The Coronavirus thread

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?
.

It doesn't matter
Facts of the case is what matters
This is a classic scientology tactic
Take a famous named university and attach it to your test or study
Scientology uses Oxford instead of Hopkins

Quote: OnceDear

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.

Do you think Johns Hopkins would allow the University name and logo to be attached to a study if it did not have merit?


Here is a peer-reviewed study on Ivermectin Prophylaxis.

"In this citywide ivermectin prophylaxis program, a large, statistically significant decrease in mortality rate was observed after the program began among the entire population of city residents. When comparing subjects that used ivermectin regularly, non-users were two times more likely to die from COVID-19 while ivermectin users were 7% less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 (p = 0.003)."

This is a peer-eviewed Lancet study that found vaccinated people are just as likely as unvaccinated to spread the Delta Variant.

“SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated)."

Quote: OnceDear

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.

Looks pretty legitimate to me OD, I think you are letting your lefty bias cloud your thinking. From the JHU website. Notice Healthcare is listed first.

"Healthcare. Finance. Foreign policy. Any sector related to national and global markets depends on the analytical skills of an economist. We can’t make informed, important decisions without their expertise.

DEGREE TYPE:
Master of Science
ENTRY TERMS:
Fall, Spring, and Summer
MODE OF STUDY:
Online, Onsite
LOCATION:
Washington, DC
REQUIREMENTS:
10 courses
TIME TO COMPLETE:
12 – 24 months
TUITION:
$5,060 per course. Final rates pending approval of the Board of Trustees. Learn more about tuition and fees."

Out of the thirty-four studies eligible for the Johns Hopkins review, twenty-two were peer reviewed.

It is a meta-analysis of mostly peer reviewed studies.

See Page 26: Table 2: Metadata for the studies included in the meta-analysis

So much for Snopes.

Quote: Tanko

Out of the thirty-four studies eligible for the Johns Hopkins review, twenty-two were peer reviewed.

It is a meta-analysis of mostly peer reviewed studies.

See Page 26: Table 2: Metadata for the studies included in the meta-analysis

So much for Snopes.

And yet it contradicted the findings of most of them.
reconcile that.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm?s_cid=mm7106e1_w

Stacey Abrams receives backlash for posing maskless with room full of young masked children

Again, one set of rules for you, another for them.

Quote: rxwine

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm?s_cid=mm7106e1_w

Makes sense to me. But I distinctly remember the initial recommendation to wear masks was to help you not transmit it to others, NOT to protect you from the virus. I guess they changed their minds sometime between then and now.

Quote: rxwine

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm?s_cid=mm7106e1_w

The ones taking more care to wear a mask were also more likely to be cautious in other ways. So it's not exactly a measure of the effectiveness of the masks and more a measure of the effectiveness of the wearers' attitude?

E.g. I wear an N95, and I shop when it's quiet and I avoid crowds... and I make all my own dresses $:o)
My nephew doesn't wear a mask, wouldn't get the vaccine, takes no precautions and.... Currently is at home, his entire family and his parents ( of like mind ) ill with covid.
So my mask might have helped me, or maybe it was the social distancing or the vaccine or.....

"The findings in this report are subject to at least eight limitations. First, this study did not account for other preventive behaviors that could influence risk for acquiring infection, including adherence to physical distancing recommendations. "

I had a random thought while watching a guy drop Plinko disks. Even though Plinko disks are small enough go through all the pegs to the bottom they still need a force (gravity) to keep them going in that direction. And perhaps that is how masks work, even the cloth ones. Some of the viral load is thrown back by just hitting the threads. Since they’re worn perpidicular to gravity, gravity at least doesn’t help.

Sorry, you won’t get the few seconds of your life back from reading that.