Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Long term COVID" video.

dr mobeen thinks it is disregulation, and steroid course can help . probably not much viral load
3
It is very accurate. False positive rate is less than 0.6% (Iceland nationwide study). . However: raw "confirmed cases" as we see on TV is not a valid estimate of the population prevalence, because it is not a random sample. It could be off by a factor of 2, or 10, or 100. Random sampling is the gold standard, and everything else is rust. . Check out Iceland's study a few months ago and Indiana's recent study. .
3
no monitoring in the US so it's hard to see waves coming in advance
3
he probably can't transmit it now after 3 weeks. . idk, just from what I read
2
@FerreiraRose I will post if I find some good information.
2
@crusindc5282 and the "surgical mask" although common is far from the best. You can see the gaps. A few layers of t-shirt are better, if they don't have big gaps like the surgicals. . N95 are another animal. They are comfy and effective. There are also N99s but I haven't tried. . I like a UV balaclava, even before Covid. Now I put the N95 under it for Walmart expeditions. . Masks gave 14% protection, eye protection 10%, distance 10% for 2m in one review study. I got my shooting glasses for every occasion.
2
It takes at least 2-3 days after exposure to test positive by the PCR test. .
2
Spanish Flu had 3 I think. . When we are nearing herd immunity, the waves should get smaller and smaller until there is more of a seasonal wave each year like the flu. I'd guess. . Case numbers are not a reliable estimate -- need to do random sample surveys like the UK, Iceland, and Indiana.
2
Herd immunity is the end point of most strategies, with or without a vaccine. . It's not a strategy or a tactic.
2
@Stanno Max Sweden has had close to zero deaths per day for a couple months. . Check out worldometers graph for that nation
2
No test is 100% accurate. .
2
""Positivity" (as they call it in the USA) derived from raw case numbers is not a valid statistical measure of the virus prevalence in the community. . For that, random samples are required. . Tell your leaders you need random invitation studies, like Iceland and Indiana.
1
@Peter_Scheen It was isolated and sequenced in January. It is so easy to sequence a virus, there are probably 10,000 labs that could do it next week. .
1
JohanMDK The PCR test is good for individuals. But the case numbers are NOT a good estimate of population prevalence. . There is some confusion on that. Forest vs trees.
1
JohanMDK The nationwide Iceland study shows how good the PCR test is. The false positive must have been less than 0.6%, since the total positive was less than 0.6%. . Icleand's was a proper random invitation study. Also Indian did a nice one recently. The UK is conducting ongoing random sample monitoring, I think, I can't actually find any data last time I looked on the ONS website...
1
JohanMDK https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100 To find it I went google scholar, searched "iceland random covid" .
1
JohanMDK Slam dunks ok never mind then lol I thought this was a science discussion .
1
Yes, it's rather senseless as a measure of the population. . They call it "positivity" here in the US and it is quite annoying that it is used as a substitute for valid estimates.
1
S Anderson Yes. I took grad level statistics and have published research on avian poxvirus in peer reviewed journals. . If the case numbers are not derived from a random sample, it is not proper to use them for statistical inference. . The lab tests are excellent, but it is wrong to use haphazard counting to estimate population prevalence. That is true for the raw "confirmed cases" we often see, and also for the "positivity" or % of tests that are positive. . For example... a paper estimating the prevalence of avian pox in a national park would be rejected outright if the study did not use random sampling protocols. They wouldn't even read it. Self-reporting sparrows are notorious for defying normality.
1
Dr. Mobeen thinks that after the virus many people's immune systems is stuck on high and can be helped with a course of steroids. . This fits in with the popular MATHs protocol and the idea of cytokine storms and all that. Body has to be able to know when the threat is gone...
1
@esecallum Yes, he's not a researcher I believe, but a medical doctor. . I've only seen a couple programs -- they discussed cellular and physiological processes, and gave details of the MATHS protocol now used in many hospitals. .
1
@esecallum yeah dude I can barely even watch PBS any more the layers are too thick. . Local News last night: hospitalizations up all over the country!!!!!!! CDC: lowest since March.
1
0.28% by Indiana's random sample survey
1
lol We should buy all kids a set of dice, so they can learn statistics, so they can grow up to conduct proper monitoring of outbreaks with random sample surveys. .
1
yeah we need random samples to estimate stuff . nothing else works
1
@FactsBeFacts Raw case numbers are unreliable as an estimate of population prevalence. They could be off by a factor of 2 or 10 or 100. . Random sample surveys are required.
1
@gavinparks5386 positivity and test numbers are both unscientific "estimates". . They do not use correct sampling protocols (i.e., random sampling). The PCR test is fine but we CANNOT extrapolate without random samples. .
1
@gavinparks5386 I agree. Hospitalizations (and deaths) are not statistical estimates, but total counts. I did not say otherwise. . What I do protest is the simplistic use of "confirmed cases" -- simple totals of positive test results -- to estimate population prevalence.
1
wow interesting! . perhaps not a "key" but rather a lock that fits the spike "key" ? Same effect, and in any case, quality link
1
Because public health measures work. . Not lockdowns but all the other healthy things
1
Rounding to the nearest person, 1 out of the 30 might be a false positive, but that's a very high estimate. According to results in Iceland, there would be less than 0.6% false positives, so less than one expected out of 100. .
1