Shit like this makes me mad: Threadgill’s Old No. 1 Closes Permanently: Pandemic closes a part of Austin history - Music - The Austin Chronicle
The "pandemic" didn't close a goddamn thing.
Shit like this makes me mad: Threadgill’s Old No. 1 Closes Permanently: Pandemic closes a part of Austin history - Music - The Austin Chronicle
The "pandemic" didn't close a goddamn thing.
It's interesting that the two main arguments logged against the Santa Clara seroprevalence actually contradict each other. The statisticians say that the number of positives from the study fall in line with the false positive ratio of the antibody test. Therefore they argue the entire population tested could have been entirely devoid of all coronavirus antibodies and that all positives are the resultant inaccuracy of the test.
The next point is that the testing was too selective by using Facebook. Meaning, the ads targeted an audience who may have been more likely to apply for the antibody test under the suspicion that they have already had the virus. The detractors argue that this could have artificially raised the prevalence of Covid19 antibodies in the tested population.
My point is that these two arguments cancel each other out.
I agree with Shiva about this. But my question, not answered before, is about the fact that the study shows a 50 to 85-fold increase in the number of cases -- are all of these reasonably explained away by the two arguments stated above?
Let's try this again. I am going to provide you a video that I also found on youtube. Please feel free to call me out on why posting such a video should not be sufficient for evidence of my claims.
YouTube
The first study's CI should look like 1-90X, which is not very useful. (Apparently they are collecting more validation data, as I hoped, so this will likely improve.)
The second study is more promising. But right now, it's an unsubstantiated claim, not a study.
No one on this entire thread has tried to support their position by linking to a late night show host; except for you just now.
Many of the youtube videos that have been shared here are videos of intelligent and well studied scientists, epidemiologists, and statisticians with opinions well worth taking into consideration.
Many of these opinions just so happen to disagree with your stance. So I guess they're not 'reliable' sources according to you.
Fascists, by definition, are not elected. They are self-appointed. Also, I can only speak for California but Newsom only dreams of having power as absolute as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, etc.
As to your second suggestion, do the names Sacco and Vanzetti ring a bell? Italian-Americans are definitley not fascist by default...