• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Corona Virus News & Info

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
52,900
Likes
96,200
Location
Earth
so check this out....

our county had only 4 cases for a long time and then we spiked up to 40 something this fall

so I messaged the county health office and asked a few questions

it sounds odd that there are zero cases of the flu this year but plenty of the China virus to go around

mynext task is to find out how many cases of the flu that this county has had in the last five years

i have a hunch the numbers will not jive


i am Clutch Cargo , CW is the town of Cheyenne Wells where the county seat sits ...I live in Kit Carson which is 20 miles away




View attachment 190431
Telling, very telling yet many people are still afraid of what they don't understand!
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,328
Likes
13,794
Location
Instant Gratification Land
mynext task is to find out how many cases of the flu that this county has had in the last five years
You won't be able to get any hard numbers on how many had the flu. Almost all the data on how many catch the flu is based on estimates.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
12,419
Likes
25,133
Just a thought........
In Ohio 80+ year olds are 53% of the deaths, 70 year olds are 25%. Yea, yea nursing homes, bad health, other issues....... bla bla bla......
What do most 80 year olds do?
Take medications.
Who makes medications?
CHINA!

gates and fauci tied to China, tied to research, tied to medications as a distribution chanel........... is this a world wide holocaust?
It don't have to be 100%. Say medication batches are "salted" with some tampered drugs........ great distribution system that is untraceable like a huge game of Russian roulette.
Some people play games & some play to WIN AT ANY COST.
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
13,065
Likes
16,147
Indy's mayor has the chinaflu now. Oh Dear Sweet Jesus Please we need a Martyr!
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
12,419
Likes
25,133

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
12,419
Likes
25,133
https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-new...ent-for-essential-businesses/5933458/?cat=519

New Mexico launches COVID testing, contact tracing agreement for essential businesses
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico Department of Health and Department of Environment are working together for a new voluntary surveillance testing and contact tracing agreement. Essential businesses following the agreement will "not be considered for closure."
The agreement requires regular COVID-19 testing among all employees, as well as contact tracing. If someone tests positive, under this agreement, the state's rapid response will not count toward the usual 14-day closure requirement in the public health order.

“We’re empowering businesses to stay open by contributing to critical public health efforts,” Environment Department Cabinet Secretary James Kenney said. “By incentivizing businesses to participate in a regular surveillance testing program, we are keeping New Mexicans safe, slowing the spread of COVID-19, and preventing additional closures of essential businesses.”
To join the program, a business must submit a plan to both departments about how surveillance testing and contact tracing efforts will be conducted. Officials said a plan must be submitted for each business location.

“Proactive testing is an essential tool in combating the spread of this virus,” Department of Health Acting Secretary Billy Jimenez said. “Partners in the private sector through these agreements will make a significant and positive impact in curbing COVID-19 in New Mexico.”
If a business is already under a 14-day closure, the agreement could also allow them to reopen early.
To see the current COVID-19 watchlist, click here. To read the agreement in its entirety, click here.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
8,921
Likes
18,484
Location
North Carolina
https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-new...ent-for-essential-businesses/5933458/?cat=519

New Mexico launches COVID testing, contact tracing agreement for essential businesses
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico Department of Health and Department of Environment are working together for a new voluntary surveillance testing and contact tracing agreement. Essential businesses following the agreement will "not be considered for closure."
The agreement requires regular COVID-19 testing among all employees, as well as contact tracing. If someone tests positive, under this agreement, the state's rapid response will not count toward the usual 14-day closure requirement in the public health order.

“We’re empowering businesses to stay open by contributing to critical public health efforts,” Environment Department Cabinet Secretary James Kenney said. “By incentivizing businesses to participate in a regular surveillance testing program, we are keeping New Mexicans safe, slowing the spread of COVID-19, and preventing additional closures of essential businesses.”
To join the program, a business must submit a plan to both departments about how surveillance testing and contact tracing efforts will be conducted. Officials said a plan must be submitted for each business location.

