Which is why you have road rules and law enforcement. People are fucking dumb. If the fuckwits are in charge then it’s stupid all the way down.
Coronavirus COVID-19 Thread
- Thread starter Jolly_Green_Giant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus virus wuflu
Yeah great, but unless it can travel through mindwaves, it's highly unlikely they got the same thing. We are not from the US lol. I don't think we had an influenza outbreak at the time, but as I said, it might be unrelated to covid, like someone on the plane being sick and infecting them with whatever it was.
My question remains, are the antibodies still in your system 5-6 months after for you had Covid as well?
The virus would not be detectable if they developed antibodies because the virus would be dead or in hiding, but the antibodies might be still detectable. It's a hell of a coincidence that they got sick for 2 weeks after returning home from that region. That is in line with the virus profile for a mild reaction (and not the normal behavior of a flu.) But unless they have an antibody test, anyone can only speculate.
Its a battle of "ideas" - to me global warming is stupid (earth goes through cycles and we only have about 100 years of data of 4.5 billion years). So, if they can pass the test then they get their driving PHD... doesn't mean shit.
Everyone wants a definitive answer and there is not one. Our technology + time is our limitation and therefore, people have to embrace the "suck" and do what they can.
To bring this back to the topic, in AU and NZ social distancing and restrictions have brought the active known cases down to under 1000 in each country. These countries are on track to reopen commercially and begin tourism with each other again.
At this point I can’t see how countries with uncontrolled viral transmission are going to be able to attract tourists or specialists from outside their own borders. There’s a longer game to consider in that isolated countries become less relevant on the global stage.
At this point I can’t see how countries with uncontrolled viral transmission are going to be able to attract tourists or specialists from outside their own borders. There’s a longer game to consider in that isolated countries become less relevant on the global stage.
China says Australia is the gum on China's shoe... how ridiculous is this? Australia is just calling them out, as every country should. What arrogance China has. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/chewing-gum-stuck-on-the-sole-of-our-shoes-the-china-australia-war-of-words-timeline
27 April
Australia’s trade and tourism minister, Simon Birmingham: “Australia is no more going to change our policy position on a major public health issue because of economic coercion or threats of coercion than we would change our policy position in matters of national security.”
27 April
Australia’s trade and tourism minister, Simon Birmingham: “Australia is no more going to change our policy position on a major public health issue because of economic coercion or threats of coercion than we would change our policy position in matters of national security.”
@ColdDog
I don’t agree with many of your views in this topic but I’m glad you’re sharing them. I suspect many people who feel similarly don’t feel confident in publicly discussing their POV because of the backlash. That in turn leads to isolation and allows extreme points of view to gain footing - if the only people you can talk to are also believers that the earth is flat, then maybe you start to think that the earth is also flat.
I still think people (which includes me, obviously) are mostly dumb. We don’t reduce ignorance by shouting people down and not allowing them to discuss ideas. Both “sides” in these conversations tend to do this.
I don’t agree with many of your views in this topic but I’m glad you’re sharing them. I suspect many people who feel similarly don’t feel confident in publicly discussing their POV because of the backlash. That in turn leads to isolation and allows extreme points of view to gain footing - if the only people you can talk to are also believers that the earth is flat, then maybe you start to think that the earth is also flat.
I still think people (which includes me, obviously) are mostly dumb. We don’t reduce ignorance by shouting people down and not allowing them to discuss ideas. Both “sides” in these conversations tend to do this.
SoloFlyer
Grand Admiral
I don't quantify faith. That's like asking to quantify whether one person is "better" than another. Only fanatics and actuaries think that way. And I'm not sure what you mean by having faith in your constitution, do you mean it is a part of yourself (in which case how could I possibly measure your personal devotion?) or do you mean in the Constitution (in which case I would point out that the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so I'm not seeing where the faith is. As a matter of fact at least one religion in America doesn't salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance). Also, the Bible is not a belief system. It might be more correct to say it is a guide for belief systems. Likewise the Constitutions are not a belief system, they are guides for the rule of law. You were closer with Global Warming and One World Government, those can be considered belief systems with totally separate levels of plausibility.
