General Corona virus updates

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

conor mcgregor nut hugger

All Lives Matter
Oct 24, 2015
51,308
42,193
Looking good, we still haven't opened bars but you also don't hear about it a whole lot anymore either. It's interesting to say the least.
From the article you posted:

the State's reported positivity rate for the graph's latest data point, Sept. 13, was 6.71%.

So your positivity rate is about 1.5-2x higher than ours for September 13.

I think the WHO says a region should have a two-week daily positivity rate of ≤5% before reopening further. As you can see, we don't have that statewide, but the government has stopped mentioning the WHO recommendation and now says "around 5% is good" lol.

I really hope it doesn't come back to bite us. Fortunately we don't really have a winter so that might save us from the second wave I expect to see in a lot of states in the next few months.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
From the article you posted:

the State's reported positivity rate for the graph's latest data point, Sept. 13, was 6.71%.

So your positivity rate is about 1.5-2x higher than ours for September 13.

I think the WHO says a region should have a two-week daily positivity rate of ≤5% before reopening further. As you can see, we don't have that statewide, but the government has stopped mentioning the WHO recommendation and now says "around 5% is good" lol.

I really hope it doesn't come back to bite us. Fortunately we don't really have a winter so that might save us from the second wave I expect to see in a lot of states in the next few months.
Our gov was allegedly supposed to make a statement last week in regards to easing some of the restrictions, that never happened so I guess thats a good thing, maybe.
 

conor mcgregor nut hugger

All Lives Matter
Oct 24, 2015
51,308
42,193
Our gov was allegedly supposed to make a statement last week in regards to easing some of the restrictions, that never happened so I guess thats a good thing, maybe.
Only a vaccine will save us. We are simply too stupid as a people to suppress this virus with discipline and consistency. It could kill half the population and the other half would still be arguing about the constitutionality of mask mandates and what deaths should be attributed to.

A quick look at the last few pages of this thread is very indicative of the nation's collective intellectual capacity.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
Only a vaccine will save us. We are simply too stupid as a people to suppress this virus with discipline and consistency. It could kill half the population and the other half would still be arguing about the constitutionality of mask mandates and what deaths should be attributed to.

A quick look at the last few pages of this thread is very indicative of the nation's collective intellectual capacity.
I'm not the smartest guy around, but my wife is incredibly fucking smart, she can't believe some of the shit I've told her about that gets said on here. There is a real issue with scientific and mathematical literacy in this country.
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
Why are you so divisive? You have been acting like a change agent working for the NWO lately. What's your end game here?
I am just copying your posting style...so sorry.

I don't think "only a vaccine will save us", herd immunity is well underway and the more we learn the less a vaccine seems like a necessity(if it ever was one in the first place).

U bros are talking positive tests...not about the threshold for said positive tests...If the PCR cycles were 30 instead of 40 or more 90% of the cases/+tests would be negative.

Carry on.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
I am just copying your posting style...so sorry.

I don't think "only a vaccine will save us", herd immunity is well underway and the more we learn the less a vaccine seems like a necessity(if it ever was one in the first place).

U bros are talking positive tests...not about the threshold for said positive tests...If the PCR cycles were 30 instead of 40 or more 90% of the cases/+tests would be negative.

Carry on.
30 what? 40 what?
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
30 what? 40 what?
Are you playing dumb sir?
There have been multiple articles and links on this topic in this very thread.
I think you have read them.

Here is a MSM article on the topic if you would like to read and pass on to the "smarter"people in your circle to discuss.

"A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on."

"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."

"The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations."

TLDR PCR test is too sensitive at that number of cycles and should be reduced to a lower number of cycles...or be discarded altogether for another test, even if that test is less sensitive...widespread PCR testing misrepresents the "outbreak"

Hope that helps clear it up.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
Are you playing dumb sir?
There have been multiple articles and links on this topic in this very thread.
I think you have read them.

Here is a MSM article on the topic if you would like to read and pass on to the "smarter"people in your circle to discuss.

"A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on."

"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."

"The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations."

