TechPreacher
Banned
- Messages
- 258
The "spike" in recent cases is being inflated. Someone goes to the hospital. While there, he is tested. Positive for antibodies. He is counted as a new case today, even though he had it in October. It's a scam.
- Status
The "spike" in recent cases is being inflated. Someone goes to the hospital. While there, he is tested. Positive for antibodies. He is counted as a new case today, even though he had it in October. It's a scam.
armeck
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 357
I don't think this is true, or do you read this differently than me?
https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report
Then the results are broken out by PCR or Antibody. The rate of infections for PCR is nearing 10%, while it used to be around 6-7% about 6 weeks ago.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
Our local hospitals which are filling up agree it’s not a scam.
armeck
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 357
Of course, because it is not a scam. I still can't fathom how or more importantly WHY people keep insisting this is a hoax/exaggeration/whatever.
BeachBuzz
Georgia Tech Fan
- Messages
- 27
Because for most of our lives, the media has been blowing things way out of proportion to get ratings, clicks, etc. I grew up in North Georgia in the 80's and every time a snowflake fell they would find one road that had a little bit of ice on it and show cars spinning. I lived a few miles from there and had nothing on the ground. I live now in Florida and every time there is a tropical storm they set up about 20 miles from where I live where there are some rocks along the beach and have the waves crashing over those rocks onto them to make it look worse than it is. Never mind that there are plenty of times when there is not a tropical storm or hurricane that you could get that same shot.
Now all of the sudden, the media wants people to trust them. I am saying this as someone that understands how bad things are with this virus. I just understand why other people don't. The media can only lie and manipulate so many times before people tune them out completely and assume everything they say is a lie or exaggeration.
RonJohn
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,048
I don't believe it is a hoax. However, there are some who are touting it as if it was aerosolized Ebola. It isn't aerosolized and highly contagious Ebola. It also isn't -- nothing to worry about. (I know double negative) Unfortunately the people who make such arguments yell the loudest.
armeck
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 357
But when the media has doctors, scientists, virologists, etc. and THEY are saying it is this serious - that isn't mistrust in the media that is mistrust in science.
Northeast Stinger
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 11,174
Glad most of us agree that this is not a hoax.
Some of the confusion is an inconsistent national message or national strategy. This then leads to both honest mistakes in reporting and honest mistakes in disease mitigation.
Here is an obvious example: One person, perhaps a slight hypochondriac, gets tested 10 times for the virus. Does that count as one person tested or does it count as 10 tests? If they test positive on their last test does that count as one positive test out of ten people tested? Obviously not but one can see how it might end up reported that way.
You are all smart enough to figure out a way this could be done clearly and without confusion but I honestly believe that different people are explaining or reporting in different ways not out of an attempt to manipulate or deceive but just from the fact that we have no uniform way of reporting or explaining the process of testing.
Countries that have reversed their outbreaks seem to have clear uniform reporting methods and aggressive contact tracing and isolation. We keep putting that off for some reason.
Another issue for which we have no clear tracking or reporting method is the number of people who recover but have permanent heart, cardiovascular, pulmonary or neurological damage. Raw numbers on that are scary but too early it seems to quantify the risk.
Some of the confusion is an inconsistent national message or national strategy. This then leads to both honest mistakes in reporting and honest mistakes in disease mitigation.
Here is an obvious example: One person, perhaps a slight hypochondriac, gets tested 10 times for the virus. Does that count as one person tested or does it count as 10 tests? If they test positive on their last test does that count as one positive test out of ten people tested? Obviously not but one can see how it might end up reported that way.
You are all smart enough to figure out a way this could be done clearly and without confusion but I honestly believe that different people are explaining or reporting in different ways not out of an attempt to manipulate or deceive but just from the fact that we have no uniform way of reporting or explaining the process of testing.
Countries that have reversed their outbreaks seem to have clear uniform reporting methods and aggressive contact tracing and isolation. We keep putting that off for some reason.
Another issue for which we have no clear tracking or reporting method is the number of people who recover but have permanent heart, cardiovascular, pulmonary or neurological damage. Raw numbers on that are scary but too early it seems to quantify the risk.
