new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 22:21
VIEWED: 203741
PAGE 111 of 283
Nope. Your count is off. Your sizing is off. And you didn't specify how many cupboards you're assuming.
Try again.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wrong again, fool. Find me the post where I said I had a pantry and two freezers.
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You can always tell when SIGNUTS is about to lie her @ss off because she'll accuse others of lying.
Check out this whopper:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I don't have enuf frig space for more than a week's-worth of food, and my smallish freezer (the one that I already said was too small) only has enough room for two or three weeks of meat and cheese, and no room left over for frozen vegies. I know my storage limits. When we unpack groceries, the frig and freezer are full. By the next week, they're pretty empty. So I shop, once per week.
You have a fridge, 2 freezers, a pantry / storage for dry goods and you say you can't make it last for more than a week?
You must have the fattest family in California.
"When we unpack groceries, the frig and freezer are full." Both freezers?
WTF do you put in both your freezer? Whole pig? How many pounds of meat do you eat in a week? How many eggs? How many loaves of bread...how many gallons of milk do you drink in a day?
On top of which you "say" you're "also on a modified fast most of the time."
Is that the kind of fast where you eat more than usual?
You're such a lying sack of sh*t.
WHY do you keep posting stuff about me that you couldn't POSSIBLY know, is always wrong, and biased to the negative??? Why do you keep lying?
Now, do you mind not shitting up this thread with lies, personal attacks, and irrelevancies? Or is that how you earn your "working from home" paycheck?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#STAYTHEFUCKHOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe he's really, really confused.
Yanno, I swear he's Geezer, after the stroke, and then dementia set in. All of the mendacity, zero of the mental acuity. Which leads to a crap ton of very poorly done lying. Which is why he was put out to pasture here.
Anyway, for all I know, maybe HE's the one with the pantry and 2 freezers! 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gotta hop!
Ciao.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
6IXSTRINGJACK:
I heard they've developed a self-testing kit that is similar to a pregnancy test that will allow you to test not only whether or not you have COVID currently, but if you already had it and recovered.
Not sure if that's true at all because we're in the era of Post-Truth, but if it is, imagine the implications of that. Both good, and bad.
"You're free to go back to work, as long as you clear the results with us and send us a sample of your DNA along with it.", among others.
The good news is that we'd finally have legitimate death ratios instead of all the fear mongering that's been going on for months now.
Quote:
SIGNYM:
That would be interesting if true
links please
Quote:
6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't have any. It's something my old man mentioned yesterday. He doesn't troll the internet so I'm assuming it was some Legacy Media news source he heard it from. Just thought it was interesting and wondered if anybody heard about it. I'll see if I can find anything.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
"Self-testing at home to find out whether somebody has had Covid-19 is an efficient way to find out if they are safe to return to work, a senior health official has said.
Prof Yvonne Doyle, the medical director of Public Health England, told the health select committee that finger-prick home tests would be available very soon. “We expect that to come within a couple of weeks, but I wouldn’t want to promise on that,” she said."
More at www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/covid-19-self-test-could-allow-r
eturn-to-work-says-public-health-england]
Thanks.
Though I don't usually put any stock in what theguardian has to say about anything, I'll choose to remain optomistic that this is actually legit.
There's also this article that they linked to in there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-mass-home
-testing-to-be-made-available-within-days
Quote:
“Several million tests have been purchased for use. These are brand new products. We have to be clear they work as they are claimed to do,” Peacock said. “Once they have been tested this week and the bulk of tests arrive, they will be distributed into the community.”
Amazon has agreed to carry out distribution and the tests are also set to go on sale in chemist shops.
The test detects the presence of IgM, an antibody that arises very early on in the infection, and IgG, which is increased in the body’s response to the virus. The results of some of the tests on order can be read by anyone, but others would need to be interpreted by healthcare professionals.
Like I said before though, this is both obviously very good news and potentially very bad as well. It all depends on how it is used.
My guess, since we still live in America and we're going to at least try to put up a pretense of being in a free country, there are not ever going to be any mandates to take these tests and hand over the results to the government by gunpoint, but there could be huge financial incentives to do so and/or equal penalties for choosing not to.
Just for a moment, think about exactly how something like this would need to be carried out. Ask yourself a few questions. Here's a few that I could think of right off the top of my head, but I'm sure I can come up with more, especially when we see what happens with this product in the coming weeks and months.
1. How would the government and your employer be sure that you took the test and you're cleared for work?
2. How would they know that you didn't have somebody else take the test for you?
3. Short of forcing people to take the tests, how could the government incentivize people to do so?
4. In areas where they may have started handing out tickets to people not complying with social distancing mandates, how would police enforcement know that two people standing a fo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SIX: I heard they've developed a self-testing kit that is similar to a pregnancy test that will allow you to test not only whether or not you have COVID currently, but if you already had it and recovered.
Not sure if that's true at all because we're in the era of Post-Truth, but if it is, imagine the implications of that. Both good, and bad.
"You're free to go back to work, as long as you clear the results with us and send us a sample of your DNA along with it.", among others.
The good news is that we'd finally have legitimate death ratios instead of all the fear mongering that's been going on for months now.
SIGNYM:
That would be interesting if true. links please
SECOND:
"Self-testing at home to find out whether somebody has had Covid-19 is an efficient way to find out if they are safe to return to work, a senior health official has said.
Prof Yvonne Doyle, the medical director of Public Health England, told the health select committee that finger-prick home tests would be available very soon. “We expect that to come within a couple of weeks, but I wouldn’t want to promise on that,” she said."
More at www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/covid-19-self-test-could-allow-r
eturn-to-work-says-public-health-england]
Thanks from me too.
