The coronavirus

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

Why not do a Google search to find an answer to your question...if there is one? If not, THEN ask.
https://twitter.com/niro60487270/sta...34068722323456


In addition:

Zinc-hydroxychloroquine found effective in some COVID-19 patients: study

From your link.

“ But he cautioned that a controlled experiment would be needed to prove the benefits beyond doubt.”

Was not controlled. Lol worthless study.

Allan

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Was not controlled. Lol worthless study.

Allan

That's brilliant Allan.
Give the control group a placebo instead of treatment and see if more die.
Just brilliant.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

That's brilliant Allan.
Give the control group a placebo instead of treatment and see if more die.
Just brilliant.

That’s how studies are done by true scientists not hacks like this one who do uncontrolled experiments that are eaten up by people such as yourself.

How do you think vaccines trials work?

By giving them all vaccines.

Nope some get the placebo and no one knows who is getting it.

Allan

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

That’s how studies are done by true scientists not hacks like this one who do uncontrolled experiments that are eaten up by people such as yourself.

How do you think vaccines trials work?

By giving them all vaccines.

Nope some get the placebo and no one knows who is getting it.

Allan

There already is a large enough population of people who've died without treatment. Their deaths can serve as a "control group."
Giving placebos at this stage is inhumane, immoral, and heartless.
If that is what you are advocating, you are saying "Pure Science Methodology" is more important than people.
Thankfully, my mind cannot think that way at all.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Los Angeles county's stay at home order will be extended for the next three months, according to LA Times.

Wow.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Los Angeles county's stay at home order will be extended for the next three months, according to LA Times.

Wow.

Bye, bye Santa Anita, permanently.....

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Los Angeles county's stay at home order will be extended for the next three months, according to LA Times.

Wow.

I wonder how anyone can justify this.

Back in early April, after they had been locked down for weeks, an antibody study revealed there were between 200,000 - 400,000 adults who had been infected with COVID-19 in LA County. At the time of this study, the official count was 8,000 infections in LA County.

THE LOCKDOWN DIDN'T WORK. As proven by the antibody study:

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phc....cfm?prid=2328

And now they're going to keep it going for another two months?

Pure insanity.

[Half Smoke]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I wonder how anyone can justify this.

Back in early April, after they had been locked down for weeks, an antibody study revealed there were between 200,000 - 400,000 adults who had been infected with COVID-19 in LA County. At the time of this study, the official count was 8,000 infections in LA County.

THE LOCKDOWN DIDN'T WORK. As proven by the antibody study:

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phc....cfm?prid=2328

And now they're going to keep it going for another two months?

Pure insanity.

this is a direct quote from the article you just linked:


"These results indicate that many persons may have been unknowingly infected and at risk of transmitting the virus to others," said Dr. Barbara Ferrer, director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health. "These findings underscore the importance of expanded polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing to diagnose those with infection so they can be isolated and quarantined, while also maintaining the broad social distancing interventions."


I read the entire article. I didn't see a single thing in the article implying that the lockdown didn't work.


there is also this in the article:


"USC and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (Public Health) today released preliminary results from a collaborative scientific study that suggests infections from the new coronavirus are far more widespread - and the fatality rate much lower - in L.A. County than previously thought."


the way I read that is that the fatality rate is lower because a great many more than thought have been infected


if it was thought for that the fatality rate was 2% for example but then it is learned that the fatality rate is only .5% nothing is really gained if the reason for the difference is that 4 times as many people have been infected


if you are saying that because more people have been infected that had been thought that that means that the lockdown didn't work I don't believe that is logical

it's also possible that if the lockdown had not been in effect 4 times as many would have been infected

there is absolutely nothing in the article to prove or suggest otherwise



.

[PaceAdvantage]

The lockdowns in MARCH in LA COUNTY (one of the first areas of the country to LOCK DOWN, by the way) were DESIGNED TO STOP THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS.

If the virus SPREAD WITHIN THE COUNTY ANYWAY, at rates FAR BEYOND the officially reported numbers, then by definition, the LOCKDOWNS were unsuccessful at stopping the spread of the virus.

[Half Smoke]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The lockdowns in MARCH in LA COUNTY (one of the first areas of the country to LOCK DOWN, by the way) were DESIGNED TO STOP THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS.

If the virus SPREAD WITHIN THE COUNTY ANYWAY, at rates FAR BEYOND the officially reported numbers, then by definition, the LOCKDOWNS were unsuccessful at stopping the spread of the virus.

once again, you don't know that without the lockdowns that there would not have been a great many more infections

you are the one saying this

it is not stated in the article


the article suggests that the proper approach is to isolate and quarantine as you say, 200 to 400,000 people

this article does not in any way to me seem to suggest that the proper way forward is to soften restrictions



.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

once again, you don't know that without the lockdowns that there would not have been a great many more infections

you are the one saying this

it is not stated in the article


the article suggests that the proper approach is to isolate and quarantine as you say, 200 to 400,000 people

this article does not in any way to me seem to suggest that the proper way forward is to soften restrictions.

Ahhh…..The old "catch-22" BS narrative excuse....Tables are turned, MSM better watch they say...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

once again, you don't know that without the lockdowns that there would not have been a great many more infections

you are the one saying this

it is not stated in the article


the article suggests that the proper approach is to isolate and quarantine as you say, 200 to 400,000 people

this article does not in any way to me seem to suggest that the proper way forward is to soften restrictions



.

Who said the article is stating such a thing? I never claimed it was...

This is MY logical conclusion to the study.

If the study turns out to be flawed, then we can revisit.

If you lockdown in MARCH, and then a month later you do a study which shows somewhere between 28-55x more people are infected then your official numbers at the time are saying...well then....there's a problem somewhere.

Maybe they didn't lockdown hard enough?

But I get it...you're saying everyone would have been infected if they didn't lock down as hard as they did.

So a place like Sweden should basically have a 100% infection rate at this point.

Let's see...Sweden has 27,272 confirmed cases on the Johns Hopkins website at this very moment...and a population of 10.23M at last count...

That works out to .26% of the population.

And it's widely noted that Sweden had the least severe restrictions in place for COVID-19 (which they have been roundly criticized for as of late).

If we apply the 28-55x antibody study from LA to the Swedes, we get around a 14% max population infection rate...

It's interesting that you completely discount other reasons for all of the above. Like, perhaps, COVID-19 isn't as infectious as they think/say it is...I know...that's heresy...my bad.

[Half Smoke]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Who said the article is stating such a thing? I never claimed it was...

This is MY logical conclusion to the study.

But I get it...you're saying everyone would have been infected if they didn't lock down as hard as they did.

if your conclusion was so very logical and if you believe the study was so very worthwhile then it would seem obvious that the authors of the study would have come to the same conclusion and would have explicitly stated it

since they did not explicitly state this I have to assume that they did not come to this conclusion

also, I did not state or imply that everyone would be infected

you are putting words in my mouth

the population of Los Angeles County is 10 million

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

once again, you don't know that without the lockdowns that there would not have been a great many more infection


.

Nor do you know that there wouldn't have been less.
It turns out that some studies are showing more infections among those who sheltered in place.

The value of lockdowns is very questionable. The fact that they destroyed the economy and put millions globally at risk with the broken food chain has to be entered into any equation.

[Stevecsd2]

HCAP mentioned Bill Maher in one of his posts. I don't usually agree with Maher, but I definitely do on this one.

Bill Maher on 100 million microbes
https://www.facebook.com/Maher/videos/2645287895711290/