SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts
COHR 178.34-10.2%Dec 12 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Winfastorlose who wrote (9337)4/20/2020 1:38:18 AM
From: Kirk ©  Read Replies (3) of 26768
 
Here is my reply and the "bias" that was left out of the Palo Alto article.

mercurynews.com

Kirk Lindstrom • 2 days ago • edited

Until they do blind, random testing, you really can't draw conclusions about how many are infected. I would have gotten the test if offered because I had mild COVID-19 but very severe cold symptoms in December... with a rebound cough in February and so did many neighbors as we probably passed it around. IF I did not think I had possible exposure, I'd not take the risk to get stuck by a stranger for some study....
"There are other potential biases. The research may have favored people in good health who could drive to a testing site or those with prior COVID-like illnesses who wanted antibody confirmation."
I believe these biases are much larger and the way the study was presented it might give fuel for the people who think this is a conspiracy to take down Trump and want to go back to work immediately.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News