SMRTNOST 0,33
No, študija, kakršna se pri nas pripravlja, je bila v nekaterih državah že opravljena – med drugim pred 14 dnevi tudi v Avstriji – pa tega niti en medij ni povzel. V vseh državah je slika zelo podobna. Zajet je vzorec prebivalca in po tem vzorcu je smrtnost za COVIDO 0, 33 {04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465}!!!!!!!!!! To je cifra, ki jo dobiš, ko testiraš vse, ne samo huje bolnih.
On 1 April, until 6 April the previously announced random corona-tests by the government were conducted by the SORA Institute, they first contacted 2000 randomly selected candidates in regions affected by the virus and 1544 of the 2000 people they reached out to did undergo the random testing, from the entire study conducted the rate of infected people was recalculated and the death rate was recalculated and the estimation came to around 0.33{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} , which came really close to the study conducted by Dr. Streek in Germany where 509 candidates were tested and the conclusion also recalculated the death rate to be around 0.37{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465}. [33], [34], [35]
In po tej študiji ne drži, da je število dejansko okuženih x 4 ali x 5 v primerjavi z uradnimi številkami, ampak samo x 2. Kar pomeni, da bejba z NJIZ laže. Podatke iz Avstrije sigurno pozna, sicer gre za kriminalno malomarnost. Če bi naši študijo opravili prej – in pokazala bi se verjetno enaka slika kot v Avstriji in drugod, bi nas lahko že zdavnaj spustili iz zapora. Avstrija ima krivuljo še manj ugodno kot mi, da se začenja odpirat.
Mi smo pa še kar v gulagu.
Austria is estimated to have at least twice as many new coronavirus infections than officially reported, a study showed Friday, with more than three per 1,000 people thought to have caught the virus in early April.
Medijem ustreza ta Dogodek v mestu Gogi. Jim ni treba nobenih drugih novic iskat, jim korona celo uro novic napolni. Strasljuvi naslovi se tudi bolje prodajajo kot neudarni.
Tako nizka smrtnost, mi pa ze cel mesec zaprti za zidovi, stopnja BDP pada kot nora, denar, ki smo ga dobili kot kredit, se deli kot bonboncke (kot da ga nikoli ne bo treba vrniti), folk izgublja sluzbe, otroci postajajo apaticni, bolni ostajajo brez obravnave … samo kricat lahko se clovek zacne, res. DOVOLJ JE BILO! Mediji, slisite???
Ni pa x 10 in 20, kot so nas strašili, ne?
[/quote]
resnica bo, ko bo virus z nami 1 leto, tudi takrat se bo lahko resno vleklo paralele z drugimi virusi…
Ja, medtem pa si pozabil, da so med temi tudi oboleli z gripo, ampak ker so pač imeli zraven najden še covid-19, ga beležijo tja. Nekako tako, v glavnem, to še vedno niso točni podatki, če se mene vpraša. Saj je čudežno s prihodom covida upadlo število obolelih za gripo.
Če bi smrtnost res bila 3x večja kot pri gripi, bi imeli letos precej več umrlih, kot prejšnja leta, tako jih imamo pa celo manj, kot lani do tega česa in manj kot predlani tudi.
Samo nekaj: wikipedia piše, da naj bi SORA Institut izračunal smrtnost.
Kje to piše na strani inštituta? Nikjer ne zasledim, da bi delali študijo smrtnosti, samo prevalence. In ta je 0,33 med gospodinsjtvi povprečno, sicer pa od 0.12{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} do 0.76{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} z verjetnostjo 95{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465}.
podrobnosti bodo pa šele objavljene, niso še. Ampak to bodo podrobnosti o metiodi, ne o rezultatih. Torej – prevalenca. To ni enako smrtnost.
A detailed scientific method report will be completed and published in April.[/b]
Narejena bo druga študija prevalence, začenja se danes. Amapk tudi samo prevalence. Kje so wikipedijevci našli podatek za smrtnost? Povsem možno, da ne najdem. Če me kdo prosim razsvetli.
https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/Forschung/Aktuelles/COVID-19-Studie.html
As announced on Friday, April 10, 2020 in the press conference on the results of the first prevalence study carried out by SORA by Federal Minister Faßmann, Statistics Austria is being commissioned by the Ministry of Science (BMBWF) and in cooperation with the Austrian Red Cross (WCC) and the medical sector University of Vienna to conduct a second nationwide COVID-19 prevalence study.
The tests (PCR smears) are expected to be carried out by the Austrian Red Cross between April 21 and 25, 2020 .
Ohohoho!
Kakšna blamaža. Še malo prejle je na wikipediji pisal zgornji tcitirani tekst.
Zdaj piše pa tole:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Austria
On 1 April, until 6 April the previously announced random corona-tests by the government were conducted by the SORA Institute. They first contacted 2000 randomly selected candidates in regions affected by the virus and 1544 of the 2000 people they reached out to did undergo the random testing. From the study, the prevalence of the infection in the non-hospitalized population was recalculated, and the estimation came to around 0.33{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465}. [33], [34], [35]
Očitno je nekdo povsem zameštral, kaj želi študija sporočiti. In šibal popraviti.
Internetni raziskovalci neki jaki, res.
In še kritika Streeckove raziskave v Heinsbergu. Če že navajate neke raziskave, vsaj raziščite vse vire, ne samo tiste, ki gredo v prid vašim željam. Tako morajo početi znanstveniki. Čim je navezan na rezultat, ni znanstvenik. Vsi želimo, da bi bila smrtnost čim nižja. Ampak to ne pomeni, da si cifre in podatke kar iz riti potegnemo.
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/heinsberg-studie-herdenimmunitaet-kritik-1.4873480
Corona crisis
:
criticism and doubts about study from Heinsberg
Hendrik Streeck at a press conference to present the Covid-19 case cluster study in the State Chancellery. DusseldorfOpen detailed view
Hendrik Streeck, director of the Institute of Virology at the University Hospital in Bonn, is the head of the controversial study. (Photo: imago images)
The results of the study from Gangelt in North Rhine-Westphalia are probably falsified by methodological errors.
The study was to show that herd immunity to Sars-CoV-2 is beginning in NRW.
Prime Minister Laschet had promised to relax the measures against the virus because of the study .
By Kathrin Zinkant
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
e-mail
Flipboard
Pocket
To press
The hope had been great. Finally, data, finally clues from a scientific study: When researchers from the University of Bonn came to the press with Armin Laschet, Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, on Thursday and presented apparently groundbreaking results from the corona-plagued district of Heinsberg , it didn’t take long for him media cheers broke out. “Relaxation possible,” “15 percent immune,” was the urgent headline.
But the cheering is obviously more than premature. There have been great doubts about the quality of the study and its interim results. Independent experts expressed criticism on Thursday, especially regarding the presentation of the results at a press conference. “There is simply so little explanation that you don’t understand everything,” commented the virologist Christian Drosten from the Berlin Charité, who is one of the most experienced corona virus experts internationally.
Study leader Hendrik Streeck had previously said at the conference that a representative sample in Gangelt had shown that 15 percent of the people there had already had an infection. The lethality of the virus is therefore many times lower than that reported by Johns Hopkins University in the United States in the daily reports for Germany, and the figure calculated by Streeck is also far from the official figures of the Robert Koch Institute away. For many that sounded like the long-awaited all-clear, Laschet later announced in the state parliament that the measures would be relaxed after Easter – as if Streeck had provided evidence that Corona was over the mountain.
But the study does not actually yield that. It is probably even methodologically incorrect. Above all, it is unclear whether the antibody test used can show what it is said to have shown, namely immunity to the new virus. The Braunschweig infection epidemiologist Gérard Krause from the Helmholtz Institute for Infection Research had already told the Süddeutsche Zeitung a few days ago that there are currently no widely available tests that could reliably demonstrate immunity to Sars-CoV-2.
Health policy Laschet and phase 2
Corona crisis
Laschet and phase 2
The first results of the study on the Corona hotspot Gangelt in Heinsberg make the NRW prime minister optimistic. He is already calling for “a return to responsible normality”.
