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

  1.  @AGDinCA  Yes, several times, including at least one complete show. . bots gotta bot.
    3
  2. The number are not worthy of either trust or distrust. They are irrelevant because they are not collected scientifically. . I assume you are wanting to know the prevalence of the virus? How many cases are there? Things like that? . This requires random sampling studies like Indiana just did.
    3
  3.  @markwegner6100  Positivity rate unfortunately is 100% useless. My governor keeps talking about it too. I took stats; it's not valid to use numbers like that. . If we want to know the prevalence we need to ask our governors to do random sample surveys, like Indiana just did. . Cheers!
    3
  4.  @janetairlines1351  Don't forget about washing your hands
    3
  5.  @jeffweingrad4658  Interesting reports folks, thanks. . Our states should be doing what Indiana just did, random samples to assess the real risk in real time. This would help a great deal for people to target their efforts appropriately.
    2
  6. interesting question
    2
  7.  @DamienCross66  I agree, it is not that easy to fake these kind of numbers in the USA. We are not 1972 East Germany. The number can be checked by thousands -- millions -- of people. . Of course, the numbers are meaningless for estimating population prevalence. We need random samples to do valid estimates. Indiana just did a nice study...
    2
  8.  @henryhall2403  probably russian bots. . real people are rarely that ignant
    2
  9.  @1ACL  Agree. One meta-analysis of 174 studies concluded masks gave 14% risk reduction, eye protection 10%, staying 2m away 10%, and each additional m gave 2% less risk.
    2
  10. Only some family members getting it is not uncommon, apparently. It is quite odd to contemplate. . Also, it is possible you got it but cleared it with T-cells and humourous immunity rather than antibodies, which is what the test can find. . PS thanks for sharing
    2
  11. ​ @SilverSergeant  Well you could be right! It could be politics, with both parties sacrificing truth for politics. . Or it could be ignorance, but that is a stretch. It's hard for a governor be that ignorant if they have any scientific advisors.
    2
  12. "far right" conspiracy? . the right in my country loves Sweden and it can do no wrong in their eyes
    2
  13.  @Docinaplane  Ok interesting... John says "I don't pretend to be able to explain that" difference between footage and CDC numbers. . Seems reasonable. . However I totally agree the news is not trustworthy. Even Britt news about the US is FUBAR -- the Sun ran a two hour video titled "...Chicago..." that showed Los Angeles instead! . PBS showed a car running over protestors -- and had to retract when it turned out the protestors were attacking the car. . And that's not even getting to Fox or CNN, the worsts. . Seriously, the news is not to be watched, much less trusted. Ok I will watch PBS. The others are good strictly for the sports and weather, two things they can't fake yet.
    1
  14.  @Docinaplane  Perhaps the BBC is ok I don't have them on my playlist so to speak. PBS is very good except when it drops the pie, and why is it even carrying pie? Let the people serve their own slice. . I'll try BBC more often now, I just forgot about them. I still want to limit TV news intake to less than about 14 parts per million. .
    1
  15. 1. idk. nobody knows probably because our data collection is poor 2. no, an infection is a case 3. idk 4. have you tried asking bikers if you can track them
    1
  16. I am 100% positive your comment is accurate.
    1
  17.  @christopherrobinson7541  Give them free beer for 14 days in exchange for the car keys. . They would need some acres to roam, like we give the college students.
    1
  18. When you see positivity rate, write whoever is using it and tell them it's unscientific. . We need random sample studies like Indiana just did.
    1
  19. we think cells are simple, but immunity is smarter than society
    1
  20. thankfully the death rate seems pegged close to zero per day... but it is concerning . it is also curious to see if they are a herd yet
    1
  21. I don't see any sharp decline: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
    1
  22.  @davidbarlow350  Be polite or go comment on some other site, please.
    1
  23. I think the PCR test is pretty simple. When we start adding up numbers and applying them to the population at large, that's when it gets... unscientific, actually, without random sampling studies.
    1
  24. Yet one more problem with using case numbers to infer population statistics -- which is invalid to begin with. . Random sample studies are needed for that purpose. (Indiana just did one!)
    1
  25. Any data not collected in a systematic random survey are useless for extrapolation to the population at large. . Indiana just did a random study -- they are easy and cheap.
    1
  26. the test was invented decades ago
    1
  27. Testing is for individuals. . If we want to know the population numbers, we need studies -- random sample studies.
    1
  28. That makes sense. Except, quarantine does not require staying inside a building, just away from exposure to others. One's garden could in theory count as a good quarantine location.
