CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

[Boringvolvodriver]

R Mutt said:

Douglas Quaid said:

Steve vRS said:

Alucidnation said:

I think if we tread carefully during the year, winter may not be that bad.

Why? Almost everyone will be vaccinated. It will be the same as any other winter so the hospitals will still be rammed with old people dying of flu.

Oh yes, no one is allowed to die anymore so lockdown it will be

Yeah every winter for last 20 yrs the media have reported the nhs is going to collapse. This winter will be no different, except now the population are accepting of lockdowns.

I've yet to hear even the biggest bedwetter suggest lockdown for flu. They of course like to emphasis that COVID is nothing like the flu, but of course if people still aren't dying of flu, rather just COVID this Winter...

If one wants to be cynical then they won’t call it flu though - how about the new and improved variant Covid 19 v21

[R Mutt]

Boringvolvodriver said:

R Mutt said:

Douglas Quaid said:

Steve vRS said:

Alucidnation said:

I think if we tread carefully during the year, winter may not be that bad.

Why? Almost everyone will be vaccinated. It will be the same as any other winter so the hospitals will still be rammed with old people dying of flu.

Oh yes, no one is allowed to die anymore so lockdown it will be

Yeah every winter for last 20 yrs the media have reported the nhs is going to collapse. This winter will be no different, except now the population are accepting of lockdowns.

I've yet to hear even the biggest bedwetter suggest lockdown for flu. They of course like to emphasis that COVID is nothing like the flu, but of course if people still aren't dying of flu, rather just COVID this Winter...

If one wants to be cynical then they won’t call it flu though - how about the new and improved variant Covid 19 v21

Some say the original version was also conflated with flu...

[Boringvolvodriver]

R Mutt said:

Some say the original version was also conflated with flu...

Well they are both a type of coronavirus........

[R Mutt]

Boringvolvodriver said:

R Mutt said:

Some say the original version was also conflated with flu...

Well they are both a type of coronavirus........

Getting the tinfoil hat back on, the government even referred to it as such when counting the deaths, while of course no one died of flu

[Boringvolvodriver]

R Mutt said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

R Mutt said:

Some say the original version was also conflated with flu...

Well they are both a type of coronavirus........

Getting the tinfoil hat back on, the government even referred to it as such when counting the deaths, while of course no one died of flu

Indeed and even Matty boy has said that we will need to learn to live with it, like we do with the flu and didn’t Whitty say something about accepting a number of deaths each year, the same as we accept flu deaths.

Sadly, the media do not seem to be very good at pointing that out to the masses who are quite happy to be scared witless and deny that people die all the time.

[johnboy1975]

Square Leg said:

Why are they still sticking to the school testing ‘rule’ re positive test?
I don’t get it.
Hopefully a u turn will be coming soon.

‘The government is sticking to the rule that a positive rapid Covid test done in secondary schools in England cannot be overruled by the gold-standard tests processed by labs. Concerns have been raised by testing experts that significant numbers could be incorrectly told they are infected by the less accurate, rapid tests, leading them and their families to self-isolate for no reason. Asked if children should be allowed to exit self-isolation if the more reliable PCR test gave a negative result, children's minister Vicky Ford told the BBC: "They should not take the risk, we all want to make sure we can keep Covid out of the classrooms here."

AIUI, if you test positive on LFT you are very likely to test positive on PCR, as LFT only captures high amounts, wheras the PCR captures miniscule amounts?

(False positives aside, but I think false negatives are the bigger concern? (Not sure why if its just failing to pick up trace amounts, although it could be at the start of an infection I suppose))

[johnboy1975]

JagLover said:

Alucidnation said:

I think if we tread carefully during the year, winter may not be that bad.

Not sure why any "treading careful" now is going to make the slightest difference to next winter.

If anything, its the opposite, surely? Fewer susceptible people next winter?

[The Don of Croy]

Anybody know how deep the piles of bodies are in the Isle of Man?

How did it get in?

[bodhi]

R Mutt said:

CrutyRammers said:

isaldiri said:

R Mutt said:

Have I got a tin foil hat on or does

A) the current narrative dictate that the vaccine confers a greater degree of immunity than immunity acquired post infection (this is completely separate from the risks OF infection) and

B) the science not support this suggestion?

Strawman some may say but no one I speak to seems to accept my stance that I do not require the vaccine right now having recovered from a mild case of COVID 2 months ago. I takes quite a bit of evidence on antibodies (present 11 months after infection in the case of 1 friend) to have anyone reluctantly accept my position.

This seems ironically like misinformation from the government and/ or media on their part.

I think it depends. Antibody titers do look to be very high in vaccine response, mostly higher than say mild/asymptomatic covid infection for example.

However vaccine immunity is very much spike protein focused so far while infection immunity is supposed to be much more broad based (whatever that means in egghead terms). I've assumed that means infection recovery is more likely to give a higher level of protection against a bigger mutation (if/when that occurs) even if it's possibly less effective against the original virus (or close copy) and probably longer lasting overall protection.....

