Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (40 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
I hope an asteroid crashes into Florida some day. What a fucked up place 
Read in a german source that contrary to our intuition the higher the number of unknown cases is the better, because if those stealth cases aren't reported that means they are doing well which increases the probability of asymptomatic cases and lowers mortality rate. Experts mentioned factor of 10 unknown/known for Germany in particular
You're so dramatic.
There's nothing wrong with turning off the well when no information is available. That said, I certainly hope lgor's study is indeed the case.
However, is it possible the rate of infection has gone down now that everyone's inside. So asymptomatic carriers are no longer coming into contact with those that for whatever reason would fall severely ill? How did the study reach it's conclusions? Right now most are using models based on reported number to estimate non-reported numbers, also what's the accuracy? If it's based on antibody testing, great, lets do that everywhere so we can get a for sure understanding of this thing before we start letting everyone loose. I'm sure there are many more questions people with far more knowledge than I have would want answered as well. No one wants to be wrong and have a million people die, no matter if its from a disease or from an economic crisis.
Governments are always going to steer on the side of caution, especially since the majority of nations dropped the ball in regards to testing.
There's nothing wrong with turning off the well when no information is available. That said, I certainly hope lgor's study is indeed the case.
However, is it possible the rate of infection has gone down now that everyone's inside. So asymptomatic carriers are no longer coming into contact with those that for whatever reason would fall severely ill? How did the study reach it's conclusions? Right now most are using models based on reported number to estimate non-reported numbers, also what's the accuracy? If it's based on antibody testing, great, lets do that everywhere so we can get a for sure understanding of this thing before we start letting everyone loose. I'm sure there are many more questions people with far more knowledge than I have would want answered as well. No one wants to be wrong and have a million people die, no matter if its from a disease or from an economic crisis.
Governments are always going to steer on the side of caution, especially since the majority of nations dropped the ball in regards to testing.
factor of 10 vs Seven’s factor of 200 to get hundreds of millions already infected 
- - - Updated - - -
Says the guy who contradicts everything actual experts are saying. They want social distancing, lockdowns, etc to mitigate and control spread. Whereas, your “experd” personal opinion says they are wrong lol.
Your car accident comparison was ridiculous too. ~3000 people die in car accidents in Italy each year. 21,000 dead from coronavirus. Same deal with Spain, France, Belgium, etc. But yeah. We’re okay with deaths in car accidents and seasonal flu so we should do nothing here to mitigate this, because there’s no difference. They’d all die anyways.
- - - Updated - - -
Says the guy who contradicts everything actual experts are saying. They want social distancing, lockdowns, etc to mitigate and control spread. Whereas, your “experd” personal opinion says they are wrong lol.
Your car accident comparison was ridiculous too. ~3000 people die in car accidents in Italy each year. 21,000 dead from coronavirus. Same deal with Spain, France, Belgium, etc. But yeah. We’re okay with deaths in car accidents and seasonal flu so we should do nothing here to mitigate this, because there’s no difference. They’d all die anyways.
Christian Drosten does not attribute the again positive laboratory tests to an actual re-infection with the virus. Rather, the PCR test, which is currently used to detect the novel corona virus, "Can only test a certain sample volume for the Virus," he explains in the NDR podcast on Tuesday. Therefore, it could happen that test results were negative first, especially if the samples were taken towards the end of the disease process, but turn out positive in a 2nd test a few days later.
To clarify the mechanism behind this statistical phenomenon, Drosten tries a practical comparison.
"I often explain it to students like this, begins the Berlin chief virologist. “They have a pool full of water and goldfish swim in it. Now take a blindfolded sample: sometimes there will be a goldfish in it, sometimes not. ”Nevertheless, nobody would deny that goldfish are swimming in the pool."
"The less fish are swimming in the pool, the more likely it is that there is no fish in a sample."
According to the current definition of most health authorities, an infected person is considered cured after a double negative PCR test. But "If you then would continue testing, for example in the context of a study, there could very well be a positive 3rd test result among them again."
"Unfortunately, there are still very few precise descriptions of the virus' excretion process in the patient." Towards the end of the disease, the detectable viral load can therefore repeatedly jump above or slightly below the detection limit. The virus is still there - like the goldfish, but is not always recorded in the sample and thus in the test.
