Myths about Corona virus

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
Not a new disease. SARS was a result of a coronavirus and there are always a small number lurking around.

I guess this is where you say Covid19 is not a new disease, and then go on to talk about SARS completely independantly. Coincidental in-fact.

They are not the same thing, so I wonder why you brought them both up, and left me in suspense about Covid19 not being a new disease/virus and then didn't tell me which one it was the same as... oh well, I guess I will never know.

Ugh. A novel mutation of the coronavirus, like the annual flu is a mutation of that virus, if you want to be a pedant. They have officially designated it SARS-CoV-2. The hint's in the name.

We can talk about the SARS pandemic independently because it occurred 17 years ago wandering about all wide-eyed at the unique horror of it all is to ignore the evidence of history.

Oh...now I get your problem.

^ Look up "exponent". See if you can figure out it's application to a pandemic.
After that think about whether an "average" is a suitable measure or not.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
LOL

Dude, whatever. If you were asking a hypothetical, then any answer is equally hypothetical and no more or less valid than the imaginary premise. In other words, pointless.

I don't think you understand how hypothetical questions are meant to work.

I will give you points though for steadfastly refusing to admit that a disease that doesn't show symptoms while it is contagious should be handled differently to one that shows symptoms immediately.

If I can't get through that logic-wall then I guess I really am wasting my time.

Sure, that's the problem

Tell you what -- provide me a source that supports your premise and I'll change my opinion. I'll wait.

Best, I can tell, you don't have an opinion as so far you have refused to say anything much. Covid19 is not a new disease, but apparently not the same as SARS but presumably the same as something you haven't mentioned?

Okay, maybe you do have an opinion, which seems to be "I am right, and I won't think about this using logic".

Just like Sco Mo.

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..
^ Look up "exponent". See if you can figure out it's application to a pandemic.
After that think about whether an "average" is a suitable measure or not.

It's exponential for periods but it's not sustained. If you just look at certain blocks of data, it looks impressive.

Comparing the data we have to date? Why not? Better than selecting bits of it.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
Its kinda like talking to a monkey.

*It's

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
maybe 3% chance that you will die

~3% chance if you contract it. You gotta eat the skittles first.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

kiterboy
Your opinion on this pandemic is just as valid and effective as the WHO's handling of it...

Well, thanks, but you're wrong on that. As well.

Thanks for proving me right, again.

According to this guy citing figures from the CDC the death rate is 3.4 percent globally for the virus.

The flu virus in general is 0.1 percent or 34 times less deadly.

However this 0.1 of a percent is arrived at from confirmed cases and not unconfirmed which is a much higher figure.

For confirmed cases the flu rate of death is at 10 percent,much higher than the covid 19 virus.

Listen up to the first 7 minutes.

In 2008, WHO changed the official definition of a pandemic - it changed from a logical definition (a pandemic is an infection of global proportions and with a high mortality) to an illogical definition (a pandemic is an infection of global proportions).

Under the new definition of "pandemic", the annual [seasonal] flu more than meets the requirements to be one. Are we going to declare a world health alert every autumn? Besides absurdity from the scientific standpoint, this has serious financial and policy consequences.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
So, your source for the claim that everyone who has the virus but shows no symptoms are contagious? A source that goes against the top two studies on google I linked up there?

I mean, we're talking about logic and **** right

Okay, yes, we are talking about logic. Your links; you seem to have three, but one talks about the old 'SARS' and states that currently no one is reporting (old) SARS. They both talk about Covid19 being able to spread before symptoms. To clarify though, I don't think I said 'everyone' that shows no symptoms are contagious. How would I know that? My belief is in the reports that suggest that people can be contagious before symptoms show.

They were:

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronavirus-vs-flu#transmission

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html

The first is pretty obvious, but for the second, perhaps you are confused with the work 'main'?







So instead of running away onto a different thread, would you agree that both of the links you provided say that it can be passed before being symptomatic? The answer is in black and white above.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
No watch the lot!

As I suspected, conned!

Hook line and sinker!

Mission achieved! Well done chaps!

