Covid-19 Thread

[DieselDaisy]

16 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

"Don't let science in dictate a pandemic"

What cobblers is that?

[soon]

17 hours ago, marlingrl03 said:

Nice voicemail huh? What a mouth on her! She also assaulted a cop, trashed the newsroom that she worked for and rumors are that she was high on cocaine the night this all went down. Definitely a nut job and yeah I thought the mayor Ethan has done an outstanding job during this pandemic. He was the first one in March to "hunker down" and not our governor. He also made a mask mandate for our city too, but the governor will not do it statewide. He is absolutely Trump's puppet and it is sickening! I am super super bummed that Ethan is no longer the mayor.  Sorry to hear where you are is a hot spot. Dislike.

Ha! Yeah the studded tires are nice, I mean I have an AWD Subaru but on black ice the combo makes me feel super safe and I don't slide or get stuck in snow, so that is a plus! The kids though are not happy about having to wear their gloves, but I'm like sorry guys...you see the mountains with the snow on the tops?, yup its winter time! Suck it up buttercups! 

Those kiddos must keep you on your toes! I like that measurement for the kids - if there's snow on the mountain tops, its time for gloves. Very cool. Im really missing hanging out with kids IRL. Started reading with some in my family, over video chat, which has been great. And I LOVE Subaru's! Youd need em up there.

That voicemail is... Well Im at a loss for words lol. And the assault and trashing the office!? I mean I hope she was on cocaine as that at least explains it! Real piece of work.

Im sorry to hear that you lost a good leader. Thats pretty amazing to see Mayors picking up the slack and making the right choices, even though there can be political blow back from State and Fed. I really hope the new mayor will keep vigilant and keep you safe. Im not sure if his immediate replacement will be someone from his team? Maybe someone who will keep up his policies and covid leadership?

[ZoSoRose]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

What cobblers is that?

Omit the word "in". My mistake!

 

i botched that it appears

[DieselDaisy]

20 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Omit the word "in". My mistake!

 

i botched that it appears

I still didn't say what you've quoted! 

[DieselDaisy]

''Cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention'': https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext. This includes one million women who've missed breast cancer screenings: https://breastcancernow.org/about-us/media/press-releases/almost-one-million-women-in-uk-miss-vital-breast-screening-due-covid-19.

And all for a flu which kills less than 1% of those tested infected!!

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

"Don't let science in dictate a pandemic"

 

Jesus, Diesel, shut up 

Quote

The big takeaway is not to let scientists supply all of the problems during a pandemic as they will only provide scientific answers

To my mind thats not saying ignore science completely, its saying that all concerns during this pandemic cannot be approached or solved scientically.  Science can give answers in terms of the illness itself, yes but not necessarily in the approach to it.  For example, take herd immunity, it'd probably work y'know, its just that you'll end up writing off a lot of elderly and infirmed people.  Now practically speaking, perhaps even economically, it'd be the beneficial thing to do.  Morally however it is abhorrant.  If one were to take a clinical approach though herd immunity is probably a good approach.  You could keep all shops/business and shit running, people could just catch it en masse, let it spread and get out there, the young strong fit and healthy survive, the economy doesn't take too much of a knock...and the elderly and infirmed, well, collateral damage right?  Are their lives worth a global economic crisis that will potentially fuck the lives of a lot of people, including their own during this pandemic?  A bunch of people'd catch it, get over it in 10 days or however long it took and we could've avoided all this unpleasantness we're going through.  Thats a broad example and I know I'm not talking specifically about science throughout but I'm sure the basic principle I'm trying to express is understood.  Thats what I took Dies' to be meaning anyway, perhaps I'm wrong. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

''Cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention'': https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext. This includes one million women who've missed breast cancer screenings: https://breastcancernow.org/about-us/media/press-releases/almost-one-million-women-in-uk-miss-vital-breast-screening-due-covid-19.

And all for a flu which kills less than 1% of those tested infected!!

Cancer screenings like mammography isn't very efficient at all. It has been concluded that mammography screening has no effect on cancer mortality at all:

"If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and over-treatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings."

Compare that to Covid-19 who, according to you, kill 1% of those infected, and thus has the potential to kill 70 million people worldwide if unchecked. 

I think it is clear that it is good you are not in charge of prioritising. Best left in the hands of people who actually know something. 

And it is not a flu. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Cancer screenings like mammography isn't very efficient at all. It has been concluded that mammography screening has no effect on cancer mortality at all:

"If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and over-treatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings."

Compare that to Covid-19 who, according to you, kill 1% of those infected, and thus has the potential to kill 70 million people worldwide if unchecked. 

I think it is clear that it is good you are not in charge of prioritising. Best left in the hands of people who actually know something. 

And it is not a flu. 

Quote

ACCURACY OF MAMMOGRAMS

Mammography is good at finding breast cancer, especially in women ages 50 and older.

Overall, the sensitivity of mammography is about 87 percent [31]. This means mammography correctly identifies about 87 percent of women who truly have breast cancer.

Sensitivity is higher in women over 50 than in younger women [2]. It's also higher in women with fatty breasts than in women with dense breasts [2]

 

https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/AccuracyofMammograms.html

https://www.bcsc-research.org/statistics/screening-performance-benchmarks/screening-sens-spec-false-negative

 

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

To my mind thats not saying ignore science completely, its saying that all concerns during this pandemic cannot be approached or solved scientically.  

Lucky then that absolutely no one is saying this. When politicians make decisions on mitigating steps they listen to many different experts, including economists and epidemiologists who are tasked to offer advice purely from their disciplines. 

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/AccuracyofMammograms.html

https://www.bcsc-research.org/statistics/screening-performance-benchmarks/screening-sens-spec-false-negative

 

This doesn't negate anything of what I said, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. 

[DieselDaisy]

22 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

To my mind thats not saying ignore science completely, its saying that all concerns during this pandemic cannot be approached or solved scientically.  Science can give answers in terms of the illness itself, yes but not necessarily in the approach to it.  For example, take herd immunity, it'd probably work y'know, its just that you'll end up writing off a lot of elderly and infirmed people.  Now practically speaking, perhaps even economically, it'd be the beneficial thing to do.  Morally however it is abhorrant.  If one were to take a clinical approach though herd immunity is probably a good approach.  You could keep all shops/business and shit running, people could just catch it en masse, let it spread and get out there, the young strong fit and healthy survive, the economy doesn't take too much of a knock...and the elderly and infirmed, well, collateral damage right?  Are their lives worth a global economic crisis that will potentially fuck the lives of a lot of people, including their own during this pandemic?  A bunch of people'd catch it, get over it in 10 days or however long it took and we could've avoided all this unpleasantness we're going through.  Thats a broad example and I know I'm not talking specifically about science throughout but I'm sure the basic principle I'm trying to express is understood.  Thats what I took Dies' to be meaning anyway, perhaps I'm wrong. 

Sort of, but I believe we will just have to live with coronavirus, i.e., herd immunity will not 100% work either. It is just going to be something we have to live with as there is no vaccine on the horizon - just read late 2021 would be ''optimistic'. The good news is it kills less than 1% of those tested positive, so it will just give you a bad cough. We are literally delaying medical procedures, instigating mental health problems and suicides, completely trashing the economy, instigating rampant unemployment for that.

Edited October 15, 2020 by DieselDaisy
said virus instead of vaccine

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

This doesn't negate anything of what I said, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. 

You said that ''cancer screenings like mammography isn't very efficient at all''. That survey highlights mammography correctly identifying ''87 percent of women who truly have breast cancer''. You were incorrect therefore. 

[DieselDaisy]

All of Europe is represented if you want to look at your own countries: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

[SoulMonster]

24 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You said that ''cancer screenings like mammography isn't very efficient at all''. That survey highlights mammography correctly identifying ''87 percent of women who truly have breast cancer''. You were incorrect therefore. 

Isn't very effective at saving lives. This would have been obvious to a smarter person since I was comparing mammography screening to COVID-19. If you read the Cochran report, which looks at 10 years of mammography in Britain, you will see there are very little benefits at all. So when you pathetically moan about COVID-19 restrictions, which according to your own numbers could save 70 millions lives, and compare to cancer screening platforms with very little gain, it shows how informed you really are. But of course, you are just trolling.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Isn't very effective at saving lives. This would have been obvious to a smarter person since I was comparing mammography screening to COVID-19. If you read the Cochran report, which looks at 10 years of mammography in Britain, you will see there are very little benefits at all. So when you pathetically moan about COVID-19 restrictions, which according to your own numbers could save 70 millions lives, and compare to cancer screening platforms with very little gain, it shows how informed you really are. But of course, you are just trolling.

