Kung Flu

Should we be worried about The Kung Flu? (select up to 4)

  • Politically

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Financially

    Votes: 11 61.1%

  • Medically

    Votes: 13 72.2%

  • Socially

    Votes: 7 38.9%

  • Not Politically

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Not Financially

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Not Medically

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • Not Socially

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Total voters
    18
gwb-trading said:
Yes.... and people being tested have been using the identity of others -- -as happened in this particular case.

Either they are trying to avoid their employer knowing or avoid being charged a fee. All they need is the code to call in with to get their results.
More...

They may not want to meet the self-isolation requirements or have discussions about contacts too if they test positive but still want to know if they have it.
 
gwb-trading said:
Yes.... and people being tested have been using the identity of others -- -as happened in this particular case.

Either they are trying to avoid their employer knowing or avoid being charged a fee. All they need is the code to call in with to get their results.
More...

I'll bet DeSantis is behind this Tom Foolery.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
New CDC report reveals 94% of COVID deaths weren’t just COVID; Also 90% testing positives are false positives!
https://therightscoop.com/new-cdc-r...lso-90-testing-positives-are-false-positives/
Adding to this, over the weekend the NY Times reported that up to 90% of positive tests are actually false positives:


Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.


Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.


This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.
More...



Viral claim that only 6% of COVID-19 deaths were caused by the virus is flat-out wrong



I wonder the Asians aren't dismissing Covid as a political talking point.
 
Snarkhund said:
Looks like COVID started in humans in 2012. Miners encountered bats in a deep shaft and all came down with a pneumonia-like illness. A graduate student studied the outbreak and sent infected tissue samples to... wait for it... the infectious disease lab in Wuhan.

Near unity probability that the pathogen escaped from the Wuhan laboratory.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/15/covid-19-first-appeared-in-chinese-miners-in-2012-scientists/
More...

Also the same symptoms of caver's lung aka histoplasmosis.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/histoplasmosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20373495

You would have to ask yourself why would they not have this after doing that work and quite probably some other nasties.
 
Covertibility said:
Viral claim that only 6% of COVID-19 deaths were caused by the virus is flat-out wrong



I wonder the Asians aren't dismissing Covid as a political talking point.
More...

The claims I have heard simply stated that 6% of all deaths had no other co-morbidity, which is true. COVID only deaths were 6%. As for what killed an individual in the other 94%, no one is saying COVID didn't play a role - even the most significant role. But if someone wanted to know what their chance of dying from COVID was, and they were perfectly healthy with no additional pathologies, the 6% is the number we're interested in. And that doesn't work with those (like yourself) driving the narrative.
 
Tsing Tao said:
The claims I have heard simply stated that 6% of all deaths had no other co-morbidity, which is true. COVID only deaths were 6%. As for what killed an individual in the other 94%, no one is saying COVID didn't play a role - even the most significant role. But if someone wanted to know what their chance of dying from COVID was, and they were perfectly healthy with no additional pathologies, the 6% is the number we're interested in. And that doesn't work with those (like yourself) driving the narrative.
More...


I couldn't help but notice there were "infectious disease experts" making the claim regarding the other 94%. I wonder why they're not cherry picking the data - why aren't they pushing for the lower rate. Is science pushing a narrative?? Is science a liberal conspiracy?? Does George Soros have a hand in this????

At the end of the day, the rate is a lot higher than 6% because a majority of the population are not "perfectly healthy."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top