Got punted from Facebook because cv19

[OnMyWay]

OK, back to the original post, which was actually about censorship.  Tagging @Mike J

We discussed all the stats, death rates, etc., etc.  Testing is critical, most agree.  I'm not sure if this is one or two tests.  One to see if you have it, and one to see if you HAD it and now have anti-bodies that would allow you to go back into the world.

Finally, mass testing is getting done.  Check the stats on Worldometers.  Testing numbers are climbing rapidly and developing into a more robust data set.  The larger the data set is, the more accurate projections become.  In the beginning, they only had "models" to go by.  Very little current data and a lot of data from past events intertwined.  Now, they can project from real, current data.

The more that current data is studied, the more it appears that past projections were far off.  Yes, people are dying and it is all over the news, every minute.  News organizations are one of the businesses that probably do well during troubled times.

The news conference in the video below is from two legitimate doctors in California, two days ago, I think.  Take the time to view it with an open mind.  After viewing it, do you think I should be allowed to post it on Facebook?  Twitter?  Who decides?  From what I have read here and elsewhere, only You Tube would not censor this.  Do we live in China or the free world?  I'm tempted to post it on FB as a test.

 

[AusExpat]

Tyranny.

Youtube deleted this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZHQbKe9TtI&feature=youtu.be

Because it is against community guidlines.

It is a new therapy being trialed at the very well respected Cedars-Sinai Hospital and was a short information video on how the process works.

So now Youtube are banning medical videos from legitimate hospitals if it goes against thier vaccine putsch.

This is truly frightening that they think they have the power to do this.

[Tommy T.]

20 minutes ago, AusExpat said:

This is truly frightening that they think they have the power to do this.

Sorry to say, Aus... but I think they just proved - sadly - that they can do exactly that...

[Mike J]

5 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

The news conference in the video below is from two legitimate doctors in California, two days ago, I think. 

My internet is too slow to stream the video.  Can you give me a summary of their conclusions and recommendations?   I am looking at the patch on his shirt  difficult to read, is he an ER doctor?

[GeoffH]

He made a math error in his calculations about the chances of people in California catching COVID-19, he used a 'snapshot number' not the sum of the total of the numbers under the graph over time.  That underestimates the total number of cases and serious illness and then proceeds to base his case around that snapshot number.  

I agree with his point that people are staying away from ER facilities for other conditions because they're scared of getting 'the COVID' but that in and of itself is not sufficient reason IMO to remove social distancing.

 

*cynical mode on*

 Could an ER doctor in a private hospital ER that's seeing reduced ER patients possibly have a financial interest in seeing those numbers increase?  hmmm?

Edited April 25, 2020 by GeoffH

[AusExpat]

Wonder if they are going to ban Governor Cuomo too for spread truth.

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-cuomo-20200423-alxgtumui5hk3odbusu2yr6kxq-story.html

Quote

Cuomo said an eye-popping 21% of people from the five boroughs who were picked to be tested outside supermarkets and big box stores have contracted the disease at some point.

The study suggests nearly two million New Yorkers in the city have gotten the feared virus, including a slightly larger number of men than women, Cuomo suggested.

“What does it mean? They were infected three weeks ago and four weeks ago and five weeks ago or six weeks ago,” Cuomo. said. “They have the virus and they developed the antibodies and they are recovered.”

 

2 minutes ago, Mike J said:

My internet is too slow to stream the video.  Can you give me a summary of their conclusions and recommendations?   I am looking at the patch on his shirt  difficult to read, is he an ER doctor?

I only watched a portion but it is that 30-50% of the population have already had the virus which means the actualy fatality rate is about 0.12% - 0.2%. Also to note is the virus peaked about 3 to 4 weeks ago and is already dropping off significantly and it raises the possibility that 'we' already have heard immunity. basically it's not as dangerous as the scare mongering media have been telling us - but their ratings and viewership are right up aren't they?

There are anti-body studies coming out from different states now supporting these early CA findings.

 

Summary: The lethality is about the same as the seasonal 'flu.

[AusExpat]

1 minute ago, GeoffH said:

He made a math error in his calculations about the chances of people in California catching COVID-19, he used a 'snapshot number' not the sum of the toal of the numbers under the graph over time.  That underestimates the total number of cases and serious illness and then proceeds to base his case around that snapshot number.  

I agree with his point that people are staying away from ER facilities for other conditions because they're scared of getting 'the COVID' but that in an of itself is not sufficient reason IMO to remove social distancing.

 

*cynical mode on*

 Could an ER doctor in a private hospital ER that's seeing reduced ER patients possibly have a financial interest in seeing those numbers increase?  hmmm?

I am not sure but the hospitals are getting $9,000 for each covid patient and $39,000 if they intubate them - I see a clear quandary there.

But what the doctor is talking about is being replicated across the country in differnet tests inc the NIH and UC Stanford who clearly do not have financial gains tied to this.

[GeoffH]

I would need to see a proper mathematical analysis before I'd accept that the CFR is as low as seasonal flu (I concede it could be).

The studies I've read so far suggest between 0.6% and 1.2% and that's where I'm betting it will end up.

His CFR is ignoring the people who died at home and aren't included in the official COVID-19 death rates and it ignores people in hospital emergency departments dying of comorbidities brought forward by COVID-19.

The whole 'dying with COVID-19 or dying of COVID-19' debate.

[Tommy T.]

8 minutes ago, AusExpat said:

Quote

“What does it mean? They were infected three weeks ago and four weeks ago and five weeks ago or six weeks ago,” Cuomo. said. “They have the virus and they developed the antibodies and they are recovered.”

 

Aus... I think that comment brings us back to some I and others have made before... The truth is that we just don't know so much about this scourge. We don't know if people can become immune. We don't know, if so, how long that might last. To me, these are really the scary things about this. And reading more news articles, it appears people (especially Pres...you know who) are grasping at straws as they try to figure out treatments and prevention.... 

 

5 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

comorbidities

There you are again, Geoff!!! Throwing around a $10 word! Glad I have dictionary on this laptop!!!

[AusExpat]

3 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

I would need to see a proper mathematical analysis before I'd accept that the CFR is as low as seasonal flu (I concede it could be).

The studies I've read so far suggest between 0.6% and 1.2% and that's where I'm betting it will end up.

His CFR is ignoring the people who died at home and aren't included in the official COVID-19 death rates and it ignores people in hospital emergency departments dying of comorbidities brought forward by COVID-19.

The whole 'dying with COVID-19 or dying of COVID-19' debate.

The good take away from it all even at your highest rate of 1.2% is that the fatality rate is nowhere near the published Italian rates they used to scare everyone into their homes which leads us to question what were they doing that got the figures up so high?