NY Times, national leaders doubt use of ban on social gathering - Burlington Free Press

Gov. Phil Scott and Health Commissioner Mark Levine say data and science drive their policies to ban multi-household gatherings. But leading epidemiologists like Julia Marcus of Harvard University say it does no such thing. Even the Vermont Health Dept. data says social gatherings account for only about 20% of outbreak-related cases, not the oft-cited 71%.

"But many epidemiologists are far less certain, saying there is little evidence to suggest that household gatherings were the source of the majority of infections since the summer. Indeed, it has become much harder to pinpoint any source of any outbreak, now that the virus is so widespread and Americans may be exposed in so many ways. “Somebody says something, and somebody else says it, and then it just becomes truth,” said Julia Marcus, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University. “I worry about this narrative that doesn’t yet seem to be data-based.”"




Read the Full Story at:



(click logo to be directed to the story)

 

Comment Below... And find more stories on Water Cooler


Showing 2 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • d pilone
    commented 2020-12-08 10:42:30 -0500
    Dr. Levine has some homework to do. First the PCR test can’t quantify how much of a viral load is present when a nose swab is collected. This is important because the amount of the virus determines if it will overwhelm your immune system. Second, the PCR test can take one strand of DNA COVID19 (which may not be enough to qualify for a diagnosis of COVID19) and amplify it over and over again until it reaches a level that is considered a diagnosis. This is called cycles during the evaluation of the test. Understand that this is saying that someone for instance, who has one atom of lead in their blood (which everyone does) now has lead poisoning when that one molecule is amplified using the cycle technique. This is the way Pharmaceutical companies were able to say that their vaccine is 90% effective. They simply take a sample after the injection of the vaccine and only cycle the test 10 to 15 times instead of what labs today are cycling which is 25 to 40 times cycling. In essence the pandemic numbers can be manipulated up or down based on how many testing cycles the sample goes through. This is not science, this is medical fraud! Lets stop playing these games because our freedoms are at stake. And vaccine compliance in this case is just used to confiscate freedoms from the people who expose the real science that would take back our livelihoods from government.
  • David Flemming
    published this page in The News 2020-12-07 14:24:53 -0500