In fairness to the government, I think the stance is "everyone should have the vaccine regardless of whether they've had covid", because there are so many people who are convinced they've had it with no proof. Given no way of proving it, it's better overall to have a blanket rule.
That of course then gets picked up and people start to justify it with bullst reasons as to why only vaccines give proper immunity, then other people wonder what's going on because that's all obviously nonsense, so why are they lying to us, when in fact it's just keeping everything simple so nobody has to think.

Well there are 4 million confirmed recovered unless you can't place much faith in PCR tests, but I agree it's us being treated like idiots that leave these voids in the information, to be filled with conspiracy theories but however valid these are, their proponents are spot on when they call people sheep who fail to question anything they are told. Sadly that then leaves everyone who questions the government dismissed as a conspiracy loon and that is a result of the government's aggressive control over the message

Personally I've never been a fan of vaccinating people who have already recovered and will more than likely already be capable of producing the immune response that the vaccines are looking to induce. Whilst they look to be incredibly low risk, they aren't zero risk, and if someone has already been through COVID and got out the other side the best Public Health decision logically would be to not give them the jab.

The problem is proving it - testing was sparse during the first wave and a lot of people just stayed at home when they had symptoms without confirmation, and of course there was the whole "Pre-COVID" wave as well. If we're determined to test everything that moves, surely antibody tests on those under 50 would help massively in terms of seeing who still needs a jab, and would get us to the infamous point of herd immunity quicker?

Or does that sound far too sensible for 2021?

[SCEtoAUX]

"This is a level at which a new wave could easily take off again from".

These people disgust me. Project fear, nothing less.

[TheJimi]

SCEtoAUX said:

"This is a level at which a new wave could easily take off again from".

These people disgust me. Project fear, nothing less.

Who's that quote from, what was the context?

[Boringvolvodriver]

TheJimi said:

SCEtoAUX said:

"This is a level at which a new wave could easily take off again from".

These people disgust me. Project fear, nothing less.

Who's that quote from, what was the context?

Here you go

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/08/retu...

[Elysium]

johnboy1975 said:

Square Leg said:

Why are they still sticking to the school testing ‘rule’ re positive test?
I don’t get it.
Hopefully a u turn will be coming soon.

‘The government is sticking to the rule that a positive rapid Covid test done in secondary schools in England cannot be overruled by the gold-standard tests processed by labs. Concerns have been raised by testing experts that significant numbers could be incorrectly told they are infected by the less accurate, rapid tests, leading them and their families to self-isolate for no reason. Asked if children should be allowed to exit self-isolation if the more reliable PCR test gave a negative result, children's minister Vicky Ford told the BBC: "They should not take the risk, we all want to make sure we can keep Covid out of the classrooms here."

AIUI, if you test positive on LFT you are very likely to test positive on PCR, as LFT only captures high amounts, wheras the PCR captures miniscule amounts?

(False positives aside, but I think false negatives are the bigger concern? (Not sure why if its just failing to pick up trace amounts, although it could be at the start of an infection I suppose))

3 in every 1000 LFD tests are likely to be false positives. At current prevalence that means the majority (about 70%) will be wrong.

The obvious solution would be to require positives to be retested. We don’t know the precise false positive rate for PCR, but if it’s similar, then retested positives will be ‘almost certainly correct’ instead of ‘probably wrong’.

We are doing this with other LFD screening, but inexplicably the Govt decided to pretend false positives don’t exist for in-school tests.

[monkfish1]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Douglas Quaid said:

Steve vRS said:

Alucidnation said:

I think if we tread carefully during the year, winter may not be that bad.

Why? Almost everyone will be vaccinated. It will be the same as any other winter so the hospitals will still be rammed with old people dying of flu.

Oh yes, no one is allowed to die anymore so lockdown it will be

Yeah every winter for last 20 yrs the media have reported the nhs is going to collapse. This winter will be no different, except now the population are accepting of lockdowns.

That is what they are worried about.......said it yesterday, expecting a load of flu next winter as we have stopped it this year.

I do wonder if the Public will accept another lockdown next winter

Im not sure where "what the public will accept" comes into it.

Whats fairly clear, is that flu is likley to run rampant next winter, as a result of being suppressed this winter, and peoples lack of exposure to it. And then throw in a "smaller" resurgence of covid.

The answer, to avoid the overload of the NHS is obviously lockdown. Problem fixed. For the winter. But each time we do that, the problem will get bigger as we put off the inevitable. And so the potential numbers become scarier. And so, we go into a cylcle of annual winter lockdown. To avoid nature doing what nature does. Becuase to back out of it, you will suffer a winter of deaths so great, no politician will sanction it on their watch.

Plus of course, Hancock wants to keep using his testing empire. As he has publicallky says he wishes to do.

Lockdowns as a tool are not going away.

Id say its near an odds on certainty that next winter will see us locked down. Unless of course they relinquish the emergency powers.................................

[R Mutt]

bodhi said:

Personally I've never been a fan of vaccinating people who have already recovered and will more than likely already be capable of producing the immune response that the vaccines are looking to induce. Whilst they look to be incredibly low risk, they aren't zero risk, and if someone has already been through COVID and got out the other side the best Public Health decision logically would be to not give them the jab.

