Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums  Register  Login  My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums 

Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ  Ticket List  Log Out

RE: Covid 19 and those infected

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: Covid 19 and those infected Page: <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 3:40:10 PM   
thebigo


Posts: 28294
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

The World Health Organization clarified comments an official made on Monday that called asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus "very rare," saying in a press conference that these carriers do take part in spreading the virus but that more information is needed to know by how much.

What they're saying: WHO official Maria Van Kerkhove clarified Tuesday that patients sometimes confuse not having any symptoms with only exhibiting mild symptoms. In addition, some patients transmit the virus before developing symptoms. Contact tracers classify this group as "presymptomatic," rather than asymptomatic.

Van Kerkhov said the WHO estimates 16% of people are asymptomatic and can transmit the virus. Some models suggest up to 40% of coronavirus transmission might be due to asymptomatic spread, she added, but much more information is needed.
Van Kerkhove stressed that her comments on Monday were specific to particular studies and did not represent a new policy or direction. The WHO said it regrets saying that asymptomatic spread is "very rare."

https://www.axios.com/who-asymptomatic-coronavirus-69c56ce3-41e0-4ea7-ab2a-de866713b4cf.html


These guys are like the caffeine study of the week, which one you gonna believe?

That is a completely false statement. They have always cautioned about asymptomatic spread, except for one mis-statement by Van Kerkhove, which she immediately clarified.


That's a pretty big mis-statement.

Regardless of the magnitude of the mistake, she corrected it immediately. The WHO position that covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people is widely supported by the scientific community. I get that you want it to be otherwise, but those are the facts, like it or not.


I don't want to believe it, and I didn't, until Mark seemed certain of it, and I googled it, and the mis-staement showed up, and the correction did not.
Post #: 951
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 3:45:05 PM   
kgdabom

 

Posts: 33742
Joined: 7/29/2007
Status: offline
The Sturgis rally should have been cancelled. To me that is obvious. So far the repercussions are far less than I would have expected and I hope it remains that way.

_____________________________

"So let it be written.
So let it be done."
Post #: 952
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 3:47:03 PM   
bohumm

 

Posts: 5705
Joined: 10/28/2007
From: Altadena, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

The World Health Organization clarified comments an official made on Monday that called asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus "very rare," saying in a press conference that these carriers do take part in spreading the virus but that more information is needed to know by how much.

What they're saying: WHO official Maria Van Kerkhove clarified Tuesday that patients sometimes confuse not having any symptoms with only exhibiting mild symptoms. In addition, some patients transmit the virus before developing symptoms. Contact tracers classify this group as "presymptomatic," rather than asymptomatic.

Van Kerkhov said the WHO estimates 16% of people are asymptomatic and can transmit the virus. Some models suggest up to 40% of coronavirus transmission might be due to asymptomatic spread, she added, but much more information is needed.
Van Kerkhove stressed that her comments on Monday were specific to particular studies and did not represent a new policy or direction. The WHO said it regrets saying that asymptomatic spread is "very rare."

https://www.axios.com/who-asymptomatic-coronavirus-69c56ce3-41e0-4ea7-ab2a-de866713b4cf.html


These guys are like the caffeine study of the week, which one you gonna believe?

That is a completely false statement. They have always cautioned about asymptomatic spread, except for one mis-statement by Van Kerkhove, which she immediately clarified.


That's a pretty big mis-statement.

This is a very complex, novel virus; mistakes abound, because it's real life with real humans. Some mistakes are worse than others: the edict that the public doesn't need to wear masks might be one of the biggest medical/public health mistakes in human history. A spokesperson misspeaking and almost immediately clarifying is also a huge mistake, but not a medical/public health mistake. Because of the bias against science and experts as well as the wish that this would just go away, people seized on this and won't let go---in spite of the clarification---because they want to go without masks, distance, or sacrifice, and have the virus and deaths "magically disappear" in Trump's words.
Post #: 953
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 3:50:24 PM   
thebigo


Posts: 28294
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

The World Health Organization clarified comments an official made on Monday that called asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus "very rare," saying in a press conference that these carriers do take part in spreading the virus but that more information is needed to know by how much.

What they're saying: WHO official Maria Van Kerkhove clarified Tuesday that patients sometimes confuse not having any symptoms with only exhibiting mild symptoms. In addition, some patients transmit the virus before developing symptoms. Contact tracers classify this group as "presymptomatic," rather than asymptomatic.

Van Kerkhov said the WHO estimates 16% of people are asymptomatic and can transmit the virus. Some models suggest up to 40% of coronavirus transmission might be due to asymptomatic spread, she added, but much more information is needed.
Van Kerkhove stressed that her comments on Monday were specific to particular studies and did not represent a new policy or direction. The WHO said it regrets saying that asymptomatic spread is "very rare."

https://www.axios.com/who-asymptomatic-coronavirus-69c56ce3-41e0-4ea7-ab2a-de866713b4cf.html


These guys are like the caffeine study of the week, which one you gonna believe?

That is a completely false statement. They have always cautioned about asymptomatic spread, except for one mis-statement by Van Kerkhove, which she immediately clarified.


That's a pretty big mis-statement.

This is a very complex, novel virus; mistakes abound, because it's real life with real humans. Some mistakes are worse than others: the edict that the public doesn't need to wear masks might be one of the biggest medical/public health mistakes in human history. A spokesperson misspeaking and almost immediately clarifying is also a huge mistake, but not a medical/public health mistake. Because of the bias against science and experts as well as the wish that this would just go away, people seized on this and won't let go---in spite of the clarification---because they want to go without masks, distance, or sacrifice, and have the virus and deaths "magically disappear" in Trump's words.


That's a well earned bias though, I would call it more of a mistrust or lack of confidence.
Post #: 954
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 4:03:40 PM   
bohumm

 

Posts: 5705
Joined: 10/28/2007
From: Altadena, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

The World Health Organization clarified comments an official made on Monday that called asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus "very rare," saying in a press conference that these carriers do take part in spreading the virus but that more information is needed to know by how much.

What they're saying: WHO official Maria Van Kerkhove clarified Tuesday that patients sometimes confuse not having any symptoms with only exhibiting mild symptoms. In addition, some patients transmit the virus before developing symptoms. Contact tracers classify this group as "presymptomatic," rather than asymptomatic.

Van Kerkhov said the WHO estimates 16% of people are asymptomatic and can transmit the virus. Some models suggest up to 40% of coronavirus transmission might be due to asymptomatic spread, she added, but much more information is needed.
Van Kerkhove stressed that her comments on Monday were specific to particular studies and did not represent a new policy or direction. The WHO said it regrets saying that asymptomatic spread is "very rare."

https://www.axios.com/who-asymptomatic-coronavirus-69c56ce3-41e0-4ea7-ab2a-de866713b4cf.html


These guys are like the caffeine study of the week, which one you gonna believe?

That is a completely false statement. They have always cautioned about asymptomatic spread, except for one mis-statement by Van Kerkhove, which she immediately clarified.


That's a pretty big mis-statement.

This is a very complex, novel virus; mistakes abound, because it's real life with real humans. Some mistakes are worse than others: the edict that the public doesn't need to wear masks might be one of the biggest medical/public health mistakes in human history. A spokesperson misspeaking and almost immediately clarifying is also a huge mistake, but not a medical/public health mistake. Because of the bias against science and experts as well as the wish that this would just go away, people seized on this and won't let go---in spite of the clarification---because they want to go without masks, distance, or sacrifice, and have the virus and deaths "magically disappear" in Trump's words.


That's a well earned bias though, I would call it more of a mistrust or lack of confidence.

I think that for some people, they are stacked: a basic mistrust or lack of confidence, which is fairly reasonable (the term "healthy skepticism" comes to mind), for some is added to a bias, which I would say, at a minimum, is unreasonable bordering on dangerous.
Post #: 955
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 4:23:06 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

Well I wouldn’t expect high inflow from lower than average infection counties. They are already doing more to stop the spread. The dummies that think it’s a hoax (thus causing their counties to be high infection) hopped on their bikes and traded infections with their bros from other dummie filled counties and left a trail of higher infection rates wherever they traveled and the spread worsened. Seems completely reasonable.


The high inflow was from higher infection areas that are all urban cities. I suppose you can argue they have more "dummies', but I don't think so.

And it was probably noise in the data anyway.

These same cities would have had businesses and people that could have driven on the Interstate right past Sturgis and not stopped at all. A truck driver going from LA to Minneapolis would have time spent in either area and that he drove right by Sturgis.
Post #: 956
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 4:26:49 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

It bugs the hell out of me...laugh at the proposed #'s of the potential fallout of that gathering without admonishing the gathering. What a shit wagon to hitch onto.


This the core what is wrong today. You cannot point out massively flawed numbers because the cause overall is just.

The gathering was unwise and I did not go. Better?

One expecting a nationally picked up economical analysis to be true, but apparently not if the cause is just to make up big lies.
Post #: 957
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 4:29:37 PM  1 votes
Todd M

 

Posts: 40481
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
Just stop defending anything related to Trump or the virus. You backed an idiot. A dangerous lying idiot. If any of you had a lick of decency you'd sit back and stfu.
Post #: 958
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 4:35:32 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
Deleted

< Message edited by unome -- 9/9/2020 5:08:48 PM >
Post #: 959
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 4:38:36 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

Just stop defending anything related to Trump or the virus. You backed an idiot. A dangerous lying idiot. If any of you had a lick of decency you'd sit back and stfu.


I am not sure who this is supposed to be aimed at, but since it was written right after two of my posts, I will respond.

I did not vote for Trump and I will not vote for Trump in 2020. I backed neither idiot from the two main parties and if YOU had any decency you would stop trying to silence all dissent.
Post #: 960
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 4:57:22 PM   
Todd M

 

Posts: 40481
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

I'll take actual photo evidence over the word of someone that wasn't even there...




That is photo evidence of someone that also was not there this year as that is not a photo from this year since no one is wearing a mask in that photo, not even the Police.

That is Main Street Sturgis though, so at least that part is correct


It may not be from this year but you can't say its not bc no one is wearing a mask.
Post #: 961
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:03:42 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

And since this seems to be a big enough story that literally everyone from CNN to FOX News posted it, and since "I know me" well enough to know I'm out of my league with these kinds of numbers, I asked some friends for their input:

Friend 1:

How many confirmed cases among attendees?

I see 260 as of a week ago. What proportion of actual cases is that? I haven’t been following the latest studies as closely, but I’ll use this july data as a basic framework:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
40%-70% asymptomatic (I’ll use the upper number and there’s a good chance more people would be infected with mild symptoms and not report it)
6 days between infection and infecting another person
R0 2.5 (just to simplify let’s assume all 2.5 infected on day 6
Aug 7-16 (24-33 days ago) – ~4-5 infection periods

So say it’s 850 direct infections. That would get us in the neighborhood of 80k cases by now. 2500 cases (i.e. the confirmed cases from a week ago are in the neighborhood of 10% of the actual cases) gets us to 250k. That doesn’t seem outlandish to me, and would represent 0.05% of ~500k attendees becoming infected. That’s roughly in-line with high-transmission states reported new-case rates.

Obviously huge error bars on this napkin math, but for a gathering of that many people without great distancing, 250k is certainly in the realm of possibility. Regardless of the actual number, there are almost certainly going to be a meaningful number of extra deaths among non-attendees and strain on the health care system.

Friend 2 (responding to Friend 1):

I like your math.

But let’s say the error bars are large say 20-30% we’d still be talking about 200K cases. To the point, even if it was only 50K cases, it’s a ridiculous outcome in the sense of how bad it is. Putting a dollar value on it moves it into the realm of something most folks can understand, though I am sure the value assigned depends on a ton of assumptions.

However, the people who give a crap already know it was an exercise in extreme and wanton stupidity, the people who attended and will end up with COVID don’t care until they end up debilitated or dead, any other outcome is not severe enough to matter.


This is interesting and it could have happened like that, but the national numbers have a hard time supporting this at all. Actually, I would say that they clearly refute the likelihood of any of that having actually happened.

Sturgis starts on August 2: 63,152 daily COVID cases averaged in the last 7 days.
Less than a month after Sturgis ended: 38,101 daily COVID cases averaged in the last 7 days
.

These numbers are from here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

So we had a 'super-spreader event' and the national numbers took their biggest dip, I believe, in the whole pandemic during that time? At some point, doesn't the actual national data tell us that this massive super-spreading event did not happen?

I know I am probably on a little island here, but I actually care only about the actual numbers and how science/economics is done. If we start pawning data analysis off as real when it says nothing of the sort, do we believe a real study next time?

I can certainly agree that a super-spreader event COULD have happened at Sturgis, but it does not appear that it did. Just like the BLM rallies COULD have been super-spreader events, but they did not appear to be.

Does that means it was a great idea? No, probably not.
Post #: 962
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:05:58 PM   
paulgly

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 4/13/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

I'll take actual photo evidence over the word of someone that wasn't even there...




