CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)
Discussion
ruggedscotty said:
so your own personal experiance of the 'vid make you able to base your assumptions on that its not a disease of concern, that maybe we just over reacted eh ?
the 'vid isnt as badass as the 'flue' or noro... ? hardly worth talking about?
yeah...
You may have missed the start of the conversation because you were too busy sthe 'vid isnt as badass as the 'flue' or noro... ? hardly worth talking about?
yeah...
tting the bed, but we were talking about the effect of such diseases on kids, not adults. Going by the COVID stats norovirus, flu and Epstein-Barr are far more dangerous to kids than COVID will ever be, and locking them away for a year will seriously harm the development of their immune system, leaving them open to potentially far more dangerous diseases. Just another way that kids have been completely forgotten about in this pandemic, however you haven't seemed too bothered about any of the other ways their development has been affected, so probably a bit much to expect you to get this point.
sl0wlane said:
p1stonhead said:
You have to wonder why people who have all of these information bombshells have to live in fringe websites no one has heard of eh...
Could it be anything perhaps to do with the now obvious and widespread censorship of mainstream social media?ruggedscotty said:
And your checked research papers and findings on this please... 'tend'....what to make unbiased assumptions based on a sequence of events that are unchecked ? really ?
come on...
Based on my friendship group and people I know of. The serial rules breakers are the ones making the loudest noise about schools not being safe. come on...
If you could provide me with a rather large grant I can create a research paper fo you in if you like ?
I will give you this for free. tends to be the yummy mummies.
ruggedscotty said:
so your own personal experiance of the 'vid make you able to base your assumptions on that its not a disease of concern, that maybe we just over reacted eh ?
the 'vid isnt as badass as the 'flue' or noro... ? hardly worth talking about?
yeah...
Pretty much spot on there, yes. My experiences and the experiences of 99% of the population are very valid.the 'vid isnt as badass as the 'flue' or noro... ? hardly worth talking about?
yeah...
We did indeed very much overreact, and are still continuing to do so. If we are to continue down this path, we need to lockdown everyone, every winter for the actual serious illnesses out there.
Given a hell of alot of people are having the vaccine "just in case I need it to go on holiday", it's in the best interest of the government to keep the passport stories running.
I imagine it'll be dropped by the end of the year once most have been vaccinated (a damn site more than would have been if the government just kept pushing the message that there will be no negative effects to not having it).
SAGE is full of behavioural scientists remember.
I imagine it'll be dropped by the end of the year once most have been vaccinated (a damn site more than would have been if the government just kept pushing the message that there will be no negative effects to not having it).
SAGE is full of behavioural scientists remember.
Edited by Zoobeef on Monday 8th March 13:17
I hardly watch the news anymore but caught it last night.
Some utter BS from the BBC who had a lady Dr on say that kids need to do these tests so they get used to them. Normalising this sort of testing is not right. This was the first thing that annoyed me.
She then went on about false positives for the LFT being used is very low, 1 in 1000. This sounded wrong to me as discussions in various places have covered that these are less accurate than PCR. I found an article on gov.uk covering this issue. F-P is 0.32% so 3 in 1000. What was more concerning was the false negative rate (this is what this should be testing for, so you can isolate)
"PHE Porton Down and University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 test development and validation cell found the sensitivity of the ‘Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test’ dropped from 79% when used by laboratory scientists compared to 73% when used by trained healthcare staff compared to 58% when used by self-trained members of the public."
and" Preliminary data from the University of Liverpool which showed a sensitivity of 48.9% was reassessed through recategorisation by cycle thresholds which led to a sensitivity improvement of circa 10%. This means a more accurate estimate of the sensitivity from the Liverpool pilot is circa 58.9%."
Even if you agree that testing is needed this should make you question the point of the testing if between 20% and 50% are coming back "you are not infected" when you are.
If the stated aim of reducing spread is true then these test are pretty worthless.
Of course, none of these points were either raised or challenged by the BBC.
Some utter BS from the BBC who had a lady Dr on say that kids need to do these tests so they get used to them. Normalising this sort of testing is not right. This was the first thing that annoyed me.
She then went on about false positives for the LFT being used is very low, 1 in 1000. This sounded wrong to me as discussions in various places have covered that these are less accurate than PCR. I found an article on gov.uk covering this issue. F-P is 0.32% so 3 in 1000. What was more concerning was the false negative rate (this is what this should be testing for, so you can isolate)
"PHE Porton Down and University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 test development and validation cell found the sensitivity of the ‘Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test’ dropped from 79% when used by laboratory scientists compared to 73% when used by trained healthcare staff compared to 58% when used by self-trained members of the public."
and" Preliminary data from the University of Liverpool which showed a sensitivity of 48.9% was reassessed through recategorisation by cycle thresholds which led to a sensitivity improvement of circa 10%. This means a more accurate estimate of the sensitivity from the Liverpool pilot is circa 58.9%."
Even if you agree that testing is needed this should make you question the point of the testing if between 20% and 50% are coming back "you are not infected" when you are.
If the stated aim of reducing spread is true then these test are pretty worthless.