Supersizethatorder-mutt
Banned
- Messages
- 13,443
- Location
- Augusta, GA
Even then, it depends on which doctors, scientists, etc you listen to or believe. They are all probably closer together on virus-related issues than for other things, but there are still differing OPINIONS among them. Dr. Marc Siegel, (prolific writer, a Professor of Medicine at New York University School of Medicine, a Medical Director of Doctor Radio at NYU and SiriusXM, a Fox News Medical Correspondent, a frequent columnist for the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Slate, FoxNews.com, National Review Online and Forbes Online, and a member of the board of contributors at USA Today) says he has known Fauci personally for years and has the utmost respect for him but differs from him on 3 distinct issues:
(1) Fauci said China has been very transparent on Covid-related issues. Siegel said China locked down within China but still let it be spread through the rest of the world, and they wouldn't allow CDC reps any first-hand info. They also flat out lied on some things about the virus and it's contagious qualities.
(2) Fauci was against lock-downs early on when they could have been most effective, as they had been during the early stages of the second wave of the Spanish Flu in 1918. Siegel says that the lock-downs came much too late for Covid, and that was because of what Fauci had earlier said.
(3) Fauci is against re-opening schools "too soon". Siegel says because of increased testing and the apparent "immunity" of most of the young to the disease, and because of results shown in Australia when schools re-opened, we should proceed immediately with the re-opening of schools, as long as specific preventative measures are taken.
So which doctor or doctors are you going to believe? It's obvious which ones the MSM wants you to believe, but that doesn't mean that their OPINIONS are the only ones or the best ones.
GT_EE78
Banned
- Messages
- 3,605
Clearly much of the media does routinely and deliberately attempt to manipulate and deceive.
Given that reporting about this is already complicated and sometimes inconsistant among those trying to be honest,
agenda-driven media just makes it more difficult to sort out good data and analysis.
RonJohn
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,048
Do you get news from the media or do you get Hannity or Cuomo? When Hannity and Cuomo have doctors, scientists, and virologists on their shows, do they put forth medical and scientific information, or do they put forth pieces of medical and scientific information that support their political beliefs? Even when such shows have the same expert on, (say Fauci on Cumo and then on Hannity) the questions, time for answers, and follow up commentary tell totally different stories.
I have said many times: That you have to get information from multiple sources with varying political leanings. You then have to look for source material if available. I for the most part don't trust MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News at all. WSJ and NYT commentary can be interesting, but not trustworthy. Long form articles from WSJ and NYT can be more trustworthy, but mainly because the source material from such articles is usually easier to find and check.
Basically in response to your post: Should you trust media and doctors when they are on Cuomo's show or Hannity's show? If you can find news media that doesn't insert commentary and really produces hard news, I would be interested in knowing what that is.
I do believe that this disease is serious. I however don't believe that because of news media. As I implied earlier today, those who yell the loudest get the most attention.
Northeast Stinger
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 11,174
We probably will have to agree to disagree about that this is a “routine and deliberate attempt to manipulate” by the media.
I see certain cable talking heads who fancy themselves as libertarians, for instance, and they tend to gravitate toward source material and experts that support individual responsibility over stricter mandatory rules. I would argue that they cherry pick “honestly” out of preconceived or unconscious bias not because they have a desire to deliberately deceive the public. Even though the public is sometimes deceived.
GT_EE78
Banned
- Messages
- 3,605
>> it often takes a long time for the truth to come out which can complicate things.
WHO Quietly Admits Chinese Communist Party Never Reported Coronavirus Outbreak
The World Health Organization (WHO) quietly updated a timeline this week to reflect that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) never reported its discovery of the coronavirus to the WHO and that the global health agency had to learn about it by itself, despite the WHO’s praise of Chinese transparency.
The investigation discovered that on December 31, 2019, Chinese media reports of the virus began to appear online, including on the U.S.-based platform for early intelligence about infectious disease outbreaks. The WHO’s executive director, Dr. Michael Ryan, admitted he found out about the coronavirus outbreak on the platform.
