Coronovirus IV

[tsm]

Not new, but worth pointing out again and again. True that correlation does not prove causation, but this is certainly part of the mounting evidence that politically biased decisions regarding HQC adversely impacted patients - i.e. that Orange Man Bad literally killed people.

Sure you understand what the chart’s message is?

 

[Ingomike]

Last week, we learned what anyone paying attention has known for months. The American people have acquired ideas about COVID-19 from those leading the nation’s response so utterly divorced from reality as to warrant the epithet delusional.

• A full 92% of reported U.S. COVID fatalities have been 55 or older. But Americans, on average, believe that only 50% have.
• Those younger than 45 have accounted for just 2.7% of reported deaths; more than 10 times less than the 30% Americans, on average, believe.
• For those under 25, Americans overestimate their risk of dying from COVID-19 by a factor of 50.
• Meanwhile, they underestimate the risk infection poses to those over 65 by half.

This is from the Franklin-Templeton Gallup research project on people’s response to Covid 19. The misperceptions are shocking. More on this here: https://t.co/8DKxHbjJ2tpic.twitter.com/KY3Rmja40G
— Brit Hume (@brithume) August 18, 2020



Yet neither Fauci, Redfield, nor any of the lesser bureaucrats responsible for making sure the American people are accurately informed about the virus has done a damned thing to correct the completely unjustified state of fear gripping our nation – not even after last week’s poll announced the basic facts the public has been so tragically misinformed about.


Nobody went on television to tell us our fears were groundless and that more lives would be saved if young and healthy Americans stopped panicking about their own well-being and we, instead, focused our efforts on keeping the infected away from the elderly and antecedently ill.


Nobody in any of the agencies whose job it is to keep us informed about COVID-19 said a word to correct the dangerous delusions revealed to be gripping the American public.

https://www.redstate.com/michael_thau/2020/08/26/the-covid-19-testing-scam-exposed-in-one-graph/
​

 

[chipbennett]

Sure you understand what the chart’s message is?

I am 100% certain of the correlation implied by the chart. Decisions to halt use of HQC for political reasons (i.e. because Orange Man Bad, and Orange Man Bad promoted HQC use) correlated to an increase in fatalities. Resumption of use of HQC based on that outcome then correlated to a reduction in fatalities, at or below the status quo prior to the halted use of HQC.

Are you seeing some other message?

 

[Ingomike]

[video=youtube_share;P_iQM5x9wF8]https://youtu.be/P_iQM5x9wF8[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

Sure you understand what the chart’s message is?

I LOL'd.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Great news, but terrible headline. Epidemiological (or retrospective observational) studies don't demonstrate causality, much less degree of efficacy. The percentages indicated represent degree to which a given metric is correlated to particular outcomes. (I know, I know; I get on this media-reporting-of-medical-study-data soapbox all the time...)

I agree... all of what you say is true... but... and you know most if not all of the following, but gotta explain because, INGO'ers, lol!

In this case, in response to seeing a lot of massive blood clotting in COVID patients, some doctors were giving the patients standard doses of blood thinners and some were giving a reduced dose. (it was late last night so I haven't looked at the study to see the parameters of who they medicated, what level of severity)

The prescribing docs say, hey, this seems to be helping... these patients seem to be having better outcomes if we give them blood thinners, so the study looks back in time and compares the outcomes of the patients receiving the blood thinners versus similarly situated patients who did not.

So, here's where I disagree, at least in part, on two points, one explicit, the other implied.

1. If the comparison/control patients are properly chosen, randomly but also to mirror the medicated population in known variables (like age, co-morbidities, severity, other treatments, etc), then I would argue that this is not a "correlation doesn't mean causation" issue. The weaknesses would be doctor bias in knowing who's getting the med and the inability to factor out placebo effect. IMO, if they have the patients' full medical history, the controls can be chosen to negate the bias leaving only placebo effect un-addressed.

2. This is different than, gee, will this drug do anything in humans like it does in the lab or in primate testing. Those really do call for RCT's with multiple treatment arms vs standard of care. This is different because blood thinners ARE standard treatment for clotting issues, so withholding those medications from control patients to create an RCT would be un-ethical. I suppose one could be devised to determine if early treatment, prior to the clotting occurring, lead to better outcomes than waiting until the patient was experiencing clotting issues. Though, if I understand correctly, part of the problem is the majority of the patients with clotting, it isn't detected until post-mortem or other things, like strokes, so Elvis has already left the building at that point.

Anyhow, like you said, part of this is purely academic... the part that isn't academic are the docs trying to get ahead of severe symptoms like clotting with known meds that address it... to me, that is real doctor work when there isn't a standard treatment flowchart to help determine the course of treatment for the patients.

Edited to Add tl;dr: IF the control patients (the non-medicated patients selected to compare against the treatment) are properly selected to remove all other known variables, retrospective observational studies ARE valid, but cannot account for placebo effects.

 

[T.Lex]

I agree... all of what you say is true... but... and you know most if not all of the following, but gotta explain because, INGO'ers, lol!

In this case, in response to seeing a lot of massive blood clotting in COVID patients, some doctors were giving the patients standard doses of blood thinners and some were giving a reduced dose. (it was late last night so I haven't looked at the study to see the parameters of who they medicated, what level of severity)

The prescribing docs say, hey, this seems to be helping... these patients seem to be having better outcomes if we give them blood thinners, so the study looks back in time and compares the outcomes of the patients receiving the blood thinners versus similarly situated patients who did not.

So, here's where I disagree, at least in part, on two points, one explicit, the other implied.

1. If the comparison/control patients are properly chosen, randomly but also to mirror the medicated population in known variables (like age, co-morbidities, severity, other treatments, etc), then I would argue that this is not a "correlation doesn't mean causation" issue. The weaknesses would be doctor bias in knowing who's getting the med and the inability to factor out placebo effect. IMO, if they have the patients' full medical history, the controls can be chosen to negate the bias leaving only placebo effect un-addressed.

2. This is different than, gee, will this drug do anything in humans like it does in the lab or in primate testing. Those really do call for RCT's with multiple treatment arms vs standard of care. This is different because blood thinners ARE standard treatment for clotting issues, so withholding those medications from control patients to create an RCT would be un-ethical. I suppose one could be devised to determine if early treatment, prior to the clotting occurring, lead to better outcomes than waiting until the patient was experiencing clotting issues. Though, if I understand correctly, part of the problem is the majority of the patients with clotting, it isn't detected until post-mortem or other things, like strokes.

Anyhow, like you said, part of this is purely academic... the part that isn't academic are the docs trying to get ahead of severe symptoms like clotting with known meds that address it... to me, that is real doctor work when there isn't a standard treatment flowchart to help the patients.

TL;DR.

So you're saying its the aliens?

 

[HoughMade]

[video=youtube_share;P_iQM5x9wF8]https://youtu.be/P_iQM5x9wF8[/video]

This fits in the "oh c'mon" category.

 

[Ingomike]

This fits in the "oh c'mon" category.

So he faked it all? If you have something to say say it. The oh come on category is the maskers pushing BS...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

[video=youtube_share;P_iQM5x9wF8]https://youtu.be/P_iQM5x9wF8[/video]

Thanks, Mike! This is a good test for those that vape can test their mask.

I DO vape... I DID THIS TEST with my setup. The result was a few very, very light wisps of vape drifted out the surface of the mask. The vast majority of the vape cloud was contained in the mask. The yowie definitely closed the side gaps that are problematic with surgical masks.

Also, I wear glasses, so I know when I'm not getting a good nose bridge seal... my glasses fog. This is an obvious leak indicator for me. So I fold a tissue to plug those gaps either side of the bridge of the nose... found that trick on the internet months ago. Key tip is the put the folds pointed down, the tip or V of the folds, pointed up.

Thanks again, Mike. Seriously, I appreciate it.

 

[HoughMade]

So he faked it all? If you have something to say say it. The oh come on category is the maskers pushing BS...

Faked? No. Not saying that, in that I have no doubt the video is real.

I'm saying it is not an accurate representation of a person breathing normally and the affect a mask has on normal breath and most importantly, droplets expelled under normal respiratory pressure.

