Media Narrative BTFO by Cali ER Doctors

[jem]

the data from stanford may have had a sampling bias and it used the best available test at the time. 2 wrongs for every about 300... something like that... we already covered this.

Now however that the NY testing show an even more substantial percentages of NY population was infected. The Stanford results are looking like they could be accurate even accepting the critiques.

These two clowns used the same exact assertions as the Standford and USC studies which were proven to be totally incorrect and statistically wrong. State and local governments do not support their assertions - nor the misuse of data for political purposes by these two clowns.

From the article
"Other highly-publicized studies of antibody test results by Stanford and USC researchers were similarly criticized for sampling bias and for the poor reliability of the tests it used. Researchers had suggested that "COVID-19’s true spread in the community was much higher than expected and resulting death rates were low."

 

[gwb-trading]

the data from stanford may have had a sampling bias and it used the best available test at the time. 2 wrongs for every about 300... something like that... we already covered this.

Now however that the NY testing show an even more substantial percentages of NY population was infected. The Stanford results are looking like they could be accurate even accepting the critiques.

The Standford results implied that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN NYC IS INFECTED. How can this be considered accurate?

 

[jem]

I believe they found 2 to 4 percent of their test area may have been infected.
Now we see that 25% of NYC has been infected.
and the authors said that the critique of the test was deeply flawed...



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

The Standford results implied that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN NYC IS INFECTED. How can this be considered accurate?

 

[Hotcakes]

The Standford results implied that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN NYC IS INFECTED. How can this be considered accurate?

The Cali docs reviewed state by state infection rates and death totals. All the statistics they covered are government statistics. Was the Standford study even discussed ? And if so, why are u harping on it? The Cali docs sure didn't

 

[gwb-trading]

I believe they found 2 to 4 percent of their test area may have been infected.
Now we see that 25% of NYC has been infected.
and the authors said that the critique of the test was deeply flawed...



https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable

Let's go back to the original article about the Stanford study:
https://reason.com/2020/04/17/covid-19-lethality-not-much-different-than-flu-says-new-study/

The author of the article was forced to add the following note at the bottom:
*UPDATE: One caveat is that a rough calculation applying the Santa Clara infection fatality rate to New York City's 11,000 COVID-19 deaths would imply that essentially all of city's residents have already been infected with the coronavirus. This seems implausible.

Do you really think that every single resident of New York City has already been infected with COVID-19?

 

[Dr. Love]

It's simple math guys.

NY March to April total deaths 2019 = 6K

NY March to April total deaths 2020 = 21K

CV kills more than all other causes of death combined.

 

[Daxtrader]

The amount of censorship by YouTube these days is insane. Someone uploaded it again, will probably be taken down again.

 

[jem]

so what?
does that mean 2 to 4 percent of the test area did not have antibodies?

I have never thought that the virus impacts all populations the same.
You are the one trying to push failed models and universal R0s.

Let's go back to the original article about the Stanford study:
https://reason.com/2020/04/17/covid-19-lethality-not-much-different-than-flu-says-new-study/

The author of the article was forced to add the following note at the bottom:
*UPDATE: One caveat is that a rough calculation applying the Santa Clara infection fatality rate to New York City's 11,000 COVID-19 deaths would imply that essentially all of city's residents have already been infected with the coronavirus. This seems implausible.

Do you really think that every single resident of New York City has already been infected with COVID-19?

 

[gwb-trading]

so what?
does that mean 2 to 4 percent of the test area did not have antibodies?

I have never thought that the virus impacts all populations the same.
You are the one trying to push failed models and universal R0s.

So tell me again how they recruited people for this study?

They violated all ethical standards of studies and had a wife of a researcher recruit people over the internet advertising that you can get a free coronavirus test if you are concerned you have/had coronavirus.

 

[Tsing Tao]

It's simple math guys.

NY March to April total deaths 2019 = 6K

NY March to April total deaths 2020 = 21K

CV kills more than all other causes of death combined.

Uh, maybe. To assume Covid was the only differential in one month between a two year comparison is a leap. But it is certainly a possibility.