Bad News Thread

[crush]

"Even now there is “not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table,” Leonhardt notes, which makes the CDC’s recommendations seem ridiculous, not simply over-cautious."

--

"But the CDC’s estimate about the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission was exaggerated, according to a bombshell report from the New York Times, which says the risk of COVID-19 transmission is actually less than 1 percent."

“Media organizations repeated the statistic, and it quickly became a standard description of the frequency of outdoor transmission,” noted the New York Times.

“It appears to be based partly on a misclassification of some Covid transmission that actually took place in enclosed spaces,” the report explains. “An even bigger issue is the extreme caution of C.D.C. officials, who picked a benchmark — 10 percent — so high that nobody could reasonably dispute it.”

"That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

NYT Report: CDC's Outdoor COVID Risk Estimate 'Misleading,' a 'Huge Exaggeration'

pjmedia.com

 

[Desert Hound]

Old news spun for those desperate for validation of their paranoid hysteria, of which you are the poster child around here.

It isn't old news. Quite frankly the vast majority of news orgs are still running with the story is debunked as of early last year.

In other words they have not changed or updated their reporting to show that there is serious doubt that the virus was naturally occurring.

Whether or not the US funded it or not, it is a HUGE story if the virus was man made.

Unfortunately sheep like you are not interested in the least. Zero curiosity it seems. You are stuck looking at everything through a political lens vs wondering what the actual truth is.

If the virus is man made it neither hurts Trump, helps Trump, hurts Biden, helps Biden, etc. It isn't a R vs D thing.

So grow up and take off your partisan lenses to everything you see or talk about. Or keep on telling us what you have been spoon fed. Your call.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

"Even now there is “not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table,” Leonhardt notes, which makes the CDC’s recommendations seem ridiculous, not simply over-cautious."

--

"But the CDC’s estimate about the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission was exaggerated, according to a bombshell report from the New York Times, which says the risk of COVID-19 transmission is actually less than 1 percent."

“Media organizations repeated the statistic, and it quickly became a standard description of the frequency of outdoor transmission,” noted the New York Times.

“It appears to be based partly on a misclassification of some Covid transmission that actually took place in enclosed spaces,” the report explains. “An even bigger issue is the extreme caution of C.D.C. officials, who picked a benchmark — 10 percent — so high that nobody could reasonably dispute it.”

"That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving."

NYT Report: CDC's Outdoor COVID Risk Estimate 'Misleading,' a 'Huge Exaggeration'

pjmedia.com

I knew a rightwing rag would take that report and spin it to appease the desperate for validation crew. Erring on the side of public safety isn’t all that horrible. Outside was always said to be better, outside with distance even more so. Concerts and large gatherings is what they were clumsily trying to dissuade.

 

[Desert Hound]

I knew a rightwing rag would take that report and spin it to appease the desperate for validation crew. Erring on the side of public safety isn’t all that horrible. Outside was always said to be better, outside with distance even more so. Concerts and large gatherings is what they were clumsily trying to dissuade.

I didn't know the NY Times was a right wing rag. But I will chalk it up to your lack of reading comprehension which is on display day after day on these boards.

""But the CDC’s estimate about the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission was exaggerated, according to a bombshell report from the New York Times, which says the risk of COVID-19 transmission is actually less than 1 percent."

 

[Kicker4Life]

Old news spun for those desperate for validation of their paranoid hysteria, of which you are the poster child around here.

Funny that sounds like a mission statement for CNN

 

[Grace T.]

It isn't old news. Quite frankly the vast majority of news orgs are still running with the story is debunked as of early last year.

In other words they have not changed or updated their reporting to show that there is serious doubt that the virus was naturally occurring.

Whether or not the US funded it or not, it is a HUGE story if the virus was man made.

Unfortunately sheep like you are not interested in the least. Zero curiosity it seems. You are stuck looking at everything through a political lens vs wondering what the actual truth is.

If the virus is man made it neither hurts Trump, helps Trump, hurts Biden, helps Biden, etc. It isn't a R vs D thing.

