Hide Ya Wives, Hide Ya Kids: Worldwide Coronavirus Pandemic!

[shibadekobe]

 

[shibadekobe]

Sayonara

 

[casper90403]

Gov Kemp of Georgia is trippin!!!

My Dad, a Trump supporter who also lives in Georgia, even says he's lost his mind and its too soon.

 

[Benny Hinn]

totally normal place we live in

White privilege at its finest

 

[shibadekobe]

 

[thapointguy]

Protest in Cali too

 

[don ramon]

White privilege at its finest

i'd say this goes even beyond privilege. it's white terror tactics
i'm not sue who they're trying to intimidate really, but they're definitely trying their hardest
this country sucks

 

[whywesteppin]

I can't read due to the paywall but based on this tweet I would take this study with a huge grain of salt. The false positive rate on these tests is atrocious (with respect to the prevalence), around 5%, which is the % of people who tested positive in this Los Angeles study.



Read this:

Antibody Test, Seen as Key to Reopening Country, Does Not Yet Deliver (Published 2020)

The tests, many made in China without F.D.A. approval, are often inaccurate. Some doctors are misusing them. The rollout is nowhere close to the demand.

www.nytimes.com

 

[everysingletime]

I know we make fun of Florida...

Yesterday I saw a social media post that said that America is the Florida of the world.

I was like, ouch. I felt that.

 

[casper90403]

can you dumb this down for me my friend?

What does this mean?

 

[friscostylez]

i'd say this goes even beyond privilege. it's white terror tactics
i'm not sue who they're trying to intimidate really, but they're definitely trying their hardest
this country sucks

"It's alright when it's all-white."

 

[Magic33]

I'll still never understand the being able to carry machine guns in public.

Might as well just go to the store everyday in a tank to get your groceries.

An AR isn't a machine gun. It's technically a rifle. They're semi, not auto.

 

[whywesteppin]

can you dumb this down for me my friend?

What does this mean?

They randomly (well, not really randomly) tested volunteers in the general population. The idea is that you test 1000 people for antibodies. Antibodies are formed by your immune system against a virus and linger in the body, so they indicate that you have been exposed to the virus in the past. If 100 people have antibodies out of 1000, you can extrapolate and say that 10% of the population in general has been exposed to the virus.

That's in theory. In practice, it is not like that at all. One, the people tested are not random, so it's likely that people who had symptoms or contacts are more likely to volunteer, so the number is inflated.

Two, the antibody test is not specific for Covid-19. It could detect past infections with other coronaviruses, which are common and typically cause mild illness or no illness at all.

Three, the test isn't perfect. The best test we have now makes mistakes 5% of the time. So if you test 1000 people, 50 will test positive even though they actually have the antibody.

This LA study found ~4% tested positive, which is the false positive rate of the study. So I really take nothing valuable away from it.

I can't read the article but this is my understanding based on the comments and other antibody tests out there.

 

[casper90403]

They randomly (well, not really randomly) tested volunteers in the general population. The idea is that you test 1000 people for antibodies. Antibodies are formed by your immune system against a virus and linger in the body, so they indicate that you have been exposed to the virus in the past. If 100 people have antibodies out of 1000, you can extrapolate and say that 10% of the population in general has been exposed to the virus.

That's in theory. In practice, it is not like that at all. One, the people tested are not random, so it's likely that people who had symptoms or contacts are more likely to volunteer, so the number is inflated.

Two, the antibody test is not specific for Covid-19. It could detect past infections with other coronaviruses, which are common and typically cause mild illness or no illness at all.

Three, the test isn't perfect. The best test we have now makes mistakes 5% of the time. So if you test 1000 people, 50 will test positive even though they actually have the antibody.

This LA study found ~4% tested positive, which is the false positive rate of the study. So I really take nothing valuable away from it.

I can't read the article but this is my understanding based on the comments and other antibody tests out there.

thank you sir. That was explained very well for a novice like myself.

