WHO is now recommending? I am seeing quite different points of view. Some saying, this is a common occurrence as we learn more and adjust the threshold, etc.
Others saying this will definitely impact how the data is being represented going forward.

If two months ago a single positive test = a positive case. And now starting yesterday, the recommendation for low threshold results need to be confirmed with at least 2 positive tests + shown symptoms to = a positive case; it's certainly going to raise some eyebrows.

We already knew that actual case counts were likely 5x+ of confirmed test positives.

 

[Jigawhat]

Gotcha... no raised eyebrows that cycle rates are now finally being discussed and guidelines are changing (to what they should have been all along)... I'd be laughing if it wasn't so painfully obvious.

 

[pescadero]

False positive, false negative, and massive undertesting have been discussed since about April.

 

[Jigawhat]

We already knew that actual case counts were likely 5x+ of confirmed test positives.

We did?
How well did our media do in accurately portraying this information to the general public?

 

[HUBBHUNTER]

We did?
How well did our media do in accurately portraying this information to the general public?

No reason to discuss with pescy. He can spin the same topic different ways depending on who says what.

 

[pescadero]

We did?
How well did our media do in accurately portraying this information to the general public?

https://www.yahoo.com/now/new-studi...-infections-but-are-they-right-161418566.html

 

[trucker3573]

Nurse said at my doctors appointment this week that the flu is down 80% in N America this year. Of course to that many in other forums are saying it’s because so many flu cases were reported as covid. All this is pointless right now. You believe what you believe and people will grasp onto whatever reinforces their beliefs about it. There is plenty on both sides out there. All 150% pointless. I’ll just be glad when either it or all of us die.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sureshot006]

I would think it is beneficial to hear from multiple angles. Not just Fox. Not just CNN. Not some far left or far right duck duck go site.

 

[Jigawhat]

WHO's on first?
Underestimated denominator; most rational thinking people agreed months ago.

However, they tried (with great success, unfortunately) to have it both ways -- and it flies in the face of how the data was used to enforce restrictions, lockdowns, etc. (AND STILL IS - which is even more frustrating).

How the media used it to scare everyone and keep the eyes/clicks on their websites/channels.
How politicians used it, overhyping the lethality of the virus to enforce new restrictions, unconstitutional voting changes, etc.

It also doesn't account for why the WHO decided to release these guideline changes NOW -- on January 21st of all dates... Which, I believe, was Hillbilly's original point. And why I jumped in the fray.

It REEKS -- and I think most rational thinking people agree.

 

[Jigawhat]

btw - the article you posted cited several issues with the tests & methodology used to derive those estimates... lol

 

[LuckyBucks]

We already knew that actual case counts were likely 5x+ of confirmed test positives.

Adjusting for the 5x, where would that put the actual death rate?

 

[CHASINEYES]

Fear mongering and suppression has been the MO, especially the last 6 months of 2020. It's been painfully obvious and disheartening. Disgusting really.

 

[pescadero]

Adjusting for the 5x, where would that put the actual death rate?

Death rate or fatality rate?

It takes the fatality rate from about 2% to about 0.4%, about 4-5x the seasonal flu.

 

[LuckyBucks]

Death rate or fatality rate?

It takes the fatality rate from about 2% to about 0.4%, about 4-5x the seasonal flu.

What are the chances the real number is 6x -10x (or more)? If it is greater than zero then what would the fatality rate be?