80% 20% explained by an expert.

[Hardluck]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

Thanks guys.

He truly is an incredible young man and has a beautiful family. His wife is an oncology RN, she is amazing as well. I don’t get it. Cancer is an azzhole.


Attachment 43929

We've talked about this but seeing him with his family kicks my guts out!

[Mick]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

Thanks guys.

He truly is an incredible young man and has a beautiful family. His wife is an oncology RN, she is amazing as well. I don’t get it. Cancer is an azzhole.


Attachment 43929

Cute kids. Heartbreaking.

[LisaJohn]

I’m so sorry. Cancer sucks!
Hoping for a 5 year colon cancer clear here!

[Raazor]

Originally Posted by Mick

Cute kids. Heartbreaking.

absolutely!

[Rikki Z-06]

Originally Posted by Raazor

absolutely!

[Mick]

Originally Posted by snide

So, what I'm hearing you say is that this whole thing was a hoax?

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

Nice try friend.


No, it’s real. People I know have died with it and I have seen 1st hand how sick healthy people can become. I do however believe that infection control is doable with proper measures that many sadly refuse to take.

Originally Posted by snide

Just messing with you.

Yes, I'm sure that this disease is real and has killed many people. But I believe that governments around the world have overreacted, and in the process, destroyed more lives than have been "saved". But, WTF do I know?

Check this out:

https://www.conservativereview.com/n...th-rate-media/

Cliffs: CDC says most likely mortality is 0.26%, as low as 1 in 5000 for healthy people under 50 with symptoms, and 1 in 6,725 overall. For those like Jet who struggle with maffs, that is 0.015%.

Why are we still quarantining healthy people?

[C3C7NIC]

Originally Posted by Mick

Check this out:

https://www.conservativereview.com/n...th-rate-media/

Cliffs: CDC says most likely mortality is 0.26%, as low as 1 in 5000 for healthy people under 50 with symptoms, and 1 in 6,725 overall. For those like Jet who struggle with maffs, that is 0.015%.

Why are we still quarantining healthy people?

If the mortality rate is 0.26%, as you stated, that would result in an expected mortality rate of ~ 850K annually.


That's a lot of dead Americans from a communicable disease.



I wonder if people might have a different perspective if those that were at risk of dying were our children and grandkids as equally as those over 50.

[C3C7NIC]

Interesting postmortem examination of COVID patients.

https://www.doximity.com/collections...m_medium=email

[Raazor]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

Interesting postmortem examination of COVID patients.

https://www.doximity.com/collections...m_medium=email

requires password. cliffs?

Where's CA at now? gotta be close to 25,500,000 after 12 weeks.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

If the mortality rate is 0.26%, as you stated, that would result in an expected mortality rate of ~ 850K annually.


That's a lot of dead Americans from a communicable disease.

Well, yeah, if and only if you make the assumption that literally every man, woman, and child in the US gets infected with the disease, and that all survivors get infected again the next year with no built up immunity, and again the following year, and again the following year. I'm guessing that isn't a very good assumption.

[C3C7NIC]

Originally Posted by Raazor

requires password. cliffs?

Where's CA at now? gotta be close to 25,500,000 after 12 weeks.

Probably have to have Doximity account to view study.

Showing organs damaged and that SARSCOV2 present in organs post mortem at autopsy. Virus was not in CNS samples (brain/spinal areas)

> At time of autopsy, SARS-CoV-2 was still detectable in the respiratory tracts of all patients. Polymerase chain reaction testing was positive in pleural effusion but negative in all CSF samples.

In this postmortem evaluation of 10 patients with COVID-19, acute and organizing diffuse alveolar damage and SARS-CoV-2 persistence in the respiratory tract were the predominant histopathologic findings and constituted the leading cause of death in patients with and without invasive ventilation. Periportal liver lymphocyte infiltration was considered unspecific inflammation. Whether myoepicardial alterations represented systemic inflammation or early myocarditis is unclear; criteria for true myocarditis were not met. Central nervous system involvement by COVID-19 could not be detected.

