abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
In regard to the former
The problem is that you don't apparently know what I am saying. You're too busy calling me a Russian troll who wants to sacrifice people. What a fucking load of crap, I wore a US uniform for years and deployed. I'm not arguing that the administration is correct in anyway. I'm asking you to stop distorting my arguments and dispense the intellectual dishonesty. I'm only going to respond to those posts which contain an argument which I have not previously rebutted. I will still respond if I'm insulted. Read it slowly if you don't understand my argument, but by all means, don't reply with nonsense if you fail to grasp what I am even saying. If you don't think I'm worth responding to, why respond at all?
Now, notice there are a bunch of people here, condescending and retorting simultaneously with long posts and it is difficult to keep up and answer everything. So I'll start by clarifying that the position I am arguing includes this information very much. If you guys want me to debate, you're going to have to be patient, I'm speaking against a chorus of emotional fallacy. This is basically what I have been saying, all along and this model very much shows it, which is why I was the one who posted it, whereas someone else posted a biased news article based on a seminar that was based on this research. I also listed the expert sources for information that I have painstakingly researched in order to have this discussion.
I hope I don't have to make another such preface, but I get that people want to troll, not debate. Here's the first premise of my argument:
The virus has spread far beyond the level any model has predicted. The graph shows that, very clearly. The curve of reported cases is not at all what the model projection states, far from it. That was the curve used in the argument to justify the lockdown strategy and it is very clearly a flawed argument because it does not reflect the reality of the spread of the infection. I know, you have been saying that tracking death rates is preferable, what I'm saying is that tracking death rates was not the curve used in that argument. Case growth was. Nor does a curve of death rates support the argument for lockdowns, but that requires looking at it in a different way. You can't change the parameters of a debate simply to suit yourself without being consistent. If you want to just view that curve, you would be doing several things. Firstly, it means acknowledging that the curve in the initial argument does not support the strategy. Secondly, it means also changing the parameters of the debate in other ways consistent with a clearer way of looking at it, which is that those deaths have to be explained comprehensively. You can't just say, "well that curve we were trying to flatten no longer works, let's just say it was this curve instead". That's poor methodology.
This means that the projection for the viral spread is useless. It is demostrably very far from the reality of reported cases, much less the level of infection indicated by serosurveys. The rate of infection is actually much beyond the projections. In fact, many epidemiologists have been calculating infection fatality rates in controlled studies, such as Gangelt, Germany or the Princess cruise ship. Verify this if you must, I assure you, it's correct. Infection fatality rates have already been scientifically estimated to the range 0.24% to 0.5% ( Giesecke estimates 0.1% and Dogan estimates 0.8%) based on such controlled studies where scientists were able to test entire subpopulations to ascertain total infection rates. The only peer reviewed study currently which estimates an IFR is Gangelt which states 0.37% but the author has since come out claiming it was 0.22%. The fatality rate may be higher in places such as Italy, with an older population and a higher rate of comorbid conditions.
They then take this rate of death and use it to model past infections. Again, this is not something I am fabricating for the sake of argument, you can verify this. This is how researchers have come up with rates of detection and past projections of how many must have been exposed in order to estimate actual rates of infection. Remember, this is IFR, not CFR. CFR or Case Fatality Rate uses only lab verified stats and is well known to be far above the actual mortality of the pandemic. These facts, which you can go fucking verify which I have cited and linked many times in this thread are not my research. They are based on the research by the world's leading experts. Their methodology is accepted and their research is used in debate. Even the Santa Clara study which has caused a Twitter firestorm, which I agree had flawed methodology, produced findings consistent with the body of research I have cited.
TL;DR point, way more people are infected whether that makes them immune or not, current measures have not slowed infection and definitely not within projections.
What these CDC models very clearly show, with the understanding of how epidemiologists estimate the rate of infection, which you have previously demonstrated that you do not understand, is that FAR MORE PEOPLE ARE INFECTED already than have been reported. The under-reporting is -at least- by an order of magnitude. This conclusion, estimated by good old fashioned epidemiology, which you can and should take the time to verify for yourself is then supported furthermore by the serosurvey tests that have been pouring in from all over the world. Even the Santa Clara study which has been so criticized is consistent with these findings, however flawed its methodology was. I'll list some citations for this conclusion that infection rates are far far beyond what has been confirmed:
Two weeks ago, with a study conducted on samples collected in the preceding weeks, even the WHO concluded that two to three percent of the world has antibodies.
www.theguardian.com
more than 15% of the population of Gangelt, Germany had antibodies as of about a month ago (time of collection of samples) and an IFR of 0.37%, however the author of that study has since stated in an interview that his estimate was conservative and that he would place the IFR at 2.4% to 2.6%.
With samples taken two weeks ago, NYC medical authorities reported that a quarter of the city had antibodies.
newyork.cbslocal.com
There is also the Santa Clara study which is disputed but consistent and the LA county seroprevalence study which you can google if you care to NIH is conducting such a study nationwide and should be complete in the coming days. The point of all of this, again, is that "the curve" is far from flat and the virus has spread FAR beyond what models have projected. It's everywhere. In my next post, I will make another long winded post just to support the next premise of my argument.
Let's have an honest debate. I read your tedious comments and endured your insults and I am not distorting what you say. I read it carefully, I understand your argument. You're a fucking prick, which you already know, but I'm at least retorting with an honest understanding of what it is you are actually saying. I'm not making personal judgments about where you live, what you do or who you are. I am not saying that anyone should be sacrificed.
