Interesting biological chemist's critique of Cummins' Data

#1

Tom Moensch

(Bob M) #2

Tom Moensch is correct, at least as far as I watched (19+minutes).

(bulkbiker) #3

I donā€™t think he understands the way the UK figures are reported.
His ā€œconfirmed casesā€ are in fact ā€œpositive test resultsā€ and not confirmed cases at all.
As testing is boosted then ā€œcase numbersā€(positive test results) grow and we have to consider the number of false positives that impact on those numbers. This is due to multiple reasons such as over amplification of the PCR tests and various instances of double counting.
Once heā€™d made the claim that ā€œconfirmed test resultsā€ were some kind of evidence I switched off because heā€™s simply wrong.

53
Screenshot 2020-11-01 at 15.10.53.png1570Ɨ840 65.8 KB

(bulkbiker) #4

The problems in the UK at the moment.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #5

A couple of things here. First, the PCM test does not detect only ā€˜live/active/dormantā€™ virus and/or current infection. It detects inert RNA fragments of the virus. Thus, most of the ā€˜casesā€™ being detected now are people who were simply exposed to the virus and folks who were actually infected at some past point, and their immune systems dealt with it successfully. The PCM test is picking up the dead/inactive viral debris which are then being falsely interpreted as active current infection. This so-called ā€˜second waveā€™ is really just a false-positive test wave resulting from the increasing number of tests detecting all those folks with inactive viral fragments from exposure or infection months ago. They beat it and thatā€™s good news.

Second, this is the first time in epidemiological history where folks who exhibit zero symptoms of a disease are counted as ā€˜casesā€™ of the disease. Most of the people tesing positive have no symptoms and would not even know they had been exposed or infected without the test detecting inactive viral fragments in their bodies. This is more good news. The virus initially infected more people than showed symptoms, most fought if off successfully. So more infectious than realized, but less fatal overall beyond a small subset of elderly, immunocompromised and/or metabolically unhealthy people.

Finally, while the ā€˜PCM detected bogus casesā€™ continue to increase, both hospitalization and deaths continue to decline. This is also good news. Yes, protect the most vulnerable with isolation, distancing or whatever - we know exactly who they are - and let the rest of us get on with our lives. The absolutely hysterical response to this has been totally ridiculous.

(Bob M) #6

So much wrong here. For one, asymptomatic people can shed enough virus to give the disease to others. We personally KNOW a case where this happened.

And for deaths decreasing, the US is losing about 1,000 people every freaking day. Every day. EVERY DAY.

And as for hospitalizations, watch this. At about 1:15 into this, they interview a male nurse. This guy is in MONTANA. That;s right, MONTANA:

https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1322384530775461888?s=03

If you donā€™t think this virus is not going to go everywhere and overwhelm everywhere, you are WRONG. WRONG. Let me say it again, WRONG.

And it is ludicrous to think that we can magically ā€œprotect the most vulnerableā€. I was diagnosed with heart failure 7.5 years ago. Thatā€™s right, heart failure. I AM ā€œthe most vulnerableā€. We have a woman at my office who is on multiple drugs because she is immuno-compromised. She IS ā€œthe most vulnerableā€. My mother is 75 and has had pancreatic cancer and a heart attack. She lives with us. She IS ā€œthe most vulnerableā€. What about all the people currently in cancer treatment?

How the hell do you protect these people, when there are people who go without masks and who literally do not give a crap?

We just got notified that the girl in my daughterā€™s dance class ā€“ the girl who sometimes does NOT wear a mask ā€“ is positive. Her whole freaking family is. This might shut down multiple schools (many of the teachers, by the way, who are in the age group thatā€™s at risk).

Say you have a college. Many of the students might not be that affected. Though some will:

But many of their teachers, staff, etc. WILL be affected.

And how long can we protect ā€œthe most vulnerableā€, when a vaccine is easily 1-2 years away?

We COULD begin to protect people, if we

  • had a concerted, national effort to follow the same rules
  • had a CDC that was NOT gutted and belittled because it doesnā€™t agree with the people currently in charge
  • had everyone wearing masks
  • had massive testing, including $1 spit tests
  • had tracing
  • followed the 3 Cs
  • many more, but Iā€™m too disgusted by your comments to continue
(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #7

Thereā€™s no convincing you, Bob. 99% of the population is not at risk of hospitalization or death from this. Get over it.

#8

Jesus wept :woman_facepalming: 230, 000 US citizens are DEAD from this thing.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #9

Cry me a river. Probably more than half those dead folks in the USA would still be alive if Fauci had not blackballed hydroxychloroquine but had encouraged its use as a prophylaxis instead. Hysterics will not help accomplish anything useful. If you want to think youā€™re living through the worst thing since the Black Death of the 13th century be my guest. That killed somewhere between 30-50% of the European population in less than 4 years, between 1347ā€“1351. Current population of the USA: 331,000,000. Iā€™ll let you do the math to calculate what % of that 230,000 is.

Any and all untimely deaths are a tragedy. But the hysterical overreaction to this has only made it worse than it might have been.