    1
  29. disagreee. there is plenty evidence. agree. coercion is violence i reckon indoors with strangers, wear them outdoors not near people, don't
    1
  30. not in the US, I don't think so
    1
  31. Misquote. . Actual quote (similar meaning): . "That means 135 million people on earth are marching towards the brink of starvation. But now the World Food Programme analysis shows that, due to the Coronavirus, an additional 130 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by the end of 2020. That’s a total of 265 million people. " . https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-chief-warns-hunger-pandemic-covid-19-spreads-statement-un-security-council
    1
  32. The virus is likely evolving to be LESS deadly. . Death rates in many countries are 1/6th that of the first wave. . It is the logical result of isolating the worst cases.
    1
  33. yet another bit of proof that positivity rate is not meaningful. . random sample surveys are the only way to estimate population numbers, short of testing every member of the population
    1
  34. go away russian bots
    1
  35.  @1ACL  I was agreeing that masks DO give valuable protection!! . Masks are valuable and fun. . But citing is always good, the study was in Lancet and here's the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620311429 . The limitation was there were zero randomized controlled studies out of the 172 studies combined for the meta-analysis, but that's par for the course for this new disease.
    1
  36.  @1ACL  Could be, I will look again at the study... PS guinea pigs with masks lol! so cute
    1
  37. agree
    1
  38. I think you are right but idk, it's complicated. Like, why is the news failing to report mostly positive information?
    1
  39. positivity is not meaningful number, I'm campaigning to see it replaced by a valid statistic
    1
  40. they are amazingly bad with the hype
    1
  41. not true . I don't think you are a real person, but a Russian bot. No need to prove anything but that is so far from plausible...
    1
  42.  @hizzlemobizzle  We're not in a red state but our numbers are the highest they have been. . No state (except Indiana) is doing real monitoring to see what the threat level is. . The advice to stay home unless it gets bad is valid. However they should tell people to monitor their blood oxygenation. It should be over 94 I think, after walking around a bit to get the blood going. The monitors are a few bucks at walgreens. . I'm not sure I believe that $600 figure, sorry.
    1
  43. you know she said so
    1
  44. the numbers bear that out! very interesting. . many people will be surprised that not even cases went up
    1
  45.  @beckster6116  The graphs look the same as the worldometer graphs, maybe that info is getting out
    1
  46. It's not politics it is ignorance. . Only one state has conducted random sample surveys, that I know of (Indiana). There are many R and many D states. R and D are both AWOL.
    1
  47.  @adamfast3797  OK I'll look it up thanks! The Indiana study looks very good. I haven't seen any nationwide random sampling in the US. . That's where leadership can matter; if we had someone in the White House who really got it, like Yang, or... Yang? Not sure anyone else gets science at all actually. Oh yeah, Jill Stein. . No blame; an Ivy League degree in biology did not teach me statistics. I didn't learn it until grad school. It's a giant void in our education system. I think Joe will appoint people who know stuff and let them design a plan. This is all needlessly political way of saying we need a sampling plan.
    1
  48. that's not possible to do in the USA. data on deaths is public and there are millions of people checking the numbers. .
    1
  49.  @roadchickie  Really to the point, I see nobody -- no state and not the feds -- are doing the proper random sample studies. . Except Indiana. . So yeah maybe Case Numbers are manipulated, but they are useless for statistical inference anyway, so the real tragedy is a lack of random sampling.
    1
  50.  @markwegner6100  I'm and old timer here, but alas I am a former biologist, and there's little statistical validity to positivity rates as an index of infection rates. . Maybe they are only 95% junk. There's always a chance they index infection rates... by chance. . If they are useful, what is the supposed mathematical relationship between positivity and population prevalence? Does 1% positivity = 5% of the population is infected... or is 1% = 0.05%, or what... . (PS Dr. John rocks. No beef with him)
    1
  51.  @markwegner6100  Why is it reported so much? They feel they need something to say, and they don't have the proper studies. . Why don't we have the proper studies? Some countries do! . The UK finally started doing random surveys every week. Iceland did a big one in April. Indiana just did a great study. It's cheap and easy. . The stumbling block is probably politicians afraid to say "random testing" and face questions about coercion. These are "random invitation" studies (Iceland's term). Nobody is required to participate. . With no valid statistics studies, then of course we all use whatever anecdotal and unsystematic data we can, filtered by our amazing brains. We've had 8 months of practice making pie with hay. It's working so well too lol (sarcasm).
    1