Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Pandemic Update, 30 September" video.

  1.  @hannahglyn6867  Really. A virus doesn't have to be 100% effective to work. . A small number of re-infections makes almost zero difference to the spread of the disease -- it's a big deal to those people though!!
    3
  2. There could be some false positives but they are a very small percentage. . It's important for individuals, but not for the overall numbers. . The data is, I agree, meaningless. This is because random surveys are the only way to estimate prevalence. Case numbers are meaningless.
    2
  3. ​ @robertlivingston360  Yes, it is important for individuals to get tested again if they are concerned that the first result might be false. I agree. . If you are a scientist estimating the population prevalence, you can use a test and adjust for the error rates. In essence, you are doing the test a thousand times, or whatever the sample size is in the study. ...
    2
  4.  @TrollingAllrounderLegend2.0  Interesting! But it doesn't give the basic methods. Was this from a random sample? "The main conclusions from this sero survey are that one in 15 individuals aged more than 10 have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 by August,” Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Director General Balram Bhargava said at a health ministry press conference. Bhargava said evidence of virus exposure was more prevalent among people tested in urban slums (15.6 percent) and non-slum urban areas (8.2 percent) than in rural areas, where 4.4 percent of those surveyed had antibodies." . Fascinating.
    2
  5.  @TrollingAllrounderLegend2.0  Fascinating! Thank you. I am a fan of a good random sample study.
    2
  6. How many people got that symptom? Is it still just one out of 35,000? Did they figure out if it was from the vaccine or not? . Vaccines are awesome, but I'd prefer to wait for the second round myself. Good on John for volunteering.
    2
  7. Link to the Guardian article? I don't see it.
    2
  8.  @horsebox5743  I can only read the first half sentence because of a paywall. I guess that sums the human condition perfectly. . A highly intelligent species that collectively -- when we put our heads together -- can barely write or count. .
    2
  9. Well that sounds possible, but unlikely. Dead virus is recognized by the immune system, but it has to get inside the body. Vaccines use adjuvants to get the body to react. I suppose no lab has ever tested that protocol... .
    2
  10.  @surfraptor  Stop making health political. That hurts, not helps.
    1
  11. no
    1
  12.  @robertlivingston360  Yeah, that's fine. Whatever the error rates are (and yes it depends on the cycles), to get the population prevalence, you simply take the raw numbers and adjust for the error rates. . If you know your toyota's speedometer reads 10% too fast, you can slow down by 10% and you won't get any tickets, right? Same principle.
    1
  13. Were the Manaus estimates derived from random sample testing?
    1
  14. If parents take responsibility, that is individualism. If they give responsibility to the schools, that's collectivism. . I agree in general about the cultures, but the example seems backwards. It makes me wonder if the whole collectivist thing is true or just in our western imaginations.
    1
  15.  khairos  Sure, I've heard that. That's why it is curious that the education example is the reverse, at least as stated. . Parents taking responsibility for educating their kids is individualistic. . Whoever does that more scores more individualistic by that one specific measure. . Now say that a parent home schools, but uses a state textbook -- a collective curriculum. Most of what we do is both I suppose. . I am trained to question categories, an individual-centered practice -- but if I learned that in school, I got it from a collective...
    1
  16. there were trials with monkeys months ago
    1
  17. It doesn't make the test unreliable. The test is the test. However yes, it does make interpretation of one person's test contingent upon the population prevalence, not just on the testing accuracy.
    1
  18.  @toastrecon  Yes, and that's true for science in general. The science is good, the media reporting is worse than awful. . A good doctor could explain it, but the practical advice would be if you get a + test, confirm it with a second one.
    1
  19.  Andrew Ongais  Test gives results you don't believe = test is junk?? . That's not scientific, my man. On the other hand, you could be right -- a batch of tests might be bad! . One way to check would be to ask if there are actually other places with such a high rate. Turns out there are: . "The authors say: "Our most remarkable finding was the cluster of high prevalence in 11 cities along the Amazon River, with levels that were among the highest ever reported in population-based studies" https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-09-covid-antibody-brazil-reveal-amazon.html . So if there was a problem with a batch of tests, it would have to affect these 11 cities and no others. Did they get the same shipment? Did no other cities use that batch? . Most likely, Manaos had all those cases. Now they might have herd immunity... but wasn't their % only about 25%? That's not even very high. . The original paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30387-9/fulltext
    1
  20. "There's absolutely no evidence this 'disease' even exists as a specific pathogen." . You might be right about 1000 things, but saying that takes your credibility to zero.
    1
  21. You can have a dollar and find 48 cents.
    1
  22. Polio's gone. . I know. It's gone enough that if covid goes like that we will have a world wide victory party.
    1
  23. The world should give itself a pat on the back! . That is what we were missing after the first wave. Positive feedback is essential for any effort.
    1
  24.  @sudhirchopde3334  yes, vaccine production is definitely scalable.
    1
  25. no, it will be cheep or free
    1
  26.  @ASTRA1564  Y'all don't live in the US. Do you live on Earth?? . 89% of Americans are insured . I could go into other stats but that one is sufficient for the debunkology reqaaared in this here si-chation.
    1
  27.  @ASTRA1564  Ok then do an experiment.... Count the closest ten people to you. How many of them have insurance or medicade or medicair? . If it's more than 1, you proved yourself wrong.
    1
  28. case numbers are very low in the state. is it bad in certain counties or something?
    1
  29.  Vaccine Sheep  Yeah I realize that case numbers are a crappy measure of this thing. Totally unscientific, in fact. . Therefore, on due consideration, I recall my question. . When NY begins collecting proper statistics, I will ask again.
    1