|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 30, 2020 14:03:54 GMT
This is really worth a read... "LOCKDOWN LUNACY 3.0: It's over
By J.B. Handley
If you’re hoping the COVID-19 pandemic will go on forever, this post may disappoint you. And, I get it. We have gone frothing-at-the-mouth nuts over a slightly above-normal virulence virus, with a unique and obvious age-distribution pattern that should have made containment easy and panic completely unnecessary. And, if you’re living in the United States, like I am, you probably think my declaration that this pandemic is “over” to be somewhere between wishful thinking and incredibly premature, and I hear you, too, although forgive me if I’m not sure you’re the one thinking clearly, given some of the things I’ve recently read. I promise to support my assertion with data, and the wisdom of people far more expert than me who are having a harder time being heard in the present climate of…bats#@t crazy.
Have we lost our collective minds? Yes.
You may not be one of them. In fact, I’m guessing the people who actually take the time to read my blog posts are the few remaining who haven’t been subsumed by the panic, but can we agree that most have? Jeffrey A. Tucker of the American Institute for Economic Research put it best in his excellent essay on July 10 titled, When will the Madness End?:
“I’m a practicing psychiatrist who specializes in anxiety disorders, paranoid delusions, and irrational fear. I’ve been treating this in individuals as a specialist. It’s hard enough to contain these problems in normal times. What’s happening now is a spread of this serious medical condition to the whole population. It can happen with anything but here we see a primal fear of disease turning into mass panic. It seems almost deliberate. It is tragic. Once this starts, it could take years to repair the psychological damage.”
I’m 50 years old, and I’ve noticed that younger people seem particularly scared of COVID-19, they are the ones I typically see biking and hiking with masks on, and this survey really corroborated that point:"Much much more here:> jbhandleyblog.com/home/2020/7/27/lockdownlunacythreeAnd if the end is indeed near ... as it shows into Sept.-Oct. the Trump team should literally pound the airwaves and digiwaves with the results and direct the responsibility directly at the guilty parties. Pound, pound, pound until the guilty appear as the poorest, stupidest, most irresponsible pond scum to ever grease the surface of the black Lagoon.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 30, 2020 15:29:35 GMT
I've noticed that on World-O-Meter, Thursdays are usually the days that states like Florida have the highest number of reported cases. So today is Thursday. If I'm right, then new case count in Florida seems to be trending downward pretty significantly. Whether I'm right on that point or not, it's been long enough since case counts in Florida, California, and Texas started being claimed as "Hot Spots" that we can look at the death count and make the observation that the COVID death count for these states has not followed the pattern of New York/New Jersey. That could be a difference in how statistics are gathered, a difference in testing levels, or a combination of those and other factors, but if it holds, it's must raise questions in many minds.
If it holds up like this, as these states start trending down in case count, then nobody is going to be able to justify lockdowns going forward.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 30, 2020 16:07:38 GMT
I would like to see a definition of healthy. Does that include sufficiency in zinc, selenium and vitamin D, or does it just mean that they are not suffering a co-morbidity? Does it include black, Asian and middle eastern patients who not only tend to be vitamin D deficient but also especially Asian genotypes have a higher number of ACE2 receptors on their epithelial and endothelial cells? All these are areas of susceptibility to infection and severe symptoms. The statistics could be restated as there are 50 times more 55-year-old individuals susceptible to COVID-19 due to their diet and genotype than there are people of the same age group killed on the roads. If those people were to correct their dietary insufficiencies then the numbers infected would significantly reduce and of those the numbers taken to ICU and dying could be many times lower. Like wearing a seat belt reduces the likelihood of dying in a road accident.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 30, 2020 16:09:48 GMT
