Bikers descend on Sturgis rally with few signs of pandemic

I did provide the evidence. It's in the first paragraph of the post you've just quoted. The newspaper with the most awards in the entire world, can not be said to provide no value.

Look, my friend, you said "The New York Times provides no value." Period. You placed a period there. You didn't say "it provides no value TO ME." Had you said that, I'd have been less critical. There you go, that's where you are wrong.

In all our discussions when you show me that I'm wrong, I acknowledge it. I hope you'll do me the same courtesy, now.

 

Start with post #365. If you can convince me you understand the subject well enough to continue discussion of the facts I’ll supply more. Please be specific and use facts and logic. Not some link to someone else’s opinion.

Who’s shocked? I’m on record saying it was a bad idea. Not really any worse than demonstrating and rioting for months though. Or going for groceries when you don’t have to. Or only wearing a mask in public. All bad ideas if you really care about spreading this bugger.

It will be interesting to see if anyone actually puts together anything more than a working paper.

I don’t suppose it’s necessary though as a working paper seems to be all anyone needs to draw concrete conclusions. Yes that last sentence is sarcasm.

 

I just read that nonsense again.

Let's start with the fact that you keep conflating Stockholm with the whole of Sweden. Sweden has ten million people and Stockholm has 1 million.

Then move on to the fact that YOU noted that even there...in July ...in Stockholm...only 14% showed antibodies. Somehow to you this means 30% herd immunity. Nonsense but....if it were true...that's only HALFWAY to herd immunity and only in Stockholm

Sweden has NOT achieved herd immunity. Not even close...and of course neither has NY

 

I’m not one to be impressed by awards (especially awards essentially self awarded) but that’s a valid point for many. I prefer to take into account more than just positive attributes when judging the value of anything. The Times certainly has it's share of negative attributes as well.

You are absolutely correct. I should not have said the Times offers no value. Clearly it does to many. To be clear now, since I wasn’t before, the Times does not provide enough value to me to pay for a subscription of any kind.

Since you have made me think it through better, it actually does provide me personally some value. It has been a great demonstration of how political divide is used for enrichment of individuals and businesses. Again, not enough value to me to pay anything for however.

 

Regarding all the people here saying "what about the BLM riots/protests etc?"
Equally wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
My intention in starting this thread was not one of making a partisan point (I have no parties, I'm independent), but simply, to say that in the middle of a freaking pandemic, any large gathering of maskless people is imprudent, be it a motorbike rally, a political rally, a protest, a carnival, a packed beach, whatever. Sure, outdoors transmission is less likely but it does occur.

 

@577
Does this look to you like a failing company?
https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...ork-Times-Company-Reports-2020-Second-Quarter


I apologize for making a mistake in my post. I underestimated the NYT's subscription base. It's actually 6.5 million people, as per this second quarter of 2020 report. My info was outdated. It doesn't stop growing. It looks like this thing is of value to A LOT of people (not to forget, non-subscribers also buy the newspaper, so it's not just these 6.5 million people).

The NYT is a giant of American journalism. It's value is HUGE.

And no, Pulitzer Prizes are not self-granted awards. The board actually draws from academia and the arts as well, and it is closely associated with the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism - that is, people who do know a thing or two about journalism.

 

I’ve never conflated Stockholm with Sweden. I’m well aware of the populations. I’ve never used a statistic from Stockholm, only countrywide statistics that are the best available.

Again, my numbers are all Sweden, never Stockholm. Please quote where I’ve ever based my calculations on Stockholm. I’m not interested in unsubstantiated accusations.

Please explain to the forum how fading antibodies are not relevant to antibody testing happening months after infection. Also, explain why you think it’s nonsense to factor in people who are recovered C19 patients that have never produced measurable antibodies when tested. Please be specific about the science and mathematics that you think is nonsense.

Please explain to the forum why you believe 30% is only halfway to herd immunity. Be very specific about what aspects of heterogeneity in respect to this virus and the populations we are discussing lead you to assume herd immunity is 60% or greater. Again, not someone’s opinion, actual evidence presented in your own words. You aren’t convincing me you know the subject matter, but I’ll give you another chance.

This is your opinion without evidence. I specifically stated I’m not interested in such things. You still have never taken a stab at explaining why infection rates are minuscule in parts of NYC today when mitigation is nearly nonexistent but rates were through the roof there when stay at home orders and mask usage was mandated and enforced. Try harder.

 

The health authorities predicted that 40% of the Stockholm population would have had the disease and acquired antibodies by May 2020. However, the actual prevalence figure was around 15%.

Sorry but YOUR evidence is lacking. I don't give a **** that you think you know more than actual experts in the field. Who the **** are you again?

So what did Sweden look like at the end of May?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

After that they had about a month of 1,000 a day infections and then infections fell off to a couple hundred a day.

If they were that were that far away in the beginning of June (in just Stockholm)...how the hell did they catch up?

Answer they didn't. They are nowhere near the 60% or better required for herd immunity...not in Stockholm...not IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY

 

As far as what constitutes herd immunity...here is the Mayo Clinic. You've heard of them right?

Even if infection with the COVID-19 virus creates long-lasting immunity, a large number of people would have to become infected to reach the herd immunity threshold. Experts estimate that in the U.S., 70% of the population — more than 200 million people — would have to recover from COVID-19 to halt the epidemic. If many people become sick with COVID-19 at once, the health care system could quickly become overwhelmed. This amount of infection could also lead to serious complications and millions of deaths, especially among older people and those who have chronic conditions.

 

And oh yea...how did the whole of Sweden do?

• Just 6.1% of the population of Sweden had developed coronavirus antibodies by late May, a lower measure than some of its health agency's earlier models had predicted.

 

Please look at performance prior to the 2016 election cycle. That, after all, was my point. I clearly stated they are profiting from politics and applauded them for taking capitalistic advantage of it. Do you think if Trump goes away the Times (or any other media for that matter) will continue to prosper?

Five million people receive paid for print and digital content from the NRA. More every year. They are a garbage organization at present with no value to me. But I don’t go around saying they are great just because a bunch of other people think so. I’m not into basing my beliefs on popular opinions. Sorry, I’m not wired that way.

Yes, Pulitzers are basically self awarded. Here’s some fun reading.
https://www.pulitzer.org/news/2018-pulitzer-prize-nominating-jurors

https://www.pulitzer.org/board/2020

Yes there are a couple academics in there. A small minority that aren’t journalists. Journalists passing out awards to people who are in position to return the favor just doesn’t impress me much.

Remember our recent conversations on how journalists screw up science? Well, if they routinely screw up science, don’t you think they mess up other reporting subjects as well? Or do you think they save all their ignorance and dishonesty for science reporting specifically? I’m a bit shocked you hold journalism in such high esteem.


I’ll close with this on the NYTimes.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/revenue

Does this look like a good investment opportunity from a financial perspective?

 

That’s correct based on straight antibody testing. Again, I’ve not referenced Stockholm so it’s irrelevant but at least you are trying.

What is relevant, and what I posted previously, is that Sweden was at 6% positive for antibodies in May. Since I’ve NEVER referenced Stockholm in any data or discussion let’s stick to Sweden, Ok?

I’m a farmer who’s a member of PF. Why does it matter who I am? Are you one of those appeal to authority disciples?

I’ve actually presented all the evidence you are presenting (except evidence specific to Stockholm because it’s never been of interest to me or discussed by me) and shown how it’s lacking. The **** are a nice intellectual touch though. LOL.

No. You were pulling my leg when you said you read post #365. In that post I clearly showed using PCR infection data is a fool’s errand when trying to determine actual rates of infection. Go back and actually read that post. Then critique it. PCR infections reported on Worldometer are not how we determine actual infection rates. Ever heard of the CDC? They don’t use PCR data exclusively to determine infection rates. LOL.

Read post #365 and you have your answer. And again, none of it has anything to do with Stockholm, only the entirety of Sweden.

You are not including a discussion of heterogeneity in your herd immunity numbers like I asked. Why not?

 

The Mayo quote includes the classic definition of herd immunity. No inclusion of heterogeneity in their calculations. Here’s some reading to catch you up to what the real experts are finding. Claiming 70% is the HIT for SARS-CoV-2 is like saying masks don’t prevent it’s spread. It’s outdated information and clinging to it as the actual hard and fast number for herd immunity is denial of science.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/846
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3

 

You make a good point about assumptions. Unfortunately all the testing methods we have are fraught with severe limitations. Every time ANYONE discusses infection fatality rates, actual infections, or herd immunity thresholds the discussion is based on assumptions to some degree.

When the CDC came out and said they think infections are 10 times higher than official data based on testing, I think the range they reported was 6 to 24 times higher. They settled on 10. I don’t know all the gymnastics they did to come up with all those numbers, but they all had assumptions involved.

We do not have a way to determine the exact number or percentages infected in any population. In my posts I’ve taken data we know to be as factual as possible at this point in time and apply other knowns (such as detection failure rates of PCR and fading antibodies) to it to try and arrive at correct conclusions.

Am I incorrect in remembering we discussed NYC at length a couple months ago? I thought we had. At that time I was using many of the same metrics to show NYC was near herd immunity and got a lot of pushback from the forum. Now you are saying some of the same things about NYC I was then. Time may prove me incorrect on Sweden. But I’m quite confident I’m on the right track as I’m using the best information we have available.