By Christian Wernicke, Düsseldorf
On Thursday after the press conference, the virologist Drosten also referred to the problem that some of the tests already available detect antibodies against completely harmless colds, which are also corona viruses. “We are now just a month after the end of the cold season,” said Drosten. According to the Helmholtz Institute, a third of the colds are caused by these four known, harmless corona viruses. After a positive antibody test, only time-consuming neutralization tests have so far shown that the person in question actually went through an infection with the new pandemic pathogen. At the PK in Gangelt, however, there was no question of such neutralization tests.
Streeck and his colleagues from the University of Bonn nevertheless come to the conclusion that they have demonstrated with high specificity that herdsmen from Gangel begin to immunity to flocks. At least that’s what it says in a short paper that is available to the Süddeutsche Zeitung and that summarizes the interim results very roughly. On Thursday, it was initially available on the website of the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia. In the evening, however, the one-and-a-half-page document was initially no longer available at the link provided, and only reappeared on Friday under a new web address. However, another serious problem becomes apparent from the paper, which does not even come close to the requirements of scientific documentation as a preliminary publication.
For example, Streeck’s team selected households for the tests and tested all people in these households. That is legitimate so far – however: “You should not take all results from these households and convert them into percent, but at most one person per household,” explained epidemiologist Krause on Thursday. The reason: within the household the risk of infection is many times higher than in the general population, a complete count of all family members therefore results in an excessive percentage for immunity, which cannot be transferred to the general public. But that’s exactly what was done in Streeck’s study.
Why did the Bonn researchers go public shortly before Easter with these incomplete results? Streeck said at the time online that after Easter it should be decided what to do with the measures. Now, however, criticism of his project is growing – and it may not be limited to the scientific aspects.
Corona virus updates – twice a day via email or push message
All reports on the current situation in Germany and worldwide as well as the most important news of the day – twice a day with SZ Espresso. Our newsletter will bring you up to date in the morning and evening. Free registration: sz.de/espresso . In our news app ( download here ) you can also subscribe to the espresso or urgent messages as a push message .
Which brings you to Kai Diekmann. The connection of the former editor-in-chief of Bild and the social media agency Storymachine, which he co-founded, to the Gangelt study is already the subject of a small request in the state parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia. Storymachine took over the “documentation” of the Facebook presence from Streeck’s study, at least it says in the information on the social media platform. The SPD member of the Landtag Sarah Philipp now wants to know from the government whether public funds have been paid to the agency for the appearance. A year ago, Diekmann was involved as a PR consultant in the scandal surrounding the Heidelberg blood test for breast cancer. At that time the test was presented in a complex press campaign as a “world sensation”, but turned out to be worthless.
Only after the holidays will it become clear whether it is still possible to stop what political decisions were pushed on Thursday based on the dubious study by researcher Streeck. However, one thing can already be said: A return to normality based on the Heinsberg study seems hasty at the current stage.
Pri gripi je smrtnost od 0,1 do 2{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465}, odvisno od sezone in sevov, ki jo v tisti sezoni povzročajo. Tako da 3x višja je smrtnost edinole v najblažji sezoni gripe. Poleg tega je COVID-19 izrazito bolezen starejših kroničnih bolnikov oz je vsaj najbolj nevarna zanje (seveda so, kot pri vsaki bolezni, tudi izjeme, ki potrjujejo pravilo), medtem ko je gripa zelo nevarna tudi za dojenčke in majhne otroke ter za nosečnice.
Zadavi se z raziskavami. Nakrofil smrdljivi.
[/quote]
Itak. Zakaj bi sploh imeli in znanstveno preverjali fakte, če pa lahko mnenja naokoli trosi vsak z internetno povezavo in jih prodaja kot sveto resnico. Pa kar na Wikipedijo jih nalima, da si bilda kredibilnost, čeprav trosi čiste laži. In na podlagi tega še obtožuje, da nekdo iz NIJZ laže. Saj so res svojega denarja vredni, ampak za takšne obtožbe moraš imeti pa že kaj več kot lažen Wiki zapis.
Pa če je smrtnost 0,000000000000001 ali pa 100 procentna, je to treba dokazati, brez agende zadaj.
prednisone 5 mg tablet cost prednisone 10 mg prednisone 10 mg online
https://prednisonet.com buy prednisone nz
prednisone 5mg over the counter prednisone brand name us prednisone 10mg