That is photo evidence of someone that also was not there this year as that is not a photo from this year since no one is wearing a mask in that photo, not even the Police.

That is Main Street Sturgis though, so at least that part is correct


It may not have been this year but I can tell you that I remember one person wearing a mask. It was notable because I remember thinking 'I hope he doesn't get his ass kicked'.

To clarify - I meant the photo may not have been this year but you wouldn't have been able to tell by mask wearing...one dude is all I saw

< Message edited by paulgly -- 9/9/2020 5:08:54 PM >
Post #: 963
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:10:05 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

It may not be from this year but you can't say its not bc no one is wearing a mask.


True. I deleted my post because I had seen a picture of Police wearing masks at Sturgis, but it appears many did not.
Post #: 964
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:16:15 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
I do find it a little sad that my comments about a photo received more direct comments than my analysis of the economic paper on Sturgis as a "super-spreader event".

Part of me is really bothered that a completely bogus study that is based on assumptions that were IMO purposefully flawed made the rounds on national news. But the other part of me thinks I should get an Economics PHD and write bogus studies to dupe the national media, because it is pretty easy.
Post #: 965
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:22:45 PM   
Bill Jandro

 

Posts: 17917
Joined: 8/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I don't care what the #'s are the Stugis get together was complete idiocy and all those who gather in such a fashion are the problem.


Why, because it's outside of your little sphere of activities? Maybe they were able to see ahead of the event that the rate of COVID cases for attendees would be well under the national rate for that period of time.

No, because cramming 500,000 non socially distanced people into bars, restaurants, hotels and camp grounds in a relatively small area around a small town during a pandemic is just plain f***ing stupid. Anyone not living in the great state of denial can see that clear as day.

Again this is not a small area 8,426 mi² encompass the Black Hills. I've been to the event in the past. Bikers are scattered across the entire area. Our group never even went into the town of Sturgis.

Oh give it a rest Bill. We have all seen the videos and photos from Sturgis this year. Nobody is buying this fake narrative of all of these people spread out in wide open spaces. They were crammed into pockets within that acreage because a lot of that area is covered in hills with no people on them. You may not have gone into the town, but it's pretty obvious that many thousands did.

Ok we''ll accept your distorted version vs a person that has actually been out there during bike week.


I'll take actual photo evidence over the word of someone that wasn't even there...



So where are the other 490,000 people?

_____________________________

Oline...early and often this draft
Post #: 966
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:22:46 PM   
paulgly

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 4/13/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

I do find it a little sad that my comments about a photo received more direct comments than my analysis of the economic paper on Sturgis as a "super-spreader event".

Part of me is really bothered that a completely bogus study that is based on assumptions that were IMO purposefully flawed made the rounds on national news. But the other part of me thinks I should get an Economics PHD and write bogus studies to dupe the national media, because it is pretty easy.


I already said I am highly skeptical of the study. I also don't think it should distract from the point that this absolutely could have been a super spreader. And it was completely unnecessary. Not smart enough to know myself, and I haven't seen anything one could remotely call definitive yet.
Post #: 967
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:28:19 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulgly

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

I do find it a little sad that my comments about a photo received more direct comments than my analysis of the economic paper on Sturgis as a "super-spreader event".

Part of me is really bothered that a completely bogus study that is based on assumptions that were IMO purposefully flawed made the rounds on national news. But the other part of me thinks I should get an Economics PHD and write bogus studies to dupe the national media, because it is pretty easy.


I already said I am highly skeptical of the study. I also don't think it should distract from the point that this absolutely could have been a super spreader. And it was completely unnecessary. Not smart enough to know myself, and I haven't seen anything one could remotely call definitive yet.


I know the Internet is tricky because I did not mean my post as any sort of attack on you or Todd.

I was just bummed that what I did want to discuss, wasn't, and what I should not have even posted about and do not much care about, was.

Just a bit of whining on my part. Nothing personal.
Post #: 968
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:32:08 PM   
paulgly

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 4/13/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulgly

quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

I do find it a little sad that my comments about a photo received more direct comments than my analysis of the economic paper on Sturgis as a "super-spreader event".

Part of me is really bothered that a completely bogus study that is based on assumptions that were IMO purposefully flawed made the rounds on national news. But the other part of me thinks I should get an Economics PHD and write bogus studies to dupe the national media, because it is pretty easy.


