Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Coronavirus (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1174 of 1255 < 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 >

Topic Locked

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 03 Mar 22 11.30pm
Originally posted by Mapletree You clearly have an agenda You obtained your data from the ONS but don’t appear to have understood its response correctly. It said: The results show that when we consider that the sensitivity of the test could lie between 85% and 95% (with around 95% probability) and specificity is above 99.9%, the prevalence rate would be slightly higher but still very close to the main estimate we publish in our weekly bulletin. There are more false negatives than false positives. Even if at the lowest point of range at 95.7%, I make the tests pretty accurate. Then consider most people have more than one test. Perhaps you can do the maths. Edited by Mapletree (03 Mar 2022 11.16pm) "You only see what your eyes want to see How can life be what you want it to be" The wise words of Madonna. Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 03 Mar 22 11.30pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

You clearly have an agenda

You obtained your data from the ONS but don’t appear to have understood its response correctly.

It said:

The results show that when we consider that the sensitivity of the test could lie between 85% and 95% (with around 95% probability) and specificity is above 99.9%, the prevalence rate would be slightly higher but still very close to the main estimate we publish in our weekly bulletin.

There are more false negatives than false positives.

Even if at the lowest point of range at 95.7%, I make the tests pretty accurate. Then consider most people have more than one test. Perhaps you can do the maths.

Edited by Mapletree (03 Mar 2022 11.16pm)

"You only see what your eyes want to see
How can life be what you want it to be"

The wise words of Madonna.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 03 Mar 22 11.35pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I noticed this post in passing and while I haven't been interested in this topic for some time now I think I'd like to comment on this paragraph. What yours paragraph says may be true, I wouldn't know to what extent it is or isn't. The issue that quickly sprung to mind was that Covid attributed deaths were not treated in this same fashion. Deaths were inked down to Covid that fell within the 28 day limit....a very imperfect criteria. They were also attributed to Covid when a patient could have had any number of other aliments when the deciding and largest cause in a death could have been something else. The figures were known to have this issue but no one in the public eye was making this 'misinterpreted and misreported' point. However, once the vaccines are criticised I notice that straight away this defence is made. I think far too much is being made of this. I have no inside knowledge, but it seems logical to me that the 28-day period was chosen very early in the pandemic simply as a standard benchmark from which trends could be measured. It never was, if that is correct, intended to be a definitive statement on whether somebody died from, or with Covid. Assessing what actually tips anyone over the edge is almost an impossibility, but having any illness, and then catching Covid and dying, means it's reasonable to attribute that death to Covid, unless they were in a terminal state when they caught it. It provided an easily understood picture which then allowed people to come to terms with why the various measures were being taken. Other measurements provided additional detail. Like the number of excess deaths during comparable periods, and the number of hospital admissions and ventilators needed. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 03 Mar 22 11.35pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I noticed this post in passing and while I haven't been interested in this topic for some time now I think I'd like to comment on this paragraph.

What yours paragraph says may be true, I wouldn't know to what extent it is or isn't.

The issue that quickly sprung to mind was that Covid attributed deaths were not treated in this same fashion. Deaths were inked down to Covid that fell within the 28 day limit....a very imperfect criteria. They were also attributed to Covid when a patient could have had any number of other aliments when the deciding and largest cause in a death could have been something else.

The figures were known to have this issue but no one in the public eye was making this 'misinterpreted and misreported' point.

However, once the vaccines are criticised I notice that straight away this defence is made.

I think far too much is being made of this. I have no inside knowledge, but it seems logical to me that the 28-day period was chosen very early in the pandemic simply as a standard benchmark from which trends could be measured. It never was, if that is correct, intended to be a definitive statement on whether somebody died from, or with Covid. Assessing what actually tips anyone over the edge is almost an impossibility, but having any illness, and then catching Covid and dying, means it's reasonable to attribute that death to Covid, unless they were in a terminal state when they caught it.

It provided an easily understood picture which then allowed people to come to terms with why the various measures were being taken. Other measurements provided additional detail. Like the number of excess deaths during comparable periods, and the number of hospital admissions and ventilators needed.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 03 Mar 22 11.54pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I think far too much is being made of this. I have no inside knowledge, but it seems logical to me that the 28-day period was chosen very early in the pandemic simply as a standard benchmark from which trends could be measured. It never was, if that is correct, intended to be a definitive statement on whether somebody died from, or with Covid. Assessing what actually tips anyone over the edge is almost an impossibility, but having any illness, and then catching Covid and dying, means it's reasonable to attribute that death to Covid, unless they were in a terminal state when they caught it. It provided an easily understood picture which then allowed people to come to terms with why the various measures were being taken. Other measurements provided additional detail. Like the number of excess deaths during comparable periods, and the number of hospital admissions and ventilators needed. I understand what you are saying there Wisbech, but I think a lot of the drama and subsequent hijacking of the observation stems from the interpretation of the information provided and lack of caveat(s) leading to the inevitable conclusion: 'COVID deaths' does not explicitly mean healthy people dying as a result of contracting the disease in isolation of any other factors = a genocidal conspiracy to which we are being ruthlessly culled due to the whims and intentions of the lizard people controlling the earth (or something.. I'm not too familiar with it). As opposed too: No, these are the deaths in which COVID has been present, on the 'sheet' etc. but does not = it is the exclusive cause. It would be a logistical nightmare to gather the exact science/data in the midst of this pandemic. And BTW, the vaccine provides a level of protection against a very new disease, which is fatal to notable proportions of the population and easily transmissible, but does not mean it prevents you from contracting the disease in any form or offer complete protection but will limit the impact it has en masse and therefore is the best defence we have at present to limit the impact on the population and by extension society, the economy, the health system so on and so forth. Oh and finally, we are doing the best we can with such an enormous and fast moving challenge for which we were unprepared, by all means scrutinise tha,t but don't concoct your own bonkers reasoning/conspiracies around this. Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 03 Mar 22 11.54pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I understand what you are saying there Wisbech, but I think a lot of the drama and subsequent hijacking of the observation stems from the interpretation of the information provided and lack of caveat(s) leading to the inevitable conclusion:

'COVID deaths' does not explicitly mean healthy people dying as a result of contracting the disease in isolation of any other factors = a genocidal conspiracy to which we are being ruthlessly culled due to the whims and intentions of the lizard people controlling the earth (or something.. I'm not too familiar with it).

As opposed too:

No, these are the deaths in which COVID has been present, on the 'sheet' etc. but does not = it is the exclusive cause. It would be a logistical nightmare to gather the exact science/data in the midst of this pandemic. And BTW, the vaccine provides a level of protection against a very new disease, which is fatal to notable proportions of the population and easily transmissible, but does not mean it prevents you from contracting the disease in any form or offer complete protection but will limit the impact it has en masse and therefore is the best defence we have at present to limit the impact on the population and by extension society, the economy, the health system so on and so forth.

Oh and finally, we are doing the best we can with such an enormous and fast moving challenge for which we were unprepared, by all means scrutinise tha,t but don't concoct your own bonkers reasoning/conspiracies around this.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Mar 22 4.50am
Originally posted by Nicholas91 I understand what you are saying there Wisbech, but I think a lot of the drama and subsequent hijacking of the observation stems from the interpretation of the information provided and lack of caveat(s) leading to the inevitable conclusion: 'COVID deaths' does not explicitly mean healthy people dying as a result of contracting the disease in isolation of any other factors = a genocidal conspiracy to which we are being ruthlessly culled due to the whims and intentions of the lizard people controlling the earth (or something.. I'm not too familiar with it). As opposed too: No, these are the deaths in which COVID has been present, on the 'sheet' etc. but does not = it is the exclusive cause. It would be a logistical nightmare to gather the exact science/data in the midst of this pandemic. And BTW, the vaccine provides a level of protection against a very new disease, which is fatal to notable proportions of the population and easily transmissible, but does not mean it prevents you from contracting the disease in any form or offer complete protection but will limit the impact it has en masse and therefore is the best defence we have at present to limit the impact on the population and by extension society, the economy, the health system so on and so forth. Oh and finally, we are doing the best we can with such an enormous and fast moving challenge for which we were unprepared, by all means scrutinise tha,t but don't concoct your own bonkers reasoning/conspiracies around this. How you present the deaths is of course accurate, however that wasn't how it was run with in the media, the mainstream majority of whom largely spoke with one voice, which was the government's. The reality of human nature is that most just read headlines, they don't read right down to the last paragraphs where the required nuance may be so that the journalist can claim balance....they fully know that it's journalism 101. The behavioural units are not...for example a conspiracy theory, manipulation of population behaviour on how to view risk was deliberate. That is factual and disclosed. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Mar 2022 6.22am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Mar 22 4.50am

Originally posted by Nicholas91

As opposed too:

How you present the deaths is of course accurate, however that wasn't how it was run with in the media, the mainstream majority of whom largely spoke with one voice, which was the government's.

The reality of human nature is that most just read headlines, they don't read right down to the last paragraphs where the required nuance may be so that the journalist can claim balance....they fully know that it's journalism 101.