So grow up and take off your partisan lenses to everything you see or talk about. Or keep on telling us what you have been spoon fed. Your call.

We are fortunate if the virus truly is a gain of function virus that the ifr was only .4% and it didn’t hit the young hard. Even with that we got the scenes in India. If the ifr had really been 2% like we thought at the beginning, given the massive reaction in the world, we would have gotten something closer to seen in the movie Contagion. If it had been 25% like in the movie society would have just collapse....no power, no police, no internet and food only as long as the few days mres last. And all from a self inflicted harm because proper precautions were not followed in heightened danger experiments. If this happened, we need to know that so it doesn’t happen again. And if foreign governments are doing it, if us money is being used (and we should so we maintain leverage) proper due diligence needs to be done in the future. Faucis argument that an intermediary and not his org did it merely means enhanced due diligence is needed when dealing with these intermediaries and these experiments. The fact that they ordered the money stopped after the outbreak also indicates they didn’t have zero control...they just had a failing in their oversight

 

[Desert Hound]

Faucis argument that an intermediary and not his org did it merely means enhanced due diligence is needed when dealing with these intermediaries and these experiments. The fact that they ordered the money stopped after the outbreak also indicates they didn’t have zero control...they just had a failing in their oversight

Exactly.

Which is why this is very worthwhile to look at.

 

[crush]

 

[Hüsker Dü]

I didn't know the NY Times was a right wing rag. But I will chalk it up to your lack of reading comprehension which is on display day after day on these boards.

""But the CDC’s estimate about the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission was exaggerated, according to a bombshell report from the New York Times, which says the risk of COVID-19 transmission is actually less than 1 percent."

What’s PJ Media? The NYT published the report they didn’t spin it for your desperate needs.

 

[dad4]

To understand the masks, put one on and try to blow out a birthday candle.

That is most of what the mask does. It keeps your breath from travelling very far as you exhale. If you can’t blow out the candle, you can’t blow as much virus into someone else’s face.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

I didn't know the NY Times was a right wing rag. But I will chalk it up to your lack of reading comprehension which is on display day after day on these boards.

""But the CDC’s estimate about the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission was exaggerated, according to a bombshell report from the New York Times, which says the risk of COVID-19 transmission is actually less than 1 percent."

Oh found it:

Overall, we rate PJ Media to be Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, as well as numerous failed fact checks.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

Funny that sounds like a mission statement for CNN

Truth hurts don’t it?

 

[dad4]

What’s PJ Media? The NYT published the report they didn’t spin it for your desperate needs.

NYT is also saying that 10% is completely misleading. They put it closer to 0.1%. That’s consistent with the half dozen or so research papers I’ve read that touch on it.

Right and left agree this time. CDC should have done a better job getting the word out that outdoors is safe.

 

[Grace T.]

To understand the masks, put one on and try to blow out a birthday candle.

That is most of what the mask does. It keeps your breath from travelling very far as you exhale. If you can’t blow out the candle, you can’t blow as much virus into someone else’s face.

Ok now stand in a field outside 18 yard from someone smoking. Can you smell it even in the open air? If so with aerosolized particles the holes (especially on the side of the mask) aren’t doing much to keep you protected and while stopping you from directly blowing in someone’s face are still filling up a poorly circulated room with virus particles.

more interesting (kids just did this for a science experiment in middle school btw) take a cherry throat lozenge, put a mask on, stand six feet away from someone, put a mask on yourself. Can you smell it?

 

[Grace T.]

NYT is also saying that 10% is completely misleading. They put it closer to 0.1%. That’s consistent with the half dozen or so research papers I’ve read that touch on it.

Right and left agree this time. CDC should have done a better job getting the word out that outdoors is safe.