If you are at higher risk, do what you need to do to protect yourself. Thatā€™s smart.

#10

Iā€™m not at higher risk but Iā€™m also not devoid of normal human feeling.

(Joey) #11

@amwassil Am surprised at your conclusion (that the second wave is ā€œreally just a false-positive test waveā€ from more testing). I thought you embraced facts above all, no?

How do false-positives produce newly-crowded hospital beds and spiking death rates? Why do all these new cases of those who ā€œbeat itā€ wind up in the intensive care unit? Might your conclusion reflect some wishful algebra?

Statistically you are correct in saying that some small faction of the population (sure, letā€™s use your 1% figure) is expected to die from COVID-19.

Then again, in a given year only a small % of the population dies from cancer, distracted drivers, gang gunfireā€¦ Does the plight of their suffering matter? How about their parents, siblings, children, grandchildren, unable to help? Would it be enough to pause and consider relatively easy low-cost mitigation techniques?

If youā€™re worried about shutting down Walmart, I didnā€™t read anyone above suggest such solutions. So may I assume itā€™s the idea of being asked to wear a mask that seems to make you so angry? Okay, I can understand that feeling. But not enough to accept it.

Ironically, you suggest we all take hydroxychloroquine prophylacticaly? Seriously, where did you get this brilliant idea from? Perhaps flashlights up our butts? And snort some Windex? Time to get real.

Considering myself low risk (though we donā€™t know how each n=1 will respond once infected), Iā€™m shocked youā€™d tell those who are highly vulnerable to just ā€œget over itā€ and be ā€œsmart.ā€

Smart says youā€™re wrong. Smart says youā€™re driven by something other than facts based on the best science currently available at the present.

Regardless, even as our understanding continues to evolve, dismissing the genuine fears of those who are thought to be most vulnerable - as hospitals beds fill up and the morgue count rises - strikes me as a profoundly disturbing choice.

I sincerely hope for your own well-being that you remain fortunate enough to dodge the heavy dose of karma that might arrive at your doorstep - or that of someone you love. Peace be with you brother.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #12


04%20PM

World stats - Source:

37%20PM
Screen Shot 2020-11-01 at 3.09.37 PM.png764Ɨ536 34.3 KB

06%20PM
Screen Shot 2020-11-01 at 3.12.06 PM.png801Ɨ637 26.3 KB

04%20PM
Screen Shot 2020-11-01 at 3.14.04 PM.png778Ɨ565 42.2 KB

04%20PM
Screen Shot 2020-11-01 at 3.16.04 PM.png781Ɨ535 28.6 KB

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #13

Hey, folks, get a grip. Iā€™m not the Grinch who stole Christmas. I donā€™t hate anyone particularly so stop the innuendo before this topic gets shut down. I think any life lost to a worthless, stinking fucking virus is a tragedy. In particular, I am not worried about my job at Walmart. If youā€™ve read any of my previous posts on the forum, I think itā€™s clear that I am just as empathetic and compassionate as anyone else here. Just trying to inject some sanity into a debate that got hysterical. I even consider as many sides of an argument as I discover. Like this debate between people who know more than I ever will.

32%20PM

(Joey) #14

These graphs reveal exactly what one might expect. To expect otherwise would be silly.

Cumulative cases (used as the denominator) can only get larger. Itā€™s called cumulative.

Is it surprising that dividing current activity by cumulative historical activity produces a declining ratio? If that graph offers comfort, go for it.

But please do remember that when reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality. Best wishes. :vulcan_salute:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #15

Hey, Joey. I think youā€™ll find the ā€˜debateā€™ I linked at OffGuardian quite interesting. There are interesting links in the Endnotes as well.

You can look at all the graphs at worldometer if you donā€™t like the ones that interested me. Iā€™m surprised you didnā€™t mention specifically that the last graph of daily deaths certainly doesnā€™t support my contention of falling death rate. :roll_eyes:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #16

Viewable in a browser, even though says PDF, the full text supplied.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #17

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19ā€¦

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normalā€¦

(Elmo) #18

This is the third thread (on this forum) that has dealt with Ivorā€™s silliness. :wink: Moensch does a good job adding to the discussion; heā€™s mostly right. Heā€™s not perfect, though, butā€¦ I guess youā€™ll have that. Compared to how much nonsense is in that Cummins video, itā€™s a small degree of imperfection.

(Joey) #19

@amwassil While we may disagree on the details, I respect your passion for this vexing topic. Finding the right balance between protecting the vulnerable and getting on with a semblance of normal life is not an easy one to calibrate.

From my perspective, if wearing masks and giving extra consideration to personal space can serve as an effective interim mitigant until a vaccine becomes widely available, it seems like an easy choice.

Keeping our facts straight based on the latest research is key. And we can rationally move forward and adjust accordingly as our knowledge expands. Onward.

(bulkbiker) #20

Yep all those people really are dropping like flies in the UK.

Or maybe just maybe they arenā€™t all cause mortality is exactly as expected apart from April/Mayā€¦

For those with a more open mindā€¦ look at the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 low peaks during winter as wellā€¦