“Proactive testing is an essential tool in combating the spread of this virus,” Department of Health Acting Secretary Billy Jimenez said. “Partners in the private sector through these agreements will make a significant and positive impact in curbing COVID-19 in New Mexico.”
If a business is already under a 14-day closure, the agreement could also allow them to reopen early.
To see the current COVID-19 watchlist, click here. To read the agreement in its entirety, click here.
So voluntarily participating keeps you from being considered for closure

Nice business you got there, would be a shame if anything happened to it
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
12,419
Likes
25,133
Weaponized business licenses, liquor licenses etc....... you will comply........ or we will kill them all. There is no middle ground.
THIS IS WAR!
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
12,419
Likes
25,133
New Mexico goober
1606416580852.png
 

hammerhead

Morphing
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
11,689
Likes
15,836
Location
On a speck of dust
https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-new...ent-for-essential-businesses/5933458/?cat=519

New Mexico launches COVID testing, contact tracing agreement for essential businesses
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico Department of Health and Department of Environment are working together for a new voluntary surveillance testing and contact tracing agreement. Essential businesses following the agreement will "not be considered for closure."
The agreement requires regular COVID-19 testing among all employees, as well as contact tracing. If someone tests positive, under this agreement, the state's rapid response will not count toward the usual 14-day closure requirement in the public health order.

“We’re empowering businesses to stay open by contributing to critical public health efforts,” Environment Department Cabinet Secretary James Kenney said. “By incentivizing businesses to participate in a regular surveillance testing program, we are keeping New Mexicans safe, slowing the spread of COVID-19, and preventing additional closures of essential businesses.”
To join the program, a business must submit a plan to both departments about how surveillance testing and contact tracing efforts will be conducted. Officials said a plan must be submitted for each business location.

“Proactive testing is an essential tool in combating the spread of this virus,” Department of Health Acting Secretary Billy Jimenez said. “Partners in the private sector through these agreements will make a significant and positive impact in curbing COVID-19 in New Mexico.”
If a business is already under a 14-day closure, the agreement could also allow them to reopen early.
To see the current COVID-19 watchlist, click here. To read the agreement in its entirety, click here.
I order a pizza to go the other night. It was from a sports bar. When I went in to pick it up, the place was empty, no tvs on, no patrons at the bar, just kitchen workers and two wait staff. I was told I needed to write my name and phone number on a sheet of paper. I got as far as putting down the date when my pizza arrived. Paid and exited. Same thing when I went to the beach earlier this year. Not sure where the list of people ended up as there were many pages of info.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
54,701
Likes
105,751
Location
Rocky Mountains
I was 'splainin to a young school psychologist (masters degree) that while the CV is real, the 250K dead is not.

I said @ 12K died FROM cv19, whereas 240K died WITH cv19,

He replied as any liberal is wont to do: "If a person with heart disease dies in a house fire, what killed him? Heart disease, or the fire?"

There's a logical fallacy in there equating X with Y, but I was too tired to figure it out.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,362
^ Did old mate twitch after he said his line? It's a false equivalency, one so bad it's not even wrong.
 

arminius

Argentate Luster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,868
Likes
8,642
Last edited:

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
52,900
Likes
96,200
Location
Earth
This article was posted then deleted


https://web.archive.org/web/2020112...1/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

By YANNI GU | November 22, 2020

COURTESY OF GENEVIEVE BRIAND
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September.
According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
12,419
Likes
25,133
https://notthebee.com/article/a-few...-then-deleted-it-read-it-here-in-its-entirety

A few days ago Johns Hopkins published a study saying corona is nbd. They then deleted it. Read it here in its entirety.






Nov 26th, 2020 10:32 pm

Johns Hopkins published this study on Sunday which posits that Covid is nowhere near the disaster we're being told it is. I would summarize it for you or offer pull-quotes but honestly you just have to read it yourself because it's mind-blowing. The original article is now deleted from the Johns Hopkins website ... for some reason. Luckily the internet is forever and it's available via the Wayback Machine. Here is the article in its entirety:
* * *

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master's degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled "COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data."
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
"The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals," Briand said.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people's assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
"This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes," Briand pointed out.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.



Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.
This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.



Graph depicts the total decrease in deaths by various causes, including COVID-19.
The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
"All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary," Briand concluded.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.
"If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn't give us a choice but to point to some misclassification," Briand replied.
In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand's view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.
Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.
Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general.
The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.
According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.
During an interview with The News-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master's candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand's concluding remarks.
"At the end of the day, it's still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant," Dharmasena said.
When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.
* * *
Facebook and Twitter will certainly block this article within hours of its publication. Just like Johns Hopkins deleted it from its site. The question is ... why?

A few days ago Johns Hopkins published a study saying corona is nbd. They then deleted it. Read it here in its entirety.







Doc Holliday


Nov 26th, 2020 10:32 pm

Johns Hopkins published this study on Sunday which posits that Covid is nowhere near the disaster we're being told it is. I would summarize it for you or offer pull-quotes but honestly you just have to read it yourself because it's mind-blowing. The original article is now deleted from the Johns Hopkins website ... for some reason. Luckily the internet is forever and it's available via the Wayback Machine. Here is the article in its entirety:
* * *


Experience 5G at Metro

Ad by Metro by T-Mobile


See More


According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master's degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled "COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data."
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
"The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals," Briand said.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people's assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
"This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes," Briand pointed out.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.



Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.
This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.



Graph depicts the total decrease in deaths by various causes, including COVID-19.
The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
"All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary," Briand concluded.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.
"If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn't give us a choice but to point to some misclassification," Briand replied.
In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand's view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.
Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.
Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general.
The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.
According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.
During an interview with The News-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master's candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand's concluding remarks.
"At the end of the day, it's still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant," Dharmasena said.
When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.
* * *
Facebook and Twitter will certainly block this article within hours of its publication. Just like Johns Hopkins deleted it from its site. The question is ... why?





* * *
UPDATE: JHU tweeted that they deleted the article because it "was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic."

Importantly, they didn't say anything in the article was incorrect. So we're just memory-holing studies that don't align with the narrative? Got it.



* * *
UPDATE: JHU tweeted that they deleted the article because it "was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic."

Importantly, they didn't say anything in the article was incorrect. So we're just memory-holing studies that don't align with the narrative? Got it.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
12,419
Likes
25,133
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/25/new-evidence-on-the-effectiveness-of-lockdown/

New evidence on the effectiveness of lockdown

A few weeks back I wrote an article about an observational study published in Lancet that, among other things, looked at whether there was any correlation between stringency of lockdown and the number of people who died of covid. It didn’t find any correlation, which suggests that lockdowns don’t work. That study did have some major limitations however.

First of all, it was observational, based on analysis of statistics, and so can only show patterns (or lack of patterns), not cause and effect, and retrospective, meaning that the researchers based their analysis on existing data that had been produced for other purposes. This is a relatively low quality form of evidence. Second, the follow-up period was short, with data only being gathered until May 1st. It could be argued that this is too short a time period to see an effect of lockdown on mortality.

Now, however, we have some new data that addresses both of these limitations. The first comes in the form of a prospective cohort study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. A prospective cohort study is a study in which a group of people are recruited and then followed over time to see what happens to them. This is better than a retrospective study, because there is no way of looking at the end result before you begin, and thereby less scope for “cheating”. It’s not as good as a randomized controlled trial (the gold standard in terms of scientific methodology) because you’re not in control of all the variables, and you don’t have a control group, but it is a big step up from just looking at national statistics and trying to draw conclusions from them.

The study was funded by the US Defence Health Agency and DARPA (the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency), and the purpose of the study was to see if quarantine rules that had been implemented in the US Marine Corps were effective at preventing spread of covid-19. The intervention involved many different parts, so we’re going to go through it in some detail. The group that was studied was new Marine Corps recruits, who were going through their initial training period.

The new recruits were asked to self-quarantine at home for the two weeks immediately prior to arriving at the base to begin their service in the Marine Corps. When they did arrive, they were placed in a further two week quarantine at a college campus that was being used exclusively for this purpose. During the second quarantine period, the recruits were required to wear face masks at all times except when eating and sleeping, to always be at least six feet apart, and they were prohibited from leaving the campus. They had to wash their hands regularly, and were not allowed access to electronics or other items that might contribute to surface transmission of the virus. Furthermore, they spent most of their time outdoors.

The campus was organized in such a way that all movement was unidirectional, and every building had separate entry and exit points, to keep people from getting too close to each other or bumping in to each other. During their time in campus, recruits only had direct contact with other members of their platoon and their instructors. They were not allowed to interact with any of the on-site support staff (cooks, cleaners, etc).

The recruits lived two to a room, ate together with their platoon in a communal eating area, and used shared bathrooms. They were required to disinfect the bathrooms with bleach between after each visit, and the dining hall was cleaned with bleach in between meals.

All recruits had their temperature taken daily and were asked on a daily basis about symptoms. At any sign of symptoms or a raised temperature, they were put in isolation and not allowed to return to their platoon until a PCR test came back negative.

A total of 1,848 marine recruits were enrolled in the study and the average age of the participants was 19. PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 were carried out on arrival at the campus, and on days 7 and 14 of the two week on-campus quarantine. Anyone who tested positive at any of these time points was immediately placed in isolation. A further 1,619 recruits declined to participate in the study or were excluded because they were under 18. However, the 1,619 individuals who declined to participate in the study followed the exact same restrictions as the study group, except for the fact that they didn’t have PCR tests taken on arrival or on day 7. They therefore cannot be used as a control group, which is unfortunate.

So, what were the results?