The behavioural units are not...for example a conspiracy theory, manipulation of population behaviour on how to view risk was deliberate. That is factual and disclosed.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Mar 2022 6.22am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

W12 04 Mar 22 9.02am
Originally posted by Mapletree You clearly have an agenda You obtained your data from the ONS but don’t appear to have understood its response correctly. It said: The results show that when we consider that the sensitivity of the test could lie between 85% and 95% (with around 95% probability) and specificity is above 99.9%, the prevalence rate would be slightly higher but still very close to the main estimate we publish in our weekly bulletin. There are more false negatives than false positives. Even if at the lowest point of range at 95.7%, I make the tests pretty accurate. Then consider most people have more than one test. Perhaps you can do the maths. Edited by Mapletree (03 Mar 2022 11.16pm) Yes, I have an agenda which is to stop these dangerous experimental gene therapies being injected into children by ignorant adults. Adults themselves should know better. I'm not sure what the point of your post is other than repeating what I already posted. Take the latest 7 day stats from the UK [Link] 4,322,449 people tested in 7 days 243,057 positive tests in 7 days Even if you believe this tests are relevant (which I clearly proved are not - and you totally ignored that) the false positives would account for the majority of these but even after two years they will not take their own data on false positives into account. Then look at the deaths, 720 in 7 days "within 28 days of positive test". Some 11,000 people die in an average week but we test everyone that goes into hospital yet the government still cannot separate out people who obviously died of something else? After 2 years of this? It's been done in other countries and it comes in at single figures percentages which would make this "pandemic" statistically irrelevant. Unfortunately data and evidence have no bearing on this. It's all about emotions and people thinking their world view is under attack. 2 years of propaganda and behavioural psychology have had a devastating effect.
Alert a moderator to this post

W12 04 Mar 22 9.02am

Originally posted by Mapletree

You clearly have an agenda

You obtained your data from the ONS but don’t appear to have understood its response correctly.

It said:

There are more false negatives than false positives.

Even if at the lowest point of range at 95.7%, I make the tests pretty accurate. Then consider most people have more than one test. Perhaps you can do the maths.

Edited by Mapletree (03 Mar 2022 11.16pm)

Yes, I have an agenda which is to stop these dangerous experimental gene therapies being injected into children by ignorant adults. Adults themselves should know better.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is other than repeating what I already posted.

Take the latest 7 day stats from the UK

[Link]

4,322,449 people tested in 7 days

243,057 positive tests in 7 days

Even if you believe this tests are relevant (which I clearly proved are not - and you totally ignored that) the false positives would account for the majority of these but even after two years they will not take their own data on false positives into account.

Then look at the deaths, 720 in 7 days "within 28 days of positive test". Some 11,000 people die in an average week but we test everyone that goes into hospital yet the government still cannot separate out people who obviously died of something else? After 2 years of this? It's been done in other countries and it comes in at single figures percentages which would make this "pandemic" statistically irrelevant.

Unfortunately data and evidence have no bearing on this. It's all about emotions and people thinking their world view is under attack. 2 years of propaganda and behavioural psychology have had a devastating effect.

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 04 Mar 22 10.24am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays How you present the deaths is of course accurate, however that wasn't how it was run with in the media, the mainstream majority of whom largely spoke with one voice, which was the government's. The reality of human nature is that most just read headlines, they don't read right down to the last paragraphs where the required nuance may be so that the journalist can claim balance....they fully know that it's journalism 101. The behavioural units are not...for example a conspiracy theory, manipulation of population behaviour on how to view risk was deliberate. That is factual and disclosed. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Mar 2022 6.22am) That was sort of my point Stirling! Very much as it is, as most things are, demonstrated in the Simpson’s when they vamp up this news with the ‘anchorman’ Kent Brockman proclaiming: “In other news, THE PRESIDENT HAD DIEEED!!!!!! his hair” I’m not sure which gets me down more, the sensationalist media or those stockpiling their houses with consumer goods and wearing tin hats. I’m still waiting for ‘the great awakening’ - when common sense begins to prevail again throughout society. I’m as likely to buy into media fear mongering as I am to believe that James Bond desperately needs to be portrayed as other than white in order to save humanity from all our troubles. Actually having said that, I am quite the Idris Elba fan, but not because of his skin colour or as some elixir of life for a broken Britain! Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 04 Mar 22 10.24am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

How you present the deaths is of course accurate, however that wasn't how it was run with in the media, the mainstream majority of whom largely spoke with one voice, which was the government's.

The behavioural units are not...for example a conspiracy theory, manipulation of population behaviour on how to view risk was deliberate. That is factual and disclosed.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Mar 2022 6.22am)

That was sort of my point Stirling!