He wanted the mask leak, so he made sure the mask leaked.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

TL;DR.

So you're saying its the aliens?

Lol... I'll add a tl;dr: go look in a minute or two

 

[T.Lex]

Lol... I'll add a tl;dr: go look in a minute or two

Read the edit, but I'm still not sure what's going on.

Like, what about the aliens?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Faked? No. Not saying that, in that I have no doubt the video is real.

I'm saying it is not an accurate representation of a person breathing normally and the affect a mask has on normal breath and most importantly, droplets expelled under normal respiratory pressure.

He wanted the mask leak, so he made sure the mask leaked.

HoughMade, I agree that he put the masks on in a very haphazard manner... though it may be representative of the way a large percentage of people put their masks on, even if they are not wearing them with a nose snorkel or as a chin mask.

I repeated the experiment again, this time without the sealing effect of my yowie/tight outer gaiter. I did get a fair amount of vape cloud out the sides of the surgical mask (estimate maybe 20% of the total cloud, and I'm being generous) and some wisps down by the chin... but I haven't shaved this week, lol! Zero out the top past my nose seal (metal nose strap in the mask plus some folded tissue).

Anyhow, if you take 5 seconds to properly fit the surgical mask and seal the nose, the sides is the main concern. This was what I've though for some time, and thanks again to Mike for finding and sharing this as it verifies my hypothesis and also the yowie solution.

ETA: Also, when you breath in, the mask "sucks" up and seals against your face, especially if you breath in through your mouth, so you are breathing IN through the mask, not around it. Or at least mine was. That means it protects you more than the people around you from you. I still recommend the yowie... plus, it's a look!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Read the edit, but I'm still not sure what's going on.

Like, what about the aliens?

Read the whole thing, they're in there, or is it out there?

 

[T.Lex]

Read the whole thing, they're in there, or is it out there?

Whoa.

When I fit the whole post to my screen, then blur my vision a little bit, I can totally see the 3d effect! That's amazing!

 

[NKBJ]

Don't worry about how well a mask works. That's immaterial.
What counts is that people want you to wear it, the same as zipping up your fly before walking out of a restroom.
Through social engineering it has become expected behavior and you have to go along to get along.

 

[Ingomike]

HoughMade, I agree that he put the masks on in a very haphazard manner... though it may be representative of the way a large percentage of people put their masks on, even if they are not wearing them with a nose snorkel or as a chin mask.

I repeated the experiment again, this time without the sealing effect of my yowie/tight outer gaiter. I did get a fair amount of vape cloud out the sides of the surgical mask (estimate maybe 20% of the total cloud, and I'm being generous) and some wisps down by the chin... but I haven't shaved this week, lol! Zero out the top past my nose seal (metal nose strap in the mask plus some folded tissue).

Anyhow, if you take 5 seconds to properly fit the surgical mask and seal the nose, the sides is the main concern. This was what I've though for some time, and thanks again to Mike for finding and sharing this as it verifies my hypothesis and also the yowie solution.

ETA: Also, when you breath in, the mask "sucks" up and seals against your face, especially if you breath in through your mouth, so you are breathing IN through the mask, not around it. Or at least mine was. That means it protects you more than the people around you from you. I still recommend the yowie... plus, it's a look!

You can believe the narrative you like.

Did the vape, not come right through the mask materials? It was not just around the edges.

Seeing the vents releasing the breath was cool and totally defeats the reasons to force others to wear them.

Long ago we had the debate on virus particle size and I recall the particle size is smaller than the mask filtration levels. The maskers claim the droplets the virus clings to were bigger than the mask filtration level.


The whole mask thing is at best health security theater...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So which is it? Was this virus engineered and purposefully release to kill people to scare and convince them to totally subjugate themselves to authority?

Or is it a hoax, so no need worrying about masks and other protective measures?

 

[T.Lex]

So which is it? Was this virus engineered and purposefully release to kill people to scare and convince them to totally subjugate themselves to authority?

Or is it a hoax, so no need worrying about masks and other protective measures?

So many repworthy posts; yet so little rep available to me.

I has sad.