I think there is a serious problem with that assertion. 55 year old with known infections have a 0.3% mortality rate. It seems to me they are comparing that to car accident deaths in the population in general, and not healthy 55 year olds that are in an accident. Is that how you read that? If so, that's not a valid comparison even. A valid comparison would be population to population. I started looking for auto fatality rates worldwide and in the US. I don't have time to really dig into that today. The first article I opened was this one: policyadvice.net/car-insurance/insights/how-many-people-die-in-car-accidents/Just quick perusal, without actually performing the calculations, I think one would have a hard time finding "50 times more likely" even looking at the population in general. I don't know if auto accidents are broken down by age. That's probably as deep as I'll look at it. I have to get to work
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 30, 2020 17:17:09 GMT
This paper from "Nature Public Health Emergency Collection" is disconcerting. I was looking for another paper when I saw this one. Please do NOT skate the Abstract - there are several OMG areas in it - it is dated 2015 To summarize. A team at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, engineered a chimeric virus with a bat spike that would attach to the ACE2 receptor in human airway cells and replicate to a level that could cause an epidemic. They then found that it did infect humanized mice in vivo. They also state that available theraputics and vaccines did not protect the humanized mice from infection. They then synthetically derived an infections complete virus and demonstrated that it had robust replication in vivo. Or to put it another way they built a prototype SARS-CoV-2 virus. They did that 5 years ago. One of the team members is Zhengli-Li Shi who is the director of the Wuhan Virology Laboratory. This research was apparently stopped at UNC Chapel Hill when someone said " WTF are you doing??" and it appears that Fauci restarted the research at Wuhan funding it from NIH Now how would I feel about that from a Chinese point of view? My new shiny Biosafety Lab leaked a virus and the locals in Wuhan went into cover up mode before telling central authority. So try to clamp down and even think if we are going to be screwed we will ensure the rest of the world goes down with us..... Then the 'rest of the world' starts pointing and saying why did you create this virus that's screwing everyone up. The response from China is actually true - not us we got it from the USA. It may be that the _ideas_ the IPR were from the USA..... However, it puts a whole new light on things - especially Fauci's forecast of an epidemic in Trump's term as president. What does the team think? Late note- See also www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787 and the 2020 note on the 2015 paper
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 30, 2020 18:45:05 GMT
I've noticed that on World-O-Meter, Thursdays are usually the days that states like Florida have the highest number of reported cases. So today is Thursday. If I'm right, then new case count in Florida seems to be trending downward pretty significantly. Whether I'm right on that point or not, it's been long enough since case counts in Florida, California, and Texas started being claimed as "Hot Spots" that we can look at the death count and make the observation that the COVID death count for these states has not followed the pattern of New York/New Jersey. That could be a difference in how statistics are gathered, a difference in testing levels, or a combination of those and other factors, but if it holds, it's must raise questions in many minds. If it holds up like this, as these states start trending down in case count, then nobody is going to be able to justify lockdowns going forward. I'm sure its a mistake to compare 'site 1' with areas with further outbreaks many weeks later. When CV appeared in NY there was 0 preparation amongst the general pop. Now there is much. No matter how much people criticise mask wearing etc, where CV now develops a proportion of the population will be adhering to simple preventative measure which will help prevent spread. Therefore it'll 'appear' CV isnt 'as bad'. It now exists in an environment where we're aware of it, if only 40% of people don't give a sht, its still hampered by 60%!
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 30, 2020 19:13:57 GMT
I've noticed that on World-O-Meter, Thursdays are usually the days that states like Florida have the highest number of reported cases. So today is Thursday. If I'm right, then new case count in Florida seems to be trending downward pretty significantly. Whether I'm right on that point or not, it's been long enough since case counts in Florida, California, and Texas started being claimed as "Hot Spots" that we can look at the death count and make the observation that the COVID death count for these states has not followed the pattern of New York/New Jersey. That could be a difference in how statistics are gathered, a difference in testing levels, or a combination of those and other factors, but if it holds, it's must raise questions in many minds. If it holds up like this, as these states start trending down in case count, then nobody is going to be able to justify lockdowns going forward. I'm sure its a mistake to compare 'site 1' with areas with further outbreaks many weeks later. When CV appeared in NY there was 0 preparation amongst the general pop. Now there is much. No matter how much people criticise mask wearing etc, where CV now develops a proportion of the population will be adhering to simple preventative measure which will help prevent spread. Therefore it'll 'appear' CV isnt 'as bad'. It now exists in an environment where we're aware of it, if only 40% of people don't give a sht, its still hampered by 60%! Masks may explain a difference in infection rates. I don't think it will explain the proportion of infections to death, though. What I'm looking at is this: www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/They're in different stages of the outbreak in the two locations. However; Florida's, California's, or Texas' death rate doesn't appear to be on an intercept course with New York's death rate at all. I've been waiting thinking the death rates would go up as steeply as New York, but it isn't. That's not a statement about level of danger, but rather an observation based on statistics gathered on one site as of today. So what is the difference between the two? That's what I'm looking at. If it is something we know about and are prepared for, then what is it?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 30, 2020 20:40:41 GMT
I'm sure its a mistake to compare 'site 1' with areas with further outbreaks many weeks later. When CV appeared in NY there was 0 preparation amongst the general pop. Now there is much. No matter how much people criticise mask wearing etc, where CV now develops a proportion of the population will be adhering to simple preventative measure which will help prevent spread. Therefore it'll 'appear' CV isnt 'as bad'. It now exists in an environment where we're aware of it, if only 40% of people don't give a sht, its still hampered by 60%! Masks may explain a difference in infection rates. I don't think it will explain the proportion of infections to death, though. What I'm looking at is this: www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/They're in different stages of the outbreak in the two locations. However; Florida's, California's, or Texas' death rate doesn't appear to be on an intercept course with New York's death rate at all. I've been waiting thinking the death rates would go up as steeply as New York, but it isn't. That's not a statement about level of danger, but rather an observation based on statistics gathered on one site as of today. So what is the difference between the two? That's what I'm looking at. If it is something we know about and are prepared for, then what is it? There has been a considerable increase in testing, and the tests have become far more sensitive. Tests can actually be positive based on shedding of viral fragments from recovered COVID-19 patients or people that have innate immunity and although there was an attempt at infection it did not proceed to the full disease but there are still dead virus RNA to provide a positive - I believe this is more likely than the so called asymptomatic spreader concept. So that is my hypothesis - the number of cases is related to the number of tests due to the low specificity of the tests not being able to tell dead virus from live virus. If I go to www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/ that appears to be borne out. If you click on the sort up/down arrow for total cases that should put Miami-Dade at the top. If you click on total tests the order of the counties barely changes. So the cases are proportional to the testing. Unfortunately, Florida seems to be the only state breaking out the stats by county to this level of detail.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 30, 2020 21:05:57 GMT
Medicine must have learnt something on how to care for CV patients too,even if not using things some might wish they were.....
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 31, 2020 14:09:43 GMT
Why some people who haven't had Covid-19 might already have some immunityBy Jacqueline Howard, CNN The immune systems of some people who have not been exposed to the novel coronavirus could have some familiarity with the pathogen -- possibly helping to reduce the severity of illness if that person does get Covid-19, a new study suggests. The study, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, found that among a sample of 68 healthy adults in Germany who had not been exposed to the coronavirus, 35% had T cells in their blood that were reactive to the virus www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/health/t-cells-coronavirus-study-wellness/index.htmlwww.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2598-9 They say that exposure to the corona viruses that cause the 'common cold' - around 30% - ensures that the immune system 'is not naïve' and reacts to SARS-CoV-2. This was not expected by the NIH as in their research with 'humanized mice' they found no immunity - rather obviously as the mouse had not had a corona virus 'cold'. I wonder if they would have carried on with their gain of function research to ensure that immunity to corona viruses causing colds did not provide immunity to their manufactured virus with the 'novel spike protein' if they had known?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 31, 2020 14:53:44 GMT
The US 7-Day average Spread Rate peaked on June 29 at 15.6% and has since slowly declined to 14.0%. This indicates a deceleration in the rate of new cases but still growing. The Spread Rate needs to fall below 12.5% before a declining trend in new cases is indicated. Meanwhile the declining death rate has reversed as one might expect with the uptick in hospitalizations. Reported deaths are usually highest on Thursdays and Fridays and it would not be surprising to see 1,000 deaths today and/or tomorrow and/or next Thursday or Friday. If the current trends continue, we could be a couple of weeks away from a drop in the 7-Day average of new cases and and possibly a month away from a decline in the 7-Day average of deaths. In the above post from July 9, based on the Spread Rate trend, I projected the COVID-19 cases in the US would peak in about 2 weeks which is today. The 7-Day average Spread Rate declined to 12.4% today (12.5% is the breakeven point) which means the decline has just started. I’m hoping the decline will be fairly brisk. The daily new case 7-day average reached 69,000 yesterday and that’s triple the number from the end of May. In that same July 9 post, I projected the daily death rate would peak about 2 weeks after the daily new cases. Since it takes a few days for the deaths to be reported I’m projecting the decline in the reported deaths to begin in within 3 weeks. An update..... On July 9 (see above) based on the Spread Rate I projected the US 7-day average daily death rate would begin to decline around July 23 and so far that's happening. The peak was 69,000 cases per day on July 22 and yesterday the 7-day average had declined by 3,000 to 66,000 cases per day. The peak in deaths was projected to be 2 weeks after the peak in cases or about 1 week from today. But with the delay in reporting deaths the Worldometer reported deaths might not show up until a week after that(August 13). The rise in the reported 7-day average daily deaths is just beginning to decelerate, but is still rising significantly.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 31, 2020 14:56:51 GMT
I feel masks are an affectation that shows the wearer has been conditioned into compliance - however, if you DO wear a mask it should at least do the task everyone claims it is for. Yet, I have noticed that a lot of people are buying face masks with vents that allow exhaled air to escape easily --- errrmmm? The claim is that the vents are safe as they have a 'replaceable PM2.5 activated carbon filter' ? So effectively these masks are venting viral particles into the ambient air as a virus is considerably smaller than PM2.5 and activated charcoal is really there to deal with some chemicals. However, even there a flat pad filter will not cut it, the filter has to have a complex design to ensure that the inhaled/exhaled air contacts the activated filter material, such as a respirator canister. Unsurprisingly, these masks which are designed to let viral particles escape are made in China. Deliberate?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 31, 2020 19:50:45 GMT
" Doctor exposes the REAL reason why the media, left HATE hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19
If your only source was the mainstream media, you might think hydroxychloroquine is an extremely dangerous drug. But ER Doctor Simone Gold speaks to Glenn, and she sets the record straight: not only is it a noncontroversial drug that's commonly used around the world, but it could even be bought over the counter in some countries (like France). So why, then, did that all change when President Trump spoke about its potential use in the fight against COVID-19? Why did France remove it from its shelves? And WHY did the media begin praising another drug -- Remdesivir -- when early trials didn't show immense promise? Gold answers all these questions, and more. "www.glennbeck.com/radio/doctor-exposes-the-real-reason-why-the-media-left-hate-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19The doctor Simone Gold giving the briefing has been dismissed from her job because she spoke about HCQ - the Swamp is really concerned about HCQ
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 1, 2020 13:27:45 GMT
When you consider areas which currently have elevated infection rates are often those with larger proportions of muslims anyway, I'd expect these areas will get BoJo's attention in the not to distant future.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 1, 2020 15:47:32 GMT
When you consider areas which currently have elevated infection rates are often those with larger proportions of muslims anyway, I'd expect these areas will get BoJo's attention in the not to distant future. It may not be that simple... Something is not right and it looks like the UK 'SAGE' are looking for reasons to continue their existence and create fear. Do they really want to 'call the army in' for 14 extra positive tests - not even 14 extra definite infections - all these tests mean is that you have SAR-CoV-2 virus particles in your sample not that you are infected.
|
|