Quote:Er ... IgM and IgG (Immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G ... respond to things OTHER THAN Covid-19. If the test is just looking for generic rises in the Igs, it's likely to produce "false positives" since people get sick with flu and cold too. Reading the article, it seems that it is NOT specific for Covid-19.
SIX: Though I don't usually put any stock in what theguardian has to say about anything, I'll choose to remain optomistic that this is actually legit.
There's also this article that they linked to in there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-mass-home
-testing-to-be-made-available-within-days
“Several million tests have been purchased for use. These are brand new products. We have to be clear they work as they are claimed to do,” Peacock said. “Once they have been tested this week and the bulk of tests arrive, they will be distributed into the community.”
Amazon has agreed to carry out distribution and the tests are also set to go on sale in chemist shops.
The test detects the presence of IgM, an antibody that arises very early on in the infection, and IgG, which is increased in the body’s response to the virus. The results of some of the tests on order can be read by anyone, but others would need to be interpreted by healthcare professionals.
Also, this is the SECOND finger-stick serological test to be approved by the FDA.
BOTH test kits (Cellex, and BD) are made in ... guess what? ... China. Another example of our dependence on China for manufacturing.
Quote:If it's like a home pregnancy test, the stripes or indicators fade with time. What would the government want with a bu
SIX: Like I said before though, this is both obviously very good news and potentially very bad as well. It all depends on how it is used.
My guess, since we still live in America and we're going to at least try to put up a pretense of being in a free country, there are not ever going to be any mandates to take these tests and hand over the results to the government by gunpoint, but there could be huge financial incentives to do so and/or equal penalties for choosing not to.
Just for a moment, think about exactly how something like this would need to be carried out. Ask yourself a few questions. Here's a few that I could think of right off the top of my head, but I'm sure I can come up with more, especially when we see what happens with this product in the coming weeks and months...
1. How would the government and your employer be sure that you took the test and you're cleared for work?
I don't see any other way to do this than to submit the tests themselves to the government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Johns Hopkins
http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/200228-Serol
ogy-testing-COVID.pdf
200228-serology-testing-COVID.pdf
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#STAYTHEFUCKHOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can't read your reply. You should remove the image so the text doesn't scroll off the border.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Would people who die from COVID-19 have died within a year anyway?
No.
Those COVID-19 deaths represent EXCESS deaths.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coronavirus-poses-higher-risk
-for-those-with-diabetes-and-heart-disease-%E2%80%94-not-just-older-australians/ar-BB12chzP
death rates were above 10 per cent for those with a heart condition and 7 per cent for those with diabetes
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/risk-severe-covid-19-increases-decade-ag
e/story
https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/health/covid19/chronic-illness-and-
covid19
13 per cent of infected people aged 80 or over will die
Hypertension proportion who die 6%
Diabetes proportion who die 7%
Cardiovascular disease proportion who die 11%
Chronic respiratory disease proportion who die 6%
Cancer proportion who die 6%
http://theconversation.com/why-are-older-people-more-at-risk-of-corona
virus-133770
80+ death rate 14.8%
70-79 8.0%
60-69 3.6%
50-59 1.3%
40-49 0.4%
How can I be so unequivocal?
Here's one example: roughly 34M Americans have diabetes, but only somewhat less than a quarter million die from diabetes in a year. That's 0.8% who die from diabetes. And yet, that same population dying at a normal rate of 0.8% from diabetes dies at a rate of 7% from COVID-19. That's A LOT of EXCESS deaths: 6% of diabetics who weren't going to die anyway, had their lives cut short by COVID-19.
You can run the same calculation for other conditions, or for age.
No matter which category you calculate, the people who die were NOT at death's door, ready to be written off by Jack.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Would people who die from COVID-19 have died within a year anyway?
No.
Those COVID-19 deaths represent EXCESS deaths.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coronavirus-poses-higher-risk
-for-those-with-diabetes-and-heart-disease-%E2%80%94-not-just-older-australians/ar-BB12chzP
death rates were above 10 per cent for those with a heart condition and 7 per cent for those with diabetes
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/risk-severe-covid-19-increases-decade-ag
e/story
https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/health/covid19/chronic-illness-and-
covid19
13 per cent of infected people aged 80 or over will die
Hypertension proportion who die 6%
Diabetes proportion who die 7%
Cardiovascular disease proportion who die 11%
Chronic respiratory disease proportion who die 6%
Cancer proportion who die 6%
http://theconversation.com/why-are-older-people-more-at-risk-of-corona
virus-133770
80+ death rate 14.8%
70-79 8.0%
60-69 3.6%
50-59 1.3%
40-49 0.4%
How can I be so unequivocal?
Here's one example: roughly 34M Americans have diabetes, but only somewhat less than a quarter million die from diabetes in a year. That's 0.8% who die from diabetes. And yet, that same population dying at a normal rate of 0.8% from diabetes dies at a rate of 7% from COVID-19. That's A LOT of EXCESS deaths: 6% of diabetics who weren't going to die anyway, had their lives cut short by COVID-19.
You can run the same calculation for other conditions, or for age.
No matter which category you calculate, the people who die were NOT at death's door, ready to be written off by Jack.
What percentage of any of those categories are within the age range of those dying? You're throwing in everybody who has those illnesses, including all of them who are much younger and aren't likely to die even if they get the Coomf and they will recover from it.
Your numbers are dumb, and your comparisons are flawed.
And as I've stated before, it's not just people who were going to die this year, but people who would have died in the next couple of years from one of those illnesses anyhow.
There will be less deaths among old people with those illnesses over the next few years than expected before because, yes, they will die this year instead.
Facts of life, hun. Get over it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME