Yes, it means it's not dumb. And I say that because you and I share very different views on the severity of this "pandemic". If it wasn't so weak that you needed a test to know if you had it, then I would say it was dumb. If it wasn't so weak that virtually everyone that was there (based on demographics) had almost no chance of dying from it, then I would say it was dumb. You get the point. I also don't think the thousands who are out celebrating in the streets over this projected race are dumb. They're hypocritical. But not dumb.
Here too many people were getting tested......anytime anyone got the sniffles basically.
I think the fact the Dems dont practice what they preach reinforces my opinion that for the majority covid is no big deal. We know who covid is a threat to and should do everything possible to protect them. But that does not mean to take away the freedoms of those of us that are not threatened by covid. I have to wear a mask when around anyone while working, the only other people I come in contact with are my wife, my daughter, son in-law 2 grand children, my parents and the members of the gym I go to. All are reasonably healthy, even my parents who are in their 70s. My dad believes they had covid before we knew covid even existed, they both recovered fine at home, they were told they had upper respiratory infections. Their symptoms were similar to covid, the flu or any other respiratory infection. The point I am making is the same thing I have been saying all along, covid is not a threat to anyone that is reasonably healthy. So lets get our children back in school and let small businesses open up with some restrictions, but let people decide for themselves if they want to wear a mask. Most of those that wear masks arent reaping any benefit due to improper wearing or touching their mask repeatedly. IMO and according to experts, that is more hazardous than not wearing a mask at all.
Greater than .25%? I personally wouldn't get super worked up about the wishy washy language because that's what they do (in my opinion), but the actual percentage of effect to me seems...
I didn't pay it much attention because of how noncommittal it was as it relates to quantifying their numbers. Just implications of estimates from studies. But yeah, you're right, the testing in and of itself has been problematic for a while. A review conducted by the [New York Times] of three sets of coronavirus testing data from Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York found that up to 90% of patients who tested positive for the virus were what scientists refer to as ‘cold positives’. Cold positives are distinguished from ‘hot positives’ who are actually infected with an intact virus. ‘Cold positives’ have very, very low viral loads and are not ill, not symptomatic, not going to become symptomatic and, most importantly, they aren't able to infect others. The New York Times reported that if the rt-PCR test was run at recommended cycle thresholds, up to 90% of ‘cases’ would have been negative. But alas, Trump had rallies, people tested positive, and that means he killed them. That's what I'm to believe from that 'article', but somehow that level of mass murder didn't even make the chryon of CNN. It's all just so silly.
I heard that too, and mine was only slightly uncomfortable. Made my eyes water, anyway. But here's another question. If this virus is SO easily spread, to the point that singing will kill someone, then why do they have to go all the way up into your frontal lobe with a 14" Q-tip to find any trace of it?
Jam it in as deep as possible for best results
Very valid question but to be honest as we've seen from the data this isn't as dangerous as your question implies. Unless that person has certain conditions to contribute to it and attack the person. When combined with some medical conditions it's deadly to that person, but for the average person it's a very bad cold but not exactly deadly. I'm in no way it shouldn't be taken seriously but we've seen the experts talk about this very fact.
That's what she usually says after she gets off work on Saturday night
Oh sorry this is a family msg board, we'll keep that to a couple other threads I post in.
That is the most trumped up (pun intended) study I have ever heard of. Stanford should be ashamed to even let this get published. There is no fucking way they could have anything resembling proof of this claim unless they had tracing on all parties. Stupid.
Super-spreading Trump rallies led to more than 700 COVID-19 deaths, study estimates
A Stanford study of 18 Trump rallies held in the midst of the pandemic suggests they've led to more than 30,000 coronavirus infections and at least 700 COVID-19 deaths.www.google.com
When I had my test done is was slightly uncomfortable, much less painful that snorting a half gram of meth and a little more uncomfortable than snorting a half gram of coke. As far as easily spread, my wife didnt catch it and we were quarantined in the same house and neither of us wore a mask. Which makes me wonder how I caught it, I would like to think I wasnt exposed to anyone more than my wife was exposed to me.
