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.

 

Removed YouTube video goes viral ... a double switch ?

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2020 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoctorBluechip
Sorry to say , but those doctors on the removed video are not credible imo . Neither is their research or the conclusion they want to push so hard.

That's funny because I feel mostly the same way about what you push so hard nearly every day.

Stay at home. We're all fine with that. Maybe you'll be the next one deleted from the internet because you disagree with popular opinion.




posted on May, 1 2020 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: ketsuko

You are always so right!! but how do we reverse this censorship crisis? does that article that you linked go into any solutions??


It's a lengthy piece and spends its second talking about we've lost our ability to realize that experts are often untrustworthy and that it's a journalist's job to understand that. Iraq'a WMD problem was caused by blind trust in experts with military rank because they had rank, for example.

He points out that there is always and has always been plenty of room in all of this COVID affair to have reasonable and valid discussion about the issues surrounding hydroxychloroquine, Sweden's approach, the very real downsides of enforced stay at home in terms of mental health, abuse, suicide, and other issues, the economic impacts ... everything. He mentions that we've gotten to where everything is political and not just an issue or angle to be discussed, a benefit or drawback.



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
It is not a bad article, but the author takes the edge off of facts to help him make his points. For instance:


The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant. It’s astonishing that they don’t see this.

What's astonishing is that he either doesn't know Trump did not instruct anyone to inject disinfectant, or is intentionally glossing over the truth for effect. There are multiple similar issues.

He is perpetuating the talking points of those (people) he opposes in the article.
edit on 5/1/2020 by DictionaryOfExcuses because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

The piece doesn't have to be perfect in order to still make a good point.

However, the one thing that I've heard off the radio this morning that I don't think anyone has mentioned is the actual source of the two-doctor video in question.

It wasn't posted by the doctors themselves. It was actually posted by the local ABC affiliate who interviewed these doctors. That ABC affiliate is apparently highly incensed that their video was censored by YouTube as not meeting their standards. They felt that they grilled the two doctors with tough questions trying to expose them as not being terribly expert, but they were also trying to be real journalists.

It seems they are suing YouTube for press censorship.



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

In the UK corporations are given ' person status ' so they can be held accountable and sued . This also gives them a straight 20% top tax rate which is exactly the same as any sole trader.
The UK government has had problems with Google not paying taxes due. What was done in part about this was to swap tax breaks for Google's information on other persons liable for taxation .


edit on 1-5-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Sorry to say , but those doctors on the removed video are not credible imo . Neither is their research or the conclusion they want to push so hard.


I and many others considered it credible because we had done the math . Anyone with a brain knew the CFR would be coming down hand-in-hand with the huge number of new cases reported by testing . All they did was confirm our numbers .

Now it’s up to you disprove them with your math.

I don’t want to hear the bleating of the real sheep . Yammering on with a opinion devoid of any facts.
edit on 1-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Adam Schiff sent a letter to YouTube and Google and Twitter earlier in the week telling them to block any video that does not line up with what dr. Fauci and the World Health Organization says.



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown

Sorry to say , but those doctors on the removed video are not credible imo . Neither is their research or the conclusion they want to push so hard.


I and many others considered it credible because we had done the math . Anyone with a brain knew the CFR would be coming down hand-in-hand with the huge number of new cases reported by testing . All they did was confirm our numbers .

Now it’s up to you disprove them with your math.

I don’t want to hear the bleating of the real sheep . Yammering on with a opinion devoid of any facts.


Well let's ask you WHEN that huge number of NEW cases became NEW CASES ? If it's recently , I'll be right , we re # ed .

Because if you go by John Hopkins figures of CFR per 100 confirmed cases , it's between 10 and 12%

If you go Italy 's hospitalisation rate ( about 33% ) of cases , we re still definitely # ed .

If you think mass populist maths is going to get us out of reality , I think you're deluding yourselves



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

I think we are seeing where ties really lie through all this though.

Ive never trusted organizations like the WHO (or the UN..) and I certainly havent seen anything that would change my opinion.

Alphabet Inc aligning with them, much in the same control narrative/paradigm as the CCP, might be extremely telling.

My own suspicion would be that a group like Alphabet Inc has actually suborned the rest (alongside other technofascists), rather than the other way round.. Could be wrong though.

I get your frustration.. But I will say this, for the first time in my life Im actually looking deeply into legitimate studies on stuff I used to kinda discredit. Everything from honey to Vit D & C has some really fascinating research, still accessible (for now). I use duckduckgo to search and Brave browser, for whatever that does.

Even when it comes to HCQ+Zinc.. Its so odd to hear about extended trials during an active pandemic, while also dismissing case reports as anecdotal (the insinuation being "useless"). Yet.. Studies into zinc+ionophores on SARS-CoV goes back almost 2 decades. Different virus, yes, but then Oxford comes out talking about their vaccine that they could make quickly because.. its based on one they believed worked with SARS-CoV.

Its all just.. strange to me and reeks of ulterior motives. Beyond that, if cytokine storms are occuring in some of those rarer cases that present with a bunch of different symptoms, a typical vaccine could be rough. Given Dr. Yadegar's success at Cedars-Sinai, it might indicate that is indeed what is happening.



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Those new cases became new cases because they just started going things like antibody testing and testing places like meatpacking plants and prisons.

They discovered 126 new cases at a meatpacking facility in our area. 96 of them were asymptomatic. Please explain to me how asymptomatic cases are going to die. What you're seeing is that this disease is often so mild that the people its infecting don't even know they have it.

Anitbody testing if confirming that as many as 1 in 4 of us may have already had it. So where are the piles of bodies if that many of us have had it and 10 to 12% of that quarter of 350 million have died?



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Yeah I read Schiff's letters. Thanks for the thread on it



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Those new cases became new cases because they just started going things like antibody testing and testing places like meatpacking plants and prisons.

They discovered 126 new cases at a meatpacking facility in our area. 96 of them were asymptomatic. Please explain to me how asymptomatic cases are going to die. What you're seeing is that this disease is often so mild that the people its infecting don't even know they have it.

Anitbody testing if confirming that as many as 1 in 4 of us may have already had it. So where are the piles of bodies if that many of us have had it and 10 to 12% of that quarter of 350 million have died?



I see this again and again where people have this problem of understanding the continuum of time .

Have you heard of ' tomorrow ' ?

How about ' next week ' ??

Do you know what ' incubation period ' means ?



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

If you think youtube cares more about making money than political ideology, you've been living under a rock.

Jaden
edit on 1-5-2020 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip


Summary: The first round of antibody testing in L.A country reveals approximately 4.1% of the adult population has COVID-19 antibodies. Adjusting for margin of error, between 2.8% to 5.6% of the adult population has antibodies to the virus. This means between 221,000 and 442,000 adults in the Los Angeles area have been infected with coronavirus. The estimate is up to 55 times higher than confirmed cases reported for the area.


Do the math



A mass testing in the Italian town of Vo’ Euganeo, in the northeast of Italy, found more than 40% of those infected had no symptoms. It’s highly probable that once we know the real prevalence of the virus, its fatality rate will plummet.


Italy


If the state infection rate stands at 13.9% on a large scale, that would amount to roughly 2.7 million people who have been infected, and drops the fatality rate of the virus down to about 0.5%, the governor said.

On that same basis, the 21.2% infection rate in New York City would suggest that more than 1.7 million city residents have had the virus.

New York state has 263,460 confirmed cases of coronavirus and a total of 15,740 people have died, 438 of them on Tuesday alone.


Only about 2 1/2 million previously undetected cases in New York

Nope the CFR is plummeting just like everybody told you .
edit on 1-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

I see this problem all the time where people just assume someone else is an idiot because they don't perfectly agree with them.



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown


The case fatality rate (CFR) represents the proportion of cases who eventually die from a disease.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." [8]

(Methods for Estimating the Case Fatality Ratio for a Novel, Emerging Infectious Disease - Ghani et al, American Journal of Epidemiology).


In other words, current deaths belong to a total case figure of the past, not to the current case figure in which the outcome (recovery or death) of a proportion (the most recent cases) hasn't yet been determined.

The correct formula, therefore, would appear to be:

CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-[T]
(where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)

This would constitute a fair attempt to use values for cases and deaths belonging to the same group of patients.

One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak).

Let's take, for example, the data at the end of February 8, 2020: 813 deaths (cumulative total) and 37,552 cases (cumulative total) worldwide.

If we use the formula (deaths / cases) we get:

813 / 37,552 = 2.2% CFR (flawed formula).

With a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death, we would correct the above formula by using February 1 cumulative cases, which were 14,381, in the denominator:

Feb. 8 deaths / Feb. 1 cases = 813 / 14,381 = 5.7% CFR (correct formula, and estimating T=7).

T could be estimated by simply looking at the value of (current total deaths + current total recovered) and pair it with a case total in the past that has the same value. For the above formula, the matching dates would be January 26/27, providing an estimate for T of 12 to 13 days. This method of estimating T uses the same logic of the following method, and therefore will yield the same result.

An alternative method, which has the advantage of not having to estimate a variable, and that is mentioned in the American Journal of Epidemiology study cited previously as a simple method that nevertheless could work reasonably well if the hazards of death and recovery at any time t measured from admission to the hospital, conditional on an event occurring at time t, are proportional, would be to use the formula:

CFR = deaths / (deaths + recovered)

which, with the latest data available, would be equal to:

239,295 / (239,295 + 1,079,298) = 18% CFR (worldwide)

If we now exclude cases in mainland China, using current data on deaths and recovered cases, we get:

234,662 / (234,662 + 1,001,656) = 19.0% CFR (outside of mainland China)

The sample size above is limited, and the data could be inaccurate (for example, the number of recoveries in countries outside of China could be lagging in our collection of data from numerous sources, whereas the number of cases and deaths is more readily available and therefore generally more up to par).

There was a discrepancy in mortality rates (with a much higher mortality rate in China) which however is not being confirmed as the sample of cases outside of China is growing in size. On the contrary, it is now higher outside of China than within.

That initial discrepancy was generally explained with a higher case detection rate outside of China especially with respect to Wuhan, where priority had to be initially placed on severe and critical cases, given the ongoing emergency.

Unreported cases would have the effect of decreasing the denominator and inflating the CFR above its real value. For example, assuming 10,000 total unreported cases in Wuhan and adding them back to the formula, we would get a CFR of 18.0% (quite different from the CFR of 18% based strictly on confirmed cases).

Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College in the UK, said his “best guess” was that there were 100,000 affected by the virus even though there were only 2,000 confirmed cases at the time. [11]

Without going that far, the possibility of a non negligible number of unreported cases in the initial stages of the crisis should be taken into account when trying to calculate the case fatally rate.

As the days go by and the city organized its efforts and built the infrastructure, the ability to detect and confirm cases improved. As of February 3, for example, the novel coronavirus nucleic acid testing capability of Wuhan had increased to 4,196 samples per day from an initial 200 samples.[10]

A significant discrepancy in case mortality rate can also be observed when comparing mortality rates as calculated and reported by China NHC: a CFR of 3.1% in the Hubei province (where Wuhan, with the vast majority of deaths is situated), and a CFR of 0.16% in other provinces (19 times less).

Finally, we shall remember that while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%.



link

I don't think everyone's all that good at maths tbh

And from contracting the disease to being hospitalised and then dying can take a month.

It's highly contagious , so new cases are likely to be only just incubating . Not ' had' the disease already ...about to get it instead.

There's also a factor called ' double exposure ' , where on the second exposure you develop the disease . Millions of new cases ? Much more room for that then .

Once again , hopeful maths doesn't get you away from reality .



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Thing is that they are just testing employees.

This isn't like people who are showing up sick, really sick. These are crews going into the meatpacking plants and methodically testing every employee onsite, sick or healthy, and since they are at work in these times presumably with measures in place to attempt to ensure the health of the workers, most of them will be feeling healthy.

These won't all be new cases as in ... they just came down with it. Most of them quite likely had it for a while and are at some point in their disease process.

They didn't even know until an employee or three got seriously ill that there was a cluster at the Smithfield plant that started them looking at conditions in the meatpacking plants. So this thing has been in circulation there since this outbreak began.

Ask yourself how plausible it is that in a county that barely had any cases at all because I've been keeping tabs on it, they suddenly had 126 people all get newly infected? Where did that come from? It's far more likely this has been a presence there for some time, and no one knew because very few people were getting ill enough to present for testing under the previous testing criteria. It's likely to be widespread in the community.

Remember, assuming you've been playing attention, that my husband's company has ties with a facility in China and had Chinese visitors in mid to late December and an illness started circulating then with symptoms similar to COVID? My whole family had it in January. That business and this meatpacking plant are in the same city, same county.

No reason to think that COVID hasn't been circulating around all this time.



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Slaughterhouses and zoonotic transmission aside , what's posted above in terms of CFR mathematics , is not the basic maths assumptions that were made in the removed video the subject of the thread.

They were making complex formulas with variable adjustments into simplistic assumptions.
Again , they were wrongly assuming the large numbers of infections indicated by antibody tests have HAD the disease , whereas this is ongoing developing situation .

It's a serious thing that people keep looking in the present or the past for answers so they can forget the possibilities of the future with. It's only the future that matters . Most people , YouTube consumers can't apply the complex maths to realistically work out CFR, and they weren't being asked to , they were being shown simplified nonsense .

On purpose , by the look of it


edit on 1-5-2020 by DoctorBluechip because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Your link from world meters was last updated March 5th.


And from contracting the disease to being hospitalised and then dying can take a month.


Good thing 80% to 95% or mild. And those numbers will get better with testing from the people they didn’t even know they had the virus .


It's highly contagious , so new cases are likely to be only just incubating . Not ' had' the disease already ...about to get it instead.


See above . As far as the RO factor being around 2 that’s a good thing . That means there’s more cases out there undiagnosed mini asymptomatic cases with mild symptoms. Which will increase the percentage of male reactions and lower the CFR .


There's also a factor called ' double exposure ' , where on the second exposure you develop the disease . Millions of new cases ? Much more room for that then .



Nope

Yesterday


once again , hopefully maths does it get you away from reality


if it’s your reality you’re speaking of. I want to get as far away as possible .

Now before you bring it up .

Covid-19 mutate’s half as fast as the seasonal flu .

The only mutation identified so far makes Covid 19 less contagious .

Viruses can mutate their self out of existence .

It’s not proven how long the antibodies will last.



posted on May, 1 2020 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DoctorBluechip

So you're all in favor of "saving people from themselves"? How paternalistic and patronizing of you.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join