Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "COVID risk factors and implications" video.

  1. In the US our news seems to avoid giving any sort of good news. . Thank God we have John here, and others to give the real data, good bad and sometimes just weird.
    2
  2. sounds like he was misunderstood. immunity clearly lasts longer than six months at minimum. antibodies are only one component of immunity.
    2
  3. Ooops that's the chart for Manta Rays.
    2
  4. I suppose travel between areas with similar infection rates would not be a problem, unless the trip itself exposed people (like on a plane). .
    2
  5.  @monanemani742  It is astonishing that when I was a graduate student working on novel avian diseases in Hawaii, everyone in the field did random sample studies, but now when the human race is faced with a novel disease disaster, entire nations don't even do the basic research to ask "how many." . Good luck my friend! Thanks for your kind correspondence. .
    2
  6.  @blackflagpirate3444  Ah yes, well lot of news these days is clicky, there's something real but the presentation is full of marketing. . Antibodies may disappear over a few months, but what they sometimes forget toi say is that's the way antibodies work. They are a short term response, and the body retains memory in other forms such as memory T cells. . That's fast getting out of my depth, but I would say that the loss of immunity story is overblown if not three sheets to the wind.
    2
  7.  @LizaNaude  thank you, that is so true! it reminds us how healthy it is to have a good attitude!
    2
  8. Be careful of the Guardian, they are horrible on science. They have many false headlines that are contradicted in the body of the article. . If they link to a study, that study might be good...
    2
  9. flake news
    1
  10. According to a poll of me, people are suspicious of the current strategy since the Authorities won't even do a poll of the virus itself. .
    1
  11.  @esecallum  People yell at me I ignore it. I don't know what you said and am not motivated to find out. But I support your right to yell into the wind.
    1
  12. What country you? . Most countries having a much lower death rate vs March-May wave. . Some are 40x less. . Herd immunity is not here yet, except for a few places. (e.g. a couple cities in Brazil). Probably we are at 20% instead of the 60% for herd immunity, just a guess, but there are some good studies.
    1
  13. flake news
    1
  14. Case numbers are fatally flawed for actually estimating population prevalence. . Only random sampling can do it right. Sorry but the numbers just aren't sampled systematically for the purpose we want.
    1
  15.  @dutchcourage7312  For infection numbers, you want random sample studies. . Raw case numbers cannot be used to estimate population numbers, as they are not collected systematically. (They could be off by a factor of 2 or even 10 or more). . Some nations have done random invitation surveys. You can try searching google scholar for, e.g., "Iceland random covid survey" .
    1
  16. flake news. a bit surprised the bbc would stooop soooo loooow but they want to catch up I guess
    1
  17. we are on a different rythm not behind or ahead i think
    1
  18. that's a bogus statistic unfortunately
    1
  19. thank you for the news!
    1
  20. 0.28% idk MATHs? . oh actually that first one is the IFR (recent Indiana study)
    1
  21. It is amazing how bad the media is at balance. Even PBS, the only one I can watch without head explosions.
    1
  22.  @essanjay8604  maybe not, because the PCR can pick up "dead" fragments as well as active infections . it is a very sensitive test.
    1
  23. Sounds like a bullshitter. But it's probably just the press only showing part of her statements. I bet her actual research papers are more accurate.
    1
  24. thanks for the link! . oops... paywall
    1
  25. They are not proper statistics anyway, since they are not collected by a systematic random sample. . Truly they are useless for estimating the population prevalence. They could be off by 2x or 10x.
    1
  26. a positive PCR result is a case of infection . it is not a case of illness or a case of infectiousness, per se.
    1
  27. John is awesome 00 he's not Dr. Jesus H. Antetokounmpo goodness gracious. but you are right Sweden is doing amazingly well
    1
  28. US is on the THIRD wave. The timing is different. (some states show only one or two but many also show three). . (wave = an up and down cycle in the admittedly faulty case numbers)
    1
  29. True rate of infections is probably much higher than case numbers, and so the true mortality rate much lower. . Proper surveys are required to estimate the real rate. Case numbers are uselss for that. . False postiives are less than 1%, but if you get a positive you might want to confirm it for sure
    1
  30.  @robs1714  Yes, I try hard not to watch the nightly noose. They are allergic to good news. . I truly believe this virus is evolving to be a kinder, gentler form. Also we humans are learning, but that can't explain all of it.
