ADVERTISEMENT

Crazy COVID Update

SSS!!! said:
That’s all well and good in a vacuum, except the trends of hospitalizations and deaths follow the trends of cases. The number of cases themselves doesn’t matter to anyone by themselves, it’s that we have been able to pretty closely predict now how the hospitalizations and deaths will follow. Obviously it’s not 1:1 or anywhere close, but if you look at the trend lines they match up pretty closely but hospitalizations are about 2 weeks lagging and then deaths 2 weeks behind that.
Click to expand...

Of course it does, but it always would, even if the case count was accurate. I'm not saying that looking at positive test numbers is a fools errand. All I'm stating is that there should be at the very least a track of death with Covid and death by Covid, there should also be a positive test count and a case count. My biggest complaint about how this was being handled from the very beginning was that the data was skewed and not containing enough detail. As the CEO of my company says "you can only make good decisions if based on good data."

What would this look like based on the percentages that we think we know. Colorado is the only state that has death with and death by Covid numbers. Essentially they are saying that 5240 people died with Covid and of those, 4,281 people died due to Covid. So if we take that and assume that it is fairly accurate and would be about the same everywhere you would end up with numbers about like this:
  • Total US has approximately 9.2 million people that have tested positive and have not yet been resolved - approximately 2.8 percent of the population.
  • Current numbers indicate that .034 percent of the US population is in the hospital that are currently and also in the non-resolved Covid positive test count. That translates to 1.15 million people and it also means that twelve percent of people that catch Covid require hospital care. Note that under a normal consideration, you wouldn't have to be hospitalized for it to count as a case. An example is my mother's husband. He had medical care, but due to other severe health issues, it was decided that he would probably do as well or better at home. He was already on oxygen, they just increased the the percentage to keep his saturation numbers above a certain threshold. So the case percentage will be higher than the 12%. I only have anecdotal justification to state that I would expect the case percentage would be in the 20-25% range of positive tests.
  • Death rate is currently listed as 381,000 for the nearly 23 million positive tests since this tracking began. using the other numbers that have been provided would mean 308.6K deaths by Covid and 72K deaths with Covid.
  • To go further making an assumption of 25% case count per positive test and that every death by covid would be classified as a case, that brings the case count to 5.75 million cases and increases the death by Covid to 5.37%
The reason why this would matter is that it would keep out the false positives, asymptomatic cases, and those (like my wife and I) that didn't require any medical assistance. It would also give a better view of what people actually are going through. When you see things like "more than 99% of all people recover," that actually diminishes the scope of this thing. While that 99% number is true, it is taking a lot of non-factors into account. But if it were published as saying "if you catch this and require medical attention, you have a higher than 5% chance of death and a 12% chance that you will end up in the hospital" it would shine a much more accurate light on what this thing actually does. Much more impact than figures that show it to be less than 1% chance of death.

I know that the numbers above are not exact and shouldn't ever be stated as gospel. They are likely in the ballpark, but frankly, it is impossible to glean correct numbers from what is being collected. And for the record, I've been talking about bad data since March when the country lost its collective mind. Then if we had an actual case number, we could then collect pretty accurate information about re-infections. As it is now, we can not do that with any degree of accuracy nor can we tell, other than anecdotally if re-infections tend to be better or worse than the initial infection. Which also means it will be almost impossible to track true efficacy of these vaccines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007, orangeblood7, Robby789 and 7 others
Pokes28 said:
Of course it does, but it always would, even if the case count was accurate. I'm not saying that looking at positive test numbers is a fools errand. All I'm stating is that there should be at the very least a track of death with Covid and death by Covid, there should also be a positive test count and a case count. My biggest complaint about how this was being handled from the very beginning was that the data was skewed and not containing enough detail. As the CEO of my company says "you can only make good decisions if based on good data."

