Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Pandemic increases in Europe" video.

@heminder The reason this bug isn't so bad is because we treated it like it was.
2
The PCR test is good for individual cases. What is bad is that nations aren't (often) using random sample protocols to estimate population numbers.
1
I tend to agree, although I think people should keep wearing masks, and some high risk locations should stay closed. . We can do most of our normal business...
1
@oanagody1 It's mostly true. Why not pick on something he says that isn't mostly true... TDS is a tragedy of the mind.
1
Nah, it's many times more catching than the flu. . But yes it probably is evolving to a flu-like mortality rate. .
1
Yes. Mutation to a less virulent strain is likely on theoretical grounds. Most disease organisms propogate better if they do not kill their host. . It's very hard to prove, but it probably happened.
1
@kylejones1532 Me too, I'd bet $$$ but I have no proof. It's what things should do! . We have isolated bad cases, that's the key. When only mild cases can spread much, mild varieties should become more common. . The classic case study is Cholera when India and Ethiopia both got it. One nation did good public health -- e.g. they treated the water -- one didn't. After some months, one nation had a very deadly form, the other had a mild form. .
1
@Dermahon13 stop the fear mongering and just ask a question if you have a question
1
@Dermahon13 The fear mongering that you were promoting was the mindless fear of conspiracy. . Conspiracies are often true, but that one -- fearmongering -- that is the MSM not our guy here. It hurts the truth to tar everyone with the same brush. Don't help the MSM fear machine by accusing others of what they do so well. . These videos by Ole John here are NOT fear mongering. They have too much information to qualify! Fear is the mind killer -- John feeds the mind. He is anti-fear. He may be wrong on some things -- but 1) he gives lots of good news as well as bad news, and 2) when it's bad he gives useful information. He does not peddle mindless fear like the nightly snooze. . CNN, Fox, even PBS are indeed selling fear, but not our man Campbell. He's as wholesome as Amy's Organic Soup.
1
@Dermahon13 Not about the disease -- you are reasonable there. It was fear mongering about conspiracy. . Not everyone who says "watch out" is trying to get us to live in fear and buy Ivory soap. Calling everything a conspiracy is a type of fearmongering. . Some conspiracies are true, don't get me wrong.
1
@Dermahon13 That's reasonable! I also really really want to hear about Sweden!!! . (Of course the reason I want John to cover it is because I like his fact-rich coverage). . As an evolutionary biologist by training (I studied avian malaria in Hawaiian birds in grad school), I have been aghast at the MSM coverage of Covid. And I don't even use the word aghast! But it fits. . It is astonishing that in the US there is no random sample program -- the only way to estimate population numbers. John gets that, unlike most journalists and politicians. All the more reason to look at a more rational approach like in Sweden...
1
@johnbiggs9561 The PCR false positive rate is extremely low. It must be lower than 0.6% because they tested Iceland's population and got 0.6% positive, and there were sick people, so many of those were true positives. .
1
@johnbiggs9561 Ok thanks for the information!
1
The "tested positive" isn't a reliable statistic to extrapolate to the population, as you know. Therefore it is possible to have a 70% immune rate with a 25% (or 2% or 0.02% or whatever) confirmed case rate. . So the answer is yes, but only because "tested positive" is not an actual index of the population numbers.
1
@Vierotchka What part? Let us agree that the "tested positive" number is not the same as the number who "had the disease" -- unless the entire population was tested, right? . If 100 people from Santa Fe are tested and 10 are positive, that does not mean that the entire city is 10% positive. . Only scientific sampling can give valid estimates. "Tested positive" is not a scientific sample.
1
yes it is relevant. you don't care if you get sick, as long as you don't die? So... it's ok to crash the car gently and fall of small cliffs
1
citation for false positives?
1
The test may have a false positive rate of less than 0.6% (Nationwide testing in Iceland https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100 ). . Where do you get the 60% number?
1
There are very few false positives as a percentage. . Of course, if you get a false positive, it's a big deal. But it doesn't change the numbers much at all. . There are many more false negatives than false positives.
1
False positives are less than 0.6%. That doesn't matter much to the national number estimates. . It is important for individuals to realize that they may very well get a false positive, but it barely changes the nationwide statistics.
1
source?
1
@Popart-xh2fd That's just some guy talking. When I say "source" I mean a scientific paper or something. . False positives are a very small % of tests. In a huge program of testing in Iceland, the false positive was much lower than 0.6%. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100 .
1
@Popart-xh2fd Ok yes! I totally agree. It is relevant to the individual, and also to the total numbers -- (but not much to the total percentage).
1
@Popart-xh2fd Yes I am familiar with disease testing, I did (most of) a PhD dissertation on avian malaria. Our team compared PCR tests and microscopic analysis, and conducted field research to estimate the effects of the disease in the wild. . It's good to see y'all understand that a small false positive rate can actually lead to many false positive tests, when there is massive testing. . My point is simply that a tiny false positive rate doesn't affect the whole-population percentages very much. It certainly can affect the total numbers, and is very important to individuals.
1