Therefore Drosten sees the alleged “re-infections” as statistically noticeable random distributions, rather than actual new infections, which would contradict the theory of immunity as a result of a coronavirus infection.
https://amp.focus.de/gesundheit/new...rosten-hat-andere-erklaerung_id_11881381.html
I didn't translate the slight South Korea diss he made though
To clarify the mechanism behind this statistical phenomenon, Drosten tries a practical comparison.
"I often explain it to students like this, begins the Berlin chief virologist. “They have a pool full of water and goldfish swim in it. Now take a blindfolded sample: sometimes there will be a goldfish in it, sometimes not. ”Nevertheless, nobody would deny that goldfish are swimming in the pool."
"The less fish are swimming in the pool, the more likely it is that there is no fish in a sample."
According to the current definition of most health authorities, an infected person is considered cured after a double negative PCR test. But "If you then would continue testing, for example in the context of a study, there could very well be a positive 3rd test result among them again."
"Unfortunately, there are still very few precise descriptions of the virus' excretion process in the patient." Towards the end of the disease, the detectable viral load can therefore repeatedly jump above or slightly below the detection limit. The virus is still there - like the goldfish, but is not always recorded in the sample and thus in the test.
Therefore Drosten sees the alleged “re-infections” as statistically noticeable random distributions, rather than actual new infections, which would contradict the theory of immunity as a result of a coronavirus infection.
https://amp.focus.de/gesundheit/new...rosten-hat-andere-erklaerung_id_11881381.html
I didn't translate the slight South Korea diss he made though
Christian Drosten does not attribute the again positive laboratory tests to an actual re-infection with the virus. Rather, the PCR test, which is currently used to detect the novel corona virus, "Can only test a certain sample volume for the Virus," he explains in the NDR podcast on Tuesday. Therefore, it could happen that test results were negative first, especially if the samples were taken towards the end of the disease process, but turn out positive in a 2nd test a few days later.
To clarify the mechanism behind this statistical phenomenon, Drosten tries a practical comparison.
"I often explain it to students like this, begins the Berlin chief virologist. “They have a pool full of water and goldfish swim in it. Now take a blindfolded sample: sometimes there will be a goldfish in it, sometimes not. ”Nevertheless, nobody would deny that goldfish are swimming in the pool."
"The less fish are swimming in the pool, the more likely it is that there is no fish in a sample."
According to the current definition of most health authorities, an infected person is considered cured after a double negative PCR test. But "If you then would continue testing, for example in the context of a study, there could very well be a positive 3rd test result among them again."
"Unfortunately, there are still very few precise descriptions of the virus' excretion process in the patient." Towards the end of the disease, the detectable viral load can therefore repeatedly jump above or slightly below the detection limit. The virus is still there - like the goldfish, but is not always recorded in the sample and thus in the test.
Therefore Drosten sees the alleged “re-infections” as statistically noticeable random distributions, rather than actual new infections, which would contradict the theory of immunity as a result of a coronavirus infection.
https://amp.focus.de/gesundheit/new...rosten-hat-andere-erklaerung_id_11881381.html
I didn't translate the slight South Korea diss he made though
To clarify the mechanism behind this statistical phenomenon, Drosten tries a practical comparison.
"I often explain it to students like this, begins the Berlin chief virologist. “They have a pool full of water and goldfish swim in it. Now take a blindfolded sample: sometimes there will be a goldfish in it, sometimes not. ”Nevertheless, nobody would deny that goldfish are swimming in the pool."
"The less fish are swimming in the pool, the more likely it is that there is no fish in a sample."
According to the current definition of most health authorities, an infected person is considered cured after a double negative PCR test. But "If you then would continue testing, for example in the context of a study, there could very well be a positive 3rd test result among them again."
"Unfortunately, there are still very few precise descriptions of the virus' excretion process in the patient." Towards the end of the disease, the detectable viral load can therefore repeatedly jump above or slightly below the detection limit. The virus is still there - like the goldfish, but is not always recorded in the sample and thus in the test.
Therefore Drosten sees the alleged “re-infections” as statistically noticeable random distributions, rather than actual new infections, which would contradict the theory of immunity as a result of a coronavirus infection.
https://amp.focus.de/gesundheit/new...rosten-hat-andere-erklaerung_id_11881381.html
I didn't translate the slight South Korea diss he made though