Controversial Covid post

Alvez_48 said:
Right but that's not how it works is it... Every day there will be different numbers of false positives because you have different lab technicians, swabs taken etc.. That day every positive could have been false or not false.

I'm not for a second saying that there aren't 'actual positive' cases and I'm not actually in agreement with Yeadons' assertion that the pandemic is over, although that comes down to semantics. I'm just saying it's something that should be discussed in a controlled setting by people like Yeadon and Vallance so that we can actually try to ascertain the validity of each position. Let's face it, it wouldn't take much for BBC to set these 'debates' up would it? And I don't mean presidential style I mean people talking to get to some conclusions, evidence and opinion on the table.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's how it works. Unless you want to believe something that doesn't fit the factual narrative.

Latest note from ONS infection survey.

"Under a scenario where test sensitivity is between 85% and 95%, and test specificity is between 99.5% and 100%"

The concern is the huge number of false negatives.
 
bear66 said:
Yes. That's how it works. Unless you want to believe something that doesn't fit the factual narrative.

Latest note from ONS infection survey.

"Under a scenario where test sensitivity is between 85% and 95%, and test specificity is between 99.5% and 100%"

The concern is the huge number of false negatives.
Click to expand...

And in Yeadon's own words:

"So, what is the false positive rate of testing in Pillar 2? For months, this has been a concern. It appears that it isn’t known, even though as I’ve mentioned, you absolutely need to know it in order to work out whether the diagnostic test has any value!"

He has no idea, then goes on to pluck a figure out of the air and write a load of rubbish about it. And people lap this stuff up then get offended when you disagree and provide actual evidence that he's speaking out of his backside such as:

bear66 said:
Check the figures 521 in 139,000 tests is the lowest percentage positives we had. Also check the weekly ONS infection surveys through from July. These are random selected people rather than those with symptoms so an even lower percentage of positives than NHS figures.

To quote the ONS at this low period in July.

"We know the specificity of our test must be very close to 100% as the low number of positive tests in our study means that specificity would be very high even if all positives were false. For example, in our most recent six weeks of data, 50 of the 112,776 total samples tested positive. Even if all these positives were false, specificity would still be 99.96%."
Click to expand...
 
"Under a scenario where test sensitivity is between 85% and 95%, and test specificity is between 99.5% and 100" - it's not saying it is 99.5-100% it's saying under a scenario where it is. 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
Totally missed this thread, and interview, but starting to listen now, this just seems like an apparently qualified guy that's gone down the rabbit hole or has other motives, but that can happen to anyone.

Anyway, onto the interview:

It's not got off to a good start for Yeadon.

It's not just Sage saying wear the masks, social distance etc, it's the entire world. Sage may be idiots, but if they start saying the same things as people that are doing it right, then they should be listened too.
We're on 67k excess deaths, something killed them, and it's bindingly obvious that most of those would be covid as the main cause, or secondary cause, either way, was it not for covid, they would still be here.
He says Flu kills 0.1% which sounds fine, but he then says Covid apparently kills 3%, I don't think anyone is saying that now, I think everyone agrees the initial amount of cases we had was underestimated, so we thought the death/ case ratio was higher.
Then he says the fatality rate now is 0.15%, based on info from John Ioannidis, which all sounds great, until you look into the numbers.
100% / 0.15% = 666, so 1 in 666 die then, times that by our low 45k figure, and that's 30 million infections. Does anyone seriously think we've have that many infections? It's impossible, we wouldn't have the same increase in cases now if we had that many.
Didn't tests on New York say it had like 15%-25% immunity, and then cuomo claimed a 0.5% death rate from that. Which everyone agreed is flawed as it didn't count those that were not tested, deaths in care homes or deaths at home. I think most agree that it's around 1% now, don't they?
If the test was inaccurate, then it was inaccurate before too, likely by the same magnitude, so there has to be more cases now or the test has changed. As the test hasn't changed, the amount of infections must have.
 
Alvez_48 said:
"Under a scenario where test sensitivity is between 85% and 95%, and test specificity is between 99.5% and 100" - it's not saying it is 99.5-100% it's saying under a scenario where it is. 🤦🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
Yes. It's saying that there are huge numbers of false negatives compared with false positives.
 
Statto1 said:
Totally missed this thread, and interview, but starting to listen now, this just seems like an apparently qualified guy that's gone down the rabbit hole or has other motives, but that can happen to anyone.

Anyway, onto the interview:

It's not got off to a good start for Yeadon.

It's not just Sage saying wear the masks, social distance etc, it's the entire world. Sage may be idiots, but if they start saying the same things as people that are doing it right, then they should be listened too.
We're on 67k excess deaths, something killed them, and it's bindingly obvious that most of those would be covid as the main cause, or secondary cause, either way, was it not for covid, they would still be here.
He says Flu kills 0.1% which sounds fine, but he then says Covid apparently kills 3%, I don't think anyone is saying that now, I think everyone agrees the initial amount of cases we had was underestimated, so we thought the death/ case ratio was higher.
Then he says the fatality rate now is 0.15%, based on info from John Ioannidis, which all sounds great, until you look into the numbers.
100% / 0.15% = 666, so 1 in 666 die then, times that by our low 45k figure, and that's 30 million infections. Does anyone seriously think we've have that many infections? It's impossible, we wouldn't have the same increase in cases now if we had that many.
Didn't tests on New York say it had like 15%-25% immunity, and then cuomo claimed a 0.5% death rate from that. Which everyone agreed is flawed as it didn't count those that were not tested, deaths in care homes or deaths at home. I think most agree that it's around 1% now, don't they?
If the test was inaccurate, then it was inaccurate before too, likely by the same magnitude, so there has to be more cases now or the test has changed. As the test hasn't changed, the amount of infections must have.
Click to expand...

https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/

No lethality is no where near 1%
 
We were told excess deaths were what to watch out for at the start of the pandemic.

Now because they are roughly in line with previous year's they don't give a true indication anymore?

So which one is it?
 
RandySavage said:
We were told excess deaths were what to watch out for at the start of the pandemic.

Now because they are roughly in line with previous year's they don't give a true indication anymore?

So which one is it?
Click to expand...
Its only the conspiracy theorists that make outlandish statements based on week to week excess deaths. Excess deaths will be one means of assessing covid-19 deaths but, unlike flu where it is the primary measure, the ONS are already trying to understand deaths over and above Covid-19 registered deaths.
 
bear66 said:
You supplied the the link with data and a graph that showed that England has over 1%.
Click to expand...

And... England is just a small nation and we're very generous with our numbers bear but you know this, you just prefer to scaremonger.
 
Alvez_48 said:
He's not saying that at all and he's a doctor in one hospital (not that we can verify it) not an expert in virology which he's already said himself.

Not to mention the hilarious irony of you trusting completely a random internet username and calling people listening to other expert opinions as crackpots. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
New member too I see, just like him.
Click to expand...

That's my thoughts exactly... Funny how they are new users and how this one is happy to take his word as gospel despite not knowing him...

Or does he know him... Is it one and same person... Or is it a couple of the more vocal left wingers playing games? 🤔
 
ChrisTheRed said:
That's my thoughts exactly... Funny how they are new users and how this one is happy to take his word as gospel despite not knowing him...

Or does he know him... Is it one and same person... Or is it a couple of the more vocal left wingers playing games? 🤔
Click to expand...

His views are similar to those in the NoMoreSurgeons blog from the consultant at JCUH.

Try that.
 
Alvez_48 said:
https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/
No lethality is no where near 1%
Click to expand...

I've only had a quick scan, but that report is designed to support your ideas, and you know it. I love the way it separates out the general population and care homes, sort of like care homes are not real people. Also the way it blames the collapse of health care for increased death rates. Health care was nearly overwhelmed, try not locking down and see what a collapse is like then.

But anyway, I've not looked into it recently, it was an off the cuff comment from general reading, but most studies do not include deaths from patients that were not tested for covid. And at the start, tons died from covid when there were no available tests. So you can take your 0.5% and probably double it, otherwise it's just bending the stats to suit the aim. 1% is closer than 0.15%.

The main point of this is, just because you don't test for something, or didn't test dead people, does not mean it's not there. Plus treatment is imporving, so what was once 2% might now be 1%, but it's not 0.15%.

0.5% at 45k is 9 million infections, which would be nearly 14% immunity.
0.5% at 67k is 13.4 million infections, nearly 20% immunity, for the entire UK, I think not. London only had max 17% and that was twice the national average, and you would expect that to be higher than anywhere, like how New York was similar.

For me, I think the 67k based on 1% is more likely, so around 6.7m infections, around 10% of the uk population.
I think that we may have had a similar number of deaths saved by the additional measures but these were then roughly off-set by the hospitals being busy with covid. Can't treat others if the hospital is busy with people that can't breathe, which is a point these studies and lockdown avoiders keep missing.

Lets not forget the UK antibody study for the end of June in the UK had only shown 6% as having it.
 
Last edited:
Statto1 said:
I've only had a quick scan, but that report is designed to support your ideas, and you know it. I love the way it separates out the general population and care homes, sort of like care homes are not real people. Also the way it blames the collapse of health care for increased death rates. Health care was nearly overwhelmed, try not locking down and see what a collapse is like then.

But anyway, I've not looked into it recently, it was an off the cuff comment from general reading, but most studies do not include deaths from patients that were not tested for covid. And at the start, tons died from covid when there were no available tests. So you can take your 0.5% and probably double it, otherwise it's just bending the stats to suit the aim. 1% is closer than 0.15%.

The main point of this is, just because you don't test for something, or didn't test dead people, does not mean it's not there. Plus treatment is imporving, so what was once 2% might now be 1%, but it's not 0.15%.

0.5% at 45k is 9 million infections, which would be nearly 14% immunity.
0.5% at 67k is 13.4 million infections, nearly 20% immunity, for the entire UK, I think not. London only had max 17% and that was twice the national average, and you would expect that to be higher than anywhere, like how New York was similar.

For me, I think the 67k based on 1% is more likely, so around 6.7m infections, around 10% of the uk population.
I think that we may have had a similar number of deaths saved by the additional measures but these were then roughly off-set by the hospitals being busy with covid. Can't treat others if the hospital is busy with people that can't breathe, which is the point these studies keep missing.

Lets not forget the UK antibody study for the end of June in the UK had only shown 6% as having it.
Click to expand...


What do you make of the assertion that for any ‘new’ Covid/SARS type virus there will be 30% of the population immune due to previous Covid type colds which are constantly around?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top