How is the virus affecting you?

[hawkeye08]

I thought the point of the article was this person had CV19 well before anyone thought CV19 was a big issue. As of January 21, Fauci was saying, "This is not a major threat threat to the people in the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about." Link

It was being talked about as if the it was the first CV19 death (caused by).

 

[hawkeye08]

Help me understand what you want to know that has not already been mentioned. The testing they did shows between 50% to 85% more people had been exposed to CV19, and developed CV19 antibodies, than was originally thought, which was 956 people.

I'll have to go back and read it again, I thought it said between 50x and 85x (times, not percentage).. one article said the way they extrapolated the data that New York would have more cases than they have residents.

 

[California]

It was two months ago. By all accounts there's an incubation period of a few days to two weeks. If they were going to have serious complications, it would have happened by now.

My concern is a little different. I think daily, presently, they are at risk of new contact with virus.

Possibly on delivered groceries, doorhandles, breeze from the adjacent balcony, someone who walked ahead of them on the street without a mask, who knows?. Considering that they live in that urban region that is/was a hot spot, their daily risk may be greater than average to encounter whatever it was that infected people in the region who had 'no known contact'. Yes they are taking all the recommended precautions and are healthy.

 

[5030]

:thumbsup:

View attachment 652215

Loaded, loose and pizz on the virus, let's party.....:laughing:

 

[rswyan]

I had to look up "Dunning Kruger" to fully appreciate your post. :thumbsup:

 

[Hay Dude]

Anyone think the medical science experts are overly cautious to the point of probable financial ruin and the business capitalists want to go back to work tomorrow probably increasing mortality and maybe the sweet spot is somewhere in between?

 

[MikePA]

I'll have to go back and read it again, I thought it said between 50x and 85x (times, not percentage).. one article said the way they extrapolated the data that New York would have more cases than they have residents.

You are correct, it was 50x to 85x. Link.

 

[California]

You are correct, it was 50x to 85x. Link.

Even that article was followed by other with researchers saying the methodology wasn't sufficiently rigid to rely on the conclusions declared.
In summary there are too many unknowns to know more at this time than 'this is really bad'.

Stanford coronavirus study triggers feud over methodology and motives

But after considering the study and then the criticism ...

Santa Clara County Executive Dr. Jeff Smith remains steadfast in his interpretation of the study痴 findings: It suggests that asymptomatic people spread the virus, and that more than 95% of the population remains susceptible to infection.

That all means that there is more risk than we initially were aware of

 

[MikePA]

Even that article was followed by other with researchers saying the methodology wasn't sufficiently rigid to rely on the conclusions declared.
In summary there are too many unknowns to know more at this time than 'this is really bad'.

Stanford coronavirus study triggers feud over methodology and motives

While 50x to 85x might be arguable, the fact, as documented via an autopsy result, that CV19 was present in Santa Clara county earlier than the experts originally thought is not.

 

[Diggin It]

Anyone think the medical science experts are overly cautious to the point of probable financial ruin and the business capitalists want to go back to work tomorrow probably increasing mortality and maybe the sweet spot is somewhere in between?

The truth is always there.