Very much as it is, as most things are, demonstrated in the Simpson’s when they vamp up this news with the ‘anchorman’ Kent Brockman proclaiming:

“In other news, THE PRESIDENT HAD DIEEED!!!!!! his hair”

I’m not sure which gets me down more, the sensationalist media or those stockpiling their houses with consumer goods and wearing tin hats.

I’m still waiting for ‘the great awakening’ - when common sense begins to prevail again throughout society.

I’m as likely to buy into media fear mongering as I am to believe that James Bond desperately needs to be portrayed as other than white in order to save humanity from all our troubles. Actually having said that, I am quite the Idris Elba fan, but not because of his skin colour or as some elixir of life for a broken Britain!

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Mar 22 10.56am
Originally posted by W12 Yes, I have an agenda which is to stop these dangerous experimental gene therapies being injected into children by ignorant adults. Adults themselves should know better. I'm not sure what the point of your post is other than repeating what I already posted. Take the latest 7 day stats from the UK [Link] 4,322,449 people tested in 7 days 243,057 positive tests in 7 days Even if you believe this tests are relevant (which I clearly proved are not - and you totally ignored that) the false positives would account for the majority of these but even after two years they will not take their own data on false positives into account. Then look at the deaths, 720 in 7 days "within 28 days of positive test". Some 11,000 people die in an average week but we test everyone that goes into hospital yet the government still cannot separate out people who obviously died of something else? After 2 years of this? It's been done in other countries and it comes in at single figures percentages which would make this "pandemic" statistically irrelevant. Unfortunately data and evidence have no bearing on this. It's all about emotions and people thinking their world view is under attack. 2 years of propaganda and behavioural psychology have had a devastating effect. As they aren't why don't you relax, take a break, and let people who actually know what they are talking about do what's right for our children and society at large. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Mar 22 10.56am

Originally posted by W12

Yes, I have an agenda which is to stop these dangerous experimental gene therapies being injected into children by ignorant adults. Adults themselves should know better.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is other than repeating what I already posted.

Take the latest 7 day stats from the UK

[Link]

4,322,449 people tested in 7 days

243,057 positive tests in 7 days

As they aren't why don't you relax, take a break, and let people who actually know what they are talking about do what's right for our children and society at large.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

W12 04 Mar 22 11.09am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle As they aren't why don't you relax, take a break, and let people who actually know what they are talking about do what's right for our children and society at large. What the actual f*** are you talking about?
Alert a moderator to this post

W12 04 Mar 22 11.09am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As they aren't why don't you relax, take a break, and let people who actually know what they are talking about do what's right for our children and society at large.

What the actual f*** are you talking about?

Alert a moderator to this post

W12 04 Mar 22 11.26am
FDA document admits “Covid” PCR test was developed without isolated samples for test calibration, effectively admitting it’s testing something else [Tweet Link] "Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms" "This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens" Edited by W12 (04 Mar 2022 11.32am)
Alert a moderator to this post

W12 04 Mar 22 11.26am

FDA document admits “Covid” PCR test was developed without isolated samples for test calibration, effectively admitting it’s testing something else

[Tweet Link]

"Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms"

"This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens"

Edited by W12 (04 Mar 2022 11.32am)

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 04 Mar 22 11.51am
Originally posted by W12 FDA document admits “Covid” PCR test was developed without isolated samples for test calibration, effectively admitting it’s testing something else [Tweet Link] "Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms" "This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens" Edited by W12 (04 Mar 2022 11.32am) So the increase in hospital admissions was due to what condition or disease if it wasn't covid ?
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 04 Mar 22 11.51am

Originally posted by W12

FDA document admits “Covid” PCR test was developed without isolated samples for test calibration, effectively admitting it’s testing something else

[Tweet Link]

"Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms"

"This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens"

Edited by W12 (04 Mar 2022 11.32am)

So the increase in hospital admissions was due to what condition or disease if it wasn't covid ?

Alert a moderator to this post

W12 04 Mar 22 11.54am
Originally posted by cryrst So the increase in hospital admissions was due to what condition or disease if it wasn't covid ? "increase in hospital admissions" - when and based on what?
Alert a moderator to this post

W12 04 Mar 22 11.54am

Originally posted by cryrst

So the increase in hospital admissions was due to what condition or disease if it wasn't covid ?

"increase in hospital admissions" - when and based on what?

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 04 Mar 22 11.56am
Originally posted by cryrst So the increase in hospital admissions was due to what condition or disease if it wasn't covid ? Stop asking logical, pertinent and common sense championing questions, for Cryst sake! You're ruining the show!!! Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 04 Mar 22 11.56am

Originally posted by cryrst

So the increase in hospital admissions was due to what condition or disease if it wasn't covid ?

Stop asking logical, pertinent and common sense championing questions, for Cryst sake!