What would this look like based on the percentages that we think we know. Colorado is the only state that has death with and death by Covid numbers. Essentially they are saying that 5240 people died with Covid and of those, 4,281 people died due to Covid. So if we take that and assume that it is fairly accurate and would be about the same everywhere you would end up with numbers about like this:
  • Total US has approximately 9.2 million people that have tested positive and have not yet been resolved - approximately 2.8 percent of the population.
  • Current numbers indicate that .034 percent of the US population is in the hospital that are currently and also in the non-resolved Covid positive test count. That translates to 1.15 million people and it also means that twelve percent of people that catch Covid require hospital care. Note that under a normal consideration, you wouldn't have to be hospitalized for it to count as a case. An example is my mother's husband. He had medical care, but due to other severe health issues, it was decided that he would probably do as well or better at home. He was already on oxygen, they just increased the the percentage to keep his saturation numbers above a certain threshold. So the case percentage will be higher than the 12%. I only have anecdotal justification to state that I would expect the case percentage would be in the 20-25% range of positive tests.
  • Death rate is currently listed as 381,000 for the nearly 23 million positive tests since this tracking began. using the other numbers that have been provided would mean 308.6K deaths by Covid and 72K deaths with Covid.
  • To go further making an assumption of 25% case count per positive test and that every death by covid would be classified as a case, that brings the case count to 5.75 million cases and increases the death by Covid to 5.37%
The reason why this would matter is that it would keep out the false positives, asymptomatic cases, and those (like my wife and I) that didn't require any medical assistance. It would also give a better view of what people actually are going through. When you see things like "more than 99% of all people recover," that actually diminishes the scope of this thing. While that 99% number is true, it is taking a lot of non-factors into account. But if it were published as saying "if you catch this and require medical attention, you have a higher than 5% chance of death and a 12% chance that you will end up in the hospital" it would shine a much more accurate light on what this thing actually does. Much more impact than figures that show it to be less than 1% chance of death.

I know that the numbers above are not exact and shouldn't ever be stated as gospel. They are likely in the ballpark, but frankly, it is impossible to glean correct numbers from what is being collected. And for the record, I've been talking about bad data since March when the country lost its collective mind. Then if we had an actual case number, we could then collect pretty accurate information about re-infections. As it is now, we can not do that with any degree of accuracy nor can we tell, other than anecdotally if re-infections tend to be better or worse than the initial infection. Which also means it will be almost impossible to track true efficacy of these vaccines.
Click to expand...
Dude you're bringing the sledgehammer of logic to this discussion, gonna guess you don't advocate putting masks on toddlers or while driving a car. Well done sir!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk4177, MaxandAlli and squeak
Pokes28 said:
Of course it does, but it always would, even if the case count was accurate. I'm not saying that looking at positive test numbers is a fools errand. All I'm stating is that there should be at the very least a track of death with Covid and death by Covid, there should also be a positive test count and a case count. My biggest complaint about how this was being handled from the very beginning was that the data was skewed and not containing enough detail. As the CEO of my company says "you can only make good decisions if based on good data."

What would this look like based on the percentages that we think we know. Colorado is the only state that has death with and death by Covid numbers. Essentially they are saying that 5240 people died with Covid and of those, 4,281 people died due to Covid. So if we take that and assume that it is fairly accurate and would be about the same everywhere you would end up with numbers about like this:
  • Total US has approximately 9.2 million people that have tested positive and have not yet been resolved - approximately 2.8 percent of the population.
  • Current numbers indicate that .034 percent of the US population is in the hospital that are currently and also in the non-resolved Covid positive test count. That translates to 1.15 million people and it also means that twelve percent of people that catch Covid require hospital care. Note that under a normal consideration, you wouldn't have to be hospitalized for it to count as a case. An example is my mother's husband. He had medical care, but due to other severe health issues, it was decided that he would probably do as well or better at home. He was already on oxygen, they just increased the the percentage to keep his saturation numbers above a certain threshold. So the case percentage will be higher than the 12%. I only have anecdotal justification to state that I would expect the case percentage would be in the 20-25% range of positive tests.
  • Death rate is currently listed as 381,000 for the nearly 23 million positive tests since this tracking began. using the other numbers that have been provided would mean 308.6K deaths by Covid and 72K deaths with Covid.
  • To go further making an assumption of 25% case count per positive test and that every death by covid would be classified as a case, that brings the case count to 5.75 million cases and increases the death by Covid to 5.37%
The reason why this would matter is that it would keep out the false positives, asymptomatic cases, and those (like my wife and I) that didn't require any medical assistance. It would also give a better view of what people actually are going through. When you see things like "more than 99% of all people recover," that actually diminishes the scope of this thing. While that 99% number is true, it is taking a lot of non-factors into account. But if it were published as saying "if you catch this and require medical attention, you have a higher than 5% chance of death and a 12% chance that you will end up in the hospital" it would shine a much more accurate light on what this thing actually does. Much more impact than figures that show it to be less than 1% chance of death.