16 out of 1,847 recruits (0,9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on arrival at the campus. All of them claimed to have quarantined at home for the full two weeks before arrival and had not been exposed to anyone with symptoms during that period. 5 of these 16 individuals had antibodies to covid, and were thus most likely not infectious (antibodies generally develop around two weeks after infection, at which point people usually are no longer infectious). Only one of the 16 had symptoms. All 16 were isolated from the rest of the recruits as soon as their results came back positive (within 48 hours).

On day 7, a new round of PCR testing was carried out and a further 24 recruits had become positive to SARS-CoV-2, of which three were symptomatic. On day 14, a final round of PCR testing was carried out, and 11 more recruits had become positive, of which one was symptomatic.

Overall, 1,9% of participants became PCR positive during the two week period, in spite of all the measures taken to prevent spread, although only four people developed symptomatic covid. It is important to note that the infected people were not spread evenly throughout the platoons. Some platoons had a lot of infections, and others had none.

The researchers followed up by looking at which specific covid strains were present among the recruits, in order to figure out where people became infected, and from whom. Not surprisingly, infection happened within platoons, and more specifically, to a large extent within shared bedrooms. In spite of the fact that different platoons were walking in the same corridors, using the same bathrooms, and eating in the same mess hall, no infection happened across platoons – all infections happened within platoons (with one exception, where two people from different platoons were sharing a bedroom).

Another interesting result from the viral genome mapping is how many people a single infected person could go on to infect, in spite of all the measures in place to prevent spread. In two separate platoons, one person brought the virus in from outside, and spread the infection to eight other individuals within their platoon over the course of the two week period.

In some ways I find this the most interesting result of the whole study. The fact that you can go from a single infected person to nine infected people in one platoon over the course of a two week period, in spite of the use of extraordinarily stringent methods to prevent spread, shows how unbelievably infectious SARS-CoV-2 can be.

What can we conclude from all this?

First of all, it is important to note that this study has one problematic aspect, and that is the use of PCR without some kind of follow-up to confirm that a positive result really is a true positive (for example with a viral culture). A second problem is that there is no control group, so it’s impossible to say what would have happened had there been no lockdown-like restrictions.

That being said, this study clearly shows how effectively the virus spreads even when extremely repressive methods are being used to contain it. In spite of strict physical distancing, rigorous hand and surface hygiene, face masks, PCR based screening, daily symptom checks, and two weeks of quarantine before even arriving at campus, the virus still snuck in and was still able to spread effectively among the recruits. The stringency of the measures that were put in place among the recruits was far more extreme than anything that could be accomplished in a civilian setting. And yet, in two of the platoons, the virus still spread like wildfire.

Having said that, it would have been nice to have had a control group to compare with. Hopefully a proper randomized controlled trial will come out at some point that clarifies the remaining question marks, and gives a more definitive answer to the question of what effect, if any, stringent lockdowns have in terms of stopping the spread of covid-19.

There are three other aspects of this study that I find interesting. The first is that it suggests that pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread does happen with covid, since anyone showing the slightest symptoms was immediately isolated, and in spite of this, the virus still spread. And the two individuals who were thought to be the index patients for the two big clusters never developed any symptoms themselves

The second is that it gives further credence to the idea that most people with covid are not very infectious, while a small number of people are “super spreaders”. If we presume that the five people who were both PCR and antibody positive on arrival no longer had active infections, then that means 11 people had active covid infections on arrival at the campus. Two weeks later, an additional 38 people had been infected. Of those, 16 were infected by just two people, which means that the remaining 22 were infected by some combination of the other nine. So, two individuals were clearly far more infectious than the rest.

The third aspect that is interesting is that infection only happened within platoons, not between them. That is in spite of the fact that different platoons were using the same spaces, only at different times. To me this suggests that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t hang around in the air and maintain the ability to infect people who come in to the same space at a later time point, as some people have been suggesting (one recent Swedish study had found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital attic and this led to fear-mongering articles in the Swedish media). Rather, it seems from this study that covid-19 only spreads through close and immediate personal contact.

Next up, we have a study that was recently published in Frontiers in Public Health. The authors received no specific funding for the study and reported no conflicts of interest. Like the Lancet study I wrote about a few weeks back, this was an analysis of global statistics. The difference between this study and the previous one is that this one looked at a lot more countries (every country that had at least 10 covid deaths at the end of August was included, which means that 160 countries were included in total), and looked at a much longer time frame. While the earlier study only gathered data up to May 1st, this one gathered data until the end of August. If lockdowns do affect mortality, there should certainly be a visible effect by that time.

So, what were the results?

