Over half of Covid hospitalisations tested positive after admission

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

kook_throwaway wrote: post #109

leereeves wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead you're just talking about a left-wing conspiracy to lie to the public in order to take control of the government. Things like that make people suspicious, and make it easy for people who don't know the difference between a quantum dot[1] and a microchip to misunderstand when Bill Gates calls for a national tracking system[2]. 1: (a quantum dot to store medical information beneath the skin really was funded by…

>Instead you're just talking about a left-wing conspiracy to lie to the public in order to take control of the government. To take control of the government or for good PR/propaganda? Governments have never had any issues conspiring and lying to the public, remember when Fauci said not to use masks because they didn't help? Or those WMDs that we will surely find any day now?

Post by nickthemagicman » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

ssully wrote: post #86

nickthemagicman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's saying the definition of cases in 'actual science' vs 'the media' is different. Not a shocker that the media would sensationalize things. Science and PCR amplification... has a much looser definition with the possibility for much more false positives with such small number of cycles of amplification. It was done ostensibly for cautionary purposes but the media seized on it and painted red death map visualization…

I understand that. But I would hardly call it sensationalizing. It's a mixture of the best of what we had at the time (others have posted talking about how the tests have changed/improved), and the fact that reporting on things in a simple and straight forward manner is hard because people simply don't have the time, or don't give a shit about nuance.

Post by sokoloff » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

a9h74j wrote: post #77

sokoloff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Primarily that "all lab tests have errors" and if you test everyone who is hospitalized for any reason (which is sensible), you're inevitably going to get some false positives. Secondarily, in any low-incidence scenario (such as might be the case for "COVID infections among the vaccinated"), even high specificity tests have a high false rate among positive tests.

Not an epidemiologist, but prior to Covid I have never seen a professional risk-benefit discussion around screening tests, which did not give serious weight to the various costs of false positives. Patient anxiety. Rounds of invasive biopsies not without risk. Financial costs of the same.

Post by beerandt » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

mizzack wrote: post #79

themark wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I bring this up in conversations with people they make me feel like a kook. I am not sure what to think anymore.

It didn't help that the WHO released the updated guidelines the day Biden was inaugurated. For that reason alone it became another thought-terminating political topic -- you're either dismissed as a conspiracy theorist for correlating these events, or you're dismissing the value of the vaccine rollout/lockdowns/other measures, or you're a sheep following the dominant media narrative.

Post by kook_throwaway » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #98

ssully wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that. But I would hardly call it sensationalizing. It's a mixture of the best of what we had at the time (others have posted talking about how the tests have changed/improved), and the fact that reporting on things in a simple and straight forward manner is hard because people simply don't have the time, or don't give a shit about nuance.

I suspect that a pattern of not disclosing that statistics that are implied to be factual are actually to some degree ~estimates contributed to the extreme level of polarization over "facts" and "the science", as well as the increasing distrust of the media. Sure, most people don't consider these things too logically, but then if those distributing the facts can't be bothered either, how shall we accurately assign bl…