I know that the numbers above are not exact and shouldn't ever be stated as gospel. They are likely in the ballpark, but frankly, it is impossible to glean correct numbers from what is being collected. And for the record, I've been talking about bad data since March when the country lost its collective mind. Then if we had an actual case number, we could then collect pretty accurate information about re-infections. As it is now, we can not do that with any degree of accuracy nor can we tell, other than anecdotally if re-infections tend to be better or worse than the initial infection. Which also means it will be almost impossible to track true efficacy of these vaccines.
Click to expand...
Okay I completely misunderstood what you were saying before and I apologize for that. I can’t disagree with anything you are saying in the above post and am completely on board. I have been saying from the beginning our data collection and reporting in this has been embarrassingly bad. Most of the decent data collection is being done by private individuals or groups. Like you pointed out in great detail above, the federal/state data reporting has been a joke and I hope they decision makers have better tools than what they are showing the public. Again, my apologies and that was great post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Pokes28 said:
Of course it does, but it always would, even if the case count was accurate. I'm not saying that looking at positive test numbers is a fools errand. All I'm stating is that there should be at the very least a track of death with Covid and death by Covid, there should also be a positive test count and a case count. My biggest complaint about how this was being handled from the very beginning was that the data was skewed and not containing enough detail. As the CEO of my company says "you can only make good decisions if based on good data."

What would this look like based on the percentages that we think we know. Colorado is the only state that has death with and death by Covid numbers. Essentially they are saying that 5240 people died with Covid and of those, 4,281 people died due to Covid. So if we take that and assume that it is fairly accurate and would be about the same everywhere you would end up with numbers about like this:
  • Total US has approximately 9.2 million people that have tested positive and have not yet been resolved - approximately 2.8 percent of the population.
  • Current numbers indicate that .034 percent of the US population is in the hospital that are currently and also in the non-resolved Covid positive test count. That translates to 1.15 million people and it also means that twelve percent of people that catch Covid require hospital care. Note that under a normal consideration, you wouldn't have to be hospitalized for it to count as a case. An example is my mother's husband. He had medical care, but due to other severe health issues, it was decided that he would probably do as well or better at home. He was already on oxygen, they just increased the the percentage to keep his saturation numbers above a certain threshold. So the case percentage will be higher than the 12%. I only have anecdotal justification to state that I would expect the case percentage would be in the 20-25% range of positive tests.
  • Death rate is currently listed as 381,000 for the nearly 23 million positive tests since this tracking began. using the other numbers that have been provided would mean 308.6K deaths by Covid and 72K deaths with Covid.
  • To go further making an assumption of 25% case count per positive test and that every death by covid would be classified as a case, that brings the case count to 5.75 million cases and increases the death by Covid to 5.37%
The reason why this would matter is that it would keep out the false positives, asymptomatic cases, and those (like my wife and I) that didn't require any medical assistance. It would also give a better view of what people actually are going through. When you see things like "more than 99% of all people recover," that actually diminishes the scope of this thing. While that 99% number is true, it is taking a lot of non-factors into account. But if it were published as saying "if you catch this and require medical attention, you have a higher than 5% chance of death and a 12% chance that you will end up in the hospital" it would shine a much more accurate light on what this thing actually does. Much more impact than figures that show it to be less than 1% chance of death.