You were conned? No problem. Its okay to fall for a lot of these conspiracies as they do appeal with a certain something. Like a good mystery novel.

You would think that if its 'just the flu' that there wouldn't be a huge outbreak of this in the first place. Why is that? Well, the first minutes of that video even explain that 'no one has immunity' whereas lots of people have immunity to the seasonal flu. That alone means it can spread far more easily than the flu.

Hmmm....

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

japie said..
No watch the lot!

As I suspected, conned!

Hook line and sinker!

Mission achieved! Well done chaps!

You were conned? No problem. Its okay to fall for a lot of these conspiracies as they do appeal with a certain something. Like a good mystery novel.

You would think that if its 'just the flu' that there wouldn't be a huge outbreak of this in the first place. Why is that? Well, the first minutes of that video even explain that 'no one has immunity' whereas lots of people have immunity to the seasonal flu. That alone means it can spread far easily than the flu.

Hmmm....

This whole thing is based on figures provide by the WHO.

The media have used selected figures and misinterpreted the situation.

Ben Swan makes that argument very clearly.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..
No watch the lot!

As I suspected, conned!

Hook line and sinker!

Mission achieved! Well done chaps!

You were conned? No problem. Its okay to fall for a lot of these conspiracies as they do appeal with a certain something. Like a good mystery novel.

You would think that if its 'just the flu' that there wouldn't be a huge outbreak of this in the first place. Why is that? Well, the first minutes of that video even explain that 'no one has immunity' whereas lots of people have immunity to the seasonal flu. That alone means it can spread far easily than the flu.

Hmmm....

This whole thing is based on figures provide by the WHO.

The media have used selected figures and misinterpreted the situation.

Ben Swan makes that argument very clearly.

Japie, its good that someone has alternate articles, but its also good to understand what they mean.

I will admit upfront that I watched a very small amount of it because I am biased and think sometimes these videos try and make things very theatric and it bores me.


What I think he is saying is:

The normal influenza has a higher death rate of those confirmed infected. Let's assume 5% just for interests sake as its higher than 3%

The Covid19 influenza has a lower death rate because its only expressed as a percentage of deaths amongst those confirmed to be infected, and we can use 3% for that.


One point the host makes is that a majority of people have some immunity from the common flu strains because they have had them before or in some cases they have had the flu vaccine. Therefore your chance of catching the flu while surrounded by people like that is greatly reduced because of the herd effect. If there is effectively a barrier around you of previous infected people, you are going to be safe from catching it.

So, if we use the popular 0.1% mortality rate of the common flu and the assumption that it has a 5% death rate (if infected), we can get the infection rate or what the chances are you are going to be infected. This comes out at 2% or 0.02 .

Infection rate (2%) times death rate (5%) equals your chances of dying from the flu (0.1%)


Then we look at Covid19:

How many people do you know that have had Covid19 and are immune? A conservative figure would be 0.00% No one has had it right, so its not as if anyone will be immune.

Therfore, the infection rate can be 100%.

Infection rate (100%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (3%).

Which we have just evaluated above for the regular flu as 0.1%, so you as a human are 30 times more likely to die from Covid19 than the regular flu.

This should make you happier if you are very young and not highly represented in the death stats. If you are above 50, then maybe you want to consider it a little more carefully?


If you want to be more critical and assume that some people are naturally immune to Covid19, which has not been suggested at all, then we can even assume that the infection rate is 50%.

Infection rate (50%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (1.5%).

Its still fifteen times the regular flu.


Going off further on a tangent, what about the poor doctors and nurses that have to fight this virus and face a potential 100% chance of getting it? Would you want to do a job if 3 out of a hundred of you were going to die, and a significant percentage were still going to suffer a painful flu or lung damage? To say they are heroes is an understatement.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Infection rate (50%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (1.5%).

You have good points, but your data is flawed. High death rates are coming from countries with very low levels of testing. ie they are mainly only testing people who present at hospitals and there are large numbers with mild or no symptoms in the population.

If you look at Australia's morbity rate it is currently sitting at 0.5%, and most of those were elderly people who had pre exisitng conditions, and the majority were on cruise ships and contracted it before isolation measures were implemented. I expect it to fall further as the elderly isolate themselves.