The problem is that you don't apparently know what I am saying. You're too busy calling me a Russian troll who wants to sacrifice people. What a fucking load of crap, I wore a US uniform for years and deployed. I'm not arguing that the administration is correct in anyway. I'm asking you to stop distorting my arguments and dispense the intellectual dishonesty. I'm only going to respond to those posts which contain an argument which I have not previously rebutted. I will still respond if I'm insulted. Read it slowly if you don't understand my argument, but by all means, don't reply with nonsense if you fail to grasp what I am even saying. If you don't think I'm worth responding to, why respond at all?
Now, notice there are a bunch of people here, condescending and retorting simultaneously with long posts and it is difficult to keep up and answer everything. So I'll start by clarifying that the position I am arguing includes this information very much. If you guys want me to debate, you're going to have to be patient, I'm speaking against a chorus of emotional fallacy. This is basically what I have been saying, all along and this model very much shows it, which is why I was the one who posted it, whereas someone else posted a biased news article based on a seminar that was based on this research. I also listed the expert sources for information that I have painstakingly researched in order to have this discussion.
I hope I don't have to make another such preface, but I get that people want to troll, not debate. Here's the first premise of my argument:
The virus has spread far beyond the level any model has predicted. The graph shows that, very clearly. The curve of reported cases is not at all what the model projection states, far from it. That was the curve used in the argument to justify the lockdown strategy and it is very clearly a flawed argument because it does not reflect the reality of the spread of the infection. I know, you have been saying that tracking death rates is preferable, what I'm saying is that tracking death rates was not the curve used in that argument. Case growth was. Nor does a curve of death rates support the argument for lockdowns, but that requires looking at it in a different way. You can't change the parameters of a debate simply to suit yourself without being consistent. If you want to just view that curve, you would be doing several things. Firstly, it means acknowledging that the curve in the initial argument does not support the strategy. Secondly, it means also changing the parameters of the debate in other ways consistent with a clearer way of looking at it, which is that those deaths have to be explained comprehensively. You can't just say, "well that curve we were trying to flatten no longer works, let's just say it was this curve instead". That's poor methodology.
This means that the projection for the viral spread is useless. It is demostrably very far from the reality of reported cases, much less the level of infection indicated by serosurveys. The rate of infection is actually much beyond the projections. In fact, many epidemiologists have been calculating infection fatality rates in controlled studies, such as Gangelt, Germany or the Princess cruise ship. Verify this if you must, I assure you, it's correct. Infection fatality rates have already been scientifically estimated to the range 0.24% to 0.5% ( Giesecke estimates 0.1% and Dogan estimates 0.8%) based on such controlled studies where scientists were able to test entire subpopulations to ascertain total infection rates. The only peer reviewed study currently which estimates an IFR is Gangelt which states 0.37% but the author has since come out claiming it was 0.22%. The fatality rate may be higher in places such as Italy, with an older population and a higher rate of comorbid conditions.
They then take this rate of death and use it to model past infections. Again, this is not something I am fabricating for the sake of argument, you can verify this. This is how researchers have come up with rates of detection and past projections of how many must have been exposed in order to estimate actual rates of infection. Remember, this is IFR, not CFR. CFR or Case Fatality Rate uses only lab verified stats and is well known to be far above the actual mortality of the pandemic. These facts, which you can go fucking verify which I have cited and linked many times in this thread are not my research. They are based on the research by the world's leading experts. Their methodology is accepted and their research is used in debate. Even the Santa Clara study which has caused a Twitter firestorm, which I agree had flawed methodology, produced findings consistent with the body of research I have cited.
TL;DR point, way more people are infected whether that makes them immune or not, current measures have not slowed infection and definitely not within projections.
What these CDC models very clearly show, with the understanding of how epidemiologists estimate the rate of infection, which you have previously demonstrated that you do not understand, is that FAR MORE PEOPLE ARE INFECTED already than have been reported. The under-reporting is -at least- by an order of magnitude. This conclusion, estimated by good old fashioned epidemiology, which you can and should take the time to verify for yourself is then supported furthermore by the serosurvey tests that have been pouring in from all over the world. Even the Santa Clara study which has been so criticized is consistent with these findings, however flawed its methodology was. I'll list some citations for this conclusion that infection rates are far far beyond what has been confirmed:
Two weeks ago, with a study conducted on samples collected in the preceding weeks, even the WHO concluded that two to three percent of the world has antibodies.
WHO warns that few have developed antibodies to Covid-19
Herd immunity hopes dealt blow by report suggesting only 2%-3% of people have been infected
www.theguardian.com
more than 15% of the population of Gangelt, Germany had antibodies as of about a month ago (time of collection of samples) and an IFR of 0.37%, however the author of that study has since stated in an interview that his estimate was conservative and that he would place the IFR at 2.4% to 2.6%.
With samples taken two weeks ago, NYC medical authorities reported that a quarter of the city had antibodies.
Coronavirus Antibodies Present In Nearly 25% Of All NYC Residents, Cuomo Says; Un-PAUSE In Certain Regions Of NY Might Begin In May
Cuomo said 14.9% of those tested statewide tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, which is up from the initial 13.9% in a previous sampling.
newyork.cbslocal.com
There is also the Santa Clara study which is disputed but consistent and the LA county seroprevalence study which you can google if you care to NIH is conducting such a study nationwide and should be complete in the coming days. The point of all of this, again, is that "the curve" is far from flat and the virus has spread FAR beyond what models have projected. It's everywhere. In my next post, I will make another long winded post just to support the next premise of my argument.
Last edited:
.