The problem is proving it - testing was sparse during the first wave and a lot of people just stayed at home when they had symptoms without confirmation, and of course there was the whole "Pre-COVID" wave as well. If we're determined to test everything that moves, surely antibody tests on those under 50 would help massively in terms of seeing who still needs a jab, and would get us to the infamous point of herd immunity quicker?

Or does that sound far too sensible for 2021?

Either way you look at it there were a few million people who could've safely passed up on the jab to prioritise the more vulnerable.

My mum had even milder COVID symptoms than me, and the jab 2 months after. And then a week after that they came round to test her for antibodies, arguable both in conjunction with the infection, pointless exercises. Is this simply a logistical issue, or psychological where you burst the bubble if the vaccinated or recovered stop behaving like they're sick or at perpetual risk, just as continued mask rules for all might be considered an important visual reminder?

What concerns me though is that she states she feels safer going round the shops. She's 70, not of an age where she'd need reminding of something that occured a couple of months before. Again, this I'm afraid is all a result of the propaganda when young people will dismiss others as anti vaxxers if they don't require the jab.

[markcoznottz]

Boringvolvodriver said:

TheJimi said:

SCEtoAUX said:

"This is a level at which a new wave could easily take off again from".

These people disgust me. Project fear, nothing less.

Who's that quote from, what was the context?

Here you go

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/08/retu...

‘the prime minister said the number of people being admitted to hospital with Covid-19 each day was eight times higher than “the lows of last summer” ‘

What the actual fk. That’s a profound statement from a pm I hope he can cite that. Is that false positive testing or fabricated nonsense?

[Square Leg]

markcoznottz said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

TheJimi said:

SCEtoAUX said:

"This is a level at which a new wave could easily take off again from".

These people disgust me. Project fear, nothing less.

Who's that quote from, what was the context?

Here you go

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/08/retu...

‘the prime minister said the number of people being admitted to hospital with Covid-19 each day was eight times higher than “the lows of last summer” ‘

What the actual fk. That’s a profound statement from a pm I hope he can cite that. Is that false positive testing or fabricated nonsense?

Depends how many were admitted on the lowest day last summer.
Could be 1, so only 8 people now.

I know it’s not that, but...well...

[isaldiri]

bodhi said:

If we're determined to test everything that moves, surely antibody tests on those under 50 would help massively in terms of seeing who still needs a jab, and would get us to the infamous point of herd immunity quicker?

Or does that sound far too sensible for 2021?

Reliable antibody testing requires veinous blood draw for an elisa lab test. The rapid diagnostic antibody tests haven't really been shown to be very precise.

At that point tbh the hassle and expense is such that you might as well just jab up everyone rather than separately have to do blood draws and antibody testing. The simple no hassle way is just to exclude those who did test positive on a PCR test from one dose and possibly both. That's already recorded in the NHS system so it doesn't require more effort to figure out.

[Boringvolvodriver]

markcoznottz said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

TheJimi said:

SCEtoAUX said:

"This is a level at which a new wave could easily take off again from".

These people disgust me. Project fear, nothing less.

Who's that quote from, what was the context?

Here you go

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/08/retu...

‘the prime minister said the number of people being admitted to hospital with Covid-19 each day was eight times higher than “the lows of last summer” ‘

What the actual fk. That’s a profound statement from a pm I hope he can cite that. Is that false positive testing or fabricated nonsense?

Well he is right in as much at the lowest we did see 72 on one day admitted (or in hospital already and then tested positive) and now we have 688 today. technically correct in the same way that 16 is 8 times more than 2!

Not forgetting that numbers are now falling

[Square Leg]

Elysium said:

johnboy1975 said:

Square Leg said:

Why are they still sticking to the school testing ‘rule’ re positive test?
I don’t get it.
Hopefully a u turn will be coming soon.

‘The government is sticking to the rule that a positive rapid Covid test done in secondary schools in England cannot be overruled by the gold-standard tests processed by labs. Concerns have been raised by testing experts that significant numbers could be incorrectly told they are infected by the less accurate, rapid tests, leading them and their families to self-isolate for no reason. Asked if children should be allowed to exit self-isolation if the more reliable PCR test gave a negative result, children's minister Vicky Ford told the BBC: "They should not take the risk, we all want to make sure we can keep Covid out of the classrooms here."

AIUI, if you test positive on LFT you are very likely to test positive on PCR, as LFT only captures high amounts, wheras the PCR captures miniscule amounts?

(False positives aside, but I think false negatives are the bigger concern? (Not sure why if its just failing to pick up trace amounts, although it could be at the start of an infection I suppose))

3 in every 1000 LFD tests are likely to be false positives. At current prevalence that means the majority (about 70%) will be wrong.

The obvious solution would be to require positives to be retested. We don’t know the precise false positive rate for PCR, but if it’s similar, then retested positives will be ‘almost certainly correct’ instead of ‘probably wrong’.

We are doing this with other LFD screening, but inexplicably the Govt decided to pretend false positives don’t exist for in-school tests.

Thanks.