    1
  31.  @christopherrobinson7541  They should do random sample surveys to estimate the REAL numbers instead of using a bogus stat like "confirmed cases" (or even worse, "positivity") . The UK is doing this I hear, but I can't find the data on the ONS website...
    1
  32. Yes, ethnicity is more cultural than genetic. So is race, actually, as it is commonly used. By the genes, there are about 15 races: 14 in Africa, and 1 outside Africa. .
    1
  33. I think they can count t-cells in the lab. I don't think there is a specific handy test for them for the public.
    1
  34. Does your govt do monitoring surveys so you can see these waves coming? . (We don't in the US, though Indiana just did a nice one)
    1
  35.  @monanemani742  So it looks like France is not doing any proper monitoring, like my country and many others. . I'll check google scholar and see if I find anything... ok yeah 10 minutes and I don't find any proper surveys from France. . We need to tell our leaders to do the right thing. Iceland did a nice survey of their entire nation using random invitations. That's what every country needs.
    1
  36. no that's steroids that do that, not vaccines
    1
  37. a spate of fake news is not unexpected, given that the month name begins with an O, A, J, F, M, A, S, O, N, or D.
    1
  38. cool!
    1
  39. Those numbers cannot be faked to any large degree in an open society such as the USA or Europe. Delayed, maybe. . Hospitals are not secret bases. .
    1
  40. fake news
    1
  41. the word is "adjuvant"
    1
  42. that's pretty much "fake news" -- not to impugn hour honor matey, it is the source of said "news" that stands accused here...
    1
  43.  @rogerstarkey5390  Citation? Study was submitted for peer review, can cite it now... maybe it was shown to be wrong... or right!?
    1
  44. or that the trial uses logic and math to evaluate problems .
    1
  45.  @LizaNaude  If you truly think science has a 0% reliability rate, it's not useful to discuss it.
    1
  46.  @LizaNaude  I apologize, that sounded rude. Looking back I think I was put off by the phrase "just a formality." . It is not a formality! . They publicized information on the case you mention -- and that openness is actually an indication that the trial NOT secretive and is looking at problems honestly. .
    1
  47. "Cases" is not a representative statistic, in any case. Check out random sample surveys, Indiana just did one...
    1
  48.  @w0033944  Looks like an excellent study. . As usual, the researchers speak carefully... ""We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection..." And as usual, the mainstream media fails to give a decent summary, instead focusing on fear and bad news. (e,g., Guardian subheader, "... fueling concerns over reinfection") . The fact is that re-infections appear to be rare -- so rare that we never see a "rate" only anecdotes. But 50 million people got it! Humans are clearly not losing their immunity very quickly, if at all. .
    1
  49. That actually says nothing about mask effectiveness, except that it is either 1) not 100% (we knew that), or 2) people overestimate their own compliance. . Since we know that 1) is true, we don't even need to impugn the accuracy of survey data.
    1
  50.  @aagalani  It is understandable that people would be confused. Startling figures half clothed lol. For example it may be true that" . "Half the people who die from car accidents had their seatbelt on." . But all drivers would recognize this is not evidence that seatbelts are useless... .
    1
  51. Wouldn't it be nice to know the number of people infected in your city or county? . That would be a number we could use. . The US is not doing the studies to monitor the numbers. We need to inform our leaders of the need to know.
    1
  52.  @chocojavachip  But do you have numbers, or good numbers? . In my training as a biologist who studied avian disease, random sample surveys are the only way to properly estimate virus prevalence. . When such surveys are done for the Covid, the numbers are often wildly different from the case numbers we hear every day. This is not surprising, since Case numbers are not derived from systematic sampling. Indiana did a good study back in April, as an example... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377824/
    1