The Coronavirus thread

Quote: OnceDear

Going .viral on its USP as being 'A John Hopkins Study' it has got the drop on those who it discredits. Right wing media are all over it, propagating it, using it to say "See we told you so"

But it is just some paper written than 3 economists. They may be good economists. The fact they managed to get it published on the JHU web site emblazoned by a JHU logo really is unfortunate. JHU should get a press release out, like NOW.

"A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots."

This one has.

Too many people are stupid, lazy or just don't care, to do what you did.

Quote: rxwine

Too many people are stupid, lazy or just don't care, to do what you did.

Fox news is all over it, Oh to hell with it's bona fides.
Not only telling its viewers to go read it, it is also accusing the rest of the world's MSM of trying to cover it up.
Must be due for trump or some GOP senator to use their platform to promote it.

This research report is classic viral BS misinformation. Had me fooled long enough to take notice, but as I was reading it, I couldn't help but think it had been dumbed down for some snappy sound bites for quoting.

There's stupid and there's twisted.

So I got an antibody test when donating blood. Apparantly, I had COVID, likley after my vaccitions, but before my booster. I must have been completely asymptomatic, because I don't even recall the last time I have had a cold. Great personal reinforcement that the vaccination works for me.

Quote: OnceDear

Fox news is all over it, Oh to hell with it's bona fides.
Not only telling its viewers to go read it, it is also accusing the rest of the world's MSM of trying to cover it up.
Must be due for trump or some GOP senator to use their platform to promote it.

This research report is classic viral BS misinformation. Had me fooled long enough to take notice, but as I was reading it, I couldn't help but think it had been dumbed down for some snappy sound bites for quoting.

There's stupid and there's twisted.

Spoke too soon. Kevin McCarthy already on the case.

And Tucker Carlson downright LIED
"So a new analysis by the decidedly non-right wing Johns Hopkins University has concluded that COVID lockdowns in 2020 didn't work. This is a direct quote from Johns Hopkins."


No. That's a direct quote from a non peer reviewed report from three economists, One of whom has a controversial past for Covid lies.

Meanwhile, over on Australian news... "An expert says"

"John Hopkins expert’s fury at ‘ignored’ lockdown study
An expert says a new study showing that lockdowns were ineffective in preventing Covid deaths has been ignored."



And so it should be.

Quote: Gandler

So I got an antibody test when donating blood. Apparantly, I had COVID, likley after my vaccitions, but before my booster. I must have been completely asymptomatic, because I don't even recall the last time I have had a cold. Great personal reinforcement that the vaccination works for me.

Very interesting. I would love to know if I ever had it. I’m pretty much the only one left in my family who hasn’t gotten it at this point (at least, if I did, I had no idea)

Quote: ams288

Very interesting. I would love to know if I ever had it. I’m pretty much the only one left in my family who hasn’t gotten it at this point (at least, if I did, I had no idea)

Its very easy, if you are not afraid of blood draws, lots of places offer them for free. Or just ask your DR next time you get bloodwork done. (Or if you donate blood some organization provide it as a perk for donating, Red Cross for example).

Now, that I am reading more into it, its also possible that it may be from vaccines (I got the booster about a month before donating), so even the FDA site says this could mean either way. Apparently you can get specialized bloodwork done for a more accurate assessment to gauge levels, but that is outside of my interest because it would not change my health or behavior (if I knew I actively had COVID of course that would only to protect others, but knowing weeks-months after the fact is not useful).

Honestly, I would have never checked if the donor bank did not email me my results.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currently-recommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety

Quote: OnceDear

[BUT.... Checking Snopes...

So, Snopes is your Go-To source when you want the facts.

Want to see who runs Snopes?

Compare those credentials to those of the authors.

Perhaps Snopes co-founder Mikkelson who is no longer allowed to write, after he plagiarized sixty articles, and his former porn star/escort wife, didn’t read the abstract.

It is a meta-analysis, which is a type of peer review. 18,590 studies were identified and 34 studies qualified after three levels of screening. Of those, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

As for it not being the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was published by The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise.

Co-authored by a Founder of that same Institute.

Quote: Tanko

Quote: OnceDear

[BUT.... Checking Snopes...

So, Snopes is your Go-To source when you want the facts.

Want to see who runs Snopes?

Compare those credentials to those of the authors.

Perhaps Snopes co-founder Mikkelson who is no longer allowed to write, after he plagiarized sixty articles, and his former porn star/escort wife, didn’t read the abstract.

It is a meta-analysis, which is a type of peer review. 18,590 studies were identified and 34 studies qualified after three levels of screening. Of those, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

As for it not being the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was published by The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise.

Co-authored by a Founder of that same Institute.

Meta Analysis doesn't mean it was reviewed by other peers. Meta Analysis itself has to also be peer reviewed. YOU Tanko could do a meta analysis of peer reviewed literature, for what that's worth.

There's already other peers of theirs who have questions about how they analyzed the data. That's what needs to happen. One of the questions was why epidemiologist data was minimized. Another was how did they account for severe compliance vs. mild of the same measures?

--- as a matter of fact, when Wizard does an analysis of a game he usually puts it out to see if he missed anything. As good as he is and as often as he does it, I believe he gets some corrective feedback once in awhile. (I don't know how often, maybe he will come correct me on that)

Quote: Tanko

Quote: OnceDear

[BUT.... Checking Snopes...

So, Snopes is your Go-To source when you want the facts.

Want to see who runs Snopes?

Compare those credentials to those of the authors.

Perhaps Snopes co-founder Mikkelson who is no longer allowed to write, after he plagiarized sixty articles, and his former porn star/escort wife, didn’t read the abstract.

It is a meta-analysis, which is a type of peer review. 18,590 studies were identified and 34 studies qualified after three levels of screening. Of those, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

As for it not being the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was published by The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise.

Co-authored by a Founder of that same Institute.

Oh, I know that snopes is not unbiased font of all truth. But it shines a light on such 'facts'
18590, 34, 24..... This was nothing like peer review. Ultimately the Paper was the work of 3 guys we never heard of. It's as solid or weak as those guys. Because of the way it went viral, it got first mover advantage,
The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise. is just a publishing enabler. You might just as easily find some ebook on martingale that is available on amazon and call it an amazon system. or some roulette system on youtube and call it a youtube recommended system.