Corona virus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trudeau's (Canadian prime minister) wife tested positive for it. I don't want to sound like a tin-foil hat wearin, gonna-start-bottlin' air conspiracy theorist but does anyone else find it odd that so many celebrity types are all the sudden testing positive? I mean, most celebrities live a pretty guarded life. I understand they attend large functions but reported cases in Canada and Australia (Hanks) are low. Just seems odd. Like we are way, way off on the numbers across the entire globe.

I didn’t want to be the first accused of the tin foil hat but I’ve been thinking the same. There are 7.53 billion people on earth and it seems a disproportionate amount who have the virus are well known people. It points to one of two possibilities, either this is a global conspiracy for a one world government (that’s a joke sorta) or there are 10,100,1000 times as many cases as we think.
 
If I get a fever and start hacking up stuff I will just stay home from work for a few days. Probably won't even go to the doctor to be diagnosed.
You should go see a doctor and get diagnosed, the earlier the better
 
The number of cases is most likely 50-100 times higher than reported, why? Only the severe and paranoid run to the doctor right away. This is a flu strain, which means symptoms will range from drastic to almost not noticeable. Additionally teh "catch it" point to "report it" point is a up to a week as your body tries to fight it off first before getting real symptoms. Many that have it either won't even know they have it, or won't report, but they will run the chance of spreading it.

If every person spreads it to only 1 person, it doubles it.
 
I didn’t want to be the first accused of the tin foil hat but I’ve been thinking the same. There are 7.53 billion people on earth and it seems a disproportionate amount who have the virus are well known people. It points to one of two possibilities, either this is a global conspiracy for a one world government (that’s a joke sorta) or there are 10,100,1000 times as many cases as we think.
There are 100,000+ known cases, the experts know with the lag and the logarithmic grow curve that there are 1,000,000 who just haven't became sick enough to be counted, they expect 20-60% of the planet to be exposed in 4 months, 7.5 billion isn't a useful number given the population centers of India, Africa and South America haven't yet been effected meaningfully yet, celebs travel more, are around bigger groups more, shake more hands, are more likely to get quick treatment given money and status, and their names are recognizable. If you want to run the math on how many "famous names" we might recognize, and how many non-famous people live in similar areas and have similar lifestyles and find the number of infections for both populations and then find a mathematical disparity I will apologize, but other wise this is complete and utter hogwash.
 
You should go see a doctor and get diagnosed, the earlier the better
The CDC and Mayo answer is you should call your doctor and get their advice for next steps. Even if you have a high fever that won't "break" (101+) and have some difficulty breathing you are still supposed to call first so they can direct you to the right place. Of course if you actually can't breath or have a fever over 103+ someone should call 911.
 
Another and better article referencing that study.


“For this study, researchers used a nebulizer device to put samples of the new virus into the air, imitating what might happen if an infected person coughed or made the virus airborne some other way.

The found that viable virus could be detected up to three hours later in the air, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel.”




I am starting to think the fellow on the Joe Rogan podcast was right when he said it was airborne
 
There are 100,000+ known cases, the experts know with the lag and the logarithmic grow curve that there are 1,000,000 who just haven't became sick enough to be counted, they expect 20-60% of the planet to be exposed in 4 months, 7.5 billion isn't a useful number given the population centers of India, Africa and South America haven't yet been effected meaningfully yet, celebs travel more, are around bigger groups more, shake more hands, are more likely to get quick treatment given money and status, and their names are recognizable. If you want to run the math on how many "famous names" we might recognize, and how many non-famous people live in similar areas and have similar lifestyles and find the number of infections for both populations and then find a mathematical disparity I will apologize, but other wise this is complete and utter hogwash.

There are over 80,000 people in China infected, to 1 billion people, how many famous people in China were infected? Can you show me a headline? There’s 330 million people in America, and if you follow the news celebs and politicians are being exposed and infected at an alarming rate.
 
Last edited:
Another and better article referencing that study.


“For this study, researchers used a nebulizer device to put samples of the new virus into the air, imitating what might happen if an infected person coughed or made the virus airborne some other way.

The found that viable virus could be detected up to three hours later in the air, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel.”




I am starting to think the fellow on the Joe Rogan podcast was right when he said it was airborne
All corona and influenza viruses are airborne - the question is how long and under what conditions.
 
All corona and influenza viruses are airborne - the question is how long and under what conditions.

The official line early on in the reporting on the coronavirus said that it could not be transmitted via the air. That doesn’t seem to be the case, and That’s why I shared it.
 
I don't know, and frankly they won't have much statistically useful data for some time. I would guess +/-0.5% error rate for such a quickly developed assay, but I would guess sample preparation/handling error is a bigger part of the error rate than technical test capabilities. All medical testing has an error rate - it is the normal governing all testing. Seems like low impact in this situation. For example lets assume 0.5% error rate (meaning 0.025% false positive and 0.025% false negative) applied to the MN data that was announced yesterday. Those results showed 319 sick people (not general population) tested with 9 ending up positive. The statistics tell is that less than one of the 9 could be a false positive and less than one of the 310 could be a false negative, but probably one of the results is wrong. So does anything change if the results where 8 out of 319, 9 out of 319 or 10 out of 319? Not at a public health level it doesn't. Of course for the individual error it sucks, but nothing is 100% in the world.

I agree with everything you’ve said, and 9/319 is definitely a high enough prevalence rate that even a really bad test would be useful. I don’t know any details on the cruise ship, or the athletes that turned up positive. If you test an entire cruise ship or entire sports LEAGUE, with a test that results in .5% false positives and there are 1000 people on the cruise ship, that’s 5 false positives. Same goes for sports leagues, and entire cities. You have to have a higher prevalence rate than the error rate of the test or the test is worthless.

Again, when you test a high risk group, like sick people, and get 9/319, then we know some people have it. When you test a large group of people in whom the prevalence is low, you will probably just get a confusing mess rather than a meaningful result.

Is there a higher rate of error when testing a person has a cold? Aren’t all colds a corona virus? How many positives weren’t COVID-19, but rather just some other corona virus that’s been in humans for many years and isn’t a big deal?
 
The CDC would be the logical place to coordinate this, but you know who cut you know what, so they aren't exactly running on full strength
U been watching to much of the view brent?
 
The official line early on in the reporting on the coronavirus said that it cannot be transmitted via the air. That doesn’t seem to be the case, and That’s why I shared it.

I suppose the difference is how folks are referring to "airborne". I have been viewing to include "aerosolized person to person" which I never heard was in question, vs maybe some answering the far scarier question of sustained presence airborne infectiousness. But we will learn more every day, and my guess is the hindsight risk will fall half way between the naysayers and the doomdayers.
 
I am starting to think the fellow on the Joe Rogan podcast was right when he said it was airborne
Aside from the book insta-fame promotion, airborne transmission is accurate... That's the directive we've received though... to each his her own.
 
If there wasnt a test for coronavirus someone would of started a thread titled "dang it's a bad flu season" because that's all this is and it's a relatively wussy flu.
If you want to go down this road at least accurately refer to it has a "flu with attitude" as it kicks the flu's ass headsup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Forum statistics

Threads
113,615
Messages
2,026,751
Members
36,244
Latest member
ryan96
Back
Top