TLDR PCR test is too sensitive at that number of cycles and should be reduced to a lower number of cycles...or be discarded altogether for another test, even if that test is less sensitive...widespread PCR testing misrepresents the "outbreak"

Hope that helps clear it up.
What's a pcr cycle?
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
What's a pcr cycle?
comment on the article if you want to discuss this...I meant to type PCR test cycle and I am not a lab rat so even that may be not be the proper term

U are addressing my half assed post and mis wording ...I linked the source of what I was getting at, lets talk about that.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
comment on the article if you want to discuss this...I meant to type PCR test cycle and I am not a lab rat so even that may be not be the proper term

U are addressing my half assed post and mis wording ...I linked the source of what I was getting at, lets talk about that.
I'm asking you to clarify your points and beliefs, but it seems like you may not even know what you are reading. Which is interesting that you have such strong feelings about it.
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
I'm asking you to clarify your points and beliefs, but it seems like you may not even know what you are reading. Which is interesting that you have such strong feelings about it.
I posted word for word from the article(hence the quotation marks)...If you wanna pick that apart go ahead...If not then move on.
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
That's fine that you were able to parrot an article, anyone, even a bird can do that. Do you understand the article?
Tell me what I don't understand about the article.

Quote part of the article and detail what is right or wrong with it.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
Tell me what I don't understand about the article.

Quote part of the article and detail what is right or wrong with it.
You keep avoiding being able to explain what you are reading....I have a feeling you don't actually understand what you are reading.
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
You keep avoiding being able to explain what you are reading....

The article speaks in very plain language, and to pretend I don't have the reading comprehension is your way of avoiding the article completely.

How about you comment on a single part of the article.

"A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on."

"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."

"The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations."
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
The article speaks in very plain language, and to pretend I don't have the reading comprehension is your way of avoiding the article completely.

How about you comment on a single part of the article.

"A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on."

"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."

"The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations."
In your own words, what does that mean?
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
In your own words, what does that mean?
Ur trolling.
If you don't wanna address these lines then we have nothing to talk about...I didn't write the article.

"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."

"The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C."
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
Ur trolling.
If you don't wanna address these lines then we have nothing to talk about...I didn't write the article.

"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."

"The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C."
I'm not trolling, I've been asking for you to explain in your own words, because I feel your scientific literacy may not be as good as you think it is, which causes you to easily believe pseudoscience and misinterpreted data. And you have been either unable or unwilling to do this, which leads me to believe you may not be intellectually honest when having conversations about this and other topics.
 

conor mcgregor nut hugger

All Lives Matter
Oct 24, 2015
51,308
42,193
I'm not trolling, I've been asking for you to explain in your own words, because I feel your scientific literacy may not be as good as you think it is, which causes you to easily believe pseudoscience and misinterpreted data. And you have been either unable or unwilling to do this, which leads me to believe you may not be intellectually honest when having conversations about this and other topics.
The ability to paraphrase is the easiest way to demonstrate reading comprehension
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
I'm not trolling, I've been asking for you to explain in your own words, because I feel your scientific literacy may not be as good as you think it is, which causes you to easily believe pseudoscience and misinterpreted data. And you have been either unable or unwilling to do this, which leads me to believe you may not be intellectually honest when having conversations about this and other topics.
Pretty ironic since you won't even comment on the article.

I am withholding any further comment on the article until you address a single sentence in it. I assure you I understand it quite well, I posted about the problems with that test before that article came out. We need to lower the testing threshold or find another test to be used widely if we really want to find out who is capable of spreading the virus.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
23,484
25,723
Pretty ironic since you won't even comment on the article.

I am withholding any further comment on the article until you address a single sentence in it. I assure you I understand it quite well, I posted about the problems with that test before that article came out. We need to lower the testing threshold or find another test to be used widely if we really want to find out who is capable of spreading the virus.
No, you parroted what other people said, you haven't demonstrated that you know what you are reading.
 

Inside Job

Sapere Aude
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
45,883
50,397
No, you parroted what other people said, you haven't demonstrated that you know what you are reading.
wow
your really showing how intelligent you are
I'm very impressed

Do you think 35-42 cycles is a proper amount? or not

Did you even read the article?