Currently the death rate in reported cases for those under 50y of age is 0.3%. And thats on the skewed total case numbers so is probably half that again.

So if you take steps to isolate and remove the elderly population, then the morbidity rate of COVID-19 may well be similar to influenza.

Australia's death toll from flu last season was expected to hit 4000, even with vaccinations.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..

FormulaNova said..

japie said..
No watch the lot!

As I suspected, conned!

Hook line and sinker!

Mission achieved! Well done chaps!

You were conned? No problem. Its okay to fall for a lot of these conspiracies as they do appeal with a certain something. Like a good mystery novel.

You would think that if its 'just the flu' that there wouldn't be a huge outbreak of this in the first place. Why is that? Well, the first minutes of that video even explain that 'no one has immunity' whereas lots of people have immunity to the seasonal flu. That alone means it can spread far easily than the flu.

Hmmm....

This whole thing is based on figures provide by the WHO.

The media have used selected figures and misinterpreted the situation.

Ben Swan makes that argument very clearly.

Japie, its good that someone has alternate articles, but its also good to understand what they mean.

I will admit upfront that I watched a very small amount of it because I am biased and think sometimes these videos try and make things very theatric and it bores me.


What I think he is saying is:

The normal influenza has a higher death rate of those confirmed infected. Let's assume 5% just for interests sake as its higher than 3%

The Covid19 influenza has a lower death rate because its only expressed as a percentage of deaths amongst those confirmed to be infected, and we can use 3% for that.


One point the host makes is that a majority of people have some immunity from the common flu strains because they have had them before or in some cases they have had the flu vaccine. Therefore your chance of catching the flu while surrounded by people like that is greatly reduced because of the herd effect. If there is effectively a barrier around you of previous infected people, you are going to be safe from catching it.

So, if we use the popular 0.1% mortality rate of the common flu and the assumption that it has a 5% death rate (if infected), we can get the infection rate or what the chances are you are going to be infected. This comes out at 2% or 0.02 .

Infection rate (2%) times death rate (5%) equals your chances of dying from the flu (0.1%)


Then we look at Covid19:

How many people do you know that have had Covid19 and are immune? A conservative figure would be 0.00% No one has had it right, so its not as if anyone will be immune.

Therfore, the infection rate can be 100%.

Infection rate (100%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (3%).

Which we have just evaluated above for the regular flu as 0.1%, so you as a human are 30 times more likely to die from Covid19 than the regular flu.

This should make you happier if you are very young and not highly represented in the death stats. If you are above 50, then maybe you want to consider it a little more carefully?


If you want to be more critical and assume that some people are naturally immune to Covid19, which has not been suggested at all, then we can even assume that the infection rate is 50%.

Infection rate (50%) times death rate (3%) equals your chance of dying from the Covid19 flu (1.5%).

Its still fifteen times the regular flu.


Going off further on a tangent, what about the poor doctors and nurses that have to fight this virus and face a potential 100% chance of getting it? Would you want to do a job if 3 out of a hundred of you were going to die, and a significant percentage were still going to suffer a painful flu or lung damage? To say they are heroes is an understatement.

Breath FN.....breathe.....a million lengthy rambling boring posts in a day.

You should have your own topic called "Someone Put FN On A Ventilator!"

FFS give us a break!

Breath? Why would you use that word in that sentence... oh, you mean 'breathe' as in ' I want to tell people to "breathe" in a patronizing way, because that's who I am'? Did I get the usage correct, or did you mean something else? Obligatory

I think sometimes people type very slowly and it takes ages to pump out emails or posts. I type for a living, so it doesn't take that long, and faster than it takes you to read them by the sounds of it.

You couldn't follow that logic? I set it out very widely just so that people could follow the logic. Maybe you are right? Maybe the 'youtube set' find words all confusing and stuff?

I know you are only new to this forum Adrian, but you don't need to read every post. I am sure some people see my name and skip over the posts, and you are welcome to do the same. I see Spotty's posts and do this, so its pretty easy.