chris357

chris357

Senior Audioholic
You mean you personally don't need it to be a national holiday, but other democratic countries has the election day on saturday/sunday or as a national holiday. Elections is a very important part of how we practice democracy and a wide participation is seen as essential in this, except in those parts of USA where G.O.P is in power it seems.
What part of the early voting process don't you understand? you have about two weeks Sunday - Saturday with extended hours to go in and vote.

If they did do a national holiday to give everyone off you would complain that the line was to long. Nothing makes you happy. they literally have made it as easy as possible to vote at almost any convenient time to vote.

 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
I guess an estimated infection fatality rate between 0.5% and 1% is better than the case fatality rates being reported, but it's still a significant number. There of course plenty of people who survive but go through hell (and may have long term health issues).

>>>Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.

The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person's blood rather than the virus itself.

The tests are finding large numbers of people in the U.S. who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.

"The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%," says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.<<<


 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Chief
What part of the early voting process don't you understand? you have about two weeks Sunday - Saturday with extended hours to go in and vote.
Did I write anything about "early voting process" in my post? I did not even quote the second part of your post moaning about fraudulent mail-in voting, which, by the way, is something G.O.P. is doing.

If they did do a national holiday to give everyone off you would complain that the line was to long. Nothing makes you happy. they literally have made it as easy as possible to vote at almost any convenient time to vote.

Yeah, yeah, if "the others" are even allowed to vote, or have onerous requirements intended to discourage voting.
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Field Marshall
curious as to the length of time an 'asymptomatic' individual remains infectious ? Is there an average length of time known ?
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Ninja
This is what happens when opinions become more important than facts- that's the real problem caused by social media.
That and once the "news" channels went from trying to first to report, but accurate, to being the highest rated opinion became more important than fact.

CNN (I think) did a documentary series about it. Very interesting to hear what the anchors at the time thought of the switch.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
curious as to the length of time an 'asymptomatic' individual remains infectious ? Is there an average length of time known ?
No one knows an answer now. It is now actively being investigated, but the lack of enough tests that are also known to produce reliable results is holding things back.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
We don't need to have Election day as a national holiday, most states have early voting. ..
Yes, some states do many try to shorten it, remove voting places by the dozens if not more to make it much more difficult. Or, even move the place way out of town with a lame excuse. Wonderful, isn't it.
Everything can be abused. You prosecute.
Oh, they do have the voter's signature on file and am sure they do check it.
Excuses are easy solutions no so much, right?
Isn't Oregon all mail ballot? They have been doing this for a good while. What is their fraud record by voters?
A good example to research that state for statistical purposes.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
curious as to the length of time an 'asymptomatic' individual remains infectious ? Is there an average length of time known ?
According to this article, symptomatic patients shed the virus for a median of 19 days, while patients with no symptoms shed the virus for a median of eight days. As you can see, this was a fairly small study. I have not read the JAMA paper, but I would guess there is quite a bit of variation from one person to the next.

>>>The study of 78 patients published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found COVID-19 patients who did not show symptoms of the disease were more likely to be younger and female; it also showed that symptomatic patients shed the virus for a median of 19 days, while patients with no symptoms shed the virus for a median of eight days.<<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
After I posted the prior article, I noticed a link to an article about "blood brokers" paying $1,000 for samples from recovered COVID-19 patients. Who knew?

>>>Lenart-Dallezotte said she was quoted $1,000 for a one-milliliter sample of convalescent plasma, the part of the blood that contains antibodies. Other blood brokers told the Journal they have been quoted several thousands of dollars.<<<

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
After I posted the prior article, I noticed a link to an article about "blood brokers" paying $1,000 for samples from recovered COVID-19 patients. Who knew?

>>>Lenart-Dallezotte said she was quoted $1,000 for a one-milliliter sample of convalescent plasma, the part of the blood that contains antibodies. Other blood brokers told the Journal they have been quoted several thousands of dollars.<<<

I wonder how much money would be offered for someone whose plasma reacts positively for SARS-CoV-2 but who never was infected, a false positive? $10k or $100k?
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Field Marshall
According to this article, symptomatic patients shed the virus for a median of 19 days, while patients with no symptoms shed the virus for a median of eight days. As you can see, this was a fairly small study. I have not read the JAMA paper, but I would guess there is quite a bit of variation from one person to the next.

>>>The study of 78 patients published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found COVID-19 patients who did not show symptoms of the disease were more likely to be younger and female; it also showed that symptomatic patients shed the virus for a median of 19 days, while patients with no symptoms shed the virus for a median of eight days.<<<

Thank you Mr Clark ............
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I wonder how much money would be offered for someone whose plasma reacts positively for SARS-CoV-2 but who never was infected, a false positive? $10k or $100k?
It seems strange that, aside from here, I have not heard anything about the impressively (in a bad way) poor reliability of the test! I get that some may want to instill some confidence in the test, but with error (false positive) rates as high as 40% people need to know that they cannot use the results in making safety-related decisions with confidence!
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
It seems strange that, aside from here, I have not heard anything about the impressively (in a bad way) poor reliability of the test! I get that some may want to instill some confidence in a test, but with a 40% error rate people need to know that they cannot/should not use the results in making safety-related decisions with confidence!
I have seen very little discussion or information in the popular press about the reliability, poor or otherwise, of the so-called antibody tests. These are the tests which look at the antibodies existing in someone's plasma, and allow a possible conclusion that antibodies which react to SARS-Cov-2 indicate prior exposure to the virus. Most, if not all of these tests were given temporary approval for sale by the FDA because of the pandemic emergency. Most were not at all accurate, and some resulted in false positive results as often as 40% of the time!

Usually, the FDA requires an elaborate validation process for medical tests like these before they can be sold in the US. Basically they require the test manufacturer to show data that establish the test’s accuracy and inaccuracy, and they have to establish how many false positives and false negatives the test sees. Once that data is known, the validation process further requires the manufacturer to modify the test to optimize results, to the extent that they meet existing standards already established by other approved tests on the market. Until this validation process is done, all bets on test accuracy or reliability are off.

Very recently, it does seem that some antibody tests might have been properly validated, but I’m only guessing based on the wording of articles in the popular press. I haven’t looked in the scientific literature about what antibody tests have been successfully validated and approved. Without the pandemic, these type of reports would not result in a scientific publication.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
I wonder how much money would be offered for someone whose plasma reacts positively for SARS-CoV-2 but who never was infected, a false positive? $10k or $100k?
10k? 100k?
No, I'd want 1mil. :D
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
I have seen very little discussion or information in the popular press about the reliability, poor or otherwise, of the so-called antibody tests. These are the tests which look at the antibodies existing in someone's plasma, and allow a possible conclusion that antibodies which react to SARS-Cov-2 indicate prior exposure to the virus. Most, if not all of these tests were given temporary approval for sale by the FDA because of the pandemic emergency. Most were not at all accurate, and some resulted in false positive results as often as 40% of the time!

Usually, the FDA requires an elaborate validation process for medical tests like these before they can be sold in the US. Basically they require the test manufacturer to show data that establish the test’s accuracy and inaccuracy, and they have to establish how many false positives and false negatives the test sees. Once that data is known, the validation process further requires the manufacturer to modify the test to optimize results, to the extent that they meet existing standards already established by other approved tests on the market. Until this validation process is done, all bets on test accuracy or reliability are off.

Very recently, it does seem that some antibody tests might have been properly validated, but I’m only guessing based on the wording of articles in the popular press. I haven’t looked in the scientific literature about what antibody tests have been successfully validated and approved. Without the pandemic, these type of reports would not result in a scientific publication.
Another thing I have wondered about is how consistently the existing tests give false positive (and negative) results. For example, if a given test consistently gives a 5% false positive with close to zero false negatives, a test of a population that results in 10% positive would mean that about 5% is actually positive.

On the other hand, if the 5% false positive is highly inconsistent, it seems like a 10% positive result in a given test population would be close to worthless.

I don't think it would make sense to conclude that an individual is "safe" based on a positive result in either scenario, but a consistent 5% false positive could still provide useful information in terms of how common the antibody is in the population that was tested.
 
Gmoney

Gmoney

Audioholic Field Marshall
And? Is it worth the paper it is written on? I guess he doesn't like to be corrected about his lies.
His post wasn't redacted or deleted, just flagged for interested parties to get the facts.
He has no legal standing to enforce. Perhaps with the federal courts stacked it might be an interesting theater to watch.
What President that you know of never lied to Congress Senate and the House of Representatives or the people that voted them in the office. As for Trump's Executive orders, with the Supreme court being stacked I do see your point. Thing about what Trump can and can't do in office, I'm sure You know,
Turning up the courts on Social media sites with the Lawmakers and lawyers up in Washington, paying for it won't come out of his back pocket it'll come out of the tax Payers back pocket. Just add it onto the tab of all of the Debt over the last seven presidencies of 25+ Trillion!
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top