Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection'
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
Death rates are lower than one tenth of one percent for populations younger than 70.
What is going on here?What's wrong with that? What's the question? Why bring this unrelated statement up that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Sounds like you are trying to make an emotional plea as the logic doesn't stand up.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
How does it indicate that the virus is moving.
Because people have to get exposed. How do you get exposed without movement? Call.
Again, meaningless.
The population being tested could have been carrying the antibodies for how long?
There are a whole lot of assumptions in there that never seem to get explained when challenged.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Why are we testing asymptomatic? What's the purpose of that?
because anyone infected is contagious. Welcome to Health 101.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
Why are we testing asymptomatic? What's the purpose of that?
Logically to learn about who is and isn't sick or been exposed. It would be crazy to avoid testing people based on symptoms. How would we learn anything that way?
-
@scottalanmiller Because "Cases" and "Spike" are being used to lockdown populations while death rates have been relatively static or falling.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
How does it indicate that the virus is moving.
Because people have to get exposed. How do you get exposed without movement? Call.
Again, meaningless.
The population being tested could have been carrying the antibodies for how long?
There are a whole lot of assumptions in there that never seem to get explained when challenged.
People are not tested for antibodies. They are tested for the virus.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
How does it indicate that the virus is moving.
Because people have to get exposed. How do you get exposed without movement? Call.
Again, meaningless.
The population being tested could have been carrying the antibodies for how long?
There are a whole lot of assumptions in there that never seem to get explained when challenged.
Because they are common sense and well known. No one should need them explained.
-
@JaredBusch Depends on the test as I understand it.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Because "Cases" and "Spike" are being used to lockdown populations while death rates have been relatively static or falling.
Do you know that? Or is the news just reporting that. See post above.
-
@scottalanmiller Doesn't wash with me.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@JaredBusch Depends on the test as I understand it.
No it does not.
No state agency is counting antibody tests as active cases. Antibodies form after the fact. Again Health 101.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Because "Cases" and "Spike" are being used to lockdown populations while death rates have been relatively static or falling.
Now you are leaping again. Want to complain that lockdowns down make sense, argue for that. Don't claim that facts are untrue based on false information because you don't like how those facts are used by government.
Attack policy if you feel it is bad. It's easy to make a case for not locking down. But it's not easy to make a plea for us to believe that math isn't true.
-
@JaredBusch said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Because "Cases" and "Spike" are being used to lockdown populations while death rates have been relatively static or falling.
Do you know that? Or is the news just reporting that. See post above.
See California. Draconian measures being implemented. Nevada, Ontario and Quebec Canada.
There are plenty of examples of jurisdictions locking down because "Spike".
-
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Because "Cases" and "Spike" are being used to lockdown populations while death rates have been relatively static or falling.
Now you are leaping again. Want to complain that lockdowns down make sense, argue for that. Don't claim that facts are untrue based on false information because you don't like how those facts are used by government.
Attack policy if you feel it is bad. It's easy to make a case for not locking down. But it's not easy to make a plea for us to believe that math isn't true.
Maybe we need folks talking about "Cases" and "Spikes" to explain clearly what is meant by that. Then, let's get someone to talk about virus movement through a population and how that is measured and tracked.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Doesn't wash with me.
That's fine, but your argument doesn't wash with me. It's illogical and unfounded. It's just an emotional response that isn't based on the math or the science.
Are the tests being used to create panic? Sure, I'll agree with that. Are the tests false? No, that's a completely different thing.
Extreme example: There were Jews in Germany in 1935... fact. Hitler used this as an excuse for genocide... fact. We can't argue that Jews existed, that's simple fact. It's the horrible policy created using the aforementioned fact as a catalyst that we hate. But the fact can't be changed, and the fact didn't create the policy. The policy alone was the problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Doesn't wash with me.
That's fine, but your argument doesn't wash with me. It's illogical and unfounded. It's just an emotional response that isn't based on the math or the science.
Are the tests being used to create panic? Sure, I'll agree with that. Are the tests false? No, that's a completely different thing.
Extreme example: There were Jews in Germany in 1935... fact. Hitler used this as an excuse for genocide... fact. We can't argue that Jews existed, that's simple fact. It's the horrible policy created using the aforementioned fact as a catalyst that we hate. But the fact can't be changed, and the fact didn't create the policy. The policy alone was the problem.
Yes. "Science" that word has been so abused in the last number of decades.
As far as emotion and logic go, my challenges remain unanswered from a logic perspective.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Because "Cases" and "Spike" are being used to lockdown populations while death rates have been relatively static or falling.
Now you are leaping again. Want to complain that lockdowns down make sense, argue for that. Don't claim that facts are untrue based on false information because you don't like how those facts are used by government.
Attack policy if you feel it is bad. It's easy to make a case for not locking down. But it's not easy to make a plea for us to believe that math isn't true.
Maybe we need folks talking about "Cases" and "Spikes" to explain clearly what is meant by that. Then, let's get someone to talk about virus movement through a population and how that is measured and tracked.
Pure cases is just a count in cases measured or calculated. But a spike is when the population infection rate goes up at a high rate (instead of steady change.) Right now, we have a spike because the testing is higher than before AND the positive per test is higher. This shows that we aren't testing enough to know and that the rate has to be increasing a lot to make the tests look that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Doesn't wash with me.
That's fine, but your argument doesn't wash with me. It's illogical and unfounded. It's just an emotional response that isn't based on the math or the science.
Are the tests being used to create panic? Sure, I'll agree with that. Are the tests false? No, that's a completely different thing.
Extreme example: There were Jews in Germany in 1935... fact. Hitler used this as an excuse for genocide... fact. We can't argue that Jews existed, that's simple fact. It's the horrible policy created using the aforementioned fact as a catalyst that we hate. But the fact can't be changed, and the fact didn't create the policy. The policy alone was the problem.
Re: Tests <-- How many labs have been caught publishing incorrect results?
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@JaredBusch said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Because "Cases" and "Spike" are being used to lockdown populations while death rates have been relatively static or falling.
Do you know that? Or is the news just reporting that. See post above.
See California. Draconian measures being implemented. Nevada, Ontario and Quebec Canada.
There are plenty of examples of jurisdictions locking down because "Spike".
You are incorrect, you are parroting something that is not the state policy
California specifies metrics.
https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/ -
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
As far as emotion and logic go, my challenges remain unanswered from a logic perspective.
Everything was addressed, solidly. That there is a spike has no logically counterargument. You've presented no explanation for the spike (increase in positive results per test without an associated drop in testing rate.) So I'm not sure that there's even something to respond to. You've only mentioned factors (like increased total tests) that show that there is definitely a spike, rather than any argument against it.