The was no correlation between the stringency of lockdown and the number of covid deaths. Strong positive correlations with covid deaths were seen with the proportion of the population that is obese, and with the level of sedentary behavior in the population. In other words, the results are perfectly in line with the earlier study published in Lancet. Other factors that were found to correlate positively with covid mortality were age, proportion of the population with cardiovascular disease, and proportion of the population with cancer.

Two factors that showed a strong negative correlation with covid mortality were the general prevalence of infectious diseases in a population, and the average Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This makes sense to me, since poorer countries have more infectious diseases generally, and they also have younger, less obese populations, that are less likely to succumb to covid if infected.

Two other factors that correlated negatively with covid mortality were average temperature and average level of sunlight. Given that covid seemed to disappear in many countries during the summer, and now seems to have returned in autumn, the virus appears to act in a highly seasonal manner, so it makes sense that these correlations would exist. No correlation was seen, however, between humidity and death rate from covid.

What can we conclude from these two studies?

I would say that these studies strengthen the conclusions from my previous article. Lockdown appears to be largely ineffective. Ensuring good overall population health by encouraging a healthy diet and regular exercise does appear to be effective.

But if it is the case that lockdown is ineffective, how come Sweden had so many more covid deaths than other nordic countries?

That is a topic I will come back to in the near future.

You might also be interested in my article about how deadly covid is, or my article about the accuracy of the covid-19 tests.


I am rolling out a ton of new science-backed content over the coming months, including:
- Analyses of the benefits and risks of all common supplements and medications
- The keys to a longer, healthier life (possibly quite different from what you may have heard)
- A long-term follow-up of the health consequences of the covid pandemic and global lockdown.
Please provide your e-mail address below and you will get all this content straight to your inbox the moment it is released.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
10,497
Likes
21,580
The fatality rate has fallen another tenth of a percent as of this morning's numbers. Fatality rate is now at 2.0%

FR201127.jpg


FR201127b.jpg


https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
 

arminius

Argentate Luster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,868
Likes
8,642
Pandemic Exposes How Science Is Suppressed for Political, Financial Gain

Suppressing science is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones.
****************

Politicization of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed.

When good science is suppressed, people die.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
54,701
Likes
105,751
Location
Rocky Mountains
Gretchen Whitmer CALLED OUT For Hilarious Ability To FAIL UPWARDS...Dems Are A JOKE.

Liberal Hivemind
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
52,900
Likes
96,200
Location
Earth
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
54,701
Likes
105,751
Location
Rocky Mountains
Hushed-Up Report: “COVID-19 has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”
By Kelly
-
Nov 27, 2020


These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.


Apparently the news was politically unacceptable so Johns Hopkins pulled it down. But as the guy says – the internet lives forever! Click on the link below to read it.

https://web.archive.org/web/2020112...1/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
 

arminius

Argentate Luster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,868
Likes
8,642
Here's Why You Should Skip the Covid Vaccine
MIKE WHITNEY • NOVEMBER 28, 2020

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”
Albert Einstein

The new Covid vaccines will make billions of dollars for the big pharmaceutical companies, but here’s what they won’t do:

The vaccines will not cure Covid
The vaccines will not prevent people from contracting Covid
The vaccines will not prevent Covid-related hospitalizations
The vaccines will not prevent Covid-caused deaths

Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “If the vaccine does not protect me from getting Covid (or dying from Covid), then why should I take it?”

And the answer is: “You shouldn’t. It makes no sense at all, especially in view of the fact that new vaccines pose considerable risks to one’s health and well-being.

***

Inadequate Assessment of the Public Health Risk from a Covid Vaccine

In a recent letter to the British Medical Journal (BMJ), physician Arvind Joshi warned against the disaster that could result from this misguided policy and outlined the serious risks involved to the public and other serious issues that are being taken if a Covid Vaccine is rushed out without thorough and adequate safety and efficacy testing:

“Adverse effects like Subacute Sclerosing Pan Encephalitis, Ascending Polyneuritis, Myopathies, Autoimmune Diseases, and rarer chance of triggering development of malignancies are most dreaded possibilities.“...“The rush for the Vaccines should not lead to disaster.” (Note: There is a more comprehensive list of potential ‘bad outcomes’ in the link to the article.)
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
54,701
Likes
105,751
Location
Rocky Mountains
From deaths to cases
Screen Shot 2020-11-29 at 3.22.35 PM.png
 

Varmint Hunter

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,446
Likes
9,140

arminius

Argentate Luster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,868
Likes
8,642
And here's where all this leads...

 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
52,900
Likes
96,200
Location
Earth

arminius

Argentate Luster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
5,868
Likes
8,642
It's a dammed lie, no doubt, but it isn't a joke.