[C3C7NIC]

Originally Posted by Mick

Well, yeah, if and only if you make the assumption that literally every man, woman, and child in the US gets infected with the disease, and that all survivors get infected again the next year with no built up immunity, and again the following year, and again the following year. I'm guessing that isn't a very good assumption.

Nope, not a good assumption.

Since I cannot post link to Doximity, I will paste entire article below discussing this very thing. As I have stated many times, so many people are asymptomatic that are carriers, it will be very hard to get a true mortality rate till be have extensive testing of a/symptomatic people. We can only base it on the numbers we currently have.

__________________________

Multiple Studies Suggest COVID-19 Mortality Rate May Be Lower Than Expected
Published: May 07, 2020 By Gail Dutton

Mortality Rate

As the mortality figures for COVID-19 continued to rise, people are wondering where they will stop. The actual death toll for COVID-19 won’t be calculable for some time, but there are early indications that it may be significantly lower than calculations of deaths per confirmed cases lead one to believe.

As an article in Lancet Infectious Diseases pointed out, calculating mortality rates based on the number of deaths divided by the number of confirmed cases of infection is not representative of the actual death rate. There are two issues, the authors said. First, the denominator should be the number of people who were infected at the same time as those who died. The second issue is that many people experienced very mild symptoms and so did not seek medical treatment and were not included in the calculation.



To get to the bottom of this, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a 10,000 person study in mid-April. It aims to determine how many adults in the U.S. who do not have a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who have antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The results of this serosurvey will shed light on the spread of this virus throughout the U.S. and on which populations and communities are most affected.

“An antibody test is looking back into the immune system’s history with a rear-view mirror,” said Matthew J. Memoli, M.D., M.S., principal investigator of the study and director of NIAID’s Laboratory of Infectious Diseases Clinical Studies Unit. “By analyzing an individual’s blood, we can determine if that person has encountered SARS-CoV-2 previously.”

Results from the NIH study ought to settle the controversy swirling around other similar studies.

For example, in Florida, the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Miami-Dade County announced completion of its second round of community testing for COVID-19 on April 24. It deployed random sampling, weighted across the county’s 32 municipal statistical areas. With 1,800 individuals completing serological tests and sharing information regarding their health, 6% have tested positive for antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That equates to 165,000 Miami-Dade County residents – significantly more than the 10,000 cases reported in testing site data.

This indicates the actual number of infections is potentially 16.5 times higher than the numbers captured by testing sites and local hospitals. The county said it is 95% certain the true amount of infection lies between 4.4% and 7.9% of the population (or between 123,000 and 221,000 residents). Importantly, more than half of the individuals testing positive had no symptoms in the 7 to 14 days before screening.


Researchers at Stanford University tested 3,330 Santa Clara County, California residents on April 3 and 4 for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, using a lateral flow immunoassay. Adjustments were made for participants’ zip codes, sex, and race/ethnicity and well as for test performance characteristics. The pre-publication copy of the report noted the unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to the virus in Santa Clara County was 1.5%, and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81%. That range represents between 48,000 and 81,000 people who are infected. That’s 50- to 85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases in the county.

Similar preliminary data was released from researchers at the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. That test used a rapid antibody blood test and confirmed those results at the Stanford University lab. Some 863 people were tested. Researchers concluded that 2.5% to 4.2% of Los Angeles County’s 10.4 million residents had been infected. At the low end, that represents 260,000 people, yet only 13,000 cases were reported through the hospitals and testing centers.

Earlier, a widely-reported study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found that 13.7% of the 211 asymptomatic, pregnant women who delivered at New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center between March 22 and April 2 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Another NEJM article quantified the infection rate in Iceland as of April 4 (36 days since the first infection was confirmed there). With 6% of the population screened, researchers reported that 13.3% (1,221 of 9,199) of those tested showed positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Those tests were based on nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples and analyzed using quantitative real-time polymerase-chain-reaction (qRT-PCR) assay methods. The tests were performed at either the National University Hospital of Iceland (LUH) or at deCODE Genetics.

There are two possible inferences from all of these studies.

