Politics Thread

[X Factor]

Edit: I assume you have a copy of this taken down statement to make your allegation.

Here you go paulxu.


https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...s-matter-page/

[paulxu]

Thank you. Rather than the redstate commentary, here is the link they provide to the mission statement:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200917...at-we-believe/

I've gone through it quickly, but I can't find anything that indicates they "support violence" that was originally asserted.
It ends with this:

We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.

I do see where they encourage the building of a community structure to support the family and each other, but what redstate offers in their interpretation seems a stretch. Many people of all colors build support networks in their churches, civic organizations, schools, clubs, sports, etc.
They're not all Marxist by nature...just community minded.

There is no question, that like any movement, there are some fringe elements that give it a bad name with their actions.
Concern for social justice is always appropriate, while violence to achieve it is very rarely a good path.
Rather the paths that people like John Lewis laid out are much more productive, but take longer to accomplish a just end.

[Muskie in dayton]

Cool. Now prove that.

I'll take a run at that.

First, let's start with what is widely known - most Covid-19 deaths are people with comorbidities. The CDC reported that in 94% of the deaths, the deceased also had one or several co-morbidities: heart problems, COPD, diabetes, obesity, even cancer and stroke. This in itself doesn't prove anything, but a common sense arguement can be made that for some of the 188,000 that died "with Covid", Covid did not contribute to the death.

Next let's go to testing. The problem is the primary test (PCR) is not very good. In order to detect the viral RNA and confirm a "positive" result, the test material has to be amplified in the lab enough that it can be detected. When you get to 30 amplifications, you start seeing false positives - you've made something that wasn't there in the first place. The CDC recommends 40 amplifications and most labs are in that range, which results in a 3% false positive rate. That doesn't mean that 3% of the positive results are false, it means 3% of the tests are false positives! If you have a 6% positivity rate, at 40 amplification PCR testing, 50% of the "positives" are false positives. Here's an article on this.

So going back to the 188,000 that died "with Covid", how many are false positives? Odds say some, maybe a lot. In this case these "Covid deaths" would have nothing to do with Covid, and thus would be overcounted.

Don't forget the financial incentive to classify cases as Covid. If you want to see the liberties being taken, here's an example. It's just one of many I've seen. The incentive to force Covid cases will result in forced Covid deaths.

I realize these are all lines of evidence, but very strong ones. If you want better quantification of what it means for an overestimate of deaths, check out The Ethical Skeptic on twitter, specifically this analysis. His analysis is extremely detailed but worth the investment in time.

[Lloyd Braun]

I'll take a run at that.

First, let's start with what is widely known - most Covid-19 deaths are people with comorbidities. The CDC reported that in 94% of the deaths, the deceased also had one or several co-morbidities: heart problems, COPD, diabetes, obesity, even cancer and stroke. This in itself doesn't prove anything, but a common sense arguement can be made that for some of the 188,000 that died "with Covid", Covid did not contribute to the death.

Common sense? This is not common sense. Just because someone has diabetes, heart problems, comorbidities, etc doesn’t mean they will die in the near future. It does make them more prone to the complications of serious illness, including COVID. Just like influenza. Who do you think dies from the flu? It’s high risk individuals and almost never the normal population. I have completed several death certificates similar to the twitter link you posted. Line 1- Cause of Death: Complications oF COVID. Line 2- COPD; Dementia (or any other comirbidity). These conditions contributed to the patient’s death, and while complications of COVID was the final cause of death it is important to mention the other contributing factors to properly accumulate data on the burden of disease.

You can point to false positives all you want but the sensitivity of these tests is lower than specificity and you’ll always have more false negatives when that is the case. Which in turn means we miss more cases than we catch, and that should more than compensate for the amount of false positives there are.

[xu82]

I'll take a run at that.

First, let's start with what is widely known - most Covid-19 deaths are people with comorbidities. The CDC reported that in 94% of the deaths, the deceased also had one or several co-morbidities: heart problems, COPD, diabetes, obesity, even cancer and stroke. This in itself doesn't prove anything, but a common sense arguement can be made that for some of the 188,000 that died "with Covid", Covid did not contribute to the death.

Next let's go to testing. The problem is the primary test (PCR) is not very good. In order to detect the viral RNA and confirm a "positive" result, the test material has to be amplified in the lab enough that it can be detected. When you get to 30 amplifications, you start seeing false positives - you've made something that wasn't there in the first place. The CDC recommends 40 amplifications and most labs are in that range, which results in a 3% false positive rate. That doesn't mean that 3% of the positive results are false, it means 3% of the tests are false positives! If you have a 6% positivity rate, at 40 amplification PCR testing, 50% of the "positives" are false positives. Here's an article on this.

So going back to the 188,000 that died "with Covid", how many are false positives? Odds say some, maybe a lot. In this case these "Covid deaths" would have nothing to do with Covid, and thus would be overcounted.

Don't forget the financial incentive to classify cases as Covid. If you want to see the liberties being taken, here's an example. It's just one of many I've seen. The incentive to force Covid cases will result in forced Covid deaths.

I realize these are all lines of evidence, but very strong ones. If you want better quantification of what it means for an overestimate of deaths, check out The Ethical Skeptic on twitter, specifically this analysis. His analysis is extremely detailed but worth the investment in time.

I wanted Waggy to “prove” that. What you did was just argue that. I can give you a link to where actual PhD guys in biochemistry argue this stuff. They can only argue, nobody can PROVE anything. Waggy is just.....Waggy.

I don’t pretend to be an expert. I’d love top see you take on these Phd guys who have worked in university and Big Pharma settings doing this stuff for a living.

I don’t think you will like it.

[waggy]

If there is one thing the world needs less of it's Big Pharma.

But more cowbell.

[Muskie in dayton]

Common sense? This is not common sense. Just because someone has diabetes, heart problems, comorbidities, etc doesn’t mean they will die in the near future. It does make them more prone to the complications of serious illness, including COVID. Just like influenza. Who do you think dies from the flu? It’s high risk individuals and almost never the normal population. I have completed several death certificates similar to the twitter link you posted. Line 1- Cause of Death: Complications oF COVID. Line 2- COPD; Dementia (or any other comirbidity). These conditions contributed to the patient’s death, and while complications of COVID was the final cause of death it is important to mention the other contributing factors to properly accumulate data on the burden of disease.

You can point to false positives all you want but the sensitivity of these tests is lower than specificity and you’ll always have more false negatives when that is the case. Which in turn means we miss more cases than we catch, and that should more than compensate for the amount of false positives there are.

First paragraph: You said nothing I didn't, but I do think it's common sense data interpretation. How about this: I'll concede that some - I'll even concede that most - 188K would still be alive if not for covid, if you concede that at least some would have died regardless if if they had covid or not. Deal?

Second paragraph: It all depends on the amplification of the PCR test material. Unless the test is run under 30 amplifications, false positives will be significantly greater than false negatives, because there are significantly more actual negatives than actual positives.

[Muskie in dayton]

I wanted Waggy to “prove” that. What you did was just argue that. I can give you a link to where actual PhD guys in biochemistry argue this stuff. They can only argue, nobody can PROVE anything. Waggy is just.....Waggy.

I don’t pretend to be an expert. I’d love top see you take on these Phd guys who have worked in university and Big Pharma settings doing this stuff for a living.

I don’t think you will like it.

The only proof possible is a lines of evidence approach, which I provided. Quite often that's how science works.

Go ahead and send the link, as long as you can confirm that this "big pharma" person doesn't have a conflict of interest in their position. I already sent one above of someone equally qualified as a "big pharma PhD", who is independent. Did you look at that?

[Muskie in dayton]

I appreciate your science background. Here is the article I was referring to from the editor of Science magazine:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6510/1409

(I will assume with your background that his opinion might be relevant.)

3 days ago the director of the FBI testified that Antifa was not an organization:

https://apnews.com/bdd3b6078e9efadcfcd0be4b65f2362e

I am not a scientist, but in looking at the virus' impact across the globe, it seems like a place such as Taiwan might be instructive on how a country could better handle their response, and lower the death total.

Thanks for the link. I did read it. I found it to me more opinion piece of what Trump should or shouldn't have presented to the public early in the pandemic. Remember how we didn't have toilet paper, hand sanitizer, etc. for months? We'd still be wiping our butts with leaves if Trump didn't downplay it. "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself".

As to Antifa, I don't know what constitutes an organization, but they are well enough organized to shuttle protesters from city to city, and setup their own
commune in Portland. You won't find that on MSM.

[bobbiemcgee]

Thanks for the link. I did read it. I found it to me more opinion piece of what Trump should or shouldn't have presented to the public early in the pandemic.

Opinion piece? Nope. trump on tape saying he knew the severity of the pandemic and did nothing except lie about it. That's a fact!