You can keep them.
They’re nice people. They’ll be here for at least a year and a half. He said he got some kind of extended visa this time.
Dave Chappelle has tested POSITIVE for coronavirus
A representative forDave Chappelle, 47, said on Thursday that Chappelle has 'not yet experienced any symptoms' of the virus. He has canceled his Texas shows.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Japan and IOC determined to hold Tokyo Olympics despite cancellation rumors | CNN
Reports of this summer's Tokyo Olympic Games being canceled due to Covid-19 are "categorically untrue", the International Olympic Committee said in a statement to CNN on Friday.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
One of our doctors that's been in the community for 30 years passed away yesterday after and extended battle with Coronavirus. A huge loss to us and our community.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
That won't significantly impact the accuracy of previous case count. It'll only impact chronology at the expense of asymptomatic cases being missed.
It's a good trade-off but The point remains against what this Twitter account continues to push which is that cases are being over counted by this methodology. That isn't true.
Had to be about bone structure
That lady just isn't attractive
Arnie is a horny mofo
It's almost as though a urologist may not be the best person to listen to about Covid.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
No doubt he's a smart guy, but he's got compromised ethics:
And with that, I question him as a paid commentator on biased pseudo news stations.
If asymptomatic cases are missed that seems like it will substantially impact the accuracy of the case count. It also occurs to me that this will up the mortality rate significantly.
If a percentage of asymptomatic cases aren't actually "infected" and aren't spreading anything then this change in testing could be a good thing, both for the population, science, the economy and our freedom.
How is a rising mortality rate good for any of those things?
I don't think a change in the testing will create a rise.
I don't disagree so much with your post I just disagree with the premise that spreaders would be missed.
PCR was never really run above 33 count and now it has been regularly run at up to 45 in some regions of the US and the World...the difference in positives between those thresholds is vast.
I think a change in the testing protocol could be a very good thing for all involved.
Testing should be allowed to evolve...no reason for it to be set in stone already.
Infectivity is being over counted, resulting in inadequate contact tracing and poor public policy
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Didn't say otherwise.
Case count remains largely the same. It's just late and ineffective as you say. Problem is the continued downplaying that there aren't that many cases/deaths/etc. There are all of the above.
I honestly think a change could help the Data
If death rate remains static, but infection rate is reduced it creates an increase in mortality rate.
Remember the days of "1 in 10 who get coronavirus are dying"? This move heads up back in that direction.
I hear what your saying...But as we have seen, stats or numbers don't equal "opening up".
At a certain point it really just matters how much of the population has actually died with covid as the main cause.
IMO Eventually we need to come to grips with the fact that lots and lots of people are being exposed over and over again(most of us) and just aren't getting sick, and likely aren't spreading anything...they need to be free and the lifeblood of the economy right now.
I would like to have better Data on what is going on and the current testing hasn't given us that from the start IMO.
I think stricter testing threshold would allow for actual contact tracing of a spreading person and also improve the data on actual infections and spread.
Just my take.
I reserve the right to be wrong.
I think all we want the same things in the end and are just searching for ways to get there.
This is retarded, we caught the rona in this house from an asymptomatic person....
Larry king died
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Again I didn't say otherwise. I agree on both accounts.
The point is that at this time, The previous PCR testing style did not overcount. Every time PCR cycles are brought up, including by this Twitter account, the implication is it ia over counting of cases. It is not.
This is a constant misinformation by people out of their depths and with agenda to downplay Corona virus case densities.
Like you're pointing ou, this will be a trade off of more accurate chronology to miss asymptomatic cases (some of which have questionable infectivity by the time they arrive to the clinical setting. But that doesn't change the fact that they were infected. Current testing just catches them retrospectively)
Case counts will now go down, but previous case counts were not artificially elevated. The latter is the main point here. It is the constant misinformation being spread.
at this point in case densities are so high that contact tracing is gone reagardless.
The delay in PCR testing response makes it almost worthless in the outpatient environment given the economic cost of people sitting around for 2 days for the results. It is very valuable inpatient where I have an isolated person being treated.
These recommendations and shifts are primarily about the way that we're using the technology and choosing which one we're going to use clinically in which setting.
But what you see happen is the constant misinformation that somebody makes a statement about contact tracing efficacy and the constant banging of the drum that case counts are being over counted. The remains false. They are not being over counted. It is a harmful and deadly constant misinformation that is running my empathy well dry. Beyond the sheer stupidity of it.