I already said I am highly skeptical of the study. I also don't think it should distract from the point that this absolutely could have been a super spreader. And it was completely unnecessary. Not smart enough to know myself, and I haven't seen anything one could remotely call definitive yet.


I know the Internet is tricky because I did not mean my post as any sort of attack on you or Todd.

I was just bummed that what I did want to discuss, wasn't, and what I should not have even posted about and do not much care about, was.

Just a bit of whining on my part. Nothing personal.


All good. The Danielle Hunter news has me grumpy
Post #: 969
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:38:06 PM   
Todd M

 

Posts: 40481
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline
I'm grumpy too but did not take any offense.
Post #: 970
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 5:56:10 PM   
unome

 

Posts: 985
Joined: 5/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I'm grumpy too but did not take any offense.


All grumpy Vikings fans.

We may have our differences, but we can find a common ground!

Picture those merged.
Post #: 971
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 6:12:13 PM   
Bill Johanesen


Posts: 28395
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

+ up to 14 days for symptoms to first appear.


More deaths should be sprinkling in pretty quickly then. Most people that were there were there pretty early. Looks like y'all got another 7-10 days before you can start beating your chests.

Let's say the average case caught at Sturgis was halfway into it, 29 days ago, average incubation/symptoms appearing 1 week, we're at 22 days, death after 20 days, the AVERAGE Sturgis case that was going to die would have died 2 days ago. So we currently have 1 death, are we hoping for 2-3?


Except most of them look like they'd probably be sick from it... sick enough to not make the ride.
Post #: 972
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 6:21:08 PM   
Bill Johanesen


Posts: 28395
Status: offline
So where are the other 490,000 people?

Your narrative suggests the "other 490,000 people" were stuffed into the campgrounds. More densely packed than main street. Dirty, belching, sweaty, and, dare I say, nasty bodies. Sounds like a real treat.

< Message edited by Bill Johanesen -- 9/9/2020 6:30:20 PM >
Post #: 973
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 6:22:06 PM   
Mark Anderson

 

Posts: 12133
Joined: 9/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

The World Health Organization clarified comments an official made on Monday that called asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus "very rare," saying in a press conference that these carriers do take part in spreading the virus but that more information is needed to know by how much.

What they're saying: WHO official Maria Van Kerkhove clarified Tuesday that patients sometimes confuse not having any symptoms with only exhibiting mild symptoms. In addition, some patients transmit the virus before developing symptoms. Contact tracers classify this group as "presymptomatic," rather than asymptomatic.

Van Kerkhov said the WHO estimates 16% of people are asymptomatic and can transmit the virus. Some models suggest up to 40% of coronavirus transmission might be due to asymptomatic spread, she added, but much more information is needed.
Van Kerkhove stressed that her comments on Monday were specific to particular studies and did not represent a new policy or direction. The WHO said it regrets saying that asymptomatic spread is "very rare."

https://www.axios.com/who-asymptomatic-coronavirus-69c56ce3-41e0-4ea7-ab2a-de866713b4cf.html


These guys are like the caffeine study of the week, which one you gonna believe?

That is a completely false statement. They have always cautioned about asymptomatic spread, except for one mis-statement by Van Kerkhove, which she immediately clarified.


That's a pretty big mis-statement.

Regardless of the magnitude of the mistake, she corrected it immediately. The WHO position that covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people is widely supported by the scientific community. I get that you want it to be otherwise, but those are the facts, like it or not.


I don't want to believe it, and I didn't, until Mark seemed certain of it, and I googled it, and the mis-staement showed up, and the correction did not.

I didn't say that Asymptomatic people couldn't spread it.

I'm saying that someone on tail end of having it might not be contagious. So a person who tested positive might not be contagious. I think that can be determined with a test.
Post #: 974
RE: Covid 19 and those infected - 9/9/2020 6:31:45 PM   
Bill Johanesen


Posts: 28395
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unome

I do find it a little sad that my comments about a photo received more direct comments than my analysis of the economic paper on Sturgis as a "super-spreader event".

Part of me is really bothered that a completely bogus study that is based on assumptions that were IMO purposefully flawed made the rounds on national news. But the other part of me thinks I should get an Economics PHD and write bogus studies to dupe the national media, because it is pretty easy.


What, like one or two replies?
Post #: 975
Page:   <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: Covid 19 and those infected Page: <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode