Stop Posting the Conspiracy Rubbish

[Statto1]

Or the lateral flow tests produce lots of false negatives.

I think its probably more to do with them being in Tier 3 or higher since 14th of October, and restrictions before then too, as well as their peak being around the 6th - 10th, and since then have had a rapid reduction in cases. They're a month on from their peak/ start or lock down.

I imagine the 1 hour swab won't be as accurate as PCR, but would both be accurate enough to have a massive impact and help. The results of both should be trusted unless proven otherwise, or if symptoms develop etc.

 

[cliverd]

Read back what you have written. Less sensitivity almost always means more false negatives.

Apologies, didn't make sense.

Lateral flow testing less sensitive but not picking up fragments, thus providing a more accurate result. The results of the Liverpool mass testing have been crazy, around 300 positives with over 20k tested! I think these tests will be extremely important in moving forward, less sensitivity but a more accurate reading of whether a person is infected / infectious.

 

[cliverd]

I think its probably more to do with them being in Tier 3 or higher since 14th of October, and restrictions before then too, as well as their peak being around the 6th - 10th, and since then have had a rapid reduction in cases. They're a month on from their peak/ start or lock down.

I imagine the 1 hour swab won't be as accurate as PCR, but would both be accurate enough to have a massive impact and help. The results of both should be trusted unless proven otherwise, or if symptoms develop etc.

Maybe has something to do with restrictions but also less sensitivity is better for actually finding infected individuals. The use of PCR testing has really buggered it.

 

[Statto1]

Just reading that up to late 2019 WHO advice ref pandemics was
* Test and Trace = no point
* Isolation = no point

Then we get a UK projection of 500k deaths.
Maybe we need to look at the projection rather than what we had to do as a result of it being wrong by a factor. of 10.

We got better at projections
80000 cases by Oct 15th (still nowhere near)
4000 deaths per day - using analysis 3 weeks out of date

500k projection wasn't necessarily wrong, it was one arm of a model which was massively misunderstood (like you're doing now), we never went anywhere near going down that path (which was do nothing at all). We took massive action, by locking down, social distancing, hand washing, masks etc etc. The measures worked, and worked well, but were late.

The 80k cases was a projection, it wasn't wrong, it's just being misunderstood (like you're doing now), it was based on no further action and was an estimation of what is in the population, not what we find and test as positive. This "projection" was not realised as we took and had been taking massive action, by locking down, social distancing, hand washing, masks etc etc. The measures worked, and worked well.
We might be at 80k now. Two weeks ago we were on 20k positive cases, and now have circa 360 deaths per day because of that. If IFR is near 0.45% then that's 360 deaths per day average, from 80k cases per day average (but 60k of those would be missed by testing). If we have less cases, then it's because it's more fatal, which is worse.

4000 deaths per day wasn't wrong, again, it was massively misunderstood (like you're doing now), it was based on doing nothing and for the peak, and overwhelming the NHS.

We got to 1000 deaths per day last time around, and we knew cases were doubling every 7 days I think it was. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what would have happened had we let it go on for another two weeks or 5 months before locking down.

Don't forget, the second we cross the line of exceeding NHS capacity, the deaths go through the roof, unless everyone has a ventilator or CPAP equipment in their garage.

 

[Statto1]

Maybe has something to do with restrictions but also less sensitivity is better for actually finding infected individuals. The use of PCR testing has really buggered it.

I don't think that's the aim. The aim is to detect the virus, and prevent its spread, catching more with higher sensitivity would suit that aim better than catching less and being slightly more accurate.

As in a false positive is far safer than a false negative, for controlling the pandemic, however it's not ideal for the test taker. Most would accept that they might have 10% chance of a false positive, if it meant this could be over and done with quicker and save some more lives.

 

[cliverd]

I don't think that's the aim. The aim is to detect the virus, and prevent its spread, catching more with higher sensitivity would suit that aim better than catching less and being slightly more accurate.

As in a false positive is far safer than a false negative, for controlling the pandemic, however it's not ideal for the test taker. Most would accept that they might have 10% chance of a false positive, if it meant this could be over and done with quicker and save some more lives.

There's a lot of ongoing research into asymptomatic carries, WHO have stated that it's unlikely those not displaying symptoms are able to pass it on, whether that's viral load or other things at play, more research is needed.

Previous pandemic guidelines also works on the basis that asymptomatic carries are unlikely to transmit disease. Rock and a hard place with PCR and lateral flow, I think the huge rollout of lateral flow tests is an acknowledgement of the issues using PCR to detect cases. Personally I support a less sensitive test. My issues with track and trace is that I know colleagues who've had to self isolate for nearly a month over different dates, this is after coming into contact with a confirmed case. Those people have had tests, it's come back negative yet they still must isolate for 14 days, makes me wonder what the point in the tests are as even if you have a negative result you still have to self isolate?

 

[1finny]

500k projection wasn't necessarily wrong, it was one arm of a model which was massively misunderstood (like you're doing now), we never went anywhere near going down that path (which was do nothing at all). We took massive action, by locking down, social distancing, hand washing, masks etc etc. The measures worked, and worked well, but were late.

Couple of things
I’m not misunderstanding the model
and
The measures ‘worked’ is just such a massive assumption its unreal.

But, hey ho

 

[Statto1]

Couple of things
I’m not misunderstanding the model
and
The measures ‘worked’ is just such a massive assumption its unreal.

But, hey ho

I'm assuming you don't work on the model, yet you're claiming its figures are false when we never even went down that path, and not a single country has. The speed of case increases (and then deaths 2-3 weeks later) until the time of measures taken, makes these figures possible. I would say the modelers certainly have a better grasp of this than you do, or I. I'm just saying I can easily see how what they're modelling could have happened.
If you do understand that, then you're sending out false messages intentionally, which is worse than conspiracy theory in my opinion.

The correlation between case rises, and then case reductions around the time of such measures might be an assumption, but my assumption has a higher probability than your does. Pretty much the entire of Europe (using that as it's local) is using lockdowns and measures to control case infection, and the reductions seem to always come after stronger intervention.

But, hey ho, maybe it's just magic or a coincidence.

 

[Statto1]

There's a lot of ongoing research into asymptomatic carries, WHO have stated that it's unlikely those not displaying symptoms are able to pass it on, whether that's viral load or other things at play, more research is needed.

Previous pandemic guidelines also works on the basis that asymptomatic carries are unlikely to transmit disease. Rock and a hard place with PCR and lateral flow, I think the huge rollout of lateral flow tests is an acknowledgement of the issues using PCR to detect cases. Personally I support a less sensitive test. My issues with track and trace is that I know colleagues who've had to self isolate for nearly a month over different dates, this is after coming into contact with a confirmed case. Those people have had tests, it's come back negative yet they still must isolate for 14 days, makes me wonder what the point in the tests are as even if you have a negative result you still have to self isolate?

Yeah, they do need to research that, I've not seen any mind. Do you have a link?
That's probably good news if it's the case, as those not knowing and spreading would be more of a problem than somebody with symptoms who is more contagious. If the asymptomatic can't spread it well, then those that do have symptoms must be doing massive damage to make up for that. Or people are being infected by a lot less of the virus.

Lateral flow is just faster, for in the field by the looks of it. A fast less accurate test is better in a lot of instances than an accurate one with results 3 days later and people running riot in-between. This isn't the fault of the test mind. If people actually isolated fully between test and result then PCR would work better, but I don't think that's happening. Well it's not actually happening, in my limited experience of about 30 I know that have been tested, I'm betting 50% were working until results came back.

I don't know about the track and trace system, but that doesn't sound great. They're probably being harsh with the ones they do contact to try and make up for the ones they miss, or get to late, which is $hit. I think everyone agrees that system has been a mess since day 1.

 

[Statto1]

You can’t debunk deaths, pcr positives and the ifr rate like is happening here on this thread unless you think there’s a conspiracy

532 deaths. Even at 0.4% that would mean 133k cases 3 weeks ago using ‘the 3 week lag’ maths (it’s not exact science like that by for illustrative purposes)

At around 20-25k cases reported and if you take the figure 20% showing symptoms it shows tests are not that far off, but you could argue it strengthens the argument around false negatives outweigh false negatives. Personally I think it’s people not getting a test when showing symptoms.

people are getting the disease. High numbers are dying, high numbers will continue to die.

595 today Gaz, and I thought yesterday was going to be our weekly peak

 

[ForssAwakens]

595 today Gaz, and I thought yesterday was going to be our weekly peak

Ye not a great figure. Put it this way 30% of the U.K. do not have previous Immunity from other coronaviruses

 

[AlbertoBongaloid]

Apologies, didn't make sense.

Lateral flow testing less sensitive but not picking up fragments, thus providing a more accurate result. The results of the Liverpool mass testing have been crazy, around 300 positives with over 20k tested! I think these tests will be extremely important in moving forward, less sensitivity but a more accurate reading of whether a person is infected / infectious.

The test results in Liverpool are very interesting indeed. They more or less confirm that there is no covid 19 in the Liverpool area. The number of positive results found more or less matches what you would expect the false positive rate would be for the actual test 0.7%
this gives the government a massive problem as they have now got to admit that for months they have been basing all of their plans on wrong data and very little if any covid since end May/start of June.
I fully expect that if you repeat this test everywhere else in the UK you will see the same thing. Covid has left the building.
So....., why have we got covid admissions in hospitals? Well we probably haven’t. We know PCR in random testing without symptoms is close to 0% accurate in low virus prevalence situations like this. Perhaps people are having bacterial pneumonia or influenza misdiagnosed? Who knows? I do know for an absolute fact that the NHS test PCR at 45 cycle threshold. This is way too high and will throw up all manner of false positives. Even Fauci says that anything over 35 cycles is incapable of causing infection.

Either way we aren’t seeing any excess deaths in hospitals. The only excess deaths are in private homes and are almost certainly either people to scared to go to hospital, people denied treatment, missed cancer diagnosis, people pulled out of care homes etc. All ‘lockdown deaths’ by the looks of things. And the suicide rate has gone through the roof. I only know this by asking people who work in the services. Although you try finding the official data on this. It’s as if the government are trying to hide it for some reason.

I can never forgive the politicians for what they have put us through this year. The virus looks to have gone at the end of May/ start of June but you wouldn’t think so the way they are carrying on.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I do know for an absolute fact that the NHS test PCR at 45 cycle threshold. This is way too high and will throw up all manner of false positives. Even Fauci says that anything over 35 cycles is incapable of causing infection.
.

This. This is something that people have been trying to point out for months, yet the discussion rarely appears in the media and elsewhere, such as here, it’s dismissed as conspiracy theory, over and over again. It is not.
Even the government’s own advice on the PCR test highlights this as an issue.

 

[AlbertoBongaloid]

As you have also spotted it’s certainly not conspiracy theory this information. They just won’t accept that our precious NHS has been inflating the case numbers throughout. Now that requires an investigating because too many people have done nothing about this.
by the way, the 45 cycles information is on the manufacturers test kits so there’s no doubt about that

 

[Randy]

This. This is something that people have been trying to point out for months, yet the discussion rarely appears in the media and elsewhere, such as here, it’s dismissed as conspiracy theory, over and over again. It is not.
Even the government’s own advice on the PCR test highlights this as an issue.

Folk on here picked and chose what Fauci had to say.

I've been sat on the Fauci cycle quote for weeks and weeks and never wanted to post it on here as you will get shot down by the usual suspects and called a virus denier.

There is a virus, it has killed people. There will be judgements and enquiries to come.

Quick edit, add another symptom to the list. Mental health issues. No covid-19 does not cause mental health issues, all the restrictions surrounding it do.
With that horrible cow sat there smirking after she was ripped a new one by phycologists around the country over the past few days. Plus the sooner Wancock goes the better for everybody.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1323382222292963331

 

[Liamo]

You'd think that someone somewhere would have invented a test that only detects live virus fragments.

Seeing as viruses aren't alive in the first place, I reckon that would be a bit tricky.

It's also not really clear yet, what level of viable virus particles is needed for a person to be infectious. So as @FabioPorkpie says it's surely better to have anyone who even might be infectious, treated as if they are, rather than saying, "OK, this person has the RNA for the virus in their body, but because we're not sure if that makes them a danger to others or not, we'll give them a clean bill of health."

 

[Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants]

I was reading a scientist on twitter saying they can take samples and find out if you are infectious or not, but the problem being it takes the lab 3-4 days to culture the sample to get the result, by which time the patient may no longer be infectious.

 

[Alvez_48]

The only place with excess death is at home:-



Everywhere else is below the 5 year average. Interestingly the 'other' category is still fairly normal so the argument that there will be less death from car crashes etc is nonsense.

There's absolutely no reason to cycle 45 times and these death numbers are clearly inflated by using a test that is not fit for purpose. We have seen videos where the pavement outside a kids porch has tested positive for crying out loud.

This is shown well in this graph, so note in this second 'spike' when the deaths from covid go up the deaths from 'all causes' goes down.

 

[Statto1]

Right, can we just clear a couple of things up, to save going over the same things over and over again?
At least then we will get a better idea of peoples viewpoints?
Some of the points people are making might be or are valid, but I think some of you need to accept what comes along with that, or what is inversely proportional to what you're saying.

I'll answer these too (based on the UK), feel free to add others:

1. Do you think there's a dangerous pandemic? - Yes, of course
2. Do you think it could overwhelm the NHS? - Yes and it nearly did the first time
3. Who treats the people that can't breathe, if the NHS did get overwhelmed? - Probably unskilled public, but we REALLY can't let that happen
4. What happens to the Infection fatality rate (IFR) if the NHS got overwhelmed? - Goes up, of course
5. What do you think the previous IFR was, for the first wave/ peak? - 1 to 1.3%, wouldn't disagree with the 1.16% in the study
6. What do you think the IFR rate is now, and why? 0.6 to 0.8%, due to better treatment, and less "at risk" people left to kill
7. Do you think we're anywhere near herd immunity? - No, based on the react studies and how fast it spread, again
8. Do you think cases, and then deaths come down after lockdowns and stronger measures? - Yes
9. Do you think cases, and then deaths come down because of lockdowns and stronger measures? - Yes
10. If no for Q9, then what brought the cases and deaths down first time or (appears to have) levelled them this time? - N/A
11. Do you think covid disappears after 28 days of infection? - No
12. What would you say is winter in the UK? Nov-Feb
13. Do you agree, we've not really had this pandemic much in winter yet? - Yes
14. Do you think the people are more indoors during winter? - Yes
15. Is the virus likely to spread more, if people are indoors more? - Yes
16. What do you think the main reasons for people wearing mask are? - Stop spreading the virus outwards and secondary minor protection to the wearer
17. Do you think masks are 100% effective? - No way
18. Does something need to be 100% perfect, to do a job, or help? - No
19. Do you think masks will help a great deal? - Yes
20. Do you trust ONS data on weekly deaths and covid deaths? - Yes, but don't agree with using the 28 day covid cut off
21. Do you agree we have circa 60k excess deaths? - Yes
22. Do you agree with the 50k covid number? - No, I think it's higher, and covid has replaced some of the other deaths we would normally get
23. What makes up the difference in the excess to covid number, assuming that's correct? Probably people who couldn't get treated as well, because the nurse are tied up sorting out covid
24. If covid was handled better, would other areas of the NHS be able to treat better? Yes, of course
25. Do you agree that deaths per day is off set to the cases, and has been all year, by about 2-3 weeks? - Yes
26. Do you think the hospitals are making numbers up? - No
27. Do you know anyone working on a covid ward? - Yes, some are family
28. Do you know anyone working near a covid ward? - Yes, a few
29. How many nurses do you know that have had covid? - About 5
30. Do you trust Dr Cree's credibility and the blog? - Yes, I know family who trust who him, that's good enough for me in this instance
31. Do you think a PCR test with >90% success rate would help during the pandemic (modelling and individual cases)? - Yes
32. Do you think a PCR test with >70% success rate would help during the pandemic (modelling and individual cases)? - Yes
33. Would a more accurate test be better? Yes
34. Would faster PCR results be better? Yes
35. Is there a more accurate test? Doesn't seem to be, or not a relatively quick one
36. What's worse, during a pandemic, a false negative or a false positive? - False negative
37. Why? False negatives mean unchecked virus = more pandemic = more people dying
38. Why (other than speed) has a swab test, which is carried out in an hour, now become a lot better than a test that takes days? - It hasn't, but speed is better than accuracy in some instances
39. Do you know less than those running the NHS, Sage and the various models, as in the experts? - Yes, but I agree with them
40. Does going down a completely different path to a model, disprove the alternate path(s)? No
41. Do you think our government is doing a good job? - No way, far too slow to react fist time, and second time

 

[Statto1]

No covid-19 does not cause mental health issues,

Tell that to the 60k extra dead people or the family of the extra 60k dead people we have, or to those that have had to care for them, or treat them. Some of those are doing that unpaid too, or on minimum wage, or on a nurses salary, which is low.