I know that the numbers above are not exact and shouldn't ever be stated as gospel. They are likely in the ballpark, but frankly, it is impossible to glean correct numbers from what is being collected. And for the record, I've been talking about bad data since March when the country lost its collective mind. Then if we had an actual case number, we could then collect pretty accurate information about re-infections. As it is now, we can not do that with any degree of accuracy nor can we tell, other than anecdotally if re-infections tend to be better or worse than the initial infection. Which also means it will be almost impossible to track true efficacy of these vaccines.
Click to expand...


That is an outstanding summary. One issue (of many) is that clinical diagnosis versus epidemiological criteria have been blurred. Getting accurate data during a pandemic is difficult, especially with all the external factors in play. Once we are past this, I anticipate significant changes in “final” data. That is not unexpected or abnormal in this type of situation, but I hope the messaging is much more clear and concise than it has been up to this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007 and SSS!!!
From CDC site- not an easy read but informative. It's hard to motor around on the site and find what you're looking for- by design? Idk

iCloud

Sign in to iCloud to access your photos, videos, documents, notes, contacts, and more. Use your Apple ID or create a new account to start using Apple services.
share.icloud.com share.icloud.com
 
CDC data is always a mixed bag. They will literally have multiple data postings in a single day that run counter to each other. Just like the WHO not being in support of a vaccine passport for Covid, but at the same time funding a vaccine passport for Covid. I swear the higher up you go in the chain, the worse the information gets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk4177, MaxandAlli, osuintx and 1 other person
You mean the vaccine that they still won't say doesn't insure sterile immunity to the virus, even though virtually every researcher on the topic assumes it will?

If I ever trusted these large agencies for honesty and guidance for anything, and frankly we all need to be able to, they've fumbled covid so badly with conflicting guidance, lawyer-driven "medical advice", and kindergarten-level lecturing that any old trust has been pissed down the drain.

And let's not even start on the failure to thoroughly and with no partisanship investigate simple, effective existing remedies which could help a lot of people. Still diddly squat on Vitamin D or Ivermectin guidance, which is outright criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk4177, MaxandAlli and Pokes28
100TonsofOrangeFury said:
You mean the vaccine that they still won't say doesn't insure sterile immunity to the virus, even though virtually every researcher on the topic assumes it will?

If I ever trusted these large agencies for honesty and guidance for anything, and frankly we all need to be able to, they've fumbled covid so badly with conflicting guidance, lawyer-driven "medical advice", and kindergarten-level lecturing that any old trust has been pissed down the drain.

And let's not even start on the failure to thoroughly and with no partisanship investigate simple, effective existing remedies which could help a lot of people. Still diddly squat on Vitamin D or Ivermectin guidance, which is outright criminal.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think part of the reason my wife and I had such an easy time is that in 2019 we both had some very detailed testing done and found that my wife was Vitamin D deficient. I was not, but at the time of my testing, I was running 70+ miles a week, so the doctor wanted me to do additional supplement. We've both been taking D and E along with a standard multivitamin. My wife is also on Perfect Amino which has all but cured several things she was suffering from that required different meds. without the ability to generate proteins, the immune system is weakened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trapped_in_tx and 100TonsofOrangeFury
Too many unknowns in my opinion to take it. Old and horrible health I think there's an argument to take it. Disease that kills .04% of those infected doesn't Garner motivation for me To take it. Especially since number one it was rushed, number two they skip the animal trials, and if you know what's in a vaccine it's not very motivating to take as well. Also who's in favor of the vaccine? Our horrible government, our horrible media, big Pharma. Count me the crap out. Plus they don't even have answers for simple questions like how long does it last, what are the side effects five years down the road. And I go back to maybe the biggest one is you have a 99.96% chance of surviving it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: casey553 and MaxandAlli
squeak said:
If the vaccine is so great, why do I still need to wear a mask after I get it?
Click to expand...

Because unless you want to carry around a special ID card or have a scannable chip embedded, no one will know that you've had it. Get used to it until this so-called "herd immunity" kicks in. God knows when that will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSS!!!
Marocain Poke said:
Because unless you want to carry around a special ID card or have a scannable chip embedded, no one will know that you've had it. Get used to it until this so-called "herd immunity" kicks in. God knows when that will be.
Click to expand...
Also, the virus could still colonize in your nose, and, while your body is fighting it, you could pass it on to others. They aren’t sure on that yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dr. tdog, tcpoke and Marocain Poke
SSS!!! said:
Also, the virus could still colonize in your nose, and, while your body is fighting it, you could pass it on to others. They aren’t sure on that yet.
Click to expand...
So how will we ever not wear masks?
 
I'm hopeful once the vaccines are readily available to anyone who wants one - and they continue to prove effective - the masks, social distancing and attendance percentage regulations will go away. At that point, everyone has a way to protect themselves. If they choose not to do it, that is on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: osu2082, gyppoke, tcpoke and 1 other person
BarneyMiller said:
I'm hopeful once the vaccines are readily available to anyone who wants one - and they continue to prove effective - the masks, social distancing and attendance percentage regulations will go away. At that point, everyone has a way to protect themselves. If they choose not to do it, that is on them.
Click to expand...
And the vulnerable likely will either have survived it, succumbed to it, or been vaccinated, which all but prevents severe disease and death. Now don't discount the possibility that in the interest of retaining control and totalitarianism that simple case counts could be used for this purpose.
 
BarneyMiller said:
I'm hopeful once the vaccines are readily available to anyone who wants one - and they continue to prove effective - the masks, social distancing and attendance percentage regulations will go away. At that point, everyone has a way to protect themselves. If they choose not to do it, that is on them.
Click to expand...
It will go away when Uncle Sam no longer has an agenda- which is prob never. Something else wi
 
BarneyMiller said:
I'm hopeful once the vaccines are readily available to anyone who wants one - and they continue to prove effective - the masks, social distancing and attendance percentage regulations will go away. At that point, everyone has a way to protect themselves. If they choose not to do it, that is on them.
Click to expand...
Thank you for a reasonable, obvious answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcpoke and blbronco
One issue (by no means is it all the issues) is that none of the vaccine testing included subjecting those in the study to Covid. Of course this was done in the name of safety. But it does leave open a lot of concerns about just what these vaccines will do. Will they merely help prevent the virus from having horrible health issues, but they still catch the virus? Or will it provide a level of immunity to catching it at all? Based on the deficiencies of data collection so far, I don't have a lot of hope that they are really doing much more than collecting data on side effects and reactions to the vaccines. But at some point, data will have to come out that shows how many people that received the vaccine later caught the virus. Now it is likely that some will catch it during the window of getting the first shot but before the body generates antibodies in any sufficient quantity. There are several documented cases of people catching covid a second time within a week or two of the abatement of their first time.

Where this could get potentially interesting is when we reach the point that everybody that wants the vaccine is able to get it. Will they be open and honest about actual covid infections (not just positive tests which I've covered why those are problematic as a baseline for decisions) for people that have been vaccinated. If they come out and say that few if any people have caught covid after being vaccinated, those that want to keep everybody locked down and in masks, which includes those that are in political power, will lose a lot of their control over the general populous. So how will that be spun? And we know it will. My guess will be that they shift to "what we are doing is working so we need to continue doing it." I have faith that when March rolls around, assuming we are able to continue moving ahead with vaccines and have reached a full year of most people doing what they have been asked to do, that there will be a turn in feelings and the desire for a return to normal will become a much more prevalent voice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007, 100TonsofOrangeFury and SSS!!!
BarneyMiller said:
I'm hopeful once the vaccines are readily available to anyone who wants one - and they continue to prove effective - the masks, social distancing and attendance percentage regulations will go away. At that point, everyone has a way to protect themselves. If they choose not to do it, that is on them.
Click to expand...
With all due respect- you have no friggin idea if they continually are proven effective lol. They also are not letting patients know the bad effects of them.