Of course, none of these points were either raised or challenged by the BBC.
p1stonhead said:
Taylor James said:
You have to wonder why people who have all of these information bombshells have to live in fringe websites no one has heard of eh...
Bullett said:
I hardly watch the news anymore but caught it last night.
Some utter BS from the BBC who had a lady Dr on say that kids need to do these tests so they get used to them. Normalising this sort of testing is not right. This was the first thing that annoyed me.
She then went on about false positives for the LFT being used is very low, 1 in 1000. This sounded wrong to me as discussions in various places have covered that these are less accurate than PCR. I found an article on gov.uk covering this issue. F-P is 0.32% so 3 in 1000. What was more concerning was the false negative rate (this is what this should be testing for, so you can isolate)
"PHE Porton Down and University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 test development and validation cell found the sensitivity of the ‘Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test’ dropped from 79% when used by laboratory scientists compared to 73% when used by trained healthcare staff compared to 58% when used by self-trained members of the public."
and" Preliminary data from the University of Liverpool which showed a sensitivity of 48.9% was reassessed through recategorisation by cycle thresholds which led to a sensitivity improvement of circa 10%. This means a more accurate estimate of the sensitivity from the Liverpool pilot is circa 58.9%."
Even if you agree that testing is needed this should make you question the point of the testing if between 20% and 50% are coming back "you are not infected" when you are.
If the stated aim of reducing spread is true then these test are pretty worthless.
Of course, none of these points were either raised or challenged by the BBC.
To be fair, as I posted yesterday, Nick Triggle from the BBC seems to have cottoned on to this one, as he has with a lot of other things that have gone on throughout the pandemic. He's published another article in the last hour on false positives in school LFT testing - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56321537 From reading the text of the article, it seems it was covered on the Today programme this morning as well.Some utter BS from the BBC who had a lady Dr on say that kids need to do these tests so they get used to them. Normalising this sort of testing is not right. This was the first thing that annoyed me.
She then went on about false positives for the LFT being used is very low, 1 in 1000. This sounded wrong to me as discussions in various places have covered that these are less accurate than PCR. I found an article on gov.uk covering this issue. F-P is 0.32% so 3 in 1000. What was more concerning was the false negative rate (this is what this should be testing for, so you can isolate)
"PHE Porton Down and University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 test development and validation cell found the sensitivity of the ‘Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test’ dropped from 79% when used by laboratory scientists compared to 73% when used by trained healthcare staff compared to 58% when used by self-trained members of the public."
and" Preliminary data from the University of Liverpool which showed a sensitivity of 48.9% was reassessed through recategorisation by cycle thresholds which led to a sensitivity improvement of circa 10%. This means a more accurate estimate of the sensitivity from the Liverpool pilot is circa 58.9%."
Even if you agree that testing is needed this should make you question the point of the testing if between 20% and 50% are coming back "you are not infected" when you are.
If the stated aim of reducing spread is true then these test are pretty worthless.
Of course, none of these points were either raised or challenged by the BBC.
isaldiri said:
sl0wlane said:
How many excess deaths were caused by policy? The blanket DNRs could account for 10-20k? The care home seeding? 10-20k? Untreated other illnesses and home deaths? 10k-20k?
Taking those into account... I feel it really brings serious questions to what we have done.
A lot probably was in the first wave. The very large numbers of non-covid excess deaths strongly suggest that. The measures we did use were badly targeted and mostly rather ineffective plus has stored up some fairly large issues to put it mildly for the future, no question about that.Taking those into account... I feel it really brings serious questions to what we have done.
But it's an unrelated point to what pocty is saying. He says old people will learn to die again which suggests a permanent resetting of 2020 death rates to ~10% higher than 2011-2019 in the future. I don't see any reason why that will be the case rather than settling back to 2019 levels.
Another interesting video from Dr Malcom Kendrick: https://twitter.com/BoliqueAna/status/136874769126...
Fair enough but Karen is unlikely to read that or hear Today.
Where is the 0.1% figure the BBC is quoting coming from? I can't find a source, most newspapers, BMJ etc. are saying 0.32% which is already higher than the prevalence in that graph.
Whilst I see the problem with false positive, for the scenarios we are supposedly testing for the false negative is much more of a concern I would have thought.
Where is the 0.1% figure the BBC is quoting coming from? I can't find a source, most newspapers, BMJ etc. are saying 0.32% which is already higher than the prevalence in that graph.
Whilst I see the problem with false positive, for the scenarios we are supposedly testing for the false negative is much more of a concern I would have thought.
I've just asked the Flu T-Cell question on Twitter, and got a response from some chap called Robert Dingwall. It was an incredibly refreshing response - "I'm not an immunologist but my understanding is.....".
My word, a scientist who takes care in talking about subjects outside of their specialism - whatever next.
By the way his understanding was that T-Cells would remember flu, but mutations may slow that down and make it less effective.
My word, a scientist who takes care in talking about subjects outside of their specialism - whatever next.
By the way his understanding was that T-Cells would remember flu, but mutations may slow that down and make it less effective.
https://mobile.twitter.com/notdred/status/13688985...
Interesting if true, suggests we may have seen the worst mutations already. Bad news for the vaccine companies
(joke)Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff