80% 20% explained by an expert.

[C3C7NIC]

[MrPeabody]

It was just a matter of time, but we've had the first patient in our county test positive. Quarantined and recovering at home. They are saying this patient came in contact with someone on their job in a neighboring county. Lots of people in my county commute to other counties for work. I guess this person might have been at an essential job.

[Steve_R]

Less than 3,000 tests in the entire state of OK? Why so few? That’s statistically insignificant.

[C3C7NIC]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

Less than 3,000 tests in the entire state of OK? Why so few? That’s statistically insignificant.

Very few available tests.


Hope that changes soon.


Like most other resources, they are sent to places of greatest need.

[Steve_R]

Over 100,000 have been tested here, all of whom had to say they have one or more symptoms to be tested. Only 11,000 positive tests from over 100,000 people tested.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by Rodnok1

Stats can be interpreted different ways, I look at numbers and draw my own conclusions. Numbers don't lie, stats are generally bullshit being twisted to show a certain perspective of the presenter.

Two hundred sixty percent increase in cases over the last 285 hrs of kung flu in vegetarian transvestites with anal herpes and only 2 wisdom teeth over the age of 57 in Duncan County between Highway 63 and MLK freeway on the east side of the Himalayas.

Uh-oh. I guess I better get to the doctor.

[Raazor]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

Over 100,000 have been tested here, all of whom had to say they have one or more symptoms to be tested. Only 11,000 positive tests from over 100,000 people tested.

I read only 93% of all those tested who "think" they have the COVID, actually do.

I guess that's good news.

[Steve_R]

Originally Posted by Raazor

I read only 93% of all those tested who "think" they have the COVID, actually do.

I guess that's good news.

Only 10% here who think they have it test positive.

We played golf today. I didn’t wear a mask.

[Aerovette]

Here's the crap about the testing and numbers and all that shit.

Let's assume 70% of the population has/had the virus as of 2/2/2020. Period 70% of the population has it. On 2/3/2020 you test 100 people and they all have it. Yesterday you tested 100,000 people and they all had it. Has the number of cases increased by 1000 times? NO. The 70% number on 2/2/2020 may have actually dropped to 40% by yesterday. They are only testing SICK PEOPLE and they are testing MORE sick people so the disease could be going away and the numbers will NEVER EVER show that.

[Raazor]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

Only 10% here who think they have it test positive.

We played golf today. I didn’t wear a mask.

The 93% was a European/United States number. I'm sure some areas are slightly higher or lower.

Albuquerque tested 1,000 people through a drive through and had 6 test positive.

For the mathematically challenged, no... that's not 6%.

[Raazor]

We reached a milestone in this country today... 1 of every 1,000 people have been afflicted Nationwide.

Two years ago, 4,500,000 Americans had the flu. 1 of every 80.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by Raazor

I read only 93% of all those tested who "think" they have the COVID, actually do.

I guess that's good news.

How is this good news?

[Raazor]

Originally Posted by aerovette

How is this good news?

It's not 100%

[C3C7NIC]

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Until the antibody testing is widely preformed, we will not have a good grasp of statistical prevalence.


And screw you guys. I took statistics in pre med/under grad and revisited it in grad/ med schooL.




And yes you fuggers. I passed!

[Steve_R]

Originally Posted by Raazor

We reached a milestone in this country today... 1 of every 1,000 people have been afflicted Nationwide.

Two years ago, 4,500,000 Americans had the flu. 1 of every 80.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

Facts are not welcomed by panicked sheeple.

[Raazor]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Until the antibody testing is widely preformed, we will not have a good grasp of statistical prevalence.


And screw you guys. I took statistics in pre med/under grad and revisited it in grad/ med schooL.




And yes you fuggers. I passed!

[snide]

Originally Posted by Murray

And now a tiger at a NY Zoo has it

WhoTF was making out with the tiger at the zoo?

[Steve_R]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Until the antibody testing is widely preformed, we will not have a good grasp of statistical prevalence.


And screw you guys. I took statistics in pre med/under grad and revisited it in grad/ med schooL.




And yes you fuggers. I passed!

You’re correct that we need a LOT more testing to make any rational decisions or conclusions. Here’s a question: we don’t test many people for the flu, but make estimates of how many have it, which is always a huge number. That huge number of estimated flu cases is used to calculate the mortality rate. Why are we only using confirmed cases for this virus, thus skewing the mortality rate high? Why change the calculation for this specific virus except to overstate the mortality rate to scare people?

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by C3C7NIC

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Until the antibody testing is widely preformed, we will not have a good grasp of statistical prevalence.


And screw you guys. I took statistics in pre med/under grad and revisited it in grad/ med schooL.




And yes you fuggers. I passed!

But have you written 13 books like the surgeon in your video has.......



My dumbass actually understood Dr. Birx when she explained why the antibody test is so important.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by snide

WhoTF was making out with the tiger at the zoo?