Originally posted by dadudemon
Depends on which model you're talking about which is why I said "not at all."Also, if you take the time to watch the video, the serological tests only capture a subset of people that may have developed an immunity already for this coronavirus season.
It's never as simple as "just 4%" or "just 90%."
I know you want this to be partisan but any result in the whole digits area puts the entire lockdown strategy into question. It doesn't need to be partisan. It can just be about the science.
Actually, it was as simple as 'over 60% already have contracted and recovered' just three weeks ago...
I still believe a lot more testing needs to be done and across the broadest spectrum of people possible. But it's not looking good is only a very small percentage have contracted and recovered.
We're likely going to have more outbreaks and more shutdowns, of which I want neither of.
"More deaths, no benefit from malaria drug in VA virus study"
and that's why even foxnews is done pushing trumps covid profiteering.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so easy, yet you can't find a detailed map which would be helpful to a tourists who want to know which local areas to avoid.understood and moving on...
Sure, it took 5 seconds to find it from the result. Just be sure and check the routes before you travel and make sure it is up to date:
And this site, which I found by scrolling down just a tiny bit more, breaks down their HQs, activities, and locations:
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/deefb324008e4d1395b68614e8895d6d
So, if, for example, you wanted to visit Michoacan, you may want to change your plans because that's the HQ of Valencia Cartel and a hub of cartel traffic.
I know this requires more than just 5 seconds to research but if you're making travel plans to Mexico, you should spend more than 5 seconds look at google search results.
But, yes, sure, let's go back with what you implied which is, "dadudemon is stupid, he knows nothing, and using google to find hot spots of cartel activity in Mexico is wrong." Or whatever weird and contrarian point you wanted to make.
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, it was as simple as 'over 60% already have contracted and recovered' just three weeks ago...
3 weeks ago I posted this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
It matches another estimate (but the sample size is far too small for something like this) that 3%-13% of the population has already been exposed.
And as of 3 weeks ago, it is likely much higher than just 13% of the population having been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in some areas. NYC, for example, probably has an absurdly high exposure rate compared to a rural town in OK.
And here's a reply I made to Artol linking a result that implied one particularly hard hit town had 70% exposed and having immunity:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I read about this. There are likely many exceptions but some locations likely have hit well-beyond 70% exposure to the virus. I'm a broken record at this point but "testing testing testing" is the only way to make progress. We need mass antibody testing.
Possessing the antibodies and possessing an immunity are not the same set. As the video outlines from the actual researcher, many have already developed the immunity but will not show the antibodies. The extent of that group is unknown. There are also other immunological responses outside of those specific antibodies, which he mentions, as well. The extend of that group are not known, as well.
So, for example, if you did contact tracing, you may find that a person lived very closely with a family of 9. Small home. 2 show the antibodies. Clearly, all 9 had very close contact with the virus. None will show symptoms. All will possess a solid immunity if you're beyond that 14 day window. Do we have evidence of this happening?
Yes.
Homeless care housing. They were forced into close-quarters with each other and within days, 35% of the population tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1
In that particular group, they should do a follow-up study to see who has the antibodies. It would help shed (no pun intended) light on some of the variables that go into the presence of antibodies or not. One factor we know is age. Teens and younger will not show antibodies (not every time is this true, obviously) even if they were exposed and "got rid of the infection."
But if you're referring to this post:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Likely, greater than 60% of Americans were already exposed...
Exposure does not automatically mean positive antibody test results. It's just means exposure.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I still believe a lot more testing needs to be done and across the broadest spectrum of people possible. But it's not looking good is only a very small percentage have contracted and recovered.We're likely going to have more outbreaks and more shutdowns, of which I want neither of.
Contracted and recovered is not the inclusive group of "showing the antibodies." That is also not the inclusive group of "exposed to the virus and possess a healthy immunological response to SARS-CoV-2."
that map only tells you which factions/gangs/'families'/(whatever they call themselves) of the cartel run which territories (which encompass the whole of mexico).
so unless you're looking for a reason to just never visit mexico, that map is absolutely useless to tourists.
you're obviously having a meltdown over being called to task on your claim, so have the last word and let's move on
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"More deaths, no benefit from malaria drug in VA virus study"and that's why even foxnews is done pushing trumps covid profiteering.
Read about this. They did not pair with zinc (also part of dosing protocol being told to us by doctors and researchers and Trump mentions this multiple times) and they gave the drug to the sicker patients compared to the control group.
Their own study researcher is possibly in an ethical quandary since he is developing a competing drug. And the research admits to the weakness in what they did: administrating it in a far sicker group than the control group.
This is anywhere from junk science to conspiracy "tinfoil hat" science.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that map only tells you which factions/gangs/'families'/(whatever they call themselves) of the cartel run which territories (which encompass the whole of mexico).so unless you're looking for a reason to just never visit mexico, that map is absolutely useless to tourists.
I feel like you're still stuck on your original point.
Looks like you missed the part where I already addressed that.
Here it is again:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, it took 5 seconds to find it from the result. Just be sure and check the routes before you travel and make sure it is up to date:And this site, which I found by scrolling down just a tiny bit more, breaks down their HQs, activities, and locations:
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/deefb324008e4d1395b68614e8895d6d
So, if, for example, you wanted to visit Michoacan, you may want to change your plans because that's the HQ of Valencia Cartel and a hub of cartel traffic.
I know this requires more than just 5 seconds to research but if you're making travel plans to Mexico, you should spend more than 5 seconds look at google search results.
But, yes, sure, let's go back with what you implied which is, "dadudemon is stupid, he knows nothing, and using google to find hot spots of cartel activity in Mexico is wrong." Or whatever weird and contrarian point you wanted to make.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you're obviously having a meltdown over being called to task on your claim, so have the last word and let's move on
After many trips and conversations with other tourists who are not dead, still good. 🙂
But if you'd like to continue to be racist by saying all Mexicans are bad because they are all cartels, that's cool n'stuff. But there's clear cartel maps and activities you can look up that's usually kept up to date.
You can also google more than just maps and look up which places are safest to visit. I know you really really need a "contrarian gotcha" against me because you're sick, but it's just not going to work. With millions of people touring and documenting areas that are safe to travel to, it's easy to avoid the bad spots.
Use the two links I provided above WILL keep you safe. Avoid the drug trade routes and the cartel HQ areas. It's pretty simple.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"hmmmm...so many choices. guess i'll take my chances with the 'valazquez network' territory. i heard they're nice people, not like 'la familia mechoicana' AT ALL. those guys are just jerks. turns out this map was actually useful. thanks ddm"
A more honest and less "I have nothing better to do" approach would be:
"Clearly, I shouldn't visit any of the northern cities in Tamaulipas because they are clearly part of the Gulf-Cartel trade routes because that's a hub for cartel traffic. I mean, unless I have family there. No pressing need. I'd have to be an idiot to visit those cities as an American tourist.
I've never been to Monterrey, should I visit there?
https://wikitravel.org/en/Monterrey
Whoops, guess not! Wow, using my brain and not being obstinate to be a contrarian is awesome! hooray for vacations to Mexico!"