Covid-19

[bobbiemcgee]

No they didn’t. 3,000 deaths were REPORTED yesterday.

Yesterday was record for cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Troll on.

[XU_Lou]

"We would not at all be surprised to see, coincidentally, vaccination happening and then having someone pass away a short time after they receive a vaccine, not because it has anything to do with the vaccination but just because that's the place where people at the end of their lives reside," Moore said (Dr. Kelly Moore, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition).

So, I'm really confused by this statement. If an elderly person dies just days after receiving a vaccine, we shouldn't assume that it's a result of the vaccine? That's really strange, because if an elderly person dies WITH Covid, it's automatically assumed, and counted, as a death FROM Covid.

Why the double standard?? I mean, we know the vast majority of people dying from Covid are elderly - roughly 60% of all Covid deaths are above age 75. And we know that 94% of all Covid deaths have at least one comorbidity.

So why the double standard? Does anyone find this just a little curious?


I hope this is an officially approved source for all you libs: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wh...ma/ar-BB1bDcpG

[Muskie in dayton]

Are you actually serious?

Because none of that shit is fact checked or peer reviewed. It doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it questionable. Also - they almost always have a clear agenda. Looking through the history of the feed you linked to, it's pretty obvious what their agenda is. The account was created in May of 2020, right after COVID hit. All posts are about COVID, and all posts are related to the same theme. Every single post is cherry picked data about how COVID deaths are over-counted or masks and social distancing don't work. Many of the posts contain charts that were clearly created in Excel and are un-sourced. He's retweeting things like 'the freedom foundation' and 'el gato malo'

If it confirms your bias it seems great to you, and you post ad nauseum links to it and encourage people to 'open their eyes', but you are applying a completely different standard of proof to information that confirms your bias than you are information that conflicts with it. On one side, we have nearly every Doctor and peer-reviewed Medical publication. On the other side we have PLC's twitter feed.

In general science should strive to be based on objective analysis of data. I don't see how you could make a claim that the twitter feed above is objective. But yeah, let's continue to get our news from places where all we know about them is three initials and a picture of a bird. Open your eyes, Sheeple!

Wait, are YOU serious? Peer reviewed? This isn't a scientific research study, it's a data compilation. If you don't trust the author, go look at Covid tracking project or Worldometer. You can peer review it yourself in 2 minutes! WTF.

These are DATA. There is no bias in the numbers - they are what they are. If this is your idea of bias, there is no hope. If you think it's cherry picking, show me data counter to the conclusion of seasonality being the dominant mechanism for spread. You can't, because there aren't any.

If you can't look at numbers and draw conclusions, but need media stories to tell you how to think, you are the sheep. Boozehound, open your mind.

[Muskie in dayton]

Yesterday was record for cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Troll on.

REPORTED.

Is pointing out a fact "trolling"?

[Xville]

Wait, are YOU serious? Peer reviewed? This isn't a scientific research study, it's a data compilation. If you don't trust the author, go look at Covid tracking project or Worldometer. You can peer review it yourself in 2 minutes! WTF.

These are DATA. There is no bias in the numbers - they are what they are. If this is your idea of bias, there is no hope. If you think it's cherry picking, show me data counter to the conclusion of seasonality being the dominant mechanism for spread. You can't, because there aren't any.



If you can't look at numbers and draw conclusions, but need media stories to tell you how to think, you are the sheep. Boozehound, open your mind.

Yes believe the twitter feed lol I'll create a chart with excel and post it to twitter...since it's on twitter we know it's true

[D-West & PO-Z]

REPORTED.

Is pointing out a fact "trolling"?

Unless your assertion is they are reporting the same people multiple times, your weird point on reported vs the actual day doesnt matter or make sense. Every day the numbers are super high, so it doesnt matter if its for that actual day or the day before. It isn't like one day is super low because they saved up all the reported deaths hospitalizations, etc to only report on one day to make that one day look really bad.

[bjf123]

Unless your assertion is they are reporting the same people multiple times,....

I did hear someone on the radio say he tested positive for COVID. He went back a number of days later for a follow up test and again tested positive. He asked how that would be reported since he’s the same guy with probably the same infection. He was told each positive test is reported as a new case, even if it’s the same person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[D-West & PO-Z]

I did hear someone on the radio say he tested positive for COVID. He went back a number of days later for a follow up test and again tested positive. He asked how that would be reported since he’s the same guy with probably the same infection. He was told each positive test is reported as a new case, even if it’s the same person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was more referring to hospitalizations and deaths.

I doubt that is the standard but maybe, I havent heard enought about that. I do know the vast majority of people who test positive however arent going back for testing again because it isn't required to return back to work etc.

I work in the skilled nursing home industry. Employees are tested twice a week. If you test positive you are off and on isolation for the CDC recommended time. When you return you do not do the regular testing for 12 weeks.

So my guess, even if that happened for that guy, it doesnt happen often because people do not need follow up testing to get off of isolation and return to life.

[boozehound]

Yes believe the twitter feed lol I'll create a chart with excel and post it to twitter...since it's on twitter we know it's true

Bingo. Anybody can post anything on twitter. The problem is when people believe that because an anonymous source posts numbers on twitter that they become DATA. I would bet anything that those same people don't apply the same standard of proof to shit that gets posted on twitter that doesn't fit their agenda.

I'm not even saying that the stuff he linked to is wrong, just that twitter post doesn't necessarily equal fact.

[XU_Lou]

"We would not at all be surprised to see, coincidentally, vaccination happening and then having someone pass away a short time after they receive a vaccine, not because it has anything to do with the vaccination but just because that's the place where people at the end of their lives reside," Moore said (Dr. Kelly Moore, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition).

So, I'm really confused by this statement. If an elderly person dies just days after receiving a vaccine, we shouldn't assume that it's a result of the vaccine? That's really strange, because if an elderly person dies WITH Covid, it's automatically assumed, and counted, as a death FROM Covid.

Why the double standard?? I mean, we know the vast majority of people dying from Covid are elderly - roughly 60% of all Covid deaths are above age 75. And we know that 94% of all Covid deaths have at least one comorbidity.

So why the double standard? Does anyone find this just a little curious?


I hope this is an officially approved source for all you libs: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wh...ma/ar-BB1bDcpG

D-West has a problem with this - I guess he's too much of a chicken to explain why...