We’ve learned from each other in the past. I encourage you to specifically point out my errors if you think I’m in error. But there will always be some assumptions until someone comes up with a way to overcome imperfect testing methods. What I’m attempting here is to use various knowns to determine an unknown with as few assumptions as possible.

 

Concur. I’d even add unnecessary gatherings of any kind and size masked or unmasked.

 

Yes. Some automatically assume that if you post negative thoughts about one mass gathering, it automatically means you are in favor of other mass gatherings. It's a weird phenomena, but it is the silly season.

All these covidiots make me crazy.

How about peaceful protesting, with masks, six feet apart, without looting?
How about less bar hopping next to each other, sans mask, and ride out on the open road for the event?

Both "teams" could do better. Science lovers know this, but way too many Americans don't even know what science is.

 

I'm not saying I value them because 6.5 million people subscribe to them. I value them because they bring things of value to me. For example, Anthony Tommasini and the classical music criticism. I could go on and on. And I'm still to see a Science section article from the NYT screwing things up. I don't see them as a stock investing opportunity. I see them as a good newspaper that I want to read. Stocks are not all. The NYT are still posting about 30 million of profits every quarter. So it's a profitable operation.

They warned investors that ad revenue would be down and their stock lost value, but that's because of the economic crisis. These revenues are going down everywhere, not just for them.

Your argument about the Pulitzer is weird. Of course the Board has journalists. Aren't journalists the experts in Journalism? Isn't the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, a place where there is expertise about journalism?

Do you think a prize in Medicine should be awarded by a jury made of... hairdressers? Auto mechanics? HVAC engineers? I think not. It should be awarded by medical doctors.

By the way, that chart starts in 2011, and the growth was there, already.

 

Yes, the knee jerk is crazy. Whatever I post regarding scientific matters, there is always someone who thinks I'm posting that to attack Trump or defend Trump.
"The evidence shows that HCQ doesn't work for Covid-19 and has toxic side effects so the risks outweigh the benefits" = "You're posting this to discredit Trump."
"I do believe that elementary schools should reopen because the risk for young children is very small and they experience many benefits of in-school education so the benefits outweigh the risks" = "You're posting this because you're pro-Trump"
Newsflash = Science couldn't care less for Trump, one way or the other; especially, the international scientific community.

 

Did you notice the caveat from your study?

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

I'll stick with the Mayo Clinic

 

Logic. If Sweden as a whole had only 6% infection rate in May...and infections have dropped since

Where does that put their exposed per centage?

Less than 12%

Ohh

 

Herd immunity is a theoretical calculated value.

Some think we've already reached the threshold, including, especially, Sweden.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/joseph-mercola/herd-immunity-ahead-of-schedule/

 

Maybe we should thank the riders to Sturgis for accelerating the process.

 

They did a lot of gymnastics to come up with those numbers.
While I'm sure a lot of cases were missed early on the problem was more a case of lack of tests, not how good they worked.

That is why I used percent positive and not number of cases in the Sweden calculation.
Using that same method in New York state yield a 12% rate pretty close to the 14% rate tested in late April.
Antibody Testing
New York State is conducting an antibody testing survey to develop a baseline infection rate. The preliminary results of phase two show 14.9 percent of the population have COVID-19 antibodies. The preliminary results of phase one of the state's antibody testing survey released on April 23rd showed 13.9 percent of the population have COVID-19 antibodies.

https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-testing





We do not have a way to determine the exact number or percentages infected in any population. In my posts I’ve taken data we know to be as factual as possible at this point in time and apply other knowns (such as detection failure rates of PCR and fading antibodies) to it to try and arrive at correct conclusions.

We did and I think we ended in the same place.

I think you are wrong when you say you think there are 10 times more cases in Sweden than reported.
Now I'm making an assumption. I assumed you said there were 6 to 24 times more cases because you are trying to justify herd immunity.
Why do I say that? Because Sweden had already tested 1.7% of it's population in March.

 

"Some"...like Judy Mikovitz?

Like the people who claim it is all a hoax?

 

Well, Lesh, there's been more pre-print, pre-peer-review articles lately because the pandemic is progressing fast so the justification is that researchers are trying to get the studies out there to try and be useful, rather than waiting for months for the peer review and for the article to finally make it through a wait list, often already outdated. So, medrxiv.org is doing a service to the community, putting these things out there.

We do know that we need to take a non-peer reviewed article with a grain of salt, but the thing us, many of us *can* mentally do the equivalent of a peer review and look at the strengths and shortcomings of an article, given that many of us *are* peer reviewers for some of the scientific journals, or trained in the same manner. If you'll notice, there are discussion blogs that go over these non-peer reviewed articles and often do a better job than the peer reviewers (the latter are typically a couple of people while the international scientific community is vast and attentive).

That disclosure there is legalese because medrxiv.org doesn't want to be sued. It doesn't necessarily mean that the article is trash.