🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@dramypsyd

Shame, I wonder why he turned down the federal funding? Biden probably had some sort of outrageous conditions on it I suspect, ill have to look it up and read about it. Best of luck getting those kids taken care of. Let me know if i can help.

@dramypsyd Oh hell, what did Biden do this time? Did he break school lunch programs now :( So sorry to hear that, hope your kids get some care and consideration :(

@dramypsyd Agreed, not just kids, everyone should have access to the minimum to survive.

@AmpBenzScientist While I dont doubt there were a few examples of someone engaging in inflated numbers to get aide as was pointed out overall when you consider all the effects that create inaccurate numbers overall the numbers were under reported not over

@mcnado

@mcnado

You are absolutely correct here, Agreed. Thank you for setting him straight.

@AmpBenzScientist

@lackadaisicalsummer@mastodon.social

n95 would not be full hazmat gear by itself no.

if you are in a setting that is high risk for COVID, especially if there is an outbreak in your area, then when in those high risk areas an n95 is a very reasonable precaution.

Dude I'm literally the guy who invented the fastest way to detect COVID 19 in the world (off breath in 4 minutes)... But yea i guess my typos really proved it huh, lol, what a moron.

@mcnado

@lackadaisicalsummer@mastodon.social

Thats true too. Sadly we live in a society where both is true. One half are scared out of their wits and going around like its the end of the world in hazmat gear 24/7 and full body bubbles.

Then you have the other half who are on some conspiracy theory nonsense about how viruses dont even exist.

Meanwhile there isnt a single level headed objective person going "yea this is a scary disease, but there are lots of scary diseases, nothing to loose sleep over just be responsible"

@mcnado

@AmpBenzScientist the choice is really just between what physical connector you want. v5 are pretty much all the same its just do you want usb a, c, thunderbolt or nfc

@AmpBenzScientist

The death data wasnt falsified. It was misunderstood though by many.

> We can't have a control group because nearly everyone was exposed. We don't have a healthy non jabbed group because the government and the public persecuted these people.

ITs more complex than that. a person knows when they are sick, so you cant make a virus like this double blind even if you wanted to. When you add in the inability to control for the placebo effect, plus the huge amount of fear that went along with it, its a recipe for wildly inaccurate data even with the best of intentions.

@mcnado

@mcnado

For what its worth I decided that you are probably operating in good faith at this point. I think you mean well. I also think its less about incompetance so much as crippling bias/agenda that may impede your competence. Understandable as you probably have seen the very real harm from the disease.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

Even the screen shotted quotes more or less agree with me if you read them carefully. The last screen shot for example talks about how quite a few of the studies in their meta analysis, nearly half, were limited to hospitalized patients. So no suprise that some of the studies in their metanalysis showed 80% figures.. again this is not intended by the study authors to be making the claim you seem to be saying it makes.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

I read every single paper you linked. They all agree with what I've said. How do you feel that one is any different?

@Raccoon

@mcnado

Im not accusing you of not reading the papers. I am accusing you of not showing competence in your interpretation.

I am well aware of the source for the metaanlaysis. Your point?

@Raccoon

@mcnado

The paper did not show a 80% rate across a representative population of those infected with COVID.... THAT is the point. I am not saying the number didnt appear in the paper, im saying you are grossly and negligently misrepresenting what it means.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

I already quoted you the part of the study that explicitly disagreed with you, you dont need to wait. Here is is again:

> The incidence is estimated at 10–30% of non-hospitalized cases, 50–70% of hospitalized cases

@Raccoon

@levisan I have two row homes and one single home. The sound is noticable usually.

@mcnado

I quote fromt he study you linked:

"The incidence is estimated at 10–30% of non-hospitalized cases, 50–70% of hospitalized cases"

It specifically states in no uncertain terms that the higher ranges above 50% were only in the case of hospialized patients, and for non-hospitalized diagnosed people it is 10-30%.

This also implies that the non-diagnosed asymptomatic crowd, which is not in this study would be even lower, implying the overall number once those people are factored in is likely to be lower still.

But as is very cleraly stated in the metareview what you said is straight up false, no study suggests an 80% figure for all people who catch covid.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

And did you read the part where they said that among studies that included all covid patients the range was up 10% to 35%.. they explicitly state the 80% was only limited to the hospitalized group.

So again, saying people with covid show up to 80% prevelance is disinformation.

I quoted this earlier do I need to go find it again?

@Raccoon

@mcnado

> Explain to me what it is you are getting from this that is different than what the authors repeatedly conclude.

Absolutely nothing. What I conclude is exactly the same as what the authors conclude and is exactly the same as what you have posted here.

It is you who are disagreeing with the authors and dont know it. I have explained to you three times now exactly what your misunderstanding and you just ignore it and keep repeating yourself. Again this is not appropriate for a medical doctor.

I will explain to you again, in this study "the patients with COVID" are specifically explained to NOT be a random sampling of the population of people with COVID. It is **not** meant to be representative of the COVID population. It is specifically only people who have unusually bad cases and wind up hospitalized. Therefore it is only representative of hospitalized COVID infected people, it is NOT representative of COVID infected people in general.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

Didnt miss it, not concluding anything different than the authors. You however did misrepresent the paper and the authors, they did not say what you keep asserting they said. They are not saying 80% of people who get COVID will likely have long-COVID. You are trying to claim they are saying something they very much are not saying.

@Raccoon