I swear you people that regurgitate the MSM puke are kinda scary. Get a vaccine or don't but you need to understand that almost all do not need it, that GAtes is the biggest POS greed whore on the planet (and that is saying something), what are out into the vaccines etc.

NO ONE knows what effects will be after a year or 5-NO ONE. And the people injecting you are ON record as wanting population reduction.

anyone that trusts without doubt our Govt and media just haven't been paying attention.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk4177, osutater and SSS!!!
Pokes28 said:
One issue (by no means is it all the issues) is that none of the vaccine testing included subjecting those in the study to Covid. Of course this was done in the name of safety. But it does leave open a lot of concerns about just what these vaccines will do. Will they merely help prevent the virus from having horrible health issues, but they still catch the virus? Or will it provide a level of immunity to catching it at all? Based on the deficiencies of data collection so far, I don't have a lot of hope that they are really doing much more than collecting data on side effects and reactions to the vaccines. But at some point, data will have to come out that shows how many people that received the vaccine later caught the virus. Now it is likely that some will catch it during the window of getting the first shot but before the body generates antibodies in any sufficient quantity. There are several documented cases of people catching covid a second time within a week or two of the abatement of their first time.

Where this could get potentially interesting is when we reach the point that everybody that wants the vaccine is able to get it. Will they be open and honest about actual covid infections (not just positive tests which I've covered why those are problematic as a baseline for decisions) for people that have been vaccinated. If they come out and say that few if any people have caught covid after being vaccinated, those that want to keep everybody locked down and in masks, which includes those that are in political power, will lose a lot of their control over the general populous. So how will that be spun? And we know it will. My guess will be that they shift to "what we are doing is working so we need to continue doing it." I have faith that when March rolls around, assuming we are able to continue moving ahead with vaccines and have reached a full year of most people doing what they have been asked to do, that there will be a turn in feelings and the desire for a return to normal will become a much more prevalent voice.
Click to expand...
I think when the vaccine is prevalent like you are seeing we will see a push to open. The people I know who have been the staunchest social distancing heroes are starting to waiver (and this is the worst time for almost all metrics!). As the weather gets better and the vaccine is really rolled out, I think numbers will be looking much better in March as well. Again, I agree the data on vaccine efficacy needs to be better than what we’ve seen so far.
 
Have a family member who tested positive and is pretty sick. Going in today for a antibody infusion. I guess that’s something they can do only if you’re a positive? Seems like a good thing to do before you get it.
 
purkey said:
Have a family member who tested positive and is pretty sick. Going in today for a antibody infusion. I guess that’s something they can do only if you’re a positive? Seems like a good thing to do before you get it.
Click to expand...
What you're describing is a vaccine. The antibody therapies for positives are highly effective, it's great they're getting that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcpoke
purkey said:
Have a family member who tested positive and is pretty sick. Going in today for a antibody infusion. I guess that’s something they can do only if you’re a positive? Seems like a good thing to do before you get it.
Click to expand...

The reason for that is that if the antibodies that are infused are not built by the host body. So if you did that to a healthy person, the antibodies will have a very short life span so it would be very difficult to do and would be pretty worthless most of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSS!!! and purkey
100TonsofOrangeFury said:
What you're describing is a vaccine. The antibody therapies for positives are highly effective, it's great they're getting that.
Click to expand...

Especially it administered relatively early. I’ve known two people that got the treatment and recovered and two that got it very late (already on ventilators) and didn’t recover. Much like anything, you don’t want to wait until you’re really sick to start any of the treatments.
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: purkey
tcpoke said:
two that got it very late (already on ventilators) and didn’t recover.
Click to expand...
The drug companies that developed these were very clear that the therapies only work in the early onset of symptoms.

Somehow this is accepted with new, very expensive drugs, but not accepted for old, established drugs like Hydrochloriquine.
 
If the report I shared is right- According to the medical people I sent that to- they KNOWINGLY didn't disclose that If you get the virus After being vaccinated the effects will be worse. That means a much higher death rate going forward with those that have taken the vaccine. I hope they are wrong.
Most know I'm against this vaccine but I'm just asking before you take it- research and ask as many questions as you can. DO NOT accept
Media and politicians words- then make the decision. Remember it's a 99.95 percent give or take survival rate for those in decent health under 70. I'm not telling anyone don't do it- just do your own research and get away from google to do it-
They censor anything bad for several pages
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk4177
osuintx said:
If the report I shared is right- According to the medical people I sent that to- they KNOWINGLY didn't disclose that If you get the virus After being vaccinated the effects will be worse. That means a much higher death rate going forward with those that have taken the vaccine. I hope they are wrong.
Most know I'm against this vaccine but I'm just asking before you take it- research and ask as many questions as you can. DO NOT accept
Media and politicians words- then make the decision. Remember it's a 99.95 percent give or take survival rate for those in decent health under 70. I'm not telling anyone don't do it- just do your own research and get away from google to do it-
They censor anything bad for several pages
Click to expand...
So by research you mean check nut job message board. Don’t trust media and medical community. Do you really refer to that as research?
 
Everyone in my company has Covid right now except me. All mild or no symptoms a week in. I am taking another test tomorrow. No symptoms, just can’t believe I don’t have it. Was surrounded by the Covid. Hope I stay on the negative train. Small company, so we have been idle now for a week. No bueno.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 100TonsofOrangeFury
TStheThird said:
Everyone in my company has Covid right now except me. All mild or no symptoms a week in. I am taking another test tomorrow. No symptoms, just can’t believe I don’t have it. Was surrounded by the Covid. Hope I stay on the negative train. Small company, so we have been idle now for a week. No bueno.
Click to expand...

That happens. As I stated earlier in this thread, my cousin was in a house with 9 other people that all had Covid symptoms and positive tests and never tested positive or showed any symptoms and never developed antibodies in the month after exposure. I won't say there were 9 cases as only one of the 9 required medical care though she ended up in the ICU. Every major contagion in history has some people that for one reason or another seems to have some level of natural immunity. Typhoid, Black Death, Spanish Flu, etc all had people that came through unscathed despite being surrounded by it. Of course it could just be a fluke and not anything special about the human, but I've found that interesting. There are some research groups (primarily in India) that are studying people that have shown some levels of natural immunity (meaning no antibodies but still some reason they do not seem to catch the virus). They are trying to determine if there is something deeper in the systems of the people that protects them. To my knowledge they've not published anything as of yet, but I'm keeping an eye out for those.
 
osuintx said:
You trust the media?
Click to expand...
Said do your own research- it's your body. Seinfeld remember George had the times where he did "opposite" of what he normally would do? That's almost where I'm at with the media- sans a few.
It's your body- just have Uncle Sam and Big Pharma inject away Hoss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R

mcconnell stepping down as u s senate minority leader

Replies
11
Views
218
24/7 Politics
Tulsaaggieson
Tulsaaggieson
P

What Happened To The Tunnels?

Replies
10
Views
287
24/7 Politics
Ponca Dan
P
SquatchinPoke

Cannabis and COVID.

Replies
17
Views
282
24/7 Politics
Marocain Poke
Marocain Poke
Pokes28

Ticket office fiasco - no longer a season ticket holder

Replies
33
Views
1K
The Corral
Colorado_Poke
Colorado_Poke
OKSTATE1

Give Chad credit for running air tight ship…

Replies
9
Views
396
The Corral
OKSTATE1
OKSTATE1
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back