 

[wallyhopp]

Gov Kemp of Georgia is trippin!!!

My Dad, a Trump supporter who also lives in Georgia, even says he's lost his mind and its too soon.

they were one of the last to close too. He said something stupid on TV awhile back too. He said he didn't know asymptomatic people could spread the virus. You think there would be a higher power who could come in and fix GA. They're screwed.

 

[friscostylez]

They randomly (well, not really randomly) tested volunteers in the general population. The idea is that you test 1000 people for antibodies. Antibodies are formed by your immune system against a virus and linger in the body, so they indicate that you have been exposed to the virus in the past. If 100 people have antibodies out of 1000, you can extrapolate and say that 10% of the population in general has been exposed to the virus.

That's in theory. In practice, it is not like that at all. One, the people tested are not random, so it's likely that people who had symptoms or contacts are more likely to volunteer, so the number is inflated.

Two, the antibody test is not specific for Covid-19. It could detect past infections with other coronaviruses, which are common and typically cause mild illness or no illness at all.

Three, the test isn't perfect. The best test we have now makes mistakes 5% of the time. So if you test 1000 people, 50 will test positive even though they actually have the antibody.

This LA study found ~4% tested positive, which is the false positive rate of the study. So I really take nothing valuable away from it.

I can't read the article but this is my understanding based on the comments and other antibody tests out there.

the false positive rate being approximately equal to the percentage tested positive doesn't make sense to me. can someone elaborate on that? so if ~40 people people were found to be positive but it's estimated to have ~40 people to be falsely tested positive, doesn't that mean 0 people have it?

 

[storm2006]

PA

Interesting. I know my friends in NY and CT have gotten access then I’ve heard NTers in TX taking about going. It is definitely doable and safest solo or a twosome MAX. I’ve been hearing a lot of private clubs are going to go under as a result of this

 

[cosmiccoffee9]

look at this beyond racist dogwhistle

they got no problem hiring immigrant labor to do their dirty work, but think nothing of them

Smithfield Foods Is Blaming “Living Circumstances In Certain Cultures” For One Of America’s Largest COVID-19 Clusters

New details show how Smithfield Foods failed to take action in the crucial days before the plant turned into one of the nation’s largest coronavirus clusters.

www.buzzfeednews.com

oqueso what you are saying, Smithfield Foods is that your multimillion dollar firm intentionally hired large quantities of immigrants for a job handling food, endorsed them for work in the country, and then did not compensate them adequately to improve their living conditions...do I have that right?

is that your explanation?

is it?

is?

IT?

 

[shibadekobe]

can you dumb this down for me my friend?

What does this mean?

Also meant (according to that study) that there were exponentially more Infected Covid19 cases in LA County that were not tallied, since Antibodies are turning up way more than projected.

 

[nelson999]

Morons exposing themselves across the country

 

[shibadekobe]

RIVERSIDE COUNTY CA TO REOPEN PARKS/RECREATION AREAS WITH RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING GOLF COURSES - NBC

 

[dman14]

 

[whywesteppin]

the false positive rate being approximately equal to the percentage tested positive doesn't make sense to me. can someone elaborate on that? so if ~40 people people were found to be positive but it's estimated to have ~40 people to be falsely tested positive, doesn't that mean 0 people have it?

You're right, that's what the result would indicate. In practice, the numbers are all estimates, so if the false positive rate is supposed to be 40 people, it's really ballpark 40, so it could be 10, it could be 100.

I don't know if they tried to do any statistical correction in the study. It's possible that 10% tested positive and then, using a known false positive rate of 5% for their test, corrected it down to 5%. Either way, it's a lot of uncertainty.

 

[shibadekobe]

 

[casper90403]

RIVERSIDE COUNTY CA TO REOPEN PARKS/RECREATION AREAS WITH RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING GOLF COURSES - NBC

damn. So it begins