Covid and election issues: Especially watch item 9: Links 2, November 17, 2020

1. Ontario Premiere Ford cannot seem to distinguish between cases, sick people and models. The policies are based on models. Click inside tweet to see Hiller Youtube video

2. There are SEVEN Covid patients “overwhelming” Ontario hospitals.

3. Left leaning US states are about where parts of Canada, Germany, and Australia are

4. Great Reset Bond-Villain, Schwab gets the medal he deserves from China

5. Dog owners who walk pooches at higher risk of contracting COVID-19: study

(It’s almost like the left, and Islam are working together to meet their various goals. Covid is a great excuse to force nearly anything on the public.)

Dog owners who walk their pooches are 78% more likely to come down with COVID-19, a new study claims.

Researchers from the University of Granada surveyed 2,086 people about their daily habits during the pandemic to assess the risk of various activities, according to a paper in the journal Environmental Research.

They found that people who walked their dogs had a significantly higher chance of catching the virus — with an increased risk of 78% compared to the average person.

Meanwhile, owning cats or other types of pets didn’t appear to put someone at more risk for becoming infected with the virus, researchers said.

(Even if this was true, 78% increase from .004% doesn’t mean much of an increased risk, and let’s ask the Danes about Minks and see what they say. Although I don’t think the Koran says “an Angel will not enter a home with a picture or a mink in it” but you never know at this point who objects to mink farming. If its for coats, then i think we can guess where this notion of Minks being an existential Covid threat comes from)

6. FBI has team looking into November 3rd election irregularities

7. Ukraine FORMALLY INDICTS Joe Biden for blackmailing the government to protect his son, Hunter Biden’s involvement

8. 2600 uncounted Trump ballots found in Georgia

9. BREAKING: Former head of Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons tells Government of Alberta in secret meeting that ‘COVID’ measures are ridiculous and that ‘COVID’ is just a “bad flu” and all PCR testing should cease immediately. “RISK OF DEATH = 1/300,000!

10. Says The guy from Dominion voting machines

Oltmann said that as the conversation continued, someone asked, “What are we gonna do if F*cking Trump wins?” Oltmann paraphrased how Eric (the Dominion guy) responded, “Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”

Oltmann, who runs a Denver data company, started to investigate “Eric from Dominion,” following the call and came upon Eric Coomer.

Thank you Johnny U., John, EB., PC., M., Wrath of Khan, Gates of Vienna, Richard, Malca, Yucki, Xanthippa, Mad W., Snaphanen.DK., and all who helped in any way to the running of this site. 

A brief reminder that should anyone wish to get a Cross of Matamoros and make sure its delivered by Christmas, now would be a good time to order it.


About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

5 Replies to “Covid and election issues: Especially watch item 9: Links 2, November 17, 2020”

  1. Study Says Living With A Dog Increases COVID-19 Risk (But It Didn’t Find That)
    By Scott Weese on November 17, 2020
    Headline: “Are Dogs Spreading SARS-CoV-2? Study Finds Living With a Dog Increases Risk of Contracting COVID-19.
    NO IT DIDN’T!!
    Well, the paper said that, but it actually didn’t find that.
    Yet, a lot of people are reading that headline, or worse, are reading “…yada, yada…dogs spreading SARS-CoV-2…yada, yada”.
    So, what did the study really say.
    It’s a long post but let’s break down a few important aspects of the paper.
    The study (Rodriguez-Barranco et al) reported that people work walked their pets were 78% more likely to have reported having had or maybe had COVID-19.
    • They didn’t investigate that any further and it’s not clear what was covered (e.g. did walking a dog once outside your house count).
    • The question, strangely, asks about walking ‘pets’ not ‘dogs’. It’s reasonable to assume that this was dogs, but they didn’t actually look at that.
    • How they analysed the data is also unclear. The pet walking question answer options were yes/no/I don’t have a pet. However, for analysis, they combined pet owners that didn’t walk their pets and non-pet owners (further showing how they did not look at living with a pet.
    • They also say that 6.9% of people that walked their pet had been infected vs 4.2% of those that ‘did not take their pet for a walk’ despite the fact that most of that 4.2% group were not pet owners.
    These raise the question of what they really looked at….pet contact or leaving the house with a pet… and how clearly they thought about the results. The focus should be on the ‘going for a walk’ component, since that’s what they actually studied. Unfortunately, they didn’t also ask if people went for walks without pets.
    Some other results raise questions.
    • They reported that people who used home delivery for food were almost twice as likely to have had COVID-19. Does that mean they were getting infected by delivery people and would have been safer shopping? Presumably not. My concern is that there was some reason that people were more likely to order food, and that was also a risk factor for COVID. For example, if they knew they had been exposed or had some other high risk situation, that might lead people to avoid stores and also be at higher risk of being infected.
    • Further, another big issue is the fact that people with COVID were presumably more likely to order delivery. The survey doesn’t ask what they did BEFORE getting infected (if they had COVID), just what they did during Spain’s period of restrictions. So, finding increased risk from home delivery might actually be because people that were more likely to use home delivery were otherwise higher risk or already had COVID-19.
    Another concern is who they surveyed. The study population is critical for any study like this. You need to understand the study population to understand the results and any potential bias. You can get really misleading information or not understand your results.
    Well, here’s an over-the-top example.
    Let’s say a study said “pet owners were significantly more likely to say their dog was an important part of the family than cat owners”. However, if the study enrolled people through and, you can see how we might have a biased understanding of the situation.
    In the Discussion, they mention that most respondents were grad or post-grad students, a pretty specific group. That’s not the end of the world, since survey groups are often biased. Yet, we have to consider how well they represent the general population. The farther away they are from average, the less confidence we have in extrapolating results.
    I’m not saying there’s a problem with this study population. What I’m saying is we just don’t have enough information to know. That’s one of the (many) things I’d flag reviewing a paper like this.
    Response rate is also an issue, but I deleted my detailed comments on that since this was getting long (and probably a bit dry).
    The way things are wrapped up is a big issue for me.
    In the Discussion they say “These results point to living with dogs as a strong risk factor for COVID-19 infection.” Their concluding statement was “The results of this study demonstrate that living with dogs…. have been the main routes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the most restrictive period of confinement in Spain.?
    Neither of those is true.
    Pet ownership was not associated with increased risk. Their statistical analysis of pet ownership did not identify any risk. Walking a pet was a potential risk factor, not owning or living with a pet. There’s a long paragraph in the discussion talking about risk from dogs, despite the fact the paper didn’t really look at that and they did not find a risk from pet ownership.
    So, what does this study tell us about pets and risk?
    It’s hard to say…probably nothing.
    This study raises some interesting questions but doesn’t provide many answers. It certainly doesn’t provide answers about pets, and could have had a more rigourous peer review to address some of those issues.
    It do NOT show pet ownership was a risk factor.
    • If the pet walking risk factor is real, I suspect it’s more of a role of ‘walking’ than ‘pet’.
    I’ll stick with the same messaging I’ve had for months about animals and COVID-19
    • If you have or might have COVID-19, stay away from animals (human and non-human)
    • If your pets have been exposed to someone with COVID-19, keep them away from others (just like you would if you or your kids were exposed).
    • Relax
    Tags: COVID-19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *