It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pushing back patient zero, possibly good news

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Hi you first quote has


Prime Minister Theresa May insisted the government was still doing enough to support the health service, but blamed flu for the pressures on hospitals.

but Boris Johnson became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 24 July 2019

So that would be a whole year earlier and then the mutations could have developed into the versions we have today.

But still have trouble see a Bat with SARS being eating raw by a HIV positive person randomly connecting a viruses into SARS-Conv-HIV in Wuhan. What a coincident.




posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You probably thought I was taking a huge gamble back in late December by posting definitively that this was just another cold virus and not a big deal medically.

But I knew what I was talking about because I did a few minutes of basic research - and am still dismayed no one was asking the right questions for months now.

I wasn't even gambling hardly it was so absolutely clear and obvious from the get go.

Figuring out the 42/137 threads was far far more difficult, mysterious, and complex than analyzing this virus. Putting together a comprehensive understanding of honey took me years of thinking and questioning.

This virus took me 5 minutes to deconstruct. This was no challenge.

The only challenge I really have is dealing with humans and trying to mitigate all this disinfo and bs. It's very frustrating sometimes and I get emotional and upset. So forgive me for being such a jerk about it lately. Im an arrogant asshole sometimes so I'm sincerely sorry because I love all of you and just want to be valuable and help make all our lives richer.
edit on 3/25/2020 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: RadioRobert

Hi you first quote has


Prime Minister Theresa May insisted the government was still doing enough to support the health service, but blamed flu for the pressures on hospitals.

but Boris Johnson became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 24 July 2019

So that would be a whole year earlier and then the mutations could have developed into the versions we have today.

But still have trouble see a Bat with SARS being eating raw by a HIV positive person randomly connecting a viruses into SARS-Conv-HIV in Wuhan. What a coincident.


Great catch! That's 2018, so that number/time is highly unlikely to be related. It's too late to edit. :/ Conversely, it would show that overcrowded hospitals in the NIH system aren't exactly unheard of.

The whole virus origin story is its own thread.



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The Oxford group came out since then addressing prevalence in the general population and the effect it has on rate of growth, so probably not. Another clue you didn't bother to read any of it before opining and zeroing in on mortality rates as some sort of red herring.
But you could always email him and hope he replies.



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




The Oxford group came out since then addressing prevalence in the general population and the effect it has on rate of growth, so probably not

Got a link?



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 08:57 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Here's my post from a few days ago estimating .03% exactly:

thread "Let's Call This What it is"

I called it exactly what it was but that post specifically showed how I got that estimated number.

I have taken an extraordinary amount of flak over this entire controversy and I accept that as the price for sharing Truth from my Heart.

Its a big deal to me because I'm like the poorest person in the entire USA right now financially (I barely survive on 20$ a month) yet I feel like the most wealthy person in terms of knowledge.

Getting this number right when everyone else was so wrong and unfair is a massive Blessing in my very modest life. God really answered my prayers again that the Truth would vindicate me.

Now... Will anyone listen as I explain the safest most effective treatment for killing Corona? It's honey.

It's not any honey, though all variants will show at least some effect. We need to test 1000s of types of honey to find the most powerful one against whichever diseases. Some are better for others based on what Flora the bees visited (as the Flora contains specific medical properties).



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Find that honey! Make a mint!



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Called it. I said a month or so ago that it was likely to have been spreading since at least October/November.

It's been circulating since then, and the reason for all the increases of serious cases and fatalities are due to the gross misshandling from the governments, around the world, people panicking and the overload of medical facilitie because of it.

The first thing the Chinese government did was force everyone in affected areas into confined spaces whether they were infected or not, and of course that led to an increase of infections. They forced people into their homes with no access to vital medical care, and without access to food.

Italy pretty much invited Covid-19 with arms wide open. They basically had a country wide pox party, and then of course the eventuality of a freakout caused an overload on their socialist healthcare system.

There are some key differences in how healthcare is ran in the US, and we're going to see the difference.

Give it another month or so, unless the government keeps milking it, the public is going to get over the panic, and the mandated curfews and quarantines will slacken.

Then, we'll be onto the next crisis. Probably the asteroid, then probably another military conflict. I'm hoping for an alien invasion at some point. At least that would actually be novel.

I'm sticking to that for now.
edit on 2532020 by AutomateThis1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Another proponent of a targeted response based on tiers of vulnerability.



...
What we can do now is gather and assess data from the US experience, and determine if a pivot to a more risk-based concentration of protections can be carried out. The goal is better protection, not less, for those most in need. To me, the prospect looks promising.

As for the economy- it simply can't be unbundled from public health; this is what the vitally important “social determinants of health” is all about. It is a major reason, even the major reason, why some people are healthy and others are not. As my colleagues focusing their entire careers on this matter have said: your zip code may say much more about your prospects for health than your genetic code.
...

We need to be thinking about more than one way to save lives, because there is more than one way to ruin and lose them. Any of them is bad, preventing any is good. Our objective must always be to use data to inform policy aimed at total harm minimization.


Notable: He doesn't recommend ending shelter -in-place behaviour until a systemic shift can be made toward a coherent new policy.



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I don't see where it says "probably not." But it does seem that their model does involve a particular and narrowing assumption. Intentionally, perhaps to to simplify the model?

Our overall approach rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitalisable illness. This proportion is itself only a fraction of the risk groups already well described in the literature[1–4],including the elderly and those carrying critical comorbidities(e.g.asthma).


In New York 13% of those who tested positive are hospitalized. Can you explain how that number can be disregarded? Why that percentage might be expected to change significantly in the near future?



Notable: He doesn't recommend ending shelter -in-place behaviour until a systemic shift can be made toward a coherent new policy.
Not many seem to be recommending that.
edit on 3/25/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AutomateThis1

My biggest concern for the Chinese people are the possible effects of those who might have passed away.. still being where they passed.

I dont know, maybe not a problem. They are taking it seriously enough that they are spraying the streets constantly. But they have so many people and so many reasons not to trust authorities..

Thats not even necessarily in regards to covid, either.



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: muzzleflash

Find that honey! Make a mint!


They have some infused with medicine down at my local 420 dispensary. I haven't tried any yet but I will tomorrow.

Better safe than sorry, I always say....



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: infolurker

I dont know about in the US.. But in early December/late November (not quite sure), I became aware of something "afoot" when trying to get a respirator for general use.

Clearly anecdotal, but I thought it was wierd enough that I looked into it. The things floating around at the time were "rumor," at best, but Ive kept my eye on it since.


Could you go more into this?



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sure. They explain that. For the same reason that the prevalence rate in places that have tested extensively is higher in places like Vó that tested everyone, and not simply on a needs basis as in NY. People in NY are being tested based on severity of systems and those who have known points of contact with already infected people. So NY is obviously oversampling cases in need of hospitalization. They extrapolate those complete rates to the larger population.
edit on 25-3-2020 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

And you think that means that the 13% rate in New York will change? You think that means that the measures that states are taking are unreasonable?



So NY is obviously oversampling cases in need of hospitalization.
13% of known cases require hospitalization. This is a fact, not a model, not a guess. Do you think that number will change significantly over the next weeks? How do unknown cases change this?

edit on 3/25/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: AutomateThis1

My biggest concern for the Chinese people are the possible effects of those who might have passed away.. still being where they passed.

I dont know, maybe not a problem. They are taking it seriously enough that they are spraying the streets constantly. But they have so many people and so many reasons not to trust authorities..

Thats not even necessarily in regards to covid, either.


My concern with the people of China is what all their government possibly did in the guise of controlling their outbreak. China doesn't necessarily need a crises to take advantage of it's people. Who's to say that after all is said and done that their number of fatalities aren't necessarily due to this coronavirus.



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RadioRobert

And you think that means that the 13% rate in New York will change? You think that means that the measures that states are taking are unreasonable?



So NY is obviously oversampling cases in need of hospitalization.
13% of known cases require hospitalization. This is a fact, not a model, not a guess. Do you think that number will change significantly over time? How do unknown cases change this?


Are you really asking how a narrow, targeted sampling around those seriously ill can result in higher apparent rates than extensive sampling? I don't have time for more trolling.



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




Are you really asking how a narrow, targeted sampling around those seriously ill can result in higher apparent rates than extensive sampling?
Sick people are tested. Some are positive and some are not. Of those who are positive 13% require hospitalization. Do you think the number of sick people is going to decline? Do you think, that as the number of cases (not the amount of testing) rises, the number of those requiring hospitalization would not follow suit?

Yes, as testing becomes more available more people with mild symptoms will be found (as will more of those with not so mild infections). That will not affect the fact the number of people requiring hospitalization will increase as more people become infected. And very many more people will get sick, even with the measures taken.

edit on 3/25/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And the rate as a percentage is obviously going to fall with broader testing. Which is why saying stupid things like:



And you think that means that the 13% rate in New York will change?

13% of known cases require hospitalization. This is a fact, not a model, not a guess. Do you think that number will change significantly over time? 

... is either trolling or basic scientific illiteracy. Either way, good luck to you.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join