51 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Really? tell that to the CDC and the administration, cases should not matter but they do to them

They matter only in how they pertain to the deaths and hospitalizations.  They matter as indicators and data that needs to be followed in order to instill public policy to prevent deaths and hospitalizations.  But at the end of the day its the deaths and severe cases that matter.  That's why vaccinations are the most important weapon.  

14 minutes ago, Kz! said:

10 weeks?  

Better up it to 5 jabs per year maybe even 6 to be safe.

My haircut's effectiveness wanes in 72 hours.  That doesn't mean I need a haircut every 72 hours.  You are a f'ing moron, and i can't stress enough how much of a moron you are.

18 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

My haircut's effectiveness wanes in 72 hours.  That doesn't mean I need a haircut every 72 hours.  You are a f'ing moron, and i can't stress enough how much of a moron you are.

says the dude comparing the vaccine to *squints* his haircut. Holy ish are libs becoming dumber. Coronavirus has completely broken them.   

7 hours ago, Dawkins 20 said:

We've had something similar go through our whole house. Sore throats, sneezing, headaches, coughing... but all negative on a rapid test and gone in about 48-72 hours. 

I wonder how common false negatives are.

49 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

A quote from the study conclusion:

 

And here are multiple quotes from the study results section that actually go into detail of the results:

"Difference in Recovery to Negative PCR between Groups

The difference between group A and group B recovery to negative PCR duration was not statistically significant in unpaired t-test, p=0.2314"

"The mean duration of symptomatic recovery was 5.93 days (5 to 10 days) in group A and 6.99 days (4 to 12 days) in group B (Fig. 1g). This difference in time to symptomatic recovery between group A and group B is not statistically significant, p=0.071 (Fig. 1g)"

"In the secondary analysis of subjects who began the study with symptoms, the mean duration of time to negative PCR was 9.061 days in group A and 9.738 days in group B. This was not statistically significant in the unpaired t-test, p=0.0714."

"The mean duration of time to becoming negative PCR of patients without symptoms was 8.364 days in group A and 7.917 days in group B, which was not statistically significant in unpaired t-test, p=0.443 (Fig. 2b)"

"No significant difference in the recovery duration was found in the subgroup analysis of the recovery duration according to the study groups' age."

"The difference in recovery to negative PCR duration was not significant (p=0.231) among the two groups."

"In our study, the difference in recovery to become symptom-free was not statistically significant (Fig. 1c). Nevertheless, the Ivermectin group showed better symptomatic recovery than the HCQ group (Fig. 2 a-d). According to the age among study groups, the difference was not statistically significant (Fig. 2 e). Ivermectin-Doxycycline combination expressed an earlier and faster relief of COVID features (Fig. 1 g) and viral clearance than the HCQ-Azithromycin combination. However, the mean recovery duration is not statistically significant (Fig. 1c)."

This is statistics 101 stuff.  With a p-value >.05, the null hypothesis is retained and the alternative hypothesis rejected.  So I don't really care what blurb they put in the conclusion of the study.  The results of their study show that the hypothesis that Ivermectin provided a benefit should be rejected.  They didn't have a statistically significant finding in any of their measured outcomes.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

I wonder how common false negatives are.

Depends on the test. The ones we used over the holidays were far better at detecting negatives than positives. 98% to 85% - something like that.

1 hour ago, M.C. said:

And I know a man from nantucket...

Oh wow, somebody tried to make a funny . . .

20 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

I wonder how common false negatives are.

Relatively more common with rapid tests. Because you need a significant amount of antigens to produce a positive result.

But if everyone in the household was symptom-free in under 3 days, I doubt it was COVID. More likely a cold virus.

26 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So I don't really care what blurb they put in the conclusion of the study.  

 

Here's Fauci on the quarantine time cut:

The way they came to that conclusion sounds incredibly sciencey. I mean, great stuff guys. The 10 day number was totally not completely arbitrary, I'm sure.  

Twitter suspended the guy who invented the mRNA technology that led to the vaccines, because he's dared to question the effectiveness of the vaccines using the manufacturers own data.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Twitter suspended the guy who invented the mRNA technology that led to the vaccines, because he's dared to question the effectiveness of the vaccines using the manufacturers own data.

 

 

 

 

The time stamp on his post, is 11:32pm, 12-29-2021.

I wonder where he was posting from, that it was nearly midnight?

34 minutes ago, Kz! said:

 

Lol yes let’s ignore the body of the study that contains all of the statistical analysis which they state over and over again bears no statistical significance.  And instead let’s just go off a general non statistical sentence from the conclusion.

awesome.

Its amazing how many people are incapable of reading and understanding basic data.  Is it incompetence or laziness? 

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Lol yes let’s ignore the body of the study that contains all of the statistical analysis which they state over and over again bears no statistical significance.  And instead let’s just go off a general non statistical sentence from the conclusion.

awesome.

Its amazing how many people are incapable of reading and understanding basic data.  Is it incompetence or laziness? 

Phillyterp: "I'm going to just ignore the part of the researchers conclusion I don't like."

 

1 hour ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Meanwhile What really matters

 

As does getting COVID, but that is in the last paragraph of the article.

33 minutes ago, Toty said:

Are there hookers in the Caribbean?

I'm asking for a friend.

The friend is me, Toty. I'm the friend.

Not for your friend, no

2 minutes ago, Toty said:

ok what about for me... Toty?

You’ll need to ask your friend

Candace Owens Tells Fans to Take Quack Cure That Turns Skin Blue

https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-tells-fans-to-take-colloidal-silver-quack-cure-that-turns-skin-blue

Are  you nimrods taking colloidal silver yet?

Pentagon goes on offense vs GOP on vaccine mandates

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/587414-pentagon-goes-on-offense-vs-gop-on-vaccine-mandates

 

My guess is the anti-vax snowflakes would rather send the military to fight and have COVID sweep through the ranks.

8 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Candace Owens Tells Fans to Take Quack Cure That Turns Skin Blue

https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-tells-fans-to-take-colloidal-silver-quack-cure-that-turns-skin-blue

Are  you nimrods taking colloidal silver yet?

 

 

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And here are multiple quotes from the study results section that actually go into detail of the results:

 

This is statistics 101 stuff.  With a p-value >.05, the null hypothesis is retained and the alternative hypothesis rejected.  So I don't really care what blurb they put in the conclusion of the study.  The results of their study show that the hypothesis that Ivermectin provided a benefit should be rejected.  They didn't have a statistically significant finding in any of their measured outcomes.

 

 

O.k., let us assume this study is questionable, at best. Do we need Ivermectin batting 1.000 in order to give it approval? 

I think there's over 20 nations which have approved Ivermectin for treating Covid. 

6 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

O.k., let us assume this study is questionable, at best. Do we need Ivermectin batting 1.000 in order to give it approval? 

I think there's over 20 nations which have approved Ivermectin for treating Covid. 

 

What country do you want the US to be like? India? Egypt?

Sounds like all those countries are dumb compared to us. If they followed The Science™ they'd know there's a scientific consensus that ivermectin is just horse paste. Experts here know it doesn't help at all and fact checkers all agree. 

3 hours ago, Procus said:

Nice meme.  At the moment, Omnicron is relatively mild and predominant from what I'm reading, so that applies across the board.  I have an unvaccinated relative who tested positive a couple of days ago with cold like symptoms and already is recovered.

It's not a meme. It's facts in graph form.

Florida, because its governor is a moron, had its highest wave of deaths late summer of this year.

Omicron may end up ending this pandemic by handing us off to an endemic phase that has a manageable illness. But that doesn't change the fact that right wing idiots whose hubris vastly exceeds their intellect killed thousands of Americans needlessly through reckless policies.

Democrats were almost certainly cautious to a fault in many cases. Republicans on the other hand seemed committed to commanding the tides to recede "cuz 'merica and freedumbs". 

I'll just leave this here

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2787643

 

If you want to prove ineffectiveness then post a study of 30 to 50 yr old with no other troubles and see if Dr Malone gets his (negative) percentage.

I haven't seen it yet.