Mammography correctly identified ''87 percent of women who truly have breast cancer''. You were clearly wrong seeing as the first stage of reducing cancer mortality is possession of a swift and accurate testing procedure. As you have been wrong about the majority of things covid-related! 

I will take it for granted that my apology has been lost in the post?

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Mammography correctly identified ''87 percent of women who truly have breast cancer''. You were clearly wrong seeing as the first stage of reducing cancer mortality is possession of a swift and accurate testing procedure. 

Oh you are so stupid  Whether a cancer screening procedure saves lives is not a direct consequence of how effective the screening is at detecting cancers, but how many more cancers is found than wouldn't have been found, resulting in saved lives. It simply doesn't matter if it finds cancers a few months before the cancers would otherwise have been found, if the effect of these few months have no significant effect on cancer treatment outcomes (life or death).  

Because of this, and advances in breast cancer treatments, the Nordic Cochrane Collection has referred to mammography screening “no longer effective" and that “it therefore no longer seems reasonable to attend” for breast cancer screening. Basically, over the next years less and less women will be called in for mammography (unless the method is improved).

But your ignorance about this issue and your blockheaded inability to understand how we measure the efficacy of cancer screening, is really just a minor thing compared to the absolute idiocy of arguing that it is wrong to focus on COVID-19 restrictions and testing (which, and I repeat, according to you, saves millions of lives) over cancer screenings with more uncertain or limited benefits. It is just you trolling about things you don't understand.

[DieselDaisy]

European mortality (compared with pre-covid mortality),

None of you are dying more than you would normally, except the Spaniards, Dutch and Belgae.

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I will take it for granted that my apology has been lost in the post?

What nonsense is this then?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Oh you are so stupid  Whether a cancer screening procedure saves lives is not a direct consequence of how effective the screening is at detecting cancers, but how many more cancers is found than wouldn't have been found, resulting in saved lives. It simply doesn't matter if it finds cancers a few months before the cancers would otherwise have been found, if the effect of these few months have no significant effect on cancer treatment outcomes (life or death).  

Because of this, and advances in breast cancer treatments, the Nordic Cochrane Collection has referred to mammography screening “no longer effective" and that “it therefore no longer seems reasonable to attend” for breast cancer screening. Basically, over the next years less and less women will be called in for mammography (unless the method is improved).

But your ignorance about this issue and your blockheaded inability to understand how we measure the efficacy of cancer screening, is really just a minor thing compared to the absolute idiocy of arguing that it is wrong to focus on COVID-19 restrictions and testing (which, and I repeat, according to you, saves millions of lives) over cancer screenings with more uncertain or limited benefits. It is just you trolling about things you don't understand.

Ad hominems as per usual.

This is literally contrary to every cancer advice espoused, which advocates early detection before the spread as the best source for successful treatment. Heck, go into any GP surgery, clinic or hospital and you can pick up bundles of leaflets explaining as such, i.e., getting men to get the old ''finger up the arse''. 

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What nonsense is this then?

I thought you were blocking me or ignoring me irrespective? 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

This is literally contrary to every cancer advice espoused, which advocates early detection before the spread as the best source for successful treatment. Heck, go into any GP surgery, clinic or hospital and you can pick up bundles of leaflets explaining as such, i.e., getting men to get the old ''finger up the arse''. 

Oh Diesel  I am talking about mammography specifically. I am not advising against cancer screenings in toto . You simply aren't equipped to understand this.

But even if you include all the more effective (in saving lives) cancer screening procedures that are now down-prioritized because of COVID-19, like prostate screening, the expected number of lives saved from all of them combined wouldn't come near the expected number of lives saved due to COVID-19 restrictions. Which is why this decision has been made to begin with 

[DieselDaisy]

Edited October 15, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

On 3/4/2020 at 8:00 PM, spunko12345 said:

What the fuck do they know? If I'm looking for advice from a rock band on how viruses are transmitted I will ask Queen thank you very much.

Fuck you, The Who know everything!

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I thought you were blocking me or ignoring me irrespective? 

Oh, I am certainly ignoring most of your idiocy. And the reason why should be entirely clear. Unless you post trivia about wars or movies you have seen, chances are you are sprouting bollocks, usually far-right brainfarts only designed to provoke and cause noise. 

[DieselDaisy]

But Soul knows better!

But Soul knows better!

[DieselDaisy]

Maybe she should have listened to Soul instead?

1,400 lives saved per year, but Soul knows better,