Instead of being transparent, the CCP began to cover up the outbreak by censoring references to the virus on the Internet and in messaging platforms.
The WHO’s update is significant because most western mainstream media news outlets have reported that China told the WHO about the outbreak, as implied by the WHO in its earlier timeline. The WHO never corrected those media reports. (links to the WHO website for supporting evidence are within the article )
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...st-party-never-reported-coronavirus-outbreak/
RonJohn
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,048
I agree that the problem with media isn't deliberate attempts to manipulate. I believe it has more to do with ratings for TV, reads for web and print, etc. They can make more money with salacious statements and headlines than from actually informing the public. It seems that corporations no longer have the appetite to lose money on journalistic operations, like the main broadcast networks did up until the late 90s. News entities are now required to turn a profit, which is very difficult if you just provide hard news. It is even more difficult now when many people get "news" from Twitter and Facebook.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
I don’t know where you live, but the state I’m in is not known as being the worldwide leader in technology and innovation.
. But we have a very aggressive testing and contact tracing infrastructure. As we all know, none of any of this amount to much more than a hill of beans if people choose to misbehave. Remember the huge original outbreak in New Rochelle NY? That was a highly educated attorney. He was sick for over a month and did not tell anybody. He never went to the doctor. He kept going into large gatherings like grocery stores, mass transit, synagogue. As long as people choose to misbehave, there is only so much we can do. Unique from the rest of the world, we are also a heavily obese society, which is one of the biggest risk factors. The vast majority of countries who have seen a dramatic decrease in cases are the ones who were completely overridden by it in the first place. There are only a few countries out there who have kept their cases low that did not experience that – New Zealand, Germany, South Korea, etc. each of those have their own unique situations that the United States cannot mimic. We are not a remote island. We are not largely a healthy fit country. We are not an Orwellian police state. We are full of selfish people who misbehave and ignore recommendations. IIWII.
Supersizethatorder-mutt
Banned
- Messages
- 13,443
- Location
- Augusta, GA
I don't know if this link has previously been posted, but today was the first time I was aware of it. It's an article by Ken Sugiura regarding the now-famous photo from a Tech home game in 1918 ---
https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/...-and-the-story-behind/XOukYT9082wGyHDyP27XVL/
https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/...-and-the-story-behind/XOukYT9082wGyHDyP27XVL/
- Messages
- 5,901
My son and I had made the decision weeks ago that we would not go to DragonCon this year if they had it. We just saw no way it could be done in a safe manner.
We will be there in 2021 assuming they have it.
- Messages
- 15,724
Yep. I leaned in that direction, but as soon as they announced you could roll your pass, I did it. Today, my hotel opened up reservation rollovers.
There was just no way it made sense to go through with that trip.
- Messages
- 5,901
Spain's large seroprevelance study was released today. Largest one in the world so far.
5% overall positive test rate for the country (one of the hardest hit in the world). Highest rate was just over 14% in one area around Madrid.
Also, 1/7 of the people who at first tested positive for antibodies were no longer testing positive for antibodies by phase 3, which suggests that immunity may not be long term.
Basic outcome is that from an infection standpoint we aren't even close to herd immunity and it is not going to come from the spreading of the disease. If it comes at all, it will come from a vaccine.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext
FWIW, i liked the chart by the Texas Medical Association. I saw a similar one from MI. Nothing is 'perfect' in these, you have to make decisions, they are designed to provide you a level of risk, not an absolute.
5% overall positive test rate for the country (one of the hardest hit in the world). Highest rate was just over 14% in one area around Madrid.
Also, 1/7 of the people who at first tested positive for antibodies were no longer testing positive for antibodies by phase 3, which suggests that immunity may not be long term.
Basic outcome is that from an infection standpoint we aren't even close to herd immunity and it is not going to come from the spreading of the disease. If it comes at all, it will come from a vaccine.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext
FWIW, i liked the chart by the Texas Medical Association. I saw a similar one from MI. Nothing is 'perfect' in these, you have to make decisions, they are designed to provide you a level of risk, not an absolute.
- Status