There you go with absolutes. Absolutely it’s safe for casually bumping into each other. Youth sports outside with kids moving around absolutely safe. It’s safe if two asymptomatic people meet and chat in a park, particularly if both are wearing masks and it’s for a prolonged time. But stand next to someone showing symptoms in close conversation for a half hour and you are going to get sick outdoors or not, cloth masks or not.

it’s not a question of mask or no mask. It’s not a question of outdoors or indoors. It’s not 6 ft or 3ft. It’s not as simple as your religious slogans.

 

[espola]

Ok now stand in a field outside 18 yard from someone smoking. Can you smell it even in the open air? If so with aerosolized particles the holes (especially on the side of the mask) aren’t doing much to keep you protected and while stopping you from directly blowing in someone’s face are still filling up a poorly circulated room with virus particles.

more interesting (kids just did this for a science experiment in middle school btw) take a cherry throat lozenge, put a mask on, stand six feet away from someone, put a mask on yourself. Can you smell it?

You have a recurring misunderstanding between the size of a molecule and the size of a single virus particle.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

​ Back in January, Michael Osterholm, who's been an adviser to Joe Biden on the virus, warned that the next six to fourteen weeks would be the worst of the pandemic. We're now beyond fourteen weeks from that moment. The case numbers are down 76 percent:

​

​ "I want to be so wrong on this one," Osterholm said. "I will publicly celebrate me being wrong if this [surge] doesn't happen, because I just wish we didn't have to go through this." Well, I'm sure our inquisitive media will follow up with him and give him an opportunity to celebrate publicly. They wouldn't fail to pursue a story like this just because it undermines the panickers. I mean, these are curious people, and professionals to boot! Ahem. This, by the way, is the same person who said on October 9 that Florida would be a "house on fire" within weeks because it wasn't listening to him. We know how that one turned out. You'd think after a while he'd stop and wonder: "Maybe I don't fully understand this virus. Maybe I should keep the shaming and the unnecessary panic to a minimum. Because it sure seems as if the resumption of normal life doesn't affect anything." But of course not. I'm spending a few days in the Florida panhandle. I cannot believe how (relatively) unmasked it is here compared to central Florida, where I live. And everything is fine. No overwhelmed hospitals, nothing. This, I am convinced, is why many of them don't want the masks coming off. Not because they fear a spike, but precisely because they fear nothing will happen. At which point the handful of remaining skeptical thinkers will wonder how they got snookered into all this in the first place. MAYBE Dad4 is Michael Osterholm

Thanks for posting this. I posted this at the beginning - about 14-15 weeks ago when he first made his dire prediction stating would occur in "6 to 14 weeks" and have been giving semi-weekly updates. I needed to post one last. This can serve at the last one. No need to get @dad4 bent out of shape one more time . To close this I post a link that reviews some of the issues we have seen with COVID predictions.

Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed - PMC

Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates, lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[espola]

Thanks for posting this. I posted this at the beginning - about 14-15 weeks ago when he first made his dire prediction stating would occur in "6 to 14 weeks" and have been giving semi-weekly updates. I needed to post one last. This can serve at the last one. No need to get @dad4 bent out of shape one more time . To close this I post a link that reviews some of the issues we have seen with COVID predictions.

Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed - PMC

Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates, lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The ultimate failed epidemic prediction --

 

[kickingandscreaming]

I didn't know the NY Times was a right wing rag. But I will chalk it up to your lack of reading comprehension which is on display day after day on these boards.

""But the CDC’s estimate about the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission was exaggerated, according to a bombshell report from the New York Times, which says the risk of COVID-19 transmission is actually less than 1 percent."

He's not even a good troll anymore. He needs to break out another one of his aliases. This one is stale.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

NYT is also saying that 10% is completely misleading. They put it closer to 0.1%. That’s consistent with the half dozen or so research papers I’ve read that touch on it.

Right and left agree this time. CDC should have done a better job getting the word out that outdoors is safe.

Oopsie! Sorry for the lost year, kids! We messed up.
- CDC

 

[Desert Hound]

This goes in the bad news section for people living in these areas. That said many supported this policy and are surprised at the "unintended consequences" of their decision.

I get a chuckle out of it.