One possibility is that academics from our leading institutions – or the tests they employed – are error-prone. Debates over methodology are ongoing, and questions swirl around error rates for tests that as yet are approved only under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Alternatively, these results may indicate the deadly COVID-19 pandemic – with mortality rates generally under 1% – is no more deadly than the seasonal influenza. If that is true, the near-global stay-at-home mandates could have been an overreaction.

Yet, at least initially, extreme caution was warranted. SARS-CoV-2 was a new virus and the world was unprepared. There were no diagnostics, no vaccines, and no therapeutics.

How could there be? Even though researchers have been developing influenza vaccines based on conserved sites for years, coronaviruses are not influenza. There are only seven coronaviruses that can infect people, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Four are common and cause cold-like symptoms.

The remaining three are responsible for the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and COVID-19. Given recent experience with MERS and SARS, extreme caution was prudent. While the percentage of infections for those pandemics were much smaller, their mortality rates were higher. The mortality rate for SARS, for example, is accepted at 11% (916 deaths and 8,422 confirmed cases). For MERS, the mortality was reported at 35%.

Against those chilling figures, documents from the World Health Organization (WHO) on April 14, 2020 indicate the crude mortality rate varies by country due to timing and testing. At that time, the crude clinical case fatality was currently over 3% but increased with age and rose to approximately 15% or higher for patients over the age of 80. The WHO also states, “Morbidity associated with COVID-19 is very high.”

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control reported the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 at 23.6 for the week ending April 10th, and 18.6 percent for the week ending April 16, based upon death certificates. But those figures reflect only two difficult weeks, not overall mortality rates.

[Raazor]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

Probably have to have Doximity account to view study.

Showing organs damaged and that SARSCOV2 present in organs post mortem at autopsy. Virus was not in CNS samples (brain/spinal areas)

> At time of autopsy, SARS-CoV-2 was still detectable in the respiratory tracts of all patients. Polymerase chain reaction testing was positive in pleural effusion but negative in all CSF samples.

In this postmortem evaluation of 10 patients with COVID-19, acute and organizing diffuse alveolar damage and SARS-CoV-2 persistence in the respiratory tract were the predominant histopathologic findings and constituted the leading cause of death in patients with and without invasive ventilation. Periportal liver lymphocyte infiltration was considered unspecific inflammation. Whether myoepicardial alterations represented systemic inflammation or early myocarditis is unclear; criteria for true myocarditis were not met. Central nervous system involvement by COVID-19 could not be detected.

sound ugly.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by Raazor

sound ugly.

Yes, it is unquestionably a nasty virus. But this is a direct quote from the article:

Alternatively, these results may indicate the deadly COVID-19 pandemic – with mortality rates generally under 1% – is no more deadly than the seasonal influenza. If that is true, the near-global stay-at-home mandates could have been an overreaction.

OK, we had an overreaction. Why are we still overreacting when we now know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, and still is, an overreaction?

[Raazor]

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes, it is unquestionably a nasty virus. But this is a direct quote from the article:



OK, we had an overreaction. Why are we still overreacting when we now know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, and still is, an overreaction?

Liberal-leaning Media wants Trump gone.

[dvarapala]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

Interesting postmortem examination of COVID patients.

https://www.doximity.com/collections...m_medium=email

I'll need your login and password please.

[dvarapala]

Originally Posted by Mick

OK, we had an overreaction. Why are we still overreacting when we now know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, and still is, an overreaction?

Poor leadership at all levels of government?

[C3C7NIC]

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes, it is unquestionably a nasty virus. But this is a direct quote from the article:



OK, we had an overreaction. Why are we still overreacting when we now know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, and still is, an overreaction?

Tried to post an article you would like.

A "thank you" is ion order.

[C3C7NIC]

Originally Posted by dvarapala

Poor leadership at all levels of government, all over the entire GLOBE?

Fxt for accuracy.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Mick

OK, we had an overreaction. Why are we still overreacting when we now know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, and still is, an overreaction?

the socialists in this country are in heaven at the moment; directing people how to conduct their day-to-day lives.

They're the same ones that keep saying we'll never go back to normal, it will never be the same. This feeling of being in kontrol is not easy to give up. They look at this as a step forward in the conversion of the US to socialism; not wanting to take that step back to the way things were originally.