Lockdowns don't work.

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This was your response when you FINALLY figured out what I am actually arguing.
Click to expand...
no no no

you specifically said

You already lost the debate when you went from "they work" to "they help".
Click to expand...
first you have to show the first and then the progression to the second step

come on now it'll be easy its not like there's loads of posts to go through

i mean you did read them right the first time didnt you?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Website of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de

According to this model, there would presently be more than 53 million cases in the US. That's almost 1 out of every 6. Bear in mind that several small regional studies have shown serosurvey results consistent with the model in the (peer-reviewed) German study linked above. NIAID is conducting a nationawide study of this sort to determine the detection rate in order to estimate the actual extent of the infection. I eagerly await the results of this study.

Here is a map from NYT illustrating the extent of current confirmed cases in the US. Detection rates will obviously vary by region.
View attachment 4542656
Click to expand...
the new study you posted about 80% of infected being asymptomatic strongly contradicts that older study from germany

50million cases in the usa would mean 10 million cases where there are symptons shown

now its about 20% of those cases that need hospitalization and 5% need intensive care

so to support the idea that 50 million people have been infected you'd expect 2 million hospitalizations and 500 thousand people in intensive care
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
the new study you posted about 80% of infected being asymptomatic strongly contradicts that older study from germany
Click to expand...
The very point was to dispute stats released by the CCP. So the rest of your post is stupid because you're spending half of your energy distorting my arguments and the other half arguing against your poor explications of my posts. Furthermore, it doesn't really contradict it. It shows serosurveys are picking up undected cases, even in China. This group was a small number of pregnant women in China, most of whom never knew they had been infected.

To be very clear, I never said that I was forming my arguments with that as a major premise. The CIA has urged all of the relevant agencies in the US to reject stats approved by the CCP.

Are you really going to occupy my thread and spend all day distorting my arguments? It's clear for all to read the thread and see where you went from "they work" to "they help". Clamoring as you are, just makes you seem desperate to derail.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Are you really going to occupy my thread and spend all day distorting my arguments? It's clear for all to read the thread and see where you went from "they work" to "they help". Clamoring as you are, just makes you seem desperate to derail.
Click to expand...
i gave you an out to prove your bullshit.

you went from "they work" to "they help".
Click to expand...
show the progression of any of my posts where i started at one position then ended up at a different postion and i'll fuck off

but by all means keep sitting there lying and whining like a little kid
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
im going to repost this study as AC posted this then subsequently deleted it when he realized it doesn't fit his confirmation bias

www.bmj.com

Covid-19: four fifths of cases are asymptomatic, China figures indicate

New evidence has emerged from China indicating that the large majority of coronavirus infections do not result in symptoms. Chinese authorities began publishing daily figures on 1 April on the number of new coronavirus cases that are asymptomatic, with the first day’s figures suggesting that...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com

evidence of his posting here

Grandpapy said:
..
Click to expand...
ginjawarrior said:
..
Click to expand...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Website of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de
Insufficient and delayed testing may explain why some European countries, such as Italy and Spain, are experiencing much higher casualty numbers (relative to reported confirmed cases) than Germany, which has detected an estimated 15.6% of infections compared to only 3.5% in Italy or 1.7% in Spain. Detection rates are even lower in the United States (1.6%) and the United Kingdom (1.2%) – two countries that have received widespread criticism from public health experts for their delayed response to the pandemic.
In sharp contrast to this, South Korea appears to have discovered almost half of all its SARS-CoV-2 infections. The authors estimate that on 31 March 2020, Germany had 460,000 infections. Based on the same method, they calculate that the United States had more than ten million, Spain more than five million, Italy around three million and the United Kingdom around two million infections. On the same day the Johns Hopkins University reported that globally there were less than 900,000 confirmed cases, meaning that the vast majority of infections were undetected.
Click to expand...
According to this model, there would presently be more than 53 million cases in the US. That's almost 1 out of every 6. Bear in mind that several small regional studies have shown serosurvey results consistent with the model in the (peer-reviewed) German study linked above. NIAID is conducting a nationawide study of this sort to determine the detection rate in order to estimate the actual extent of the infection. I eagerly await the results of this study.

Here is a map from NYT illustrating the extent of current confirmed cases in the US. Detection rates will obviously vary by region.
View attachment 4542656
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Here's that study I posted, then deleted, in a futile attempt to ghost a troll. Of course, he noticed and swears it was because the post somehow makes him the winner.
www.bmj.com

Covid-19: four fifths of cases are asymptomatic, China figures indicate

New evidence has emerged from China indicating that the large majority of coronavirus infections do not result in symptoms. Chinese authorities began publishing daily figures on 1 April on the number of new coronavirus cases that are asymptomatic, with the first day’s figures suggesting that...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com
Tom Jefferson, an epidemiologist and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said the findings were “very, very important.” He told The BMJ, “The sample is small, and more data will become available. Also, it’s not clear exactly how these cases were identified. But let’s just say they are generalisable. And even if they are 10% out, then this suggests the virus is everywhere. If—and I stress, if—the results are representative, then we have to ask, ‘What the hell are we locking down for?’”

Jefferson said that it was quite likely that the virus had been circulating for longer than generally believed and that large swathes of the population had already been exposed.
Click to expand...
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
..
Click to expand...
abandonconflict said:

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Website of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de

According to this model, there would presently be more than 53 million cases in the US. That's almost 1 out of every 6. Bear in mind that several small regional studies have shown serosurvey results consistent with the model in the (peer-reviewed) German study linked above. NIAID is conducting a nationawide study of this sort to determine the detection rate in order to estimate the actual extent of the infection. I eagerly await the results of this study.

Here is a map from NYT illustrating the extent of current confirmed cases in the US. Detection rates will obviously vary by region.
View attachment 4542656
Click to expand...
lol wonder how many times you'l delete your posts and repost them just to be last post

that study you keep posting was published 3 weeks ago, using data from the 31st of march.

at that period of time the "cases per day" numbers were still rising.

just after the study was published the "cases per day" number started dropping

how can you hold any stock on predictions they gave 3 weeks ago with numbers they couldnt have known?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
lol wonder how many times you'l delete your posts and repost them just to be last post

that study you keep posting was published 3 weeks ago, using data from the 31st of march.

at that period of time the "cases per day" numbers were still rising.

just after the study was published the "cases per day" number started dropping

how can you hold any stock on predictions they gave 3 weeks ago with numbers they couldnt have known?
Click to expand...
Where is your proof that the numbers which are used are accurate ?

How can you hold any stock using numbers of cases per day, to tabulate anything, if the entire population numbers are not known ?

If the source of the numbers used has a history of manipulating numbers to create the result they intend, is that a reliable source for numbers?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Where is your proof that the numbers which are used are accurate ?

How can you hold any stock using numbers of cases per day, to tabulate anything, if the entire population numbers are not known ?

If the source of the numbers used has a history of manipulating numbers to create the result they intend, is that a reliable source for numbers?
Click to expand...
lol if you want to get all existential about it you could say nothing can ever be known for certain and everything is subject to ones perceptions

or another way you could look at it is.

these were the numbers he presented for the sake of argument lets look at them at face value
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
lol if you want to get all existential about it you could say nothing can ever be known for certain and everything is subject to ones perceptions

or another way you could look at it is.

these were the numbers he presented for the sake of argument lets look at them at face value
Click to expand...
That's not existential, it's a fact that you've been consistently lied to. The organization which sponsored the lies is now curtailing freedom, that's a fact too.

For the sake of argument, you haven't refuted ANY of my posts today. That is known for certain. You did call me a genius though, which was nice.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Make sure you wear a mask and stand back at least 6 feet, so I can laugh at you too.
Click to expand...
i've always had the impression that people would naturally want to stay more than 6 foot away from you even without the virus

earshot would be a better metric..

when you approach people do you ever hear them say"oh no its **one trick pony* now we go to listen to his drivel till we can find a good excuse to leave"????
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
i've always had the impression that people would naturally want to stay more than 6 foot away from you even without the virus

earshot would be a better metric..

when you approach people do you ever hear them say"oh no its **one trick pony* now we go to listen to his drivel till we can find a good excuse to leave"????
Click to expand...

I've always had the impression that a successful argument addresses and puts to rest alternative, but erroneous arguments.

When you approach people, if your best argument is to say "you smell like a god damn skunk ape" you may have just put your bigfoot in your mouth.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
how can you hold any stock on predictions they gave 3 weeks ago with numbers they couldnt have known?
Click to expand...
Why don't you read the portion of the study that describes methodology? It's peer-reviewed. It's even been cited by other scholars, which you can also see right on google. Here, I'll link it again:

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Website of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de
Insufficient and delayed testing may explain why some European countries, such as Italy and Spain, are experiencing much higher casualty numbers (relative to reported confirmed cases) than Germany, which has detected an estimated 15.6% of infections compared to only 3.5% in Italy or 1.7% in Spain. Detection rates are even lower in the United States (1.6%) and the United Kingdom (1.2%) – two countries that have received widespread criticism from public health experts for their delayed response to the pandemic.
In sharp contrast to this, South Korea appears to have discovered almost half of all its SARS-CoV-2 infections. The authors estimate that on 31 March 2020, Germany had 460,000 infections. Based on the same method, they calculate that the United States had more than ten million, Spain more than five million, Italy around three million and the United Kingdom around two million infections. On the same day the Johns Hopkins University reported that globally there were less than 900,000 confirmed cases, meaning that the vast majority of infections were undetected.
Click to expand...
According to this model, there would presently be more than 53 million cases in the US. That's almost 1 out of every 6. Bear in mind that several small regional studies have shown serosurvey results consistent with the model in the (peer-reviewed) German study linked above. NIAID is conducting a nationawide study of this sort to determine the detection rate in order to estimate the actual extent of the infection. I eagerly await the results of this study.

Here is a map from NYT illustrating the extent of current confirmed cases in the US. Detection rates will obviously vary by region.
View attachment 4542656
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Why don't you read the portion of the study that describes methodology? It's peer-reviewed. It's even been cited by other scholars, which you can also see right on google. Here, I'll link it again:

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Website of the Georg-August-University Göttingen
www.uni-goettingen.de www.uni-goettingen.de

According to this model, there would presently be more than 53 million cases in the US. That's almost 1 out of every 6. Bear in mind that several small regional studies have shown serosurvey results consistent with the model in the (peer-reviewed) German study linked above. NIAID is conducting a nationawide study of this sort to determine the detection rate in order to estimate the actual extent of the infection. I eagerly await the results of this study.

Here is a map from NYT illustrating the extent of current confirmed cases in the US. Detection rates will obviously vary by region.
View attachment 4542656
Click to expand...
Even the people who published that study over 3 weeks ago know that not only is it bad data but it would be wrong to try to extrapolate future deaths from it

published 14th april..
Average detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections has improved since our last estimates but is still as low as nine percent on March 30th Two weeks ago, we have used the estimates of Verity et al. (2020) for age-specific COVID-19 infection fatality rates and time to death to calculate detection rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections for the 40 most affected countries based on the number of COVID-19 deaths. Combining agespecific COVID-19 infection fatality rates from Verity et al. (2020) and United Nations population shares for each age group we have calculated expected infection fatality rates for each country. We prefer not to incorporate differences in health systems or populations' health status in the model, because we are lacking credible evidence to do so without imposing new assumptions. We have estimated the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections on March 17th dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths on March 31st by the expected infection fatality rate. We then compare the estimated SARS-CoV-2 infections on March 17th to the cases that were officially reported on the same day to calculate the share of detected infections on March 17th. The rationale behind this calculation is simple: Verity et al. (2020) estimate on average 18 days from first symptoms to deaths through COVID-19. We allow four days from first symptoms before a patient appears as a confirmed case in the statistics yielding a two-week lag between confirmed cases and deaths. The average detection rate on March 17th was six percent. We have shown how many people would have been infected by March 31st if the detection rates had stayed the same from March 17th. These numbers have to be understood as a though experiment rather than a prediction, because there are various reasons for detection rates to either increase or decrease over time. Detection rates could decrease in a growing epidemic because it gets more and more difficult to discover all infections as case numbers increase exponentially. Conversely, detection rates could increase when few new infections occur, for instance as a consequence of social distancing. Countries that initially did not detect many cases but increased testing capacity in response to emerging COVID-19 death numbers could also substantially increase their detection rates. We mentioned Turkey and the United States as possible examples for this. As new data are becoming constantly available, we can update our estimates of detection rates for March 23rd and March 30th. We use the same methodology as described above. Expected infection fatality rates and numbers of deaths on April 6th and April 13th are used to estimate number of infections two weeks before. We find that the average detection rate has increased to on average eight percent on March 23rd and nine percent on March 30th. We refrain from estimating current infection numbers based on these updated detection rates because the findings show that the assumption of constant detection rates is not valid.
Click to expand...
bet you feel like a right fucking idiot now..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top