This thread is meant to be an informative thread on covid 19.

Cliffs: its just a cold

Lol

You get a job yet?

Chinese virus

Chyna

Lol still no proof it even exists. Cute.

Here are a couple of videos on modeling the pandemic:





These videos assume a basic understanding of differential calculus.

Here is a lecture on how the pfizer vaccine works:

Here is a discussion of common questions about the covid vaccines.

bruh i had this is march

i spent two days resting in bed

we shut down the global economy for a fuking flu. i get it you dont care because it doesnt affect you. hell you got 1800 dollars out of it. but that was entirely the wrong response for something comparable to the common flu

Here is an excellent set of videos on statistical hypothesis testing. This will allow you to make sense of P values, understand the role of sample size, and make statistical inferences about data, allowing you to understand the reported results of the vaccine studies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTeM...BjDH67&index=1

Here is the full study on the Pfizer vaccine trial.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

Here are some papers looking at the potential evolutionary origins of covid 19.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0771-4

It's just the flu bro

Repped OP.
Finally someone on the misc not shouting 'its a deepstate liberal operation'

5 days after testing positive for me.

Cliffs: it's just the flu

I think the question is: if it's such a huge threat to the world, why do you have to post 25 peer reviewed studies to prove to people that they should take it seriously? If it was the extremely deadly virus people think/believe it is, shouldn't this all be common knowledge and not require additional reports(propaganda) to "educate" people?

This is meant to be an informative thread. I will not engage in political debate with anyone here.

its so deadly you have to take a test to find out if you have it

Maybe someone who people take seriously should make another thread. You have a reputation, based on your actions on this forum, for being someone who has serious mental health issues.

I don't know how to say that any nicer, but yeah.

Heres some information:

https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-br...01/covid-tests



They can change the sensitivity of the tests. They can set the amplification cycle value to any arbitrary number of cycles they want. They can literally tweak the definition of "positive" and in the case of COVID, they intentionally make the test extra sensitive for political purposes to pump up the number of positives. Experts in the field are on record, as below, saying that the tests are way to sensitive and a lot of the positive results arent even contagious people.








Some of the nation's leading public health experts say that the most commonly used type of coronavirus test in America could be generating positive results for large numbers of people who are carrying low levels of the virus and therefore may not be contagious, Apoorva Mandavilli reports for the New York Times.

The 3 biggest questions about Covid-19 testing, answered

However, according to Mandavilli, those experts also say that doesn't necessarily mean the country should be testing less.
Why coronavirus tests may be too sensitive

The most commonly used coronavirus tests in America are polymerase chain reaction tests, or PCR tests. According to Mandavilli, PCR tests provide a yes or no answer to whether a patient is infected with the novel coronavirus.
###PLACEHOLDER###

"We've been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus—that's all," Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, explained. "We're using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making."

But other types of tests can also provide information on how much of the virus a person is carrying, Mandavilli reports. According to Mandavilli, PCR tests look for genetic matter from the new coronavirus using amplification cycles. The fewer cycles needed to detect genetic matter from the virus, the higher a patient's viral load and the more likely that person is contagious, Mandavilli reports.

However, the number of amplification cycles that was needed to detect genetic matter from the virus, which is referred to as the cycle threshold, typically isn't included in test results sent to doctors and patients, Mandavilli reports.

Mina said that information is more telling, as it indicates a patient's viral load, and patients carrying minuscule amounts of the virus may not be contagious. Therefore, information on a patient's viral load should be used to determine the patient's next steps, Mina said.

"It's really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue," he added.

But further complicating the matter, according to some experts, is that many commonly used tests for the novel coronavirus are too sensitive, so they generate positive results when patients are carrying low loads of the virus, Mandavilli reports.

According to Mandavilli, many coronavirus tests have fairly high cycle thresholds, with most set at 40 and some set at 37. That means a number of patients who aren't carrying much of the new coronavirus are still testing positive, even though they may not be contagious, Mandavilli reports.

Mina explained that tests with high cycle thresholds could be detecting genetic fragments of the virus, or pieces of the virus that are leftover from a previous infection that don't pose any current transmission risk.

Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California-Riverside, said she believes any test with a cycle threshold over 35 is too sensitive. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.

And according to Mandavilli, a review conducted by the New York Times of three sets of coronavirus testing data from Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York found that up to 90% of patients in those data sets who tested positive for the coronavirus had very low viral loads.

Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said of the Times review's results, "I'm really shocked that it could be that high—the proportion of people with high [cycle threshold] value results." He added, "Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing."
How should testing change, according to the experts?

Morrison said a better threshold would be 30 to 35, while Mina said he'd recommend setting the threshold to 30 or less.

According to Mandavilli, CDC data shows that it's very difficult to detect significant loads of live coronavirus within a patient sample that tests positive at a cycle threshold above 33, meaning patients who test positive at a cycle threshold of 33 or higher likely are not carrying enough of a viral load to transmit the virus to others. Mandavilli reports that CDC has said it's looking into using cycle threshold measures "for policy decisions," and it will work with FDA and device manufacturers to make sure the measures "can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean."

Sensitivity vs specificity explained here:

lol its just a flu

"if you set the sensitivity too high you might get a lot of false positives"

great video, finally something worthwhile

At Pfizer in the sales dept.

All the vids I linked are great, and you should watch them.

I gave information on the Moderna vaccine as well. I have no interest in this other than educating the misc.

Imagine being scared of a ****ing cold

LMAO