Posted on 03/28/2020 11:01:46 PM PDT by Helicondelta
More SNEAKY SH*T by the SNEAKY CHINESE for the purpose of ensuring higher death tolls, thereby causing MORE media hysterics resulting in LONGER SHUT DOWNS and INCREASED ECONOMIC DESTRUCTION.
So these Corona virus tests are bad. Meaning that they are unreliable and calling many cases positive, when they aren’t. And calling some cases negative when they are positive?
Since less people have it than don’t, the error rate is MAGNIFYING the POSITIVE rate.... Gee. how convenient...
No, it’s the opposite. These Chinese kits are mostly guilty of creating false POSITIVES, not negatives.
Thus, a mass hysteria is being created. Without cause.
Hey...you GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.....UNLESS YOU BUY FROM CHINA.
Ho difficult is it to achieve a negative test?
One more reason not to trust the CCP numbers. Who knows how accurate their own tests in Wuhan and elsewhere were in the first place?
Whatever the Chinese government is telling the world, their tests will support it.
Hmmm, This should not be surprising. Just saying....
Calling James Taylor.....calling James Taylor
Why anyone would trust a country that poisoned pet food, milk and baby formula with melamine is beyond me.
The article states that the tests are only identifying positives 30% of the time. In other words, if it should identify 100 people as positive, it is only saying 30 people are positive. It’s generating false negatives.
media’s original storyline was the CDC tests were bad unlike those in glorious Communist China.
when are the product liability lawsuits coming?
Maybe this is the reason it was reported that people clear of the virus got reinfected
I bought a portable heater for my car. I plugged it in to the cigarette port and after blocking the air vent for only 30 seconds it overheated and broke. Of course it was made in China.
No wonder China’s infection rate has gone to zero. Their tests come back negative. LOL.
Stupid Trump! Wanting to create his own Covid 19 test and refused to use the Chinese ones. Idiot! / HEAVY SARCASM
Another interesting tidbit from that same article is that the CDC’s standard is only 80%. Good thing the CDC isn’t in charge of keeping airplanes safe to fly.
the second great alarmist (first was Harvard’s Marc Lipstch) - Neil Ferguson of spooky ICL - wants to have it both ways.
29 Mar: Washington Examiner: ‘Confusion’: Imperial College scientist says 500K coronavirus death projection in UK remains unchanged
by Daniel Chaitin
A top infectious disease modeler and epidemiologist said there is misinformation going around about his research on the expected coronavirus death toll in the United Kingdom.
Neil Ferguson, an Imperial College London professor, said his original estimate, which showed the coronavirus would kill 500,000 people in the U.K., remains true, while a new model reading reflecting the influence of lockdown measures saw that estimate shrink to 20,000 or fewer.
“I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19,” Ferguson said in a Twitter thread posted Thursday.
“This is not the case. Indeed, if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged,” he continued.
“My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place,” Ferguson said. “Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).”
Ferguson, who tested positive for the coronavirus, said Wednesday the coronavirus death toll is unlikely to exceed 20,000 and could be much lower if lockdown measures in the U.K. stay in place, noting that he is “reasonably confident” that the health system can handle the burden of treating coronavirus patients.
His initial March 16 report that showed the disease could cause up to 510,000 deaths in the U.K. also projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from a similar spread. That report, which said social distancing practices might be needed for as many as 18 months to avoid catastrophe, is credited with inspiring more extreme measures to have the public self-isolate to stem the spread of the coronavirus.
Ferguson’s new evidence prompted critics to pan his initial “doomsday” study as alarmist.
Earlier this week, ***Stanford scientists wrote an opinion article suggesting that estimates about the coronavirus mortality rate may be too high and questioned the need for any universal quarantine, noting it “may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/confusion-imperial-college-scientist-says-500k-coronavirus-death-projection-in-uk-remains-unchanged
25 Mar: Washington Examiner: ‘Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?’: Professors claim more data needed to know mortality rate
by Andrew Mark Miller
Two professors of medicine at Stanford University published an opinion article Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting there is little evidence that the coronavirus would kill millions of people without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines.
“Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others,” the article, headlined “Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?” and written by Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, reads. “So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.”
The deaths from identified positive cases are “misleading” because of limited data, according to the professors.
“If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases—orders of magnitude larger—then the true fatality rate is much lower as well. That’s not only plausible but likely based on what we know so far,” the professors argued...
The professors argued that current epidemiological models aren’t adequate for two key reasons.
“First, the test used to identify cases doesn’t catch people who were infected and recovered. Second, testing rates were woefully low for a long time and typically reserved for the severely ill. Together, these facts imply that the confirmed cases are likely orders of magnitude less than the true number of infections,” it reads...
“A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community and individual mental and physical health,” the article concluded. “We should undertake immediate steps to evaluate the empirical basis of the current lockdowns.”...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-professors-claim-more-data-needed-to-know-mortality-rate
Dr. John Ioannidis, Stanford epidemiology professor is another whose writings are critical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.