As I said, I don't see it as in the same category as an opinion based on a lack or misunderstanding of knowledge. Some of the most learned and intelligent people in history have been people of faith. Faith is about personal, spiritual understanding and has no requirement of specific knowledge. The opinions that can sometimes (only sometimes) arise from faith are closer to what I said.
To bring it back to the original tangent before this even further discursive tangent, the opinions of those doctors served as a public health danger and were rightly removed from a public forum like YouTube.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
If they were exposed, they should have developed antibodies. There are antibody testst currently being developed, and some are actually being deployed, with various rates of false positives / false negatives. So, they could go out and get tested right now, I'm not sure how easily available they are right now, since a lot of these tests are being used for public health studies, at the moment.
When the government over-exercises its power in excess of commonsense, no matter what the supreme court says.
READ IT... this is what the next war will be fought over.
Safeguards of liberty (Amendments 1, 2, and 3)
The First Amendment (1791) prohibits Congress from obstructing the exercise of certain individual freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and right to petition. Its Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person's right to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to freely exercise that belief, and its Establishment Clause prevents the federal government from creating an official national church or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another. The amendment guarantees an individual's right to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas, even unpopular ones. It also guarantees an individual's right to physically gather or associate with others in groups for economic, political or religious purposes. Additionally, it guarantees an individual's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[62]
The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals[63][64] to keep and bear arms.[65][66][67][68] Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons.[69][70] Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"[71]
The Third Amendment (1791) prohibits the federal government from forcing individuals to provide lodging to soldiers in their homes during peacetime without their consent. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the Quartering Acts passed by the British Parliament during the Revolutionary War, which had allowed British soldiers to take over private homes for their own use.[72]
Safeguards of justice (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8)
The Fourth Amendment (1791) protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials. A search can mean everything from a frisking by a police officer or to a demand for a blood test to a search of an individual's home or car. A seizure occurs when the government takes control of an individual or something in his or her possession. Items that are seized often are used as evidence when the individual is charged with a crime. It also imposes certain limitations on police investigating a crime and prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial.[73]
The Fifth Amendment (1791) establishes the requirement that a trial for a major crime may commence only after an indictment has been handed down by a grand jury; protects individuals from double jeopardy, being tried and put in danger of being punished more than once for the same criminal act; prohibits punishment without due process of law, thus protecting individuals from being imprisoned without fair procedures; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to reveal to the police, prosecutor, judge, or jury any information that might incriminate or be used against him or her in a court of law. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment also prohibits government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation", the basis of eminent domain in the United States.[74]
The Sixth Amendment (1791) provides several protections and rights to an individual accused of a crime. The accused has the right to a fair and speedy trial by a local and impartial jury. Likewise, a person has the right to a public trial. This right protects defendants from secret proceedings that might encourage abuse of the justice system, and serves to keep the public informed. This amendment also guarantees a right to legal counsel if accused of a crime, guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused, and guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against them. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that, with the Fifth Amendment, this amendment requires what has become known as the Miranda warning.[75]
The Seventh Amendment (1791) extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. Although the Seventh Amendment itself says that it is limited to "suits at common law", meaning cases that triggered the right to a jury under English law, the amendment has been found to apply in lawsuits that are similar to the old common law cases. For example, the right to a jury trial applies to cases brought under federal statutes that prohibit race or gender discrimination in housing or employment. Importantly, this amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial only in federal court, not in state court.[76]
The Eighth Amendment (1791) protects people from having bail or fines set at an amount so high that it would be impossible for all but the richest defendants to pay and also protects people from being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Although this phrase originally was intended to outlaw certain gruesome methods of punishment, it has been broadened over the years to protect against punishments that are grossly disproportionate to or too harsh for the particular crime. This provision has also been used to challenge prison conditions such as extremely unsanitary cells, overcrowding, insufficient medical care and deliberate failure by officials to protect inmates from one another.[77]
[URL='https://testsquadron.com/goto/post?id=332535']Lorddarthvik[/URL] said:
Disclaimer: Not a trained virologist, but somehow through
Blood per se is at the moment not considered infectious for the covid-19 virus. What I think is, if you had the infection/contact to the virus then you should have formed some antibodies. Looking at how it is with other infections, e.g. viral hepatitis, I'd expect you develop IgM early in an immune response, which disappear after a while and change to IgG, which should be detectable long term, at least a year, if not life long (again, see disclaimer). So: pharyngeal swab pcr should be postive as long as there are symptoms/you are infectious. Swab negative, no symptoms, no antibodies -> probably no infection yet. Note that there are several tests, and they might be shit at actually showing the true result.
My personal take on your problem: been to Wuhan and cold-like-symptoms: they had the novel virus, unless proven otherwise, so better self-isolate at least until symptoms go away.
EDIT:
Relevant clip...August said:
Last edited:
My Constitution, and me seem to be a minority in here. Which is why I think the WHO do not represent US interest and does not deserve my tax money.
This is the BS we have to deal with EVERYDAY
"Consequently, the story was updated a second time on Monday evening to take account of the apparent mistake in the public record. "
www.politico.com
"Consequently, the story was updated a second time on Monday evening to take account of the apparent mistake in the public record. "
POLITICO’s reporting on President Trump and the Bank of China
Why Friday's article on Trump's business dealings with China was updated and corrected.
www.politico.com
trigger now... at least listen (no a fan of the dude but he shares my sentiment) step out of your comfort zone
video.foxnews.com
Steve Bannon on holding China accountable for COVID-19: 'This is a fight for freedom' | Fox News Video
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon sounds off on taking on the Communist Party of China on 'Watters' World.'
video.foxnews.com
Last edited:
Radegast74
Space Marshal
ditto, not a trained virologist, but our hospital system is looking at conducting antibody tests. It is exactly as you said, the body forms IgG antibodies about 14 days or so after initial exposure, which are detectable with a high rate of accuracy (the IgM tests are much less accurate, since it disappears quicker). There is some evidence that combined IgM + IgG tests are better, but I believe it depends on what you are looking for & when you are looking for it.
EDIT: found the pre-print I was looking at before, the sales rep was quoting "99.6% Specificity and 100% Sensitivity" which, while not impossible, is almost ludicrously high...so I was trying to see what was out there, this is a great example of a practical article trying to address this issue:
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
Last edited:
that_frog_kurtis
Space Marshal
AntiSqueaker
Space Marshal
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
Everyone but SHEEPLE know that CIG designed Coronavirus to give them a smokescreen to explain the delay in 3.9 and 4.0, you fucking idiots.
It's literally unconstitutional for me to go without a haircut for 3 weeks, I don't care what the so called "Supreme" Court says, I spent 5 minutes looking at Wikipedia, Breitbart articles, and one opinion piece on the Daily Caller, so I think I'm more informed than so called """"EXPERTS""""
Everyone but SHEEPLE know that CIG designed Coronavirus to give them a smokescreen to explain the delay in 3.9 and 4.0, you fucking idiots.
It's literally unconstitutional for me to go without a haircut for 3 weeks, I don't care what the so called "Supreme" Court says, I spent 5 minutes looking at Wikipedia, Breitbart articles, and one opinion piece on the Daily Caller, so I think I'm more informed than so called """"EXPERTS""""
I agree with this entirely. This is why I seek sources for things I don't understand or want to know more about.
I don't believe seeking substantiation on a claim is shouting someone down, - it is seeking to better understand their point - however when they then fail to back up their own point with sources or evidence I must assume the omission is acceptance that they never had a citeable source to begin with.
Nobody, including me, likes being told they're wrong and it's easy to dig ones heels in rather than learn from one's mistakes. Problem is without being able to see the source of a claim we don't even know if there has been a mistake in the first place or if they have access to information we don't until they share it with us...?
Last edited: