500k extra deaths from false positives. Makes sense.
The Unkle wrote:
The more of these unreliable tests that are given, the more positives we get.
No surprise there.
Not sure what this proves
500k extra deaths from false positives. Makes sense.
The Unkle wrote:
The more of these unreliable tests that are given, the more positives we get.
No surprise there.
Not sure what this proves
The Unkle wrote:
The more of these unreliable tests that are given, the more positives we get.
No surprise there.
Not sure what this proves
Not true. Test positivity has risen and fallen over time
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-statesCurrently, we are giving nearly as many tests as a few weeks ago, yet positives have fallen off a cliff.
Ah we've gone 3 full pages no response to my question - love it!
Man, you're just massacring these morons today.
Harambe wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
The more of these unreliable tests that are given, the more positives we get.
No surprise there.
Not sure what this proves
Not true. Test positivity has risen and fallen over time
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-statesCurrently, we are giving nearly as many tests as a few weeks ago, yet positives have fallen off a cliff.
It seems that they fell off of a much steeper cliff last June if you look at the graph.
Well before the vaccines.
What's the official spin on that?
The Unkle wrote:
It seems that they fell off of a much steeper cliff last June if you look at the graph.
Well before the vaccines.
What's the official spin on that?
Gates turns off the 5G towers for a bit
Harambe wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
It seems that they fell off of a much steeper cliff last June if you look at the graph.
Well before the vaccines.
What's the official spin on that?
Gates turns off the 5G towers for a bit
In other words, you don't know what it is.
Another thing, am I the only one who remembers being told that the virus was surging and spiking in Fla and other Southern states last June? The graph contradicts that
In a state that does a lot of surveillance testing, if percent positivity rises And falls a few weeks before deaths do, that is hard to explain outside of testing indicating cases and cases correlating to deaths. This is NOT the result of more testing indicating more cases(in your eyes falsely) and more cases meaning more deaths, because the amount of testing remained the same or increased as deaths started to fall
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/state-timeline
The more tests a state does, the better it is to see how testing correlates to deaths, the top 3 states for testing are NY vt and ma (in tests per 100000) Note VT and ma are now below 2 positives/100 and falling. Obviously the false positive percent is below 2. In the first peak percentages were sky high(over 20%) second peak percent positive hit 13.6%. So I don’t see any way to argue that more than 14% (2/13.6)of those cases in the second peak were false positives, end it is doubtful that many of those false positive surveillance cases died, because they probably weren’t sick in anyway shape or form. Personally I am certain that the false positive percent is well below 2 , and percent of misattributed deaths is far lower than 14% but I would challenge you to argue for a higher number given the math I presented.
trashcan wrote:
Note VT and ma are now below 2 positives/100 and falling. Obviously the false positive percent is below 2. In the first peak percentages were sky high(over 20%) second peak percent positive hit 13.6%. So I don’t see any way to argue that more than 14% (2/13.6)of those cases in the second peak were false positives, end it is doubtful that many of those false positive surveillance cases died, because they probably weren’t sick in anyway shape or form. Personally I am certain that the false positive percent is well below 2 , and percent of misattributed deaths is far lower than 14% but I would challenge you to argue for a higher number given the math I presented.
Great point.
There was a day in Sept-Oct where Vermont tests 7878 people and reported 3 positives.
How can you claim there's a massive false positive rate from those numbers?
Harambe wrote:
knee jerk reactivity metric wrote:
You mean the statistics that "prove" the correlation between the number of tests and the number of sick people?
Is that what the "covid deniers" are missing?
Nice circular reasoning there.
Do you contend the correlation is not there?
Eager to see your response.
A correlation between the number of tests and the number of sick people?
Well, duh!
Harambe wrote:
trashcan wrote:
Note VT and ma are now below 2 positives/100 and falling. Obviously the false positive percent is below 2. In the first peak percentages were sky high(over 20%) second peak percent positive hit 13.6%. So I don’t see any way to argue that more than 14% (2/13.6)of those cases in the second peak were false positives, end it is doubtful that many of those false positive surveillance cases died, because they probably weren’t sick in anyway shape or form. Personally I am certain that the false positive percent is well below 2 , and percent of misattributed deaths is far lower than 14% but I would challenge you to argue for a higher number given the math I presented.
Great point.
There was a day in Sept-Oct where Vermont tests 7878 people and reported 3 positives.
How can you claim there's a massive false positive rate from those numbers?
I don't know do you? It seems a bit low don't you think?
knee jerk reactivity metric wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Great point.
There was a day in Sept-Oct where Vermont tests 7878 people and reported 3 positives.
How can you claim there's a massive false positive rate from those numbers?
I don't know do you? It seems a bit low don't you think?
True, almost as if the false positive narrative being pushed on this thread is vastly overstated!
Glad we can all move on now
Harambe wrote:
knee jerk reactivity metric wrote:
I don't know do you? It seems a bit low don't you think?
True, almost as if the false positive narrative being pushed on this thread is vastly overstated!
Glad we can all move on now
Well thanks for clearing that up. Now we can have complete faith in your statistical analysis and comprehension of the billions of variables involved in assessing whether a PCR test is qualitative or quantitative.
No. Check Vermont’s cases and deaths from the same period.. and this isn’t a one-off. Just follow the correlation between percent positivity and deaths 3-4 weeks later in high testing ratio stars. Now there will be some random variation day-to-day, and when numbers get low, that can be more pronounced, but the data is straightforward if you are willing to look.
knee jerk reactivity metric wrote:
Well thanks for clearing that up. Now we can have complete faith in your statistical analysis and comprehension of the billions of variables involved in assessing whether a PCR test is qualitative or quantitative.
So you admit the tests are valid predictors of the course of the pandemic, then? I am happy to let you march the goalposts backwards all you want :)
Harambe/2600 bro you are obviously the same guy. You should try not always posting within 1-3 minutes of "each other".
Harambe wrote:
knee jerk reactivity metric wrote:
Well thanks for clearing that up. Now we can have complete faith in your statistical analysis and comprehension of the billions of variables involved in assessing whether a PCR test is qualitative or quantitative.
So you admit the tests are valid predictors of the course of the pandemic, then? I am happy to let you march the goalposts backwards all you want :)
No.
knee jerk reactivity metric wrote:
Harambe wrote:
True, almost as if the false positive narrative being pushed on this thread is vastly overstated!
Glad we can all move on now
Well thanks for clearing that up. Now we can have complete faith in your statistical analysis and comprehension of the billions of variables involved in assessing whether a PCR test is qualitative or quantitative.
What I did is admittedly quick and dirty, but ultimately a lot of medical science works in this fashion. You have a concern based on a theory(you think the vast majority of deaths attributed to Covid are the results of false positives based on your understanding of PCR). We see if there are ways we can empirically test that theory. While the data that we have doesn’t allow us the finest degree of distinction, it is clearly enough to demonstrate that the vast majority is attributed to Covid are not, in fact,the result of false positives
I am sure there are other ways to demonstrate this, but this works
How can you do that? I am not allowed to post twice in the same thread with different names.
trashcan wrote:
No. Check Vermont’s cases and deaths from the same period.. and this isn’t a one-off. Just follow the correlation between percent positivity and deaths 3-4 weeks later in high testing ratio stars. Now there will be some random variation day-to-day, and when numbers get low, that can be more pronounced, but the data is straightforward if you are willing to look.
You are seeing what you want to see in statistics. It's a human trait. I am Seeing people with COPD who don't have long to live. I tell them not to do too much or too little exercise. Either way they are going to die soon.
But those are the visible ones who aren't completely locked down. How many more never leave the residence?