Haven't we all! I can't say I blame you for getting out and wanting a taste of normality. There are plenty of places that aren't hit all that badly and where restrictions are well aligned with that fact. If it wasn't for work and family commitments I'd consider getting out for a bit as it is a depressing time, and in numerous ways and for various reasons people and businesses are coming apart at the seams. I envy those able to up sticks and find somewhere they're able to unwidn and relax for a period of time. Good luck to you!

You cannot test accurately for a virus that has not been isolated and purified. Even if you assumed this was the case you would also be testing for people that have already recovered weeks/months before, then there is the issue of the large numbers of false positives (the smallest estimate I've seen I think is 1.4% which is a *lot* when you are testing hundreds of thousands/millions of people and would probably account for most "cases" ) and then there is the problem of inconsistency in amplification which basically means you can manipulate the results should you wish. Then there is the problem that the person who invented the test said it should not be used as a diagnostic test.

The PCR testing is inherently flawed.

Edited by W12 (13 Oct 2020 6.23pm)

You're lucky and should make the most of that position. You only live once and I can't say I've ever regretted travelling and the memories, moments and changes in perspective that come along with it. Especially at a time like this, I can't think of a better plan! Do check in with us from time to time as we're unlikely to be out .

Where do you get this from? The PCR test in Britain isn’t fit for purpose. There’s even been pro govt people to the point they could be govt stooges who’ve said there’s false positives. The Australian text is meant to be excellent.

But if it isn’t intentional it’s ok and we plod on with it. Oh well. Nothing in 2020 on the other side of this fence surprises me.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (13 Oct 2020 7.54pm)

COYP

It would be nice if the conspiracy stuff, social media echo chamber gifs, and Qanon comments came in for 1% as much criticism as mundane views but that's the level we're at now it seems.

Literally hours ago the argument was being made that vastly more people have likely had covid-19 than we know of (hence the number of deaths would be less worrisome really), but repeatedly it's also been said on here that the gov is intentionally trying to boost the numbers. Realistically, I'd say I agree that it's likely that the numbers are higher than official positive tests. Covid-19 spreads easily, is a pandemic and a significant percentage of the population will likely end up getting it. Significant numbers of people with it likely don't even bother with a test, so for every argument for over counting, there are obviously plenty for under, which of course never get raised around here.

It may well be the case that the Australian test is much better, I agree. I acknowledged flaws. The tests are useful at least in so much that as the percentage of positive tests are increasing dramatically of late we can safely say that the situation is getting worse and pinpoint that some areas need more focus than others (which would appear to be a good thing to avoid a nationwide lockdown). Plus often people getting tests are self selecting (have symptoms) and so who exactly could blame them for wanting what is a 'very good idea' of knowing whether they have covid-19 or not and isolating accordingly if they do? So yes, as flawed and whack-a-mole as testing may be, it certainly makes more sense than not bothering with it.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Oct 2020 2.26am)

I don't mindlessly believe tv news or politicians. I make sensible and balanced contributions which of course puts me at odds with some of the one dimensional guff in this thread. Maybe I should slip a bit of QANON in there to avoid criticism.

I'm not sure what you imagine you've read, as the point of what I've said, which by the way aligns with several people here I don't even agree with generally, is that the overall number of positives however imperfect is for various reasons unlikely to capture the actual number of people that have had covid-19.

As I said it is imperfect but has its uses, rather than your 'why bother' outlook.

"The tests are useful at least in so much that as the percentage of positive tests are increasing dramatically of late we can safely say that the situation is getting worse and pinpoint that some areas need more focus than others (which would appear to be a good thing to avoid a nationwide lockdown). Plus often people getting tests are self selecting (have symptoms) and so who exactly could blame them for wanting what is a 'very good idea' of knowing whether they have covid-19 or not and isolating accordingly if they do? So yes, as flawed and whack-a-mole as testing may be, it certainly makes more sense than not bothering with it."

Logically a significant amount of the population will get this. The idea that there hasn't been days where tens of thousands of people have contracted covid-19 is of course laughable. It's a pandemic, so hardly a turn up for the books'. Some on here struggle with nuanced perspective, it's either this or that. Yes there are some false positives, yes there are of course plenty of people who don't bother to get tested or even know they have it. It's not all tick box A or B. I don't even disagree with your overreaching idea of how to approach this going forward, so you ought to get out of the habit of latching onto one or two lines to set yourself off and ignoring everything else.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Oct 2020 2.29am)