UCLA, STANFORD study finds for average 50-64 year old, chances of dying from COVID-19 are 1 in 19.1 million!!!

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124446v2

Abstract

Abstract Objective: Our objective is to demonstrate a method to estimate the probability of a laboratory confirmed COVID19 infection, hospitalization, and death arising from a contact with an individual of unknown infection status. Methods: We calculate the probability of a confirmed infection, hospitalization, and death resulting from a county-level person-contact using available data on current case incidence, secondary attack rates, infectious periods, asymptomatic infections, and ratios of confirmed infections to hospitalizations and fatalities. Results: Among US counties with populations greater than 500,000 people, during the week ending June 13,2020, the median estimate of the county level probability of a confirmed infection is 1 infection in 40,500 person contacts (Range: 10,100 to 586,000). For a 50 to 64 year-old individual, the median estimate of the county level probability of a hospitalization is 1 in 709,000 person contacts (Range: 177,000 to 10,200,000) and the median estimate of the county level probability of a fatality is 1 in 6,670,000 person contacts (Range 1,680,000 to 97,600.000). Conclusions and Relevance: Estimates of the individual probabilities of COVID19 infection, hospitalization and death vary widely but may not align with public risk perceptions. Systematically collected and publicly reported data on infection incidence by, for example, the setting of exposure, type of residence and occupation would allow more precise estimates of probabilities than possible with currently available public data. Calculation of secondary attack rates by setting and better measures of the prevalence of seropositivity would further improve those estimates.

>>5231

And yet this is the flip side.

If/when a vaccine is pushed to the public, HOW are we to know whether it's bogus, or necessary protection against, perhaps, something new/incoming, something old that we all have that actually needs treatment, or whatnot?

This hypothesis is the only one I've seen so far that could explain WHY President Trump keeps talking about a necessary vaccine and promoting it like it's a good thing.

Have had this hypothesis in mind all along, but now other anons are saying it out loud.

HOW ARE WE TO KNOW? Put something foreign into our body based on TRUST? At this point, trust in the medical establishment is at an all-time low.

>>>/qresearch/10538680

>>>/qresearch/10538833

>>>/qresearch/10538850

Let's see who paying attention:

Has anyone specifically heard Trump say anything about this upcoming vaccine (to be revealed in the next 50 days or so) which specifically states that it is intended to target COVID-19? Again, has Trump stated in explicit wording that this vaccine to be released is a "COVID-19" vaccine?

Or did Trump just talk about a vaccine and everyone is assuming this vaccine is targeting COVID-19?

Consider the implications.

What other vaccine has Trump talked about?

>Yep. I've noticed that. He says a vaccine, but not what the vaccine is for. I've been wondering if it is a vaccine for a virus that they have not yet release.

>>Yep. I've noticed that. He says a vaccine, but not what the vaccine is for. I've been wondering if it is a vaccine for a virus that they have not yet release.

>AIDS.

>More specifically, immunodeficiency caused by <n> vectors.

>If so, this undoes 50-100 years of medical malpractice and poisoning food+water?

>What would send 99% of the people to the hospital?

>Truth?

>MIL dispatched to distribute?

>Activated almonds.

Covid-19 tests may be detecting traces of DEAD virus, giving ‘false positives’ and EXAGGERATING pandemic – research

New research has discovered that coronavirus tests may be finding dead traces from weeks-old infections, resulting in false positives that inflate the scale of the pandemic.

The study was carried out by experts from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England. It found there was a risk of “false positives” because of how Covid-19 testing is being conducted.

The scientists discovered that, despite people with Covid-19 being infectious for only around a week, one test used to detect the disease can still give a positive reading weeks after the patient has recovered.

The team examined 25 studies on the widely used polymerase chain reaction test, which is used to determine if someone has the virus in their system. The test takes a sample from a suspected Covid-19 case and uses a process that increases the amount of DNA, or genetic material, in the sample, to enable it to be examined.

The research found that the tests can amplify coronavirus genetic material that is not a viable virus and no longer capable of causing an infection.

Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study, said there was a risk that a surge in testing across the UK was increasing the risk of this sample contamination occurring and it may explain why the number of Covid-19 cases is rising but the number of deaths is static.

“Evidence is mounting that a good proportion of ‘new’ mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with,” he wrote in The Spectator magazine.

Professor Heneghan said an “international effort” was required to avoid “the dangers of isolating non-infectious people or whole communities”.

https://www.rt.com/news/499944-coronavirus-test-dead-false-positive-exaggerate-pandemic/